Maintenance for the week of March 3:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 3
• NA megaservers for maintenance – March 5, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 11:00AM EST (16:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – March 5, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 16:00 UTC (11:00AM EST)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 6, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 3
• NA megaservers for maintenance – March 5, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 11:00AM EST (16:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – March 5, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 16:00 UTC (11:00AM EST)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 6, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EST (21:00 UTC)
With upcoming racial passive changes what race should I use for my argonian sorc tank?
lokulin
✭✭✭✭✭
Most non DLC vet dungeons and most of the older DLC vet dungeons are likely to still be snooze mode but the newer DLC dungeons and trials will be even more of a stretch with the reduced health and resource regen. Should I change race? If not are there any suggestions for gear or setups that would help with sustain?
I've hidden your signature.
0
-
Lightspeedflashb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭You are fine as an argonian. Though I have to ask, why do you have absorb magic and bound aegis double slotted? The former is will only save you around 30 stam per block and the later gives you the minor buff that a healer ought to be giving you. There are so many better skills to have then those 2 and you are letting them take up 40% of your bars.
Not even getting into how bad mighty chudan is. Race is the least of your problems with your build.Edited by Lightspeedflashb14_ESO on January 18, 2019 4:53AM1 -
sneakymitchell✭✭✭✭It’s fine the argonian race was very powerful especially that 10% healing on yourself
Even if it’s a nerf with some things but you still got disease Resistance and that helps negate the defile from a nb disease proc element.NA-Xbox one- Ebonheart Pact- Nord Tank DK
PC-NA Ebonheart Pact Nord Stam Templar0 -
Vildebill✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Argonians will be fine, no need to change. Chudan and absorb magica will not :PEU PC0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭usmcjdking wrote: »
Well, on a Nord it certainly wouldn't have to be put on both bars.0 -
Lightspeedflashb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like 2%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation, only while blocking. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
Edited by Lightspeedflashb14_ESO on January 18, 2019 5:01PM0 -
usmcjdking✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Edited by usmcjdking on January 18, 2019 5:04PM0331
06020 -
Lightspeedflashb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.Edited by Lightspeedflashb14_ESO on January 18, 2019 5:17PM0 -
usmcjdking✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.Edited by usmcjdking on January 18, 2019 7:31PM0331
06020 -
rafaelcsmaia✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'd say if you play a tank sorcerer you must be a good player, so in your place I'd stick to argonian if you like the race, even though nord might perform a bit better now, heck even altmers can regen stam now by activating class habilities under block.0 -
paulsimonps✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.1 -
usmcjdking✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭paulsimonps wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.
First, it's important to recognize that what you have is a mathematical expression, not a differential equation which means your Olms example isn't sequitur to your initial argument. There is simply no way you can say "the math holds true and is sound for my argument" and then at any point have a differing opinion in any circumstance. That's literally saying that the math is failing at certain points and I should ultimately dismiss my issues withy your argument as a mathematical fallacy, or an anomaly (which doesn't make any sense for a fairly simple expression).
Discussing Bound Armor's strength requires non-linear derivatives, your expression cannot support that in any capacity as many logical and argumentative inputs will result in the same answer that cannot be observed(<0). I would assume you wouldn't decry roll dodge as being overkill or wasted when utilized properly, and on a properly built tank/debuffed enemy it doesn't offer much more mitigation than BA. So why not just unbind roll?
Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works. And when testing the value of Bound Armor, it doesn't work. The 6% of Bound Armor cannot be observed through conventional play methods when too many logical values will give you an answer that cannot be observed.Edited by usmcjdking on January 19, 2019 5:41AM0331
06020 -
Lightspeedflashb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.
First, it's important to recognize that what you have is a mathematical expression, not a differential equation which means your Olms example isn't sequitur to your initial argument. There is simply no way you can say "the math holds true and is sound for my argument" and then at any point have a differing opinion in any circumstance. That's literally saying that the math is failing at certain points and I should ultimately dismiss my issues withy your argument as a mathematical fallacy, or an anomaly (which doesn't make any sense for a fairly simple expression).
Discussing Bound Armor's strength requires non-linear derivatives, your expression cannot support that in any capacity as many logical and argumentative inputs will result in the same answer that cannot be observed(<0). I would assume you wouldn't decry roll dodge as being overkill or wasted when utilized properly, and on a properly built tank/debuffed enemy it doesn't offer much more mitigation than BA. So why not just unbind roll?
Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works. And when testing the value of Bound Armor, it doesn't work. The 6% of Bound Armor cannot be observed through conventional play methods when too many logical values will give you an answer that cannot be observed.
I see alot of words( alot, really this whole post reeks of r/iamverysmart )but no math to back you up. No screenshots. No combat metrix. Nothing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Edited by Lightspeedflashb14_ESO on January 19, 2019 5:49AM1 -
WrathOfInnos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The argument could be made that tanks are tanky enough without Bound Aegis, but there’s no denying it is a powerful skill. My mag sorc DPS has survived Z’Maja’s nocturnal favor by using Bound Aegis with block and shields.
For any build with any amount of mitigation, whatever damage you were going to take without Bound Aegis, multiply that by 64% and that’s the number you take with Bound Aegis. That makes it slightly more powerful than Major Protection, on a spammable skill.0 -
paulsimonps✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.
First, it's important to recognize that what you have is a mathematical expression, not a differential equation which means your Olms example isn't sequitur to your initial argument. There is simply no way you can say "the math holds true and is sound for my argument" and then at any point have a differing opinion in any circumstance. That's literally saying that the math is failing at certain points and I should ultimately dismiss my issues withy your argument as a mathematical fallacy, or an anomaly (which doesn't make any sense for a fairly simple expression).
Discussing Bound Armor's strength requires non-linear derivatives, your expression cannot support that in any capacity as many logical and argumentative inputs will result in the same answer that cannot be observed(<0). I would assume you wouldn't decry roll dodge as being overkill or wasted when utilized properly, and on a properly built tank/debuffed enemy it doesn't offer much more mitigation than BA. So why not just unbind roll?
Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works. And when testing the value of Bound Armor, it doesn't work. The 6% of Bound Armor cannot be observed through conventional play methods when too many logical values will give you an answer that cannot be observed.
I see alot of words( alot, really this whole post reeks of r/iamverysmart )but no math to back you up. No screenshots. No combat metrix. Nothing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
There was indeed a bunch of very fancy words......
@usmcjdking
OK So again, MATH, lets try this out, again...
This is what our character will have, and we will swap out Bound Aegis on and off, and yes that will also increase the resistance slightly.
Resistance 25933 ~39.3% (7 Heavy+Shield all gold with Heavy armor passives and Bulwark CP)
Minor Maim 15%
Absorb Magic 8%
Sword and Board 20%
Blocking 50%
Hardy/Elemental Defender 11%
Ironclad/Thick Skin 19%
So our mitigation with and without is as follows:
WITH: 100-(100*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=91.5274158473
WITHOUT: 100-(100*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=86.3105922215
DIFFERENCE=91.5274158473-86.3105922215=5.2168236258=~5.2%
Now lets try it against actual attacks and see the difference in damage taken.
First attack will be Saint Olms Swipe attack at 172,753 Damage.
WITH: 172753*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=14,636.6433013
WITHOUT: 172753*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=23,648.8626197
DIFFERENCE: 23,648.8626197-14,636.6433013=9,012.2193184=~38.1%
So again, like I said, its always gonna be 36%, 38.1% with Minor Ward/Resolve, the damage difference was 9,012, which is a lot, and I did say that this was a situation where its perfect to use this skill. His Swipes are slow and hard hitting and so you can easily time with Bound Aegis with it. However, lets use a lower base damage.
Veteran Blood Spawns Vicious Smash (The telegraphed heavy attack) 27,880
WITH: 27880*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=2,362.15646176
WITHOUT: 27880*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=3,816.60688866
DIFFERENCE: 3,816.60688866-2,362.15646176=1,454.4504269=~38.1%
So yea, at Olms 9k is a big difference, but in a dungeon against someone like Bloodspawn its just 1.4k and I wouldn't waste the slot on my bar for the skill. Get what I am saying? Its a useful skill but not always, many utility skills in the game are like this. Now obviously some will still always slot it for the Magicka and Minor Ward/Resolve but I prefer not to. For a properly built end game tank its not always the best choice in skills for your bar, it depends on the situation.
Also. "Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works." But that is exactly how things are calculated, with the slight exception that ESO does not use decimals in their calculations. But also saying my math is not wrong but also saying that isn't how it works is very contradictory.
1 -
Olupajmibanan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Just to mention as of new update Redguard > Argonian for non-froststaff tanking.
Both give 2k stats
Argonian gives you 80 magicka and stamina restore per second
Redguard gives you 190 stamina restore per second and 8% cost reduction for weapon abilities.Edited by Olupajmibanan on January 19, 2019 2:25PM1 -
usmcjdking✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭paulsimonps wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.
First, it's important to recognize that what you have is a mathematical expression, not a differential equation which means your Olms example isn't sequitur to your initial argument. There is simply no way you can say "the math holds true and is sound for my argument" and then at any point have a differing opinion in any circumstance. That's literally saying that the math is failing at certain points and I should ultimately dismiss my issues withy your argument as a mathematical fallacy, or an anomaly (which doesn't make any sense for a fairly simple expression).
Discussing Bound Armor's strength requires non-linear derivatives, your expression cannot support that in any capacity as many logical and argumentative inputs will result in the same answer that cannot be observed(<0). I would assume you wouldn't decry roll dodge as being overkill or wasted when utilized properly, and on a properly built tank/debuffed enemy it doesn't offer much more mitigation than BA. So why not just unbind roll?
Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works. And when testing the value of Bound Armor, it doesn't work. The 6% of Bound Armor cannot be observed through conventional play methods when too many logical values will give you an answer that cannot be observed.
I see alot of words( alot, really this whole post reeks of r/iamverysmart )but no math to back you up. No screenshots. No combat metrix. Nothing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
There was indeed a bunch of very fancy words......
@usmcjdking
OK So again, MATH, lets try this out, again...
This is what our character will have, and we will swap out Bound Aegis on and off, and yes that will also increase the resistance slightly.
Resistance 25933 ~39.3% (7 Heavy+Shield all gold with Heavy armor passives and Bulwark CP)
Minor Maim 15%
Absorb Magic 8%
Sword and Board 20%
Blocking 50%
Hardy/Elemental Defender 11%
Ironclad/Thick Skin 19%
So our mitigation with and without is as follows:
WITH: 100-(100*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=91.5274158473
WITHOUT: 100-(100*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=86.3105922215
DIFFERENCE=91.5274158473-86.3105922215=5.2168236258=~5.2%
Now lets try it against actual attacks and see the difference in damage taken.
First attack will be Saint Olms Swipe attack at 172,753 Damage.
WITH: 172753*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=14,636.6433013
WITHOUT: 172753*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=23,648.8626197
DIFFERENCE: 23,648.8626197-14,636.6433013=9,012.2193184=~38.1%
So again, like I said, its always gonna be 36%, 38.1% with Minor Ward/Resolve, the damage difference was 9,012, which is a lot, and I did say that this was a situation where its perfect to use this skill. His Swipes are slow and hard hitting and so you can easily time with Bound Aegis with it. However, lets use a lower base damage.
Veteran Blood Spawns Vicious Smash (The telegraphed heavy attack) 27,880
WITH: 27880*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=2,362.15646176
WITHOUT: 27880*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=3,816.60688866
DIFFERENCE: 3,816.60688866-2,362.15646176=1,454.4504269=~38.1%
So yea, at Olms 9k is a big difference, but in a dungeon against someone like Bloodspawn its just 1.4k and I wouldn't waste the slot on my bar for the skill. Get what I am saying? Its a useful skill but not always, many utility skills in the game are like this. Now obviously some will still always slot it for the Magicka and Minor Ward/Resolve but I prefer not to. For a properly built end game tank its not always the best choice in skills for your bar, it depends on the situation.
Also. "Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works." But that is exactly how things are calculated, with the slight exception that ESO does not use decimals in their calculations. But also saying my math is not wrong but also saying that isn't how it works is very contradictory.
No it's not, that's not how it works. It doesn't matter if your expression is mathematically correct, that's not how the skill operates.
Unblocked
Blocked
Blocked + BA
That's a ~50% reduction in incoming blocked damage and is what is consistently observed. The damage reduction scales inversely with your current block mitigation at a degree much greater than the factor of .36. My stamsorc can sit in front of a Zaan beam the entire time and not die. The skill appears to work additively which is why observed data doesn't match your data but you keep doubling down on something your haven't tested?
I mean you can argue with me all you want, I don't know how many times I have to say "that's not how it works" before you guys understand that's not how it works.Edited by usmcjdking on January 19, 2019 6:34PM0331
06023 -
lokulin✭✭✭✭✭Olupajmibanan wrote: »Just to mention as of new update Redguard > Argonian for non-froststaff tanking.
Both give 2k stats
Argonian gives you 80 magicka and stamina restore per second
Redguard gives you 190 stamina restore per second and 8% cost reduction for weapon abilities.
I'm thinking of switching to redguard as it will also be better as a dps build when switching gear, cp and food. Ironically this character started its life as a redguard magsorc before I knew what I was doing and race changed to altmer. Might even try back barring a frost staff with absorb magicka glyph as well.I've hidden your signature.0 -
paulsimonps✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭usmcjdking wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »paulsimonps wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »usmcjdking wrote: »
what is a lot? like .02%? that is 36% of 50%, from block, so it is actually only 18% and on top of everything else, that is diminished so much, there are so many other, better things you can use that 4k magic or 3.2k stam for.
math time.
this is with your 3 seconds of an extra 36% block mitigation and 46.45% from resistance, 15% from minor maim, 8% from Absorb Magic, and 20% from the Sword and Board Passive.
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(36)/100)*(1-(20)/100))= 89.2809316848
now with out that extra 36%-
100-(100*(1-(30661/660)/100)*(1-(50)/100)*(1-(15)/100)*(1-(8)/100))*(1-(20)/100))=83.2514557576
89.28%- 83.25% = 6.03. you spend 4k magic for an extra 6.03% mitigation. so much for "outright strongest active tanking skill in the game"
That's now how it works, at all. It doesn't increase your current blocking mitigation, is acts as a second layer of mitigation to blocked damage. It's incredibly potent. I strongly suggest you play test it on anything.
that is how it works. read the description-Protect yourself with the power of Oblivion, creating a suit of Daedric mail that increases your block mitigation by 36% for 3 seconds. While slotted, your Max Magicka is increased by 8% and you gain Minor Ward and Minor Resolve. These increase your Spell Resistance and Physical Resistance. Passively grants Minor Ward and Minor Resolve.
it is 36% of the base 50% blocking mitigation, just like Iron Skin is 10% of 50%, which is actually only 5% more mitigation. you need to show me different.
i am 99% sure of this, @paulsimonps would know for sure.
Why bother with math you can't observe? You won't actually ever produce a situation in which the 6% can even be faithfully observed versus the other layers you've included in the mitigation calculation because as far as I'm aware no one is going to tank anything remotely meaningful in the buff to levy the performance of Bound Aegis/Armaments.
There are a set of conditions that need to be met for Bound to work - that is your baseline control for evaluating performance. In theory it only provides 6% mitigation when blocking. In practice it reduces incoming blockable damage by almost 50%. If you don't see the value in that then I'm not sure what mitigation tools you see value in.
Would you say a sorc tank only took 6% more damage than a templar tank who took the full brunt of a 40k 1 shot whilst the sorc took 20k? No you wouldn't. You're brining quantum physics into a Newtonian discussion.
@usmcjdking
But........ It can totally be observed and all the math for damage mitigation is well documented and tested..... Sure it's 36% extra mitigation, always will be, however since we have so much mitigation already from so many sources the actual value it will mitigate is in most situations not worth it to use. Sure something like olms melee attacks would be great to have it in but for most content it is over kill and wasted skill.
Also if the Templar took 40k from anything then it was a crappy Templar.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Your numbers are accurate, add some Hardy/elemental and ironclad/thick skin and the gap is even smaller.
First, it's important to recognize that what you have is a mathematical expression, not a differential equation which means your Olms example isn't sequitur to your initial argument. There is simply no way you can say "the math holds true and is sound for my argument" and then at any point have a differing opinion in any circumstance. That's literally saying that the math is failing at certain points and I should ultimately dismiss my issues withy your argument as a mathematical fallacy, or an anomaly (which doesn't make any sense for a fairly simple expression).
Discussing Bound Armor's strength requires non-linear derivatives, your expression cannot support that in any capacity as many logical and argumentative inputs will result in the same answer that cannot be observed(<0). I would assume you wouldn't decry roll dodge as being overkill or wasted when utilized properly, and on a properly built tank/debuffed enemy it doesn't offer much more mitigation than BA. So why not just unbind roll?
Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works. And when testing the value of Bound Armor, it doesn't work. The 6% of Bound Armor cannot be observed through conventional play methods when too many logical values will give you an answer that cannot be observed.
I see alot of words( alot, really this whole post reeks of r/iamverysmart )but no math to back you up. No screenshots. No combat metrix. Nothing. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
There was indeed a bunch of very fancy words......
@usmcjdking
OK So again, MATH, lets try this out, again...
This is what our character will have, and we will swap out Bound Aegis on and off, and yes that will also increase the resistance slightly.
Resistance 25933 ~39.3% (7 Heavy+Shield all gold with Heavy armor passives and Bulwark CP)
Minor Maim 15%
Absorb Magic 8%
Sword and Board 20%
Blocking 50%
Hardy/Elemental Defender 11%
Ironclad/Thick Skin 19%
So our mitigation with and without is as follows:
WITH: 100-(100*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=91.5274158473
WITHOUT: 100-(100*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=86.3105922215
DIFFERENCE=91.5274158473-86.3105922215=5.2168236258=~5.2%
Now lets try it against actual attacks and see the difference in damage taken.
First attack will be Saint Olms Swipe attack at 172,753 Damage.
WITH: 172753*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=14,636.6433013
WITHOUT: 172753*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=23,648.8626197
DIFFERENCE: 23,648.8626197-14,636.6433013=9,012.2193184=~38.1%
So again, like I said, its always gonna be 36%, 38.1% with Minor Ward/Resolve, the damage difference was 9,012, which is a lot, and I did say that this was a situation where its perfect to use this skill. His Swipes are slow and hard hitting and so you can easily time with Bound Aegis with it. However, lets use a lower base damage.
Veteran Blood Spawns Vicious Smash (The telegraphed heavy attack) 27,880
WITH: 27880*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-36/100)*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=2,362.15646176
WITHOUT: 27880*(1-25933 /660/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-15/100)*(1-8/100))*(1-20/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100))=3,816.60688866
DIFFERENCE: 3,816.60688866-2,362.15646176=1,454.4504269=~38.1%
So yea, at Olms 9k is a big difference, but in a dungeon against someone like Bloodspawn its just 1.4k and I wouldn't waste the slot on my bar for the skill. Get what I am saying? Its a useful skill but not always, many utility skills in the game are like this. Now obviously some will still always slot it for the Magicka and Minor Ward/Resolve but I prefer not to. For a properly built end game tank its not always the best choice in skills for your bar, it depends on the situation.
Also. "Second, I've made no argument against the expression you've utilized. I've simply stated that's not how it works." But that is exactly how things are calculated, with the slight exception that ESO does not use decimals in their calculations. But also saying my math is not wrong but also saying that isn't how it works is very contradictory.
No it's not, that's not how it works. It doesn't matter if your expression is mathematically correct, that's not how the skill operates.
Unblocked
Blocked
Blocked + BA
That's a ~50% reduction in incoming blocked damage and is what is consistently observed. The damage reduction scales inversely with your current block mitigation at a degree much greater than the factor of .36. My stamsorc can sit in front of a Zaan beam the entire time and not die. The skill appears to work additively which is why observed data doesn't match your data but you keep doubling down on something your haven't tested?
I mean you can argue with me all you want, I don't know how many times I have to say "that's not how it works" before you guys understand that's not how it works.
@usmcjdking @Lightspeedflashb14_ESO
Thank you USMC, you actually were right. I am gonna own up to that I was wrong, the facts are more important(though your fancy words made it harder to understand what you were trying to say, maybe less of that next time). So let me tell you what I found. Your numbers seemed so odd that I had to go back and retest it and what I found made me go through a years worth of patch notes cause a big change like this should have been on there, but it wasn't.
Sword and Board, Defensive Posture, Ironskin, Bound Aegis, Ancient Knowledge, Deflect Bolts and Footman's Fortune all stack additive and not multiplicative!
Now I have dedicated hundreds of hours making sure I know all there is to know about Mitigation, I even retest things multiple times when its been to long since last time. I can assure you before I went on my break at the beginning of 2018 things worked like I showed you. Everything including those skills mentioned(obviously not Aegis cause it didn't use to have this effect) stacked multiplicative, meaning it had heavy diminishing returns. But somewhere during this last year it changed, and I can not find any notes showing this change. I asked Liofa the class rep if he knew about this and he had no idea.
In short this was a big buff for anyone using these skills and passives in combination with each other. For example this was a buff for Sword and Shield Dragonknights in PvP or for example Sorcs with Bound Aegis. On their own they still act in a multiplicative way but they are additive with each other. So for example a Footman wearing Sword and Shield Sorc Tank with Absorb Magic against projectiles will have really high mitigation.
I tested all of this on the PTS before Wraithstone and I did it again today to make sure it was still there, it is.
So my numbers should have been more like this:
172,753*(1-15/100)*(1-27253/660/100)*(1-11/100)*(1-19/100)*(1-50/100)*(1-(20+36+8)/100))=11,186.2932839
That's about 3.5k lower damage taken than with my out of date formula.
After Wraithstone hits live I will update my Damage Mitigation thread to show how it works now. I will wait until then just to see if any other changes happen.
Lastly, @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_Gilliam @ZOS_JessicaFolsom
Please put stuff like this in patch notes more prominently next time please. I mean I might have missed it reading all of the notes but it should have been a bigger deal than what it has been cause nobody seems to know it even happened.
3 -
xaraan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Argonian will still be fine for tanking, if you really want to go meta, looks like Nord might edge it out if they keep things the same when the changes go live. But not like they are ruined for tanking.
You will see your health, regen and healing go down considerably though since you are already playing one.-- @xaraan --
nightblade: Xaraan • templar: Xaraan-dar • dragon-knight: Xaraanosaurus • necromancer: Xaraan-qa • warden: Xaraanodon • sorcerer: Xaraan-ra
AD • NA • PC0
