phillyboy7897 wrote: »You were correct until you switched to additive on empowering
paulsimonps wrote: »So something else I have seen people mention and something that is often brought up in PvP more so than in PvE but still something tanks needs to think about is damage mitigation. So to explain it a bit I was thinking of listing all possible sources for increased damage mitigations and then what the hypothetical max would be and how that is calculated. Now I might have missed a few sources but these are those that I can remember of hand.
No blocking needed:
Resistance ~33150 Resist is cap so ~663 is 1% 0-50% = 0.5
Nord Passive Rugged 6% = 0.94
Minor Maim (applied on target) 15% = 0.85
Minor protection 8% = 0.92
Veil of Blade(basically Major Protection but never called that) 30% = 0.70
Nova (Major Maim, same as with Veil) 30% = 0.70
Blocking needed:
Blocking 50% = 0.5
One hand and shield passive Sword and Board 20% = 0.80
One hand and shield passive Deflect Bolt (only projectile) 15% = 0.85
Defensive Posture & Morphs 8% = 0.92
Dragonknight passive Iron Skin 10% = 0.9
Templar passive Spear wall (only melee) 15% = 0.85
Footman's fortune 12% = 0.88
To calculate how much any combination of mitigations are in total take the decimal number shown here and multiply them with each other and you will get the decimal form of how many percent of the original is left after all the mitigation has been applied. So as an example a DK blocking with Defensive posture, footman and capped resist would be:
0.5x0.5x0.9x0.92x0.88= 0.145728 which would mean only ~14.5% of the original is left aka ~85.5% got mitigated
Something to note is that getting to 80% mitigation is really simple and all you need is to block with capped resist with sword and board and that is a flat 80% mitigation. Now most people don't have capped resists but a small minor main and a defensive posture can usually pick up the slack. As well as you will notice as well there are severe diminishing returns on this and stacking to many of these would simply be a waste of resources.
The highest theoretical mitigation scenario I can come up with with these are using all of these listed with the exception of the templar passive and deflect bolt. So we are a DK Nord with a allied Templar and Nightblade that gives us Nova and Veil and we got capped resist and Footman's Fortune with all skills needed for the rest that would total to:
0.5x0.5x0.94x0.85x0.92x0.70x0.7x0.80x0.92x0.9x0.88=0.0524896 aka 94.75% total mitigation.
Due note that that would only last for about 10sec and after that the Veil and Nova would run out and they cant be sustained and also the Circle of protection which is the minor protection also costs a lot so it would also go fast and be unsustainable.
TL;DR or in conclusion: People complain that there are to few things to up damage mitigation and I say no there are plenty of stuff to use and stacking too many of them is a waste of time and resources.
TheDarkShadow wrote: »Someone made this few months ago: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/187110/dmg-mitigation-for-tanks
I think it still up-to-date
paulsimonps wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »So something else I have seen people mention and something that is often brought up in PvP more so than in PvE but still something tanks needs to think about is damage mitigation. So to explain it a bit I was thinking of listing all possible sources for increased damage mitigations and then what the hypothetical max would be and how that is calculated. Now I might have missed a few sources but these are those that I can remember of hand.
No blocking needed:
Resistance ~33150 Resist is cap so ~663 is 1% 0-50% = 0.5
Nord Passive Rugged 6% = 0.94
Minor Maim (applied on target) 15% = 0.85
Minor protection 8% = 0.92
Veil of Blade(basically Major Protection but never called that) 30% = 0.70
Nova (Major Maim, same as with Veil) 30% = 0.70
Blocking needed:
Blocking 50% = 0.5
One hand and shield passive Sword and Board 20% = 0.80
One hand and shield passive Deflect Bolt (only projectile) 15% = 0.85
Defensive Posture & Morphs 8% = 0.92
Dragonknight passive Iron Skin 10% = 0.9
Templar passive Spear wall (only melee) 15% = 0.85
Footman's fortune 12% = 0.88
To calculate how much any combination of mitigations are in total take the decimal number shown here and multiply them with each other and you will get the decimal form of how many percent of the original is left after all the mitigation has been applied. So as an example a DK blocking with Defensive posture, footman and capped resist would be:
0.5x0.5x0.9x0.92x0.88= 0.145728 which would mean only ~14.5% of the original is left aka ~85.5% got mitigated
Something to note is that getting to 80% mitigation is really simple and all you need is to block with capped resist with sword and board and that is a flat 80% mitigation. Now most people don't have capped resists but a small minor main and a defensive posture can usually pick up the slack. As well as you will notice as well there are severe diminishing returns on this and stacking to many of these would simply be a waste of resources.
The highest theoretical mitigation scenario I can come up with with these are using all of these listed with the exception of the templar passive and deflect bolt. So we are a DK Nord with a allied Templar and Nightblade that gives us Nova and Veil and we got capped resist and Footman's Fortune with all skills needed for the rest that would total to:
0.5x0.5x0.94x0.85x0.92x0.70x0.7x0.80x0.92x0.9x0.88=0.0524896 aka 94.75% total mitigation.
Due note that that would only last for about 10sec and after that the Veil and Nova would run out and they cant be sustained and also the Circle of protection which is the minor protection also costs a lot so it would also go fast and be unsustainable.
TL;DR or in conclusion: People complain that there are to few things to up damage mitigation and I say no there are plenty of stuff to use and stacking too many of them is a waste of time and resources.TheDarkShadow wrote: »Someone made this few months ago: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/187110/dmg-mitigation-for-tanks
I think it still up-to-date
Yea I'm the one that made that and the math is still the same only with slightly different resistance cap now which I have updated in this post I also quoted from the official tanking feedback thread. The post that I quoted has most if not all possible sources of mitigation, and shows how it is calculated. This however does not include how it is affected by penetration in PvP. But for PvE it is really good to know.
All you need to do to calculate your mitigation after penetration is to change how the resist is effected. So if your mitigation relies heavily on your resist then you might be hurting but if your mitigation relies on stuff other than resist then penetration will do much less on you.
Heatley2142 wrote: »Hey there! Im currently theroycrafting a Nord stamina Templar tank focusing primarily on DMG mitigation. But i need someone to explain if my values are correct. I have heard the values stack multiply not additive.
SO please correct me if any or all of the below is wrong:
If i have reached the physical and spell resistance cap (which is around 32000 i believe) i have 50% DMG MIT
Therefore a 10000DMG attack becomes 5000DMG. However my nord passives granting 6% DMG mitigation will not stack onto the 50% additive but treat the 5000DMG attack as the 'new' 100% so to speak and subtract 6% of 5000DMG.
So 5000/100 = 50= 1% x 6= 300= 6% + 5000= 5300 my new total dmg mit
So i now have 5300 DMG mitigated with the two stacked together for a total of 53% total DMG mitigation, right?
In the upcoming update restoring focus will provide 8% DMG MIT also, so again: 5300/100=53(1%) x 8= 424 (8%) + 5300= 5724DMG = 57.2%DMG MIT.
So 57.2% DMG with the rune down. I will also be running Reactive armour which grants 35% mitigation when CC'd, so lets say im cc'd when this 10000dmg attack hits with the rune applied:
5724/100= 57.24 (1%) x 35= 2003.4 (35%) + 5724= 7727.4. My total mitigated damage whilst CC'd which is 77.2%.
Now if the opponent was also affected by the very cheap ULT Empowering sweep which reduces damage taken by 15% and the value is increased by 4% for every enemy affected the value should grow even more right? So lets say the opponent has also been hit by empowering sweep reducing damage by 19%. So one more time:
7727.4/100= 77.274 (1%) x 19= 1468.206 (19%) + 7727.4= 9195.606. Which is the new mitigated damage, 91.9%. So a 10000DMG attack gets turned into 805.
I really hope this math is right but it seems to good to be true, of course this is only whilst CC'd with empowerning sweep up, but sweep is only 72 ult so it will be up somewhat frequently, rune is so cheap it is not an issue so at the very least 77% DMG mit when cc'd which in PvP is every time CC immunitty expires which is what every 4-6 seconds. This in combination with Health recovery (HR) glyphs nord HR passives one piece HR from engine guardian seems pretty appealing. But anyway is this how it stacks or have i wasted my time?
Heatley2142 wrote: »
paulsimonps wrote: »Heatley2142 wrote: »
Its Minor not Major, technically Nova acts like a Major Maim but there is no tool tip stating that any ability gives Major Maim.
Heatley2142 wrote: »With this build i will deal next to no damage, and zero mobility due to being a Templar not to mention i will still be vulnerable to critical hits without impenetrable gear. My skill bar will be sacrificed to provide buff de-buff and heals ,everything will revolve around survival not to mention high spell and physical penetration being a constant problem.
My point is if your going to specialize in something you should be great at it and be terrible at others such as DPS or healing. The sorc gets all three in the next patch so i hear all because of a high magicka pool...so yeah your right nerf sorcs.
FriedEggSandwich wrote: »I don't really know what I'm talking about with respect to mitigation, but I was under the impression that damage mitigation was capped at 50%, so it's not even possible to mitigate more than 50% of the damage, so any mitigation above this was wasted. I could well be wrong though, and probably am.