Racial Rebalance v4.3.X

twing1_

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

susmitds wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

There is no shock damage except MagSorc in my tests or any external source of Minor Vulnerability.

You realize that Elemental Weapon procs Minor vulnerability correct?

twing1_ wrote: »

susmitds wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

There is no shock damage except MagSorc in my tests or any external source of Minor Vulnerability.

I don't believe the lack of minor vulnerability would favor Breton over the other races, as this debuff provides a flat 8% increase in damage to all races a cross the board.

It’s not about the lack, it’s about the varying uptimes. That’s why you’ll see a 4K difference in DPS between parses on those charts.

Here’s a video of someone in the endgame community testing the races with minor vulnerability accounted for. https://youtu.be/_F0pIdxUyEY

Granted this test is with parse food and no Berserker enchant on Breton, but it’s the only one I could find. A lot of endgame players don’t make videos or anything like that regarding DPS tests so it’s hard to find concrete proof. If you join any of the Class Discords you’d find proof just by asking for it.

I too am having difficulty in finding a study conducted better than this. As such, I'm basing my analysis on the best I can find. This is the study linked in the original post.

Even in this setting, I have a hard time believing minor vulnerability would provide any statistical deviation from what is currently being shown. This is because the uptime on each class, mag sorc included, should be consistent (because the only source of this being applied is elemental weapon or shock damage on mag sorc, and within the different classes this is being used consistently accross all races). Although this does provide relatively large differences between individual parses due to varying up times, according to the law of averages, this should be fairly consistent and accounted for when you take the average of a sufficient number of parses.

Minor vulnerability being externally applied for better uptime would have a larger impact on statistical variation between classes, and not races.

No, it wouldn’t have a larger class impact over race impact, because in an actual raid you have 100% minor vulnerability uptime with healers running aether. It is entirely possible to have 30% vulnerability uptime from Ele weapon one parse, and 5% the next. Look at Likos tests, he has 100% aether uptime. And minor vulnerability will severely skew data, as it is a heavily impacting random variable. Any endgame PvE player knows this to the point where minor vulnerability uptime almost always has to be shown for DPS parses. If you base your changes off that data you linked then I retract my vote for any of these changes to go through on the principal that the data it’s drawn from is factually incorrect.

I agree that the inconsistency in minor vulnerability does have the potential to skew the data and that, ideally, a proper dps parse test should be done with consistent minor vulnerability uptime.

In the absense of access to such a study, however, I will continue basing my rebalance off of the study linked in the original post.

However, I think you will find the new changes I've made to Bretons sustain tool to be more in line with where they are currently on pts:

"when you use an ability, restore 400 magicka. If the ability uses does not damage an enemy, the magicka restored is doubled. This can occur once every 6 seconds"

This gives Breton damage dealers access to ~133 magicka every 2 seconds. Currently on pts, they have 100 magicka recovery, which equates to about ~150 magicka every 2 seconds, after taking into account %modifiers and cp.

The adjusted magicka recovery equivalent in their new sustain tool is ~88 natural magicka recovery after taking into %modifiers and cp. This is a slight nerf to their current 100 magicka recovery, but also succeeds in giving them a drastic increase to effectiveness in healing sustain. I feel like this should be more than sufficient in providing damage dealer viability for Bretons (keeping them competitive with other races of similar high-sustain characteristics) while also emphasizing their excellence in support roles.

These numbers are not perfect, as my entire rebalance is not perfect, as the study it is based off of is not perfect. But I hope you understand that I am trying to do the best I can, given the resources I am provided.

Nord_Raseri

I like that idea for nords

twing1_

HatchetHaro wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

Could you please post a link to data that reflects this? I have heard this, but the only data I have seen supports otherwise.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/459447/dps-comparison-of-races-on-pts-v4-3-3-pretty-graphs-analyses-and-farming-for-insightful-votes/p1

susmitds wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

There is no shock damage except MagSorc in my tests or any external source of Minor Vulnerability.

Uh...

You do realize that Elemental Weapon procs Concussion and therefore Minor Vulnerability, right?

Also, sure, but you've also introduced a ton of differing variance in your tests in terms of human error and also just ignoring whether the parses had lucky or unlucky crits, which skews the data even further, making it wildly unreliable. If anything, it would have been so much better if you at least also recorded and showed the % of Critical Damage dealt per parse.

At this point, you're just misleading the community with flawed testing and pretty graphs. Having 60k parses with differences of up to (and even over) 6k is, honestly, mathematically atrocious.

This study is well conducted, but lacks the broad scope (ex/ inclusion of stamina races and parsing accross classes) for me to base my entire rebalance off of. As such, for the majority of my rebalance, I will be referring to the study I initially posted for lack of a better alternative.

It does provide valuable insight into Breton parsing, however. I will utilize this study as a baseline for Breton's placement on dps charts, despite it failing to parse them accross classes.

As such, I will adjust Bretons sustain tool to more closely resemble their current 100 magicka recovery, while also providing more benefit to them in support roles to further differentiate them from Altmer in this regard.

Their new sustain tool:

"when you activate an ability, restore 450 magicka. If the ability used does not damage an enemy, the magicka restored is doubled. This can occur once every 6 seconds"

@templesus I believe the introduction of this new study and the consequential changes should be to your liking.

Edit: I will incorporate the findings of this new study into my racial analysis found in my initial post when I have more time to better explain the new changes I've made to Bretons.

Edit 2: on second consideration, the numbers for Breton currently on PTS v4.3.3 look like they are in a good spot, even without the added bonus to magicka I am proposing. One of two things could be done about this. The first solution is to reduce their maximum magicka and instead grant it to either health or stamina or a combination of both. The second option would be to keep their added bonus to magicka and reduce their sustain in the damage dealer role. I'm leaning more toward option 2.

templesus

HatchetHaro wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

Could you please post a link to data that reflects this? I have heard this, but the only data I have seen supports otherwise.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/459447/dps-comparison-of-races-on-pts-v4-3-3-pretty-graphs-analyses-and-farming-for-insightful-votes/p1

susmitds wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

There is no shock damage except MagSorc in my tests or any external source of Minor Vulnerability.

Uh...

You do realize that Elemental Weapon procs Concussion and therefore Minor Vulnerability, right?

Also, sure, but you've also introduced a ton of differing variance in your tests in terms of human error and also just ignoring whether the parses had lucky or unlucky crits, which skews the data even further, making it wildly unreliable. If anything, it would have been so much better if you at least also recorded and showed the % of Critical Damage dealt per parse.

At this point, you're just misleading the community with flawed testing and pretty graphs. Having 60k parses with differences of up to (and even over) 6k is, honestly, mathematically atrocious.

Thanks for this. I didn’t realize that post exists, I’m happy to see some people understand how skewed those other tests are.

twing1_

templesus wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

Could you please post a link to data that reflects this? I have heard this, but the only data I have seen supports otherwise.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/459447/dps-comparison-of-races-on-pts-v4-3-3-pretty-graphs-analyses-and-farming-for-insightful-votes/p1

susmitds wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

I feel like you’re overvaluing Breton’s sustain on live and not quite sure where you’re getting your data. According to the endgame trial groups, raid buffed dps is High Elf>Dark Elf>Breton>Khajiit. They are third best currently, no reason they need a nerf.

Here is a link to the study i am basing my assumptions off of:

twing1_ wrote: »

It is also important to note that my proposed changes are based off of the most recent analysis of DPS parses done by @susmitds and the Hell Runners Guild, found here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/458985/raid-buffed-dps-test-each-class-each-dd-race-pts-4-3-3/p1

Later in this thread, I provide a detailed analysis of this study and use its findings to justify the changes I make to the races.

Big shout out and special thanks to those brave and patient souls, willing to take the time for all those DPS parses in the name of science. This wouldn't be possible without you. Well conducted, guys.

I figured as much. That data is severely skewed and wrong as minor vulnerability uptime wasn’t even accounted for.

As I said, the endgame trial guilds have done tests and the dps is currently Altmer>Dunmer>Khajiit>Breton. Breton will only be better against trash.

There is no shock damage except MagSorc in my tests or any external source of Minor Vulnerability.

Uh...

You do realize that Elemental Weapon procs Concussion and therefore Minor Vulnerability, right?

Also, sure, but you've also introduced a ton of differing variance in your tests in terms of human error and also just ignoring whether the parses had lucky or unlucky crits, which skews the data even further, making it wildly unreliable. If anything, it would have been so much better if you at least also recorded and showed the % of Critical Damage dealt per parse.

At this point, you're just misleading the community with flawed testing and pretty graphs. Having 60k parses with differences of up to (and even over) 6k is, honestly, mathematically atrocious.

Thanks for this. I didn’t realize that post exists, I’m happy to see some people understand how skewed those other tests are.

@templesus

On second glance at this new study, I've determined Bretons are sitting in a good spot in term of dps parses (about 250 dps lower than altmers) currently on PTS. On account of this, I've realized that my proposed changes are giving them too much magicka power (because they are receiving a boost of 1000 maximum magicka and are retaining their sustain tool of roughly the equivalent of ~100 magicka recovery). Two things can be done about this.

Option 1:
Reduce Bretons max magicka back down to 2000 and instead distribute the extra 1000 resources to either health or stamina, or some combination of the two. I am leaning toward 550 health and 500 stamina, or granting all of it into health to differentiate their resource pools from Altmer while also emphasizing their non-elven ancestry by giving them more defensive stats compared to the other elven races.

Option 2:
Bump down Breton's sustain tool in the damage dealer role while leaving their maximum magicka untouched. I'm leaning more toward this option, as in TES lore they are more considered as one of the "magicka pure" races. The value in my head would be restoring 300 magicka/6s, or the equivalent of ~66 magicka recovery after accounting for %modifiers and cp. In the healing role, this would jump up to 600 mag/6s, or the rough equivalent of ~130 magicka recovery after %modifiers and cp (a full set bonus).

I am more in favor of this option, and will be editing it into the original post if their is not opposition.

twing1_

Edit: changed argonian bonuses from healing received to healing done to emphasize their lore as being skilled in restoration magic. Also changed their bonus to weapon/spell damage to magicka/stamina recovery to better reflect argonian resilience, while still indirectly helping them out in dps parses.

HatchetHaro

twing1_ wrote: »

Edit: changed argonian bonuses from healing received to healing done to emphasize their lore as being skilled in restoration magic. Also changed their bonus to weapon/spell damage to magicka/stamina recovery to better reflect argonian resilience, while still indirectly helping them out in dps parses.

They'd just have too much sustain then.

The thing with DPS right now is that Bosmer, Redguards, and Bretons have too much sustain for most DPS cases, and that is where Orcs, Dunmer, and Altmer outright surpass them on; on the other hand, even in the rarer DPS cases that benefit from more sustain, an Orc can pretty much exactly match a Bosmer in PvE DPS stats by just putting on an Infused Stamina Recovery glyph, let alone a Stamina Cost-Reduction glyph.

Giving Argonians, a race with good-enough sustain for almost all DPS rotations, a tiny bit of Mag+Stam recovery isn't going to help them with DPS.

Weapon and Spell Damage is nicer, imo; in fact, I'd suggest 5% Weapon and Spell Critical Chance instead, since Critical Chance isn't as powerful in PvP, and we can draw upon their experience in guerilla warfare as lore-friendly reasoning behind it.

twing1_

HatchetHaro wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

Edit: changed argonian bonuses from healing received to healing done to emphasize their lore as being skilled in restoration magic. Also changed their bonus to weapon/spell damage to magicka/stamina recovery to better reflect argonian resilience, while still indirectly helping them out in dps parses.

They'd just have too much sustain then.

The thing with DPS right now is that Bosmer, Redguards, and Bretons have too much sustain for most DPS cases, and that is where Orcs, Dunmer, and Altmer outright surpass them on; on the other hand, even in the rarer DPS cases that benefit from more sustain, an Orc can pretty much exactly match a Bosmer in PvE DPS stats by just putting on an Infused Stamina Recovery glyph, let alone a Stamina Cost-Reduction glyph.

Giving Argonians, a race with good-enough sustain for almost all DPS rotations, a tiny bit of Mag+Stam recovery isn't going to help them with DPS.

Weapon and Spell Damage is nicer, imo; in fact, I'd suggest 5% Weapon and Spell Critical Chance instead, since Critical Chance isn't as powerful in PvP, and draw upon their experience in guerilla warfare as lore-friendly reasoning behind it.

Hmm good points about sustain. I have no experience dpsing as an arg, so I have no reference point for where they currently stand in that regard. I thought that weapon/spell damage might actually put them higher up on the dps hierarchy than I wanted, so I switched it over to sustain to bring it down a bit. But if it allows them to drop absorb magicka/stamina enchants entirely, this should be avoided.

I'm liking the critical idea, although it would have to be toned down to 833 critical rating (~3.8%) to stay consistent with the 2-4 pc item set bonus restriction.

Critical also plays into their lore as thieves/rogues too, as I feel most people associate critical with that style of play.

Editing it into the OP.

twing1_

Edit:

Bumped up Khajit critical damage to 14%. This is on account of comparing the shadow mundus stone against other mundus stones in relation to set bonuses. Bumped their sustain back down to levels currently found on PTS to compensate for this.

All mundus stones seem to grant ~1.85 of an item set bonus (238 weapon damage/129=~1.845, 2028 stamina/1096=~1.850, etc)

Using this ratio, 7% crit damage appears to be the equivalent of a single 2-4 pc item set bonus to crit damage.

13/1.85=~7

Kulvar

Let's take an exemple...

Nightblade Argonian + Olorime/Jorvuld/Earthgore + Essence of Spell Power
(don't freak out on the efficiency, it's just for the exemple).
Sits at 2228 Spell Damage and +51% Healing Done without Quick to Mend, +57% Healing Done with Quick to Mend.

What is Quick to Mend worth in Spell Damage in this situation ?
74 Spell Damage

(2228 + X * 1.2) * 1.51 = 2228 * 1.57
(2228 * 1.51) + (X * 1.2 * 1.51) = 2228 * (1.51 + 0.06)
(2228 * 1.51) + (X * 1.2 * 1.51) = (2228 * 1.51) + (2228 * 0.06)
X * 1.2 * 1.51 = 2228 * 0.06
X = (2228 * 0.06) / (1.2 * 1.51)
X = 133.68 / 1.812
X = 73.77483443708609271523178807947
X ~ 74

The general simplified formula is

Worth in Spell Damage = (Total Spell Damage * Additional Healing Done Bonus) / (Base Healing Done Bonus * (1 + Spell Damage Buff))

twing1_

Kulvar wrote: »

Let's take an exemple...

Nightblade Argonian + Olorime/Jorvuld/Earthgore + Essence of Spell Power
(don't freak out on the efficiency, it's just for the exemple).
Sits at 2228 Spell Damage and +51% Healing Done without Quick to Mend, +57% Healing Done with Quick to Mend.

What is Quick to Mend worth in Spell Damage in this situation ?
74 Spell Damage

(2228 + X * 1.2) * 1.51 = 2228 * 1.57
(2228 * 1.51) + (X * 1.2 * 1.51) = 2228 * (1.51 + 0.06)
(2228 * 1.51) + (X * 1.2 * 1.51) = (2228 * 1.51) + (2228 * 0.06)
X * 1.2 * 1.51 = 2228 * 0.06
X = (2228 * 0.06) / (1.2 * 1.51)
X = 133.68 / 1.812
X = 73.77483443708609271523178807947
X ~ 74

The general simplified formula is

Worth in Spell Damage = (Total Spell Damage * Additional Healing Done Bonus) / (Base Healing Done Bonus * (1 + Spell Damage Buff))

I believe this only reinforces the idea that 2% healing done is too weak of a set bonus.

I think important to note, however, is that healing done also amplifies the power of max magicka too. The formula would more closely resemble:

(spell damage*1.2*10.5+max magicka*1.2)*1.51+(x*1.2*1.51)=(spell damage*1.2*10.5+max magicka*1.2)*1.57

(spell damage*1.2*10.5+max magicka*1.2) will be simplified to "offensive power" for simplicity.

(offensive power)*1.51+(x*1.2*1.51)=(offensive power)*1.57

(offensive power)+x*1.2=(offensive power)*1.0397

X*1.2=.0397*(offensive power)

X=.0331 offensive power

This means that 6% healing done is better than spell damage only if the added spell damage (in question) makes up less than 3.31% of the builds total offensive power.

The equivalent spell damage (3 set bonuses worth) would be 129*3=387.

Lets use 2k spell damage and 30k max mag as a baseline, as these could conceivably be a healers numbers.

Offensive power = 2000*1.2*10.5 + 30000*1.2 = 61200

387*1.2*10.5=4876.2

4876.2/61200=.07968

So adding the equivalent 3 set bonuses to spell damage instead of healing done would actually result in an addition of almost 8% additional offensive power, and outperform the measly 6% healing done.

In fact, the only time 3 set bonuses to healing done out-performs 3 set bonuses to spell damage is when a build has more than 162000 offensive power. This would require a build to have 10,000+ spell damage, assuming they keep 30k max magicka. This simply is not possible.

The current 2-4 pc item set bonus of 2% healing done is far too weak, especially considering its very specific use in comparison to spell damage, which not only provides more benefit to healing but also boosts damage potential as well.

This is why I am proposing it be doubled (to 4% healing done) to help it keep up in this regard while also bringing it up to speed with its healing recieved/taken counterparts.

John_Falstaff

I'm frankly leaning towards giving khajiits a mix of critical chance (spell and weapon) and critical damage, because it would seem that it's the only way to ensure that all builds - high critical or low - will benefit from the passive in equal measure. I'll just quote myself from the thread devoted to it and started by @muh in combat mechanics forum.

John_Falstaff wrote: »

The more I look into it, the more it seems that the best spot is a mix of 5% critical damage and 5% critical chance. At 75% base (without any passives) critical chance and 200% base critical damage, that would be a relative bump of 0.85% compared to current critical damage passive (0.57% compared to the old 8% critical chance bonus), and most importantly, at 200% base crit damage, such passive will give uniform boost across whole range of base critical chances, favoring neither high crit nor low crit builds.

I've tried to run 4% critical chance and 5% critical damage too, it's still 0.3% better than current passive at 75% base crit (and ever so slightly worse than old 8% crit passive), but it stops being uniform and slightly disfavors builds with lower crit. Maybe it would suit people who fear khajiits would overperform on magicka side (where base crit will be lower).

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Just to post a graph as a follow-up... Graphs are pretty, can't be a bad thing to have one.

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

I'm frankly leaning towards giving khajiits a mix of critical chance (spell and weapon) and critical damage, because it would seem that it's the only way to ensure that all builds - high critical or low - will benefit from the passive in equal measure. I'll just quote myself from the thread devoted to it and started by @muh in combat mechanics forum.

John_Falstaff wrote: »

The more I look into it, the more it seems that the best spot is a mix of 5% critical damage and 5% critical chance. At 75% base (without any passives) critical chance and 200% base critical damage, that would be a relative bump of 0.85% compared to current critical damage passive (0.57% compared to the old 8% critical chance bonus), and most importantly, at 200% base crit damage, such passive will give uniform boost across whole range of base critical chances, favoring neither high crit nor low crit builds.

I've tried to run 4% critical chance and 5% critical damage too, it's still 0.3% better than current passive at 75% base crit (and ever so slightly worse than old 8% crit passive), but it stops being uniform and slightly disfavors builds with lower crit. Maybe it would suit people who fear khajiits would overperform on magicka side (where base crit will be lower).

John_Falstaff wrote: »

Just to post a graph as a follow-up... Graphs are pretty, can't be a bad thing to have one.

If I were to implement this, the numbers would have to be 7% crit damage and 3.8% crit chance (833 weapon critical rating) to stay consistent with other 2-4 pc item set bonuses/mundus in the game.

Not saying I'm against it, but I am curious as to what these numbers would look like.

I also feel pure critical damage has found a good balance between magic and stamina cats, and between the bump I'm giving to Khajit in both maximum resources and critical damage, I suspect they've already pulled ahead of the other tier 2 races as the 3rd best damage dealer for both magicka and stamina (just behind altmer/orc and dunmer).

John_Falstaff

@twing1_ , I'm taking whole values because, apparently, the game truncates fractional parts; not sure if it would apply to racial passives too. But there you go, with 3.8% crit chance and 7% crit damage:



What I don't like in that scheme is that it still penalizes low crit builds, no matter magicka or stamina (though in smaller degree than pure crit damage as it is now on live). That's the issue with current passive - low crit builds, heavy armor, healers who're sitting at 30% critical or less, peculiar builds of sorc tanks that relied on higher crit and Surge, simply stamina builds that wanted to run Veiled or Deadly Strikes instead of AY, they'll all be locked out of their racial passive.

Pure critical damage may have toned down magicka side, but for one I feel it did that too much, and for another, it did so incidentally, by being a blanket nerf to all low crit builds (and since magicka happens to have lower crit in general - we're talking optimized meta setups here - magicka got the bigger hit). But low crit builds aren't limited to magicka, that's why pure critical damage bonus is so bad - it puts race's performance in direct relationship to the crit chance a build runs, that's not healthy.

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@twing1_ , I'm taking whole values because, apparently, the game truncates fractional parts; not sure if it would apply to racial passives too. But there you go, with 3.8% crit chance and 7% crit damage:



What I don't like in that scheme is that it still penalizes low crit builds, no matter magicka or stamina (though in smaller degree than pure crit damage as it is now on live). That's the issue with current passive - low crit builds, heavy armor, healers who're sitting at 30% critical or less, peculiar builds of sorc tanks that relied on higher crit and Surge, simply stamina builds that wanted to run Veiled or Deadly Strikes instead of AY, they'll all be locked out of their racial passive.

Pure critical damage may have toned down magicka side, but for one I feel it did that too much, and for another, it did so incidentally, by being a blanket nerf to all low crit builds (and since magicka happens to have lower crit in general - we're talking optimized meta setups here - magicka got the bigger hit). But low crit builds aren't limited to magicka, that's why pure critical damage bonus is so bad - it puts race's performance in direct relationship to the crit chance a build runs, that's not healthy.

I agree, as it currently stands, the Khajits critical damage is far better optimized for endgame crit builds than anything else.

I feel though, that splitting the critical damage item set bonuses into one of critical chance and one of critical damage, does on first glance look like a good change.

It increases low crit builds' damage by ~3% while diminishing in value for higher crit builds (but still buffing them slightly in comparison to straight crit damage). Furthermore, it maintains the nerf to magic cats (up to about 56 or 7% crit chance, it looks like), though it is not as large as nerf as straight critical damage was. The breakpoint for which the change starts becoming a buff to Khajit (in comparison to their straight critical chance passive) too is lowered considerably, even allowing for some very niche magicka builds to feasibly take advantage of it (although probably neither BiS nor meta).

Overall, I feel like this change would more or less maintain the balance between magicka and stamina cats, while at the same time giving Khajit a slight buff all around in comparison to the other races. It also provides a nice baseline level of diminishing returns for speccing too far into critical chance, which I feel is paramount to the balance in this game.

I believe it to be a welcome change.

I will edit it into the original post.

John_Falstaff

@twing1_ , I frankly don't think it's a correct approach and line of reasoning. I do understand that you're aiming to keep khajiits at their current ranking position on magicka side. But it's not a correct approach, to do so by manipulating a variable that only incidentally happens to be different for magicka than it is for stamina (and even so, only in current meta). Current passive is not spec-dependent, it's crit-dependent, it only happened so that magicka also happens to run lower crit. Next patch we'll have a strong crit set for magicka, for all we know, and all this balancing effort of tuning a passive to very specific details of builds will be all in vain because khajiits will then bolt ahead of everyone on magicka side.

More correct approach would be to untie crit dependency of the passive from the spec - keep the graph more or less uniform in relation to crit chance, but make two separate graphs for magicka and stamina instead if you will - by making different values for both crit damage and crit chance for magicka and stamina. But I'm frankly not sure if 5%+5% or 4%+5% would indeed overbuff magicka khajiits.

Point in case, your proposal tries to balance magicka and stamina, but instead you're manulipulating the wrong slider - it's the slider between high and low crit buff/nerf. It changes way more than just balance between magicka and stamina, and only affects that balance indirectly, just as a side effect.

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@twing1_ , I frankly don't think it's a correct approach and line of reasoning. I do understand that you're aiming to keep khajiits at their current ranking position on magicka side. But it's not a correct approach, to do so by manipulating a variable that only incidentally happens to be different for magicka than it is for stamina (and even so, only in current meta). Current passive is not spec-dependent, it's crit-dependent, it only happened so that magicka also happens to run lower crit. Next patch we'll have a strong crit set for magicka, for all we know, and all this balancing effort of tuning a passive to very specific details of builds will be all in vain because khajiits will then bolt ahead of everyone on magicka side.

More correct approach would be to untie crit dependency of the passive from the spec - keep the graph more or less uniform in relation to crit chance, but make two separate graphs for magicka and stamina instead if you will - by making different values for both crit damage and crit chance for magicka and stamina. But I'm frankly not sure if 5%+5% or 4%+5% would indeed overbuff magicka khajiits.

Point in case, your proposal tries to balance magicka and stamina, but instead you're manulipulating the wrong slider - it's the slider between high and low crit buff/nerf. It changes way more than just balance between magicka and stamina, and only affects that balance indirectly, just as a side effect.

I understand your angle and will even acknowledge that these changes are in fact only indirectly affecting magicka Khajit for the reasons you've suggested.

Despite this, the change seems to also affect stamina Khajit in a way that would more closely put them where they ought to be as well (slight buff accross the board, with lower crit builds benefiting more than higher crit builds).

I am strongly opposed to making different values for magicka/stamina for this reason and this reason alone: the entire balance of these changes relies on the balance of item set bonuses (or mundus, as is the case for critical damage) that already exist in the game, and as such, the item set bonuses I'm granting to the races must remain static if the pre-existing notion of balance is to be preserved.

John_Falstaff

@twing1_ , I think you've lost me for a moment there - when you said "with lower crit builds benefiting more than higher crit builds)", you meant the 3.8% crit / 7% damage scheme? But it has the opposite effect, it penalizes the lower crit builds instead (pure 10% crit damage does the same, just in smaller degree). Or I misunderstood you somewhere?

And I fear that if chosen system, with a tie to mundus stones, doesn't allow for equal values of crit chance and damage, then that system may not be able to balance khajiit at all. The very nature of chosen stats - crit chance or damage - makes khajiits depend on base values, while other races buff base damage (through directly manipulating weapon / spell power or sustain that can be directly converted into it). The only other spec-dependent is probably redguad, but even so redguads aren't punished nearly so harshly for not running weapon spammable as khajiits are punished for not running high crit. So it's a bit of special case, by developers' own choice.

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@twing1_ , I think you've lost me for a moment there - when you said "with lower crit builds benefiting more than higher crit builds)", you meant the 3.8% crit / 7% damage scheme? But it has the opposite effect, it penalizes the lower crit builds instead (pure 10% crit damage does the same, just in smaller degree). Or I misunderstood you somewhere?

And I fear that if chosen system, with a tie to mundus stones, doesn't allow for equal values of crit chance and damage, then that system may not be able to balance khajiit at all. The very nature of chosen stats - crit chance or damage - makes khajiits depend on base values, while other races buff base damage (through directly manipulating weapon / spell power or sustain that can be directly converted into it). The only other spec-dependent is probably redguad, but even so redguads aren't punished nearly so harshly for not running weapon spammable as khajiits are punished for not running high crit. So it's a bit of special case, by developers' own choice.

I am talking about the 3.8% chance and 7% damage scheme, although my wording is a little unclear. What I was referring to is how, in comparison to the straight 10% damage scheme, this chance/damage set up benefits lower crit builds by ~3% damage increase (far left side of the graph) while higher crit builds are benefitted by only ~1% damage increase.

In comparison to the straight critical damage scheme, this set up benefits lower crit builds more than it benefits higher crit builds, which is in line with the idea of diminishing returns.

No, it doesn't benefit lower crit builds as much as the straight critical chance scheme, but that causes issues with magicka Khajit, while this split between crit chance and crit damage avoids this while at the same time buffing Khajit accross the board.

In order to maintain balance between the races, special case scenarios must be removed. It is true that crit damage is more dependent on other stats (namely crit chance) than some of the other bonuses, but the same argument can be made for other bonuses as well (ie magicka cost reduction relying on magicka use).

Every race has a forte: bretons/altmers specialize in magicka if their potential is to be maximized, orcs/redguards specialize in stamina if their potential is to be maximized, and Khajit have the unique case of specializing in critical if their potential is to be maximized. Their critical damage benefits them even if they don't spec into crit to the fullest extent, just not nearly as much as if they did spec into crit. This is similar to how Breton's magicka cost reduction would lose value if they chose to spec into stamina instead of magicka.

Ultimately, as is the case with all races, the player must decide if they want to steer into the Khajit's strength where they would take full advantage of their passives, or instead use a more generic build where their passives won't be emphasized as well. Even if the latter is chosen, the passives will still benefit them, just not to their fullest potential.

Splitting the passives into both critical chance and critical damage helps to minimize the all-or-nothing feel of having both bonuses dedicated to critical damage, but does not (and should not, imo) eliminate the added benefits the Khajit passives offer to speccing heavily into crit.

John_Falstaff

@twing1_ , I frankly still don't understand why even begin the thread to propose better racial passives than Wrathstone brought... and propose passives flawed in same way as the ones in Wrathstone. Developers made the mistake by pigeonholing khajiits into high crit builds and making them highly gear-dependent. We found a way how to fix it - since crit damage can only take limited range of values (everyone runs Minor Force, all groups run Major, mundus and CPs are there for everyone), then, at given base crit damage, given proportion of crit damage and crit chance buff (in case of 200% base crit damage, half-and-half) results in flat, largely crit-agnostic passive. It's a way to give khajiits the bonus that won't punish them whether they run Veiled, AY, Deadly Strikes, PvP build, whether they're healer or tank... If magicka side overperforms as a result - well, as reluctant I am to hurt the symmetry, it can be adjusted by base spell power, by reducing max magicka bonus. If we're on a task of fixing races, then why squeeze ourselves into limitations that clearly aren't letting us to come to good solution?

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@twing1_ , I frankly still don't understand why even begin the thread to propose better racial passives than Wrathstone brought... and propose passives flawed in same way as the ones in Wrathstone. Developers made the mistake by pigeonholing khajiits into high crit builds and making them highly gear-dependent. We found a way how to fix it - since crit damage can only take limited range of values (everyone runs Minor Force, all groups run Major, mundus and CPs are there for everyone), then, at given base crit damage, given proportion of crit damage and crit chance buff (in case of 200% base crit damage, half-and-half) results in flat, largely crit-agnostic passive. It's a way to give khajiits the bonus that won't punish them whether they run Veiled, AY, Deadly Strikes, PvP build, whether they're healer or tank... If magicka side overperforms as a result - well, as reluctant I am to hurt the symmetry, it can be adjusted by base spell power, by reducing max magicka bonus. If we're on a task of fixing races, then why squeeze ourselves into limitations that clearly aren't letting us to come to good solution?

I think we have differing views because I believe that putting crit damage on the Khajit was and still is a good solution. It provides balance between magic and stamina Khajit while keeping them both competitive with the other races, but it comes at the cost of limiting the damage potential of Khajit tanks and healers that are running less than 50% critical chance.

To be frank, I am okay with this casualty in dps on these builds because damage isn't their role to begin with.

Let's take your VH and deadly strikes builds as examples (leaving out AY, as this is a crit set and should be ignored because other options that don't spec into crit should be considered instead).

I feel it is also safe to assume 7 pc medium armor and major/minor savagery for raid buffed groups, with an additional 9% critical chance from cp.

This already puts critical chance at 45%. The critical chance binus from the proposed Khajit change (833 weapon critical) then bumps this up to ~48.8%. The critical bonus from veiled heritance or deadly strikes brings it up even higher to ~52.6%.

Wearing just one dagger or one additional crit chance item set bonus (as I think you will be hard pressed to find an endgame item set that doesn't offer this), or a precise weapon, or the thief mundus, or any combination of these things would give the advantage to the crit chance/crit damage split over even the old flat crit chance Khajit passive, according to your graph (as the breakpoint appears to be ~56%). This is very easily (even accidentally) obtainable for endgame damage dealers, considering you have full weapon choices and 5 armor slots to work with (with only 5 being occupied by deadly strikes/vh).

In fact, I think the only way a serious endgame stamina damage dealer would not take full advantage of these passives (split between 833 critical rating and 7% critical damage) is if they were intentionally trying to limit their critical chance as low as possible, which would be detrimental to dps.

So I don't see this change as limiting Khajit into using AY or leviathan or any other crit gear more than any other race. I don't even see it as limiting the Khajit to fewer gear choices than they were already limited to while they had full critical chance bonuses (as this would have limited them from using sets like AY/leviathan).

It does not seem like a bad change to me.

John_Falstaff

@twing1_ , I assume you mean your proposal from above, 3.8% crit chance and 7% crit damage. Yes; technically, it would work - I still see it as somewhat half-measure, partly because it'll penalize healers and because it's simply a disadvantage compared to other races - altmer, dunmer, breton, all have flat 'response curve' in regard to crit, all of them have mostly gear-agnostic racial bonus, only khajiits (and, in very minor way, redguards) have to build around their passive. But you're right in regard that for damage dealers, that would be acceptable, and for everything above ~56% it would work same or better than the old crit chance passive, which covers majority of stamina and magicka DD builds.

twing1_

John_Falstaff wrote: »

@twing1_ , I assume you mean your proposal from above, 3.8% crit chance and 7% crit damage. Yes; technically, it would work - I still see it as somewhat half-measure, partly because it'll penalize healers and because it's simply a disadvantage compared to other races - altmer, dunmer, breton, all have flat 'response curve' in regard to crit, all of them have mostly gear-agnostic racial bonus, only khajiits (and, in very minor way, redguards) have to build around their passive. But you're right in regard that for damage dealers, that would be acceptable, and for everything above ~56% it would work same or better than the old crit chance passive, which covers majority of stamina and magicka DD builds.

Yes, I was referring to the Khajit with 833 critical and 7% crit damage.

After re-reading my comment, however, i noticed my numbers were a bit off so I fixed them (I was forgetting to account for the Khajit bonus of 3.8% crit chance, so it now properly reflects that it is even easier to surpass the old Khajit 8% critical chance passive).

It does suck that Khajit healers will be receiving a slight nerf. But, by my calculations, the bare minimum critical chance an endgame khajit healer can run (assuming 5 pc light armor, major/minor prophecy from potions/raid buffs respectively, 9% from cp, 3.8% from Khajit passive) is 48.8% critical chance.

According to your graph, this would result in a nerf of less than .5%, in comparison to the 8% critical chance Khajit passives. It is nothing that will seriously affect the viability of Khajit healers, and only works to emphasize Khajit in the damage dealing role (which seems fitting).

And yes, it's true that the other races have a flat response curve in terms of crit, but the Khajit (with 833 critical and 7% crit damage) are just as gear agnostic imo as the other races. Bosmer/redguard/Breton have to avoid sustain sets (because it would be sustain overkill) and instead focus on pure damage sets. Khajit are in a similar predicament where it would be of a better benefit to them to focus on critical rather than raw stats, but are by no means forced into it.

twing1_

Updated to include the non-combat flavor passives for all the races to provide a more comprehensive restructure to the current racial passives.

For the most part, these remain unchanged (as a 15% experience bonus to a particular skill line and another small benefit). The notable exception is the swap of the Khajit and Bosmer flavor passives.

Granting bosmer the small bonus to pick pocketing (and additionally forcing locks) currently found on the Khajit plays into the bosmer's lore as thieves. Also buffed the value a bit to help compensate for their loss of combat stealth utility. Gave Khajit the reduced fall damage bosmer had in exchange. This also kind of makes sense because cats always land on their feet.

Benemime

I don't think imperials are in a good position yet, still only serves as a stamina race, while it should be a jack-of-all-trades

twing1_

@Benemime

I agree that they should be more well rounded, that's why I've given them equal bonuses to both magicka/stamina and spell/weapon damage

SaintSubwayy

Benemime wrote: »

I don't think imperials are in a good position yet, still only serves as a stamina race, while it should be a jack-of-all-trades

actually imprials are a jack of all trades...and bad in every single one of them.

they could need a small buff indeed.

CurvedSwords123

Scrap the snare reduction, give Redguards a toughness bonus.

twing1_

CurvedSwords123 wrote: »

Scrap the snare reduction, give Redguards a toughness bonus.

The toughness bonus comes in their added physical resistance. The 15% snare reduction is just a cherry on top.

JobooAGS

twing1_ wrote: »

CurvedSwords123 wrote: »

Scrap the snare reduction, give Redguards a toughness bonus.

The toughness bonus comes in their added physical resistance. The 15% snare reduction is just a cherry on top.

what physical resistance buff did redguards get?