Detailed Explanation of Block Cost Changes

ClockworkArc

This is really awesome and thank you guys for the information.

Tevalaur

Wrobel wrote: »

While reviewing these examples, please keep the following points in mind:

• To calculate Constitution’s stamina return relative to block costs, we need to figure out how much stamina is being returned every half second. Constitution gives 247 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second. We can then subtract that 43 from the amount each block is charging you since you are being charged that block cost every half second.

Live
...
Constitution: 440 – 43 = 397

PTS
...
Constitution: 563 – 163 = 400

PTS – Boss Fight
...
Constitution 1 second: 587 – 326 = 261

You go to great lengths to explain how Constitution recovers 43 stamina every 0.5 seconds and that's why you're subtracting it on the "live" calculation. But suddenly you subtract 163 instead of 43 off the PTS value with no explanation. Is this a math error in your post?

If that is a math error, the update actually increases the overall "live cost" of 397 to an overall "PTS cost" of 520 (587-43), a 30% increase.

zerosingularity

Tevalaur wrote: »

Wrobel wrote: »

While reviewing these examples, please keep the following points in mind:

• To calculate Constitution’s stamina return relative to block costs, we need to figure out how much stamina is being returned every half second. Constitution gives 247 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second. We can then subtract that 43 from the amount each block is charging you since you are being charged that block cost every half second.

Live
...
Constitution: 440 – 43 = 397

PTS
...
Constitution: 563 – 163 = 400

PTS – Boss Fight
...
Constitution 1 second: 587 – 326 = 261

You go to great lengths to explain how Constitution recovers 43 stamina every 0.5 seconds and that's why you're subtracting it on the "live" calculation. But suddenly you subtract 163 instead of 43 off the PTS value with no explanation. Is this a math error in your post?

If that is a math error, the update actually increases the overall "live cost" of 397 to an overall "PTS cost" of 520 (587-43), a 30% increase.

Constitution got buffed on PTS, that's why.

code65536

Two of the most influential passives for tanks are Shield Expert and Unchained. The resource cost reduction from Unchained is great if you miss blocking a stun attack, or if you get feared/disoriented.

@Wrobel The following is a bit of a tangential issue, but since you brought up Unchained in your post, I would like to address it here.

Unchained might be nice for stamina tanks, but since both of my tanks are magicka tanks, it's quite useless for me, as the one and only stamina ability that I ever cast is Pierce Armor (I get Minor Maim from Shades/Talons, not Low Slash). So for me and other magicka-based tanks, Unchained is a worthless perk. (Well, it's generally useless for any magicka build, whether it be a tank, healer or a DD.) So, with that in mind, have you considered changing Unchained from "Stamina cost" to just "cost"?


(And as a magicka tank, my CP layout on Live looks nothing like your sample CP layout, so I can't comment on your calculations for now.)

Mysteri0n

He knows the calculations but does anyone else wanna see a video of Eric Wrobel tanking, I would just settle for him to tank the axes for AA hard mode.

code65536

Mysteri0n wrote: »

He knows the calculations but does anyone else wanna see a video of Eric Wrobel tanking, I would just settle for him to tank the axes for AA hard mode.

Or the final large pull in that large vICP area with the four watchers. The one with the Harvester. Get the important targets taunted, get the ranged targets chained in, keep the Harvester and Invokers interrupted, avoid the Harvester's Subjugation attack, break free of the Harvester's stun attack, and do all that without zeroing your resources.

Or the vMoL bannermen pulls.

Any of those would be fun to watch.

NBrookus

code65536 wrote: »

(And as a magicka tank, my CP layout on Live looks nothing like your sample CP layout, so I can't comment on your calculations for now.)

Thank goodness it's not just me!

Ra'Shtar

Wouldn't this make far more easy to tank in medium armor then? You no longer require heavy to attain block cost reduction so why not use medium armor on a tanking crafted set and have meh dps as a tank?

Nebthet78

Wrobel wrote: »

Champion System
We recently moved the block cost reduction from the Steed tree to the Shadow tree. This change was made to give more options in customizing your defenses, and help reduce the amount of time spent blocking. When spending Warrior points, you don’t need to invest in block cost; you can now consider increased healing taken, stronger damage shields, or more damage reduction. Let’s dive into how this will affect the stats of a character with 501 Champion Points who is trying to maximize their block time and damage resistance:

Live - Warrior
100 Block Expertise – 25% Block Cost Reduction.
33 Hardy – 11.5% Reduced Poison, Disease, and Physical Damage.
34 Elemental Defender – 11.8% Reduced Flame, Frost, Shock, and Magic Damage.
Unique unlocks the PTS build does not have (Invigorating Bash, Phase, Shield Expert)

Live - Thief
100 Warlord – 16% Cost Reduction Stamina abilities
67 Magician – 12.6% Cost Reduction Magicka abilities
Unique unlocks the PTS build does not have (Mara’s Gift, War Mount)

PTS - Warrior
83 Hardy – 21.9% Reduced Poison, Disease, and Physical Damage reduction.
84 Elemental Defender – 22.1% Reduced Flame, Frost, Shock, and Magic Damage.
Unique unlocks the Live build does not have (Critical Leech, Unchained)

PTS - Thief
100 Block Expertise – 25% Block Cost Reduction.
67 Warlord - 12.6% Cost Reduction Stamina abilities.
Unique unlocks the Live build does not have (Fortune Seeker, Merchant Favored, Treasure Hunter)

So with these changes, you are basically pigeonholing any one who wants to tank to use only the above CP no matter what in order to be affective, in addition to using a certain set of heavy armor.

I thought part of the point of the CP system was to allow us the freedom to make UNIQUE builds that would allow us to successfully play the content, but not cake walk it!

If I wanted a FOTM build to have fun with this game and be able to play with my guildmates, I would have made one a long time ago, but now if I want to tank successfully in trails, that's what I am going to have to make because of the changes you have made which doesn't take into any consideration unique, hybrid builds. It's lets put all our points into these few things, instead of working on actually balancing our characters as we progress, and ALL because of stupid PVP where a few people FOTM and others whine because they feel they are OP, when an easier solution to block cost reduction for PVP balance would have been adding a debuff to BattleSpirit.

Each step forward you guys take, you seem to take Five Steps back. I want to FEEL like my character is progressing and getting stronger in PVE. I want the enemies to get a little stronger as my CP raises, NOT having my character nerfed into the ground due to my playstyle and then have PVE content nerfed into the ground to compensate for those changes. It defeats the purpose of progressing at all.

lolo_01b16_ESO

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Reorx_Holybeard wrote: »

Thanks for the info! Don't have too much time right now to analyze it in detail but a few things to point out or ask. Note that this is mainly coming from the perspective of a stamina DK tank who uses a lot of Magicka abilities and likes to be able to switch out to a DPS role if needed.

• Do your cost analysis include the global +10% increase in abilities? If I lose 67 points in Magician my magicka abilities are 25% more expensive (for example, Igneous goes from ~3200 on live to ~4100 on PTS).
• Losing Magicka/Warlord as a Tank is not a huge deal due to the buff to Constitution as you noted, but more so when I wish to switch to a DPS role. Medium armor means no Constitution and all stamina abilities are 15% more expensive and magicka 25% more. Unfortunately I'm not (yet) rich enough to redo CPs each time I switch roles which is fairly often in some dungeons.
• The 2700 average ability cost seems a little low, especially for a hybrid type build. A lot of my stamina abilities are cheap but as a stamina tank that uses a lot of magic abilities my main concern are those. The Magicka abilities I use as a tank (Ingeous Shields, Choking Talons, Cinder Storm) are all > 3000 magicka on live and are >4000 magicka on PTS without Magician. I believe this means a large net loss in the ability to cast Magicka abilities on PTS (I generall cast more Magicka abilities than stamina as a DK tank), especially when combined with the global +10% ability cost. I'll work out the details when I have time later for comparison with yout calculations.

@Reorx_Holybeard , can you please link the source stating 10% ability increased cost?

I don't think it's exactly stated in the patch notes. There it just says that skill costs depend on your total cp instead of your vet rank and that the costs should be about the same. But I tested it for many skills on pts and it seems as if all skills cost 10.8% more than before.

Rohamad_Ali

Well I'm not tanking ... That's too much cp dedication in one place for me . An the heck with stacking sturdy gear . Good luck blockers .

Personofsecrets

What I think:

First and foremost I am thankful for the update by @Wrobel . It is nice that since, what seems to be to me, the Wrothgar patch that the developers have had more conversations with the players.

@Wrobel 's assuming via the calculations of a player that is using the maximum amount of block cost mitigation skews the calculations towards showing that resources will be in an okay place in the world that his calculations depict.

That above build is what I suspect to be the reason that some people were reporting to not notice a big difference between live and the PTS. Some people do use the maximum amount of block cost mitigation allowed. That being said, though I don't have player statistics, I doubt that the average tank build is using literally as much block cost mitigation as they can technically have.

This calculation would be more fair and more accurate at depicting the overall utility of proposed changes if it actually used the block cost reduction that an average player has. Otherwise the calculation will show players to be losing a different amount, but in this case less stamina, especially in the worst case scenario that @Wrobel generously assumes of .5 attacks per second, than they are likely to be losing on average. This would of course have the consequence of making the current balance changes as not appearing to be strict nerfs to resources and I would argue that the bracing change and block expertise change are strict resource nerfs.

I will have to come up with calculations to prove my point to @Wrobel and when I do I suspect that the biggest dilemma will be framing the discussion in terms that are easy to flesh out. For example, I might prove that resources are less robust in the future, but we will technically be more likely to have more damage mitigation or damage and it is a much more tough argument to claim that that only the resource aspect of the change matters (though, yes, resources are the only part that matters to me). It will be especially tough to make that case because, as @Wrobel points out, there are many different types of tanking. How exactly will anyone say that one type of tanking or using heavy armor is more relevant than another? Such framing will, problematically for some people such as myself, be a a reason for keeping the proposed changes.

Personofsecrets

lolo_01b16_ESO wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Reorx_Holybeard wrote: »

Thanks for the info! Don't have too much time right now to analyze it in detail but a few things to point out or ask. Note that this is mainly coming from the perspective of a stamina DK tank who uses a lot of Magicka abilities and likes to be able to switch out to a DPS role if needed.

• Do your cost analysis include the global +10% increase in abilities? If I lose 67 points in Magician my magicka abilities are 25% more expensive (for example, Igneous goes from ~3200 on live to ~4100 on PTS).
• Losing Magicka/Warlord as a Tank is not a huge deal due to the buff to Constitution as you noted, but more so when I wish to switch to a DPS role. Medium armor means no Constitution and all stamina abilities are 15% more expensive and magicka 25% more. Unfortunately I'm not (yet) rich enough to redo CPs each time I switch roles which is fairly often in some dungeons.
• The 2700 average ability cost seems a little low, especially for a hybrid type build. A lot of my stamina abilities are cheap but as a stamina tank that uses a lot of magic abilities my main concern are those. The Magicka abilities I use as a tank (Ingeous Shields, Choking Talons, Cinder Storm) are all > 3000 magicka on live and are >4000 magicka on PTS without Magician. I believe this means a large net loss in the ability to cast Magicka abilities on PTS (I generall cast more Magicka abilities than stamina as a DK tank), especially when combined with the global +10% ability cost. I'll work out the details when I have time later for comparison with yout calculations.

@Reorx_Holybeard , can you please link the source stating 10% ability increased cost?

I don't think it's exactly stated in the patch notes. There it just says that skill costs depend on your total cp instead of your vet rank and that the costs should be about the same. But I tested it for many skills on pts and it seems as if all skills cost 10.8% more than before.

I think that abilities have cost more on the PTS than they should be during the past PTS iterations. I'm not sure if those increased costs on the PTS have always translated into increased costs on live.

Enraged_Tiki_Torch

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

KisoValley

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

It's amazing how people assume because he posted calculations he's in the right with changes.

He's got the constitution passive wrong, he's completely ignored that blocking costs 10% more in general in PTS

No one has their CP set up how he does

More false information he's provided that I cba typing out but I guess his post is "Awesome".

Ajaxduo

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

Wouldn't this make far more easy to tank in medium armor then? You no longer require heavy to attain block cost reduction so why not use medium armor on a tanking crafted set and have meh dps as a tank?

Exactly what I am doing atm, 5 med 2 heavy. 29~35k resistances without armor master. I mean who honestly is going to want to take sturdy over divines or infused? It's like they are trying to force tanks into taking sturdy due to the loss of bracing and now the moving of the CP passive makes it worse for some builds. I prefer my reduced stam costs and regen, cheaper rolls and I can spam bone shield instead of blocking and only block when needed. Kinda silly but that's just how it is.

Personofsecrets

Many of us had the initial critique of the Bracing nerf that things would stay mostly normal, because of the constitution buff, except in times that we were taking many attacks per second.

Now @Wrobel attempts to show us why things will stay mostly normal while assuming that players are taking the maximum number of blocks per second which may have the initial result of us casting our worries aside, but by assuming a build that uses the maximum amount of block cost mitigation on live rather than the optimal amount (that I theorize is around 58%), the body of our initial critique of the Bracing nerfs fully remains.

That critique is that we will be shoehorned into doing certain things in the future in order to keep our resources as balanced as they currently are on live due to the changes going on. Wrobel tries to explain how achieving block cost reduction numbers will be about options and making choices, but the only choice we are making is the choice of trying to achieve the same block cost reduction value in the future that we have now. Even Wrobel made that choice during their calculation (for demonstration purposes).

I don't see why that choice is necessarily a compelling one and I don't see how we aren't being more shoehorned into certain ways of playing in the future when we are being caused to have more spell and weapon damage in lieu of sustain via the change of Bracing to Wrath.

In the long haul, especially a long haul that has had many increases to the CP cap, I think that we will wish that we still had Bracing due to how efficiently it works and we will wish that we still had block expertise in the Warrior do to how inefficient it will be to further bottleneck Thief champion points at the only benefit of severely diminished damage mitigation gains.

Don't get me wrong - the buff to Constitution and Sturdy is great. Those buffs have just come with a ton of baggage and, though this idea is speculation, I feel like the reason that buffs have only come with nerfs is because the development team prioritizes preventing players from becoming too strong over making sure that HA would be in a fun place. After all, did we not just get an explanation to us about how we can attempt to stay equal or slightly better than equal on our resource between pre and post DB?

That isn't necessarily bad, but it also isn't addressing what was the most pressing concerns of the Feedback thread which was made for heavy armor and tanking. Those were the concerns of overly tedious resource management detracting from the experience of being a tank. I may add that such an experience is something that Wrobel knows is at stake due to his recognition of challenges that the group finder tool faces with respect to tanks.

Personofsecrets

Bowser wrote: »

Constitution is not block cost reduction, its resource regen. Why is it being included in the cost reduction calculation?

Using those numbers, block cost is going up 33% before you start throwing Sturdy in. (587 / 440 = 1.33 )

Wrobel did that, I think, to demonstrate that resource gains and losses wont be affected much by the changes. That being said, the act of considering Constitution in this way does, in a sense, muddle the mixture.

There is also the idea that players were expecting to be buffed only, not made even to deal with. Furthermore, many players have been pointing out the externality that effects these heavy armor and tanking changes will be having an impact on the other times that they want to play the game as a more DPS focused player.

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_MattFiror

If Wrobel is going to have us be mostly equal post-DB with respect to resources at the benefit that some of us having the possibility of a few new choices to make, then I will just pass on having any changes at all. We might get a few more choices to make, but we wont be any more powerful with respect to resources and will be cost the resource of gold to either adapt to the proposed changes by switching our gear or to just switch our build when a raid needs us to DPS instead of Tank by changing our champion points all of the time. Champion point respecifications really add up.

Personofsecrets

HarmitGill wrote: »

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

It's amazing how people assume because he posted calculations he's in the right with changes.

He's got the constitution passive wrong, he's completely ignored that blocking costs 10% more in general in PTS

No one has their CP set up how he does

More false information he's provided that I cba typing out but I guess his post is "Awesome".

@HarmitGill , can you please post a proof that the amount for block cost to be increasing is 10%?

I expect it to go up, but just want to see the post or hear the word that talks about that 10% increase for myself.

Personofsecrets

Ajaxduo wrote: »

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

Wouldn't this make far more easy to tank in medium armor then? You no longer require heavy to attain block cost reduction so why not use medium armor on a tanking crafted set and have meh dps as a tank?

Exactly what I am doing atm, 5 med 2 heavy. 29~35k resistances without armor master. I mean who honestly is going to want to take sturdy over divines or infused? It's like they are trying to force tanks into taking sturdy due to the loss of bracing and now the moving of the CP passive makes it worse for some builds. I prefer my reduced stam costs and regen, cheaper rolls and I can spam bone shield instead of blocking and only block when needed. Kinda silly but that's just how it is.

The choice to use sturdy over bracing is sort of like the choice that a pet lover faces when adopting a new dog after the old one sadly passed away. The pet lover would prefer that such events didn't transpire and they now have to replace the newly opened void in their heart.

Enraged_Tiki_Torch

HarmitGill wrote: »

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

It's amazing how people assume because he posted calculations he's in the right with changes.

He's got the constitution passive wrong, he's completely ignored that blocking costs 10% more in general in PTS

No one has their CP set up how he does

More false information he's provided that I cba typing out but I guess his post is "Awesome".

Wrong or right is not why I said thanks or awesome. I don't agree with the change because Block Expertise was the passive people sent the 75 points to get Shield Expert. PvPers have an option in Crit Resistance but this still *** PvE Tanks. What I am thankful to him for is the communication and explaining the reasoning behind their choice to change this. Communication from the developers is a good thing imo. Take advantage of explaining where he is wrong...

Personofsecrets

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

HarmitGill wrote: »

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

It's amazing how people assume because he posted calculations he's in the right with changes.

He's got the constitution passive wrong, he's completely ignored that blocking costs 10% more in general in PTS

No one has their CP set up how he does

More false information he's provided that I cba typing out but I guess his post is "Awesome".

Take advantage of explaining where he is wrong...

This is the huge benefit of when developers post. I think that they can get alot more understanding from us when we point out the specific errors they make.

Personofsecrets

"Fixing an issue where Sturdy is multiplicative with itself instead of additive"

@Wrobel , does this mean that Sturdy will stack like bracing stacks on live?

zerosingularity

Personofsecrets wrote: »

"Fixing an issue where Sturdy is multiplicative with itself instead of additive"

@Wrobel , does this mean that Sturdy will stack like bracing used to stack?

Looking at the math, it seems like it does not, but rather is factored after the fortress/defensive posture spot. This means 10% from Sturdy would provide less reduction that a 10% bracing passive would.

But 3 legendary Sturdy pieces does seem like it would reduce the final cost by 12%, as it should.

NBrookus

HarmitGill wrote: »

Enraged_Tiki_Torch wrote: »

Thank you for taking the time to post this Eric. Awesome

It's amazing how people assume because he posted calculations he's in the right with changes.

He's got the constitution passive wrong, he's completely ignored that blocking costs 10% more in general in PTS

No one has their CP set up how he does

More false information he's provided that I cba typing out but I guess his post is "Awesome".

Twice now he has responded to our concerns with a detailed insight into how they are looking at the issue. That's a lot of communication compared to past events. I may not agree with his assumptions about what tank players are doing or where he wants to take it, but its a much-needed conversation.

Rohamad_Ali

I generally like Eric Wrobel and find much of his work goes un rewarded by the community . Critiquing his scenario on tanking is not a personal jab at what seems from ESO Live and his post information , a very cool guy trying his best to do the job of many people . With that aside ,....

Some of his numbers are really not far from where we are now but changing the tree changes the passives associated with the Champion system . That's going to take some getting use too . In my opinion it is for lack of a better term "pigeon holing" the chance at hybrid tank / dd players . In order to brighten the play style of blocking , the gear and new tree area jam up players into either tanking really well but limited in holding agro with good damage numbers from other gear sets and passives . I THINK ... this is one of the reasons for his change on heavy armor to increase damage while being attacked . I'm just not sure it's going to play out like he's hoping .

This of course is all just an uneducated guess because , I don't have access to the PTS this time and I'm just formulating my opinion based on old play style . He could of hit a fly ball out of the park for all I know and I'm missing a lot . Let's hope I'm wrong , and I really hope I am .

zerosingularity

Just ran some numbers. With 3 block cost jewelry, 7 heavy and full Block Reduction CP, things balance out between live and DB. This is what is shown in the above post.

If we take a 5/1/1 setup with 2 block cost jewelry and ~10% reduction from CP, it does NOT balance out, the resource drain is greater. Substantially. After constitution is factored in, we get 759 (with the setup I just mentioned) vs on live 625 block cost. The above setup would need about 4 gold Sturdy pieces to break even (16% reduction using the posted formula), which is losing 4 Reinforced/Divines pieces. Just food for thought.

Xsorus

He factors in constitution when blocking because it activates on tanking damage and you lose stamina at same time only when ya block... So that's why it's factored in.

idk

One issue I see is block cost reduction is not in competition with stam/magika cost reduction and regen reducing the abilities a tank can use or perform while tanking.

While I can see cost block reduction being in the same area, there is also logic to keeping it The Steed or related trees as blocking is directly related to damage reduction.

My concern is these changes could reduce the tanks effectiveness to merely useing a couple skills here and there, including taunt, and not much more. It may be more challenging to use buffs and other skills. Correction, it will be more challenging.

ikantspeell

I finally registered on the forums, just to say this. I thank you for the time you took to explain the new changes. I wish console had a PTS so I could test my current build. I don't think the current changes will work for my build.