Have to agree that less is more, besides, you can already have a "classless" toon just choosing from the various nonclass skill lines and still get a viable build. Anything that adds more complexity in this game for the servers is only going to hurt.

Oof, more attention than I expected. I appreciate that all the comments disagree with my proposal though.

VaranisArano wrote: »

That could work well if ESO were a TES game, where the end game is questing and adventuring throughout the world. At a certain power level, your character can take on anything and win, so it becomes a matter of how you want to play the game. Bored of a Skyrim Stealth Archer? Try a Battlemage of Winterhold, etc.

However, ESO is an MMO, and its endgame for many players is PVP group content and PVP. What that means is that in the hardest content, players need to perform certain roles and they need to be fairly optimal when doing so. In PVE, group content means you need to hit certain benchmarks as a tank, healer, and damage dealer for your group to survive. In PVP, you need to be able to survive and kill to succeed at your goals.

What that means, quite simply, is that there's not a lot of freedom of choice in the endgame. Most players want to succeed and want to be efficient. They want the "most effective tactic available": the meta.

The Elder Scrolls Online game is not a The Elder Scrolls game? What? Per the Devs, they want players to "Play the game how you want."

Additionally, ESO is an MMORPG (I just learned how to bold stuff!). Part of that is choosing your role, and who you want your character to be. Opening skill lines is a natural progression into that ideal.

The weirdest thing to me is that a couple of people are saying that because the game is an online game, players shouldn't have the freedom that they would have in a single player game. I think a HUGE portion of the playerbase are primarily solo players that do their dailies then stay away from crowds. So much of ESO is designed around solo play & questing that I just can't wrap my head around why ESO being an MMO means players need to have fewer choices to play their character how they want.

VaranisArano wrote: »

What does that mean for making all skill lines unlockable?

It would kill diversity in the endgame.

My response to this is 2 fold; one, I think ZOS does a great job balancing the things they have and keep everything in game within a pretty narrow margin in regards to powerlevel. Obviously people are going to meta game, they already do that. Min-maxxers are going to exist in every game to get the top amount of DPS/Healing/Tanking. Literally nothing would change there.

I honestly don't think that top-tier min-max players really care at all about diversity. They care about their numbers output. The bill starts and stops at numbers.

Two; there are currently six classes in game, each with three skill lines, for a total of eighteen skill lines. Each skill line within each class is unique enough to be individually identifiable. I cannot fathom how opening the door from 3 skill lines to 18 would reduce diversity in all but the most metagamey of players, who again, really do not care.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Right now, we have a "meta" for each class in a Stamina and Magicka build. StamNecro & Magneco. MagDK & StamDK. Each class has its own strengths and weakness that make it ideal or merely viable in PVE and PVP end game.

I don't really like the "But the meta says" argument because metas change all the time as new content is added. If we opened up skill lines, this meta would shift to a new one in exactly the same way that the meta is going to shift when Gates of Oblivion launches. And then in exactly the same way the meta will shift when the next DLC is launched. And so on forever and ever until the servers shut down.

You say it yourself that each class has unique strengths and weakness, and these strengths and weaknesses are inherent to the skill lines available to the classes. By opening up the skill lines, all that would happen is that meta would shift and become more open.

Would ZOS have to modify parts of each skill line to keep themes and effects balanced? Yes. They did it for CP in a massive, unprecedented way. They literally ripped the old system out and stuffed it with a brand new (and in my opinion immensely more awesome) one. They're also shaking up their armor system, and they're going to have to do it more when companions come around. It shows to me that they're willing to change their game drastically in favor of more player choice.

I just flat out do not believe the meta will stagnate, and I also don't think that the meta matters in any way.

VaranisArano wrote: »

If we unlock ALL the class lines, that diversity flattens out.
Now, instead of each class being viable as tanks, PVE tanks can cherrypick the best skill lines available from DKs, Wardens, etc.
Now, instead of each class being viable as healers, Healers can grab the twilight burst heal, Templar buffs, and Necro rez ultimate if they want.
Damage dealers are driven by the almighty DPS parse, so we'd quickly end up with a series of 3 skill lines that resulted in optimal stamina and magicka DPS.
Players who tried to do their own thing would end up much less effective than those who follow the new cherrypicked meta.

This is more meta stuff, but a lot of people already cherrypick skills and classes and weapons and armor and passives and races and potions and gear sets and monster helms and CP distribution. Everyone cherry picks everything, and min-max gamers cherry pick meta options. With all skills available, this remains the same as it is right now. If anything, it makes balancing individually overpowered skills easier because the devs will gain instant feedback from 95% of a player type choosing 1 skill line for 1 skill.

No matter what the devs do, there's going to be droves of people going to AlcastHQ to look up the current best NB tank build, or Stamden PvP build, or whatever. All that realistically shifts is the options for these folks becomes a lot wider. It might even cause some people to break the meta and try new things because of the sheer amount of options available.

I'm not saying there aren't parts of many skill lines that are nearly identical and will need to be reworked to have their own uniqueness. I accept that's a guaranteed part of a change like this.

Players who try to do their own thing right now end up much less effective than those who follow the current cherrypicked meta.

VaranisArano wrote: »

PvP has its own problems. For one, the classes are balanced according to their abilities. DKs have strong CCs and DOTs in part because they have little ranged class abilities. If they get a Sorc streak or ranged execute to combine with their innate tankiness, well, PVP gets very difficult to balance. Second, PVP players recognize their opponents' likely abilities by their class skills (class specific colors and animation helps a lot). Making every skill line available to all players would make PVP that much harder.

Classes already aren't balanced in PvP and already aren't easy to balance in PvP, opening up skill lines would just put those same issues on an alternate identical course. Current classes having individual strengths will translate well into an open-ended skill system. Want strong CC's and DoTs? Pick DK skill lines. Using your example;
1.) Allowing players to have 2 CC / DoT skill lines and 1 that adds a little bit of ranged means that their DoT + CC are not as min-max strong as they could be with 3 dedicated CC + DoT skill lines, which means the addition of range balances naturally with the DoT + CC by reducing the overall power of the other two in favor of introducing range.

2.) If a single skill line grants access to powerful DoT + CC abilities and would be overpowered with any skill lines other than the 2 presently available to the class, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed in-game right now, because it means the other 2 skill lines are underpowered/underperforming to compensate for the DoT + CC skill line.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Now, for players who only quest, this diversity would be nice. They can build whatever they want and it won't matter, because brand new players on leveling builds can handle overland content.

For PVE and PVP players doing harder content, because players who want to be effective need to strive towards optimal builds for their purpose, this would ruin the current diversity we have with distinct classes.

Again, high-end min-max players already min-max. They're going to choose the currently best performing tank, healer, DPS class and use that exclusively. All this change realistically does for them is allow them to do the same thing they're currently doing without levelling up an alt.

Players who only quest make up 95% of the playerbase. They'll queue for their daily dungeon, do their crafting writs, and go grind out a zone. This diversity would just allow them to make their characters entirely how they see fit.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Will ZOS ever do it?
Probably not. I'm not a prophet, but here's my thinking:
1. Where the CP rework looks like its trying to reduce the variables ZOS needs to balance (12 stars slotted), throwing open every skill line vastly increases the variables that need to be balanced. Suddenly you've got Warden skills interacting with DK passives, Nightblade stealth and Sorc Streak in the same player, and a lot of combinations that ESO was never balanced for.
2. For a change who's goal is ostensibly to add variety and diversity to ESO, it ends up codifying the MMO Trinity in the PVE endgame and limiting players to the skill lines that are most effective, instead of ZOS' stated goal that every class be viable, though not necessarily optimal in every role.
3. Finally, you might be interested in reading ZOS' last statement on how they view class identity: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/57025

1.) The CP rework introduces a huge amount of variabilities. It does reduce the number of equations that need to go into each interaction, but it is clear from the standpoint of strictly design that their intention is to give players a wider customization. They're already going to have a huge swathe of balancing issues going forward. They will ALWAYS have balancing issues going forward because MMOs are constantly adapting games. It's not a bad thing that they need to figure out new balance issues as they arise. In fact, I think its healthy for a game when devs reinvigorate gameplay by creating new options for players.

2.) I disagree that it codifies the holy trinity. All combat aspects of the game are in a single branching tree now, and tank perks are required for healer perks which are required for damage perks. If anything, I think its become more difficult to build a character into a strictly single role.

3.) That article is from 09/26/2019. If we've seen anything from ZoS, they clearly want players to make their characters their own, and are not scared to drastically shake up their systems to deliver that. Not to mention, the way I read that article was they were focused primarily on how each class plays in game. This is not an impossible switch to an open ended skill line system. Balance each line around itself with an individual flavor (Siphoning is vampiry, Daedric Summoning probably summons Daedra.) and then nix outlying issues as they pop up.

nukk3r wrote: »

Do you want 40k HP stamdens with Cloak? Because that's how you get them.

Sure, because they're going to sacrifice almost everything else to achieve this and if that's what makes them happy, I support it 100%.

Mythreindeer wrote: »

Have to agree that less is more, besides, you can already have a "classless" toon just choosing from the various nonclass skill lines and still get a viable build. Anything that adds more complexity in this game for the servers is only going to hurt.

Servers are already hurting. I'm not asking for class-less characters, I'm asking for open skill lines to build unique characters.

Auztinito wrote: »

I don’t think we need to open up skill lines to other classes but classes need more skills in each skill line. Classes limit players to very little skills in an artificial way. If they started adding more skills, they’ll need to come up with more classes that can fill different niches and playstyles. I mean some players want melee magick builds or long range tanking.

As for reading at that blog post. It comes off as a way of saying, we want trinity gameplay even if it makes some types of builds useless. So, they’re definitely fine with players falling into “bait skills” that will force players to restart or grind for gold to re-spec. They’re just supporting build diversity to say they are. They’re not actually trying to do anything about it because they are almost flat out saying “ We like build diversity but we won’t make the game build diverse.”

Don't you think open skill lines would meet that same demand? I'm also totally on board with more skills per tree if it gives more people access to play more ways they want to.

That blog post is also like 2 years old. I agree with your interpretation of it mostly.

Lysette wrote: »

I think that @VaranisArano pointed out why not well enough. As much as I would like this, because I'm just into the adventuring part of the game, I can well see that it would make PvP less interesting and too homogeneous.

Isn't PvP already uninteresting and homogenous? It's a huge point of contention in players as of right now. Opening skill lines wouldn't do anything but give players more options, and min-maxxers more min-maxxing.

VaranisArano wrote: »

In addition, we see the Devs working on power fantasy and play patterns - that is, the ability of each class to play each role in their own way with their own flavor. To quote the article again: "These play patterns are critical to reinforcing class identity by differentiating the experience along three axis: playing the same role with different classes, playing different roles with the same class, and engaging in PvE vs. PvP activities. To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines." (Bold is mine for emphasis.)

As long as that bolded statement is still true of the Devs thinking, its a fair bet that the OP's idea of throwing all the skill lines open to everyone is not on the Devs' agenda. (That's not to say that it can't happen, merely that their latest statements make it seem very unlikely.)

I read that line entirely different than you did, I think. To me it reads more as "We want to make everyone perfectly equal in PvE and PvP at the same time, but we don't think we will ever reach that degree of balance. But we will try to do so as we change, improve or modify class kits and skill lines."

Their last statement to me seems that they were acknowledging that PvP and PvE cannot coexist in perfect balance. One thing might be absolutely acceptable in a trial, but extremely over or underpowered in Cyrodiil, and vice versa. I don't think it has anything to do with opening or closing class skill lines.

I'll take the bait.

Let's pretend ZOS opened up 18 skill lines for you and you want to make a Healer for group dungeons.

What skill lines would you pick for 5 different characters?

AlnilamE wrote: »

I'll take the bait.

Let's pretend ZOS opened up 18 skill lines for you and you want to make a Healer for group dungeons.

What skill lines would you pick for 5 different characters?

I would use the daedric summoning, grave lord and living death skill lines. That way I could have 7 pets active at once, when using the maw of the infernal set and atro ulti.
It would probably be pretty bad, but it would look hilarious for sure.

Auztinito wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by build diversity.

Overland questing content supports a ton of build diversity, just like other TES games. The difficulty isn't so high that anyone needs to worry much about viability, so its pretty easy for hybrids, tanky players, and roleplaying builds to quest their way across Tamriel. Heck, when I started playing ESO, I figured this was like Skyrim. So there was my sword&board, heavy armored MagDK happily questing through the Pact areas with no idea of how non-meta her build was!

However, in the article I linked, the Devs are mostly talking about build diversity in PVE group content and PVP with the expectation that every class should be able to fulfill every role. This is something they support with their leveling Skill Advisor builds too.

What they generally aren't talking about build diversity in the sense of the often misunderstood phrase "Play the way you want." Many players who say that seem to want it to mean "I can build however I want, no matter how badly or inefficiently, and still complete all the content."

Instead in that article, the Devs clarified that they see it as meaning: "One of our mantras for ESO is "play the way you want," and in this case, it means any class can fulfill any role (tank, dps, support/healer). To better achieve this ideal while also maintaining the unique fantasy flavor of each class, all class kits need to include the basic tools required to fulfill each role. To be clear, our goal is for every class to be viable, not necessarily optimal, in any role without heavily relying on non-class skill lines."

There was a fair bit of criticism of the Devs when they posted that, in large part because they were moving away from the more straightforward "DKs are tanks, Templars are healers, Sorcs and NBs are damage dealers, period" plan that ESO started with.

So we see a renewed commitment to make each class able to play each role of the MMO Trinity in their own way, perhaps not optimally, but viably. That's more build diversity than ESO was originally designed for, but its not on the level of guaranteeing that every build is equally useful.

In addition, we see the Devs working on power fantasy and play patterns - that is, the ability of each class to play each role in their own way with their own flavor. To quote the article again: "These play patterns are critical to reinforcing class identity by differentiating the experience along three axis: playing the same role with different classes, playing different roles with the same class, and engaging in PvE vs. PvP activities. To temper expectations, it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever reach a point where every class, in every role, feels equally unique in both PvE and PvP. But it’s an ideal we can continue to strive toward as we revisit class kits and skill lines." (Bold is mine for emphasis.)

As long as that bolded statement is still true of the Devs thinking, its a fair bet that the OP's idea of throwing all the skill lines open to everyone is not on the Devs' agenda. (That's not to say that it can't happen, merely that their latest statements make it seem very unlikely.)

What are the differences in viability and optimally? Hmm. It's usually code for it's viable in X, Y, and Z but don't you dare try to do A because it won't work. Essentially locking someone out of content because the system said "*** them". So, Skill Advisor isa tool that is supposed to tell the player that I'm picking the wrong abilities regardless of my playstyle or character. Essentially, they know there are "bait skills" that actually useless and just opt to not change/alter them because it helps feed into the 6k gold sink. When people say they want to play the way they want, they don't bow skills while using a dagger. That's just convenient cop-out. Also, there's that word "inefficient". If a skill is inefficient then it's not viable.

As I see it, the difference between viability and optimization is simply:

Can a particular class complete the content in a particular role? That's looking at viability.

Will a scorepushing team who's focused on the meta use a particular class in that particular role? That's looking at optimization.

Viable means you've got the tools on every class to be able to play every role, and how well you do is up to you. Experienced players can and have done a lot with unoptimized class/role combinations. "Optimal" acknowledges that there will always be one class that is "better" or "more effective" at a particular role, and you aren't guaranteed that your class will be it.

Just look at the periodic debates over DPS every update: every class can pull viable DPS, yet everyone argues over who's pulling that extra couple thousand that makes them optimal choices. Or for that matter, the Racial Passive debate going on now. All the races are going to stay viable, but there's a big argument over who's going to be optimal.


In the wider context of discussions of class identity at the time, it was a pretty strong rebuke to the idea that "When ESO started, Templars were THE healing class, and thus they should always be the meta healers." Or "When ESO started, Dragonknights were THE tankng class, how DARE these Wardens and Necros infringe on DK tanking turf?!" I recall discussing Sorcs with a player who was using the "when ESO started, Sorcs were the Damage Dealing class" argument to beg for massive buffs to Sorc damage in PVP/PVE so they could go back to being on top where he felt they belonged.

ZOS wants players to be viable for each role...but they don't want players thinking they are guaranteed to be the new meta every update.