For this patch, yes, but theoretically by the end of it, every class will have a base-class-only restricted skill that’d make it be more of a difficult choice. Imagine whip buff requires dk, radiant oppression execute scaling requires plar, bow proc requires nb, flail debuff requires arc, etc etc. I think the big thing though is what they make arcanist’s base-class feature be, to stop the “I have a plar base arc and a dk base arc and a nb base arc” future.

Wait, slapping on another system that is going to do more proc effects and lag the game more is a bad idea? Who would have guessed?

I genuinely hope it's a temporary thing they toss out after the class reworks are done. If it isn't, class change tokens are now a must. It isn't fair to players who have had characters for up to a decade to potentially have build options in subclassing gutted due to their base class in ways the player couldn't have predicted. It also isn't fair that some classes may be reworked in ways that no longer fit the character's identity for a player.

I still genuinely hope their statement on stream that classes will still get changes after their major rework and adjustments is true and this dumb idea goes in the bin eventually but even now it still doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't protect monoclass in the way it's meant to, it just brings rigidity that I would love to see in this game's past for class choices. There are plenty of other ways to balance that don't harm build diversity and freedom and helps monoclass. Again, I remind that subclassing rp builds are also drowning compared to the more optimized subclassing builds and it's not just a monoclass thing.

It's a personal rub for me because my favorite character is my main who is a nightblade base. I have played her in everything I can and have 14.5k hours on her more than my second highest played character. When I first got into trials I had to play alts over here to get my clears and achievements and I hated that. When I finally had the option to play her more, I was a lot happier. I don't want to go back to when I feel pressured or restricted off of my main due to poor balancing decisions. Most of the endgame raiders I know that quit did so because they felt their main character was no longer viable in endgame due to balance changes. I know not everyone in endgame thinks like this but a lot of people still do or would consider coming back if there was more build diversity/freedom there. Please don't put things in the game that punish people for wanting to play their main/favorite character.

I know it's probably too late on this going live but I'm hoping it at least gets removed eventually. It just feels like a step backwards in balance and freedom and shortsighted of the longterm effects it has on the game.

keto3000 wrote: »

Personally, I feel the game should either embrace pure classes and really refrsh and develop their signature unique skills or completely scrap the whole class thing entirely and allow everything to be a skill lines & 'pathways' to be added, subtracted & refined as the player sees fit.

All this back and forth refreshing, and rebalancing to make up for some other 'not intended' consquence, etc has been going on for years and leaves us half-in and half-out of balance all the time.

...Never feels 'quite right.'

I agree with this, and I know which one I personally prefer (more choice/creativity), but I have had many a discussion with friends who play about the reason things feel so painful right now is the limbo and feeling the system is noncommittal. I've pointed out in other threads rp based sublcassing builds also have power problems compared to the min maxed builds but no help seems to be coming for them which is sad and disappointing. I know a lot of people who will feel cheated if subclassing becomes an overland "for fun" system and nothing more. I also know people who feel burned by subclassing and want their monoclasses back. A few of us as I mentioned above are like "well at least I can play my nb/sorc/etc main and have a raid build and a for fun overland build but I would like to see the build I like to play more viable." It's really a mess.

I also worry because a lot of the people I know who feel this way either don't have forum accounts or don't interact as much with zos. Most people who are ok with or happy with things will be playing the game not taking breaks to come to the forums or social media to talk or vent. I admit, I'm happier with the game than I have been in prior years despite problems and I've largely upped my forum activity in the past few months because they're listening to feedback and I feel my voice and opinions and insight matter again. A game developer I follow who talks about his work a lot in another game talks about the dangers of getting too lost in data or feedback of players who are more likely to be vocal/social. He also talks about concepts such as how players feel about something can sometimes contradict data saying it's fine, and sometimes it's better to not ask players leading questions and ask "why do you feel this thing sucks despite data showing us it's strong in game?" Maybe I should add this to the PTS feedback survey thread because I think it helps understand a bit more about why some players are feeling disgruntled and unheard. I also am yet again going to point out ESO is great at drawing players of all gaming types/personalities but struggle to keep many of those groups lasting content which is the heart of the game's problem in general (see image for light reference to this concept):

I have literally heard players I know say every single one of the things in this chart is what drew them in and made them want to play and enjoy eso, and I often hear them say their main draw is also the same reason they feel disgruntled/frustrated too. I know it is for me as well.

Either way, game development is hard and complicated and messy, especially for games with a wide/diverse audience. I just want to see them do better and hope some of my talks about what I want to see + talking about game development concepts help the team in some way.

I think the new system is fine. As each class gets there own 'do x while you are' restrictions, it will reduce the reliance on subclassing. I just think once all classes get this treatment, they will then make adjustments to it... but for now, they are doing this to try to incentivize picking classes versus subclassing to get the best of all worlds.

Good design:
Skill lines "matchstick" + "matchbox": cause your matchsticks to burn
Skill lines "matchstick" + "flowers": no direct interaction
Skill lines "matchstick" + "candle": if you have access to fire you can transfer a flame between your matchsticks and candles


--> Logical, meaningful interaction; condition is conveniently available for users of respective lines, but also compatible with other general use cases. Balancing based on synergy density and contextual opportunity cost.

Example: Strike from the Shadows = interacts with any Stealth source; however most efficient in combination with Shadow and Vampire lines.

Bad design:
The Candlemaker has the biggest candles, because no one is as serious about the topic as he is. His candles burn 15 % longer.

--> Arbitrary, implying 2-tiered class system where "pure" setups are canonically bundled and required for exhausting the potential of a certain discipline. Balancing tied to arbitrary performance benchmarks of predefined use cases.

Example: see this thread

(Edit) To be clear: Many changes they made in the rework reflect this philosophy and I think they are on a good track. But I think feedback like this is also important to remind them not to get carried away with cheap bandaid fixes.

ADarklore wrote: »

Emeratis wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

I think the new system is fine. As each class gets there own 'do x while you are' restrictions, it will reduce the reliance on subclassing. I just think once all classes get this treatment, they will then make adjustments to it... but for now, they are doing this to try to incentivize picking classes versus subclassing to get the best of all worlds.

Except as it currently works subclassing as a dk base versus subclassing as the exact same build but being another class makes the dk more powerful...As many have said, it doesn't even incentivize or give power to monoclass it just forces you to change your base class to dk or fall further behind in dps in harder content. Whether you want monoclass to be equal to/better than subclassing or you want rp based subclassing builds and monoclass to be viable in harder content compared to the min maxing subclassing builds, this change is not the way to do it.

"Except as it currently works" are you talking after the rework or prior to the rework? I've seen a build that put pure DK builds equal to subclassing after the rework.

I'm talking about the changes this thread is about which, unless something changes internally, go live on Monday. I could have been more clear but u49 goes live in two days now.

In pts patch 11.3.2 they added this:

Flame Lash: This morph now also grants 12% damage done to monsters for 30s after activating if you are a Dragonknight.

This is the change this thread is about and a design philosophy in the class reworks that we're concerned about. As I mentioned, now you get 15% increase to damage as a dragon knight base. If this isn't changed or adjusted all it will do is take people from arcanist beam spam to being a dk base with the same beam spam because it has been confirmed by parsers to buff beam. I think they adjusted more of the numbers on whip after 11.3.2 so some things may have changed but the general problem with the skill and that balance path is still a glaring problem. Unless they removed or reworked it during the time between the pts and live it's going to probably make my hm/tri progs miserable because while I don't like/enjoy the beam build, I at least could play my main (a nb base) in content so I'm hoping they listen to us and axe this idea for whip.

And for me personally? I don't care if we get to a point every class has one of these, I don't want this on any class including my main class (nightblade). I'd rather balance be better in general so people could play monoclass or subclassing builds based on choices and have them feel good. I don't want someone to be penalized because they chose Ardent Flame, Storm Calling, and Winter's Embrace because they wanted to play an elementalist and ESO doesn't consider that a "real class" for example. Since this is in Ardent Flame, players who wanted to play an elementalist, which right now is by no means leagues stronger than monoclass builds, are being restricted from that and I personally think that's balancing in that way is not the way to go. If a player wanted an elementalist build next patch without this change, they would have to be a dk base, but most people I know who wanted elementalist usually picked sorcerer assuming it would fit better since dk was more of a fire mage only. We have no class change tokens and now they might have a weaker build just because of their base class than a dk running an identical build if it uses whip, which is the best spammable in those three skill lines..

I hope this clarifies more what I mean and why it's a problem. I know not everyone agrees with me on the subclassing bits but this isn't helping the people who want monoclassing to be good/better than subclassing either, it's just making the problem worse.