Deleted

Rizcarn wrote: »

((x/1.w%)-y)-((x-y).z%) works right
Example:
base cast
x=1211
Breton 1%
z=1%
jewelry3 items 163 each
y=489
Champ reduction 1%
w=1%
((1211/1.01)-489)-((1211-489).01)
((1199.0099)-489)-((722).01)
(710)-(7.22)
702.78
on Pts READS 703

Champion Reduction reduces by un-modded Cost(1211) while everything else does by modded Magicka(722).

Only thing not working right is the amount that jewelry reduces.
VR 1 gold rune says 179 each but at V1 each gives 145 each and at VR14 163 each.

@Rizcarn‌ That formula isn't correct.

It is easy to model something at the lowest cost reductions but the flaws become much more apparent at higher reduction percentages. You can't trust the tooltips of the Jewelry cost reduction enchants for one. That stumped me for awhile. You have to calculate the exact cost reduction you're getting by checking the spell cost tooltip while you have zero cost reduction passives (Champion point reduction isn't affected by magick cost reduction enchants.

My formula works perfectly for every number possible that you plug in. As I said I spent hours to determine exactly how all aspects of reduction behave.

It is possible to get 92% reduction to Crystal fragments yet even with 623 magicka cost reduction enchants (The V14 max) and 15.8 Champion point reduction (100 points) the cost is still 464. This is why I think they made a portion of spells unable to be reduced, in order to insure that it isn't possible to get magicka return upon costs, or to have nearly free casts.

Using my formula (my original post simplified the percentages and I transposed an error in the magick reduction):
((x*.877)*(100-z))+x*.123)*(100-w)) - (y*((100-(z*.877))))
X=3591 (Base Cost)
Z= 100-92% = 8%(Magick cost reduction percent)
W=100-15.8%=84.2%(The champion point reduction)
Y=623 (Magick reduction enchant total)

(3591*.877)*(100-92))+(3591*.123)*(100-15.8))-(623*((100-(92*.877))))
((3149.307*.08)+(441.693))*(.842)-(623*(100-80.684)
(251.94+441.693)*.842 - (623*(.19316))
(693.633*.842 -(120.33868))
584.038986-120.33868
463.66132

Actual PTS cost = 464.

There are times when my formula will be 1 magicka point off but that is due to rounding issues since we don't know the *true* numbers being used, only the numbers they are being rounded to.

If you want to try my formula in excel or a spreadsheet program use this:
=Sum(((P83*0.877*((100-P86)/100))+(P83*0.123))*((100-P87)/100))-(P88*(100-(P86*0.877))/100)

P83 = Base Cost
P86 = Spell Reduction percentage displayed as a whole number (92 in this case)
P87= Champion Point Reduction displayed as a whole number (15.8 in this case)
P88 = Magick Cost reduction enchant total

The behaviors I've mapped are extremely confusing and some of them don't make sense. For instance on live your spell reduction enchants are reduced by your spell cost reduction percentages which makes sense otherwise your low cost spells would be free. The new formula however *reduces* this reduction by 12.3% which actually makes cost reduction a bit more powerful than they would be otherwise, especially at high spell cost reduction percentages. Maybe they did this to offset the unreducible percentage but the math behind everything is very confusing to someone who is just expecting to receive a certain benefit based upon a tooltip.

Helluin wrote: »

I tested this during last week, maybe it can help you or provide some info.

The real issue with cost reduction is just the tooltips displayed are not what you receive. Once you know exactly how much you're receiving by enchant they are predictable.

Soulac wrote: »

This formula is the closest i got and it works perfectly fine with my build planer.
Tested with many different parts of Light Armor, Medium Armor, Equip Reduction, Glyphs etc.

((BaseCost - ChampionPercentage) - Flatreduction) - (otherPercentages x 0,866667)

example:
BaseCost - 2400
ChampionPercentage - 10% (Magickacost reduction)
Flatreduction - one Glyph with 200 reduction
otherPercentages - full light Armor -> 21%

((2400 - 10%) - 200) - (21% * 86,6667%)

Already made a thread about it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/151159/new-cost-and-stat-calculations-change-to-reduction-passives#latest

@Soulac‌

I'm not getting accurate numbers with that formula and it becomes far less accurate at extremes. I'm glad someone else collaborated the new factor introduced to the calculation (although the number is closer to .877 than .866667. Your formula separates champion point reduction from the enchant cost reduction but the enchant cost reduction is calculated before the spell cost reduction not independent from it.

Using the Crystal fragment example I provided your formula would allow me to be -463 cost when I'm actually positive 464.

I plotted and tested over 60 different combinations of spell cost reduction, champion point reduction and magicka cost reductions and my formula works perfectly (within 1 point of rounding error) on every combination for 5 different spells.

You're not writing your formula correctly then but I see now that it is the simplification of mine that I was hoping someone would come up with.

The only difference now is that the "factor" is close to .877 not .8777 which is too high.

Your (or Our I could say) formula in excel format is:
=sum((X*((100-Y)/100))-Z)*(1-(W/100)*0.877)

This is a reduced form of
Sum(((X*0.877*((100-Y)/100))+(X*0.123))*((100-Z)/100))-(W*(100-(Y*0.877))/100)

XEVENEX wrote: »

((2400 - 10%) - 200) - (21% * 87,7%) is the same as
((2400 * (1 - 10/ 100)) - 200) - (1 - (21 / 100 * 87,7%))

Yall are makin my head hurt...

(2400 - 10%)

10% of what? This is pseudo math. It's not human or machine readable, and that's not what it says in your java (I hope) else it would blow up in your face.

(1 - 10/ 100)

What the hell is this? lol. You just write 0.9 and be done with it.

If you want 90% of 2400 you write it like this:
2400*0.9

If you want it to be variable then:
2400*x

Both of you are using way more parentheses then you actually need, and making this way harder then it actually is...

Parenthesis are needed to determine correct order of operation but I can be somewhat overly verbose with those due to too many broken calculations caused by poor syntax. You can never have too many haha.

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only person confused by his writing style. It sure *looks* simple but there are many formulas inside the simple formula that are implied but are not easily understood.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO wrote: »

Ezareth I still hate your guts and keep an eye out for you in PVP so I can kill you every time I'm on....but out of curiosity are you a math major? I had a guildie in WoW who picked enough nits that all the chimps in the zoo would be very clean indeed. I haven't seen him as much these days because A) I don't play WoW barely ever anymore and B.) he's prob graduated by now and gotten a job.

As for the impossible to achieve 100% spell reduction, I'm wondering if that was done to prevent the sort of situation they ran into with Skyrim where you could stack flat 25% reduction to skill abilities (Destro, resto, conjuration, Illusion etc) and basically break the game. ZOS has mentioned on more than one occasion they want players to have to manage their resources. Which is at least alot more kinder than Blizz saying "we want you to use your mana" and nerfing the crap out of every possible mana gain, even implementing BS "potion lockouts" for fights. I have a God-given right to chug pots until I run out dammit.

I been seeing alot of people screaming over recent sorc changes. I haven't had the occasion to test on PTS PVP because of work and such, but I'll more than likely stick to the same spec I've been using because I feel more comfortable with it. I tried using a template with pets and it just felt clunky. Pet damage basically tickles and the range on most of the associated spells is so bleh even with shields I'd be exposing myself. I don't expect to get top 10% with my spec, but I'll keep playing it because I like it.

There's still at least a good 3-4 weeks to go of testing. I'm assuming they'll tweak things again, but I would like to see more people backing up their complaints with the math you pop out rather than "this sucks I quit".

Not a math major but I took enough Calculus(I,II,II), Linear Algebra, Statistics and god knows what else in college that I've *forget* more math than I still remember and have little use for even that.

I've always been a theorycrafter and a Min/maxer. I worked on and coded one of the major maximum DPS tools for my class in my day in WoW and grew to love understanding how by tweaking one part of a formula you can produce a far greater effect than is obvious to most people.

I realize they wanted to avoid situations where players could achieve 100% spell reduction and I'm OK with that goal, but I think they chose the wrong method to do this by making an untouchable percentage of spell cost instead of just putting a hard cap on cost reduction at the end that if exceeded would reset back to the cap.

I really just wanted to point this out in case it was an unintentional mistake that occurred due to whatever formula they're using to "Scale" stats and abilities, or to protest it not necessarily for my sake but in general as a departure from a somewhat easy to understand system to what that practically takes a math major to wrap your mind around.

If I take the Light Armor passive to get a 21% spell cost reduction to my spells, I should get 21% reduction, not 21% *.877

The compounded effect of this nerf is quite significant and I'm curious to find out if this same logic is present in stamina abilities as well. (I supposed I could find out by making a template NB).