Restore Bracing - Never Ask for Buffs

hrothbern

Dubhliam wrote: »

hrothbern wrote: »

For Tanks that are worried that they run into Stamina issues

In the bigger picture of the DB DLC Poisons were added, and the following Poison is particulary useful for Magicka and Stamina regain.

It procs from Light Attacks. But I do not have a precise proc chance. I also tested whether it procs from Pierce Armor, and it does, but very, very irreliable (so a low chance).
You can see in the CLS log that the tooltip values of the Poison do indeed also appear in CLS.
So... if you are low in either Stamina or Magicka you can for both get around 3k with a LA, and the 4k Heal is not bad too.
No real need for a risky Heavy Attack

In the screenshot shown, there is no Stamina restore, but that does function as well. So normally in combat you get all three.
You can BTW do different Poisons on the two Weapon bars.



For people that are not yet well informed about Poisons.
Every time you make "a" Poison, you get 16 flasks.

Now THIS is actually something that will benefit tanking.
Thank you, it was easily overlooked.

However, I still believe HA has the worst passives of the three armors which clearly shows ZOS has no love for tanks.

On the Poison:
I did meanwhile some big samples on the proc rate of a Poison.
For Light Attack: 74 procs on 400 Light Attacks. Meaning roughly 20% proc chance.
For Pierce Armor: 23 procs on 215 Pierce Armors. Meaning roughly 10% proc chance.

The Recipe is the Alkahest oil with Mountain Flower, Bugglos and Columbine (same reagents as the tri-stat Potion).
Per brew you get 16 Poison flasks (compared to 4 Potions per brew)
So roughly the amount of Resource Regain per Brew is the same for the tri-stat Poison and the tri-stat Poison. Meaning that the costs (buying reagents) are also roughly the same.
The Poison gives on top the 1.6k Damage.

When using no Light Attacks, but only Pierce Armor to proc it, you get on average 280 Stamina and Magicka back per Pierce Armor plus 430 Health.
If you do not use this Poison, but use the Stamina regain enchant, you get roughly 350 Stamina back per Pierce Armor.

To ZOS and HA.
I think that ZOS has to jump over their own shadow.
I think that ZOS really disliked how cheap it was to permablock, gaining that fantastic ~70% additional mitigation.
Because that "horrible" Blocking was bound to HA, they also developed (my guess) an irrational aversion to HA.

So... ZOS did the first step to jump over their shadow: they decoupled that "horrible" Blocking from HA. And now HA is free again.
meaning that:
Everybody, players and ZOS can now look towards a HA on her own merits.
If we as players consider HA not that valuable anymore. Or only valuable for certain raids. This will show up in the number of HA builds actually walking around in endgame.
If that number is too low, ZOS will start buffing HA up, until it is being used again by enough players.
As Wrobel said himself: "All 3 armor types must be desirable"

My personal guess is that HA needs further buffs.
But I can understand that ZOS likes to do that stepwise.
To prevent overshooting and then have to debuff again.
But still. I think ZOS can do a further step buff right now.

My immediate concerns are:

1. The endgame Raids. We all need to wait on field feedback there.
2. The newbies with zero CP accounts.

hrothbern

.

Greydir wrote: »

Sorry for all our Poison enthusiasts, but please do not forget that even in the patchnotes it is mentioned, that multi effect poisons are not finished and are far stronger than intended. There will be a dilution system wich lowers the effectiveness of every poison effect per added effect. If 2 effects would half the effect and 3 dilute it down to 1/3 (which would make sense) the bonus would have a far smaler impact.

yeah... it has my concern as well.

If ZOS does as drastic as you describe... most Poisons will be ineffective because of the RNG unreliability, too low proc rate and the costs.
Weapon Enchant will win except for weaving DPS.

If I look how ZOS handled Food, the impact is much less.

One-stat Food: 100/---/---
Two-stat Food: 80/80/---
Tri-stat Food: 67/67/67

have to wait and see.

Personofsecrets

@ZOS_RichLambert , @ZOS_Finn , @Wrobel

OLD BLOCK COST @ 58% = Fortress + Bracing + Def Stance

NEW BLOCK COST @ 58% = Fortress + Defensive Stance + 100 Champion Point + 2-3 Sturdy Trait

In exchange for 100 CP and 2-3 Traits, if we get hit a bunch of time, then we get a minimum amount of extra damage that we most likely wont even get to utilize because we are getting hit a bunch of times and need to focus on surviving. Also don't forget that block cost base value is to be increased as part of Dark Brotherhood

ZOS IS KILLING US ON THESE TRADE DEALS

actosh

Theyve tweaked combat,stats and other stuff so much, they would need to completely redo all stuff because all we get are bandaid fixes, sadly. I tanked since Beta, and it would be better if they readjust a lot of stuff in the game.

Was playin recently a Tank in another Game (one where u need to work on your aggro to keep it up, not like eso noobmode) and there it was fun to play a tank in dungeons, i needed to block telegraphed and aoe effect attacks, and i had to time them, cause i cant permblock. I was doin barely any dmg cause it is related to Stances, but overall it was so much fun, that i switched in the middle of vwgt(after playin the other game) to my dps setup since in eso the more dmg u go for, the bigger your heals are.

Uncertain if i wanna continue to play as a tank, since it is the role that was the most fun for me in mmo´s.
In ESO as a Tank, i Buff the team all the time, since this is nearly everything i can do ^^.

For the topic. Even for MoLVET and other stuff i have never used points in block expertise, nor did i used a reduceblock jewelry glyph, and it worked without problems.

actosh

Additional Info:

Most FunTank in Eso was still Templar Magicka Tank, just get your 5 pieces of cyrodiils light, and keep on spammin jabs and execute or the vampdrainstuff. All are channeled, all of em trigger cyro light passive (25% less dmg taken while channeling a ability) and use temps ult from aedric spear timed correctly to it, and this will work for every content except maybe vMoL. Up to u wich set u wear in addition to that, but u could go for armormaster+bloodspawn, and like i said, was fun ^^. They are just vet 13, but man, i can tell u, that was fun, healin, dpsin, tankin in 1 sweet package. Dps wasnt that high, but higher in comparsion than the stuff permablocking tanks of boredom do ^^

birch44

I see a lot of people pushing the "you shouldn't perma-block" argument. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they haven't set foot in vMoL yet or even nMoL for that matter.

Blocking in 4 man's is optional at worst. Once you set foot in most trials there is very little options on boss fights. You might be able to sneak a LA/HA in every now and again but it is a risk. Especially on Manti, HM Mage, Warrior, and pretty much everything in MoL.

If you look at MoL, they placed adds in there which reduce all resistances to 0. At that point your only way to survive is to block. Even then its ALOT of punishment. If we go into those add pulls in vMoL unable to sustain then our entire group will die. The adds after the first boss are hard enough now. Adding in a resource deficit in large pulls will be devastating. I hope with more testing on the PTS in trials we find the theories in here to be wrong.

Bottom line is we, as a community, too often only look at problems from our own standpoint. This change to heavy armor is a good change for PVP(for the most part) but borderline at best for PVE. We have to come together with ZoS and find the middle ground. Tanking is faceroll easy in PVE outside some boss fights in trials and MoL. I understand their want to make things more challenging but ALL aspects of tanking must be taken into account.

The passive morph idea is great. I also think some of the mechanics in vet dungeons need to be tweeked to make tanks mandatory. The fact that the majority of vet dungeons can be completed without a tank is asinine.

I sincerely hope that ZoS can take this feedback and do something constructive that helps make tanks needed outside of trials again.

actosh

Thats why i said it is a fail from the development team, when they developed the block mechanic, they never thought of players abusing this by blockcasting ect pp. Its sad to assume and think this way, but take a look at gaming and u see why to much freedom is most of the time a clearly bad choice. Sure there are the players that dont do such things, but tankin in the beginning of eso was more fun to me at least. The ongoing easymodepatches, except for trials are kinda annoying. Lets just hope they scale all trials to something like vMOL in Vet mode. Would be nice if this would be done for dungeons as well, but since the recent nerf to vwgt, vprison and coa (wich was easy before) i just wanna thank them to give us finaly some 2 and 3 man content ^^

To make tanks more viable, or needed without having them to permblock in trials (where it is needed most of the time) the system should have been developed in another way. Sadly, in this state of the game u cant rebuild those that easily and it is pretty intensive on costs (assumed by me). So it is up to them to try to do their best to make it somewhat usefull.

profundidob16_ESO

@Wrobel @ZOS_Finn @ZOS_RichLambert


Here are some suggestions to help make tanking more interesting/skillfull and discourage permablocking for you to consider:


-blocking now heats up your shield/weapon until the point where you can no longer hold it in your hands: With every successful block the amount of damage blocked goes down 2% or 3% for the next block. Going out of block for a period of minimum 2 sec resets it. General base blocking cost has been lowered to compensate for the average stamina loss => a tarpit for permablockers


-casting or using skills while actvive blocking is no longer possible with a 0.5 sec internal CD after going out of block mode. => no more blockcasting. Players must make an active choice now to temporarily stop their dps/healing to be able to block something that is worth blocking. Tanks will have to manage their taunt vs block timings wisely


-the internal CD of constitution has been reduced to a third and the amount of stamina/magicka restored as well. => This ensures that large packs of small mobs (main blocks per second) still can be tanked as resource efficient as 1 single boss. (low blocks per second)

Sugaroverdose

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

@Wrobel @ZOS_Finn @ZOS_RichLambert


Here are some suggestions to help make tanking more interesting/skillfull and discourage permablocking for you to consider:


-blocking now heats up your shield/weapon until the point where you can no longer hold it in your hands: With every successful block the amount of damage blocked goes down 2% or 3% for the next block. Going out of block for a period of minimum 2 sec resets it. General base blocking cost has been lowered to compensate for the average stamina loss => a tarpit for permablockers


-casting or using skills while actvive blocking is no longer possible with a 0.5 sec internal CD after going out of block mode. => no more blockcasting. Players must make an active choice now to temporarily stop their dps/healing to be able to block something that is worth blocking. Tanks will have to manage their taunt vs block timings wisely


-the internal CD of constitution has been reduced to a third and the amount of stamina/magicka restored as well. => This ensures that large packs of small mobs (main blocks per second) still can be tanked as resource efficient as 1 single boss. (low blocks per second)

Block casting must be in place, until ZOS completely removes animation cancelling
Also percentage of unblocked damage will work in PVE, but in PVP people in block will be wiped instantly. Instead of increasing ublocked damage, block cost should increase sightly with every blocked hit. But any of this two must be applied with returning of stamina regen while in block.

Personofsecrets

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

@Wrobel @ZOS_Finn @ZOS_RichLambert


Here are some suggestions to help make tanking more interesting/skillfull and discourage permablocking for you to consider:


-blocking now heats up your shield/weapon until the point where you can no longer hold it in your hands: With every successful block the amount of damage blocked goes down 2% or 3% for the next block. Going out of block for a period of minimum 2 sec resets it. General base blocking cost has been lowered to compensate for the average stamina loss => a tarpit for permablockers


-casting or using skills while actvive blocking is no longer possible with a 0.5 sec internal CD after going out of block mode. => no more blockcasting. Players must make an active choice now to temporarily stop their dps/healing to be able to block something that is worth blocking. Tanks will have to manage their taunt vs block timings wisely


-the internal CD of constitution has been reduced to a third and the amount of stamina/magicka restored as well. => This ensures that large packs of small mobs (main blocks per second) still can be tanked as resource efficient as 1 single boss. (low blocks per second)

Nice nerfs

Teridaxus

You know what is sad.
The 0 communication of zos abuout this particular change

Maybe zos *** up their math ( maybe constitution was supposed to replace bracing and sturdy for block heavy builds ) or they plan to kill super spike situation which forced us into full block situations into the first place, but if they keep silence, we can only specualute and right now, it looks like they just nerfed us again.

Yeah i read that post from wrobel and everything feels very vague since he addresses other points too like shield duration and so on.

A clear post from him about this topic would help us all a lot.

Rune_Relic

tpanisiakb16_ESO wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

I know that so many of you have different ideas about tanking, but let me still ask the following question. Do tanks really need to get nerfed more?

Thanks for including me. I almost exclusively tank in game. Coincidentally, my enjoyment level in ESO has dropped substantially in the last few months. I'm not struggling in any content, and for giggles I'm wearing a full set of Hist Bark made in Trinimac's style, along with Glory's pieces for the 4-set. I no longer run a monster helm. I can manage my resources just fine as a stamina DK tank. The armor I'm wearing is for aesthetics, and not for utility for functionality.

However, none of this is fun. I've long since argued since the stamina regen nerf that stam tanking would be reduced to "standing there and permablocking", which is interesting because that's what they promised they wanted to get away from, because it's not fun, or exciting. Yet, the very best way to counter the stam nerf is to stack stamina and taunt everything and perma block, drop my ultimate, 10s I stand there and let the group beat on me, regen my stamina due to passives and not doing anything, then repeat. Now and again I spam igneous shield to convert my magicka to stamina. I never ask for shards, I don't need to be babysat with axes, etc., etc.

This is not fun. It's effective, yes, and on one hand my healer can compete with my DPS but it's boring as hell for me.

For new tanks everything is crippling, which is why we have a problem with finding tanks. Likewise, mediocre tanks need to rely on shard feeding which thereby makes all other healing roles obsolete. It's a lose / lose for the community as a whole.

The stamina nerf and the continuing nerfs to tanking mean I stack more stamina and do less things for a group other than clumping everything up and let them beat on me as my other team mates mop the floor. For new tanks it's a slap in the face, it's discouraging, and the community has less experienced people because of it.

I really, really don't think ZOS understand how we, the players, tank and they have a totally different idea of what tanking should be. I constantly ask these questions to them in AMA and otherwise but I receive no response.

We don't need to be nerfed more. We need a more active, challenging, and dynamic role.

Which requires:
1 "Unique" skills (all roles are required)
2 Trinity "targeted" content (all roles are essential).

DDuke

In an ideal world, blocking would put you into a "defensive stance", replacing your skill bar with a new one (where you can only slot specific skills that have something to do with blocking or defending yourself). Then you'd use these skills to maintain your stamina bar, keep aggro on the target (which should also be more complex than just "hitting the taunt button") etc.

And there should be some cooldown on all skills after swapping out of it to prevent abuse.


We all know that's probably never going to happen though :P


So, I'd just prefer not making heavy armor overpowered & FOTM at this point (which it might become anyway) by allowing you to deal more damage than light armor user, mitigate more damage than light armor user and sustain better than light armor user.

If what has to happen for the sake of balance is less permablocking, I'm fine with it - because if there's one thing I hate, that'd be playing some unoriginal FOTM build.

Sugaroverdose

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

@Wrobel @ZOS_Finn @ZOS_RichLambert


Here are some suggestions to help make tanking more interesting/skillfull and discourage permablocking for you to consider:


-blocking now heats up your shield/weapon until the point where you can no longer hold it in your hands: With every successful block the amount of damage blocked goes down 2% or 3% for the next block. Going out of block for a period of minimum 2 sec resets it. General base blocking cost has been lowered to compensate for the average stamina loss => a tarpit for permablockers


-casting or using skills while actvive blocking is no longer possible with a 0.5 sec internal CD after going out of block mode. => no more blockcasting. Players must make an active choice now to temporarily stop their dps/healing to be able to block something that is worth blocking. Tanks will have to manage their taunt vs block timings wisely


-the internal CD of constitution has been reduced to a third and the amount of stamina/magicka restored as well. => This ensures that large packs of small mobs (main blocks per second) still can be tanked as resource efficient as 1 single boss. (low blocks per second)

Block casting must be in place, until ZOS completely removes animation cancelling
Also percentage of unblocked damage will work in PVE, but in PVP people in block will be wiped instantly. Instead of increasing ublocked damage, block cost should increase sightly with every blocked hit. But any of this two must be applied with returning of stamina regen while in block.

Or maybe they should be applied both, but with less %, something like 0.5% increase of unblocked damage and 0.5% increase cost of blocking with every blocked hit stacking debuff which stays 5 seconds + blocking should reduce stamina regen twice not to 0, S&B and HW should have passives which increases regen in block to make them №1 choose when you want tank who block a lot.

Armitas

hrothbern wrote: »

So we can make war with ZOS over this principle stance of them....
or we can negotiate with ZOS, pointing out that the HA we have now is not viable enough to be a desired Armor type in PVE and PVP.

So the trick can be to balance-buff HA with more Crit Resist in PVP (not influencing PVE Armor balance)

You made a lot of good points.

There is a lot of precedence of PTS being concrete but negotiable to a minor compromise so you are probably right that we can only negotiate compromise for this. I still want to fight and keep hope alive and all that but if this is true, they do need to sugar coat this to make it easier to swallow. I think the suggestion you made for PvP would have that effect and would be a reasonable expectation for Heavy Armor. If this is all we can do, then that is a good move to make. (I don't reject the PvE option, I just need more time to consider it). I would prefer a complete rejection of their decoupling, but I could feel satisfied from a PvP perspective with your suggestion.

hrothbern wrote: »

As Wrobel said himself: "All 3 armor types must be desirable"

My personal guess is that HA needs further buffs.
But I can understand that ZOS likes to do that stepwise.
To prevent overshooting and then have to debuff again.
But still. I think ZOS can do a further step buff right now.

My immediate concerns are:

1. The endgame Raids. We all need to wait on field feedback there.
2. The newbies with zero CP accounts.

That is a very important statement you made. One that has to be successful for this change to be successful. I agree with your conclusion as well. This is what I see when I try to compare the desirability of the 3 armor types.

___________

Light Armor -

• Defense - Light armors defense comes through shielding. It's armor level is initially low but can reach the mitigation cap.
  
• Sustain - it's sustain is strong through recovery and reduced cost which is increased by CP
  
• Damage - It's damage comes through penetration, crit, and parallel offense and defense through shielding that increases from the damage stat.

Medium armor -

• Defense - Medium armor defenses come from shielding, dodge rolling, and dodging. It's armor level is initially moderately low but can reach the mitigation cap.
  
• Sustain - It's sustain is also strong through recovery and reduced cost which is increased by CP.
  
• Damage - It's damage comes from increased weapon damage, Crit and parallel offense and defense through shielding, dodge rolling and dodge missing. I may be unfairly adding bone shield to armor but it is a new reality.

Heavy armor -

• Defense - Heavy armor defenses come only from Armor rating. 5 gold heavy pieces with reinforced on the large pieces is about 21% mitigation. A single 2handed maul can completely negate that mitigation with a remainder of 1% mitigation.
• Sustain - Has minor to moderate sustain that is not affected by CP, it allows stamina regeneration while blocking but contains no innate attachment or benefit to blocking.
• Offense - Gives minor to moderate weapon and spell power.

So looking at the sets I don't see a good reason to pick heavy armor for the set itself.

• Defense - Why pick armor rating which can be trivially negated when I can pick defenses that are parallel to offense like shields, dodge roll, and dodge miss that are not trivially negated.
  
• Sustain - Why pick a sustain that isn't buffed by CP recovery and doesn't have reduced cost?
  
• Offense - Why pick the poorest choice in offense? Why pick an offense system that is perpendicular to defense?

I can just jump into light and medium armor and I'm good to go for any thing, its purpose is clear and it's power is complete upon equipping it. You can't do that with heavy, you have to baby it and fine tune it. You have to have the blocking trait, you have to strap on reduce cost, you have to strap on recovery, You have to strap on extra defense to over come the penetration in the game, you have to strap on max stats to overcome having to use drinks. It's not just equip and go, it's incredibly complicated.

When people say light armor they just refer to light armor, when people say heavy armor they are referring to a whole array of prerequisite conditions that are required to successfully fulfill the perceived purpose of heavy armor. The purposes and paths to success for heavy armor are by no means ostensible within the set itself. It only finds success to it's purpose outside of itself and that is plainly wrongheaded.

Just looking at the set comparisons I don't see why ZOS can't just give us Wrath and Bracing. If they would just do this I think we would be done and we would be in a satisfying place.

STEVIL

So this change might cause there to be reasons to spend cp in other ways than now? Cool.

Personofsecrets

STEVIL wrote: »

So this change might cause there to be reasons to spend cp in other ways than now? Cool.

They think it's cool to lose damage mitigation so that we can have the same block cost in the future that we have now. SAD!

VaxtinTheWolf

I've been suggesting add 0.5% damage reduction to the sturdy trait in addition to the block cost, but if not that, another option would to add it to heavy armor passives in itself.

Maybe add to one of the passive fields that each piece of heavy armor grants 1.5%(Rank 1) then 3%(Rank 2) damage reduction. Somewhere in that range, at the very least [1% / 2%].

hrothbern

Armitas wrote: »

hrothbern wrote: »

So we can make war with ZOS over this principle stance of them....
or we can negotiate with ZOS, pointing out that the HA we have now is not viable enough to be a desired Armor type in PVE and PVP.

So the trick can be to balance-buff HA with more Crit Resist in PVP (not influencing PVE Armor balance)

You made a lot of good points.

There is a lot of precedence of PTS being concrete but negotiable to a minor compromise so you are probably right that we can only negotiate compromise for this. I still want to fight and keep hope alive and all that but if this is true, they do need to sugar coat this to make it easier to swallow. I think the suggestion you made for PvP would have that effect and would be a reasonable expectation for Heavy Armor. If this is all we can do, then that is a good move to make. (I don't reject the PvE option, I just need more time to consider it). I would prefer a complete rejection of their decoupling, but I could feel satisfied from a PvP perspective with your suggestion.

hrothbern wrote: »

As Wrobel said himself: "All 3 armor types must be desirable"

My personal guess is that HA needs further buffs.
But I can understand that ZOS likes to do that stepwise.
To prevent overshooting and then have to debuff again.
But still. I think ZOS can do a further step buff right now.

My immediate concerns are:

1. The endgame Raids. We all need to wait on field feedback there.
2. The newbies with zero CP accounts.

That is a very important statement. One that has to be successful for this change to be successful. I agree with your conclusion as well. This is what I see when I try to compare the desirability of the 3 armor types.

Light Armor -

• Defense - Light armors defense comes through shielding. It's armor level is initially low but can reach the mitigation cap.
  
• Sustain - it's sustain is strong through recovery and reduced cost which is increased by CP
  
• Damage - It's damage comes through penetration, crit, and parallel offense and defense through shielding that increases from the damage stat.

Medium armor -

• Defense - Medium armor defenses come from shielding, dodge rolling, and dodging. It's armor level is initially moderately low but can reach the mitigation cap.
  
• Sustain - It's sustain is also strong through recovery and reduced cost which is increased by CP.
  
• Damage - It's damage comes from increased weapon damage, Crit and parallel offense and defense through shielding, dodge rolling and dodge missing. I may be unfairly adding bone shield to armor but it is a new reality.

Heavy armor -

• Defense - Heavy armor defenses come only from Armor rating. 5 gold heavy pieces with reinforced on the large pieces is about 21% mitigation. A single 2handed maul can completely negate that mitigation with a remainder of 1% mitigation.
• Sustain - Has minor to moderate sustain that is not affected by CP, it allows stamina regeneration while blocking but contains no innate attachment or benefit to blocking.
• Offense - Gives minor to moderate weapon and spell power.

So looking at the sets I don't see a good reason to pick heavy armor for the set itself.

• Defense - Why pick armor rating which can be trivially negated when I can pick defenses that are parallel to offense like shields, dodge roll, and dodge miss that are not trivially negated.
  
• Sustain - Why pick a sustain that isn't buffed by CP recovery and doesn't have reduced cost?
  
• Offense - Why pick the poorest choice in offense? Why pick an offense system that is perpendicular to defense?

I can just jump into light and medium armor and I'm good to go for any thing, its purpose is clear and it's power is complete upon equipping it. You can't do that with heavy, you have to baby it and fine tune it. You have to have the blocking trait, you have to strap on reduce cost, you have to strap on recovery, You have to strap on extra defense to over come the penetration in the game, you have to strap on max stats to overcome having to use drinks. It's not just equip and go, it's incredibly complicated.

When people say light armor they just refer to light armor, when people say heavy armor they are referring to a whole array of prerequisite conditions that are required to successfully fulfill the perceived purpose of heavy armor. The purposes and paths to success for heavy armor are by no means ostensible within the set itself. It only finds success to it's purpose outside of itself and that is plainly wrong.

Just looking at the set comparisons I don't see why ZOS can't just give us Wrath and Bracing. If they would just do this I think we would be done and we would be in a satisfying place.

test

@Armitas , I have tomorrow some more time to react on your Armor comparison. So just some quick remarks now.

I had already started to do a Math on the same 3 comparison points you use between LA and HA.
And to be crystal clear: That is a comparison where HA is not anymore coupled to Blocking. Blocking is now on equal footing available for all Armor types by S&B and Traits.
So a comparison between HA and other Armor types MUST be based on Vanilla HA compared to Vanilla LA & MA.
So NOT a HA that has by default Re-Inforced, sets with Armor Resist bonusses and S&B.
I think this is crucial.
And I think as well that this coupling is still in the mindset of ZOS and ofc our own.
We have to switch and move on.

You say the same I think with:
"When people say light armor they just refer to light armor, when people say heavy armor they are referring to a whole array of prerequisite conditions that are required to successfully fulfill the perceived purpose of heavy armor. "

So to the point of the comparison, the conclusion of one point of my Math so far.
To get a comparable sustain between HA and LA & MA, Constitution needs a further buff of between 50%-75% on top of the PTS value !!!

And people reading this and reacting in their heads with: "ooooooh that is way too much !". Pick up pen and paper and do the Math yourself and post it We need to talk facts.

hope to do a wall of Math tomorrow on all three points per Armor type

EDIT:
to the people testing and calculating: well, with that increase now in PTS I am able to Block ......
No... that is a pitfall
ZOS has separated Bracing and by that Blocking benefits from HA.
So HA is NOT anymore the natural Armor type to Block.
All Armor types have the same access to Block Costs benefits (S&B and the Traits)

So what counts NOW is whether LA, MA and HA have a comparable Resource sustain !!!

Chriagon

What's wrong with blockcasting?

Armitas

hrothbern wrote: »

hope to do a wall of Math tomorrow on all three points per Armor type

Nice that is exactly what we need. Looking forward to it. I can't test any thing out right now due to PTS downloader woes.

Rickter

idk how i got tagged in here but i already had 100 CP in block expertise. . .

I did notice a difference in block costs on the pts - but not much im thinking about going 1 or 2 block cost reduction on my jewelry to adapt to the changes.

i dont currently have any block cost reduction on my jewelry.

EDIT: oh! do i think they need to be nerfed? no of course not but they have made tanking easier and easier. have you considered the black rose set? the 5pc increases the constitution passive which looks really appealing in this next patch. additionally, lets not forget the taunt immunity removal so spamming taunt is like, ok now. idk man, tbh i think they are making tanking more and more accessible for the masses. which isnt necessarily a bad thing right?

Personofsecrets

For as long as Tavas and other group buffs exist, selfish sets, like black rose might as well not exist.

Making tanking accessible is good, but I cant see how @Wrobel can make the role more accessible by removing heavy armors best passive in exchange for a passive that wont even have to be used (wrath). He knows that there are tank issues in the game, but has to take what we have been saying (our resources are crap) more serriously.

STEVIL

Personofsecrets wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

So this change might cause there to be reasons to spend cp in other ways than now? Cool.

They think it's cool to lose damage mitigation so that we can have the same block cost in the future that we have now. SAD!

Its not sad to see it become a choice between two valid options again.
Its not sad to have either/or instead of obviously only one.
I am not coming at this from a perspective of "what did my class get" bc i play all classes.
I am coming at this from the idea that more meaningful choices between viable options is good.
If some choose blocking cp and some choose mitigation and both have different but successful play thats good, just like sorc faced with choice btwn offense and massed shields is good.
Its not about DID I GET MORE.
I would be deleriously happy if the result was everybody drops but more viable options open up instead of the one way best way.

Personofsecrets

STEVIL wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

So this change might cause there to be reasons to spend cp in other ways than now? Cool.

They think it's cool to lose damage mitigation so that we can have the same block cost in the future that we have now. SAD!

Its not sad to see it become a choice between two valid options again.
Its not sad to have either/or instead of obviously only one.
I am not coming at this from a perspective of "what did my class get" bc i play all classes.
I am coming at this from the idea that more meaningful choices between viable options is good.
If some choose blocking cp and some choose mitigation and both have different but successful play thats good, just like sorc faced with choice btwn offense and massed shields is good.
Its not about DID I GET MORE.
I would be deleriously happy if the result was everybody drops but more viable options open up instead of the one way best way.

They think that pushing people towards certain options, such as Sturdy, leads to players making meaningful choices.

This is like praising a starved animal for eating all of it's food in one sitting.

Tanks make meaningful choices despite developers shoe horning us down boring paths. We do things despite nerfs, not because of them.

code65536

Personofsecrets wrote: »

For as long as Tavas and other group buffs exist, selfish sets, like black rose might as well not exist.

Furthermore, Black Rose is a set for stamina tanks. To suggest that Black Rose is a suitable solution to this problem is very narrow-minded.

WolfingHour

Rickter wrote: »

idk how i got tagged in here but i already had 100 CP in block expertise. . .

I did notice a difference in block costs on the pts - but not much im thinking about going 1 or 2 block cost reduction on my jewelry to adapt to the changes.

i dont currently have any block cost reduction on my jewelry.

EDIT: oh! do i think they need to be nerfed? no of course not but they have made tanking easier and easier. have you considered the black rose set? the 5pc increases the constitution passive which looks really appealing in this next patch. additionally, lets not forget the taunt immunity removal so spamming taunt is like, ok now. idk man, tbh i think they are making tanking more and more accessible for the masses. which isnt necessarily a bad thing right?

This for me highlights a distinct problem in my opinion.

Taking away a non block related element of our builds to make up for the change to blocking capabilities. In my case, magicka regen, because something like mass chaining mobs is a good idea overall.

And to everyone clinging to the idea of black rose, the answer can't be set X especially when set X is behind a dlc wall.

And all this for what? The ability to hit like a damp noodle instead of a wet noodle?

No thank you.

DDuke

code65536 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

For as long as Tavas and other group buffs exist, selfish sets, like black rose might as well not exist.

Furthermore, Black Rose is a set for stamina tanks. To suggest that Black Rose is a suitable solution to this problem is very narrow-minded.

Not necessarily a stamina set only... I'll have to do some calculations, but it gives both spell & weapon damage on the 5-piece.

Now, if the sustain from 5-piece is also worth more than one magicka regen bonus, it could be a decent alternative to Kagrenac for magicka tanks. Sure, you'd get a little bit less spell dmg/healing & one magicka bonus less, but if the sustain is worth it...

Ishammael

DDuke wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

For as long as Tavas and other group buffs exist, selfish sets, like black rose might as well not exist.

Furthermore, Black Rose is a set for stamina tanks. To suggest that Black Rose is a suitable solution to this problem is very narrow-minded.

Not necessarily a stamina set only... I'll have to do some calculations, but it gives both spell & weapon damage on the 5-piece.

Now, if the sustain from 5-piece is also worth more than one magicka regen bonus, it could be a decent alternative to Kagrenac for magicka tanks. Sure, you'd get a little bit less spell dmg/healing & one magicka bonus less, but if the sustain is worth it...

Black Rose sustain can be quickly calculated:

Constitution w/ 5pc heavy: ~1000 per 4s

Black Rose: +50% = 500 per 4s
Which is equivalent to 250 stam AND mana regen

The total Black Rose set is: HP/Stam/Stam/157dmg/250 mana regen/250 stam regen

Compared to Kag: HP/Mana/129 Mana regen/224 dmg

So yeah, its good.

The real question is... do I go Sturdy or Impen?

Cathexis

I think the idea is that you only need to block now when bone armor isn't active.

But if you can't activate bone armor, then you don't have any stamina to block with...