Tanking A to Z

Woeler · January 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nG0__ZRP1Q

Woeler · February 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkieXMZu_ew

MethTheMadman · February 2017

Thanks for these. I'm not currently tanking (waiting for Warden) but I'm brushing up on the tactics. Appreciate it!

Gordon906 · April 2017

A is for attack B is for block C is for cc break D is for dodge E is for evasion F is for frontline G is for ganked...M is for mitigation...T is for tank... Z is for zerg cuz tank deals no damage

Banana · April 2017

Your toon was starting to give me motion sickness. But great info

Woeler · April 2017

Gordon906 wrote: »

A is for attack B is for block C is for cc break D is for dodge E is for evasion F is for frontline G is for ganked...M is for mitigation...T is for tank... Z is for zerg cuz tank deals no damage

N is for nobody cares about pvp.

Gordon906 · April 2017

I know dat feel

Jeger · July 2017

I watched your video on the Lunar Bastion set, and I think you're looking at things the wrong way regarding damage reduction. Assuming someone has 30K hit points.

If they have no mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 30,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 31,579
DR gives you 1,579 effective hits

If they have 50% mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 60,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 63158
DR gives you 3,158 effective hits

Bottom line is that damage reduction does scale with mitigation.

Thanks for your work!

Darlgon · July 2017

@Jeger Just to point out, the original posts were from late Jan, early Feb, before Homestead and Morrowind, two updates ago. Not gonna mark as a necro post, because if I remember the vids right, and the author, the principles still apply.

paulsimonps · July 2017

Jeger wrote: »

I watched your video on the Lunar Bastion set, and I think you're looking at things the wrong way regarding damage reduction. Assuming someone has 30K hit points.

If they have no mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 30,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 31,579
DR gives you 1,579 effective hits

If they have 50% mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 60,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 63158
DR gives you 3,158 effective hits

Bottom line is that damage reduction does scale with mitigation.

Thanks for your work!

Damage reduction and Damage mitigation is basically just different words for the same thing. And I am not really sure I follow what you are trying to say with your comment. Either way, how it all works is basically how he said it in the video. He even linked my thread on the subject in the description of the Lunar Bastion video. Will link here again if you need to look it over again, cause again not sure what you are trying to say or how you are trying to describe damage mitigation but I have it pretty well documented.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/279426/damage-mitigation-explanation-and-list-of-options/p1

Woeler · July 2017

Jeger wrote: »

I watched your video on the Lunar Bastion set, and I think you're looking at things the wrong way regarding damage reduction. Assuming someone has 30K hit points.

If they have no mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 30,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 31,579
DR gives you 1,579 effective hits

If they have 50% mitigation and no DR, their effective hit points = 60,000
if they have no mitigation and 5% DR, their effective hit points = 63158
DR gives you 3,158 effective hits

Bottom line is that damage reduction does scale with mitigation.

Thanks for your work!

Not sure where you get that from. Mitigation is just a form of damage reduction. Eventually they all fall into the same category. Strictly speaking, they are handled exactly the same by the game.

Also, such a thing as 'effective hitpoints' is just a theoretical concept. In practice, that number is pretty useless. You can't trade effective hitpoints for resources and effective hitpoints do not scale your abilities.

You are applying the numbers on top of each other, which is not what happens. Each type of damage reduction gets subtracted in percentages, one by one. And after each subtract the leftovers are taken as a base value. Meaning the value of a 'percent' diminishes over the course of the equation. It's an exponential decrease.

Jeger · July 2017

Woeler wrote: »

You are applying the numbers on top of each other, which is not what happens. Each type of damage reduction gets subtracted in percentages, one by one. And after each subtract the leftovers are taken as a base value. Meaning the value of a 'percent' diminishes over the course of the equation. It's an exponential decrease.

I am applying the reductions sequentially, as I understand the game does. To make sure we agree on how I applied the numbers (and also to confirm I made no mistake) here they are:

No mitigation, 5% DR: damage taken = 30,000 / (1.0 - 0.05)
50% mitigation, 0% DR: damage taken = 30,000 / (1.0 - 0.50)
50% mitigation, 5% DR: damage taken = (30,000 / (1.0 - 0.50))/(1 - 0.05) (applied sequentially.)

There are two numbers that are the inverse of each other: the damage per hit and the number of hits it takes to kill you. Since they are inverses, the math will cause one to have diminishing returns, and the other to have increasing returns. You have focused on damage per hit, which is interesting, but not important. The number of hits it takes to kill you is the better measure. By that measure, DR has increasing returns with mitigation increase.

Jeger · July 2017

paulsimonps wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/279426/damage-mitigation-explanation-and-list-of-options/p1

Yes, I based my calculations on your post - great work and clearly explained. The numbers just lead me another place from where Woeler ended up. It's getting late, so I will have to see if I can explain my point better tomorrow.

Rahotu · July 2017

the king of tans did a vid? this should be AWESOME!!!

paulsimonps · July 2017

Jeger wrote: »

Woeler wrote: »

You are applying the numbers on top of each other, which is not what happens. Each type of damage reduction gets subtracted in percentages, one by one. And after each subtract the leftovers are taken as a base value. Meaning the value of a 'percent' diminishes over the course of the equation. It's an exponential decrease.

I am applying the reductions sequentially, as I understand the game does. To make sure we agree on how I applied the numbers (and also to confirm I made no mistake) here they are:

No mitigation, 5% DR: damage taken = 30,000 / (1.0 - 0.05)
50% mitigation, 0% DR: damage taken = 30,000 / (1.0 - 0.50)
50% mitigation, 5% DR: damage taken = (30,000 / (1.0 - 0.50))/(1 - 0.05) (applied sequentially.)

There are two numbers that are the inverse of each other: the damage per hit and the number of hits it takes to kill you. Since they are inverses, the math will cause one to have diminishing returns, and the other to have increasing returns. You have focused on damage per hit, which is interesting, but not important. The number of hits it takes to kill you is the better measure. By that measure, DR has increasing returns with mitigation increase.

Oh ok, I get what you are saying now. Your choice of words where a bit confusing. Reduction is a synonym to the word Mitigation. Both of the forms of mitigation you are using are calculated the same and are both the of the same type. Should have just named it like mitigation #1 and #2 for your calculation. And yes I get it, you are talking about the fact that the more mitigation you have the more base damage you can take, and while the total % mitigated has exponential diminishing returns the base damage taken goes up in an exponential way.

And while true, the actual damage of the average hit is more important than the max base damage you can survive in one hit. There comes a point where getting more mitigation is not worth it and getting other forms of stat is more important. Say magicka recovery, max health and such. As your calculations have shown yourself the max damage you can take is not only dependent on your mitigation but your max health as well. There is a sweet spot for everything. And for the average tank, which is a DK, health also means stronger Igneous Shields, which helps a lot more than 5% extra mitigation. So what I am saying is, your right but it really doesn't help much to look at it in that way.

Jeger · July 2017

So here is my point (and I agree with paulsimonp that there is a sweet point.)

Let’s look at the Nord Racial (6% Damage reduction,) with an eye toward whether it becomes more or less effective as the Nord adds armor.

Assumptions:

The Nord has 30,000 hits
The monster he is fighting does a 500 point hit every second
The Nord receives no healing or hit points from any source
The armor being considered will add exactly 50% mitigation when worn.

Case 1: Naked without racial
Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500 per hit (also per second)
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 500
Time to death: 60 seconds

Case 2: Naked with racial
Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500 per hit (also per second)
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 30
Hit After Racial: 470
Time to death: 63.8 seconds

Case 3: Armored to 50% mitigation without racial
Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500 per hit (also per second)
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 250
Time to death: 120 seconds

Case 4: Armored to 50% mitigation with racial
Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500 per hit (also per second)
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 15
Hit After Racial: 235
Time to death: 127.7 seconds

So was the racial more or less effective as the Nord added armor?

Woeler called it less effective, because the damage mitigated by the racial dropped from 30 to 15 per hit.
The purist would say it was equally effective because it eliminated 6% of the damage in each case.
I would say it was more effective, because the job of a tank is to stay alive long enough for the DPS to kill the mob. Without armor, the racial gives the tank 3.8 more seconds more time alive. With the armor, the racial gives the tank 7.7 seconds more time alive.

You can make your own choice, I guess, but I think I am right. My case even gets stronger with healing included (next post)

Jeger · July 2017

So now let’s say that the Nord receives 200 points of healing per second from various sources with everything else being the same.

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 500
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 300
Time to death: 100

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 30
Hit After Racial: 470
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 270
Time to death: 111.1

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 250
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 50
Time to death: 600

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 15
Hit After Racial: 235
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 35
Time to death: 857.1

Mow we have the case where the damage prevented by the racial drops from 30 to 15 when armor is added. However, the racial adds 11.1 seconds to the tank's lifespan without armor, but 257.1 seconds to the tank's lifespan with armor. I don't think anyone will ague that the racial has become less effective in this case.

Bottom line: As you add armor and healing, the effect of a 6% reduction in damage becomes more and more significant.

paulsimonps · July 2017

Jeger wrote: »

So now let’s say that the Nord receives 200 points of healing per second from various sources with everything else being the same.

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 500
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 300
Time to death: 100

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 500
Damage saved by Racial: 30
Hit After Racial: 470
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 270
Time to death: 111.1

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 0
Hit After Racial: 250
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 50
Time to death: 600

Hits: 30000
Monster Damage: 500
Hit after armor: 250
Damage saved by Racial: 15
Hit After Racial: 235
Healing: 200
Net Damage: 35
Time to death: 857.1

Mow we have the case where the damage prevented by the racial drops from 30 to 15 when armor is added. However, the racial adds 11.1 seconds to the tank's lifespan without armor, but 257.1 seconds to the tank's lifespan with armor. I don't think anyone will ague that the racial has become less effective in this case.

Bottom line: As you add armor and healing, the effect of a 6% reduction in damage becomes more and more significant.

You are using very low numbers, try including all sources of mitigation an average tank has and include the average HPS of a Healer. Other sources of mitigation combined with a healer will make the Nord Passive less significant not more. Obviously any addition to mitigation will add survivablity to the tank, this is not what is debated, however, there comes a point where its not needed and you will make the group suffer from your lack of group oriented build. For example, you could run Footman's Fortune and Cyrodiils Ward and you would get 2 sources of 8% extra block mitigation for a total of 15.36%, but you would give your group nothing. This is what we call a selfish tank, a tank that only builds for their own survivability can hurt a team more than it helps them. So yes, you will survive longer with the nord passive, but it needs to be weighed with how much more other passives can give you and your team.

Jeger · July 2017

I'm happy to run any numbers you might consider more realistic, but I think you are misunderstanding my point.

My point is increasing mitigation and healing will add to the effectiveness of a 6% DR. I am not maintaining that the 6% DR is better than other options you might have.