Whatever happened to particular monster vulnerabilities?

Supreme_Atromancer · September 2021

I thought this was a really cool concept - the idea that different enemies had different susceptibilities and resistances to different element types.

It was interesting because it was an example of mechanics speaking to the lore, exploration of the world mythology, and theoretically added a layer of tactical considerations to encounters.

There used to be a load screen tip about it, but I haven't seen it for a good while, and I don't know anyone, from organised raiders to overland explorers to ever consider it at all.

Does it still exist, but is poorly balanced, or did ZOS abandon the idea altogether? And if so, why?

Its a shame to see lore and mythology become more and more successively consumed by dry numbers and mechanics over time.

tsaescishoeshiner · September 2021

There haven't been specific vulnerabilities for a long time, but I'm not sure when it changed. It would be cool for lore and immersion, but also make doing dungeons and harder content full of tedious inventory management to switch gear and skills around based on the enemies, and it also must be harder to balance challenging content that way. I don't think it works that well for an MMO with the kind of skill and weapon freedom as ESO.

The main form of this right now is AoE vs single-target skills, as some bosses require one strategy over the other based on how mobile they are and how many adds they summon.

Kiralyn2000 · September 2021

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I don't think it works that well for an MMO with the kind of skill and weapon freedom as ESO.

Don't remember how it was in this game, but I recall when WoW got rid of that kind of thing - people kept running into the problem that entire builds/classes just crashed & burned when they ran into dungeons/zones full of monsters that were immune to their main damage type.
It's a fine concept for a single player game, but it causes all sorts of issues in MMOs. Especially ones where you can't change your whole loadout on the fly.

(it's all fun and games until the Ice expansion comes out, and your Frost Mage is totally useless.)

Red_Feather · September 2021

I think because the game performance is so poor the focus is homogenizing everything to reduce calculations. In my experience that is the opposite of what rpgs are meant to do. Such is life.

YandereGirlfriend · September 2021

ESO saw the anti-RPG "streamlining" that Skyrim did to the series and was like, "Hold my beer!"

The game would benefit from having these but, alas, the powers that be don't believe that we can handle such gameplay "complexity."

PrinceShroob · September 2021

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

YandereGirlfriend · September 2021

PrinceShroob wrote: »

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

There's no rule (save for the rule of money...) that says that you have dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Having elemental affinities (among other more complex interactions) would encourage creating alts rather than coddling those who refuse to try out other classes or builds.

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

Darkstorne · September 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

PrinceShroob wrote: »

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

There's no rule (save for the rule of money...) that says that you have dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Having elemental affinities (among other more complex interactions) would encourage creating alts rather than coddling those who refuse to try out other classes or builds.

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

Nope, it's not about the dumbing down of content, it's ZOS realising the issue of class based gameplay. Especially when those classes frequently only have access to a single element type. THAT is the issue if you want to complain about design.

In single player TES there is a classless design, with great benefits. Even in WoW a class like a mage can spec away from fire and into ice if the content doesn't suit fire builds. In ESO, if the content doesn't support your class element... There's really not much you can do about it, and you won't be invited to trials etc as a result.

YandereGirlfriend · September 2021

Darkstorne wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

PrinceShroob wrote: »

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

There's no rule (save for the rule of money...) that says that you have dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Having elemental affinities (among other more complex interactions) would encourage creating alts rather than coddling those who refuse to try out other classes or builds.

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

Nope, it's not about the dumbing down of content, it's ZOS realising the issue of class based gameplay. Especially when those classes frequently only have access to a single element type. THAT is the issue if you want to complain about design.

In single player TES there is a classless design, with great benefits. Even in WoW a class like a mage can spec away from fire and into ice if the content doesn't suit fire builds. In ESO, if the content doesn't support your class element... There's really not much you can do about it, and you won't be invited to trials etc as a result.

I'm right there with you on the pitfalls of the strict class design. It's one of the many reasons why Spellcrafting would make an amazing addition to the game, though, as you state, there are revisions short of that that could accomplish similar goals.

What I'm not with you on are its implications. If you're a stamDPS you're already not being invited to trials and the same goes for any slightly underperforming Magicka class. That will always be the way things go for top 1%'er groups for whom things like that actually make a difference. And it would still be that way even with elemental affinities except that it would not be for arbitrary class balance reasons but rather for established TES lore reasons, which is, IMO, a much more satisfying justification.

And it is all completely circumventable by rolling up some alts. That way, you're never actually excluded from anything because something that you own both wins and loses depending upon the context. What is undesirable is someone proclaiming that they have their "main" and then feeling entitled to complete all possible achievements (including score-pushing achievements) with that single character.

Darkstorne · September 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

Darkstorne wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

PrinceShroob wrote: »

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

There's no rule (save for the rule of money...) that says that you have dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Having elemental affinities (among other more complex interactions) would encourage creating alts rather than coddling those who refuse to try out other classes or builds.

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

Nope, it's not about the dumbing down of content, it's ZOS realising the issue of class based gameplay. Especially when those classes frequently only have access to a single element type. THAT is the issue if you want to complain about design.

In single player TES there is a classless design, with great benefits. Even in WoW a class like a mage can spec away from fire and into ice if the content doesn't suit fire builds. In ESO, if the content doesn't support your class element... There's really not much you can do about it, and you won't be invited to trials etc as a result.

I'm right there with you on the pitfalls of the strict class design. It's one of the many reasons why Spellcrafting would make an amazing addition to the game, though, as you state, there are revisions short of that that could accomplish similar goals.

What I'm not with you on are its implications. If you're a stamDPS you're already not being invited to trials and the same goes for any slightly underperforming Magicka class. That will always be the way things go for top 1%'er groups for whom things like that actually make a difference. And it would still be that way even with elemental affinities except that it would not be for arbitrary class balance reasons but rather for established TES lore reasons, which is, IMO, a much more satisfying justification.

And it is all completely circumventable by rolling up some alts. That way, you're never actually excluded from anything because something that you own both wins and loses depending upon the context. What is undesirable is someone proclaiming that they have their "main" and then feeling entitled to complete all possible achievements (including score-pushing achievements) with that single character.

Kinda reads to me like you're highlighting my point even more with the stamina/magicka example..? That's a minor balance issue that is leading to trial teams favouring magicka builds, and something ZOS needs to tweak to sort out. Now imagine if they threw meaningful element resistances/weaknesses into the game, and suddenly that's a major difference in DPS per class that trial groups are absolutely going to build around when they're already picking up on the DPS variance between stam/mag. And at least every character can be specced between stam/mag when needed. Not so with elemental affinity.

It's a core game design issue with class flavour that prevents elemental resistance/weakness being an option for ZOS to play with. A Deadlands Q4 DLC would make for a lot of sad Dragonknights for example. It is literally impossible for ZOS to create class balance around elemental resistance/weakness thanks to the way they initially designed classes, unlike the current stam/mag divide which is very much something they can work on to balance out. Fingers crossed a potential ESO2 has a classless system more akin to the traditional TES games, so that elemental resistances/weaknesses can return as a gameplay feature

Vevvev · September 2021

I always continued to RP that they did even though it seems that they don't. Kinda odd my magDK can kill a fire atronach with fire, but hey... It's all I have so it makes a little sense balance wise why they don't have the resistances thing on them.

However, I doubt we'd ever see it come back with ZOS removing things that did bonus damage to certain enemies. Just look at the Fighter's Guild changes where the abilities now only do bonus damage to player werewolves and vampires instead of both players and NPC.

Franchise408 · September 2021

I'd love to see something like this, as it will break up the meta a little bit. Instead of everyone just stacking Medusa / Mother's Sorrow / Maw of Infernal, people will actually have to bring build variety to account for different strengths and weaknesses. I'd be a fan of this.

WrathOfInnos · September 2021

These were removed years ago. Even when these resistances/weaknesses existed they were very minor, about 1% damage difference IIRC. I doubt they’ll be back, even unique things like Prismatic enchants against Daedra/Undead have been removed as of the latest patch. Everything is the same, enemy differences are purely visual.

whitecrow · September 2021

I don't remember ever having this. It has always seemed weird that you can poison automatons. But it wouldn't be workable in a "live" game like this. In a single-player game you can pause and switch weapons. Here it's just not possible.

ssewallb14_ESO · September 2021

The only games where I've ever seen this actually work were the PS1-2 era Final Fantasy games. You could freely select different damage types to fight different enemies, and were encouraged to do so as a mechanic.

It doesn't really work in anything where you have to commit to a certain type of damage through classes, gear, etc.

Ratzkifal · September 2021

Something like this would have to be carefully balanced.
You could intentionally make a trial easier for stamina dps because many of its enemies have higher magic resist/lower physical resist. But then you have to consider that the rewards for completing it should also be reflective of this bias.
At best this can make everyone feel included, viable and legitimate.
At worst this can make one class the only right one to be ( probably Necro due to its varied damage types).

It shouldn't impact performance though because we already have elemental resistances and it takes no effort and no extra calculations to change those values for NPCs.

I do vaguely remember something about trolls and NPC vampires taking extra fire damage though... Sounds like this has been removed since.

Shantu · September 2021

Red_Feather wrote: »

I think because the game performance is so poor the focus is homogenizing everything to reduce calculations. In my experience that is the opposite of what rpgs are meant to do. Such is life.

The most damning affect of homogenization is it's affect on entertainment value. All combat feels the same. It's like a restaurant who rearranges the same food on a plate and then calls it a new meal. There are no "Wow!!" skills in this game. Damage is neutered down to the ability to execute the same boring rotation, over and over and over again.

I think it's unfortunate combat seems to be designed so the elite 1/10th of 1% of players can't have ridiculous damage. Look at how many players never run vet content. Yeah, you can argue that these players just aren't good enough, for whatever reason. But you might also argue the content lacks enough intelligent design to at least provide an option where this can be accomplished. The disparity between normal and vet content leaves little option for anything in between...which is exactly where the skill level of most players reside.

But then again I always return to the realization that it is housing, motifs, pets, etc...basically the Crown Store...that generates revenue. Combat, in and of itself, is not what sells...and therefore has little impetus to be designed in an entertaining way that would hold appeal across the entire player base.

Vaoh · September 2021

To homogenize the game. To make it easier. We also saw this happen with all abilities in order to give them the same damage, healing, cost, etc.

It would have been cool to keep enemy elemental resistance/immunities instead of just defaulting to the same generic Spell/Phys resistance.

Ratzkifal · September 2021

Shantu wrote: »

Red_Feather wrote: »

I think because the game performance is so poor the focus is homogenizing everything to reduce calculations. In my experience that is the opposite of what rpgs are meant to do. Such is life.

The most damning affect of homogenization is it's affect on entertainment value. All combat feels the same. It's like a restaurant who rearranges the same food on a plate and then calls it a new meal. There are no "Wow!!" skills in this game. Damage is neutered down to the ability to execute the same boring rotation, over and over and over again.

I think it's unfortunate combat seems to be designed so the elite 1/10th of 1% of players can't have ridiculous damage. Look at how many players never run vet content. Yeah, you can argue that these players just aren't good enough, for whatever reason. But you might also argue the content lacks enough intelligent design to at least provide an option where this can be accomplished. The disparity between normal and vet content leaves little option for anything in between...which is exactly where the skill level of most players reside.

But then again I always return to the realization that it is housing, motifs, pets, etc...basically the Crown Store...that generates revenue. Combat, in and of itself, is not what sells...and therefore has little impetus to be designed in an entertaining way that would hold appeal across the entire player base.

That "wow" factor is especially missing on the ultimates. Cast times just make them feel very underwhelming because they are no harder to dodge than ordinary skills. You can call that balance but I call that increasingly bland combat.

Every class should have one special mechanic, like Necro have with their corpses, that makes each class feel unique. And no, Wardens having delayed skills is not a "special mechanic".

spartaxoxo · September 2021

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

The only games where I've ever seen this actually work were the PS1-2 era Final Fantasy games. You could freely select different damage types to fight different enemies, and were encouraged to do so as a mechanic.

It doesn't really work in anything where you have to commit to a certain type of damage through classes, gear, etc.

Yeah. It only works for stuff you can switch on the fly.

Amottica · September 2021

WrathOfInnos wrote: »

These were removed years ago. Even when these resistances/weaknesses existed they were very minor, about 1% damage difference IIRC. I doubt they’ll be back, even unique things like Prismatic enchants against Daedra/Undead have been removed as of the latest patch. Everything is the same, enemy differences are purely visual.

It makes sense to cease dealing with such a small vulnerability since that 1% is fairly meaningless. To make them meaningful would mean players would have to carry around a lot more gear and use different sets for different dungeons/trials and maybe even different bosses.

So they can keep it as it is.

Sylvermynx · September 2021

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

<snip>

There used to be a load screen tip about it, but I haven't seen it for a good while, and I don't know anyone, from organised raiders to overland explorers to ever consider it at all.

The load screen tip is still there, I see it a couple times a day at least. It doesn't seem it's really "in game" at all though.

Red_Feather · September 2021

If we could do primary/secondary classes then we could make a lightning build for robots when needed. Just need gear/build templates added to the game.

Kalle_Demos · September 2021

These existed in the game years ago and they worked out fine. I personally enjoyed the flavor and think the game was more interesting, along with many other interesting and fun things that were ripped out because reasons. Homogenization hasn't done ESO any favors. The state of things are so...bland...compared to where they were years ago.

Ksariyu · September 2021

Oh boy, lots of interesting stuff to respond to in this thread.

To the OP, I actually thought they still existed myself until I saw this thread (Can you tell I don't play much anymore). It's something that always stumped me a bit, considering literally every Mag DPS in the game runs a fire staff and flame atronachs are not uncommon. Makes a lot more sense now.

@YandereGirlfriend

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

ESO saw the anti-RPG "streamlining" that Skyrim did to the series and was like, "Hold my beer!"

The game would benefit from having these but, alas, the powers that be don't believe that we can handle such gameplay "complexity."

Bethesda as a whole has seen the benefit of removing RPG elements from their titles since well before Skyrim. Beloved as Morrowind and Oblivion are, they're still both stripped down in comparison to their predecessors, and the company has only seen profit from the change. Despite our personal beliefs, the complexity of a true RPG can really deter people who just want to sit down and play a game. That said. . .

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

. . . I still whole-heartedly agree with this (Though 25% is still a bit much. Maybe like 10% max). Without completely removing player choice, there will ALWAYS be a BiS set up. So yeah, why not at least make it lore-related rather than entirely arbitrary?

@Shantu

Shantu wrote: »

The most damning affect of homogenization is it's affect on entertainment value. All combat feels the same. It's like a restaurant who rearranges the same food on a plate and then calls it a new meal. There are no "Wow!!" skills in this game. Damage is neutered down to the ability to execute the same boring rotation, over and over and over again.

I think it's unfortunate combat seems to be designed so the elite 1/10th of 1% of players can't have ridiculous damage. Look at how many players never run vet content. Yeah, you can argue that these players just aren't good enough, for whatever reason. But you might also argue the content lacks enough intelligent design to at least provide an option where this can be accomplished. The disparity between normal and vet content leaves little option for anything in between...which is exactly where the skill level of most players reside.

But then again I always return to the realization that it is housing, motifs, pets, etc...basically the Crown Store...that generates revenue. Combat, in and of itself, is not what sells...and therefore has little impetus to be designed in an entertaining way that would hold appeal across the entire player base.

It's funny that we (myself included) sit here and talk about how damage is so boring because it's just rotations over and over again, yet it's still MILES ahead as the most popular role in the game. However, I think the gap between normal and vet trials has less to do with damage, and more to do with one-shots and similar mechanics. Trials in ESO are VERY dependent on team cohesion (someone used the term "choreography" to describe it and I think that's very accurate), to the point where a single mistake from a single player can cause the entire squad to wipe. THAT level of dedication to learning every trial's specific mechanics, in my opinion, is what keeps a lot of players from even wanting to try trials in the first place. You don't feel like you overcame a challenge, you just feel like you copy-pasted someone else's gameplay.

Regarding monetization though, it's kind of a sad reality. Personally, I'd say combat and other gameplay mechanics are the ONLY reason I'd spend money on a game (Thus why I haven't purchased a chapter since Summerset). But clearly, ZoS has data that shows people are only too willing to spend money on cosmetics regardless of the quality of the game, so naturally everything else gets less attention.

@Ratzkifal

Ratzkifal wrote: »

That "wow" factor is especially missing on the ultimates. Cast times just make them feel very underwhelming because they are no harder to dodge than ordinary skills. You can call that balance but I call that increasingly bland combat.

Every class should have one special mechanic, like Necro have with their corpses, that makes each class feel unique. And no, Wardens having delayed skills is not a "special mechanic".

The "wow" factor, or lack thereof, has more to do with animations and sound design than numbers. Alternatively, high player-skill requirements can make certain abilities really pop when used effectively. Cast times are also sort of a requirement with high-impact skills, entirely BECAUSE they need to be easier to dodge than regular attacks, and while that does affect the flow of combat to some degree, I don't think it's as detrimental as some would make it seem.

I will agree however that there needs to be more mechanics for the player to interact with, though I don't think they can be class-specific with the variety of non-class skills you can use. Literally anything that provides more depth to damage beyond "LA>Skill>Repeat" would be welcome. Combat in general lacks any real diversity in terms of how you approach situations; an archer plays nearly identical to a swordsman, for example. Class identity can stem naturally from each one being better suited to a playstyle, rather than forcing a specific mechanic (Though I will say FFXIV's class system is great at making each one feel unique with this setup).

@Kalle_Demos

Kalle_Demos wrote: »

These existed in the game years ago and they worked out fine. I personally enjoyed the flavor and think the game was more interesting, along with many other interesting and fun things that were ripped out because reasons. Homogenization hasn't done ESO any favors. The state of things are so...bland...compared to where they were years ago.

Homogenization I think was an important step for ESO, ZoS just hasn't been aggressive enough with the changes (Hot take, I know). But, for a character system to be as flexible as they want this one to be, there needs to be a solid baseline to work off first. They've made a lot of progress in this area, now they just need to start trimming the fat and really hone in on the key elements that make combat interesting.

wolfie1.0. · September 2021

Ksariyu wrote: »

Oh boy, lots of interesting stuff to respond to in this thread.

To the OP, I actually thought they still existed myself until I saw this thread (Can you tell I don't play much anymore). It's something that always stumped me a bit, considering literally every Mag DPS in the game runs a fire staff and flame atronachs are not uncommon. Makes a lot more sense now.

@YandereGirlfriend

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

ESO saw the anti-RPG "streamlining" that Skyrim did to the series and was like, "Hold my beer!"

The game would benefit from having these but, alas, the powers that be don't believe that we can handle such gameplay "complexity."

Bethesda as a whole has seen the benefit of removing RPG elements from their titles since well before Skyrim. Beloved as Morrowind and Oblivion are, they're still both stripped down in comparison to their predecessors, and the company has only seen profit from the change. Despite our personal beliefs, the complexity of a true RPG can really deter people who just want to sit down and play a game. That said. . .

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

. . . I still whole-heartedly agree with this (Though 25% is still a bit much. Maybe like 10% max). Without completely removing player choice, there will ALWAYS be a BiS set up. So yeah, why not at least make it lore-related rather than entirely arbitrary?

@Shantu

Shantu wrote: »

The most damning affect of homogenization is it's affect on entertainment value. All combat feels the same. It's like a restaurant who rearranges the same food on a plate and then calls it a new meal. There are no "Wow!!" skills in this game. Damage is neutered down to the ability to execute the same boring rotation, over and over and over again.

I think it's unfortunate combat seems to be designed so the elite 1/10th of 1% of players can't have ridiculous damage. Look at how many players never run vet content. Yeah, you can argue that these players just aren't good enough, for whatever reason. But you might also argue the content lacks enough intelligent design to at least provide an option where this can be accomplished. The disparity between normal and vet content leaves little option for anything in between...which is exactly where the skill level of most players reside.

But then again I always return to the realization that it is housing, motifs, pets, etc...basically the Crown Store...that generates revenue. Combat, in and of itself, is not what sells...and therefore has little impetus to be designed in an entertaining way that would hold appeal across the entire player base.

It's funny that we (myself included) sit here and talk about how damage is so boring because it's just rotations over and over again, yet it's still MILES ahead as the most popular role in the game. However, I think the gap between normal and vet trials has less to do with damage, and more to do with one-shots and similar mechanics. Trials in ESO are VERY dependent on team cohesion (someone used the term "choreography" to describe it and I think that's very accurate), to the point where a single mistake from a single player can cause the entire squad to wipe. THAT level of dedication to learning every trial's specific mechanics, in my opinion, is what keeps a lot of players from even wanting to try trials in the first place. You don't feel like you overcame a challenge, you just feel like you copy-pasted someone else's gameplay.

Regarding monetization though, it's kind of a sad reality. Personally, I'd say combat and other gameplay mechanics are the ONLY reason I'd spend money on a game (Thus why I haven't purchased a chapter since Summerset). But clearly, ZoS has data that shows people are only too willing to spend money on cosmetics regardless of the quality of the game, so naturally everything else gets less attention.

@Ratzkifal

Ratzkifal wrote: »

That "wow" factor is especially missing on the ultimates. Cast times just make them feel very underwhelming because they are no harder to dodge than ordinary skills. You can call that balance but I call that increasingly bland combat.

Every class should have one special mechanic, like Necro have with their corpses, that makes each class feel unique. And no, Wardens having delayed skills is not a "special mechanic".

The "wow" factor, or lack thereof, has more to do with animations and sound design than numbers. Alternatively, high player-skill requirements can make certain abilities really pop when used effectively. Cast times are also sort of a requirement with high-impact skills, entirely BECAUSE they need to be easier to dodge than regular attacks, and while that does affect the flow of combat to some degree, I don't think it's as detrimental as some would make it seem.

I will agree however that there needs to be more mechanics for the player to interact with, though I don't think they can be class-specific with the variety of non-class skills you can use. Literally anything that provides more depth to damage beyond "LA>Skill>Repeat" would be welcome. Combat in general lacks any real diversity in terms of how you approach situations; an archer plays nearly identical to a swordsman, for example. Class identity can stem naturally from each one being better suited to a playstyle, rather than forcing a specific mechanic (Though I will say FFXIV's class system is great at making each one feel unique with this setup).

@Kalle_Demos

Kalle_Demos wrote: »

These existed in the game years ago and they worked out fine. I personally enjoyed the flavor and think the game was more interesting, along with many other interesting and fun things that were ripped out because reasons. Homogenization hasn't done ESO any favors. The state of things are so...bland...compared to where they were years ago.

Homogenization I think was an important step for ESO, ZoS just hasn't been aggressive enough with the changes (Hot take, I know). But, for a character system to be as flexible as they want this one to be, there needs to be a solid baseline to work off first. They've made a lot of progress in this area, now they just need to start trimming the fat and really hone in on the key elements that make combat interesting.

10% would still be too much. In current state of eso even a 1% boost or decrease to damage makes a difference. Adding elemental weaknesses to any endgame PVE content would be pretty bad. Or don't you remember how it used to be going into a fire dungeon as a vampire? It was pretty devastating, and it can still hurt now.

There may be some interesting counter play in pvp if classes countered each other.

But eso in general has evolved into a different design than that. It's not an MMORPG it's a fantasy MMO. There is a difference.

I have played FF and it has some elements I like (ie an ACTUAL color blind mode) but the lack of some items just reminds me of what eso has that it doesn't

Ratzkifal · September 2021

Ksariyu wrote: »

@Ratzkifal

Ratzkifal wrote: »

That "wow" factor is especially missing on the ultimates. Cast times just make them feel very underwhelming because they are no harder to dodge than ordinary skills. You can call that balance but I call that increasingly bland combat.

Every class should have one special mechanic, like Necro have with their corpses, that makes each class feel unique. And no, Wardens having delayed skills is not a "special mechanic".

The "wow" factor, or lack thereof, has more to do with animations and sound design than numbers. Alternatively, high player-skill requirements can make certain abilities really pop when used effectively. Cast times are also sort of a requirement with high-impact skills, entirely BECAUSE they need to be easier to dodge than regular attacks, and while that does affect the flow of combat to some degree, I don't think it's as detrimental as some would make it seem.

I will agree however that there needs to be more mechanics for the player to interact with, though I don't think they can be class-specific with the variety of non-class skills you can use. Literally anything that provides more depth to damage beyond "LA>Skill>Repeat" would be welcome. Combat in general lacks any real diversity in terms of how you approach situations; an archer plays nearly identical to a swordsman, for example. Class identity can stem naturally from each one being better suited to a playstyle, rather than forcing a specific mechanic (Though I will say FFXIV's class system is great at making each one feel unique with this setup).

You are absolutely right on that and cast-times definitely play a part in animations since the animation needs to match the timing of the damage etc. I also don't advocate for all ultimate abilities to have no cast time. Controversial as it may be, Leap works well with the minimum travel time in terms of balance and feel, I think, and considering what the skill does, it also makes complete sense balance-wise.
But this isn't true for all ultimate abilities that have a cast time right now and the abilities that do. Onslaught for example, since it doesn't cc and is a single-target ability (and thus dodgeable), is pretty lackluster because of its cast-time making it easily dodged. And unlike skills like Flesh Atro, Sleet Storm, Storm Atro or Leap it offers no value when it does miss its target. The skill, despite its utility against the recent high armor meta, isn't being used at all because of how easily it is avoided.

I think we have to call it here though, since we are getting a bit off topic from the original topic of the thread.
As a last note, if class identity was more well defined, specific NPC weaknesses to certain damage types (or playstyles) could be more properly implemented than right now.

cptqrk · September 2021

This is still 'somewhat' in the game for bow users, there are quite a few mechanical constructs that are immune to the poison effects some of the skills use.

I see "Target is Immune" quite a bit when I'm using my bow backbar.

SeaGtGruff · September 2021

cptqrk wrote: »

This is still 'somewhat' in the game for bow users, there are quite a few mechanical constructs that are immune to the poison effects some of the skills use.

I see "Target is Immune" quite a bit when I'm using my bow backbar.

I frequently see that with other weapons and skill effects, too.

Vevvev · September 2021

cptqrk wrote: »

This is still 'somewhat' in the game for bow users, there are quite a few mechanical constructs that are immune to the poison effects some of the skills use.

I see "Target is Immune" quite a bit when I'm using my bow backbar.

I typically see that when it comes to certain crowd control effects. Like you can't immobilize imps for instance and spamming stuff like Bombard will get that message popping up often. If there are constructs immune to poison, or the poison status effect, it is worthy of note.

Danikat · September 2021

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

PrinceShroob wrote: »

It would be unpopular and incredibly unworkable. As an example, Dragonknights deal entirely fire damage; if Flame Atronachs were immune to fire damage, you'd basically be saying "you aren't allowed to bring magicka Dragonknights through content with Flame Atronachs." Dragonknights don't have "other options" -- they'd have to dump every single skill in their arsenal except for Force Pulse and Mystic Orb. Can you imagine the toxicity? You're on your Dragonknight and end up in a dungeon with a lot of Flame Atronachs and get kicked over something you have no control over.

It applies to other classes, though to a lesser extent. Immunity to fire would neuter Dragonknights. Immunity to frost would hinder Wardens. Immunity to shock would cause Sorcerer pets to deal no damage. And I can't even imagine an enemy resistant to physical attacks, which would destroy every stamina DPS, regardless of class.

In other Elder Scrolls games, there's very little opportunity cost to learning different spells; in Morrowind and Oblivion, there's no reason not to, since you can't specialize in certain damage types. But in an MMO where your class' abilities are set in stone, enemy resistances is just a gateway to gatekeeping.

There's no rule (save for the rule of money...) that says that you have dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Having elemental affinities (among other more complex interactions) would encourage creating alts rather than coddling those who refuse to try out other classes or builds.

I'm also not sure who introduced the ideas of immunities (I believe that it was you...) but that's an extreme implementation of the general idea. Something in the +/-25% range would sufficiently incentivize or discourage certain builds while also respecting established TES lore. It would also mean that any random player could still complete content - though their class might not be BiS for any given content (which isn't any different than things are currently though for different reasons).

A better fix would be to allow all classes access to all element types. A lot of people already do play multiple characters (and multiple classes) in this game, but it would still be extremely annoying if you couldn't complete all the dungeon quests or all the quests in a zone or whatever on one character because some of the enemies are immune to your damage.

Making a system complex or challenging (or both) doesn't have to mean making certain classes unplayable in some areas of the game.

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I don't think it works that well for an MMO with the kind of skill and weapon freedom as ESO.

Don't remember how it was in this game, but I recall when WoW got rid of that kind of thing - people kept running into the problem that entire builds/classes just crashed & burned when they ran into dungeons/zones full of monsters that were immune to their main damage type.
It's a fine concept for a single player game, but it causes all sorts of issues in MMOs. Especially ones where you can't change your whole loadout on the fly.

(it's all fun and games until the Ice expansion comes out, and your Frost Mage is totally useless.)

It worked in Guild Wars 1, but that game was designed to be kind of a 'deck builder' RPG where you were expected to tailor your skills to the area you were going into or the quest you were doing. Also it did include loadouts you could change, not on the fly, only in outposts and towns but again the game was designed for that.