Maintenance for the week of October 13:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – October 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – October 15, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – October 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – October 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – October 15, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – October 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Do you like having Racial Skills?
-
Mortiis13✭✭✭✭OtherRacial skills, yes. It's an elder scrolls game.
But only skills that don't impact combat that much as it is also an mmo.2 -
UGotBenched91✭✭✭✭✭No, I don’t like racial skillsUGotBenched91 wrote: »Do you like having Racial Skills? Why or why not?
I’m not a big fan as I think it hinders the diversity of the game. Yes, you can play what you want but sometimes it puts you at a disadvantage. I’m running a Orc Magicka Necro and while it still works it is at an disadvantage when you look at the Min and Max.
Diversity the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
So what your saying is you dont want diversity you want everyone to be the same.I find that incredibly boring and gray.
[snip] This is a poll created to see who likes racial passives and who doesn’t. I don’t like the racial passives in this game because it creates a less diverse population because it leans a lot of people to pick x race for x class. How many Magicka orcs and nords you see running around compared to stamina? How about all those Stamina Bretons? I never said they need or should change it. [snip]
[Edited to remove Baiting]Edited by ZOS_ConnorG on June 26, 2020 4:03PM3 -
Lotus781✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsUGotBenched91 wrote: »UGotBenched91 wrote: »Do you like having Racial Skills? Why or why not?
I’m not a big fan as I think it hinders the diversity of the game. Yes, you can play what you want but sometimes it puts you at a disadvantage. I’m running a Orc Magicka Necro and while it still works it is at an disadvantage when you look at the Min and Max.
Diversity the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
So what your saying is you dont want diversity you want everyone to be the same.I find that incredibly boring and gray.
[snip] This is a poll created to see who likes racial passives and who doesn’t. I don’t like the racial passives in this game because it creates a less diverse population because it leans a lot of people to pick x race for x class. How many Magicka orcs and nords you see running around compared to stamina? How about all those Stamina Bretons? I never said they need or should change it. [snip]
Not sass just an answer and an opinion to a question which you asked, [snip]
[Edited to remove Baiting]Edited by ZOS_ConnorG on June 26, 2020 4:04PM1 -
willjones1122✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillswilljones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
Where do I begin...
If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.
In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)
And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.
Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)
A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.
An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.
Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.
Couple of points
1. You said people felt penalized. I used d&d as an example of an actual racial penalty not as a direct comparison of racials. They removed class restrictions in 3rd edition i think? Been a while for me too. Also wow had/has class and racial restrictions so they could balance those races for the classes they could play. They may not anymore (it's been a while for me here as well) but i know they used to.
2. I don't necessarily agree with the current iteration of racials. They could be improved to match lore and balanced better. But removing them or making them one size fits all across the board is not the answer.
The argument i am making isn't don't rebalance them. It's don't remove/homogenize them.
If the poll had been "do you like the current racials" my vote would have been different. As it is phrased now it's asking if we like the concept of racials (which i do).willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.
Not "just" appearance.
Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.
If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.
Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.
Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.
2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.
Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.
This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.
...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?
1. Removing any kind of impact race has on my character makes it a skin. I.e. something that has no direct effect on my character other than appearance. Like a non combat pet is NOT part of a build. It may very well be part of my character identity which is important but it's not a build.
2. See point 1.
3. Because choices should have weight/consequences. There are no meaningful choices in this game besides class/race and you want to remove one?2 -
CMDR_Un1k0rn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsYes. It's a huge part of Elder Scrolls, and most Fantasy RPGs.
Elder Scrolls is actually already far lighter on racial stats than most RPGs.In-game username: Un1korn | Happy member of the PCNA UESP guild (Resident Daggerfall Covenant enjoyer) | Main & basically only character: Crucian Vulpin, Imperial Dragonknight of the Daggerfall Covenant, and Undaunted Bulwark (I tank) | Mountain bike enjoyer and vulpine appreciator | If you know me from PCEU: No | To ZOS: THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BRING MY HORSE INTO BATTLE!0 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »UGotBenched91 wrote: »
Orcs master race . Ha I’d just like to see more thin orcs or even Magicka orcs. All I see are super muscular or obese.
I don't think anyone would stop you lorw wise from playing a magicka orc. Orcs have shaman and wise women, ect. But it becomes a stretch when orcs mages would be equally powerful as a high elf. Their cultures naturally pursue different agendas. A skinny orc would likely be pittied by other orcs and hidden away or maybe even cast out for being weak, left to die the most honorable death their frail frame could acquire. Lore is a beautiful thing and should be celebrated instead if just turned into numbers to be crunched.
I'm not advocating for removal of racials, but being nothing more than numbers to be crunched is literally all they are now0 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »So ok there's ES lore and tradition in past ES games but... This is an MMO not an RPG.
And in ESO racials so far have just been a FOTM pick that depens on the current flow of "standards", leaving a large amount of races as subpar choices or RP characters to say the least.
This is what we still have after 6 years so NO, racial skills would just make it worse.
Races should just be a merely cosmetic choice.
Lots of people don't understand this is an mmo first ES game second.
I'm not sure the original creative director of the game would agree with you:
"I think this has to do with how we approach development. We were worried that the term MMO had become synonymous with a certain type of game with an almost exact set of rules. That was definitely a perception we felt, even internally. But we really wanted to be true to our IP first, and still have this amazing social game with thousands of players online. When I started on UO, MMO was a new term and there weren't limits on it. We don't dislike the term or the association, we love it. We just want to make sure people aren't expecting it to be a clone of certain games."
Emphasis mine from this post (on another forum).
Edit: Now, if you wanted to make a case that ESO has drifted away from this over time towards being more of a "classic" MMO then I probably wouldn't argue too hard.
I've been around since beta.
There's been no drifting. Regardless of whatever lip service he provided, ESO has always been "formulaic MMO" first, "Elder Scrolls" distant second.0 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭So here's my thing. A lot of people talk about racials being in RPG's since day 1. And that is true. Many RPG's have arbitrarily restricted what races can even BE what classes, or wear certain gear, or use certain weapons, based on race alone. Not even like ESO where all races can do it, but just some better than others. Or more "optimal"
I've seen mention about Morrowind and how racials and stats worked there.
But I think people misremember Morrowind greatly.
While there were racials, no race was the "best" at something.
Example: my main was a Wood Elf archer. Bosmer in MW get +15 to Marksman. But at end game, they are no better than anyone else at archery. Wood Elves don't max out at 115 Marksman. They top out at 100. I just got a head start, starting the game at 45 instead of 30.
Other RPG's may have arbitrary race / class / gear / ability restrictions, but that's exactly why I play TES because it doesnt fall into those arbitrary restrictions.
If i want to be a Breton archer, with enough practice and effort, I can become just as good as a Wood Elf. If my Wood Elf wants to tank, with enough time and effort and training, my Wood Elf can tank. If I want to be an Orc mage, with enough training and effort I can be just as good as a High Elf. Those races don't get a head start in those roles, and as such, need to work harder to become that good. But they can become that good.
Just as it should be.
But that's not how ESO is. ESO has fully and 100% embraced the min / max meta gamer mindset and created a system that says "if you want to tank you will be this race" and "if you want to use Magic you wont use that race"
It goes well beyond racials, but racials are a part of it. When it comes down to it, despite all the different classes and roles, there are 4 classes: Heavy armor tank, light armor mag dps, medium armor stam dps, and light armor healer
Anything outside of that is not supported by the game for anything beyond normal base game dungeons.
All the other classes do the same thing - run different versions of the same abilities, buffs, debuffs, and rotations based on your role. Same traits, same attribute distribution, same gear sets, same enchantments
While some might say "it's an MMO first and TES second", I've played MMO's that supported far more character individualization than ESO does.
And that's problematic from a game under the Elder Scrolls banner, regardless of being an MMO instead of single player.
The devs just simply *chose* to not encourage or support individuality.
The racials are just a symptom of an overall bigger problem with this game's character building design.
So to answer the question: should racials exist? Yes
Should they inherently make certain races indisputably better at certain roles than any other race? Not at all.
Should they be a head start towards a certain role, but with extra effort and training anyone can eventually anyone can reach the same level? Yes.
Should they add some additional flavor like Argonians swimming, and Bosmer commanding low level animals? Yes.
But instead, the ESO devs have created, encourage, and perpetuate and design that means "tank? You'll be an Orc or a Nord. Caster? You'll be an Altmer or a Breton." And don't think about breaking that mold, otherwise you'll get booted from any groups you attempt to join for anything beyond a base game normal dungeon.5 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭This is just... silly.
Of all the things that are broken, bugged or need improving in the game you post this ? lol
Elder Scrolls games have always had Racial skills/passives and is part of the fabric of these games.
And you've got yourself a little mixed up here. The racials don't hinder diversity, they increase it because it gives us more choice - by taking it away it would simplify our choices significantly and THAT would hinder diversity.
And please explain how you think your Orc Necro is at a disadvantage because of having to choose a Race ?
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the game is the ability to create diverse builds for PVP and specific end game PVE content with selecting a race at the heart of it.
If you are in any doubt just head over to YouTube to see the large variety of interesting and diverse build videos from a huge number of contributors.
Did you just suggest the YouTube ESO community for build diversity?
lol2 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, I don’t like racial skillswilljones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
Where do I begin...
If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.
In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)
And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.
Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)
A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.
An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.
Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.
Couple of points
1. You said people felt penalized. I used d&d as an example of an actual racial penalty not as a direct comparison of racials. They removed class restrictions in 3rd edition i think? Been a while for me too. Also wow had/has class and racial restrictions so they could balance those races for the classes they could play. They may not anymore (it's been a while for me here as well) but i know they used to.
2. I don't necessarily agree with the current iteration of racials. They could be improved to match lore and balanced better. But removing them or making them one size fits all across the board is not the answer.
The argument i am making isn't don't rebalance them. It's don't remove/homogenize them.
If the poll had been "do you like the current racials" my vote would have been different. As it is phrased now it's asking if we like the concept of racials (which i do).willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.
Not "just" appearance.
Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.
If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.
Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.
Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.
2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.
Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.
This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.
...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?
1. Removing any kind of impact race has on my character makes it a skin. I.e. something that has no direct effect on my character other than appearance. Like a non combat pet is NOT part of a build. It may very well be part of my character identity which is important but it's not a build.
2. See point 1.
3. Because choices should have weight/consequences. There are no meaningful choices in this game besides class/race and you want to remove one?
How is it "meaningful" (or even a choice!) if there is only one right answer, everyone knows/can easily Google what that right answer is and all the rest are red herrings?
It's, literally, the opposite of meaningful.Edited by Tigerseye on June 26, 2020 11:58PM2 -
crjs1✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsThey add a crucial layer of depth and meaning to character creation and lore. As has been stated many times by developers ESO is not just a MMO but also a RPG. I would prefer race to be more meaningful, it’s a staple of Elder Scrolls.
Also i don’t understand those who say racial
Passives limit choice. All races can play all roles well. It is really only a issue for those into min maxing, and even there it’s pretty marginal. If anything it’s the obsession with min maxing that’s the problem. But then iv never seen the obsession with it, all content is more than doable by any race in any role.1 -
willjones1122✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillswilljones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
Where do I begin...
If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.
In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)
And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.
Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)
A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.
An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.
Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.
Couple of points
1. You said people felt penalized. I used d&d as an example of an actual racial penalty not as a direct comparison of racials. They removed class restrictions in 3rd edition i think? Been a while for me too. Also wow had/has class and racial restrictions so they could balance those races for the classes they could play. They may not anymore (it's been a while for me here as well) but i know they used to.
2. I don't necessarily agree with the current iteration of racials. They could be improved to match lore and balanced better. But removing them or making them one size fits all across the board is not the answer.
The argument i am making isn't don't rebalance them. It's don't remove/homogenize them.
If the poll had been "do you like the current racials" my vote would have been different. As it is phrased now it's asking if we like the concept of racials (which i do).willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.
Not "just" appearance.
Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.
If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.
Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.
Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.
2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.
Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.
This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.
...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?
1. Removing any kind of impact race has on my character makes it a skin. I.e. something that has no direct effect on my character other than appearance. Like a non combat pet is NOT part of a build. It may very well be part of my character identity which is important but it's not a build.
2. See point 1.
3. Because choices should have weight/consequences. There are no meaningful choices in this game besides class/race and you want to remove one?
How is it "meaningful" (or even a choice!) if there is only one right answer, everyone knows/can easily Google what that right answer is and all the rest are red herrings?
It's, literally, the opposite of meaningful.
And we come to the crux of our disagreement... There is only one right answer for YOU, the meta. I have no problem with playing off meta, so the answer for ME is what character I want to play.0 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, I don’t like racial skillswilljones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
Where do I begin...
If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.
In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)
And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.
Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)
A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.
An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.
Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.
Couple of points
1. You said people felt penalized. I used d&d as an example of an actual racial penalty not as a direct comparison of racials. They removed class restrictions in 3rd edition i think? Been a while for me too. Also wow had/has class and racial restrictions so they could balance those races for the classes they could play. They may not anymore (it's been a while for me here as well) but i know they used to.
2. I don't necessarily agree with the current iteration of racials. They could be improved to match lore and balanced better. But removing them or making them one size fits all across the board is not the answer.
The argument i am making isn't don't rebalance them. It's don't remove/homogenize them.
If the poll had been "do you like the current racials" my vote would have been different. As it is phrased now it's asking if we like the concept of racials (which i do).willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.
Not "just" appearance.
Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.
If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.
Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.
Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.
2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.
Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.
This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.
...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?
1. Removing any kind of impact race has on my character makes it a skin. I.e. something that has no direct effect on my character other than appearance. Like a non combat pet is NOT part of a build. It may very well be part of my character identity which is important but it's not a build.
2. See point 1.
3. Because choices should have weight/consequences. There are no meaningful choices in this game besides class/race and you want to remove one?
How is it "meaningful" (or even a choice!) if there is only one right answer, everyone knows/can easily Google what that right answer is and all the rest are red herrings?
It's, literally, the opposite of meaningful.
And we come to the crux of our disagreement... There is only one right answer for YOU, the meta. I have no problem with playing off meta, so the answer for ME is what character I want to play.
Actually, it's nothing to do with ME, as I am not (currently) a min/maxer.
I'm maining a Bosmer Warden...
There is only one right answer in the context of performance, which as you correctly (albeit inadvertently) eluded to, is the only variable that really matters.
Therefore, all the other answers are wrong, including mine.
The meta is, whether you and I like it (and adhere to it), or not, the only right answer.
The rest of the answers, as you correctly pointed out earlier, are just "skins".
Or, as I pointed out, a skin + a racial/special flavour.
Either way, they are no more than that, are they?
You said it yourself...Edited by Tigerseye on June 27, 2020 1:14AM1 -
willjones1122✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillswilljones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
I think they mean by non combat related skills, they mean skills that are not directly used in combat. In other words, by combat related they mean abilities used to either tank a boss, dps a boss, or heal.
Swim speed, stealth, run speed (which does not make a lot of sense on an orc, but whatever) etc, can technically be used in battle but they don’t directly effect mitigation, damage or heals.
Increase in stam, or mag, or regen during combat are directly combat related.
Fall damage reduction, while useful in some fights, is not.
When parsers figure out best dps class/race combos, they generally are standing still in front of a test dummy, so all those movement abilities are not a factor neither are resistances (which the combat team got wrong too, but again, whatever).
I think in general people want to play the race/class combo they want without “feeling” like they got penalized. If someone wants to tank on a high elf or bosmer, they should feel just as effective as any other race. Right now the passives are not doing that.
Many players are coming from standard ES games where race did not matter, here It kinda does and that does not sit well.
I understand but respectfully disagree.
For movement based racials they are directly related to combat in PVP. we are talking competitive endgame so it's ALL competitive endgame or none.
Plus if the only racial that could affect pve scoreboards is speed all other things being equal (which it does, because if you can get to the mobs faster you can down them faster and thus improve your time) i guarantee that would be the new meta.
Also "feeling" penalized isn't the same as being penalized. They are bonuses. Heck Elves in d&d (for example) got a bonus dex but took a hit to their constitution. That's a penalty. Thus you are actually being penalized.
You can be an effective tank/dps/healer as a bosmer (or whatever race). Effective doesn't have to mean top of the charts. You want to be the best at tanking in a video game?
Then play super meta tank, crunch numbers, then buy a skin if you don't want tusks. But removal/homogenization of racial passives doesn't encourage build diversity and saying that it does is a complete fallacy. It's not a build if it doesn't have an effect on the game. My non combat pet is not a part of my build, my race should be.
My point still stands: min/maxers are going to min/max no matter what the meta is. Your only chance for build diversity (which is what tiger was saying they wanted) comes from players who don't chase the meta but can still clear content.
Oh and ps. Race absolutely mattered in TES games. Bonuses and active skills made the game harder/easier and race (and class) could actually affect outcomes of certain dialogues and quests.
Where do I begin...
If I wanted to play a stealthy bow sniper High elf in Skyrim (for example) the racials only mattered in the beginning. Later on in the game it did not matter what race I was, I could become just as adept at a bow, and be as stealthy as any kahjit or bosmer.
In ESO, not so much. High elves will never be as stealthy as kahjit. In fact there is one stealth race now, one. If you want to play a stealthy character you have the choice of a single race. (“But you can add armor pieces that have stealth!” Given the same load outs, kahjits will now always be best in stealth, because the racials are done poorly.)
And this holds true for everything else. Want to play an orc spell caster in Skyrim? No problem, eventually you can become just as good as any other race. Again in ESO, not so much.
Now D&D is hardly a good comparison as 1) it is a pen and paper rpg and 2) don’t races have class restrictions? Or can orcs become paladins now? (It’s been a while.)
A better comparison would be with warriors in WoW. In WoW (I believe) any race can be a warrior. And in WoW they have racials, but if it be Tauren, Blood Elf, Gnome or Human, basically none of them are bad choices for a warrior, yet all of them have individual racial passives. A player who wants to play an effective warrior can choose any race that is available and do the hardest content.
In ESO, basically no one is bringing a high elf (or any other non meta) tank to do vet trials, and with good reason.
An orc healer should be just as good a healer as a Breton with the same load outs. Any race class combo should be just as effective as any other race class combo in endgame. Period.
Lastly pvp and pve should get equal weight in passives. There should not be passives that are designed for one type of gameplay only (like bosmers stealth detect). If a race is more effective in pvp then pve (or vice versa) because of passives, that is truly poor racial balancing.
Couple of points
1. You said people felt penalized. I used d&d as an example of an actual racial penalty not as a direct comparison of racials. They removed class restrictions in 3rd edition i think? Been a while for me too. Also wow had/has class and racial restrictions so they could balance those races for the classes they could play. They may not anymore (it's been a while for me here as well) but i know they used to.
2. I don't necessarily agree with the current iteration of racials. They could be improved to match lore and balanced better. But removing them or making them one size fits all across the board is not the answer.
The argument i am making isn't don't rebalance them. It's don't remove/homogenize them.
If the poll had been "do you like the current racials" my vote would have been different. As it is phrased now it's asking if we like the concept of racials (which i do).willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »willjones1122 wrote: »For those saying this is an mmo, not a tes game you're leaving out three letters: rpg. I come from a D&D background. Racial bonuses have always been a thing in fantasy rpg. You pick your race based on the character you want to play... If that means playing against type then you live with that choice, and it can make for some very interesting rp/head cannon. If your not about rp, just play the race that gives you the bonus you want. None of the races have a "disadvantage"(i.e. none of them have reduced stats/abilities based on race like you do in some rpgs including TES games) just different strengths based on racial evolution/disposition and lore.
The problem is that (whether they want to call it an MMO, or not) this is a multiplayer game, not a single player game, so it should be designed accordingly.
If they can perfectly balance racials and make them apply equally to all classes and builds, then fair enough, but they are not currently doing that.
Solo RPGs are very different from multiplayer RPGs, as you are (obviously) not competing against others.
While playing alone, you could select the "wrong" race for your chosen class/build, on purpose, in an attempt to make the game a bit harder once you know what you are doing, without harming your ability to compete.
So, even though I don't really like racials for other reasons, I have to admit that they might actually add to the flexibility of gameplay in a single player game.
You could achieve that same effect by allowing people to choose certain strengths, on an individual level, as opposed to on a racial level.
But still, the fact remains that racials are one way of allowing people to build for, or against, type when they are playing alone.
Whereas, you can't (or shouldn't) just leave balance to chance, in a multiplayer game, because most people will feel forced to optimise, in a way they wouldn't when playing alone.
Meaning racials typically remove choice and flexibility, more than they add to it, in a multiplayer game like ESO.
Assuming you are playing it as a multiplayer, as opposed to purely as a solo RPG, of course.
Which you have to assume most people are, as it is not marketed as a solo player game and there is a lot of group content.
I'm not seeing your point. If you're playing it for competition then you pick the race that's BiS, just like gear and skills. Your not asking for all gear and skills to be exactly the same, why ask for races? If your playing it as an rpg and not trying to push scoreboards... pick the race you want. The difference in numbers won't be a pass/fail for endgame content.
My point is that min/maxers will always feel obliged to choose the best race/class/build combo.
That means that they are left with only one optimal "choice" per class/build.
Maybe you don't think they need to do that do that, but they think they do.
You don't need to ask for all gear and skills to be exactly the same.
As, assuming they are properly balanced (and let's not get into that can of worms, here!), people can generally choose which ones they prefer, without then having another "choice" effectively decided for them, if they want to optimise.
It's really not rocket science...
Racials reduce choice, for people who like/feel obliged to optimise and therefore, make for a more boring multiplayer game for all of us.
As it is more interesting to see a wide variety of race/class/build combos, rather than the same ones almost all the time (especially at endgame).
Ok let's try this a different way...
1. Remove all racial passives and everybody plays what ever race they think is pretty/interesting/whatever. So now the only diversity is appearance? The same dps builds will be the exact same at the competitive level with BiS gear/skills. The only difference is now you get to look like a cat instead of a lizard. That's not build diversity, that's a skin.
2. If we pick our passives as suggested then you get the same problem -people will pick the best passives for their build. They will be the same 3 or 4 skills for a stam build, the same 3 or 4 skills for mag build and then slap whatever skin of a race they want on the character. No diversity other than appearance.
3. Non combat racials only. This one is tricky... What's non combat? Orc movement bonus could be considered an advantage in pvp, so it'd have to go. Stealth is obviously combat related so it's gone. Ditto with stealth detection and any resistances. Can't improve alchemy/potions/poisons use. Food/drink buffs are gone. Could maybe get away with extra crafting xp, swim speed, and skill line xp since these don't directly affect combat but that's about it.
My point is: the only build diversity you are going to get are from players like myself who don't care what the meta is as long as they can complete content on a character we find interesting/fun. Because endgame competitors are going to min/max no matter what. They're looking for the best math possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that choice has consequences just like playing an orc magicka char. If we can live with our choice of having a "suboptimal" build for an interesting character shouldn't they be able to live with a "suboptimal" appearance for an optimal build?
1. Well, appearance, lore and predominant racial/special personality.
Not "just" appearance.
Even though it would not be the only factor, physical appearance is indeed a large part of the reason people pick (or would like to be able to pick, if they were truly free to!) a race, when they play a game like this.
If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extensive (although, not quite extensive enough...) character creation process and there wouldn't be Appearance Change Tokens.
Call that a "skin", if it makes you happy to do so, but the way their character looks still matters to people.
Otherwise, people wouldn't be getting upset about the broken jaw bug.
2. I couldn't care less if people pick the best passives.
Of course they will, as that is what most do for class, build and (often) via race, already, anyway.
This will, at least, mean people can choose the race they like the look of, or have an affinity for in whatever other way, rather than merely the one that matches their class/build choice.
...and my point is, why should anyone have to live with a suboptimal appearance (and/or affinity), or build, if they don't have to?
1. Removing any kind of impact race has on my character makes it a skin. I.e. something that has no direct effect on my character other than appearance. Like a non combat pet is NOT part of a build. It may very well be part of my character identity which is important but it's not a build.
2. See point 1.
3. Because choices should have weight/consequences. There are no meaningful choices in this game besides class/race and you want to remove one?
How is it "meaningful" (or even a choice!) if there is only one right answer, everyone knows/can easily Google what that right answer is and all the rest are red herrings?
It's, literally, the opposite of meaningful.
And we come to the crux of our disagreement... There is only one right answer for YOU, the meta. I have no problem with playing off meta, so the answer for ME is what character I want to play.
Actually, it's nothing to do with ME, as I am not (currently) a min/maxer.
I'm maining a Bosmer Warden...
There is only one right answer in the context of performance, which as you correctly (albeit inadvertently) eluded to, is the only variable that really matters.
Therefore, all the other answers are wrong, including mine.
The meta is, whether you and I like it (and adhere to it), or not, the only right answer.
The rest of the answers, as you correctly pointed out earlier, are just "skins".
Or, as I pointed out, a skin + a racial/special flavour.
Either way, they are no more than that, are they?
You said it yourself...
Except i didn't. I disagree that the meta is the only right answer period. I said it's YOUR right answer.(even if it's not your right answer you are arguing that it is so...) I also completely disagree that "performance" is the only variable that matters. It's the only variable that matters to min/maxers. If you aren't one then the "only" variable that matters is enjoyment/engagement.
Also, I used skins in the context that races only become skins when they do not affect anything other than appearance.
I don't get what your trying to accomplish? Are you arguing that the meta is great and the only right answer but we should get rid of racials to make the meta more diverse?because hey everyone uses the same builds anyway may as well get to look like whatever we want and ignore lore/rpg.
Are you arguing: meta is bad and if we get rid of racials that'll switch up the meta, cause everyone will look different and looks are part of the meta?
Or something between or something else entirely?1 -
newtinmpls✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsamm7sb14_ESO wrote: »
I've seen mention about Morrowind and how racials and stats worked there.
.
A lot of folks, myself included, adored and still miss Morrowind.
But ESO is actually based on Oblivion, in terms of the designer's vision and some of the structure.Tenesi Faryon of Telvanni - Dunmer Sorceress who deliberately sought sacrifice into Cold Harbor to rescue her beloved.
Hisa Ni Caemaire - Altmer Sorceress, member of the Order Draconis and Adept of the House of Dibella.
Broken Branch Toothmaul - goblin (for my goblin characters, I use either orsimer or bosmer templates) Templar, member of the Order Draconis and persistently unskilled pickpocket
Mol gro Durga - Orsimer Socerer/Battlemage who died the first time when the Nibenay Valley chapterhouse of the Order Draconis was destroyed, then went back to Cold Harbor to rescue his second/partner who was still captive. He overestimated his resistance to the hopelessness of Oblivion, about to give up, and looked up to see the golden glow of atherius surrounding a beautiful young woman who extended her hand to him and said "I can help you". He carried Fianna Kingsley out of Cold Harbor on his shoulder. He carried Alvard Stower under one arm. He also irritated the Prophet who had intended the portal for only Mol and Lyris.***Order Draconis - well c'mon there has to be some explanation for all those dragon tattoos.
House of Dibella - If you have ever seen or read "Memoirs of a Geisha" that's just the beginning...
Nibenay Valley Chapterhouse - Where now stands only desolate ground and a dolmen there once was a thriving community supporting one of the major chapterhouses of the Order Draconis0 -
Commandment✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsThis is the beginning bois, people trying to remove racials, soon items sets!!0 -
No, I don’t like racial skillsHigh elves archers (I'd like them to have magic arrows too, but that might be too much to ask).
Bosmer spinners.
Nords mages (you know, like Shalidor). Nord warriors (like Lyris and the Nord hero).
Orc shamans.
Imperial Battlemages. Imperial Legion soldiers.
Argonian Shadowscales.
Breton knights.
Can I make those on ESO? Mostly, yes. Can I take them to serious PVE content? No.
3 -
Iluvrien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsamm7sb14_ESO wrote: »luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »So ok there's ES lore and tradition in past ES games but... This is an MMO not an RPG.
And in ESO racials so far have just been a FOTM pick that depens on the current flow of "standards", leaving a large amount of races as subpar choices or RP characters to say the least.
This is what we still have after 6 years so NO, racial skills would just make it worse.
Races should just be a merely cosmetic choice.
Lots of people don't understand this is an mmo first ES game second.
I'm not sure the original creative director of the game would agree with you:
"I think this has to do with how we approach development. We were worried that the term MMO had become synonymous with a certain type of game with an almost exact set of rules. That was definitely a perception we felt, even internally. But we really wanted to be true to our IP first, and still have this amazing social game with thousands of players online. When I started on UO, MMO was a new term and there weren't limits on it. We don't dislike the term or the association, we love it. We just want to make sure people aren't expecting it to be a clone of certain games."
Emphasis mine from this post (on another forum).
Edit: Now, if you wanted to make a case that ESO has drifted away from this over time towards being more of a "classic" MMO then I probably wouldn't argue too hard.
I've been around since beta.
There's been no drifting. Regardless of whatever lip service he provided, ESO has always been "formulaic MMO" first, "Elder Scrolls" distant second.
And to put my comments into context, I've been around since PC early access.
We seem to have different memories of this process. Not sure how to bridge that gap, because the ESO I was aware of in March 2014 certainly feels like it has different goals to the one I see now in June 2020.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsThannazzar wrote: »TBH if ZOS reintroduced soft caps for stats this would be less of an issue and increase build variety.
Since Zos changed % boosts to stats and regen to fixed values the effect of the soft cap is less of an issue. Besides that a soft cap only reduces the benefit of stacking resources, the real effect would be on set bonuses, not as much racial passives.0 -
Iluvrien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsLady_Arikel wrote: »High elves archers (I'd like them to have magic arrows too, but that might be too much to ask).
Bosmer spinners.
Nords mages (you know, like Shalidor). Nord warriors (like Lyris and the Nord hero).
Orc shamans.
Imperial Battlemages. Imperial Legion soldiers.
Argonian Shadowscales.
Breton knights.
Can I make those on ESO? Mostly, yes. Can I take them to serious PVE content? No.
Emphasis mine, and the following comment is not intended to target you directly @Lady_Arikel, rather the idea being expressed here.
The suggesting here, and in several other posts in this thread, is that the requirements of competitive content should be used as the yardstick by which decisions for the entire playerbase should be made.
I reject this utterly, even if only with regards to the comparative size of population.
If overland and competitive content have different requirements, then give them different systems. Aspects of this are already in place (hello Battle Spirit). Even if it is a case of suppressing all racial affects on entry to competitive content areas to enforce a base-line for all numberchasers to work from.3 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsUGotBenched91 wrote: »UGotBenched91 wrote: »Do you like having Racial Skills? Why or why not?
I’m not a big fan as I think it hinders the diversity of the game. Yes, you can play what you want but sometimes it puts you at a disadvantage. I’m running a Orc Magicka Necro and while it still works it is at an disadvantage when you look at the Min and Max.
Diversity the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
So what your saying is you dont want diversity you want everyone to be the same.I find that incredibly boring and gray.
[snip] This is a poll created to see who likes racial passives and who doesn’t. I don’t like the racial passives in this game because it creates a less diverse population because it leans a lot of people to pick x race for x class. How many Magicka orcs and nords you see running around compared to stamina? How about all those Stamina Bretons? I never said they need or should change it. [snip]
[Edited to remove Baiting]
Considering the build diversity to achieve top DPS is fairly narrow having two or three races to choose from does not seem all that limiting. Top DPS is using much of the same skills and a small selection of gear sets.0 -
colossalvoids✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsLady_Arikel wrote: »High elves archers (I'd like them to have magic arrows too, but that might be too much to ask).
Bosmer spinners.
Nords mages (you know, like Shalidor). Nord warriors (like Lyris and the Nord hero).
Orc shamans.
Imperial Battlemages. Imperial Legion soldiers.
Argonian Shadowscales.
Breton knights.
Can I make those on ESO? Mostly, yes. Can I take them to serious PVE content? No.
What exactly stops you? Serious question coming from dark elf stam dps main who was doing endgame content before racials were changed.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsLady_Arikel wrote: »High elves archers (I'd like them to have magic arrows too, but that might be too much to ask).
Bosmer spinners.
Nords mages (you know, like Shalidor). Nord warriors (like Lyris and the Nord hero).
Orc shamans.
Imperial Battlemages. Imperial Legion soldiers.
Argonian Shadowscales.
Breton knights.
Can I make those on ESO? Mostly, yes. Can I take them to serious PVE content? No.
If we are talking truly serious PvE there is a very limited number of sets and skills for a player to choose from. Racial passives are more forgiving than the choices of set bonuses or skills.
Heck, back with vMoL was the newest trial I saw a khajiit healer clearing it without issue.1 -
rpa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭OtherIMO race should be a purely cosmetic thing. But it is not in this game so just have to deal with it.1 -
red_emu✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No, I don’t like racial skillsAs a PvP player I have spent quite a bit of money on race change tokens.
While in PvE and CP enabled campaigns, you can off-set the lack of right of passives with CP allocation, in non-CP PvP environment it does affect your stats a lot and makes a race choice very much tied to the build.
I wish they would scrap it and maybe leave the first passive as it is, then have a choice of 10 different passives (you can only pick one) that have all the racial passives in one which you advance by 15-20 stages (so that you still have to invest skill points).
Imagine the RP possibilities. Want to be a heavy armoured warrior with a Summerset origin, pick an "Orc Ancestry" while being a High Elf.PC - EU:
Falathren Noctis - AD MagNecro
Falathren - AD StamSorc
Falathren Eryndaer - AD StamDen
Falathren Irimion - AD MagPlar
Talagan Falathren - AD StamDK
Falathren Infernis - AD MagDK
Your-Ex - AD MagBlade2 -
RavenSworn✭✭✭✭✭Yes, I like the racial skillsI think people are taking this racial thing too far. There are cases, multiple even, of how non meta race / class combo were viable even up till the competitive endgame, be it pve or pvp.
The racial difference is not per se 10% or even 5%. Its a like eking out 1-2% more of dps or tankiness or output shall we say. And thats right up there, with leaderboards and all. But viability and optimal builds are both very different.
I don't get the need to homogenize racial passives just so the nord stealth archer will hit the penetration mark just as well as a bosmer. I mean, I don't expect myself to suddenly have claws and are able to jump higher than a cat like person just because I train for it for years. If that khajit trained as much as me then of course they will be better at jumping then me. But they don't have my natural affinity with magic like a breton does, or perhaps the thick skin of a nord, or perhaps the stamina of an orc, its all give and take.
What ZoS should have done, was to not to include this magicka stamina divide in the racials, but rather a more universal form of passives.
Say for eg, Boomer have the passives to increase their damage as long as they have a pet or a minion. This works with both magicka and stamina. Or Khajit has minor evasion and minor penetration when they are within 10m of the target, just like a cat would be like. Instead of pushing the divide between magicka races (high elf, breton, dark elf, etc) and stamina races (orcs, redguard, etc), they have inclusivity and not exclusivity.
But to take it all away? I say nay.Ingame: RavenSworn, Pc / NA.
Of Wolf and Raven
Solo / Casual guild for beginners and new players wanting to join the game. Pst me for invite!1 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Commandment wrote: »This is the beginning bois, people trying to remove racials, soon items sets!!
I mean, might as well. People only ever run the same sets anyways.
IE if you're mag dps, you're running False God's / Mother's Sorrow0 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭amm7sb14_ESO wrote: »luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »So ok there's ES lore and tradition in past ES games but... This is an MMO not an RPG.
And in ESO racials so far have just been a FOTM pick that depens on the current flow of "standards", leaving a large amount of races as subpar choices or RP characters to say the least.
This is what we still have after 6 years so NO, racial skills would just make it worse.
Races should just be a merely cosmetic choice.
Lots of people don't understand this is an mmo first ES game second.
I'm not sure the original creative director of the game would agree with you:
"I think this has to do with how we approach development. We were worried that the term MMO had become synonymous with a certain type of game with an almost exact set of rules. That was definitely a perception we felt, even internally. But we really wanted to be true to our IP first, and still have this amazing social game with thousands of players online. When I started on UO, MMO was a new term and there weren't limits on it. We don't dislike the term or the association, we love it. We just want to make sure people aren't expecting it to be a clone of certain games."
Emphasis mine from this post (on another forum).
Edit: Now, if you wanted to make a case that ESO has drifted away from this over time towards being more of a "classic" MMO then I probably wouldn't argue too hard.
I've been around since beta.
There's been no drifting. Regardless of whatever lip service he provided, ESO has always been "formulaic MMO" first, "Elder Scrolls" distant second.
And to put my comments into context, I've been around since PC early access.
We seem to have different memories of this process. Not sure how to bridge that gap, because the ESO I was aware of in March 2014 certainly feels like it has different goals to the one I see now in June 2020.
I don't see it as different goals, rather, the game has been out long enough now to have additional end game content.
But it's always been the same:
Put you into a box of arbitrary race / class restrictions, and optimal mag / stam builds and optimal gear setups for end game min / maxing
I haven't seen a shifting of the goals, I've just seen an expansion of end game content that your narrow min / max build can do.
This game never tried to be an open Elder Scrolls experience with custom character individualization. It has always tried to be a formulaic MMO, same as any of the others that are out there.
ESO is closer to Diablo 3 in its design than it is to any TES game.1 -
amm7sb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭newtinmpls wrote: »amm7sb14_ESO wrote: »
I've seen mention about Morrowind and how racials and stats worked there.
.
A lot of folks, myself included, adored and still miss Morrowind.
But ESO is actually based on Oblivion, in terms of the designer's vision and some of the structure.
I dont see any basis for this claim, considering that Oblivion's structure and design is basically mirroring Morrowind's. There's some alterations to be sure but Morrowind and Oblivion have very similar design setups, and ESO is nothing like either of them.
This game is closer Diablo 3 in terms of design and gameplay loop than it is to any TES game.0