Make weapon and armour class specific

Selstad · June 2014

I've followed the ongoing, erm, hostilities, around the forums the past weeks about mostly nerfs and nerfs and some more nerfs. To be honest, I don't mind them balancing out things, but I think also they are chasing the wind, that is not having any clue what they are going to do to give even a semblance of balance in this game.

And I don't think that with the current skill line setup, they're even going to get close. Not a chance. It's too open and too many combinations to actually make a balance out of this, and after some months of trying, I would have to say that it's all a bit of a mess.

The problem in my opinion, stems from the weapon skill line and the armour skill line being separated. This in their whole mantra of "do what you want" which has turned out to be such a good hoax that they can start out as politicians if they wanted to.

What I think would be necessary to even start balancing out, is bringing back class specifics.

That is, remove the weapon skill line and the armour skill line all together. These are instead merged inn with the class tree, specific for the classes.

Dragon Knight and templars: Would get 2 handed sword and 1 handed / shield weapon skill line as well as heavy armour skill line, meaning that they could only use these types of weapons and armour. The heavy armour skill line would have to be augmented with magica recovery passives, as well as some magica restoring abilities.

Nightblade: They would get the dual wield and bow weapon skill line as well as the medium skill line.

Sorcerers: They would get the staff skill line (destruction and restoration) as well as the light armour skill line.

Now I can hear the outcry in this suggestion that "Oh man the sorcerers would get the best skills) which I can understand, from the perspective of the game today. However, having it class specific means that they can actually balance the class up towards other classes, rather than having to balance skills. As an example, a skill from the class tree would today give huge benefits towards the destruction staff, and that combination is the "lethal" part. They can't however nerf the destruction line because that would destroy it for a class that isn't lethal, ergo, they have to balance on the class side. Which leaves that class feeling low, and it might not solve anything. As well as give unwanted side effects. This is why balancing in ESO is difficult, you have so many variables that you're bumped out where to start.

Now another part to this whole change, would be to change what resources the class is using. Dragon Knights and templars would be Stamina based on resources, except for the healing spells for templars who would be magica based. Nightblades would also be stamina based and sorcerers would be magica based.

Now how would this stack up towards PvP related skills as well as guild related skills and vampire/were wolf? They would have to be dynamic in nature, costing what ever resource that class is suppose to use. These would also be the only "all access" skills out there.

I don't think it's possible to balance out the classes today without having them class specific. There are so many skills and so many possible effects of said skills, that mapping out and balancing it is more or less impossible. It would always give unwanted side effects for one or the other. There is a reason that most MMOs base themselves on more "class" specifics rather than an open world setup. Only MMO I've seen who's managed to pull this of what ESO is trying, is "The secret world", but that game doesn't have any class specific skills. You make your choices of "class", but all skills and all weapons are open to you from the start. So even if you chose assault rifle class, you can always go to pistols or blades when ever you want by just using skill points. So they have no class specific spells to worry about. ESO does, and it's apparent after only a few months that it isn't working very well.

Slash8915 · June 2014

This would go against their entire model of "Play how you want", and it would take a more traditional RPG approach. People would complain.

phaneub17_ESO · June 2014

So you want it to be another generic RPG altogether?

Munku · June 2014

I think my heavy armor resto staff Templar is chanting "no" while going for his pitchfork.

Thralgaf · June 2014

Congrats, you just made traditional classes. That's not the premise behind this game. They don't need to do all that. They just have to tweak class specific ABILITIES.

Slash8915 · June 2014

phaneub17_ESO wrote: »

So you want it to be another generic RPG altogether?

My thoughts exactly. I mean, for my girlfriend and I, it wouldn't effect us. I'm a temp tank (full heavy armor, sword/board) so essentially a Paladin. She is a tradition caster (Sorc with full light armor and destruct staff).

However, I have friends that play non-traditional roles. For instance, I have a friend who made her own Battle Mage (Sorc with full heavy armor and two swords) I think it's cool how you can essentially create your own class like that. It's much more lore-friendly to the Elder Scrolls franchise.

Selstad · June 2014

"Play how you want" is a fluke, if people are still buying into that, they need a reality check. You have the cookie gutter build with the cookie gutter setup using the cookie gutter rotation that has been tested and tried. You are led through the different zones, without any choice what zone to level in. "play as you want" was used and bought into by many, included me. The reality however was a bit different.

About it being a generic RPG, no, it wouldn't. It would actually be more dynamic than it is today. It would also encourage people to try out alts, though, they have to work way more on levelling experience before I consider doing any alts in this game. There is a reason that MMORPG these days are more or less holding to a class specific setup, it doesn't make them generic in any terms, they just realize that it's a tried and tested method that works in an RPG scenario. As said the only game I've tried that doesn't have class specifics is The secret world.

Slash8915 · June 2014

Selstad wrote: »

"Play how you want" is a fluke, if people are still buying into that, they need a reality check. You have the cookie gutter build with the cookie gutter setup using the cookie gutter rotation that has been tested and tried. You are led through the different zones, without any choice what zone to level in. "play as you want" was used and bought into by many, included me. The reality however was a bit different.

About it being a generic RPG, no, it wouldn't. It would actually be more dynamic than it is today. It would also encourage people to try out alts, though, they have to work way more on levelling experience before I consider doing any alts in this game. There is a reason that MMORPG these days are more or less holding to a class specific setup, it doesn't make them generic in any terms, they just realize that it's a tried and tested method that works in an RPG scenario. As said the only game I've tried that doesn't have class specifics is The secret world.

The only MMO I've ever played that truly had NO classes, and it was PLAY HOW YOU WANT is TSW. The skill system in that game is unbeatable. If we had half of that in THIS game, we would still have a ridiculous amount of subs despite the bugs.

That's mainly why I still play that game despite lack of new content.

Lynx7386 · June 2014

Absolutely not.

Ninnghizhidda · June 2014

This works quite well in other games, but... ESO and Elder Scrolls games in general are different, exactly because they let you do as you wish. This is the very philosophy of this series and the prime reason for its appeal.

It has worked great in every Elder Scrolls solo game. The problem seems to be that when the whole idea moved to a MMO it was poorly implemented. meaning that eventually people "exploited" the weakness of the system, thus creating "uber" builds using specific synergies that the very game allows, that give them quite an advantage compared to other "lesser" builds.

This is actually the problem, because now, we are talking about a MMO where people interact with others, even if you are the most dedicated solo player or "loner", eventually you come in contact with others, whether you like it or not.

In a few words: no, sorry, imposing such restrictions is NOT the way ESO should go. Instead they should stop a sec and look into things and think. There is something fundamentally wrong in the whole design, maybe it isn't the easiest thing to fix, but the "nerf this and nerf that" approach should also stop.

Selstad · June 2014

Thralgaf wrote: »

Congrats, you just made traditional classes. That's not the premise behind this game. They don't need to do all that. They just have to tweak class specific ABILITIES.

And we've all seen how wonderfully that have gone so far. Lets rerun the debate of the last weeks, shall we? *Cough* ok Here we go:

Templar: We need love too!
Nightblades: *whistles* Move along, move along
Sorcerers: Now why the bloody hell did you have to drag ME into this?
Dragon Knights: *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP* Another nerf!

Yes I can see how that would go on for a couple of months while they "tweak" class abilities. We saw how well it went with their last attempt to stop DKs soloing content that should require a group, 2 blooming seconds later and they were back at it.

Acylas · June 2014

No no no no no. This would be bad. Very bad. It'd go even further against everything that the Elder Scrolls is all about and it'd make it just as clumsy and impractical as Guild Wars 2. We don't want that. I don't want that, at least. The freedom of equipment is one of the few redeeming factors of this game.

AinGeal · June 2014

They really don't need to.

DK vs Temp

With both equipping the same weapons and armor and DKs doing it better, then it's a DK is OP problem.

DK vs DK

One DK uses 2H w/ HA while the other DK uses Staff w/ LA. If the DK that uses a staff w/ LA is doing it better, then It's the difference in gear that is the cause.

Actual testing and fault isolation can be used to create balance when done correctly.

Also, sometimes it's not the skills individually. Sometimes it's the synergy between skills. Now you have to try different skill combinations and adjust the synergy between them.

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO · June 2014

No cause I chose the NB not for medium armour and wielding a bow or 2 daggers cause I had a choice what armour and weapons I wanted to play with.

Ragekniv · June 2014

Where is Zenimax's accountability in your proposed solution?

ESO marketing hype of play any class the way you want to play that class was a blatant lie given the current state of the game.

Beta and three months subscription revenue should bear evidence of game stability, workable solution to bots and class balance.

Fix the game, balance the classes, provide content that merits player base subscription revenue.

ESO is rocketing toward an event horizon of its relevance.

Solution? Do less, nerf more seems to be their method of operation.

Don't appease them by lowering your standards! It's your money their stacking away while you wait for change.

Ser Lobo · June 2014

Welcome to Star Wars Galaxies.

I literally hate references to SWG in MMO after MMO. Some have even likened it to the 'Hiltler' argument. But I see it as valid.

Take an outstanding MMO with variety and diversity. Listen to players who don't enjoy variety and diversity because they cannot fathom being 'less than optimal' (as there is no way to make every possible build optimal, due to the very definition of optimal). Completely destroy the premise of the game, and then realize that without that diversity of class, it's just a standard, generic RPG that wasn't designed from the ground up to be that way.

I'm actually a major proponent of being able to drop class skill lines and pick up skill lines from other classes, adding even more diversity and customization.

A balance can be achieved without classes. ESO actually isn't far from it, if they would fix stamina vs magicka issues.

Of course, there are plenty of MMO's out there who are class based, just like there are plenty of RPG's. I don't play those other RPG's anymore. I play Elder Scrolls. I'd rather play Morrowind than Final Fantasy, any day, and the skill system is one of my main reasons.

The fact that this game went so far as to include classes and traditional levels actually kinda pissed me off, instead of them making it entirely skill based.

Ser Lobo · June 2014

And I also choose to play out of the norm. Sorcerers with heavy armor and sword and shield. Nightblades wielding two handers and mixing heavy and medium armor. DragonKnight archers.

Okay, I tried to make a templar tank, but I can't stand playing him.

Selstad · June 2014

Can it be called a choice when there are no options? Just muse over it a bit, eventually you'll end up with the same build as anyone else, because that's the only thing that actually works out. The rest just doesn't add up.

Stamina Vs Magica per example. All classes depend on magica at some sort, but that's not all, they've made the "what effects what" into the biggest mess that I've seen, having some things that are "spells" be affected by weapon damage, while they are affected by spell crit. Other times you have skills based on spell power but not of spell crit.

I'd rather have them scrap the whole class thing all together before they launched this game and make it truly a "play as you want" experience. People fan around that it's a "play as you want" game, but in reality the inefficiency of many abilities, means they aren't really a choice - a choice in that matter that you actually can play the game with them.

AlexDougherty · June 2014

As so many others have said, no.

Once they released the game with all weapons and armour available to all, it was too late to change such a basic aspect.

Ser Lobo · June 2014

Selstad wrote: »

Can it be called a choice when there are no options? Just muse over it a bit, eventually you'll end up with the same build as anyone else, because that's the only thing that actually works out. The rest just doesn't add up.

Stamina Vs Magica per example. All classes depend on magica at some sort, but that's not all, they've made the "what effects what" into the biggest mess that I've seen, having some things that are "spells" be affected by weapon damage, while they are affected by spell crit. Other times you have skills based on spell power but not of spell crit.

I'd rather have them scrap the whole class thing all together before they launched this game and make it truly a "play as you want" experience. People fan around that it's a "play as you want" game, but in reality the inefficiency of many abilities, means they aren't really a choice - a choice in that matter that you actually can play the game with them.

Again, some players cannot see past 'optimal'. No matter WHAT game you play, whether it has classes or not. Every game has an optimal class and build problem.

World of Warcraft and their problem a few years back before the Lich King expansion. Shaman was extremely powerful compared to everyone else. Everyone seemed to play Shaman because of it. The buck shifted, players rerolled to the next 'flavor of the month' class.

ESO will eventually nerf magicka builds to the point that a stamina build will be the most powerful. Probably something like dual wield and medium armor, etc. Who knows. At this point, the vast majority of players will play that instead.

It's not a developer problem. It's a player problem. It's natural, and repeats itself no matter if you have two classes or fourteen, or infinite.

In ESO, you at least have the freedom to play as you want. If you won't exercise that freedom because you can't stand not being optimal ... that's a personal issue.

Please, list a class, armor and weapon setup that you feel cannot be played. I will make that character, level him into VR, and play him the whole time using that ability piece (barring leveling to the individual skills, that is).

Every class can be played into VR content and beyond. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single ability that doesn't work (I use a lot of odd nightblade abilities that others recommend against, and love it).

I might never be as great as a light armor DK destro staff currently is. But it's won't be impossible, either.

Maverick827 · June 2014

I wouldn't mind this if they also gave us an appearance tab.

Maldamus · June 2014

Stupid phone: ignore

Selstad · June 2014

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

Again, some players cannot see past 'optimal'. No matter WHAT game you play, whether it has classes or not. Every game has an optimal class and build problem.

World of Warcraft and their problem a few years back before the Lich King expansion. Shaman was extremely powerful compared to everyone else. Everyone seemed to play Shaman because of it. The buck shifted, players rerolled to the next 'flavor of the month' class.

ESO will eventually nerf magicka builds to the point that a stamina build will be the most powerful. Probably something like dual wield and medium armor, etc. Who knows. At this point, the vast majority of players will play that instead.

It's not a developer problem. It's a player problem. It's natural, and repeats itself no matter if you have two classes or fourteen, or infinite.

In ESO, you at least have the freedom to play as you want. If you won't exercise that freedom because you can't stand not being optimal ... that's a personal issue.

Please, list a class, armor and weapon setup that you feel cannot be played. I will make that character, level him into VR, and play him the whole time using that ability piece (barring leveling to the individual skills, that is).

Every class can be played into VR content and beyond. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single ability that doesn't work (I use a lot of odd nightblade abilities that others recommend against, and love it).

I might never be as great as a light armor DK destro staff currently is. But it's won't be impossible, either.

Not talking about optimal, but optional. Some builds aren't viable at all due to how they are. Builds that are lacking in output and survivability, that generally isn't an option at all. Would it be a realistic option to have a build that would be equal to fighting a grizzly with a comically shaped stick? Yes sure you can, it doesn't however mean you'll live to tell about it and would certainly not be considered a viable method to fight a grizzly bear.

World of Warcraft actually changed their whole hallmark setup - the talent tree - in order to make the classes mean less and the players mean more. That is, a talent setup that flavours your character, but regardless of your choice, is still viable.

Dayv · June 2014

Let's not

Ser Lobo · June 2014

Selstad wrote: »

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

Again, some players cannot see past 'optimal'. No matter WHAT game you play, whether it has classes or not. Every game has an optimal class and build problem.

World of Warcraft and their problem a few years back before the Lich King expansion. Shaman was extremely powerful compared to everyone else. Everyone seemed to play Shaman because of it. The buck shifted, players rerolled to the next 'flavor of the month' class.

ESO will eventually nerf magicka builds to the point that a stamina build will be the most powerful. Probably something like dual wield and medium armor, etc. Who knows. At this point, the vast majority of players will play that instead.

It's not a developer problem. It's a player problem. It's natural, and repeats itself no matter if you have two classes or fourteen, or infinite.

In ESO, you at least have the freedom to play as you want. If you won't exercise that freedom because you can't stand not being optimal ... that's a personal issue.

Please, list a class, armor and weapon setup that you feel cannot be played. I will make that character, level him into VR, and play him the whole time using that ability piece (barring leveling to the individual skills, that is).

Every class can be played into VR content and beyond. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single ability that doesn't work (I use a lot of odd nightblade abilities that others recommend against, and love it).

I might never be as great as a light armor DK destro staff currently is. But it's won't be impossible, either.

Not talking about optimal, but optional. Some builds aren't viable at all due to how they are. Builds that are lacking in output and survivability, that generally isn't an option at all. Would it be a realistic option to have a build that would be equal to fighting a grizzly with a comically shaped stick? Yes sure you can, it doesn't however mean you'll live to tell about it and would certainly not be considered a viable method to fight a grizzly bear.

World of Warcraft actually changed their whole hallmark setup - the talent tree - in order to make the classes mean less and the players mean more. That is, a talent setup that flavours your character, but regardless of your choice, is still viable.

Please provide me an example of a build in ESO that isn't viable at all.

I'm honestly wondering. The worst build I can think of (without using no armor or no weapons at all, which I guess is an option, but isn't an option any class system would provide either in any other game, and may even be more functional in ESO if some of us get an unarmed skill line wish), is:

Templar, mix armor, using a healing staff and only non-class abilities.

Sadly, this character is a support character build, and could be spec'd with various skills and passive feats to function as a force multiplier. This is of course avoiding weapon-based abilities and class-based abilities, but this leaves open mages guild, fighters guild, werewolf, soul, vampire, and undaunted (as well as racial and PvP) skill lines.

Even by that premise, I could probably make that character usable. That player who chooses to do it, chose to be awkward and sub-optimal. But that character can still be viable.

Now, if we're talking Trials or competitive PvP (usually called Arena's), then any build that is not optimal is generally not viable. This is the case with any event where the success of a build is based on it's superiority to other builds. As many players have attested, adding competitive PvE and PvP events means a game's balance scale becomes much tighter and more restrictive.

That support player MAY be able to complete a trial, but he probably won't be able to help his team beat all others.

At which point, any MMO veteran will recognize that ALL games are victim to this, class-based or not. Even first-person shooters are affected by superior weapons, tactics and build combinations, and they are generally games without any statistical difference between characters (barring games like Battlefield).

Selstad · June 2014

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

Please provide me an example of a build in ESO that isn't viable at all.

I'm honestly wondering. The worst build I can think of (without using no armor or no weapons at all, which I guess is an option, but isn't an option any class system would provide either in any other game, and may even be more functional in ESO if some of us get an unarmed skill line wish), is:

Templar, mix armor, using a healing staff and only non-class abilities.

Sadly, this character is a support character build, and could be spec'd with various skills and passive feats to function as a force multiplier. This is of course avoiding weapon-based abilities and class-based abilities, but this leaves open mages guild, fighters guild, werewolf, soul, vampire, and undaunted (as well as racial and PvP) skill lines.

Even by that premise, I could probably make that character usable. That player who chooses to do it, chose to be awkward and sub-optimal. But that character can still be viable.

Now, if we're talking Trials or competitive PvP (usually called Arena's), then any build that is not optimal is generally not viable. This is the case with any event where the success of a build is based on it's superiority to other builds. As many players have attested, adding competitive PvE and PvP events means a game's balance scale becomes much tighter and more restrictive.

That support player MAY be able to complete a trial, but he probably won't be able to help his team beat all others.

At which point, any MMO veteran will recognize that ALL games are victim to this, class-based or not. Even first-person shooters are affected by superior weapons, tactics and build combinations, and they are generally games without any statistical difference between characters (barring games like Battlefield).

Try sorcerer with only Storm calling abilities per example, there are no offensive skills in that tree that's worth mentioning unless your opponent falls below 20% which won't happen any time soon. Using such a build in VR content for levelling purpose would be futile, especially against multiple opponents or when trying to take down something with a high amount of health. You might be able to survive for some time at best but doing any actual damage, no. To make something viable you have to kill things in an acceptable amount of time, doesn't have to be the quickest, but it at least have to take less than 2 minutes to kill a normal monster. That is what I'm talking about in terms of something being viable, actually be something you can play and use. Storm calling tree is on its own, not viable. Even Daedric Summoning on its own is more viable than Storm calling.

The only option in terms of actually killing something is the Dark Magic tree which contains the only real offensive spell that sorcerers have; Crystal Fragments.

When I'm saying "viable" I don't talk about maxing your output, I'm simply talking about something that get the job done in a acceptable time. I don't mind running around lobbing little lightning bolts on my monsters, but when that lightning bolt does about as much damage as throwing a rock at my opponent, I would say it's not as viable as it could be. I've used an addon that shows what I do. Turns out that lightning bolt hits for 74 damage. With a monster at 2000 HP, I do a staggering 3.7% damage on its health. I think I'll stick to the rock.

Ser Lobo · June 2014

Selstad wrote: »

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

Please provide me an example of a build in ESO that isn't viable at all.

I'm honestly wondering. The worst build I can think of (without using no armor or no weapons at all, which I guess is an option, but isn't an option any class system would provide either in any other game, and may even be more functional in ESO if some of us get an unarmed skill line wish), is:

Templar, mix armor, using a healing staff and only non-class abilities.

Sadly, this character is a support character build, and could be spec'd with various skills and passive feats to function as a force multiplier. This is of course avoiding weapon-based abilities and class-based abilities, but this leaves open mages guild, fighters guild, werewolf, soul, vampire, and undaunted (as well as racial and PvP) skill lines.

Even by that premise, I could probably make that character usable. That player who chooses to do it, chose to be awkward and sub-optimal. But that character can still be viable.

Now, if we're talking Trials or competitive PvP (usually called Arena's), then any build that is not optimal is generally not viable. This is the case with any event where the success of a build is based on it's superiority to other builds. As many players have attested, adding competitive PvE and PvP events means a game's balance scale becomes much tighter and more restrictive.

That support player MAY be able to complete a trial, but he probably won't be able to help his team beat all others.

At which point, any MMO veteran will recognize that ALL games are victim to this, class-based or not. Even first-person shooters are affected by superior weapons, tactics and build combinations, and they are generally games without any statistical difference between characters (barring games like Battlefield).

Try sorcerer with only Storm calling abilities per example, there are no offensive skills in that tree that's worth mentioning unless your opponent falls below 20% which won't happen any time soon. Using such a build in VR content for levelling purpose would be futile, especially against multiple opponents or when trying to take down something with a high amount of health. You might be able to survive for some time at best but doing any actual damage, no. To make something viable you have to kill things in an acceptable amount of time, doesn't have to be the quickest, but it at least have to take less than 2 minutes to kill a normal monster. That is what I'm talking about in terms of something being viable, actually be something you can play and use. Storm calling tree is on its own, not viable. Even Daedric Summoning on its own is more viable than Storm calling.

The only option in terms of actually killing something is the Dark Magic tree which contains the only real offensive spell that sorcerers have; Crystal Fragments.

When I'm saying "viable" I don't talk about maxing your output, I'm simply talking about something that get the job done in a acceptable time. I don't mind running around lobbing little lightning bolts on my monsters, but when that lightning bolt does about as much damage as throwing a rock at my opponent, I would say it's not as viable as it could be. I've used an addon that shows what I do. Turns out that lightning bolt hits for 74 damage. With a monster at 2000 HP, I do a staggering 3.7% damage on its health. I think I'll stick to the rock.

I play a Nightblade Archer. You are talking to the wrong person. I do less damage than that Sorcerer you mentioned.

The key points here are 'acceptable amount of time', 'no offensive skills ... worth mentioning', 'any actual damage'.

It's all flavor text. The possibilities are there, they just don't fit your personal perception of performance. Other players do use this build. Other players do make it work. It simply isn't good enough for you.

Let's work this from the other end. I made a DK dual wield archer. I wrecked so hard and killed things so fast (compared to my early access nightblade), that I shelved and eventually deleted the character.

From one simply sample, I predicted that the class was going to get nerfed. It was too powerful for the content, and did too much.

My key points are 'too powerful', and 'too much'. My flavor text pushes the conversation into another direction, saying that these things are overpowered and broken.

They are now nerfed. They will continue to be. Fighting a mob of three in veteran content and running out of all resources ... I'm used to that. I can deal with that. That same fight taking a full minute or even two? Also normal for me, acceptable.

It's all a matter of what you deem as acceptable. From your statements, it seems my class and build aren't viable. From my statements, all classes and builds are viable.

You seem to expect to take on and wreck VR mobs of three with ease, maybe up to five and have to work for it. I don't expect to take on five unless I'm at the top of my game and have pots to spare.

Selstad · June 2014

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

I play a Nightblade Archer. You are talking to the wrong person. I do less damage than that Sorcerer you mentioned.

The key points here are 'acceptable amount of time', 'no offensive skills ... worth mentioning', 'any actual damage'.

It's all flavor text. The possibilities are there, they just don't fit your personal perception of performance. Other players do use this build. Other players do make it work. It simply isn't good enough for you.

Let's work this from the other end. I made a DK dual wield archer. I wrecked so hard and killed things so fast (compared to my early access nightblade), that I shelved and eventually deleted the character.

From one simply sample, I predicted that the class was going to get nerfed. It was too powerful for the content, and did too much.

My key points are 'too powerful', and 'too much'. My flavor text pushes the conversation into another direction, saying that these things are overpowered and broken.

They are now nerfed. They will continue to be. Fighting a mob of three in veteran content and running out of all resources ... I'm used to that. I can deal with that. That same fight taking a full minute or even two? Also normal for me, acceptable.

It's all a matter of what you deem as acceptable. From your statements, it seems my class and build aren't viable. From my statements, all classes and builds are viable.

You seem to expect to take on and wreck VR mobs of three with ease, maybe up to five and have to work for it. I don't expect to take on five unless I'm at the top of my game and have pots to spare.

Are we discussing semantics or the topic/digression at hand? And assumptions as well can be left behind. Just for the record.

You might accept that things take a long long time to die, and you might as well accept that you'll die in the process of said attempt. However when you make a bold statement saying "play as you want", it actually implies that the way you want to play, doesn't offer pain, death and a whole lot of frustration. After all, this is a game that we play to enjoy, not to be frustrated and annoyed over. And most players would be very frustrated and annoyed that things took a staggering long time to kill. They would then go ahead and find a solution on a build that would solve that problem. That is enough to debunk the whole "play as you want" mantra. If "play as you want" was in effect, you could basically mix your own batch of offensive and defensive spells and call it a day. However you can't, some offensive spells and abilities are so redunkulous that they serve no purpose at all.

Ser Lobo · June 2014

Selstad wrote: »

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

I play a Nightblade Archer. You are talking to the wrong person. I do less damage than that Sorcerer you mentioned.

The key points here are 'acceptable amount of time', 'no offensive skills ... worth mentioning', 'any actual damage'.

It's all flavor text. The possibilities are there, they just don't fit your personal perception of performance. Other players do use this build. Other players do make it work. It simply isn't good enough for you.

Let's work this from the other end. I made a DK dual wield archer. I wrecked so hard and killed things so fast (compared to my early access nightblade), that I shelved and eventually deleted the character.

From one simply sample, I predicted that the class was going to get nerfed. It was too powerful for the content, and did too much.

My key points are 'too powerful', and 'too much'. My flavor text pushes the conversation into another direction, saying that these things are overpowered and broken.

They are now nerfed. They will continue to be. Fighting a mob of three in veteran content and running out of all resources ... I'm used to that. I can deal with that. That same fight taking a full minute or even two? Also normal for me, acceptable.

It's all a matter of what you deem as acceptable. From your statements, it seems my class and build aren't viable. From my statements, all classes and builds are viable.

You seem to expect to take on and wreck VR mobs of three with ease, maybe up to five and have to work for it. I don't expect to take on five unless I'm at the top of my game and have pots to spare.

Are we discussing semantics or the topic/digression at hand? And assumptions as well can be left behind. Just for the record.

You might accept that things take a long long time to die, and you might as well accept that you'll die in the process of said attempt. However when you make a bold statement saying "play as you want", it actually implies that the way you want to play, doesn't offer pain, death and a whole lot of frustration. After all, this is a game that we play to enjoy, not to be frustrated and annoyed over. And most players would be very frustrated and annoyed that things took a staggering long time to kill. They would then go ahead and find a solution on a build that would solve that problem. That is enough to debunk the whole "play as you want" mantra. If "play as you want" was in effect, you could basically mix your own batch of offensive and defensive spells and call it a day. However you can't, some offensive spells and abilities are so redunkulous that they serve no purpose at all.

At which point, 'play as you want' would also be false, as players wishing to be goblins, ride unicorns and kill things with one shot also aren't capable of achieving that goal.

My point is obviously more ridiculous, but does it not support your argument? That the simple ability to pick the armor and weapons and class you wish, combining them how you wish, isn't enough to fulfill the promise of 'play as you want'? That somehow, play as you want also governs the difficulty of the game and covers any discrepancies in player skill, computer equipment, or simple preference?

I firmly believe 'play as you want' is met in ESO, because players can choose weapons and armors and mix and match them with races as they see fit, all the while playing the game. Whether that game is significantly more difficult or easier seems to be off the topic. You can still play.

the.dzeneralb16_ESO · June 2014

My dual-weilding/resto staff healing NB says no.

Selstad · June 2014

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

At which point, 'play as you want' would also be false, as players wishing to be goblins, ride unicorns and kill things with one shot also aren't capable of achieving that goal.

My point is obviously more ridiculous, but does it not support your argument? That the simple ability to pick the armor and weapons and class you wish, combining them how you wish, isn't enough to fulfill the promise of 'play as you want'? That somehow, play as you want also governs the difficulty of the game and covers any discrepancies in player skill, computer equipment, or simple preference?

I firmly believe 'play as you want' is met in ESO, because players can choose weapons and armors and mix and match them with races as they see fit, all the while playing the game. Whether that game is significantly more difficult or easier seems to be off the topic. You can still play.

The whole "play as you want" implies that you can pick any weapon setup, any skill setup and any armour setup you like, and it would still get the job done. That is what "play as you want" is about. Being able to play is one thing, being able to continue to play is another thing.

Per example at one point in the Veteran content (If you play as Ebonheart Pact, mind you) you are faced of with a sorcerer lady that happens to spring of into a pole and starts summoning skeletons, both melee and archers. I have no choice here. I have to select a certain set of skills just to be viable, i.e managing to eventually kill her. If I don't have those abilities, try as I might, I'll end up dead. If "play as you want" was there, I'd be able to slowly manage to kill her regardless of the skills I have on the bar, abide slower, but kill nonetheless.

Lets take another one, at VR9 you have to kill "The dark mane", who happens to summon some very nasty beasties as well. Now here too I have to select a specific set of skills just to be able to survive long enough to kill the boss. Not only do I have to watch out and kill said summon beasties, no, I have to watch out for the boss' "super attack" which drinks up 75% of my health if it lands, unmitigated. So to be viable here, I have to be very careful what I select.

Going up against those 2 examples using only Storm calling abilities isn't viable, it isn't even possible. You can't "play as you want" because the game sets out a certain set of hidden criteria that has to be met. That means, a certain setup with a certain build.

If "play as you want" was in order, I could set up my bars and still be able to kill the quest mobs I meet up with, slow, but kill. That is "play as you want". In this game you "play as you want, erm, until you get to that part, and that part, erm, and that part too". But I guess that slogan was too long to write on the box.