They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.

But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only the few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.

Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.

Implement global aoe cooldowns for a class with an entire toolkit of aoe skills: damage, healing, and defensive skills.

Looking at my magplar last night in cyrodiil I realized that there are only three skills exempt from the cool down, and two of them work against each other. My only non aoe class options are a gap closer, a knock back, and a channeled execute.

That’s how you kill a class.

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?

And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?

And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.

But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?

Firstmep wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?

And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.

But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?

Different skills and passives synergise better with different classes.

Dizzy swing is great for stamina necro/warden since they have a delayed non ultimate burst skill, which mean they can line it up with dizzy swing to hit at the same time for big burst damage.

Melee magicka templars work well with lightning staff, since most their damage is considered aoe.

Theres a lot of things like that.

cheers for that! thats sort of the answers i was wondering about....seems passives are key.

ImSoPro wrote: »

They can’t be. People that follow the meta think that just because them and their 5 ESO friends don’t play a class since it’s not featured by youtubers that its dead. Realistically it’s always good player>class if you’re not good at the game it doesn’t matter what cookie cutter meta build you use. You will still get wrecked. If you’re good at the game you can take a combo of any race and class and make them effective.

This is the best answer....
btw OP, who is deeming some classes "dead" anyway?

Dead is a colloquial euphemism for very underpowered in most aspect of gameplay, in comparison to other classes. While i could tank most content as a templar its pretty fair to say a templar tank is dead.

Joxer61 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?

And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.

But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?

Because while the mechanics of the skill are the same, a "dead" class has limited potential of how they can use the skill.

How can a Class be "dead"?

I guess... if it dies?

Note; this is called humor, its not trolling, or baiting, or bashing or slandering etc.

RavenSworn wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

You partly answered your own question: why would I use a weapon skill on a nerfed class when I can use that very same skill more powerfully on something else? Also, if my entire bar is filled with weapon skills, I am really playing a class?

And, no, I don't think the only difference should be flavor because that just amounts to my class having different animation colors.

But that is my question.....how is the very same skill "better" on something more powerful? What dictates the more powerful, if its the same?

Because while the mechanics of the skill are the same, a "dead" class has limited potential of how they can use the skill.

Yeah but wouldn't that mean a different skill would be better for that particular class then? I have no problems with having a meta skill set with a meta class but like you said, if it works with one, It might not work with another. Which also means vice versa yeah?

No because ESO's skills are all basic and there are not going to make say a templar, whose purifying light skill have been over-nerfed, Purifying Dark ability made useless, and burning Light passive impractical to use in PvP, be able to overcome the clunky mechanics that have been, for some reason, put back into the class. There's no weapon skill called "remove clunkiness/nerfs." Stuff like Dizzy Swing, elemental Drain all work better on mechanically sounds classes.

Joxer61 wrote: »

With weapon skills being pretty much the same for all Classes, i.e DW and such, how is it that one class, say StamDk, can be deemed "dead" yet others like maybe StamNB or templar be top dogs? Are passives really that different in that it can make a class suck really bad? One would think that damage wise classes "should" be close the same and the only difference amonst them is their flavor, be it fire, lightning, dead things...whatever.
I dont know...just baffles me in that there can be such a gap between damage output for what is basically the same.
But then I baffle easily.....

Templar top dog.. lol

Templars are definitely not top dog in pve.

Tankplars are the worst and that is a given. I will admit Healplars are great though. Templar DPS hits both ends of the power spectrum. On 1 hand they have the dps on a test dummy on the other hand Templars have huge deficits in their toolkit that gets exposed on the content that those certain things matter.

I was just PUG'n castle thorn last night. On my magblade the final boss is a joke. I have range, mobility, off healing, ranged execute, big hard hitting burst skills etc...the group i had last night i was on my magplar dps and the other dps was a stamplar. I was quickly reminded about just how bad templars are. We both were using jabs/sweeps bcz obviously. when it comes to that hardmode range and mobility are most important. Those adds add up quickly when the storm hits if your a melee dps. Having off healing is also key bcz those AoE damage circles leave little time to react.

Eventually we did get the clear but it was a quick reminder of just how long the walk is from the test dummy to damage dealing out in the field.

The FOTM argument is partially true, I know my endgame PVE guild composition flips patch to patch, and now I'm the only stam DK in trials. Dk is probably the only class in the game that has no form of passive sustain, has very little in the way of damage buffs beyond buffing fire and poison damage, meaning that the class has no innate synergy with anything other then the bow.

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

They aren't really dead. A skilled player can do wonders with a "dead" class.

But if you follow the meta or you only want to use the most effective builds, you are quickly going to pigeonhole yourself into only the few "best" classes and the rest will be "dead" to you, even if the difference is a few percentage points of damage. StamDK is currently not one of the few "best" options.

Another way to say it is that StamDK is not the flavor of the month now and has not been the flavor of the month for some time. Therefore people who only use the classes that are the flavor of the month like to proclaim that it's a dead class.

As usual, you are simplifying things to draw a positivist yet ignorant conclusion. People abandoning the class has a lot to do with changes made to it that upset people, rather than whatever class became the next FOTM. StamDK was already no longer FOTM the moment stamina necromancer was introduced.

Though I'm betting your next reply will be the ''muh data'' suggesting there are tons of new players playing the DK class as if long time veterans and the average joe who read the word ''dragonknight'' and thought to themselves ''ooh that sounds cool, Imma pick this one'' can be put in the same category.

I mean the whole class identity thing was a disaster for everyone and it is what it is. But to put the blame on FOTM mentality is just plain wrong.

It actually sounds like we agree. Endgame players aren't flocking to StamDKs because it's not the meta. They, by and large, choose other stamina builds like stamNecro.

"Flavor of the month" is just a shorthand term for the tendency of players to flock to whichever builds are the best, but there's lots of reasons why certain classes are less popular. As you say, sometimes ZOS makes a class change players don't like. Sometimes the class gets nerfed, sometimes a different class gets buffed or provides better group buffs/debuffs, sometimes ZOS changes gameplay mechanics that benefit certain playstyles over others like the heavy attack meta or DOTs, or whatever else ZOS changed to keep horizontal progression going. For players who care about the meta, sticking to classes that benefit from, call it, "flavor of the patch" is more important.

That's not to say that players who like StamDK's can't do great things with them. Certainly, a skilled player can use them very effectively in the endgame. That's because the gap between meta and non-meta is generally not as great for a skilled player as hyperbolic forum posts like to make it out to be. I.E. no class is really dead and useless, whatever the forums say, even though there are often better options according to the meta. (Though I might be willing to change that opinion if ZOS does AOE cooldowns without reworking Templar skills in PVE )

But unless you have data to the contrary, I'm not seeing endgame players flock to StamDK's the way they do to the classes that are currently the meta. There's a number of reasons for why that is, but it's one way to recognize that StamDK's are not the flavor of the month and haven't been for quite some time, which leads some hyperbolic players to label them as dead.