Why is the Bolt Escape change advanced ahead of the 1.2 class changes for everyone? And it is bugged

crislevin · June 2014

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

The changes we recently made to Bolt Escape were intended, and the ability is not bugged. Here is a brief explanation of the Bolt Escape cost increase:

All bonuses in our game are additive (not multiplicative). After using Bolt Escape, if you cast it again within 4 seconds of the last time you cast Bolt Escape, the next use costs 50% more Magicka. Any bonuses you have that grant a reduction to Magicka cost--such as Evocation--also reduce the 50% increase to Bolt Escape.

no, your last statement is unclear at best. What truly happens is:

BE's cost is increased by 50% of base cost which amount to 537 for anybody having it maxed.

Then you applied cost reduction once to that that number, you did NOT apply any cost reduction to the 50% of the increase.

This absurd because the racial and class passives stated the magicka cost reduction is percentage based, and now you are just putting a hard number instead of percentages.

How is that "intended"? unless you intend the stated racial and class passive to be wrong.

NerfEverything · June 2014

crislevin wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

The changes we recently made to Bolt Escape were intended, and the ability is not bugged. Here is a brief explanation of the Bolt Escape cost increase:

All bonuses in our game are additive (not multiplicative). After using Bolt Escape, if you cast it again within 4 seconds of the last time you cast Bolt Escape, the next use costs 50% more Magicka. Any bonuses you have that grant a reduction to Magicka cost--such as Evocation--also reduce the 50% increase to Bolt Escape.

no, your last statement is unclear at best. What truly happens is:

BE's cost is increased by 50% of base cost which amount to 537 for anybody having it maxed.

Then you applied cost reduction once to that that number, you did NOT apply any cost reduction to the 50% of the increase.

This absurd because the racial and class passives stated the magicka cost reduction is percentage based, and now you are just putting a hard number instead of percentages.

How is that "intended"? unless you intend the stated racial and class passive to be wrong.

How are you still struggling with this? The way it is implemented is the most intuitive way to do it. You want a reduction applied to a percentage increase? That is ret*rded.

Solid · June 2014

Well not only are the devs doing a fine job of ruining classes but there also doing a damn fine job of destroying the community.
Never have I seen so much hatred amongst players over classes. I don't think there is any hope for this game.

FunkyBudda · June 2014

cf398ub17_ESO wrote: »

i am a sorc and i am glad it was nerfed it was so annoying watching people bolt escape around the map and by map i mean cyro

sure you are… I am a DK and I agreed with all the nerfs they have suffered so far. See how easy that is to claim on internet forums?

Reykice · June 2014

Not surprised they broke it...

Yusuf · June 2014

@Mystborn and @Amerigo were right... So the base cost of 393 is reduced by (for example) 39% and then again increased by 50%, which makes the 393 cost 11 more. That results in 436 (my actual in-game cost)

Sorry whenever i see a wall of numbers my head starts smoking

Fine, i'm tired of arguing so if that's the intended way i will tolerate this nerf (even though i hate it).
Still, i will utilize this skill to it's fullest and destroy people in Cyro nonetheless.
You can nerf my skills but you can't nerf me

BTW don't you dare still cry now when i kill you

c0rp · June 2014

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

The changes we recently made to Bolt Escape were intended, and the ability is not bugged. Here is a brief explanation of the Bolt Escape cost increase:

All bonuses in our game are additive (not multiplicative). After using Bolt Escape, if you cast it again within 4 seconds of the last time you cast Bolt Escape, the next use costs 50% more Magicka. Any bonuses you have that grant a reduction to Magicka cost--such as Evocation--also reduce the 50% increase to Bolt Escape.

I am sorry...but that is NOT HOW IT IS WORKING. MATH 101.

Asava · June 2014

Guys, ZOS uses the Common Core math calculator obviously.

Maulkin · June 2014

Mystborn wrote: »

I think it's reasonable for people who care how much their spells cost to take a quick moment to learn how the cost of their spells is determined. You don't need to "run a math down a page" to figure it out, just realise that all the % based increases and decreases are all combined into one net increase/decrease.

For any situation without an increase in cost this methodology results in the lowest cost for players.

IMO, you're spending too much time trying to educate people who have a pre-set agenda.

Regardless, me and my Sorc really appreciate the work you put into theorycrafting and posting the above information.

Looking forward to seeing your next video, and not just for your funny Anglo-American accent

You've earned an awesome!

Arzarzel · June 2014

Kalanar Highwatch wrote: »

Jessica's explanation makes sense. Bonuses (and penalties) are additive. So if you have 25% cost reduction from your equipment you subtract that 25% reduction from the 50% increase and you get a 25% increase. They are adding 50% to the base cost, not 50% to your actual cost to cast it.

To make it really easy to understand, Assume you have a base cost of 10. If you have no cost reduction gear equipped, your second cast would cost 15. Now assume you have 20% cost reduction from bonuses and gear. Your first case would cost 8, so you might expect your second to cost only 12. However, the way it really works is they take the base cost of 10 and modifying it by +50% less your 20% reduction for a net increase of 30%. So your second cast would be 10 x 130% = 13.

But why are they doing it this way.....? Seems stupid to me. So u got all the cost reduction for your spell....just to have them ignore all the reduction use the base value and after this add the increase+decrease...not very static and in no case sensefull. Stupid design

Thanks for pointing it out btw ;D.

SilverWF · June 2014

SilverWF wrote: »

crislevin wrote: »

ZOS, come in and tell me this is "intended".

They are already said this.

All cost increasers and decreasers calculated as a percents from base value

So, let the base value = X
Cost increaser I = X*0.5 or 50%
Cost decreaser 1 D1 = X*0.2 or 20%
Cost decreaser 2 D2 = X*0.1 or 10%

Calculate all:
Final cost equals to Y = X + I - D1 - D2
or
Y = X + X*0.5 - X*0.2 - X*0.1
or
Y = X * (1 + 0.5 - 0.2 - 0.1)
or
Y = X * 1.2

If X = 380, then Y = 380*1.2 = 456

Agree, this is sh*t, but...

this

jeradlub17_ESO · June 2014

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, it still amounts to larger than a 50% penalty in the end due to their method and worse the end penalty % size will be variable due to the way and point at which they have chosen to implement it. Personally I would still consider this a bug in the sense that the end result is not in line with the original stated intention of a 50% cost increase due to the point at which they chose to apply it.

In addition I feel they made a huge mistake in pushing this early. If they were going to push something early it should have been the CC immunity changes as that would have eliminated the complaints of the one BE morph Streak with stun+damage being used as a weapon. See how that affects it THEN decide if the cost increase was needed still. People escaping was never the real problem except for whiners that feel entitled to kill all they see. The real problem was the stun morph.

crislevin · June 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, it still amounts to larger than a 50% penalty in the end due to their method and worse the end penalty % size will be variable due to the way and point at which they have chosen to implement it. Personally I would still consider this a bug in the sense that the end result is not in line with the original stated intention of a 50% cost increase due to the point at which they chose to apply it.

In addition I feel they made a huge mistake in pushing this early. If they were going to push something early it should have been the CC immunity changes as that would have eliminated the complaints of the one BE morph Streak with stun+damage being used as a weapon. See how that affects it THEN decide if the cost increase was needed still. People escaping was never the real problem except for whiners that feel entitled to kill all they see. The real problem was the stun morph.

yes, the math actually does work, the design doesn't.

I fail to understand the intention or immediate cause of the nerf. Did they just bend to MonkyMystic? Did they just want Sorc to stop BE traveling so they spend more time in game? Did they see some statistics showing sorc somehow doing something they don't like?

its all quite puzzling.

jeradlub17_ESO · June 2014

To make it worse ever since they played with power consumption to implement this change we now have players reporting a higher than normal power consumption for all spells, even when not using BE or even being on the skill bar, despite no changes being apparent in tool tips and running out of power faster now.

crislevin · June 2014

just to add, I kinda feel that 4 second thing is also off.

when should 4 s start counting? when you press the key? or when the animation finishes? because that dumb animation lasts a good 2 seconds.

PhoenixWing · June 2014

crislevin wrote: »

just to add, I kinda feel that 4 second thing is also off.

when should 4 s start counting? when you press the key? or when the animation finishes? because that dumb animation lasts a good 2 seconds.

I think it's from when you cast the spell. I feel that lightning effect on you that show the 4s thing is in place doesn't last that long lol.

NordJitsu · June 2014

crislevin wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, it still amounts to larger than a 50% penalty in the end due to their method and worse the end penalty % size will be variable due to the way and point at which they have chosen to implement it. Personally I would still consider this a bug in the sense that the end result is not in line with the original stated intention of a 50% cost increase due to the point at which they chose to apply it.

In addition I feel they made a huge mistake in pushing this early. If they were going to push something early it should have been the CC immunity changes as that would have eliminated the complaints of the one BE morph Streak with stun+damage being used as a weapon. See how that affects it THEN decide if the cost increase was needed still. People escaping was never the real problem except for whiners that feel entitled to kill all they see. The real problem was the stun morph.

yes, the math actually does work, the design doesn't.

I fail to understand the intention or immediate cause of the nerf. Did they just bend to MonkyMystic? Did they just want Sorc to stop BE traveling so they spend more time in game? Did they see some statistics showing sorc somehow doing something they don't like?

its all quite puzzling.

The math makes complete sense, but its still a misleading tool tip. You'd expect the subsequent cast to be 50% more than the prior cast, but it works out to being much higher than that.

Anyway, I agree with you that the focus should be on explaining to ZOS why the nerf itself was bad.

As for why they did it? Well there were like a dozen people who started the same thread and complained about it for weeks and also apparently ER hated the skill.