Mono-class or Pure-class

CalamityCat · May 24

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

I think it's one thing to say "this is offensive in RL so maybe we shouldn't say it in ESO" but when some other franchise has their own interpretation of some words, that should stay specific to that franchise. Even one that's really well known. ESO has lore and culture of its own, so when the devs and players have used the term pure class it's simply a description that relates to ESO base classes. Other games have different ways of referring to this sort of thing too. Just as they might call our nightblades assassins or have very different ideas about what a necromancer or sorcerer is in their game.

Saying I'm a pure warden is just easier to say and clear to understand. Not so long ago, if I said I was a pure class player, some would have interpreted that negatively because of the lack of power compared to a subclass build.

As for pure being free of impurities etc, that doesn't automatically mean the impurities are "bad" simply that they aren't present in whatever it is, because sometimes you want them kept separate. I might want a specific pure cooking oil because I want the flavour in a stir-fry. But then use a blended oil to fry something else.

There are still many situations where a subclass build is going to wipe the floor with the base class if the player ran it as a pure class build. So this sounds like a bit of a self inflicted inferiority thing more than reality.

jm42 · May 24

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

I feel like this vote belongs to teminally online reddit crowd

Radiate77 · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

Pure is entirely the wrong word choice here.
Mono is too. 🤷

Would make wildly more sense to acknowledge that we have more than 7 classes in the game instead of trying to create generic terms to identity ourselves… as a class is compromised of 3 specific skill lines, you take one line out and you no longer fit the definition of said class.

IE. A Dragonknight that no longer uses Draconic Power is no longer a Dragonknight.

virtus753 · May 24

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Some people read way too much into things.

"Pure" as a word just means "free of other elements." That is literally what we mean. I play a Class that is not using lines from other Classes, done. There is no "I'm better than you" in there.

The word "Pure" is also used in many other contexts, like in science. If we have "Pure gold," we know that it is 100% gold with no alloys. If I am making a compound in a lab and I purify it, there are no other compounds in there. That is the word for it.

It is people ascribing the meaning of "better" to the word "Pure" (which is not it's actual meaning!) who are then getting mad that other people are using a word which they've ascribed a different meaning to.

While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.

Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.

eashi · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

Radiate77 wrote: »

Pure is entirely the wrong word choice here.
Mono is too. 🤷

Would make wildly more sense to acknowledge that we have more than 7 classes in the game instead of trying to create generic terms to identity ourselves… as a class is compromised of 3 specific skill lines, you take one line out and you no longer fit the definition of said class.

IE. A Dragonknight that no longer uses Draconic Power is no longer a Dragonknight.

This is fine in theory but that would require all of the different combinations to have names which are agreed upon by the community. I don’t dislike the idea though. Ranger and Geomancer come to mind.

Radiate77 · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

eashi wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Pure is entirely the wrong word choice here.
Mono is too. 🤷

Would make wildly more sense to acknowledge that we have more than 7 classes in the game instead of trying to create generic terms to identity ourselves… as a class is compromised of 3 specific skill lines, you take one line out and you no longer fit the definition of said class.

IE. A Dragonknight that no longer uses Draconic Power is no longer a Dragonknight.

This is fine in theory but that would require all of the different combinations to have names which are agreed upon by the community. I don’t dislike the idea though. Ranger and Geomancer come to mind.

And I know without a shadow of a doubt, that our amazing loremasters would LOVE to do this for us.

Gabriel_H · May 24

virtus753 wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Some people read way too much into things.

"Pure" as a word just means "free of other elements." That is literally what we mean. I play a Class that is not using lines from other Classes, done. There is no "I'm better than you" in there.

The word "Pure" is also used in many other contexts, like in science. If we have "Pure gold," we know that it is 100% gold with no alloys. If I am making a compound in a lab and I purify it, there are no other compounds in there. That is the word for it.

It is people ascribing the meaning of "better" to the word "Pure" (which is not it's actual meaning!) who are then getting mad that other people are using a word which they've ascribed a different meaning to.

While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.

Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.

You can say that about nearly every word. Some people will choose to view certain words a certain way, it's up to everybody else to educate them as to their meaning.

Pure's primary definition is not-mixed. Me, for example, calling it "pure-class" has no intent beyond that defintion. I am not responsible for how other's may perceive my intent, especially if within the context of me using that word makes it plainly obvious that I mean it as "not-mixed-class".

Policing language to account for what others may perceive that to mean is harcore censorship, espcecially when the full context is given. For example, I read your post, I picked one of the larger words you used at random. I chose "understands". Did you know that has several negative connotations as a word? It can be taken to mean intellectual superiority of the writer/speaker over the reader/listener. Should you stop using the word? Or do we know its meaning from the context, and that your intentions are pure? (See what I did there?!)

Edit: Typos

Radiate77 · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

Gabriel_H · May 24

Radiate77 wrote: »

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

It works just as well as mono. Mono and pure both refer to being unmixed or made of a single thing.

Radiate77 · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

It works just as well as mono. Mono and pure both refer to being unmixed or made of a single thing.

I agree, they both suck. 😁

Gabriel_H · May 24

Radiate77 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

@Gabriel_H yes, because in the context it is being used, it is entirely wrong.

Most players do not exclusively use Class Skills, so by nature they are mixed, that said, it doesn’t make them any less of a Dragonknight because they have a sword and shield skill slotted.

Pure just doesn’t work here, it’s that simple.

It works just as well as mono. Mono and pure both refer to being unmixed or made of a single thing.

I agree, they both suck. 😁

By the way, "mono" also has some nasty negative connotations. So should we all just agree that words mean what the generally accepted definition says it is, decide which term we each prefer, and move on?!

Cooperharley · May 24

I think both sides are making this more hostile than it needs to be.

I understand why “pure-class” caught on. It is short, it is already familiar, and in the most basic sense it means “not mixed with another class.” I do not think most people using it are trying to imply superiority or insult subclassed builds.

That said, I also understand why some people dislike it. “Pure” does carry extra connotations that “mono,” “single,” or “primary” do not. Even if the intent is neutral, the wording can still sound like the non-subclassed version is the cleaner or more correct version, while subclassing is somehow the impure version.

Personally, I think “single-class” is probably the clearest option. It says exactly what is happening without sounding clinical like “mono-class” or loaded like “pure-class.” A single-class Warden is using only Warden lines. A subclassed Warden is using lines from other classes. Simple enough.

I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.

spartaxoxo · May 24

Either one works

Pure was primarily selected by people who were mad at subclassing. And a lot of people who dislike pureclassing prefer mono.

I do think the implications are probably, consciously or not, part of the reason for their selection.

That said. It's just a video game and we're not talking about anything with real world implications like some of the topics of the game. It just doesn't really matter to me which term is used.

Pureclassing has a better ring to it just phonetically and it's also the most popular term by far, regardless of origins. So it's the one that I use. That said if base classing or something became the predominant term or some other such word, I'd swap it because I don't really care so long as the terms are distinct from one another and widely used. The important part isn't which term is used. It's that it's easy to understand one another in communication. 🤷🏾

eashi · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

Cooperharley wrote: »

I do not think anyone needs to be scolded for saying “pure-class,” especially since the community and even ZOS have used it. But if we are choosing the cleanest long-term terminology, I would rather see “single-class” or “mono-class” used in official language, with “pure-class” left as informal shorthand.

I never meant to imply that I was scolding one side or the other. I only wanted to know what people used, why, and to have some discussion on it.

ZOS initially was using mono-class in the patch notes but now have begun using both. Though iirc they have always put them in quotes.

eashi · May 24

Mono-class (or monoclass) is my preferred term for it.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Pure was primarily selected by people who were mad at subclassing. And a lot of people who dislike pureclassing prefer mono.

I don’t dislike one or the other personally. I don’t like beam, though I run it because the damage is just so much better atm and I’m lazy. I have run mono-class build this patch and done fine overall. I actually beat a meta beam build on bow/bow mono-sorc in vAS this patch in a support set (not MK), but I also suspect that person wasn’t as experienced in there as I was.

Talking about that further would get more into the pros and cons of each thing than I would like though the tldr on my opinion is that all skill lines should have approximately the same power budget and we should be able to mix and match as we please.

I do think the generalization you made in your initial statement isn’t fair to everyones reasons for how they voted, though it might be true for some.

SilverBride · May 24

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

Pure Class is only being used as a descriptor outside the game to distinguish them from those using a Subclassed build.

SilverBride · May 24

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

Just call them Single Class and Multi Class which accurately describes both better anyway.

CalamityCat · May 24

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

virtus753 wrote: »

While you may intend the word a certain way, that’s a hard claim to make about everyone using it in every context. There’s also the fact that intent doesn’t control impact. For example, in contexts where multiple classes may be chosen (not just ESO, but certainly here on the forums too), I keep seeing the phrase “stay pure,” which is sometimes even capitalized as “stay Pure.” It’s very hard (I would argue largely impossible) to escape the strong connotations of elevating purity as the desirable choice over the alternative with rhetoric and orthography like this.

Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if you do a search for that phrase you’ll find a lot of real historical and cultural contexts where it has been used to direct people to what is morally desirable. That repeated historical meaning can’t be erased or denied even if it isn’t always intended, and it isn’t at all clear it isn’t intended in most cases, since the majority of the time people aren’t disclaiming the implication of superiority and desirability when they use the term “Pure”. This isn’t a science forum, so it’s hard to think we should understand it scientifically here. Scientific language also doesn’t capitalize the word Pure or Purity alone, which is a kind of literal elevation designed to prioritize the referent over other things. As for the meaning, it’s akin to trying to use “molon labe” in its original sense outside of the context of academia. You can try, but those who have seen what associations it has been given in the modern era are still likely to have those associations evoked for them regardless. You can intend to mean it the original way, but you can’t control how it’s taken when it now has very different implications—associations that will likely be connected with you if you use that phrase too, regardless of intent. You can’t expect or force readers to take “pure/purity/Pure/Purity/stay pure/stay Pure” only the way you meant it when it has amassed lots of meanings and implications you may not want. You don’t control those associations and connotations, but you can better express what you want to mean by understanding and accepting the polysemy at work. As a speaker you’re responsible for understanding how multiple meanings and associations are likely be evoked by your choice of specific language. Denying you meant it that way doesn’t change how people understand it based on their understanding of language. Authorial intent is far from the be-all and end-all of language. Once you put out there, it becomes what your audience understands it to be.

This is how you can end up being offended by every little thing in life.

Another approach is to ask, "is this something I should actually be offended by?" Because we're talking about builds in a computer game. Does it really matter even if someone does think pure classes are better than subclassing? Even if someone clearly expresses that they think pure classes are superior, any adult with a sense of perspective can appreciate that this is simply a gamer with a different opinion about builds and treat it as such. Rather than looking for ways to be offended because someone used the word "pure" to describe their game build.

peacenote · May 25

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

Mostly, because that is what I got used to saying and reading and hearing first, so I'm not changing now.

But also partially because mono class reminds me of a one-bar build, as if you are only using class skills and likely only one single skill line from a single class. Pure class to me means you aren't using lines from other classes, but still may be using Guild skill lines or Werewolf/Vampire abilities.

In a game where we are constantly calling out when we see "chests" and "heavy sacks" and "tea-bagging" is rampant despite it being a bannable offense, debating whether someone might be using "pure" in a derogatory way seems a little silly. Especially since ZOS chose the name "subclassing" and "sub" has some less-than-stellar meanings attached to it - "inferior to," "less than perfectly," or "below." This name choice leads logically into its opposite being named pure - "being thus and no other" or "containing nothing that does not properly belong."

That said, I suppose grammatically, the opposite of sub would be "super" which arguably would be more insulting to subclassers if you took it literally - "of high grade or quality" or "above" or "superior in title, status or position."

Frayton · May 25

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

People really will find anything to complain about. Reminds of when Sunpire first came out and a few were crying about people shortening it to SS because it was like referencing the infamous SS, so they wanted everyone to use something else.

Leave "pure" alone. There's nothing wrong with the term and it doesn't mean superior unless you yourself see it that way. If you want to argue cultural reference, you're implying a specific culture. Aren't you being exclusionary with that? There's nothing in my culture that's offensive about pure or pure blood.

Athory · May 25

Other, I use a different term (please specify below).

What does it matter? Really.
Whether we go pure class, multiclass, or whatever you want, the end result will always be the same for everyone. Because everyone will use the same sets for the best DPS output in Hodor and logs.

In ESO, we have 7 classes. With subclassing, we can probably have around 1,000 different builds, but all using the same sets. Different builds don’t matter anymore; only DPS and logs do.
So… again, what’s the point!?

Freelancer_ESO · May 25

I don't really hear people calling it mono-class.

I think Pure Class is probably an iffy choice of name from the standpoint that many of the people that are calling themselves Pure Class aren't actually using that many class abilities.

Personally, I'd define Class Identity as being about active skills more than passives.

Gabriel_H · May 25

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

I think Pure Class is probably an iffy choice of name from the standpoint that many of the people that are calling themselves Pure Class aren't actually using that many class abilities.

Every player who is pure-class uses at a minimum of 9 to 12 class abilities. Plus another 4 to 8 on top of that, as well as not using skills from any other class. i.e. not mixed e.g. pure

onyxorb · May 25

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

Meh, I was calling it 'pure class' in my head before it even became a thing, so I'm sticking with it.

Don't care to mix politics or religions in a game that already has plenty of both!
Also don't care about terminology that other franchises use, this is ESO.

If I'm going to rant over the word 'Pure' it will be over why survey nodes don't think that 'heartwood' is the purest form of 'wood', and why a survey can't drop it. :'(

James-Wayne · May 25

Other, I use a different term (please specify below).

Master Class

sleepy_worm · May 26

No Domclass option, ah well.

zaria · May 26

BretonMage wrote: »

Mono means single, but all classes include 3 skill lines, many of which vary in their focus. So it actually feels wrong to call a class a monoclass if you're going to have say, Deadric Summoning, Storm Calling and Dark Magic in a class.

Otoh pure just means not mixed, and is the opposite of hybrid. People in TES have been talking about pure mage and pure warrior builds long before ESO came about. It seems entirely appropriate to call it that.

And again, any idea that pure is superior, in general usage, is only in personal interpretation. Complexity is usually more interesting to me anyway so I honestly don't see the problem.

This you also has weapons and other skills

moderatelyfatman · May 26

Pure-class (or pureclass) is my preferred term for it.

Pure water vs Mono water. Nah!

BXR_Lonestar · May 26

Other, I use a different term (please specify below).

I like to use the term "pure-bread" (yes, NOT purebred). I even made goofy little graphics of bread men for each class using AI.

Dojohoda · May 26

Other, I use a different term (please specify below).

I call it Arcanist if that's what I am using whether it is an arcanist or multi-class. In digital fake-reality it's an ArcPlarAssassin Death Ray Machine.

Likewise with my other toons, nightblade=nightblade, and so on.