Not gonna vote unless you change the first option a bit. You are really trying skew ppl towards voting number 2.

Not voting either because both options are poorly written.

The problem with balancing classes, is that it seems like some players take that as meaning every class should have the potential to be masters of every role. This leads to imbalance because then you can stack healing, damage and survivability on one build.

The base classes all were designed with specific strengths with weaknesses. They were top tier in one area, while being viable in others for most playstyles. Then came the DLC classes, where ZOS attempted to make them "great" at everything, which led top those classes being overwhelming popular ($$$) and completely breaking the game. Every single time.

That then resets the market for what players expect from the base classes, which in turn sparks never-ending outcries about buffing those classes to have the same generic "master of all" potential as warden had when it came out, necromancer when it came, and arcanist since its release.

And then when they eventually decide to reign that in, there is more public outcry because player expectations have been inflated.

In short, every class should have one role it excels at, while being usable in other roles in most content. That's how you preserve class identity.

Bad spelling, grammar, and the attempt at pushing people a specific direction with the vote aside... Onwards and upwards. There is nothing wrong with updating the game's combat balance, the real problem is how ZOS is too slow at it in general. ZOS is actually pretty good at listening to their community, they just tend to do the changes over 3-5 years.

If you start a project (hybridization), finish it promptly. 1-3 updates at most, not 12-13 and counting while you start multiple other projects along the way.

If you make changes that were a mistake, course correct, there is nothing wrong with admitting you made the wrong decision. Grave Lord's Sacrifice for example.

If your community is largely in agreement over a potential change (like necro needing better named buff access), make the change, don't drag your feet in the mud for 5 years claiming you know what's best for the class. How many times do we need to say we don't like cast times or double bar skills, only for them to lean into that even more with Scribing 10 years into the games life cycle.

If there are obvious, specific, no brainier, and logical ideas that just make sense..for skills or sets that you ALSO agree with, implement the change as suggested, not in a roundabout way 3 years later just to pretend it's your unique idea. With this example I'm referring to situations like Arctic Blast for Warden, back when they wanted an on demand stun, and how many times that skill flip flopped between different ideas. It's not that complicated.