Is this going to be another "play your way" for wardens that actually means "play your way in pvp because everything we give you only has value tbere?"

metheglyn wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

"Sorcerers call upon Daedric pacts and dark magic as the source of their power."

What's with the pacts all the time? Arcanists have a pact with old Hermy Mora, Sorcerers have pacts with everyone else? Conjuring always meant forcing a daedric being into your service. We even had some funny lore books about that...
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:I_was_Summoned_by_a_Mortal
No pacts needed.

Also I'm quite sure there are players who want to play a sorcerer (or have been doing so for years) who don't want an "evil" focus being forced onto their character. I don't mind, but I see some people would not like that, especially if it becomes overly obvious in terms of design and effects.

I was surprised to read that sorcerer description, since I play my sorcerer without using the daedra pets. I guess she's not a real sorcerer! But it does say it's all subject to change and further refinement, so maybe that's not the final description.

I recently dropped my pets, and have been enjoying being just a storm sorcerer (with a side of Fatecarver). As elemental magic, and especially lightning magic, has been a mainstay of sorcerers for a long time, I was surprised there was no mention of storm sorcery in the description. And "dark magic"?? Anyone here still using dark magic?

Thanks for recognizing there's issues.

As it stands, subclassing is objectively stronger than “pure” classing by a large margin for several reasons. This is mostly caused by the vast differences in individual skill line designs. ESO was not built from launch with subclassing in mind, and the system highlighted issues with the current class skill line design that were not previously a factor but are untenable going forward.

Yes, this was called out in the early days of PTS and yet subclassing went live as-is. At best, it needed another year to bake. The work being done now and slated for the future, should have been before subclassing went live. I'd rather you guys release nothing than release fractious content like subclassing.

To support the overall health of the game and class system, we need to respond and adapt to how the game has changed based on how players are using the subclassing feature. With this in-game data and player feedback, and available development resources in place, we have a clearer picture of the scope of changes that need to be made.

What do you mean by "available development resources"? Did you hear hire more people or get better tech?

Regardless, you've always had the player feedback. The problem's been acting on it in a reasonable timeframe. If something's up for testing in PTS, the expectation is that it's either fixed in PTS or pulled from release. If you guys find that more things have to be pulled, then you better know where to improve next time. Whatever changes you guys make, I hope you're truly prepared to pump the brakes if there's blowback on PTS. People are sick of providing feedback and nothing changing because of it.

One overarching pattern you’ll see as we move toward improving this experience is reorganizing class skill lines, adding in more benefits for sticking with the core skill lines of your class, and decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals.

This is wrong on so many levels. There's a finite number of buffs in the game. There's a finite number of skills and skill lines. If Assassination is not the be-all-end-all for critical hits and ganking, then IMO, it's failed at being an assassination skill line.

I would expect that damage skill lines would have a major and minor buff associated with them, and two damage types, with one overlapping with another class. Look at Storm Calling - it's both shock and physical. That overlaps with Aedric Spear which does physical damage. Similarly, Dawn's Wrath and Ardent Flame both specialize in flame. Creating overlaps like that entices people to subclass.

For pure classing, there should just be a capstone passive that applies to the skill line skills only.

Each class should have a role-specific skill line with the necessary tools for that role. For example, compare Arcanists against Nightblades as tanks. Arcanists have arguably the strongest tank line, while Nightblades do not. This ties into the points you guys made about class identity - how should each class approach each role? How many different kinds of tanking are there? Research other games if you need ideas. I would just think that a Nightblade tank is a living shadow that has damage pass through it. Nightblade healer is a blood mage.

Our aim isn’t necessarily to nerf, though. While in some instances nerfs may be necessary, we’ll be using values and specific effects to create more powerful or punchy abilities and passives, but with greater nuances that prevent subclassing from completely dominating the meta.

There shouldn't much nerfing, if any at all. Bring other skills and classes into parity with the top performing ones.

In the interest of fostering communication, transparency, and building trust, we want to keep you informed as these updates progress. With this in mind, we are in the early stages of the process, and the class information outlined above is still subject to change and further refinement as we work through addressing each class.

There's more to building trust than keeping us informed. Honoring our wishes is the single biggest area where trust needs to be built. Like I've said before, if all of PTS and Reddit are screaming at you, then that's usually the sign a change shouldn't go-live.

Also, seeing actual developer debate on the PTS will go a long way in building trust. And if a developer loses a debate, then the change shouldn't go-live. We really are at a point as a community where if you can't defend a change, then you have no business releasing it. Just look at the skepticism and cynicism here already. Please, go slow. Be prepared to be wrong and change.

Here's some more ways you could rebuild trust:
1. Pull out or postpone a change that's poorly received on PTS.
2. Have actual developer engagement on PTS.
3. Revert changes that no one asked for. U48 animation changes, environmental changes, PermaGlow, Jabs, etc. No one asked for them.
4. Tie changes back to specific feedback threads.
5. Answer the hard questions. Don't just disappear when SkinnyCheeks wins the argument.
6. Discuss mistakes. I'll trust you guys once you publicly admit U35 was a mistake.

I would strongly encourage you to draft the ideas with us even before PTS.

The current order is subject to change based on ongoing needs:

1. Dragonknight
2. Warden
3. Sorcerer
4. Templar
5. Nightblade
6. Necromancer
7. Arcanist

How on earth is Necromancer not the top candidate for a change? It's the one I see complained about the most. Them and sorcerers. Here's what the order should be IMO:

1. Necromancer.
2. Sorcerer.
3. Dragonknight.
4. Warden.
5. Nightblade.
6. Templar.
7. Arcanist.

This is a major, comprehensive initiative that will span several updates

Well then, see you in next several updates. If ESO still exists by then

Nervous but excited! I’m not sure we’ve ever had such good communication? Even if there’s a few unanswered questions— hopefully will get answered Thursday. My only concerns— beyond the obvious “hope classes don’t get messed up”— are:
1 - will “where their power comes from” be a requirement in how we play or does this just affect design descriptions? What I mean by this is like… arcanist is obviously Hermaeus Mora but the other classes aren’t so obvious. As such, people have effectively made (actual) subclasses like treating sorcerer as a lightning destruction mage instead of a conjurer or DK as a fire destruction mage instead of a Tscaesci warrior etc. etc. I don’t think it’d affect me either way but it could be a cause of upset from some amount of people if they’re taken away from their current concept of their character.

2 - more importantly, what do you mean by viable? “Can physically do any content”? if that’s the case, I think everything is viable technically. “Brings something to the table that’ll let people convince group leads to let them be their favorite class in HM/tri progs?” that’d be ideal, but then how would that interact with DK’s “gets stronger as the battle goes on”? I know newer fights have gotten longer but at the same time older fights are at an all-time high of shortness. There will be groups doing older content the way they’re intended, for sure, but is the plan to have every class be only good at specific circumstances or have every class have a place in every group (aside from scorepushing)? If it’s the former, then that sucks for people who only main 1 class… but it does reinstate the way I like to theorycraft so I can’t really complain. If it’s the latter, you could lean hard into support DPS like how magDK is/was “zenkosh”, giving a spot to a DK main regardless of how strong arcanist is. Same concept could potentially help us supports. Luckily my favorite tanks are top tank classes already so maybe the skill reshuffling will be what helps me out as a mostly pure class tank.

Regardless, I’m excited to see where this goes.

Replies to other people below the spoiler (just because otherwise this would take up a whole page at this rate):

A lot of people are weirded out by Dragonknight being on the top of the list, but I don't think there's necessarily a wrong order to do these in. ZOS decided to start with the "easiest" one first, so they can give us a better idea of what these reworks will look like.

Dragonknight has a clear identity. They are tanky with high armor and mitigation. They are focused on DoTs, with no execute and few burst options. They prefer to have enemies come to them. They have few long-range options. And their recovery of resources is active rather than passive.

If ZOS started with Necromancer, we (players and developers, internally or between each other) would waste months arguing about whether they should be a "reaper" or "harvester" class with short duration pets, or a more traditional "pet" class with long durations. We would argue for months about how many buffs it should or shouldn't have.

We would argue for months about what debuffs they should get to fit into the fantasy of high-risk-high-reward illegal magic (I vote Necromancers should get some damage boosts that afflict them Minor Vulnerability, but that's besides the point)

We would argue for months about how much burst is too much burst. Let's not forget that Necromancer was OP for years. That happened for a reason. If ZOS is not careful it might happen again.

I think it's wiser to start with the "easy" ones, the ones that have obvious problems and solutions, and then move on to the more complex issues like Necromancer, Nightblade healing, or the utter mess that is Sorcerer and Dark Magic.

Soarora wrote: »

I mean, if you’re summoning a daedra isn’t the daedra in a pact with you?

Nah, it's just yoinking them out of Oblivion against their will. Basically mind control, but the Tamrielians find it okay because it's evil daedric beings.

I am not looking forward to the old 'alphabet soup' organization of skills between lines.

>One overarching pattern you’ll see as we move toward improving this experience is reorganizing class skill lines, adding in more benefits for sticking with the core skill lines of your class, and decentralizing role-specific power so that a single skill line won’t have every tool you need to achieve your goals.

This is going to murder skill line / skill readability for players and was something that was intensely frustrating for me before this reorganization started a few years ago. Jumbling the skills and passives between the skill lines again is going to be awful, especially for newer players. The game is already an overwhelming incomprehensible behemoth. Don't make it any harder on new people to get into it. People shouldn't have to spend hours on youtube to figure out how to play the game.

Additionally, PLEASE make Sorcerers viable without the horrible pets. The models and textures are from 2014 (or they feel like it) and they clutter common town spaces. The winged twilight is the worst offender. At least the clannfear (not that I've seen anyone using it in actual years) and the scamp don't flap around distractingly even at rest. I used to be able to enjoy playing sorcerer completely ignoring the pets. Now they are so much stronger than pet-less sorcerers that I've stopped playing the class altogether.

It wouldn't be so bad if they got a skill-style treatment like what happened with the warden bear's alternate texture and we could pick different daedra to be summoned as a cosmetic which is disabled in PvP spaces to preserve the readability of enemy capabilities. Imagine the sales you'd get of these cosmetics! Please! I'm begging you, these daedra pets are an eyesore.

Quethrosar wrote: »

i think it should be simpler, boost single class abilities when not subclassed, but keep sub classing as is.

I agree.

Destai wrote: »

1. Pull out or postpone a change that's poorly received on PTS.
2. Have actual developer engagement on PTS.
3. Revert changes that no one asked for. U48 animation changes, environmental changes, PermaGlow, Jabs, etc. No one asked for them.
4. Tie changes back to specific feedback threads.
5. Answer the hard questions. Don't just disappear when SkinnyCheeks wins the argument.
6. Discuss mistakes. I'll trust you guys once you publicly admit U35 was a mistake.

This whole post from @Destai is great, but specifically this part. So many crucial core aspects of a healthy development cycle that the team has always failed on, laid out simply and plainly.

Pull or postpone a chance that's poorly received - The team needs to be able to admit when they're wrong, and go back to the drawing board. It seriously blows my mind that I cannot remember a single time where I've seen a change get reverted accompanied by a "we were wrong, we're sorry".

Have actual developer engagement on the PTS + tie changes back to specific feedback threads - Take a look at how jagex handles their community engagement process. They interact heavily with their community during testing phases, they make posts and update those posts in regards to feedback, and why they're making certain changes. It goes a long way to wards building trust with your community when there is an actual dialogue, not just a flat update post saying "here is why we're doing this" followed by zero further engagement.

U48 animation changes/jabs/permaglow - Seriously, like you NEED to fix these things. It is actually beyond insane that the U48 animation changes are nearly universally poorly received with probably 90%+ of players begging you to revert them. Walk it back, admit you were wrong. You will instantly gain a huge amount of respect from the community. This is particularly important because these changes heavily impact combat, which is a front you cannot afford to lose more ground on.

And please give back the old jabs. Nobody likes the new ones, nobody asked for them.

allochthons wrote: »

Destai, I know you know waaaay more about this game than I do. This is only meant as a "I bet you were posting so fast you forgot that..."

Destai wrote: »

AFAIK, only Arcanists have a class taunt. And they have more shields than any other class. So that's the gap you guys need to bridge.

Templar's Focused Charge is now a hard taunt. As is (although not a class) werewolf Deafening Roar, if used as a heavy attack. Then soft taunt on DK's Fiery Grip.

Oh man, you give me too much credit. My brain's still rebooting from having a cold, so I appreciate the clarifications. The point I was trying to make is that the Arcanist tank kit is leagues above the others. They have so many juicy shields that I don't really see in other classes.

I like the idea, but worry about the reality. Yes, the article does make plain that it's a Long Term plan. But I can't help but consider that realistically, one class at a time could result in one class each year. So we're looking at up to 7 years here.

If ever there were to be an opportunity to finally demonstrate some Necro love.. bumping them towards the top of the priority list would be it.

Just-rollback-subclassing

save the ressources and time…

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I was surprised to read that sorcerer description, since I play my sorcerer without using the daedra pets. I guess she's not a real sorcerer!

There's too much good/evil clichée stuff going on there for me, with the "typical"/clearly sorcery-related classes sorcerer - arcanist - necromancer - being labeled as "evil" (and of course on the "good" side we have the holistic hippie warden and the good aedra-worshipping temple knight). And yes, I know that these are typical rpg tropes, but things had usually been less clear in TES...

I know the flavor texts of the abilities always had some bits about abilities being related to Aedra and Daedra, and I never liked it that they basically pre-defined our character by that so much. Then again, when did you ever look at these texts anyway? So it could just be ignored.

But since they also write about "modernising" the visual effects now, I'm sceptical whether it will remain that easy to ignore...

I didn't get quite the same evil/good sentiment you did; "opportunistic use of forbidden powers" doesn't equate to evil necessarily. And the necromancer description was pretty matter-of-fact with no morality stated. Templar does say "holy warrior," however, and warden is described as a protector, so those do seem more good aligned than any of the others. But mostly I didn't pick up on any definitive intended alignment in the descriptions.

I'm hoping the modernizing the visual effects mostly means making them smoother and nicer looking, but we'll see how it all plays out.

BretonMage wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

"Sorcerers call upon Daedric pacts and dark magic as the source of their power."

What's with the pacts all the time? Arcanists have a pact with old Hermy Mora, Sorcerers have pacts with everyone else? Conjuring always meant forcing a daedric being into your service. We even had some funny lore books about that...
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:I_was_Summoned_by_a_Mortal
No pacts needed.

Also I'm quite sure there are players who want to play a sorcerer (or have been doing so for years) who don't want an "evil" focus being forced onto their character. I don't mind, but I see some people would not like that, especially if it becomes overly obvious in terms of design and effects.

I was surprised to read that sorcerer description, since I play my sorcerer without using the daedra pets. I guess she's not a real sorcerer! But it does say it's all subject to change and further refinement, so maybe that's not the final description.

I recently dropped my pets, and have been enjoying being just a storm sorcerer (with a side of Fatecarver). As elemental magic, and especially lightning magic, has been a mainstay of sorcerers for a long time, I was surprised there was no mention of storm sorcery in the description. And "dark magic"?? Anyone here still using dark magic?

I think I have one skill from the dark magic line slotted, but otherwise--it's storm skills and lightning staff for me with a healing set up on the backbar. I haven't subclassed my sorcerer, and doubt I will, so if they can make the sorcerer skill lines better and more interesting, I'll be glad to see it. I just hope they don't lean too heavily on the daedric pacts aspect of it.

I’m actually hoping that ZOS buffs pure classes so much that subclassing becomes a completely useless system that no one uses outside of overland and casual play. It would sort of be like a soft rollback.

Most of the time subclassing defenders say “well you don’t HAVE to follow the meta!” I say let them keep that mentality. With that attitude they should still have fun being unique with an extremely nerfed subclassing system… not that normal and overland content need any sort of build.

Kind of seems like everyone wins if done correctly. Subclassing will become unpopular in endgame PvE and PvP while the people who like it get to keep it. The reality is, it’s just too difficult to balance for end game environments especially since balance was rough even before subclassing. We are better off if pure classes become optimal while subclassing fades into the background as a more niche system.