tomofhyrule wrote: »Let’s not pretend that “you can pick your own passives!” would lead to anything other than “this is the one acceptable choice, and anything else is memetic trash.” You know, like exactly what happened with Subclassing.BXR_Lonestar wrote: »I knew this was coming the moment they eliminated classes by allowing subclassing. The argument for it? "TES games don't have rigid classes, so ESO shouldn't have classes." Regardless of the balancing issues it would cause.
Well, that same argument now cuts against eliminating racial passives. TES games have CLEAR benefits and drawbacks for playing each race. Eliminating them for the sake of convenience doesn't make any sense. Racial passives are canon and ARE in TES games. So they shouldn't be eliminated. Period.
In Morrowind and Oblivion, your attributes changed based on which gender you selected. Skyrim dropped this, as did the Oblivion remaster.
Most of those who've replied to this thread seems to be of the opinion that racial passives make very little difference in terms of gameplay. Dropping them in favor of a selectable "origins" system, akin to the Oblivion remaster, seems like a good solution.
[edited for the sake of accuracy]
And yet the OBR “origins” was the OG gender-based stats. We didn’t get stat choices irrelevant of race, and even Skyrim did have different stats for one specific race (though if the answer is “we don’t have differing stats because we literally just removed attributes from our RPG lmao” is the answer, that seems like a different problem).
But even considering a character of one species (yes, different “races” in the TES universe are all different species) being raised in another culture doesn't mean that they would be 100% the same as someone of that species in that culture. Again, let’s consider a real-life example. I can bring my teacup Pomeranian to Alaska and fit her every day with a harness and train her to pull a sled… but do we really think that any amount of training will turn Frou-Frou into a sled dog? Even if she was born and raised in the Arctic and trained every day? She literally doesn’t have the muscle or body mass for that.
But again, there is no problem to do a role that’s not the typical of your race. This - unlike the mess we got from Subclassing - is actually something where the meta is probably less than 5% more than the other, so irrelevant in most aspects.
Someone should try this: go and do a full parse with a character. Make sure you do it 5 times so we can even out the effects of RNG (crit chance). Then do a race change and nothing else, and parse 5 times again. Toss the top and bottom parses for each and compare the average DPS for both. What’s the actual numeric difference from the race?
Because I bet it’s super small and essentially irrelevant in the hands of the average player.
This just gets back to "if it's so trivial, why are people so adamant that this is the one feature of the game that absolutely cannot change?" Compared to the plague of subclassers o'er the land, would anyone even notice if every single DPS player is rocking Feline Ambush? Probably not—especially since most passives don't have any in-game animations.
StihlReign wrote: »Why not, everyone has every ability and that's going well...pick your passives may as well be next. I'm voting yes on Pick your ulti too. And Create your ulti. Maybe the next class can be, Dwemer build your class. 15 default abilities plus morphs and ultis and the unique ability to use any/all other abilities. Just slot what you want.
lostineternity wrote: »StihlReign wrote: »Why not, everyone has every ability and that's going well...pick your passives may as well be next. I'm voting yes on Pick your ulti too. And Create your ulti. Maybe the next class can be, Dwemer build your class. 15 default abilities plus morphs and ultis and the unique ability to use any/all other abilities. Just slot what you want.
is this a joke? we can't have normal animation for existing skills and classes because of hardware and engine limitations, what are you even talking about?
tomofhyrule wrote: »But even considering a character of one species (yes, different “races” in the TES universe are all different species)
tomofhyrule wrote: »being raised in another culture doesn't mean that they would be 100% the same as someone of that species in that culture.
tomofhyrule wrote: »Again, let’s consider a real-life example. I can bring my teacup Pomeranian to Alaska and fit her every day with a harness and train her to pull a sled… but do we really think that any amount of training will turn Frou-Frou into a sled dog? Even if she was born and raised in the Arctic and trained every day? She literally doesn’t have the muscle or body mass for that
spartaxoxo wrote: »This just gets back to "if it's so trivial, why are people so adamant that this is the one feature of the game that absolutely cannot change?" Compared to the plague of subclassers o'er the land, would anyone even notice if every single DPS player is rocking Feline Ambush? Probably not—especially since most passives don't have any in-game animations.
I would notice because the small differences in the races and how the varying societies navigate those differences in good and evil ways is part of what gives Elder Scrolls games narrative depth.
How is a Reachman different from a Nord? To the best of my knowledge, no TES game has ever assigned them a set of racial passives. The answer is all in characterization.
This just gets back to "if it's so trivial, why are people so adamant that this is the one feature of the game that absolutely cannot change?" Compared to the plague of subclassers o'er the land, would anyone even notice if every single DPS player is rocking Feline Ambush? Probably not—especially since most passives don't have any in-game animations.
The content where this becomes important is very end game. If you are serious about trial trifectas, you can take the time to create an optimised character for the job. You can have up to 20 character slots.AnduinTryggva wrote: »I like to play a certain "race" for its role playing aspect but would as well do some advanced content where "racial" passives can become important.
I would like to see disconnect between real life and a fantasy world. This is my escapism. Please do not bring real life politics into a fantasy game.AnduinTryggva wrote: »Now I know that it is a tradition in fantasy literature and role playing games based on fantasy world to attribute different talents and traits to the various "races". Now considering that much of the fantasy genre is based on Tolkien who wrote his works in an epoch when people actually believed in different human "races" and attributed specific traits to these "races" we can well assume that this imagination of "race" = a certain set of traits has its root exactly in that epoch with this specific way to see human "races". Today the general assumption as moved on and so I think should the depiction of "races" in rpg.
This would require re-writing lore. A massive Orc will not be as light-footed as a tiny Wood Elf.AnduinTryggva wrote: »So I request following:
Disconnect race and "racial" passives. So when chosing a "race" you don't chose a set of "racial passives" automatically.
Would be kinda cool to have that as an extra thing. That you could select "upbringing" or "background". Like, a student of College of Winterhold for magic users, Bards College for supports. But that would only make it that for a certain role you must have certain background.AnduinTryggva wrote: »During character creation require the player to select a "school" (or "culture" if you like) that represents the "racial" passives as we know them today.
AnduinTryggva wrote: »Actually I like to select a "culture" so I could in my role play represent an Argonian who grew up in a khajiit environment and got consequently schooled in khajiit ways to do things etc.
frogthroat wrote: »I would like to see disconnect between real life and a fantasy world. This is my escapism. Please do not bring real life politics into a fantasy game.
But there's still a difference between inborn, physical or magical traits, and skills that clearly are about factors that can't be genetically set but look like they are gained sometime later in life, by living in a certain culture and participating in their cultural practices. Like Imperials gaining more gold or being talented with a sword and shield. There are no inborn physical traits that could make a person more talented with a sword and a shield vs two swords, for example.
tomofhyrule wrote: »Let’s not pretend that “you can pick your own passives!” would lead to anything other than “this is the one acceptable choice, and anything else is memetic trash.” You know, like exactly what happened with Subclassing.BXR_Lonestar wrote: »I knew this was coming the moment they eliminated classes by allowing subclassing. The argument for it? "TES games don't have rigid classes, so ESO shouldn't have classes." Regardless of the balancing issues it would cause.
Well, that same argument now cuts against eliminating racial passives. TES games have CLEAR benefits and drawbacks for playing each race. Eliminating them for the sake of convenience doesn't make any sense. Racial passives are canon and ARE in TES games. So they shouldn't be eliminated. Period.
In Morrowind and Oblivion, your attributes changed based on which gender you selected. Skyrim dropped this, as did the Oblivion remaster.
Most of those who've replied to this thread seems to be of the opinion that racial passives make very little difference in terms of gameplay. Dropping them in favor of a selectable "origins" system, akin to the Oblivion remaster, seems like a good solution.
[edited for the sake of accuracy]
And yet the OBR “origins” was the OG gender-based stats. We didn’t get stat choices irrelevant of race, and even Skyrim did have different stats for one specific race (though if the answer is “we don’t have differing stats because we literally just removed attributes from our RPG lmao” is the answer, that seems like a different problem).
But even considering a character of one species (yes, different “races” in the TES universe are all different species) being raised in another culture doesn't mean that they would be 100% the same as someone of that species in that culture. Again, let’s consider a real-life example. I can bring my teacup Pomeranian to Alaska and fit her every day with a harness and train her to pull a sled… but do we really think that any amount of training will turn Frou-Frou into a sled dog? Even if she was born and raised in the Arctic and trained every day? She literally doesn’t have the muscle or body mass for that.
But again, there is no problem to do a role that’s not the typical of your race. This - unlike the mess we got from Subclassing - is actually something where the meta is probably less than 5% more than the other, so irrelevant in most aspects.
Someone should try this: go and do a full parse with a character. Make sure you do it 5 times so we can even out the effects of RNG (crit chance). Then do a race change and nothing else, and parse 5 times again. Toss the top and bottom parses for each and compare the average DPS for both. What’s the actual numeric difference from the race?
Because I bet it’s super small and essentially irrelevant in the hands of the average player.
frogthroat wrote: »But what you wrote gave me another idea. What if... cultural and physical aspects are separated. Two passives that are physical traits (ie. racial traits) and two that are cultural. By default, selecting a race will also assume your cultural traits are from that race. But you could swap them. Similar to Alliance and race. Like, if you are Argonian, you still swim faster and are resistant to poison and disease because those are your physical traits, but if you grew up in Elsweyr, you also learn to pickpocket and get Lunar Blessings from that culture/religion.