Here is what I don't understand

Al_Ex_Andre · May 9

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@SilverBride OK my feed back is for me it's good and my non subclassed Sorc has gained DPS and I now parse 95K (so about67-70K in boss fights) while using the sets and skills I run in content (not dummy humping gear!)

95K! Wow, oh my god, 95K!
95K can't even get into the HM Trials in most DLCs. On live LC HMs, you are usually required to have 105-110K before you are allowed to join the team.
PVE without considering end-game dps requirements is pointless, subclassing will not help people who are dying due to mechanics to easily finish the end-game, nor will it help the vast majority of people who are seriously behind in dps because these people don't know how to weave and build correctly.
Based on the current subclassing balance on the PTS, this will only widen the gap between the ceiling and the floor, and pull the pure class average down.
This is the conclusion I came to after testing it for over 100 hours on pts.

Insightful post imo, pretty much like I see it, yet.

Personally everything on my current character has been nerfed currently, as a Magicka dps Destruction Staff -staff has been nerfed - Templar - jabs has been nerfed AGAIN for reasons.^^

I'd need to subclass indeed, or go change my class.^^

sans-culottes · May 9

gamma71 wrote: »

I think the sweats are just mad because they gotta start over and be knocked down from there pedestal. And that's a good thing I've been playing since 2014 I've taken long breaks because I was not happy with pvp mainly but with these changes the meta will be what I decide because of the mass amount of builds sub classing will bring.

“The meta will be what I decide” is certainly a bold take. But metas don’t arise from personal preference. They emerge from systems—stat scaling, resource economy, skill synergy. Subclassing doesn’t democratize balance. It complicates it. And complexity doesn’t erase a meta. It just shifts it. The idea that subclassing will dissolve hierarchies rather than produce new ones is wishful thinking at best.

Daoin · May 9

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@SilverBride OK my feed back is for me it's good and my non subclassed Sorc has gained DPS and I now parse 95K (so about67-70K in boss fights) while using the sets and skills I run in content (not dummy humping gear!)

95K! Wow, oh my god, 95K!
95K can't even get into the HM Trials in most DLCs. On live LC HMs, you are usually required to have 105-110K before you are allowed to join the team.
PVE without considering end-game dps requirements is pointless, subclassing will not help people who are dying due to mechanics to easily finish the end-game, nor will it help the vast majority of people who are seriously behind in dps because these people don't know how to weave and build correctly.
Based on the current subclassing balance on the PTS, this will only widen the gap between the ceiling and the floor, and pull the pure class average down.
This is the conclusion I came to after testing it for over 100 hours on pts.

your living in a dream world if you think theres a mass of experienced players running around in eso screaming 'pick me pick me' to get into HM trials and also. sure i'll join to fill in the blanks or just because i want to sometimes but i wont need a 95k or above parse to do it and never need much of a reason to leave them on my own accord. and right now all as we are going to see is a flurry of people trying to make the most of the debacle that is update 46 and others finding ways to cash in on or benefit somehow from the confusion, make no mistake just because developers cant possibly have been playing much of eso themselves does not mean there are not plenty that know what eso is really like to play

Ragnarok0130 · May 9

Erickson9610 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I am not surprised that Deltia would enjoy subclassing since he is very proficient at creating builds. But I wonder how many "regular" players will want to take the time to do what it takes.

I imagine many "regular" players would want to play with Subclassing. I know people who aren't as heavily invested in creating builds who are considering returning to ESO for Subclassing. And I'm sure the regular "regular" players would love having extra freedom, too.

That seems like a bit of hopium to be honest. There will be people who dip back into the game temporarily to check out the new system; anyone that says otherwise is lying.

The thing is that with multi-classing it takes time to rank up skills - and as of now double the skill points for non-class skills that also rank up half as quickly as class skills do if you don't already have them ranked in its parent class so multi-classing takes a lot of effort which casuals aren't known for since they rarely run actual builds so the grind itself might frustrate them.

It also takes knowledge of the skills and the combat system to know what skills interact with what in order to gain power instead of lose it. There's the very real possibility of casual players actually losing power due to mismatched skill combinations and getting frustrated because their brand new head cannon build performs very poorly even given the trivial nature of overland combat. We saw with U35 how the casual community reacted when they were promised more power by the devs and actually ended up losing power so multi-classing could have the effect of driving more players away from the game than it brings back. Despite my criticism of multi-classing I want the game to succeed and hope ZoS takes these possible occurrences in mind and tries to mitigate them instead of blindly pushing forward thinking they can fix things in later patches like the did with U35.

Ragnarok0130 · May 9

sans-culottes wrote: »

gamma71 wrote: »

I think the sweats are just mad because they gotta start over and be knocked down from there pedestal. And that's a good thing I've been playing since 2014 I've taken long breaks because I was not happy with pvp mainly but with these changes the meta will be what I decide because of the mass amount of builds sub classing will bring.

“The meta will be what I decide” is certainly a bold take. But metas don’t arise from personal preference. They emerge from systems—stat scaling, resource economy, skill synergy. Subclassing doesn’t democratize balance. It complicates it. And complexity doesn’t erase a meta. It just shifts it. The idea that subclassing will dissolve hierarchies rather than produce new ones is wishful thinking at best.

@sans-culottes I have to laugh because we saw the same types of posts as the guy you were responding to in the run up to U35 and we saw how that turned out. Deja vu is real!

Ragnarok0130 · May 9

gamma71 wrote: »

I think the sweats are just mad because they gotta start over and be knocked down from there pedestal. And that's a good thing I've been playing since 2014 I've taken long breaks because I was not happy with pvp mainly but with these changes the meta will be what I decide because of the mass amount of builds sub classing will bring.

Except the "sweats" aren't mad because they won't have to start over; they'll just tweak their current builds via subclassing and be right back at the top with even more DPS and continue with their HM, tricfectas and score pushing just like with U35. In fact they've already started with the theory crafting so they're ahead of the curve. It's the normal every day players that will back right back at square one and have to learn a brand new system when they likely didn't fully understand the current system.

The "sweats" aren't mad but they are concerned with balance because balance is indicative of a healthy game and as multi-classing currently stands it is utterly unbalanced. People lose interest in the end game when it becomes too easy. And those who do not want to participate in multi-classing will be held back because pure classes are being nerfed as well as certain gear sets and mythics to compensate for multi-classing's OPness. Anyone participating in end game likely won't have the option to ignore this poorly thought out multi-classing system and stay competitive.

BXR_Lonestar · May 9

SilverBride wrote: »

One of the things being developed this year is an increase to general overland difficulty because some players find it too easy. Another is subclassing, that from what I am reading will increase player damage significantly.

Won't these just cancel each other out? At least as far as overland is concerned?

Yes. Subclassing will make it even easier to reach higher DPS - for some. And in order to make more "engaging" (difficult) content, they're going to have to make it really really difficult - either extremely difficult mechanics, or they'll have to use health-gating, enemies that heal/shield heavily, etc. to make PVE content non-trivial, and it is going to make for a miserable gaming experience overall for the average player IMO.

katanagirl1 · May 9

Erickson9610 wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Anecdotes like “I know one person who picks what sounds cool” don’t tell us much about the broader playerbase. Plenty of people who aren’t hardcore meta players still care about identity, coherence, and fantasy. Subclassing affects those things.

It’s not about being a “build crafter” or not. It’s about whether the system supports meaningful distinctions, or if everything is becoming interchangeable. That matters to casual and veteran players alike.

It's also important to know that "identity, coherence, and fantasy" don't matter to all players.

But for those who do care, that's where Skill Styling comes into play. Don't have enough frost spells? Pretend you do with the New Life Styles: Winter pack.

We'll undoubtedly get more Skill Styles for Class abilities for those people who want spells from a different Class to match the theme and look of the rest of their spells. And of course Scribing further allows players to customize some skills to fit their envisioned identity, coherence, and fantasy.

Different colors don’t make a whit of difference to me. Neither does scribing. My non-meta toons run the skills and wear the gear to fit my view of their role in the world of Tamriel. I am forced on my other characters to conform in order to get into groups for hard content, and I’ve done enough accommodating there and don’t wish to go light-years further for subclassing. This likely means I will drop below the dps for sweaty groups and my main character will be even weaker than she is now. I don’t want to open up the discussion about how you can “play how you want” at any level, but I will feel it for all my characters.

TX12001rwb17_ESO · May 9

I'm just gonna say this..

How many class abilities do you really use? for most of you I imagine half of your skills are weapon skills.

Daoin · May 9

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm just gonna say this..

How many class abilities do you really use? for most of you I imagine half of your skills are weapon skills.

for me i level up all skills and morphs on all ex-classes and use them when i want to or feel like a change of playstyle or need to. have done them all except arcanists gate which i never really liked. then ofcourse there were characters where i simply made 2 of in one class where certain skills were less important to level up e.g having one arcanist tank and one arcanist dd, my templar healer and templar dd were a different situation i wanted them to have a good set of both skills while maining in just one due to the rather boken random group finder, while it was the lesser skill trees which were less important to have the same of like i never leveled up purge in support for the dd templar while he had good healing skills if needed. for those situations where a dd would steal the healers spot i would label the build heal/damage or something like that while having a full damage build seperate, i especially liked a full range of heals for my warden to use in groups if needed. but when a dd would in the past steal the tanks spot i would usually ask the group if they wanted to kick the fake tank and i would change to one of my other chars (tank) as they were just random vet dungeons for me. i must say though right now as the game stands i cannoot bring myself to play as casually as i used to, and i dont tank vets anymore and my dd's will usual just leave the group at the start if its a dlc random. i would be in full support of seperating dlc and non dlc dungeons of the random dungen finder but it wont ever happen and besides im nearly max cp now and can slow down anyway. so although just one person, i speak for 9 chars. my warden is in the best place for next few weeks it has ever been, playing non-meta i mean too and by just having all skills in the class available to use on demand. unfortunately not enough damage for some, yeah or need nerf yeah. so all change soon maybe having skills robbed from other classes help, yeah. but why how many of your old ex original class skills did you use ? or will you use until robbery day ? fully waiting for you to say just a few here. but questions like this fill me with joy and i seriously hope the players i enjoy playing with that decide to stick around enjoy this update just for its silliness

TheImperfect · May 10

SilverBride wrote: »

One of the things being developed this year is an increase to general overland difficulty because some players find it too easy. Another is subclassing, that from what I am reading will increase player damage significantly.

Won't these just cancel each other out? At least as far as overland is concerned?

Maybe the difficulty increase can take into account a players subclassing or their average DPS. I don't know, probably not, but I'm not sure how it works.

DenverRalphy · May 10

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm just gonna say this..

How many class abilities do you really use? for most of you I imagine half of your skills are weapon skills.

None of my toons use more than two weapon skills slotted. Most of them only one or none.

Pixiepumpkin · May 10

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

I'm just gonna say this..

How many class abilities do you really use? for most of you I imagine half of your skills are weapon skills.

SORCERER - DPS
• Mages Wrath - Sorcerer Class
• Twilight Matriarch -Sorcerer Class
• Shocking Soul - Scribed
• Haunting Curse - Sorcerer Class
• Shocking Explosion - Scribed
ULT - Charged Atronoch - Sorcerer Class

ARCANIST - DPS
• Pragmatic Fatecarver- Arcanist Class
• Evolving Runemean - Arcanist Class
• Runeblades- Arcanist Class
• Rune of Displacement - Arcanist Class
• Recuperative Treatise- Arcanist Class
ULT - Tide Kings Gaze - Arcanist Class

WARDEN - HEALER
• Natures Grasp - Warden Class
• Enchanted Growth - Warden Class
• Budding Seeds - Warden Class
• Screaming Cliff Racer - Warden Class
• Blue Betty - Warden Class
ULT - Healing Thicket - Warden Class

TEMPLAR - DPS
• Solar Barrage - Templar Class
• Honor the Dead - Templar Class
• Puncturing Sweep - Templar Class
• Blazing Spear - Templar Class
• Radiant Oppression - Templar Class
ULT - Crescemt Sweep - Templar Class

NECROMANCER - DPS
• Grave Lords Sacrifice - Necromancer Class
• Intensive Mender - Necromancer Class
• Unnerving Boneyard - Necromancer Class
• Mystic Siphon - Necromancer Class
• Chilling Explosion - Scribe
ULT - Glacial Colossus - Necromancer Class

VAMPIRE NIGHTBLADE - DPS
• Assassins Blade - Nightblade Class
• Funnel Health - Nightblade Class
• Concealed Weapon - Nightblade Class
• Lotus Fan - Nightblade Class
• Siphoning Attacks - Nightblade Class
ULT - Swarming Scion - Vampire Skill Line

DRAGONKNIGHT - DPS
• Engulfing Flames - Dragonknight Class
• Coagulating Blood - Dragonknight Class
• Flame Lash - Dragonknight Class
• Shattering Rocks - Dragonknight Class
• Ash Cloud - Dragonknight Class
ULT - Take Flight - Dragonknight Class

So tallied up.
ZERO

Allthough I may change my healer to using a fire staff and use Wall of Elements because I have the leaf morph and I play him as a druid and I like the leaf animation.

SpiritofESO · May 11

"It’s too early to tell. Subclassing hasn’t even been balanced and we don’t even know what “veteran overland” will look like. As in how difficult it will be."

---

Ummm... Craglorn much?

BagOfBadgers · May 12

@ZhuJiuyin I have many vHM DLC trial clears and Tri's on DLC dungeons, so please stop telling others that you need 105-110k parses, as that is plain wrong. As I said my Oaken Pet Sorc will pull 95K all day BUT now I have subclassed it that is about 115k, good enough for you (sark)?

ZhuJiuyin · May 12

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@ZhuJiuyin I have many vHM DLC trial clears and Tri's on DLC dungeons, so please stop telling others that you need 105-110k parses, as that is plain wrong. As I said my Oaken Pet Sorc will pull 95K all day BUT now I have subclassed it that is about 115k, good enough for you (sark)?

Feel free to show a trifecta of DSRhm, SEhm, LChm.

sans-culottes · May 12

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Any impact subclassing has on difficulty is a side effect of system. It is not the primary intention to make the game easier or harder with subclassing, it is just opening up the games build system, so that players can match their gameplay/RPG preferences more accurately.

In that sense there is no conflict between subclassing and overland difficutly per se. They can always be balanced against each other.

And lastly, any type of balancing change can impact your current character. That has been happening non stop to people since launch. That is not a specific downside of the current changes.

This is a tidy deflection that doesn’t hold up.

Subclassing may not intend to alter difficulty, but it does. Intention doesn’t excuse consequence. You can’t expand player power and simultaneously claim there’s no systemic impact on balance. That’s a design outcome.

And framing it as just another balancing change is equally disingenuous. Routine adjustments fine-tune existing parameters. Subclassing rewires the foundation. Pretending it’s business as usual is a convenient way to downplay its structural implications.

If anything, then it’s precisely the magnitude of the change that warrants scrutiny.

This is just debating for the sake of debating. Two projects with clearly independent goals conflicting during their conceptualization/implementation doesn't automatically mean that one project invalidates the other. You may be unhappy that the content is shipped at such a stage, that is valid. You may have criticism for each of those projects independently, that is also fair.
Currently we don't know what their plans for overland difficulty are. We have also been made aware that balancing related to subclassing is still a work in progress.
For these reasons alone, it is pointless to discuss the implications of subclassing on a unknown/non-existent system.
Will it make overland even easier for some builds for the time being? Yes. Does it matter at all? Probably not. Would I like overland to be challenging? Yes, but this wasn't the premise of the thread.

Framing this as “debating for the sake of debating” is a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny. If ZOS has announced both subclassing and overland difficulty adjustments, and if subclassing already alters player power and build structure, then discussing their interaction isn’t hypothetical. If anything, then it is necessary.

To say we “don’t know the implications” because overland changes haven’t been finalized misses the point. The implications aren’t unknowable. They’re unfolding in real time. We’re already seeing the performance consequences of subclassing on PTS. That overland difficulty is still in development doesn’t negate analysis. It demands it, unless the plan is to launch overlapping systems without ever assessing how they interlock.

You say these systems have “independent goals,” but that’s the issue. Expanding player power and expanding challenge are not neutral projects. They are structurally linked. One changes the baseline against which the other must be calibrated. Ignoring this link isn’t a sign of nuance. It’s a refusal to engage with what design actually is: an interdependent system of mechanics, not isolated feature drops.

This isn’t about invalidating one system with another. It’s about accountability to coherence. If subclassing rewrites the rules of player power, then balance—including overland balance—has to answer for that. Otherwise, you’re not building two systems. You’re building two contradictions.

BagOfBadgers · May 12

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@ZhuJiuyin I have many vHM DLC trial clears and Tri's on DLC dungeons, so please stop telling others that you need 105-110k parses, as that is plain wrong. As I said my Oaken Pet Sorc will pull 95K all day BUT now I have subclassed it that is about 115k, good enough for you (sark)?

Feel free to show a trifecta of DSRhm, SEhm, LChm.

Don't have them, but asking for the 3 most difficult Tri's, is out of the capability of most, no matter what build they run (could just buy the them!). So what's you point? Is it that hard content, is hard? As an aside, I have to use a modified gamepad due to Nerve and Tendon damage in my wrist and hands, and looking to getting foot pedals to help alleviate the pain/not knowing if I have pressed a button/bumper/trigger.

I will add this to the general discussion. I now have a 2 bar Petsorc on the PTS and I only use the back bar for the Atonach, the rest of the skills slotted are for the passives. So it still plays like a standard Petsorc. I hope in 46 the give a new minor named buff to running 2 of the same class skill lines and a new Major buff for running 3, as that would seem a simple solution.

We don't know how harder overland content will be implemented as of now. Personally I think it will be toggle that will give standard/vet instances for the zone (maybe Crag pt2 zone, and that's fine). But be sure, I will shout from the top of these forums if there is an none optional difficulty increase. As I have said before and repeated on other threads, I don't want others to suffer a U35/AwA and many others updates, of pain.

Anyho. Off to play ESO.

Edited due to being me, being me and Dyslexia.

ZhuJiuyin · May 12

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@ZhuJiuyin I have many vHM DLC trial clears and Tri's on DLC dungeons, so please stop telling others that you need 105-110k parses, as that is plain wrong. As I said my Oaken Pet Sorc will pull 95K all day BUT now I have subclassed it that is about 115k, good enough for you (sark)?

Feel free to show a trifecta of DSRhm, SEhm, LChm.

Don't have them, but asking for the 3 most difficult Tri's, is out of the capability of most, no matter what build they run (could just buy the them!). So what's you point? Is it that hard content, is hard? As an aside, I have to use a modified gamepad due to Nerve and Tendon damage in my wrist and hands, and looking to getting foot pedals to help alleviate the pain/not knowing if I have pressed a button/bumper/trigger.

I will add this to the general discussion. I now have a 2 bar Petsorc on the PTS and I only use the back bar for the Atonach, the rest of the skills slotted are for the passives. So it still plays like a standard Petsorc. I hope in 46 the give a new minor named buff to running 2 of the same class skill lines and a new Major buff for running 3, as that would seem a simple solution.

We don't know how harder overland content will be implemented as of now. Personally I think it will be toggle that will give standard/vet instances for the zone (maybe Crag pt2 zone, and that's fine). But be sure, I will shout from the top of these forums if there is an none optional difficulty increase. As I have said before and repeated on other threads, I don't want others to suffer a U35/AwA and many others updates, of pain.

Anyho. Off to play ESO.

Edited due to being me, being me and Dyslexia.

Subclassing will continue to expand what you would consider "out of the capability of most" trials and achievements, as the ceilings and floors will continue to expand.
When specific builds like Arc/NB/templ can get 170K area damage (should be around 150K currently after last week's patch), what do you think the developers base their balancing on when designing and balancing for those top trials? Is it the casual player who can't get 100K, or the top player who makes 150K? Before this, the few that could reach 150K were single-target classes. Now, due to subclassing, the barrier to entry into the end-game will continue to rise, and mid-level players will likely become the new low-level players because many skill lines have been nerfed to meet subclassing. This is what most people worry about with subclassing, not to mention that some skill lines will now be completely abandoned because there are better alternatives, so diversity will also be reduced.
With the experience of U35, most players are very worried about subclassing. Because based on the current patch, it's clear that there's still a lot of work to be done regarding combat balance.

Elowen_Starveil · May 12

Ragnarok0130 wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I am not surprised that Deltia would enjoy subclassing since he is very proficient at creating builds. But I wonder how many "regular" players will want to take the time to do what it takes.

I imagine many "regular" players would want to play with Subclassing. I know people who aren't as heavily invested in creating builds who are considering returning to ESO for Subclassing. And I'm sure the regular "regular" players would love having extra freedom, too.

That seems like a bit of hopium to be honest. There will be people who dip back into the game temporarily to check out the new system; anyone that says otherwise is lying.

The thing is that with multi-classing it takes time to rank up skills - and as of now double the skill points for non-class skills that also rank up half as quickly as class skills do if you don't already have them ranked in its parent class so multi-classing takes a lot of effort which casuals aren't known for since they rarely run actual builds so the grind itself might frustrate them.

It also takes knowledge of the skills and the combat system to know what skills interact with what in order to gain power instead of lose it. There's the very real possibility of casual players actually losing power due to mismatched skill combinations and getting frustrated because their brand new head cannon build performs very poorly even given the trivial nature of overland combat. We saw with U35 how the casual community reacted when they were promised more power by the devs and actually ended up losing power so multi-classing could have the effect of driving more players away from the game than it brings back. Despite my criticism of multi-classing I want the game to succeed and hope ZoS takes these possible occurrences in mind and tries to mitigate them instead of blindly pushing forward thinking they can fix things in later patches like the did with U35.

I'm betting that ZOS is going to offer subclass skill line insta-max-level upgrades in the Crown store. I'd previously thought they'd be 1500 or 2000 (each), but given the amount of time they've baked into the re-leveling, I'm updating my guess that they'll be charging 3000. Someone said that this wasn't in the PTS data mine, and therefore couldn't happen at launch, but I think this is too tempting for ZOS to resist.

cptscotty · May 12

What it seems like is there are a lot of people who have trouble with forward thinking. They can only think in the present and current situation.

I was explaining how if you were to bring the dps as much as its being brought up now...it will turn vet content into the same level of a cakewalk as normal content is now because we out dps it so much. People responded with "yeah thats just normal" or "yeah thats just vet". They are stuck in the current mindset and not seeing how its about to change. To them they think THEMSELVES having higher dps is fine...they dont seem to realize EVERYONES dps will be higher.

Vet hm will be at the same cakewalk as regular vet thus leaving no real area to struggle and push yourself in. Why work towards a better set? A better build? That one perfected piece? Whats the point if the content is so easy? Thats the no-drive mindset for most normal and vet content currently...and its about to happen to the last part of the end game.

People will try and argue about the "average gamer" and how they cant achieve stuff like that now. Ok? So what? Why should everyone be able to? Why bring it down to them instead of make them work for it? Why punish the people who did or want to work for it?

Ok lets make the argument that the majority of people fall into the casual gamer and a game has to be developed to them. Great. sounds good on paper in an isolated view but lets expand it. Lets be honest about a "casual gamer". Casual gamer is not making up builds or theory crafting or figuring out how fights and the game work. They read guides. They go search online. They tell others that its the only way to play the game...that they need to go watch a video of how others did it before they can do it themselves. Thats the casual gamer mindset.

The people who make the guides, solve the puzzles, do all the theory crafting, they are a step above casual. Casual is too easy for those kind of people. Their joy comes from figuring all this stuff out (and of course bragging about it). What happens to that group of people when the game is made way too easy where the solution is always to just push through with immense amount of dps? boring. no need to solve puzzles, just blow them up...thus nothing to really brag about. So they slowly leave to other games over time. Thus the guides go. The knowledge goes. Then all the casual gamers who are followers...they either follow to other games or have really no clue what to do.

What do we get left with? A really weird environment. Anyone who has done a google search on eso guides lately will tell you that...either old outdated content because the creator is playing something else or you now have to dig through the site to even find ESO content instead of other games stuff. Anyone who has tried to sign up for a group finder trial will tell you that you get some really weird requirements from groups like set requirements that make no sense because they heard of others doing it so they just follow themselves as they think its the only way to do things. Its not healthy.

It all started from a good idea, try and appease the majority, but its just short term thinking...in the long run it will just hurt the game and all the players in it. Sucks because the game has so much potential.

Elvenheart · May 12

Even if they try to sell me fully leveled Subclassed lines, I’ll just laugh and go on playing because for me, playing the game is more fun than skipping it.

Vaqual · May 14

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Any impact subclassing has on difficulty is a side effect of system. It is not the primary intention to make the game easier or harder with subclassing, it is just opening up the games build system, so that players can match their gameplay/RPG preferences more accurately.

In that sense there is no conflict between subclassing and overland difficutly per se. They can always be balanced against each other.

And lastly, any type of balancing change can impact your current character. That has been happening non stop to people since launch. That is not a specific downside of the current changes.

This is a tidy deflection that doesn’t hold up.

Subclassing may not intend to alter difficulty, but it does. Intention doesn’t excuse consequence. You can’t expand player power and simultaneously claim there’s no systemic impact on balance. That’s a design outcome.

And framing it as just another balancing change is equally disingenuous. Routine adjustments fine-tune existing parameters. Subclassing rewires the foundation. Pretending it’s business as usual is a convenient way to downplay its structural implications.

If anything, then it’s precisely the magnitude of the change that warrants scrutiny.

This is just debating for the sake of debating. Two projects with clearly independent goals conflicting during their conceptualization/implementation doesn't automatically mean that one project invalidates the other. You may be unhappy that the content is shipped at such a stage, that is valid. You may have criticism for each of those projects independently, that is also fair.
Currently we don't know what their plans for overland difficulty are. We have also been made aware that balancing related to subclassing is still a work in progress.
For these reasons alone, it is pointless to discuss the implications of subclassing on a unknown/non-existent system.
Will it make overland even easier for some builds for the time being? Yes. Does it matter at all? Probably not. Would I like overland to be challenging? Yes, but this wasn't the premise of the thread.

Framing this as “debating for the sake of debating” is a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny. If ZOS has announced both subclassing and overland difficulty adjustments, and if subclassing already alters player power and build structure, then discussing their interaction isn’t hypothetical. If anything, then it is necessary.

To say we “don’t know the implications” because overland changes haven’t been finalized misses the point. The implications aren’t unknowable. They’re unfolding in real time. We’re already seeing the performance consequences of subclassing on PTS. That overland difficulty is still in development doesn’t negate analysis. It demands it, unless the plan is to launch overlapping systems without ever assessing how they interlock.

You say these systems have “independent goals,” but that’s the issue. Expanding player power and expanding challenge are not neutral projects. They are structurally linked. One changes the baseline against which the other must be calibrated. Ignoring this link isn’t a sign of nuance. It’s a refusal to engage with what design actually is: an interdependent system of mechanics, not isolated feature drops.

This isn’t about invalidating one system with another. It’s about accountability to coherence. If subclassing rewrites the rules of player power, then balance—including overland balance—has to answer for that. Otherwise, you’re not building two systems. You’re building two contradictions.

You are making it sound as if tweaking numbers in a video game is a big deal. For all you know they could limit crit chance or crit damage and all the overperforming PvE specs would collapse like a house of cards. We simply don't know how they are going to deliver it, we don't know what other balance changes will come before it is even introduced and we do not know if there is any level of customizability to it. Your scrutiny isn't worth the time it took to type this out.

Daoin · May 14

ZhuJiuyin wrote: »

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

@ZhuJiuyin I have many vHM DLC trial clears and Tri's on DLC dungeons, so please stop telling others that you need 105-110k parses, as that is plain wrong. As I said my Oaken Pet Sorc will pull 95K all day BUT now I have subclassed it that is about 115k, good enough for you (sark)?

Feel free to show a trifecta of DSRhm, SEhm, LChm.

feel free to admit if only he joined an over op team that sells those achievments he would need 10k dps, in other words changing the converstion from what an achievment actually is and bragging rights. he may not have the achievment (not sure if he does or does not) doen not mean he should not have the achievment by now. that would depend on alot of factors why he would or would not have an achievment like those. but feel free to share your groups clears with those hm's through the forums for support of other groups

sans-culottes · May 14

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Any impact subclassing has on difficulty is a side effect of system. It is not the primary intention to make the game easier or harder with subclassing, it is just opening up the games build system, so that players can match their gameplay/RPG preferences more accurately.

In that sense there is no conflict between subclassing and overland difficutly per se. They can always be balanced against each other.

And lastly, any type of balancing change can impact your current character. That has been happening non stop to people since launch. That is not a specific downside of the current changes.

This is a tidy deflection that doesn’t hold up.

Subclassing may not intend to alter difficulty, but it does. Intention doesn’t excuse consequence. You can’t expand player power and simultaneously claim there’s no systemic impact on balance. That’s a design outcome.

And framing it as just another balancing change is equally disingenuous. Routine adjustments fine-tune existing parameters. Subclassing rewires the foundation. Pretending it’s business as usual is a convenient way to downplay its structural implications.

If anything, then it’s precisely the magnitude of the change that warrants scrutiny.

This is just debating for the sake of debating. Two projects with clearly independent goals conflicting during their conceptualization/implementation doesn't automatically mean that one project invalidates the other. You may be unhappy that the content is shipped at such a stage, that is valid. You may have criticism for each of those projects independently, that is also fair.
Currently we don't know what their plans for overland difficulty are. We have also been made aware that balancing related to subclassing is still a work in progress.
For these reasons alone, it is pointless to discuss the implications of subclassing on a unknown/non-existent system.
Will it make overland even easier for some builds for the time being? Yes. Does it matter at all? Probably not. Would I like overland to be challenging? Yes, but this wasn't the premise of the thread.

Framing this as “debating for the sake of debating” is a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny. If ZOS has announced both subclassing and overland difficulty adjustments, and if subclassing already alters player power and build structure, then discussing their interaction isn’t hypothetical. If anything, then it is necessary.

To say we “don’t know the implications” because overland changes haven’t been finalized misses the point. The implications aren’t unknowable. They’re unfolding in real time. We’re already seeing the performance consequences of subclassing on PTS. That overland difficulty is still in development doesn’t negate analysis. It demands it, unless the plan is to launch overlapping systems without ever assessing how they interlock.

You say these systems have “independent goals,” but that’s the issue. Expanding player power and expanding challenge are not neutral projects. They are structurally linked. One changes the baseline against which the other must be calibrated. Ignoring this link isn’t a sign of nuance. It’s a refusal to engage with what design actually is: an interdependent system of mechanics, not isolated feature drops.

This isn’t about invalidating one system with another. It’s about accountability to coherence. If subclassing rewrites the rules of player power, then balance—including overland balance—has to answer for that. Otherwise, you’re not building two systems. You’re building two contradictions.

You are making it sound as if tweaking numbers in a video game is a big deal. For all you know they could limit crit chance or crit damage and all the overperforming PvE specs would collapse like a house of cards. We simply don't know how they are going to deliver it, we don't know what other balance changes will come before it is even introduced and we do not know if there is any level of customizability to it. Your scrutiny isn't worth the time it took to type this out.

@Vaqual, you say my scrutiny “isn’t worth the time it took to type out,” yet here we are—again!

You’ve shifted from discussing interlocking systems to insisting it’s all just “tweaking numbers in a video game.” That’s not an argument. That’s deflection. The whole reason scaling matters is because player power is defined by numbers. Numbers are how difficulty is tuned, builds are measured, and encounters are shaped. Pretending they’re incidental is like pretending gravity is optional. If it didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t be what we’re all doing here.

You then speculate that ZOS could reduce crit scaling and “collapse” all the overperforming specs. That’s exactly the point. Player power is escalating. ZOS has acknowledged this. Subclassing amplifies it. Any effort to make, e.g., overland meaningful has to contend with that—or it becomes cosmetic. That’s not hysteria. It’s system literacy.

Finally, if you truly believed this discussion lacked value, then you wouldn’t keep replying to it. But you do. Because you know—as well as I do—that feature development doesn’t happen in silos. And when one system reshapes player output, balance elsewhere becomes a structural concern. Not an opinion. A design fact.

Whether that’s inconvenient or not is irrelevant.

Vaqual · May 14

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

Any impact subclassing has on difficulty is a side effect of system. It is not the primary intention to make the game easier or harder with subclassing, it is just opening up the games build system, so that players can match their gameplay/RPG preferences more accurately.

In that sense there is no conflict between subclassing and overland difficutly per se. They can always be balanced against each other.

And lastly, any type of balancing change can impact your current character. That has been happening non stop to people since launch. That is not a specific downside of the current changes.

This is a tidy deflection that doesn’t hold up.

Subclassing may not intend to alter difficulty, but it does. Intention doesn’t excuse consequence. You can’t expand player power and simultaneously claim there’s no systemic impact on balance. That’s a design outcome.

And framing it as just another balancing change is equally disingenuous. Routine adjustments fine-tune existing parameters. Subclassing rewires the foundation. Pretending it’s business as usual is a convenient way to downplay its structural implications.

If anything, then it’s precisely the magnitude of the change that warrants scrutiny.

This is just debating for the sake of debating. Two projects with clearly independent goals conflicting during their conceptualization/implementation doesn't automatically mean that one project invalidates the other. You may be unhappy that the content is shipped at such a stage, that is valid. You may have criticism for each of those projects independently, that is also fair.
Currently we don't know what their plans for overland difficulty are. We have also been made aware that balancing related to subclassing is still a work in progress.
For these reasons alone, it is pointless to discuss the implications of subclassing on a unknown/non-existent system.
Will it make overland even easier for some builds for the time being? Yes. Does it matter at all? Probably not. Would I like overland to be challenging? Yes, but this wasn't the premise of the thread.

Framing this as “debating for the sake of debating” is a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny. If ZOS has announced both subclassing and overland difficulty adjustments, and if subclassing already alters player power and build structure, then discussing their interaction isn’t hypothetical. If anything, then it is necessary.

To say we “don’t know the implications” because overland changes haven’t been finalized misses the point. The implications aren’t unknowable. They’re unfolding in real time. We’re already seeing the performance consequences of subclassing on PTS. That overland difficulty is still in development doesn’t negate analysis. It demands it, unless the plan is to launch overlapping systems without ever assessing how they interlock.

You say these systems have “independent goals,” but that’s the issue. Expanding player power and expanding challenge are not neutral projects. They are structurally linked. One changes the baseline against which the other must be calibrated. Ignoring this link isn’t a sign of nuance. It’s a refusal to engage with what design actually is: an interdependent system of mechanics, not isolated feature drops.

This isn’t about invalidating one system with another. It’s about accountability to coherence. If subclassing rewrites the rules of player power, then balance—including overland balance—has to answer for that. Otherwise, you’re not building two systems. You’re building two contradictions.

You are making it sound as if tweaking numbers in a video game is a big deal. For all you know they could limit crit chance or crit damage and all the overperforming PvE specs would collapse like a house of cards. We simply don't know how they are going to deliver it, we don't know what other balance changes will come before it is even introduced and we do not know if there is any level of customizability to it. Your scrutiny isn't worth the time it took to type this out.

@Vaqual, you say my scrutiny “isn’t worth the time it took to type out,” yet here we are—again!

You’ve shifted from discussing interlocking systems to insisting it’s all just “tweaking numbers in a video game.” That’s not an argument. That’s deflection. The whole reason scaling matters is because player power is defined by numbers. Numbers are how difficulty is tuned, builds are measured, and encounters are shaped. Pretending they’re incidental is like pretending gravity is optional. If it didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t be what we’re all doing here.

You then speculate that ZOS could reduce crit scaling and “collapse” all the overperforming specs. That’s exactly the point. Player power is escalating. ZOS has acknowledged this. Subclassing amplifies it. Any effort to make, e.g., overland meaningful has to contend with that—or it becomes cosmetic. That’s not hysteria. It’s system literacy.

Finally, if you truly believed this discussion lacked value, then you wouldn’t keep replying to it. But you do. Because you know—as well as I do—that feature development doesn’t happen in silos. And when one system reshapes player output, balance elsewhere becomes a structural concern. Not an opinion. A design fact.

Whether that’s inconvenient or not is irrelevant.

You seem to be very fixated on dismantling arguments and you dance around the subject of discussion without achieving anything. You keep spelling out obvious observations and conclusions that are already implied in the written word. What are you trying to achieve with this?
Do you want to preemptively balance subclassing against a system with unknown ramifications? Everything is changeable, adjustable and revertable at any given moment. Even if there would be a non-reconcilable issue between the current state of subclassing and their concepts for increased overland difficulty, that could be addressed within the blink of an eye. And given the level of care combat balancing has received over the last years, the stakes couldn't be lower. I am pretty sure, that, if they truly had a developed concept for overland difficulty, they would not shoot themslevs in the foot by sabotaging the balance their concept is being built on. So they either haven't figured out what they are going to do or their concept still works out fine.
The discussion as such can certainly be had, but you keep spreading out arguments in the most tedious and unproductively technical manner. And assuming anything you just wrote had been convincing, what should I be convinced of? Scratch subclassing because overland is too easy?

Frankly, the only reason I keep replying is because your style of argumentation is aggravating and I have a hard time letting these statements stand as they are. There is no factual ground for a case oriented discussion, as the system in question doesn't exist. What then makes you believe that your response is deserving of anything more than a defflection?

Can you make one substantial point, why subsclassing and increased overland difficulty can not exist together in their finite state? I remind you of the premise of the thread: "Won't these just cancel each other out? At least as far as overland is concerned?"

Erickson9610 · May 14

Erickson9610 wrote: »

All we really know is that ZOS says Harder Overland will "probably" be opt-in.

If your concern is that Subclassing will cancel out Harder Overland, then how does that affect anyone who opts out of Harder Overland? Why does it matter to the people who opt in to Harder Overland — does it make Harder Overland too easy for them? Does that matter to someone who opts out?

What's the solution here? Should Harder Overland be made harder to compensate? What would that mean? Should Subclassing be nerfed instead — would that fix the problem?

All of this is to say that we don't have enough information to solve a problem we're not even sure exists.

How can we solve this "problem" of two unrelated, optional features "canceling" one another out, and — more importantly — to who does it even matter and why?

We can't come up with any solutions if we don't have all of the information we need. We can only speculate how Harder Overland will work — and we might end up being completely wrong about what it changes and if Subclassing affects it.

And, in the end, both Subclassing and Harder Overland are optional, so players already have their own means to fix this problem. What is the point of this discussion? What exactly about Harder Overland or Subclassing do we want changed to fix this problem, even if we're uninterested in using one or both optional systems?

SilverBride · May 14

Erickson9610 wrote: »

What is the point of this discussion? What exactly about Harder Overland or Subclassing do we want changed to fix this problem, even if we're uninterested in using one or both optional systems?

The point of this discussion is to learn how two potentially conflicting features will work together. There is a real potential for these to conflict with each other and it's better to address it now than after it's launched.

And optional doesn't mean it won't negatively affect those that don't opt in. Subclassing is having very negative affects on those that wish to keep their classes pure.

Erickson9610 · May 14

SilverBride wrote: »

The point of this discussion is to learn how two potentially conflicting features will work together. There is a real potential for these to conflict with each other and it's better to address it now than after it's launched.

Okay, but we know nothing about how Harder Overland works. We can't give ZOS any valuable insight to guide their implementation.

Why does it matter if these systems conflict with one another?

SilverBride wrote: »

And optional doesn't mean it won't negatively affect those that don't opt in. Subclassing is having very negative affects on those that wish to keep their classes pure.

How would opting out of Harder Overland negatively affect people? Would it mean fewer rewards (if those are even planned)?

I get the impression that the concern here is that Harder Overland means more rewards which people who opt out cannot get — and those people would need to Subclass in order to stand a chance of getting those rewards (which they don't want to do).

Am I missing something? How else would opting out of Harder Overland negatively impact someone? How does that imply that people must Subclass on their characters?

SilverBride · May 14

Erickson9610 wrote: »

I get the impression that the concern here is that Harder Overland means more rewards which people who opt out cannot get — and those people would need to Subclass in order to stand a chance of getting those rewards (which they don't want to do).

My concern in this thread has nothing to do with rewards, or with each feature individually. It has to do with how these two features will work together.