As a theorycrafter subclasses will encourage me to try playing again, since I haven't logged in since December last year and I do enjoy coming up with quirky off-meta builds that are still effective in any scenario. However for "serious" endgame this is just going to further homogenise things, the same way the massive "choice" of gearsets boils down to a mere handful that are actually used.

Gear is another elephant that remains in the room to be honest - with no ostensible roadmap for dealing with it.

Stamicka wrote: »

We haven't seen a good balance patch in a few years at this point, and it's definitely not because the game is balanced. Hybridization is still unfinished as well, so to expect that this idea will be balanced and fully finished doesn't exactly fit ZOS' track record.

People don't act like the sky is falling when good changes are made. The fact that you see people claiming that the sky is falling so much speaks to the types of changes that are made time after time. By the way, this April, Steam Charts is showing about an 11k ESO player average compared to 16k in April 2024 and 18k in April 2023. So this stuff has taken a toll on the overall population. The PvP and endgame PvE crowd has seen much more dramatic drops, both of those scenes are essentially dead.

The game will probably never be perfectly balanced, no MMO I have played has ever managed that. It would be a beautiful dream, but sadly just a dream.

People will always act like the skies are falling, I've seen it in about every online game I've played without exception. That either means the developers on every game ever are completely clueless about balancing their own games, or that there's often a lot of hyperbole involved, and my guess is on the latter. What one player sees as a good change, another may see as a bad change, depending on perspective and playstyle.

I often see steam charts linked as some kind of proof how a game is really dying this time, but to me that doesn't really say anything. I could probably take a steam chart from patches that were popular with endgame demographics, and still see some sort of decline when compared. I think it's not too strange that those charts show lower numbers than in previous years, as ESO didn't announce anything for the year to get people excited about yet, until now.

Because of the "metaclass-hopper-mentality" we are allready at a homogenous situation.
Thats why i guess, that the existing homogenous situation will no big different to the coming one.

I've stated this in another forum page.

But my biggest worries are class identity and balance.

What if a certain combination proves to be so effective that they end up nerfing both of the classes? Like potentially the pairing of Templar and Arcanist.

Because knowing ZOS’s pattern, they’ll just nerf the Templar and Arcanist to where their combo isn’t as overpowered. Which could lead to playing solely just the Templar or Arcanist not as effective as it used to be.

Tariq9898 wrote: »

But my biggest worries are class identity and balance.

What if a certain combination proves to be so effective that they end up nerfing both of the classes? Like potentially the pairing of Templar and Arcanist.

Because knowing ZOS’s pattern, they’ll just nerf the Templar and Arcanist to where their combo isn’t as overpowered. Which could lead to playing solely just the Templar or Arcanist not as effective as it used to be.

In a sense my concern is actually that they didn't mention anything about rebalancing. Rather it seems like a 'hit and hope' kind of thing where balance is concerned. And that when there's good reason to think subclasing will allow 'outlier builds': Not so much new meta's but builds that can do one particular thing WAY better than any build could up to now. And No content is ready to receive that kind of player.

Tariq9898 wrote: »

I've stated this in another forum page.

But my biggest worries are class identity and balance.

What if a certain combination proves to be so effective that they end up nerfing both of the classes? Like potentially the pairing of Templar and Arcanist.

Because knowing ZOS’s pattern, they’ll just nerf the Templar and Arcanist to where their combo isn’t as overpowered. Which could lead to playing solely just the Templar or Arcanist not as effective as it used to be.

To add more to my own comment, this doesn't just go with Templar and Arcanist. Those were just examples. This applies to every class.

For example, I don't want my Necro to be nerfed just because it's broken when paired with another class. Especially when I choose to solely play Necro minding my own business. Or nerfing the DK tank just because it's too overpowered when paired with Arcanist and Sorcerer tanking skills. I should NOT be left behind or kicked out of the group if I choose to solely tank as a DK.

Nerfing individual class to balance the subclassing could potentially cause said class to be "useless." Which could force people to resort to subclassing just to compete with the group/meta.

I should still be able to use ONE class if I choose to and be more than ready for vet dungeon/trial. And this goes for all roles. Subclassing should be an added option. NOT a replacement of individual classes.

People are scared that there will be few high performing outlier builds, when we literally already have that?
It takes only a grain of mathematical understanding to be able to predict where the problems are going to lie and it will be just as easy to fix these problems in sensible ways.*
People are afraid of collateral nerf damage? The people who truly are afraid of nerfs probably already know deep down they are playing something that deserves it.
Only because we have extra restrictions now we don't automatically have better PvP. A lack of proper balance is still a lack of proper balance. A year of Sorc being busted has done more to keep me out of PvP than "class identity" could ever make up for.

"Bro, don't go to the buffet, the a la carte menu has way more cost effective meals. They all come with disgusting sides, but I have lowered my expectations enough to accept them".

I think I will never understand this performance obsession some people have in PvP. You could score 100 kills with the grenade launcher in CoD4, but knifing a bunny hopper was what felt satisfying. If I was playing to just win against meaningless strangers a browser game would be sufficient.

The PvP is inseparable from the RPG. If the RPG is not good, the PvP means nothing. The PvP gameplay is not unique enough to exist in a space without RPG background. Have you ever seen MMO PvP combat successfully marketed as standalone game? This applies to many aspects of an MMORPG, not just PvP. The sum of the elements is what makes these games work.

So now we are likely to receive an enormous upgrade to the customization of player characters. This will be a dramatic boost to the RPG qualities of the game. Why worry about the Meta? Why worry about what other players think?
Take pride in winning with non-Meta builds. Make your skill count. Ignore the try-hards or make it your mission to wreck them. At least you can access now, more than ever, the tools necessary to deal with the stuff that annoys you most - or the abilities that you envy the most. And that without re-rolling the FotM.

Just remember: Killing noobs is just as pointless as dying to cheese builds. A good challenge is its own reward. Enjoy the RPG for what it is.

*Example #1: Lash stacks and Grim Focus stacks cap at a cumulative bonus of X WD, depending on the maximum value either ability morph can provide. Cashing out stacks removes all other stacks of this same type (e.g. BA).

Example #2: Class specific delayed burst abilities can not affect a target that you have recently affected by another delayed burst ability (2s immunity towards shalks, curse, blast bones, etc. from the same player) while battle spirit is active.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

People are scared that there will be few high performing outlier builds, when we literally already have that?

We don't want the problem to get worse than it already is... This change will make the balance much worse, that's kind of the point of this thread. I'm acknowledging that hybridization has put the game in a rough spot and this change will make it worse.

I simply do not agree with this. I personally feel that the overall direction of combat changes has steadily improved the gameplay. What has been and is making PvP miserable for years are constant massive outlier performances and design flaws that are pretty much obvious to anyone who is playing the game. I can imagine what horror scenarious you are picturing, but personally, I find them preferable to what we have. This will provide a good basis for doing away with the weird class-wide power budgeting and looking at abilities in a fair and direct manner.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

It takes only a grain of mathematical understanding to be able to predict where the problems are going to lie and it will be just as easy to fix these problems in sensible ways.*

Oh? Where are these problems going to lie and what "easy" fixes do you propose?

I posted two examples under the asterisk. I don't think this is the right thread to expand on this. The fundamental logic for these fixes has to be those class specific stack&burst, delayed burst and stat multipliers that carry the current power budget for the existing classes, are becoming in some way mutually exclusive. I.e. it should be fine for a Sorc to use Spec Bow, but a Spec Bow + Bound Armaments burst must not be possible, etc. This can be achieved by attaching a named tag to the existing stacks, so that the ability usage wipes all such stacks at once. Or in the example with the delayed burst: A "trauma"-like debuff could prevent excessive stacking of such abilities and the resulting mega combos. These abilities would still be usable and combinable with the generic kit, but not amongst each other. Of course heal/mitigation/sustain/ulti-gen synergies contribute to more optimized builds, but they will not immediately affect the maximum damage burst potential. And for the cases like Catalyst + Transfer + Corrosive: Is the synergy the issue or Corrosive? Just make Corrosive more expensive when used on a subclass. Small penalties based on subclassing should be possible and can use the same identfier that class sets use to discriminate usage.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Only because we have extra restrictions now we don't automatically have better PvP.

But extra restrictions do result in better PvP. The game was in a better place when people couldn't stack radiating regeneration with echoing vigor. So much of what is wrong with PvP today couldn't have existed in the past due to the fact that the game used to limit what you could do with your builds. You can run any combination of weapons you want, slot any skill, wear and combine any sets in any weight, and dump as many points in health as you want. The current state of ballgroups are the best example of where such few restrictions on builds gets us.

No, disagree again. From my perspective, all classes impose (in parts) flavour and gameplay that I find in some way undesirable for build A, but then maybe highly appropriate for build B. The ability to swap out these elements without crippling myself is most welcome to me. Regarding the stacking of heals, I agree. This is one fundamental design flaw. But this has very little to do with whats to come. It is a consequence of hybridisation, but at the same time it would be trivially easy to fix, if there was a will to do so (can't make a statement regarding the performance impact of the possible fixes). Conflating the "tank meta" (among the only valid countermeasures to "one shot metas") and ball groups in general is pretty much derailing the conversation. Subclasses or not, if a player insists on running 4-5 heals, that is already possible. There was nothing inherently great about the pre-hybridisation PvP and the issues those times were plagued by just aren't so prevalent in peoples minds.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

"Bro, don't go to the buffet, the a la carte menu has way more cost effective meals. They all come with disgusting sides, but I have lowered my expectations enough to accept them".

I truly have no idea what you're trying to say with this example. Both buffets and a la carte menus tend to have a lot of choices... and since when did a la carte stuff come with sides? What's going on here?

Not all choices are equal.
Basically a metaphor to illustrate the point above. There are significant parts of the class kits that I straight up do not like for some of characters. One example: I strongly dislike the NB Assassination line for one of my characters for multiple reasons. Have you tried balancing a good NB build without utilizing anything from that line? It is a near crippling hit to the overall performance of such a build. But it isn't enough reason to reroll, as I very much like the rest of the kit for that character. Having the option to swap out this skill line is nothing but a blessing for me. I can enjoy the aspects of the class that I like on any given character and complement them appropriately.
So if I am stuck between choosing "Steak with dry rice" or "Cardboard with french fries", I'd be glad to try out the buffet and get the things that I actually want without leaving half of my plate empty.

Stamicka wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Why worry about the Meta? Why worry about what other players think?
Take pride in winning with non-Meta builds. Make your skill count. Ignore the try-hards or make it your mission to wreck them. At least you can access now, more than ever, the tools necessary to deal with the stuff that annoys you most - or the abilities that you envy the most. And that without re-rolling the FotM.

Everyone will have the tools to be whatever they want... including the min maxers. You're still going to lose to people who utilize the tools better. When you give people the ability to customize their builds more, it's the min maxers who will get the most out of it. This stuff won't benefit the people you think it will benefit, it's the opposite actually.

Yes, but still only 3 skill lines with 5 abilities each. I am not afraid of the minmaxers, there is no arcane knowledge that they have that I won't have. I can read, test and equip everything they can - if I want to. If they play better, so be it. If they are willing to abuse all available cheese, so be it. Do you think I am concerned with the well being of the meek and downtrodden? Then you are misunderstanding me. This is not a plea to be lifted up. For me it is immersion and roleplay-coherence first, PvP second. The feelings of other players aren't really on my bucket list. I am convinced that anyone can do well in any meta, but the immersion is only good if the immersion is actually good. You can win in any game, but the game has to be worth your while.
It is really a common fallacy that I see here, that rejection of the meta is always associated with a lack of ambition or ability.

Stamicka wrote: »

More customization leads to the power gaps, knowledge gaps, and lack of build diversity that so many people have a problem with. All those things will get worse. The new PvPers will lose worse than they ever have, the new PvErs will be further behind in damage than ever. This stuff isn't good for the game and we have seen it time and time again.

Knowledge gaps are fine, leaves room for players to explore and grow. Being a slave to the meta or ones own desire to beat any stranger in a 10 year old video game is something that feels entirely foreign to me. Making the effort to use the available resources to improve and staying true to ones own RPG experience are two things that everyone has to balance for themselves. Everyone can reach a point where they can make an informed decison as to what they value more. Players who can't find out how to play a video game successfully in this day and age simply didn't bother and certainly do not deserve to have a game trivialized to meet their needs. Players who choose not to engage with certain cookie cutter strategies can make this choice consciously and be at peace with the performance they are getting out of their setups. The gold standard would be if performance and RPG experience go hand in hand, and this is something that this update is promising, simply by merit of the current RPG experience being bad. And honestly, players who can't handle the ability texts are copying builds now and they will be copying builds then. The realistic differences for meta setups between classes are already not really worth mentioning.

The most glaring power gaps will have to be adressed, but again, that is why I provided the examples. Most power spikes will come from stat stacking and burst combo expansion in conunction with wide access to high performing unvoidable CCs. It is self evident which passives and actives will be affected and it isn't really a big deal to come up with a fair ruleset that dampens the impact of these new combinations without harming the basegame experience (examples above). If ZOS delivers on that remains to be seen, but even if not, I still prefer that reality to what we have currently. It may be a subjective thing, but to me, the current classes in ESO are pretty much the worst thing the game has to offer - and this update promises to alleviate 90 % of my current gripes with all classes at once. This is such a profound improvement, that I am already entirely sold on the concept.

There a couple of things I’d point out here.

1. Not everyone is chasing META build status or supreme-level DPS. Ergo, not everyone will have the same build.

2. We’ve heard this argument before, and it’s only half true. There is some homogenisation, but not a lot. I would argue that you’re more likely to see build homogenisation from from lack of set diversity than class or skill diversity.

As long as ZoS keeping working on balance as things change, I don’t see any reason to believe that “sub-classing” will be anything but good for the game.

*Not good.

The problem is ZoSs original class system. They personified skills trees as classes as though learning a skill is engrained in DNA. A Sorc can't crack a book about necromancy?
Going forward this means that a change to any skill is a change to every player, not just nerfing or buffing a class, but a change to a skill that anyone can access.

ForumBully wrote: »

1000% Only this time it'll be due to character skills instead of some stupid set everyone has to farm

You will still need the right sets and mythics to unlock a builds potential. Probabaly farm all over again if you want to have a themed build doing halfway decent damage. Like buff your zoo or get something decent out of your 10 elementalist DOT´s.