I can finally turn my main into a mostly-arcanist and queue healer whenever there's a dungeon event. So I think it's great. I don't give a rat's bottom about class balance or pvp (Which should just use the templates we saw in the recent test imo).

The nerfs needed for pure classes to accommodate this are enough to scrap the idea and try again with a different idea.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

So the objections are "we don't like change, and because it came out wrong it has to stay wrong?"

I *am* a necro main. I have played for 11 years (I was Templar before that). I am not loyal to the Necromancer Class, though, I am loyal to my *character* who, for years, has been unable to learn the cool tentacle spell or the neato frost mage spell or the neato poison breath.

Now that she can, people want to stop her because they're scared that those things will be nerfed? And they're shaking an actually pretty awesome list of changes in my face going "see"? Forgive me for being unconvinced.

Not using subclassing is like using one one-handed weapon going forwards. It may be cool, but it will be weaker than the alternatives. And that's fine! It's okay to not be at 170k or 250k or 1e86k DPS, unless you are ALSO trying to compete for endgame trifecta content, in which case, you already have your "allowed options" truncated to a very specific few builds.

Nope, try again.
Nobody is objecting because they dislike change. We want change too. But you are right that it did come out wrong, and rather than it "has to stay wrong" it's more like it "will stay wrong". The addition of scribing is something that simple balancing could fix. The erasure of class identity is something that can only be fixed by removing the subclassing feature or by greatly watering it down.
It's great that you aren't loyal to your class, but other people are. I myself have plenty of characters that would thematically benefit from subclassing, but I also have characters that won't and will suffer from the inevitable nerfs to the point of uselessness. People have been wanting non-pet Sorcerers to be good for years and now ZOS' response to them is "tough luck, better play something else then", as they simultaneously undo all the progress they've made towards making non-pet Sorcs better.

It's kind of funny that you raise the one-handed weapon playstyle example. It reminds me of how ice staves were turned into tanking weapons when really people wanted to become frost mages for dealing damage. That too was a really unpopular change until we got all the quality of life stuff added to it, like Brittle, after complaining about it on the forums for months.
I'm not sure what kind of content you enjoy, but seeing as you do not actually care about classes, you'll probably never understand what it is we are complaining about. But hey, so long as you can play the game like you want, everyone else should just shut up about it, right?

ADarklore wrote: »

I'm wondering why min/maxers even play this game if it's so 'tedious' and requires so much effort to keep up with changes?

I would think the more important concern should be whether (or how much) piling it on will drive them away. Because it likely will at some point.

Ragnarok0130 wrote: »

OldStygian wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

I'm wondering why min/maxers even play this game if it's so 'tedious' and requires so much effort to keep up with changes?

@ADarklore I am wondering why casuals even play this game if all they ever see of the game are overland quests, it's not like chapters came at a discount if you never entered a trial. I am also wondering why they always chime into discussions about meta and balance when they keep emphasising how little they care about these things.

You see, this works both ways. If you want an analogy for an overland quester, think if ZOS kept rewriting the plot of your favorite quests and every time a sequel quest comes out you are confused about what's going on, and you need to go back and look at what they changed before you can continue to enjoy the content as the sequel quest has no relation to the previous quest you remember. Do you see how that can get tedious? Because if your trial progression group was working towards a hardmode and ZOS comes in and forces you to completely relearn your class and refarm your gear, then that is pretty much what they are experiencing.

We chime in because we want the new thing being offered and don't want it shouted down. Every time there is a new thing, there is an especially loud chorus of woe from people concerned about their peak performance. Should the game remain static and unchanging, forever? Should we not say that we want to see something added just to keep you end gamers happy?

The people giving feedback that you don’t like when something sounds “fun” are the people who often understand ESO’s combat system and synergies better than the combat devs themselves since they spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in theory crafting and experimentation. That feedback is ignored with great peril. I remember when the theorycrafters and end game players all said U35 was going to hit the floor hard and not raise it like the devs said and we received the same type of response that you gave. Then when U35 dropped there was a chorus of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the overland players who lost dps making overland harder for them. We don’t object to something that sounds “fun” because we hate change, we object when the change will negatively affect the game and its various player bases. We really love this game just as much as you do and want it to be healthy and succeed long term.

Yep. People who go with the "you just hate fun" retort have no concept of "too much of a good thing". And someone who is rejecting fun, must clearly be doing that out of malice and not because of some deeper insight into the long term consequences of it.

I'm very worried that subclassing will introduce extreme power creep and many bugs. I'm not looking forward to it at all. Creating a class change token would have been a much, much better way to go and probably a lot easier implement. Too many changes coming to ESO too fast lately and the same old problems still persist.

Twohothardware wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

The nerfs needed for pure classes to accommodate this are enough to scrap the idea and try again with a different idea.

No. "pure classes" are designed to fulfill three entirely different roles. Each class has essentially a DPS skill line, a healer skill line, and a tank skill line. That's why you have a bunch of skills on every class that you never slot as a DPS character.

Subclassing allows you to optimize your role by picking all skills and passives for DPS, healing, or tanking or go with a mix for more survivability.

It doesn't even make sense for "pure classes" to be expected to be on the same level for DPS because they have two skill lines that are primarily for a different role.

@Twohothardware What are the DPS, healer and tank skill lines of Sorcerer? Or Templar? The reason why you have a bunch of skills on every class that you never slot as a dps is because every class has 15 skills and 3 ultimates, but your bar can only fit 10 skills and 2 ultimates.
And why can it not be expected for pure classes to be on the same level? Pure classes are expected to be on that level on the live server right now, but it sounds like you want everyone to be forced to subclass.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

I'm very worried that subclassing will introduce extreme power creep and many bugs. I'm not looking forward to it at all. Creating a class change token would have been a much, much better way to go and probably a lot easier implement. Too many changes coming to ESO too fast lately and the same old problems still persist.

Just introducing a class change token would get noone to come back to the game that isn't already playing.

That's not what it is designed to do anyway. The class change token is for players who've been playing for a long time. It's for player retention. Adding new and exciting features, like a new weapon skill line, a new class, third morph options - that stuff is for attracting new players.

Player retention when there are fewer players left? This game cannot survive without attracting new players and bringing back players who left... the game as is right now- prior to subclassing- was slipping away. Hence the reason their big push on bringing players back and creating better experience for new players.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Ragnarok0130 wrote: »

OldStygian wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

I'm wondering why min/maxers even play this game if it's so 'tedious' and requires so much effort to keep up with changes?

@ADarklore I am wondering why casuals even play this game if all they ever see of the game are overland quests, it's not like chapters came at a discount if you never entered a trial. I am also wondering why they always chime into discussions about meta and balance when they keep emphasising how little they care about these things.

You see, this works both ways. If you want an analogy for an overland quester, think if ZOS kept rewriting the plot of your favorite quests and every time a sequel quest comes out you are confused about what's going on, and you need to go back and look at what they changed before you can continue to enjoy the content as the sequel quest has no relation to the previous quest you remember. Do you see how that can get tedious? Because if your trial progression group was working towards a hardmode and ZOS comes in and forces you to completely relearn your class and refarm your gear, then that is pretty much what they are experiencing.

We chime in because we want the new thing being offered and don't want it shouted down. Every time there is a new thing, there is an especially loud chorus of woe from people concerned about their peak performance. Should the game remain static and unchanging, forever? Should we not say that we want to see something added just to keep you end gamers happy?

The people giving feedback that you don’t like when something sounds “fun” are the people who often understand ESO’s combat system and synergies better than the combat devs themselves since they spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in theory crafting and experimentation. That feedback is ignored with great peril. I remember when the theorycrafters and end game players all said U35 was going to hit the floor hard and not raise it like the devs said and we received the same type of response that you gave. Then when U35 dropped there was a chorus of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the overland players who lost dps making overland harder for them. We don’t object to something that sounds “fun” because we hate change, we object when the change will negatively affect the game and its various player bases. We really love this game just as much as you do and want it to be healthy and succeed long term.

Yep. People who go with the "you just hate fun" retort have no concept of "too much of a good thing". And someone who is rejecting fun, must clearly be doing that out of malice and not because of some deeper insight into the long term consequences of it.

It is rather frustrating that most peoples’ first response is that we have malice or “elitism/gatekeeping” as the basis of our objections rather than a longer term perspective and knowledge of game systems and experience with a variety of content as the basis. It makes discussion around prospective features or changes very difficult when a large section of the player base doesn’t engage in large parts of the game’s systems due to the trivial nature of overland.

Unfortunately after 11 years dealing with this situation I don’t think this dynamic will change due to the fundamental disconnect in perspective between players who play ESO like a single player game and just want what they want because they want it, and group content players who are actually concerned about combat balance and the health of the game.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

So the objections are "we don't like change, and because it came out wrong it has to stay wrong?"

I *am* a necro main. I have played for 11 years (I was Templar before that). I am not loyal to the Necromancer Class, though, I am loyal to my *character* who, for years, has been unable to learn the cool tentacle spell or the neato frost mage spell or the neato poison breath.

Now that she can, people want to stop her because they're scared that those things will be nerfed? And they're shaking an actually pretty awesome list of changes in my face going "see"? Forgive me for being unconvinced.

Not using subclassing is like using one one-handed weapon going forwards. It may be cool, but it will be weaker than the alternatives. And that's fine! It's okay to not be at 170k or 250k or 1e86k DPS, unless you are ALSO trying to compete for endgame trifecta content, in which case, you already have your "allowed options" truncated to a very specific few builds.

Nope, try again.
Nobody is objecting because they dislike change. We want change too. But you are right that it did come out wrong, and rather than it "has to stay wrong" it's more like it "will stay wrong". The addition of scribing is something that simple balancing could fix. The erasure of class identity is something that can only be fixed by removing the subclassing feature or by greatly watering it down.

Why do we care about class identity in an Elder Scrolls game? Does anyone even remember that the Oblivion Nightblade started with the Alteration and Destruction skill lines as major skills? Or that the primary difference between Necromancers and Conjurors was that Conjurors started with the Blade skill and Necromancers started with the Blunt skill, with most of the rest coming down to which Conjuration-school spell types they preferred (e.g. undead vs daedra).

Ratzkifal wrote: »

It's great that you aren't loyal to your class, but other people are. I myself have plenty of characters that would thematically benefit from subclassing, but I also have characters that won't and will suffer from the inevitable nerfs to the point of uselessness. People have been wanting non-pet Sorcerers to be good for years and now ZOS' response to them is "tough luck, better play something else then", as they simultaneously undo all the progress they've made towards making non-pet Sorcs better.

No, ZoS's response is "non-pet sorcerer has just as much meaning now as pet sorcerer, which is to say there is no such thing as 'sorcerer' save as the title of three skill lines among 21." Do you expect what we currently call 'pet sorcerers' to keep lugging around the "Storm Magic" skill line for funsies?
It's just like how the earlier TES games treated skill lines: do anything you want, it's just harder to do more than what you chose to be your primary.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

It's kind of funny that you raise the one-handed weapon playstyle example. It reminds me of how ice staves were turned into tanking weapons when really people wanted to become frost mages for dealing damage. That too was a really unpopular change until we got all the quality of life stuff added to it, like Brittle, after complaining about it on the forums for months.
I'm not sure what kind of content you enjoy, but seeing as you do not actually care about classes, you'll probably never understand what it is we are complaining about. But hey, so long as you can play the game like you want, everyone else should just shut up about it, right?

I think as long as people want classes to be meaningfully differentiated in a game set in a universe where they have never had any real meaning, yeah, I think they should go play in a universe that makes sorcerers unable to learn to summon a skeleton instead of a clannfear, because in the Elder Scrolls, a sorcerer can summon a skeleton, a nightblade can cast Stoneflesh, an Alterationist can max sneak attack, and a Knight of Stendarr can summon a clannfear to fight a necromancer using shock magic.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

So the objections are "we don't like change, and because it came out wrong it has to stay wrong?"

I *am* a necro main. I have played for 11 years (I was Templar before that). I am not loyal to the Necromancer Class, though, I am loyal to my *character* who, for years, has been unable to learn the cool tentacle spell or the neato frost mage spell or the neato poison breath.

Now that she can, people want to stop her because they're scared that those things will be nerfed? And they're shaking an actually pretty awesome list of changes in my face going "see"? Forgive me for being unconvinced.

Not using subclassing is like using one one-handed weapon going forwards. It may be cool, but it will be weaker than the alternatives. And that's fine! It's okay to not be at 170k or 250k or 1e86k DPS, unless you are ALSO trying to compete for endgame trifecta content, in which case, you already have your "allowed options" truncated to a very specific few builds.

Nope, try again.
Nobody is objecting because they dislike change. We want change too. But you are right that it did come out wrong, and rather than it "has to stay wrong" it's more like it "will stay wrong". The addition of scribing is something that simple balancing could fix. The erasure of class identity is something that can only be fixed by removing the subclassing feature or by greatly watering it down.

Why do we care about class identity in an Elder Scrolls game? Does anyone even remember that the Oblivion Nightblade started with the Alteration and Destruction skill lines? Or that the primary difference between Necromancers and Conjurors was that Conjurors started with the Blade skill and Necromancers started with the Blunt skill, with most of the rest coming down to which Conjuration-school spell types they preferred (e.g. undead vs daedra).

Ratzkifal wrote: »

It's great that you aren't loyal to your class, but other people are. I myself have plenty of characters that would thematically benefit from subclassing, but I also have characters that won't and will suffer from the inevitable nerfs to the point of uselessness. People have been wanting non-pet Sorcerers to be good for years and now ZOS' response to them is "tough luck, better play something else then", as they simultaneously undo all the progress they've made towards making non-pet Sorcs better.

No, ZoS's response is "non-pet sorcerer has just as much meaning now as pet sorcerer, which is to say there is no such thing as 'sorcerer' save as the title of three skill lines among 21."
Just like how the earlier TES games treated skill lines: do anything you want, it's just harder to do more than what you chose to be your primary.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

It's kind of funny that you raise the one-handed weapon playstyle example. It reminds me of how ice staves were turned into tanking weapons when really people wanted to become frost mages for dealing damage. That too was a really unpopular change until we got all the quality of life stuff added to it, like Brittle, after complaining about it on the forums for months.
I'm not sure what kind of content you enjoy, but seeing as you do not actually care about classes, you'll probably never understand what it is we are complaining about. But hey, so long as you can play the game like you want, everyone else should just shut up about it, right?

I think as long as people want classes to be meaningfully differentiated in a game set in a universe where they have no real meaning, yeah, I think they should go play in a universe that makes sorcerers unable to learn to summon a skeleton instead of a clannfear.

Why do we care about class identity in an Elder Scrolls game? Because this isn't a singleplayer game. It's fine if you can be head of the thieves guild, mages guild, the companions and the dark brotherhood in a singleplayer game. You can't be all that in a game world that you share with other players. And just to make it extra clear, I am not talking about questlines, I am talking about the skills. Also did you know that in Morrowind you weren't able to join all the factions at the same time?

Regarding the petSorcs and nonpet Sorcs, that is exactly what's wrong with this proposal. ZOS is throwing the Sorcerer in the trash. They designed those three skill lines together and the Sorcerer's power is spread between all three of these skill lines. If you get rid of the summoning skill line because all the passives stopped working for nonpet Sorcs, you need to replace them with something that can fit the same purpose as the skill line you lost - except none of the other classes are really compatible because that's not what they were designed to do. Best case scenario is you borrow the combo of another class, at which point you aren't playing Sorcerer but that other class. That's like learning the next ward spell from restoration in Skyrim, only to learn that it requires you to also be level 50 in blocking, yet all the enemies are too powerful for your old ward spells, so now you need to completely switch off the spell and pick up a shield instead. That is very disruptive and not what you set out to do originally.

Classes in ESO are part of the lore. They are specializations and options you were given. Do I think the game should have launched without them? Yes. Do I think it is too late to change this fundamental design choice 11 years into the game's life? Also yes.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

The nerfs needed for pure classes to accommodate this are enough to scrap the idea and try again with a different idea.

No. "pure classes" are designed to fulfill three entirely different roles. Each class has essentially a DPS skill line, a healer skill line, and a tank skill line. That's why you have a bunch of skills on every class that you never slot as a DPS character.

Subclassing allows you to optimize your role by picking all skills and passives for DPS, healing, or tanking or go with a mix for more survivability.

It doesn't even make sense for "pure classes" to be expected to be on the same level for DPS because they have two skill lines that are primarily for a different role.

@Twohothardware What are the DPS, healer and tank skill lines of Sorcerer? Or Templar? The reason why you have a bunch of skills on every class that you never slot as a dps is because every class has 15 skills and 3 ultimates, but your bar can only fit 10 skills and 2 ultimates.
And why can it not be expected for pure classes to be on the same level? Pure classes are expected to be on that level on the live server right now, but it sounds like you want everyone to be forced to subclass.

And what's the reason those skills are never chosen to be used in those 10 available skill slots when building for end-game DPS? It's because those skills are for healing, add control, purging, damage reduction, taunting, ect and some of those skills only scale off max health instead of damage.

Subclassing is obviously going to be better than "pure classes" because you can drop the skill lines that are not essential for your role. It won't just increase player DPS potential but will open up stronger tank and healer builds.

@Twohothardware You didn't answer my question. What is the Sorcerer's healing skill line? What is the Sorcerer's tank skill line? What is the damage skill line? Name them.
And if I told you the reason the other skills aren't chosen in those 10 available slots, and then we addressed those reasons, then there would still be another set of unchosen skills. There is only so much bar space.
Btw, you wanna know what happens when DPS potential is increased and tanks become stronger? ZOS nerfs them. ZOS couldn't handle tanks using Mist Form in veteran Rockgrove hardmode because it made them too tanky. This is powercreep. This is damaging to the health of the game, because the only alternative is increasing the difficulty of the game as well. But the players who are interested in Subclassing the most also happen to be the ones who are allergic to an increase in difficulty.

Sorcerers healing and tank skills are more mixed between the skill lines than with other classes but most of the healing is the Daedric Summoning skill line and with subclassing that skill line can be dropped if you don’t want to run a pet build for DPS. Something that people on here constantly complain about in regards to Sorc is being forced to run pets for DPS. Subclassing would fix that.

With Templar the entire Restoring Light skill line is healing for skills and passives. Templar has limited skills focused on tanking which is why Templar is one of the worst classes to chose as a tank. This again is fixed by subclassing.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

<snipping out quotes>

Why do we care about class identity in an Elder Scrolls game? Because this isn't a singleplayer game. It's fine if you can be head of the thieves guild, mages guild, the companions and the dark brotherhood in a singleplayer game. You can't be all that in a game world that you share with other players. And just to make it extra clear, I am not talking about questlines, I am talking about the skills. Also did you know that in Morrowind you weren't able to join all the factions at the same time?

I'm not talking about factions or questlines either, I am talking about skills - but all the examples you gave are questlines and factions. Can you explain what relevance the player not being able to join every faction at once has to the player's ability to learn any skill they choose? (FWIW I disagree with you about players being able to be high-ranking in factions even in an MMO, but I don't think the argument is at all relevant to what we're talking about, which is skills, not factions or questlines. Perhaps a fascinating topic for another thread.).

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Regarding the petSorcs and nonpet Sorcs, that is exactly what's wrong with this proposal. ZOS is throwing the Sorcerer in the trash. They designed those three skill lines together and the Sorcerer's power is spread between all three of these skill lines. If you get rid of the summoning skill line because all the passives stopped working for nonpet Sorcs, you need to replace them with something that can fit the same purpose as the skill line you lost - except none of the other classes are really compatible because that's not what they were designed to do. Best case scenario is you borrow the combo of another class, at which point you aren't playing Sorcerer but that other class. That's like learning the next ward spell from restoration in Skyrim, only to learn that it requires you to also be level 50 in blocking, yet all the enemies are too powerful for your old ward spells, so now you need to completely switch off the spell and pick up a shield instead. That is very disruptive and not what you set out to do originally.

Yes, adaptation will be required - both of other class lines and of your own build. After all, the immense list of changes in the patch notes is exactly that: the devs adjusting skill lines so that they're designed to mesh more smoothly now. I don't really understand the skyrim example - a pet sorc swapping off of the Shock skill line to bring more pets instead is not "not what you set out to do originally" - in fact, it's more enabled by it.

What theme build were you specifically going for has been destroyed now? Maybe I can help you sort it out.

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Classes in ESO are part of the lore. They are specializations and options you were given. Do I think the game should have launched without them? Yes. Do I think it is too late to change this fundamental design choice 11 years into the game's life? Also yes.

They are *still* specializations in options you are given. Non-class skills are 100% more expensive in terms of required XP than 75%, so it's actually still harder to get skills from outside your class in ESO than it is in Oblivion, even after subclassing.

Why do you think the game should not be brought in line with the TES universe as soon as feasible, if it's out of line?

Okay, since you are not catching my drift, let me make it more obvious. This game, at its very core, is just a bunch of numbers running through a computer. The visuals and the story telling is just added on to give our brains something to translate those numbers into, and make them real. That's why there is a little dopamine hit when the big explosion happens if the number on the screen is large as well. Something that looks like a big explosion but deals pitiful damage isn't giving players the same satisfaction. So far so good, yes? In a similar vein, dealing incredible damage with an ability that looks quite harmless also feels weird, correct? So we can conclude from that that the flavor that's added from animations and the broader context of theme and lore are what turn boring numbers into fun gameplay.
So what happens if the master of the arcane arts now has to vomit poison everywhere because their main damage skills got nerfed? You are losing the identity of what you were playing, because you didn't set out to play the poison vomiting wizard, you set out to play a regular wizard. Remember, the identity is part of what makes all of this fun. Maybe if ZOS redid classes from the ground up to be more compatible with mixing and matching this could work. This is what I would expect from an Elder Scrolls MMO launching with a feature like this. But we are 11 years too late for that change and ZOS won't be able to change all that in just 5 weeks either. So now we have the rugpull situation where ZOS told us for 11 years that we are playing this class and this class is about XYZ and now they come in and are taking our toys away because they changed their minds.
Does that make sense? Nobody is really concerned about the 170k dps parse, because that will get nerfed (although it might mess with all time score records and will make it so that difficult achievements don't reflect skill anymore if it sees the live server). What people are concerned about is that ZOS will stop caring about supporting playstyles that are struggling right now because "you can just slot a different skill line" will be their go to answer. They already gave nonpet Sorcs this answer in the patch notes. They already pretend that 90% of sets in this game don't exist. Before Elsweyr they pretended 80% of skills in the game didn't exist, and it looks like they want to return to that kind of attitude.

Why do I think the game should not be brought in line with the TES universe? Because there is no "in line". This is a multiplayer game and 11 years ago the developers decided to add classes to the game. If they regret their decision now they should get rid of classes completely. But they are not getting rid of them completely, they are adding multiclassing. How is that in line with the singleplayer games? In the singleplayer games you had access to all skills at the same time but multiclassing is still keeping artificial restrictions. If those restrictions serve a purpose, by strengthening identity - like some sort of class or something - then those restrictions become justified. But if there is no clear identity in there and it serves no balance purpose either (since 2 Necro 1 Sorc is allowed for Necros, it would be fine to allow for Sorcs), then these restrictions are pointless and bad.
If ZOS would take this feature further and overhaul the entire combat system to make it truly classless, then I could respect the attempt. But they are not doing that and I don't think they are planning on doing that later down the line either. What they are doing breaks too much to be worth it and hurts a lot of people's enjoyment of the game in the process.

This is just a prediction:

- Subclassing causes power creep.
- More difficult content are introduced to counter that.
- Pure classes have harder time keeping up with the new harder content (because of subclass).
- Players are then forced to subclass.

All I ask is that pure classes perform on par with subclass. I’m not even against sub classing. In fact, there are combos I’m interested in trying out. But at least give us more options to choose between pure classes and subclassing. ZOS wants us to have absolute freedom in our expression?? Then make pure classes just as relevant.

Twohothardware wrote: »

fizzybeef wrote: »

Dont bring this live. It is a massive mistake and will make people stop playing the game who kept it alive till here.

Nobody is going to quit playing ESO because they have access to more DPS on their character.

What about those of us whose characters get nerfed into the ground for the sake of this scheme?