Detailed Explanation of Block Cost Changes

hydrocynus

Firstly I would like to say that up to now i have pretty much supported all the changes to tanking. The no stamina recovery during block and taking away the block cost reduction passive from Heavy armour but buffing constitution, i can see the reasoning in all of those and how they make tanking more fun and i have really enjoyed those changes. I feel tanking in ESO is better for them and i have defended them on these forums.

Although i agree that tanking will be fine thanks to your explanation, Unfortunately this one for me just doesnt make any sense though and i would just like to Echo all those that have spoken about the ability to play two different roles with the same character because that is the main thing that we lose here. My tank is a very good magicka tank build and at the same time just by putting on light armour and a staff he can also do very decent damage. This is great when i have to do things like Wrothgar daily delves on my own or any normal quest line where you actually have to kill things. I could put on Heavy Julianos and Skoria and run around like that, but still i am not doing that much damage and no one is going to group with a DPS like that.

The same is true for some portions of dungeons and raids where it can be beneficial to have no tank or 1 tank where for rest of raid you need 2 (Vet SO coming? 2 tanks for Manti and final boss but rest you can be an extra DD).

Also sometimes if people are looking for a DD in dungeons or trials, i am able to swap gear only and join the group. Yes i know Tanks are rare but when it comes to raids you only need 1 or 2 so when you are surplus it is nice to be able to easily change roles.

@Wrobel the problem with your explanation, is unfortunately the player will ONLY get the same resource return as Arcanist/Magician if he is wearing 5pce heavy armour because it relies on the constitution passive to make it equivalent to all points in Arcanist/Magician or the stamina equivalents for the stamina tanks. That means versatility is out the window. gone. bye bye. Stamina tanks cant change to Med and Magicka tanks cant change to Light to perform a DPS role when required. This is really sad because it was one of the amazing things about this game that for me set it apart from other games, that you could easily switch roles.

In my opinion a better solution if you want to move Block Cost reduction, please rather keep it in Warrior but rather move it to Lady or Lord if you have to. This allows us our versatility and to "Play the way we want" like we are always told.

Yes i can see what you have done to blocking in respect of tanking from your calculations so thank you for that, but i think you have missed the bigger picture in that you are pegging us into a corner and only allowing us to use an entire character for the limited times in the game where tanking is required. This to me seems wrong.

Ok here is the detail of my character and why it wont work any more for me to be a DPS as well as a tank:
I am playing PVE and i compete all dungeons and all trials (excl vMoL) on hard mode with my character as both a DD and a Tank.

You asked for builds My Build at a high level is like this (if you want more detail i can give it):
Dragonknight Dunmer.
Tank:
5 Armour master, 5 Ebon, 2 lord warden (5 heavy 1 med 1 light) – See i have built myself to be a NON BLOCK tank but sometimes one must block for extended periods!
Mag about 30k, Health 28.5k Stamina i think 18.5
I achieve these stats by a mix of Infuse/Divines traits, tri-glyph and stamina/magicka enchants
All attributes in Magicka
Mundus - Mage

My CP are something like this (going from memory so not 100% right)
Steed has 85 in block cost and a few others to maybe 100 points – This I must change to skills in Lady as per your explanation – this actually benefits my DPS build i understand that!
Rest in Warrior are split between Hardy and Elemental defender and thick skinned
Thief is mostly Arcanist/Magician but i have some in the stamina equivalents too for stamina skills and to recover stamina when not blocking (I am definitely not a PERMABLOCK tank!)
Mage is fully set for DPS in the standard way of mix of Thaumaturge Elemental Expert Spell erosion Elfborn

DPS:
I can swap only gear to 5 Julianos, 2 Valkyn Skoria, 3 Willpower (5 Light, 1 med, 1heavy) and fire staves and with all magicka glyphs and traits i get to 37k magicka and about 17.5khealth and i can be a very decent fire mage in a group or solo.

I have almost all Skill points available (excl PVP ones) so have more than enough to place in skills for both Fire Mage and Tanking (and FULL Crafting infact!).

This is awesome and i really felt this is why this game is so great. Two great builds from one set of CP and attribute points made my favourite character an unbelievably fun way to play. Unfortunately with 50% of my Sustain Champions points now eroded by block cost reduction to play the same way, i cannot continue and have to be a 1 trick pony.

As an example of the versatility, With the above CP set up, i am able to tank Lord warden in Heavy armour with a 1H/S on one bar and Destro staff on the other to help the DPS and only swap to 1h&S for Split phase or his barrage thing. Its one of the funnest fights because i can do this now, but i wont be able to going forward because i cannot have as much in reduce magicka cost and magicka recovery. I must now stand there the whole fight while he bounces around the room, aggro him and wait for him to come back to me because that is all i will be effective as – that is just sooooo boring.

Rylana

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

WhiteNoiseMaker

Rylana wrote: »

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

You claim is unproven until the 'considered' move for the Shield Expert exchanging it with Resilient actually is implemented int the PTS. Secondly no PVP tester has yet posted ANY actual cited proof of their claims on this forum.

All claims are spurious until backed up by data that can actually be peer reviewed and tested. Even Wrobel's post (while it looks good) is going to be held by me in some level of skepticism until the final numbers are crunched and published by a credible source like Tamriel Foundry with cited sources such as testing logs and videos.

Remember after all that the numbers given per half-second were NOT part of the PTS until the most recent patch and were not announced as part of the patch changes. Wrobel's statement here in this thread was the FIRST notice that anyone had that their prior consideration of timing based on on hit per second was going to actually be modified.

Arthg

Rylana wrote: »

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

Real, honest question, from an average player: do you really think that competitive players will be wearing 5 or more heavy after the patch?

Rylana

WhiteNoiseMaker wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

You claim is unproven until the 'considered' move for the Shield Expert exchanging it with Resilient actually is implemented int the PTS. Secondly no PVP tester has yet posted ANY actual cited proof of their claims on this forum.

All claims are spurious until backed up by data that can actually be peer reviewed and tested. Even Wrobel's post (while it looks good) is going to be held by me in some level of skepticism until the final numbers are crunched and published by a credible source like Tamriel Foundry with cited sources such as testing logs and videos.

Remember after all that the numbers given per half-second were NOT part of the PTS until the most recent patch and were not announced as part of the patch changes. Wrobel's statement here in this thread was the FIRST notice that anyone had that their prior consideration of timing based on on hit per second was going to actually be modified.

Here is the problem with "peer review" in this game. The actual life cycle of a build is as follows:

1. Patch day, 90+ percent of the population is up in arms because they didnt test a thing and are waiting for the cookie cutters to be spoon fed to them.
2. Someone relatively well known with a lot of followers posts the first cookie cutter build, everyone assumes its the best in slot for everything, and now adopts it for the next six months and ignores anything else said, period.
3. Players that tested everything are now using the actually good builds (which number 2 did not stumble upon most of the time, they got close, but managed to miss something important because they arent actually a theorycrafter, they just look at a few stats and assume they have the right combo)
4. The elite rise above, the mediocre complain about game mechanics.
5. Something ends up nerfed. Usually because the mediocre are mad they arent doing as well as the elite, but trust their cookie cutter build that "someone" said was awesome so much, that they dont realize their own mistake.
6. Now the elites are legit mad because the bads got something broken by being ignorant of actual game mechanics.
7. Mass panic as a solution is sought. Eventually we settle on one of the builds the elites had been using all along, much to the chagrin of everyone.
8. Start the next patch cycle.




Edit to add to address something else: Not one thing Wrobel posted today is new information to me, I learned all of this by testing and spending a lot of time figuring things out. I didnt need "dev confirmation" to know I was right. Most information you read is some third party parroting of something some guy you dont even know claiming in a post or video, which was in fact incorrect information to start with. Such as the doomsayers on the first day the bracing and constitution changes were announced. They assumed, posted knee jerk reactions practically everyone jumped on, and here we see today they were 100 percent wrong while those of us that actually took the time to check knew about it and were right from go.

Same with the supposed "sorc nerf" that ones just funny.

Rylana

arth-grogalith wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

Real, honest question, from an average player: do you really think that competitive players will be wearing 5 or more heavy after the patch?

In PvP it will be very widespread among the elites, in PvE im sure the naysayers and doom n gloom brigade will keep telling enough people its bad that it wont change. Meanwhile those of us in the know, will take our PvP builds and ace content with no problems like usual.

In fact here is a little nugget for you - stamina recovery for tanks is going to be completely useless. (this has actually been true for months already, just moreso now) You wont need anything into the stat, especially for DK or Nightblade tanks. Everything is reactive now.

In fact a Magicka DK or Magicka NB using sword and shield, with 5/1/1 heavy, in 5 black rose, 2 blood spawn, 3 shadow dancer, 2 torugs, with all spell damage and prismatic enchants.... is going to be a thing of absolute beauty for both PvP and PvE tanking/damage. But dont take my word for it, I dont know a thing.... only the doomsayers do.

Arthg

Rylana wrote: »

In PvP it will be very widespread among the elites, in PvE im sure the naysayers and doom n gloom brigade will keep telling enough people its bad that it wont change. Meanwhile those of us in the know, will take our PvP builds and ace content with no problems like usual.

I'll take your word for it then, see you in a few weeks

Rylana

doublepost

kylewwefan

saving.

Asayre

@Panth141

Interesting idea! There are several pieces to consider including pieces of Sturdy, points in Shadow Ward, Attacks per second, Block Enchantment, number of heavy armour pieces (really only 5 or 7 I guess) but I couldn't plot it in an easily understandable fashion. I tried looking just at 0 pieces of Sturdy first and varying Shadow Ward, Attacks per second and a multiplier to the current PTS Constitution value. From the graphs below, I couldn't really find a decent multiplier such that Block Cost is about the same for all situations. It seems that the Constitution value on PTS needs to be increased by 70% for block cost for 0 block enchants to be comparable to Live but then it makes the resource regeneration in all other situations a bit too high. At the 70% multiplier level, 3 block enchants will give you around 100 extra stamina. I guess I shouldn't say too high as I'm not sure what is really a good value. Naturally, the resource gains with 7 pieces of Heavy Armour will be higher but I'm not including the figures here.

ClockworkArc

I find it quite surprising that people still seem upset. At the end of the day these changes will roll out because the arguments against seem for more like edge cases than anything else.

Take a look at @Asayre bonus graph at the bottom of his post. Even with only 5 heavy, roughly 10 points in Block Cost Reduction, 3 Block Cost enchants, and 3 pieces of sturdy you are roughly on par with the current live values even at the worst possible scenario. That looks pretty flexible to me.

The reason Wrobel used 7/7 Heavy was because he was demonstrating the highest possibly achieveable block cost reduction on live. He met that in db with ONLY one Sturdy trait which means you can exceed it easily.

The argument that this pigeon holes CP set ups to not be as flexible is debunked because you have the option of off loading block cost onto either your gear or your enchants. Its different but still possible. It does trade in some power off of your traits but you can still do that set up, leave CP the same, and swap gear freely.

The argument of needing maximum block cost reduction is out the window because you have an extra path to achieve the same numbers or greater than on live.

The argument that now everyone is going to tank with medium armor is thrown out the window because of the increased importance of Constitution while holding block. We all know that we don't need to hold block though because most of the game is not that punishing.

The argument that this heavily impacts undaunted set ups is legit. In order to take undaunted and maintain your block cost economy you will now have to trade off some other traits which are more valuable in an undaunted set up. That is the most valid argument against these changes that I see. The undaunted passives are something you have to work for and they are slightly devalued by these changes for a heavy block user.

The argument that sturdy is completly useless in pvp due to the power of Impen is debateable because the numbers dont strictly add up (one is damage reduction, the other provides stamina when blocking) and a lot depends on how much crit chance your enemy has. Still lets assume that crit resistance is more valuable than block cost. Through cp you are now better able to take both block cost and crit resistance if desired. They are no longer exclusive through cp. Personally I block far less in pvp and as a result will likely not take any block cost reduction but still wear heavy armor so I can enjoy the extra health regen, mitigation, damage, health, healing recieved, and resources from constitution.

The reality is that even as a tank you are hit approximatley less than once a second and with DB constitution you have greater resources at your disposal in every situation where you are hit less than once a second than on live. I know Wrobel has mentioned this in his posts several times but that is the single most useful piece of information to come out of this. In 95% of the game HA users have more resources than before.

Rohamad_Ali

Rylana wrote: »

WhiteNoiseMaker wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

I told you guys tanks and HA werent nerfed, and that they were buffed.

Perhaps listen to your PvP min max players more often, the ones that actually know game mechanics via testing and retesting, before you jump to conclusions.

You claim is unproven until the 'considered' move for the Shield Expert exchanging it with Resilient actually is implemented int the PTS. Secondly no PVP tester has yet posted ANY actual cited proof of their claims on this forum.

All claims are spurious until backed up by data that can actually be peer reviewed and tested. Even Wrobel's post (while it looks good) is going to be held by me in some level of skepticism until the final numbers are crunched and published by a credible source like Tamriel Foundry with cited sources such as testing logs and videos.

Remember after all that the numbers given per half-second were NOT part of the PTS until the most recent patch and were not announced as part of the patch changes. Wrobel's statement here in this thread was the FIRST notice that anyone had that their prior consideration of timing based on on hit per second was going to actually be modified.

Here is the problem with "peer review" in this game. The actual life cycle of a build is as follows:

1. Patch day, 90+ percent of the population is up in arms because they didnt test a thing and are waiting for the cookie cutters to be spoon fed to them.
2. Someone relatively well known with a lot of followers posts the first cookie cutter build, everyone assumes its the best in slot for everything, and now adopts it for the next six months and ignores anything else said, period.
3. Players that tested everything are now using the actually good builds (which number 2 did not stumble upon most of the time, they got close, but managed to miss something important because they arent actually a theorycrafter, they just look at a few stats and assume they have the right combo)
4. The elite rise above, the mediocre complain about game mechanics.
5. Something ends up nerfed. Usually because the mediocre are mad they arent doing as well as the elite, but trust their cookie cutter build that "someone" said was awesome so much, that they dont realize their own mistake.
6. Now the elites are legit mad because the bads got something broken by being ignorant of actual game mechanics.
7. Mass panic as a solution is sought. Eventually we settle on one of the builds the elites had been using all along, much to the chagrin of everyone.
8. Start the next patch cycle.

We have a process here . An like the recipe to every successful sitcom , it's life cycle completely depends on following the "Forumula" .

I wanna welcome back all the contestants to Celebrity PvP Builder Season 2 and expect the same level of entertainment from the community at large as enjoyed in prior seasons . I anticipate teardrops , thrown mouse pads and controllers in a full disarray of frustration and misinformation dispite the unlimited amount of rational posts to the contrary .

Hopefully one build apprentice will move up the ranks of understanding game mechanics an will be promoted out of the Scrub pile to go on and lead others to a new season in the future . Who will it be ? Let's watch N find out .

Personofsecrets

@Rylana how exactly do you use @Wrobel 's calculation to prove you are right abou heavy armor getting buffed when @Wrobel 's calculation doesnt even show HA to be buffed?

Same to you @Rugz_Maulgoth . Does it make sense that block cost mitigation enchantments are not as efficient as magic or stamina cost reduction enchantments? There is a heavy cost to using them and we will be giving up stats and the efficiency at gaining stats just so we can have the same block cost in the future that we have on live. @Wrobel may have even wrongly assumed the average cost of skills and he didn't include the alleged increase in the cost to block that is supposed to be happen into the discussion.

All of these ideas build up to indicate that resources arent necessarily going to be in the spot that the OP tries to indicate.

Armitas

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

The argument that sturdy is completly useless in pvp due to the power of Impen is debateable because the numbers dont strictly add up (one is damage reduction, the other provides stamina when blocking) and a lot depends on how much crit chance your enemy has. Still lets assume that crit resistance is more valuable than block cost. Through cp you are now better able to take both block cost and crit resistance if desired. They are no longer exclusive through cp. Personally I block far less in pvp and as a result will likely not take any block cost reduction but still wear heavy armor so I can enjoy the extra health regen, mitigation, damage, health, healing recieved, and resources from constitution.

Live in 5 heavy.
20% block cost + impen.

Pts in 5 heavy
Block cost reduction or impen.

Its not about comparing block cost to impen. Its about comparing block cost with impen to now one or the other. Not just impen but any trait you used for your build before now has to be sacrificed to recoup what was just decoupled from HA.

Rylana

Armitas wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

The argument that sturdy is completly useless in pvp due to the power of Impen is debateable because the numbers dont strictly add up (one is damage reduction, the other provides stamina when blocking) and a lot depends on how much crit chance your enemy has. Still lets assume that crit resistance is more valuable than block cost. Through cp you are now better able to take both block cost and crit resistance if desired. They are no longer exclusive through cp. Personally I block far less in pvp and as a result will likely not take any block cost reduction but still wear heavy armor so I can enjoy the extra health regen, mitigation, damage, health, healing recieved, and resources from constitution.

Live in 5 heavy.
20% block cost + impen.

Pts in 5 heavy
Block cost reduction or impen.

Its not about comparing block cost to impen. Its about comparing block cost with impen to now one or the other. Not just impen but any trait you used for your build before now has to be sacrificed to recoup what was just decoupled from HA.

Impen is useless in DB. Everyone will have a shield active, especially DKs, who will now shield stack just like sorcs do today.

ClockworkArc

I have to run to work @Armitas and @Personofsecrets but I have some ideas for you.

The basics are that you have to look at the relative value of a trait versus a jewelry enchant and/or cp and the fact that Sturdy becomes more valuable with less CP and Enchants involved, which frees up your enchants and CP for other causes.

Dubhliam

Asayre wrote: »

Thank you @Wrobel for the detailed explanation. I've a few comments

Typo

Wrobel wrote: »

Constitution gives 247 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second.

I think you meant

Constitution gives 346 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second.

And this is with 7 pieces of Heavy Armour.

Block Cost Formula
You suggest that the block cost formula on the PTS is

I would instead suggest

I compared both models to the block cost on the PTS and found my proposed formula to be slightly more accurate. I’ve included video evidence showing the block cost on the PTS for 0, 1 and 7 pieces of Sturdy (https://sendvid.com/o29cfk6c). There is some rounding to 3 significant figures going on with the base cost of 2160, the Sturdy part and Shadow Ward so I have to figure out a more accurate formula.


Stamina Loss on Block
Using your method of comparing stamina loss on block on Live and on PTS, I’ve extended to include a wider span of parameters. I used the following equations to draw the plots below. I used the following to determine the stamina loss on block and plotted the difference for a range of parameters.



In the image above, I'm showing slices corresponding to 0, 1, 2 and 3 purple block cost enchantments when wearing 7 pieces of Heavy Armour. The colour scale used changes at around 0 to accentuate the changeover. With 7 pieces of Heavy Armour, I find that unless a lot of block cost mitigation is used or with a low rate of attacks per second the stamina loss on the PTS is greater than on Live. This is even more true when considering 5 pieces of Heavy Armour, where the stamina loss on PTS is almost always greater than on Live. Due to the altered ability cost formula, 5 pieces of Heavy Armour is more strongly preferred as cost reduction from Light and Medium Armour are more valuable (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/262631/impact-of-change-in-ability-cost-formula-on-pts-gameplay). So I would argue that 5 pieces of Heavy Armour should be considered instead of 7. It also leads me to the conclusion that my block cost will be higher on the PTS than on Live, if I keep using the same gear.

But I do like the changes to the Sturdy trait as it will now be a reasonable idea to use Sturdy on small pieces instead of Infused as I'll be trading 81 Health or 70 Magicka/Stamina for somewhere between 30-50 stamina block cost reduction.

Clarification on average ability cost

Wrobel wrote: »

The average ability cost is 2700 resources.

Could you provide more explanation for this number? I created a histogram of the cost of all magicka based abilities with a non-trivial cost and came up with the following

The mean magicka cost is 3259 and the median is 3166. This is from Live. On the PTS, my testing suggest that the base cost of all abilities has increased by 10.8% meaning that mean is 3610 and the median is 3508. If I were to just consider some iconic tanking abilities the cost on Live and PTS are:


Increased ability cost
It seems that the base ability cost has increased by 10.8% on the PTS. It is not clear whether this is factored in when you discussed the Champion system.

Edit:
Bonus graphs, how many pieces of Sturdy do you need to have roughly the same stamina loss on block as on Live

Negative 1 here means you're already better off in DB than on Live and no Sturdy is required.

Now THIS is real research!
Thank you!

In short, people that don't want to put 100CP into Shadow Ward (99% of the playerbase) HAVE to have three Shield play enchantments to compensate.

Currently, on live, I have 75 CP points into reduce block cost, and two shield play enchantments. Meaning if I reduce my CPs to around 30, I should slot one more shield play.

I will however lose a mag regen enchantment with additional CPs from mag regen and spell cost, effectively making me more worried about my magicka than my stamina.
I don't calculate the magicka return from Constitution because spells will cost more in any case.

The point being is this:
ZOS wanted to make more builds viable and have diversity.
Instead they force tanks into cookie cutter builds.

If they applied the same math for damage dealers as they do for tanking, we would not see any nerfs at all because ZOS would be all like:
"We did the math, deal with it!"

Armitas

Rylana wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

The argument that sturdy is completly useless in pvp due to the power of Impen is debateable because the numbers dont strictly add up (one is damage reduction, the other provides stamina when blocking) and a lot depends on how much crit chance your enemy has. Still lets assume that crit resistance is more valuable than block cost. Through cp you are now better able to take both block cost and crit resistance if desired. They are no longer exclusive through cp. Personally I block far less in pvp and as a result will likely not take any block cost reduction but still wear heavy armor so I can enjoy the extra health regen, mitigation, damage, health, healing recieved, and resources from constitution.

Live in 5 heavy.
20% block cost + impen.

Pts in 5 heavy
Block cost reduction or impen.

Its not about comparing block cost to impen. Its about comparing block cost with impen to now one or the other. Not just impen but any trait you used for your build before now has to be sacrificed to recoup what was just decoupled from HA.

Impen is useless in DB. Everyone will have a shield active, especially DKs, who will now shield stack just like sorcs do today.

I don't know. It seems like it's not going to be worth the DPs loss of double stacking. With the shields only lasting six seconds you can't cast them right after each other otherwise the last one will expire without being consumed if the first one was still up. You would have to weave the second into the middle of the first shields duration. I think that kind of maintence will make it really hard to sustain the pressure.

Someone will do it well but to me that seems like nightmare to handle.

Armitas

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

I have to run to work @Armitas and @Personofsecrets but I have some ideas for you.

The basics are that you have to look at the relative value of a trait versus a jewelry enchant and/or cp and the fact that Sturdy becomes more valuable with less CP and Enchants involved, which frees up your enchants and CP for other causes.

Please do because it will be valuable to the discussion, but just know I never used block cost enchants and relied heavily on magicka in the cp thief line for PvP. I put heavy armor on because it gave me the ability to brake damage without permablocking and it gave me a small head start in overcoming the armor pen in Cyro.

I wanted HA because it could pull its own weight but now it seems to need assistance to fulfill the same role it used to.

Personofsecrets

Rugz_Maulgoth wrote: »

I have to run to work @Armitas and @Personofsecrets but I have some ideas for you.

The basics are that you have to look at the relative value of a trait versus a jewelry enchant and/or cp and the fact that Sturdy becomes more valuable with less CP and Enchants involved, which frees up your enchants and CP for other causes.

Okay, I will give that idea thought and look for the post that you might make later about Sturdy

WhiteNoiseMaker

Rylana wrote: »

Here is the problem with "peer review" in this game. The actual life cycle of a build is as follows:

(snip)

Edit to add to address something else: Not one thing Wrobel posted today is new information to me, I learned all of this by testing and spending a lot of time figuring things out. I didnt need "dev confirmation" to know I was right. Most information you read is some third party parroting of something some guy you dont even know claiming in a post or video, which was in fact incorrect information to start with. Such as the doomsayers on the first day the bracing and constitution changes were announced. They assumed, posted knee jerk reactions practically everyone jumped on, and here we see today they were 100 percent wrong while those of us that actually took the time to check knew about it and were right from go.

Same with the supposed "sorc nerf" that ones just funny.

Fair enough, I cannot claim to have parsed out all of that data like you have done, but I was testing and observing what I could on my own, which is admittedly limited. However I was always skeptical (and remain skeptical) of the "all is working as intended' spiels. The fact is though, without dev transparency, changes posted without some level of explanation will always be suspect and create an atmosphere of 'unneeded change for the sake of change' amongst people reading patch notes. I like making my own build, building upon what people teach me, and I don't like cookie cutter mindsets, but there's only so much a casual player can do to research the game without third party tools or Dev-provided data. Everyone is going to have to start somewhere on an assumption of certain common frames of reference.

ZOS_GinaBruno

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

zerosingularity wrote: »

Also I spotted a typo with Sturdy in your post, where you have 1x sturdy = 8% instead of 4% reduction. Your math is done with a 4% reduction like you were stating, it's just a mere typo. Pointing it out in-case it confuses anyone.

Whoops, thanks! I'll make this edit for Eric so it's clear for everyone reading starting now.

Can you fix his three purple rings comment too? Pretty sure he meant three purple jewelry, IE two rings and a necklace.

Yes! That should be jewelry, not rings. Will make the edit to reflect.

Liofa wrote: »

So ... No change in base block cost ? Because there is a line in the Patch Notes 2.4.0 :

''Core mechanics (sprint, dodge, block, CC break) will now be slightly more expensive.''

Can you clearify this as well ?

We double checked the block cost and it should actually be the same. We'll remove "block" from that line in the patch notes as this was simply an error, sorry about that.

Reorx_Holybeard wrote: »

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).

The change didn't have anything to do specifically with block cost, so it wasn't included in the examples given. That change affects all builds in the game, not just tanks (and we wanted to keep the examples specific to tanks).

Asayre wrote: »

Typo

Wrobel wrote: »

Constitution gives 247 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second.

I think you meant

Constitution gives 346 stamina every 4 seconds, which equates to 43 every half second.

You're right - thanks! Will make that edit. And the rest of your post with the charts... oh my gosh. Bravo.

GeertKarel

I haven't done the calculations yet just read it and Eric a well job done.

Hope you took a lot of different things in consideration and I very well hope the spear synergy will be more reliable in the PTS. if it is it'll be a lot better for our tanks to have better stamina resource management.

GeertKarel

I haven't done the calculations yet just read it and Eric a well job done.

Hope you took a lot of different things in consideration and I very well hope the spear synergy will be more reliable in the PTS. if it is it'll be a lot better for our tanks to have better stamina resource management.

Dagoth_Rac

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Reorx_Holybeard wrote: »

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).

The change didn't have anything to do specifically with block cost, so it wasn't included in the examples given. That change affects all builds in the game, not just tanks (and we wanted to keep the examples specific to tanks).

Is that global increase to skill costs intended? An entire 100 points into Warlord or Magician is 16% cost decrease. 10% increase negates well more than half of those stars. Patch notes said skill costs should end up "about the same" after VR removal. They are not about the same. They were literally decimated!

agabahmeatshieldb14_ESO

Nebthet78 wrote: »

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!

I agree really strongly with this, and with what @code65536 posted earlier. We're not all Stamina tanks, and I think it's a serious blow to build and group diversity if you're basing balance changes for tanks around the idea of always wearing 7 pieces of Heavy Armor, a One-hand and Shield on both bars, and 3 Block-cost reduction enchants on jewelry.

Unless ZOS is going to make all group content require a tank at all times and for every fight (which I do not think is a good idea, by the way, variety is always good), investing all of your Champion Points exclusively for tanking is going to be a liability. It'll mean you either have to pay the cost to respec for fights like the Planar Inhibitor or the first boss in Veteran Maw of Lorkhaj (where that second tank you brought along for trash pulls and the second boss is dead weight), or you'll be contributing dramatically less in those fights than your team-members. Neither of those is a positive for tanks. I would hope that the idea is to make tanking approachable enough that more people try it as a role, not make it prohibitively expensive and rigidly specific in its requirements. That's simply not fun.

I love my Magicka tanks because they can do a great job tanking and then, on a moment's notice, do a great job DPSing with a simple swap of gear and food. Please don't take that away; it kills one of the best parts of this game, which is that your character isn't just locked into one role forever.

Reorx_Holybeard

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Reorx_Holybeard wrote: »

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).

The change didn't have anything to do specifically with block cost, so it wasn't included in the examples given. That change affects all builds in the game, not just tanks (and we wanted to keep the examples specific to tanks).

I guess I was mainly referred to Wrobel's cost analysis which seems to use the same average cost of abilities on Live and PTS (2700). If you include the global cost increase this average goes up to 3000, or if you include the loss of 67 points in Magician/Warlord up to 3375 which changes the calculation/results considerably.

Roymachine

laced wrote: »

Lets also not forget that you guys implemented non CP campaigns into PVP, which just so happen to be the most popular ones in the EU, and this whole focusing on CP in order to block is just hurting the campaign that YOU implemented.

I'm failing to see the problem here. You also lose 25% damage, 25% recovery, %s of damage reduction and cost reduction among other things. It's part of the campaign.

Roymachine

nikolaj.lemcheb16_ESO wrote: »

There is one part of this equation that does not add up. Putting 100 points into champion block cost reduction will now cost you a massive loss in stamina regen.

So the calculations does not add up.

You don't regen stamina while blocking.

Saturn

I never understood what all the fuss was about, anyone who had gone on the PTS to test this when the changes went Live would know that tanks got super buffed. With my current build used on the PTS I never go below 90% stamina (on a magicka tank) if all I do is hold block against a single enemy (who hits once every 1-2 seconds). The buff to Constitution actually makes you regen resources in boss fights.

It's cool that you actually explained the reasoning behind it though. Kind of wish you would do that with other changes

I'm still confused as to why the cost of Inner Fire was increased by 250% back in Update 6. That was something that was never explained.

The only annoyance I have with the changes is that there is no way for us (currently) to change the traits of gear we have already collected = we will have to grind for gear we already have just to get it with the new delicious Sturdy trait. That is definitely something I'd love to see in the future, especially if you plan to redesign other traits down the line.