Racial Power based on Set Values

muh

Heya!

So now that the racial passives are set in stone for the most part I was curious how their initial goal was met.

In the inital communication we got about the racial changes, ZOS said that one of the goals is to bring the power of passives closer together (note, not DPS).
They said that their metric to compare power is based on 2-4 piece set bonus values and their goal is to have every race at rougly 6.5 set pieces.

Now we don't know what roughly means. Is it okay if they're within one set bonus in either direction or not?
What we do know however is how to assign nearly every passive a set value. There are some exception that we can only guess and some that depend on uptime.

I spent some time to create a spreadsheet that calculates the set value for each passive and spits out a sum for each race.
For some races that could be used as either magicka or stamina I also looked at how much set bonuses they're worth if all you care about is either magicka or stamina. I always included health bonuses in the calculation, because dead people don't contribute and actually cause downtime for another person that has to revive.

There is more text in the spreadsheet that I'd recommend you to read. Some of it is reasoning how I valued some passives or why I didn't value them at all. As well as a very cheeky disclaimer, that while you may find it stupid, I'd appreciate it if you abide by it.

Lastly, if you find mistakes or have suggestions how to value something better please let me know. There are most certainly a couple things that I valued incorrectly and I expect some of those to be the reason why their value is noticably lower or higher compared to the stated goal.
I'd honestly love to see something similar from ZOS themselves as to why some things are as they are. A bit more reasoning behind some changes would ease some pain I think.

Enjoy and thanks for reading.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o12XoUA3OhtdNWgYsCrCLfsgX-FLCEjBsZjQ1DGYDZE/edit?usp=sharing

Gnortranermara

lol, I think you mean "I don't condone" (in your disclaimer on the spreadsheet)

Awesome job, btw. Thanks for this.

I think it's very important for people to understand that the "set bonus" method is a loose proxy for suitability for a role, but it's not synonymous. The numbers represent an approximate total number of "set bonuses" that the passives equate to, but it doesn't adjust the values according to how good that particular bonus is to aid that role. So, for instance, the most notable problem is Argonian. The "set bonus" method overvalues some passives (health, resistances... the things people don't choose to slot when they have alternatives) when it comes to suitability for DPS roles. The numbers represent the relative strength of a racial bonus compared to a similar set bonus, not the relative strength of the particular benefit provided compared to other alternative benefits. This makes Argonian look way better than it really is. They have a larger number of "set bonuses", but each of those bonuses they have are generally much less useful than those of others races. Aside from their unique ability to abuse 3 infused potion cooldown jewels, Argonians have very little else going for them.

Now if you're a player choosing a race and you really want to use this data to optimize race selection, here's how: create a utility coefficient (0-1) representing how strongly you think each individual bonus aids the role you want to play, multiply that coefficient with the set bonus values given on the chart, and add them up for each race you are considering. The values you get will be a blending of this data (which is set bonus equivalency) and your own preferences for the role you want. I can't imagine a more perfect method of min-max race selection, and this data makes it possible.

muh

Haha, indeed. Thank you. Pretty tired by now.

Arciris

Awesome job.

I think the issue with Zeni approach is that not all set pieces have the same "practical" value.

Let's compare 128 magika recovery, 128 spell damage and 2% healing done.

If an healer has 1 single gear slot free, which one of those bonuses are they most likely to choose on a monster set piece?
The answer is obviously the Magoka recovery or the Spell damage . No one in their right mind is going to pick 2% healing done.

So although all those have the same value for Zeni, they do not have the same value for gameplay.

This why a race like Argonian seems "mathematically" so overloaded, but in practice completely underwhelming . Argonian are mid tier in support roles and last in DD.

On the other side of the spectrum, Nord seem under "budget", but they make the best Tanks ever.
Redguards also seem under "budget", but they are an awesome sustain race, very versatile, and with a bit of imagination they can reach OP levels on some roles (keeping this to myself for now )

The "set value" approach is a good one, but it is to take with a grain of salt and some good ol' common sense.

muh

I'm still struggling a bit to evaluate power of bonuses that are only found on 5pc bonuses or not at all.
As per my edit late last night I did some adjustments to Khajiit Critical Damage, Bosmer Movement Speed , Orc Sprinting and Nord ultimate generation. Mostly inflating each of them with a 2x multiplier to account for the increased budget of 5pc bonuses.

However, I wasn't happy with it. Over time the value of some 5pc bonuses has been diminished in my opinion. So I did look at those 4 sitations a bit more this morning.

One change I made is to evaluate the strength of Critical Damage (and Healing) by comparing the Thief and Shadow Mundus to determine a Critical Damage rating and figure out how much Critical Damage we could get if it was present on a 2-4 piece bonus. Turns out it would be about 7.1 Critical Damage, which reduced the value I had calculated for Khajiit slightly.

I reverted the change to Bosmer, Movement speed doesn't seem to be highly valued by ZOS. Looking at The Steed Mundus it's given free of charge, without weird trigger requirements. I think ZOS sees it as fluff mostly, so I actually dropped it from my evaluation.

This decision also put me into a weird spot for Orc. I think the sprint passive is pretty strong, because it doesn't require you to do anything to benefit from it. At the moment I compare it against Fjord's Legacy 5pc (which is a perfect match in terms of what it does), but looking at other sets you can get up to 50% reduced cost of sprint with another effect. Movement speed as pointed out above doesn't seem to be worth much and this is tied to sprinting, too. So should I drop it?
For now I scaled down reduced cost to sprint, but added a colum without any sprint passive to look at their throughput only.

The last change I made yesterday was to scale up the ultimate passive of Nords. While you'll trigger it on cooldown in situations where you take damage frequently it'll lose value if not. Now I never really paid attention to how much trickle damage you get in different situations as a non-tank. However promoting bad play (intentionally taking damage) is nothing I'm a fan of. I leave it at it's inflated value, though, because I think you'll benefit from it quite regularly.

I welcome further feedback, especially for the 4 passives I talked about here.

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO

@muh we know how basically zos sees 5 piece bonuses, see here-

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/365904/pc-mac-patch-notes-v3-1-5-horns-of-the-reach

The bonus for having 5 pieces is approximately 2.31x the value of a one-piece bonus. For example, you can get a set bonus of 129 Spell Damage, or a 5-piece bonus of 299 Spell Damage on Julianos.

Some sets, such as Necropotence, have conditional bonuses. Since it’s harder to get these bonuses, we are allowing them to provide up to a 25% increase over other sets. This is why Draugr Hulk now gives 2540 max resource and Necropotence now gives 3150.

So to find what a set bonus would be for a five piece, divide by 2.31, if the bonus is up all the time/easy to get or 2.8875 if it is hard to get.

For critical damage done, I get ~5.2, as the only set that gives crit damage is archers mind and the max it gives is 15% but that would fall under the "harder to get bonuses" clause, as you only get that from stealth. So 15%/2.8875.

Some great suggestions from @WrathOfInnos in this thread about crit hit damage overall, https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5846898

Tommy_The_Gun

Imho they should not balance it strictly around 5pcs set bonus but add some other effects to the calculations (like mundus, drink buff, weapon trait etc.) So it will rather be: "what is the easiest way to get similar bonus, without racial passives".

For example, khajit % more crit dmg is like almost equivalent of a shadow mundus, while the bonus they had before was more like a free "Precise" trait on 2h weapon.

Argonian resourceful passive could be for example compared to 2/3 effectiveness of "Aspect of Mazzatun" 5pcs bonus:
https://elderscrollsonline.wiki.fextralife.com/Aspect+of+Mazzatun+Set
(5 items) When you fall below 30% Health, heal for 7052 Health and gain 6020 Magicka and Stamina. This effect can occur once every 45 seconds.

muh

@Lightspeedflashb14_ESO that's exactly what I needed. Wow, thank you.

Adjusted everything accordingly. I also did put a value on everything, it's still part of their racial budget and I do have columns with Stam/Mag or combat related passives only for that very reason.

For the Khajiit Critical Damage I went with the new Shadow Mundus, just because that's apparently how strong Critical Damage should be according to ZOS. (I kind of expect to see a change to it on monday).

Kulvar

If they made a race with only +258 (Spell or Physical) Damage, +258 (Magicka or Stamina) Recovery, it would fit in the "6.5" sets bonus range, but it would be way too overpowered. Very inaccurate measurement.

muh

Adjusted recovery procs and cost reduction passives to use the 5pc and Mundus ratios given in the Horns of the Reach patch notes.

Not much changed, though. Cost reduction passives went down by about 1/3 and Potion / Recovery procs went down slightly, but overall it should be fairly accurate now. At this point I'm quite happy with it.


Thanks for all your input so far, if you find anything that remains super off, please let me know.

twing1_

I still think this whole "roughly 6.5 item set bonuses" is the total wrong way to go about it. It has proven to have too much variance and therefore imbalance between races.

They should have more strict and easier to follow guidelines. The ones I propose are:

1. Every race gets 3000 max resources (to be used in whatever combination of stats, stam mag or health)
2. Every race has a defensive bonus
3. Every race has a sustain tool (the stronger the offensive power of the class, the weaker the sustain tool and vice versa)
4. Every race gets 2 set bonuses, no more and no less
5. Every race more or less reflects traditional TES lore

This would drastically reduce the variability and therefore imbalance between the races.

Here is my detailed thread on this topic:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/459197/racial-rebalance-v4-3-4#latest

muh

I've read your post a couple days ago already @twing1_ and for the most part I disagree. Not just with your proposed changes, but it really isn't much different from what we currently have.

ZOS has to base their budgets on something and saying that races should roughly provide 6.5 set bonuses via racials is as good as anything. Especially since that budget is overall and not pure throughput.

1. You pretty much say that ZOS should give every race resources worth about 3 2-4 piece set bonuses.
2. Idea here is totally okay, your defensive stats are just really imbalanced at times. E.g. Resistances to just one damage type is much less valuable than flat Spell or Physical resistance.
3. Your idea that everyone should have a sustain tool is, well it makes it quite bland. It gets even more weird when you then proceed and give races even more sustain via set bonuses. I think it's absolutely fair if ZOS decides to blow more or all of their budget on sustain for some races and no sustain for others. This has been the case since forever and creates some differences in playstyle and feel of different races.
4. The issue with set bonuses in general is that not all set bonuses provide equal strength, like Physical/Spell Penetration is stronger than Weapon/Spell Damage. Stamina/Magicka Recovery is worth less than Cost reduction. All cost reduction is worth more than only Stamina or Magicka, etc. So it inherently is imbalanced.

---

Following a list of how many offensive set values each race is worth as a DD.
That is, only looking at Stamina/Magicka Recovery (procs or flat), Stamina/Magicka/Weapon Cost Reduction, Max Stamina/Magicka and Weapon/Spell Damage. Including Critical Damage from Khajiit and Ultimate Generation in its best case scenario for Nord. The Dodge Roll passive from Bosmer is ignored here.



You can see that Argonian offer pretty much no value at all as a DD, the only bonuses they get for Stamina is the Potion passive, as Magicka you get another 1000 Max Magicka. So pretty underwhelming. They are the single most undervalued race right now. Again, only looking at it from a DD perspective.
Now if we ignore the Ultimate Generation of Nords, they're pretty much on par with Argonian for Stamina. (Just looking at set values, not how good their bonus is).

On the other end of the spectrum we have Breton and Redguard, they're both swimming in sustain, the only passive that directly affects damage is their Max Magicka or Stamina respectively. So they will most likely be easiest to play, since you can do whatever for the most part.

Dunmer and Orc, and Altmer and Dunmer all sit at around 3.8 offensive set bonuses and are sitting at the top of the pile when comparing damage.

---

Now let's have some real talk.

In my humble opinion a lot of people blow racial balance way out of proportion.
If we look at the data provided by @susmitds and take the average of all classes for each race for Magicka and Stamina, they're all within about 1% to each other, with "No racial" being about 3% behind the average.



If that isn't balanced, I don't know what is.

Edit: Made excuses why I forgot to take out Ultimate Generation for Nords when looking at the offensive set values. In situations where you take trickle damage frequently it certainly can be strong, though.

twing1_

muh wrote: »

I've read your post a couple days ago already @twing1_ and for the most part I disagree. Not just with your proposed changes, but it really isn't much different from what we currently have.

ZOS has to base their budgets on something and saying that races should roughly provide 6.5 set bonuses via racials is as good as anything. Especially since that budget is overall and not pure throughput.

1. You pretty much say that ZOS should give every race resources worth about 3 2-4 piece set bonuses.
2. Idea here is totally okay, your defensive stats are just really imbalanced at times. E.g. Resistances to just one damage type is much less valuable than flat Spell or Physical resistance.
3. Your idea that everyone should have a sustain tool is, well it makes it quite bland. It gets even more weird when you then proceed and give races even more sustain via set bonuses. I think it's absolutely fair if ZOS decides to blow more or all of their budget on sustain for some races and no sustain for others. This has been the case since forever and creates some differences in playstyle and feel of different races.
4. The issue with set bonuses in general is that not all set bonuses provide equal strength, like Physical/Spell Penetration is stronger than Weapon/Spell Damage. Stamina/Magicka Recovery is worth less than Cost reduction. All cost reduction is worth more than only Stamina or Magicka, etc. So it inherently is imbalanced.

---

Following a list of how many offensive set values each race is worth as a DD.
That is, only looking at Stamina/Magicka Recovery (procs or flat), Stamina/Magicka/Weapon Cost Reduction, Max Stamina/Magicka and Weapon/Spell Damage. Including Critical Damage from Khajiit and Ultimate Generation in its best case scenario for Nord. The Dodge Roll passive from Bosmer is ignored here.



You can see that Argonian offer pretty much no value at all as a DD, the only bonuses they get for Stamina is the Potion passive, as Magicka you get another 1000 Max Magicka. So pretty underwhelming. They are the single most undervalued race right now. Again, only looking at it from a DD perspective.
Now if we ignore the Ultimate Generation of Nords, they're pretty much on par with Argonian for Stamina. (Just looking at set values, not how good their bonus is).

On the other end of the spectrum we have Breton and Redguard, they're both swimming in sustain, the only passive that directly affects damage is their Max Magicka or Stamina respectively. So they will most likely be easiest to play, since you can do whatever for the most part.

Dunmer and Orc, and Altmer and Dunmer all sit at around 3.8 offensive set bonuses and are sitting at the top of the pile when comparing damage.

---

Now let's have some real talk.

In my humble opinion a lot of people blow racial balance way out of proportion.
If we look at the data provided by @susmitds and take the average of all classes for each race for Magicka and Stamina, they're all within about 1% to each other, with "No racial" being about 3% behind the average.



If that isn't balanced, I don't know what is.

Edit: Made excuses why I forgot to take out Ultimate Generation for Nords when looking at the offensive set values. In situations where you take trickle damage frequently it certainly can be strong, though.

I acknowledge and understand that the races are for the most part balanced. But where I feel most people have concerns is some of the races are currently balanced while possessing some bonuses that are completely and utterly useless (bosmer roll dodge probably the most concerning in this regard, as endgame builds do not require penetration after roll dodging because pen cap will have already been hit).

The biggest advantage my theoretical rebalance has is the avoidance of this: every race would receive quantifiably equal strength in bonuses, if the current balance of preexisting item set bonuses is to be observed. It is true that there is an exception for this (in the form of hybrid races like dunmer, Khajit, and imperial) where more set bonuses will be granted relative to the other races, however, these races already have relatively more set bonuses granted to them on PTS as it currently stands for the ability to play both magicka and stamina.

1. These resources alone grant slightly less than 3 set bonuses worth of resources. Coupled with the additional 2 set bonuses each race would receive, the defensive bonuses, and the sustain tool, the total number of set bonuses granted to each race jumps up to ~6 or so.
2. The defensive bonuses are for the most part copy pasted from what is currently found on live. The imbalance between defensive bonuses already exists in the game. I don't see this as a problem, however, because for the most part they reflect traditional TES lore and are generally stronger on weaker offensive races and weaker on races with more offensive capability.
3. It is undeniably true that giving every race access to a sustain tool homogenizes the races a bit. As does giving every race ~6.5 set bonuses. Any standardization brings the races closer together, and with higher levels of standardization comes more similarity between the races. This typically results in more balance too (as two races that are exactly the same would be literally perfectly balanced). I'm in no way advocating making all races identical, this would completely destroy racial diversity in the game. But a number of players are concerned about how some races have more max resources and resource restore than others, while others have less max resources and no form of sustain (Orc vs nord for example). The combination of every race getting equal max resources (albeit distributed differently between the three stats) and a sustain tool helps to eliminate these disparities. For the most part, these sustain tools too are very similar to what are currently found on PTS. Additionally, the inverse relationship between offensive power and strength of resource restore helps to build ZOS's pre-established notion of pure sustain races vs pure damage races.
4. It's true not all set bonuses are created equal. A lot of people would argue max resources hold a lot more importance than say resistances. This is where giving every race equal max resources helps to level the playing field. Furthermore, the differing strength of set bonuses is already currently plaguing the races in PTS (ex pure sustain races vs pure damage races). Reducing this number from 6.5 to only 2 only acts to reduce the impact of the imbalance between set bonuses between races.

Obviously, I'm day dreaming. ZOS seems content to launch the races as is, and they are historically awful at implementing community ideas so this will never come to fruition. I just fear that as it currently stands, their racial rebalance is a bandaid fix because of the lack of standardization. It wouldn't surprise me if 5 more years down the road they revisit the races yet again.

Edit: More on topic with the original post, ZOS has done a good job balancing their roughly ~6.5 set bonuses. The one exception in my mind is argonian, which is currently being pigeonholed into a sub-par (when compared to altmer/Breton) healer role.

muh

twing1_ wrote: »

I acknowledge and understand that the races are for the most part balanced. But where I feel most people have concerns is some of the races are currently balanced while possessing some bonuses that are completely and utterly useless (bosmer roll dodge probably the most concerning in this regard, as endgame builds do not require penetration after roll dodging because pen cap will have already been hit).

This is where I already disagree, though. Most people here are looking at racials through their own lens, meaning only from how it benefits them in their chosen playstyle and like to see things adjusted so everything benefits them in one way or another. But ZOS isn't balancing their game just for Leaderboard Trials.

The Bosmer Dodge roll is pretty damn strong in PvP if you really think about it.
Altmer off-stat regeneration will help in PvP (as well as solo PvE content).
Orc Sprinting is a big quality of life improvement in open world PvE, Cyrodiil and certainly does not hurt in instanced PvE content.
Disease / Poison and Fire Resistance are useful to Werewolves and Vampires respectively.
Races with health bonuses can potentially pick different food to get a comfortable level of health for vTrials and skip a Health Glyph or run 7 Medium/Light if they didn't already.

Little things like that outside of their obvious throughput passives are what make races unique. They probably will cause imbalances outside of Instanced PvE content. The question is are these significant enough to change or not?

twing1_ wrote: »

Any standardization brings the races closer together, and with higher levels of standardization comes more similarity between the races. This typically results in more balance too (as two races that are exactly the same would be literally perfectly balanced). I'm in no way advocating making all races identical, this would completely destroy racial diversity in the game.

I wouldn't say standardization would ruin diversity, if everything was equal everyone would play whatever they like to play. I think racials are not significant enough in most situations to matter anyway. Unless you're pushing top leaderboard scores you should spent your time on a dummy and get better with rotations, etc. (Not talking to you, @twing1_ here necessarily)

twing1_ wrote: »

But a number of players are concerned about how some races have more max resources and resource restore than others, while others have less max resources and no form of sustain (Orc vs nord for example). The combination of every race getting equal max resources (albeit distributed differently between the three stats) and a sustain tool helps to eliminate these disparities. For the most part, these sustain tools too are very similar to what are currently found on PTS. Additionally, the inverse relationship between offensive power and strength of resource restore helps to build ZOS's pre-established notion of pure sustain races vs pure damage races.

This has been the case for a very long time already.

Has anyone complained to you in the last couple years that Khajiit has no sustain and lacks max resources compared to Redguard? Khajiit has done fairly well regardless if you could work around less sustain.
It's also quite amusing that people are upset about Bosmer, they've lost their better sneak passive, but their throughput passives remained mostly the same and they've gained a dodge roll passive that didn't exist in any way before.

twing1_ wrote: »

1. These resources alone grant slightly less than 3 set bonuses worth of resources. Coupled with the additional 2 set bonuses each race would receive, the defensive bonuses, and the sustain tool, the total number of set bonuses granted to each race jumps up to ~6 or so.
2. The defensive bonuses are for the most part copy pasted from what is currently found on live. The imbalance between defensive bonuses already exists in the game. I don't see this as a problem, however, because for the most part they reflect traditional TES lore and are generally stronger on weaker offensive races and weaker on races with more offensive capability.
3. It is undeniably true that giving every race access to a sustain tool homogenizes the races a bit. As does giving every race ~6.5 set bonuses.
4. It's true not all set bonuses are created equal. A lot of people would argue max resources hold a lot more importance than say resistances. This is where giving every race equal max resources helps to level the playing field. Furthermore, the differing strength of set bonuses is already currently plaguing the races in PTS (ex pure sustain races vs pure damage races). Reducing this number from 6.5 to only 2 only acts to reduce the impact of the imbalance between set bonuses between races.

There is most likely not a single bonus you can give a race that doesn't have a set equivalent. So everything you suggested can be translated in set bonus values.

twing1_ wrote: »

The biggest advantage my theoretical rebalance has is the avoidance of this: every race would receive quantifiably equal strength in bonuses, if the current balance of preexisting item set bonuses is to be observed. It is true that there is an exception for this (in the form of hybrid races like dunmer, Khajit, and imperial) where more set bonuses will be granted relative to the other races, however, these races already have relatively more set bonuses granted to them on PTS as it currently stands for the ability to play both magicka and stamina.

Enjoy

---- THESE ARE THE RACIAL SUGGESTIONS FROM @twing1_

Altmer Heavy Attack resource gain will most likely be stronger if all modifiers are applied to it (e.g. Champion points).

twing1_

muh wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

I acknowledge and understand that the races are for the most part balanced. But where I feel most people have concerns is some of the races are currently balanced while possessing some bonuses that are completely and utterly useless (bosmer roll dodge probably the most concerning in this regard, as endgame builds do not require penetration after roll dodging because pen cap will have already been hit).

This is where I already disagree, though. Most people here are looking at racials through their own lens, meaning only from how it benefits them in their chosen playstyle and like to see things adjusted so everything benefits them in one way or another. But ZOS isn't balancing their game just for Leaderboard Trials.

The Bosmer Dodge roll is pretty damn strong in PvP if you really think about it.
Altmer off-stat regeneration will help in PvP (as well as solo PvE content).
Orc Sprinting is a big quality of life improvement in open world PvE, Cyrodiil and certainly does not hurt in instanced PvE content.
Disease / Poison and Fire Resistance are useful to Werewolves and Vampires respectively.
Races with health bonuses can potentially pick different food to get a comfortable level of health for vTrials and skip a Health Glyph or run 7 Medium/Light if they didn't already.

Little things like that outside of their obvious throughput passives are what make races unique. They probably will cause imbalances outside of Instanced PvE content. The question is are these significant enough to change or not?

twing1_ wrote: »

Any standardization brings the races closer together, and with higher levels of standardization comes more similarity between the races. This typically results in more balance too (as two races that are exactly the same would be literally perfectly balanced). I'm in no way advocating making all races identical, this would completely destroy racial diversity in the game.

I wouldn't say standardization would ruin diversity, if everything was equal everyone would play whatever they like to play. I think racials are not significant enough in most situations to matter anyway. Unless you're pushing top leaderboard scores you should spent your time on a dummy and get better with rotations, etc. (Not talking to you, @twing1_ here necessarily)

twing1_ wrote: »

But a number of players are concerned about how some races have more max resources and resource restore than others, while others have less max resources and no form of sustain (Orc vs nord for example). The combination of every race getting equal max resources (albeit distributed differently between the three stats) and a sustain tool helps to eliminate these disparities. For the most part, these sustain tools too are very similar to what are currently found on PTS. Additionally, the inverse relationship between offensive power and strength of resource restore helps to build ZOS's pre-established notion of pure sustain races vs pure damage races.

This has been the case for a very long time already.

Has anyone complained to you in the last couple years that Khajiit has no sustain and lacks max resources compared to Redguard? Khajiit has done fairly well regardless if you could work around less sustain.
It's also quite amusing that people are upset about Bosmer, they've lost their better sneak passive, but their throughput passives remained mostly the same and they've gained a dodge roll passive that didn't exist in any way before.

twing1_ wrote: »

1. These resources alone grant slightly less than 3 set bonuses worth of resources. Coupled with the additional 2 set bonuses each race would receive, the defensive bonuses, and the sustain tool, the total number of set bonuses granted to each race jumps up to ~6 or so.
2. The defensive bonuses are for the most part copy pasted from what is currently found on live. The imbalance between defensive bonuses already exists in the game. I don't see this as a problem, however, because for the most part they reflect traditional TES lore and are generally stronger on weaker offensive races and weaker on races with more offensive capability.
3. It is undeniably true that giving every race access to a sustain tool homogenizes the races a bit. As does giving every race ~6.5 set bonuses.
4. It's true not all set bonuses are created equal. A lot of people would argue max resources hold a lot more importance than say resistances. This is where giving every race equal max resources helps to level the playing field. Furthermore, the differing strength of set bonuses is already currently plaguing the races in PTS (ex pure sustain races vs pure damage races). Reducing this number from 6.5 to only 2 only acts to reduce the impact of the imbalance between set bonuses between races.

There is most likely not a single bonus you can give a race that doesn't have a set equivalent. So everything you suggested can be translated in set bonus values.

twing1_ wrote: »

The biggest advantage my theoretical rebalance has is the avoidance of this: every race would receive quantifiably equal strength in bonuses, if the current balance of preexisting item set bonuses is to be observed. It is true that there is an exception for this (in the form of hybrid races like dunmer, Khajit, and imperial) where more set bonuses will be granted relative to the other races, however, these races already have relatively more set bonuses granted to them on PTS as it currently stands for the ability to play both magicka and stamina.

Enjoy

Awesome thanks for pulling the numbers on some of my proposed race changes.

I'm out and about right now so I haven't run the analytics, but in first glance, at least for the races you've run, it appears that the differences in single stat set bonuses is actually smaller between my proposed races compared to the races currently on PTS (standard deviation appears, again on first glance, to be less than 1.23). Races with health bonuses seem to be quite a bit lower, but I would argue that health and health restore should be taken into these equations as well because it helps both stamina and magicka builds.

Furthermore, it appears the largest differences are found between hybrid races and pure races, with hybrid races consistently having less single stat bonuses than pures, despite their overall greater number of set bonuses. This seems in line.

Additionally, it seems as though the sustain races are granted more adjusted set bonuses than the pure damage races, which is almost undeniably due to their increased strength of their sustain tool. This is in line with my (and apparently ZOS's) vision of weighting sustain as weaker than max damage potential (as evidenced by Bretons on PTS having more set bonuses than altmer).

One thing I did notice, however, is your grading seems to give too much weight to sustain tools that are not natural resource recovery. This is because you do not take into account % modifiers for natural recovery. Let's use Breton as an example.

You have weighted the 100 magicka/2 second as .742 of a set bonus (almost undoubtedly graded against 129 magicka recovery, although the numbers are a bit off). On any serious magicka user in almost every scenario, however, they receive a bonus of at least 20% magicka recovery (due to at least 5 pieces of light armor + light armor passives) and another 20% from major intellect (typically from potions). That would bring up the natural 129 magicka recovery up to 180 magicka/2 seconds, where the sustain tool would not receive these benefits. This would bring down Bretons bonus closer to ~.556 of a set bonus.

Now I'm not saying it should be weighted this way (as it would be unfair to assume that every player will be running these buffs), but I think the value should be adjusted in some way because players simply possess the ability to scale up their natural recovery, but not their sustain tools (in the cases where they are not natural recovery).

I believe this wasn't taken into account in your original calculations for the PTS races as well, although I have not double checked.

I assume ZOS is using similar analytics to compare the races, and as such it seems like even they woukd consider my proposed changes to be more balanced.

But again, I don't work for ZOS (fortunately for most people, as my proposal doesn't seem popular) so I don't know the metrics that they use.

Edit: Also I've been weighting racial changes against endgame raid builds because ZOS has stated that their intention to rebalance races is based off of endgame content. Hence my low view of the bosmer roll dodge "passive".

muh

twing1_ wrote: »

One thing I did notice, however, is your grading seems to give too much weight to sustain tools that are not natural resource recovery. This is because you do not take into account % modifiers for natural recovery. Let's use Breton as an example.

You have weighted the 100 magicka/2 second as .742 of a set bonus (almost undoubtedly graded against 129 magicka recovery, although the numbers are a bit off). On any serious magicka user in almost every scenario, however, they receive a bonus of at least 20% magicka recovery (due to at least 5 pieces of light armor + light armor passives) and another 20% from major intellect (typically from potions). That would bring up the natural 129 magicka recovery up to 180 magicka/2 seconds, where the sustain tool would not receive these benefits. This would bring down Bretons bonus closer to ~.556 of a set bonus.

Now I'm not saying it should be weighted this way (as it would be unfair to assume that every player will be running these buffs), but I think the value should be adjusted in some way because players simply possess the ability to scale up their natural recovery, but not their sustain tools (in the cases where they are not natural recovery).

As @Lightspeedflashb14_ESO pointed out we know the ratios to calculate how much ZOS would put on a 2-4 piece bonus when we only have a 5pc. For things that are more or less permanently up the ratio is 2.31, for proc sets and the like it's up to 25% more.

Magicka Cost reduction on e.g. Seducer is 8%. So about 8 / 2.31 = 3.46, that's how much would be on a single 2-4 set bonus.

Everything in my spreadsheet is based on some set bonus, be it a 2-4 piece or a downscaled 5 piece.
Now what I do not know is which sets ZOS is using as their baseline, I tried to find a set that makes somewhat sense numerically.

twing1_

muh wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

One thing I did notice, however, is your grading seems to give too much weight to sustain tools that are not natural resource recovery. This is because you do not take into account % modifiers for natural recovery. Let's use Breton as an example.

You have weighted the 100 magicka/2 second as .742 of a set bonus (almost undoubtedly graded against 129 magicka recovery, although the numbers are a bit off). On any serious magicka user in almost every scenario, however, they receive a bonus of at least 20% magicka recovery (due to at least 5 pieces of light armor + light armor passives) and another 20% from major intellect (typically from potions). That would bring up the natural 129 magicka recovery up to 180 magicka/2 seconds, where the sustain tool would not receive these benefits. This would bring down Bretons bonus closer to ~.556 of a set bonus.

Now I'm not saying it should be weighted this way (as it would be unfair to assume that every player will be running these buffs), but I think the value should be adjusted in some way because players simply possess the ability to scale up their natural recovery, but not their sustain tools (in the cases where they are not natural recovery).

As @Lightspeedflashb14_ESO pointed out we know the ratios to calculate how much ZOS would put on a 2-4 piece bonus when we only have a 5pc. For things that are more or less permanently up the ratio is 2.31, for proc sets and the like it's up to 25% more.

8% Magicka Cost reduction on e.g. Seducer is 8%. So about 8 / 2.31 = 3.46, that's how much would be on a single 2-4 set bonus.

I was more talking in terms of Bretons gaining 300 magicka/6 seconds being translated to set bonuses.

It appears you weighted these against 129 magicka recovery as 129 magicka/2 seconds.

But yes, I've seen the 5 set pc bonus conversions.

muh

It shouldn't if you've found a passive where I still do that, please tell me. I did that at first, but after I learned about the ratio to calculate 2-4 piece set bonuses from 5 pieces I've converted everything to evaluate against 5 pieces if there is no native 2-4 piece.

twing1_

muh wrote: »

It shouldn't if you've found a passive where I still do that, please tell me. I did that at first, but after I learned about the ratio to calculate 2-4 piece set bonuses from 5 pieces I've converted everything to evaluate against 5 pieces if there is no native 2-4 piece.

What is the 5 pc you are using to grade Bretons/bosmers/redguards (virtually 100% uptime) sustain tools against?

I perhaps incorrectly assumed you were grading them against 129 resource recovery

Derra

twing1_ wrote: »

[
I acknowledge and understand that the races are for the most part balanced. But where I feel most people have concerns is some of the races are currently balanced while possessing some bonuses that are completely and utterly useless (bosmer roll dodge probably the most concerning in this regard, as endgame builds do not require penetration after roll dodging because pen cap will have already been hit).

This is from the very narrow pov of endgame (trial dps) pve though.
Imo the problem isn´t the racials in that regard. It´s the content being to simple and as a result requiring a simple approach to builds.

An endgame pve DPS build only makes use of 33% of the games available stats.

The problem isn´t racials - it´s the statrequirements of the content and role.

muh

It's an average per second of:

• Vestment of the Warlock / Trappings of Invigoration
• Aspect of Mazzatun
• Bloodthorn's Touch
• Barkskin
• Hunt Leader
• Magicka Furnace

I used a 2.31 ratio for Warlock, Mazzatun and Bloothorn's and a 2.8875 ratio for Barkskin, Hunt Leader and Magicka Furnace, due to a more obscure trigger requirement. I then compare that against the recovery per second from racial proc passives.

I've looked at every proc set with "restore" in their description and decided on a per set basis if I think their trigger requirement could be hit on cooldown or if their trigger makes sense as a passive. Like Prisoner's Rag restores 1000 Magicka per second while sprinting. In general you could say I did a feasibility check on all sets.

While looking over it now, I noticed however that I did weight Vestment of the Warlock + Trappings of Invigoration, as well as Bloodthorn's Touch twice due to a split value for Magicka and Stamina initially. To have it a bit more uniform I combined those values. The strength went down very slightly because of it.

Now I'm aware that most of these sets restore more than one resource, but based on Trappings of Invigoration, Vestment of the Warlock and The Juggernaught I think I have a good single resource baseline to rate other sets against. If something was deviating way to much from these sets and I wasn't sure about their trigger I didn't use them.

If you think another set of sets would make more sense I welcome you to look into it for yourself.

Edit: The average resource per second for the listed sets is 187.6.
Edit2:
Noticed I wrote that I compared the average recovery per second of the sets to the "average per second from racial passives" when I meant that I compared them to the "recovery per second from racial passives".

twing1_

muh wrote: »

It's an average per second of:

• Vestment of the Warlock / Trappings of Invigoration
• Aspect of Mazzatun
• Bloodthorn's Touch
• Barkskin
• Hunt Leader
• Magicka Furnace

I used a 2.31 ratio for Warlock, Mazzatun and Bloothorn's and a 2.8875 ratio for Barkskin, Hunt Leader and Magicka Furnace, due to a more obscure trigger requirement. I then compare that against the average per second from racial proc passives.

I've looked at every proc set with "restore" in their description and decided on a per set basis if I think their trigger requirement could be hit on cooldown or if their trigger makes sense as a passive. Like Prisoner's Rag restores 1000 Magicka per second while sprinting. In general you could say I did a feasibility check on all sets.

While looking over it now, I noticed however that I did weight Vestment of the Warlock + Trappings of Invigoration, as well as Bloodthorn's Touch twice due to a split value for Magicka and Stamina initially. To have it a bit more uniform I combined those values. The strength went down very slightly because of it.

Now I'm aware that most of these sets restore more than one resource, but based on Trappings of Invigoration, Vestment of the Warlock and The Juggernaught I think I have a good single resource baseline to rate other sets against. If something was deviating way to much from these sets and I wasn't sure about their trigger I didn't use them.

If you think another set of sets would make more sense I welcome you to look into it for yourself.

Edit: The average resource per second for the listed sets is 187.6.

It is because of the variability in these 5 pc sets, both in conditions and amount restored, that I think the sustain tools are better off measured against 2-4 pc item set bonuses to natural resource recovery than restoration 5 pc bonuses, even if you've taken the average of them.

In fact, I feel that due to the inconsistencies between 5 pc sets, these should be avoided whenever possible when establishing a baseline for any sort of balance (ex/ trappings of invigoration would equate to a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~52 resources restored/second while barkskin would result in a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~207 resources restored/second, while also decreasing the duration of snares by 50%).

Of course ZOS disagrees with me on this, but it would seem logical to me that, in regards to balancing, they should stick to focusing on using 2-4 item set bonuses as a baseline, for these remain consistent values through all sets.

This is the reason I've based all of my proposed sustain tools off of 2-4 pc item set bonus resource recovery.

All of my additional set bonuses (in guideline 4) are also copy pasted from 2-4 pc item set bonuses where applicable for the same reason of consistency. Notable exceptions are ability cost reduction (on imperial, Breton, and redguard) and critical damage (on Khajit). For these, I used ZOS's current PTS passives as guidelines, as well as their 5 pc set bonus conversion coefficients for lack of a better alternative. Ideally, they too would have been copy pasted from 2-4 pc item set bonuses.

MLGProPlayer

It was a flawed system to begin with.

muh

twing1_ wrote: »

It is because of the variability in these 5 pc sets, both in conditions and amount restored, that I think the sustain tools are better off measured against 2-4 pc item set bonuses to natural resource recovery than restoration 5 pc bonuses, even if you've taken the average of them.

In fact, I feel that due to the inconsistencies between 5 pc sets, these should be avoided whenever possible when establishing a baseline for any sort of balance (ex/ trappings of invigoration would equate to a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~52 resources restored/second while barkskin would result in a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~207 resources restored/second, while also decreasing the duration of snares by 50%).

Of course ZOS disagrees with me on this, but it would seem logical to me that, in regards to balancing, they should stick to focusing on using 2-4 item set bonuses as a baseline, for these remain consistent values through all sets.

If anything you've reinforced my notion to believe that Warlock/Trappings/Juggernaut are the baseline values for recovery procs. First of all your idea to sum up the restoration passives of barkskin is flawed. From various sets it's quite obvious that "restore Health" is valued lower than Stamina or Magicka (about 1/2).

We also know from other sets that they tend to double the budget with hybrid stats.

Ulfnor's Favour has a 3 piece "Adds 129 Magicka Recovery, Adds 129 Stamina Recovery" bonus,
Clever Alchemist has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Curse of Dolymesh has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Imperial Physique has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage & Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Mighty Glacier has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Stamina Recovery, Adds 129 Magicka Recovery" bonus,
Might of the Lost Legion has a "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Mechanical Acuity has a 4 piece "Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka & Adds 1096 Maximum Stamina" bonus,
Shacklebreaker has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Stamina Recovery, Adds 129 Magicka Recovery" bonus,
Innate Axiom has a 4 piece "Adds 833 Weapon Critical & Spell Critical" bonus.

Monster Sets with hybrid stats are quite common as well actually. And we just have to look at new racials of hybrid races to see it.

So, that's just to explain why I only looked at their individual per-stat recovery. If you do that for e.g. Bloodthorn or Mazzatun you see that the recovery values for just Magicka and Stamina are very close, but lower, to that of Trappings/Warlock. These sets are also sets I considered to have a very very simple trigger condition and are most likely the least inflated ones. Which is also why I used a 2.31 ratio instead of a 2.8875 (remember it's up to 25% stronger on proc sets, not always 25% more)

With a 2.31 ratio it's about 65 recovery per second for Trappings/Warlock, compare that to other recovery bonuses.

One 2-4 piece (about 3.5%) cost reduction provides about 98 "recovery" per second, on average, for magicka/stamina combined. One 2-4 piece recovery bonus provides about 65 recovery per second, without bonuses. So, back when they implemented it we could maybe talk about Major Endurance with easy access for every class to bring it up to about 77 resource per second.

So... what I'm getting at is, yes you could say I compare them to 129 recovery bonuses.
However, what this achieves is that I value them slightly lower, in my initial versions where I did actually compare them to 129 recovery set bonues the Redguard recovery proc (as is on the PTS) was worth 2.95 set bonuses, when you compare that against proc recovery per second it's 2.93.

twing1_

muh wrote: »

twing1_ wrote: »

It is because of the variability in these 5 pc sets, both in conditions and amount restored, that I think the sustain tools are better off measured against 2-4 pc item set bonuses to natural resource recovery than restoration 5 pc bonuses, even if you've taken the average of them.

In fact, I feel that due to the inconsistencies between 5 pc sets, these should be avoided whenever possible when establishing a baseline for any sort of balance (ex/ trappings of invigoration would equate to a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~52 resources restored/second while barkskin would result in a 2-4 set pc bonus of an adjusted ~207 resources restored/second, while also decreasing the duration of snares by 50%).

Of course ZOS disagrees with me on this, but it would seem logical to me that, in regards to balancing, they should stick to focusing on using 2-4 item set bonuses as a baseline, for these remain consistent values through all sets.

If anything you've reinforced my notion to believe that Warlock/Trappings/Juggernaut are the baseline values for recovery procs. First of all your idea to sum up the restoration passives of barkskin is flawed. From various sets it's quite obvious that "restore Health" is valued lower than Stamina or Magicka (about 1/2).

We also know from other sets that they tend to double the budget with hybrid stats.

Ulfnor's Favour has a 3 piece "Adds 129 Magicka Recovery, Adds 129 Stamina Recovery" bonus,
Clever Alchemist has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Curse of Dolymesh has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Imperial Physique has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Spell Damage & Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Mighty Glacier has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Stamina Recovery, Adds 129 Magicka Recovery" bonus,
Might of the Lost Legion has a "Adds 129 Spell Damage, Adds 129 Weapon Damage" bonus,
Mechanical Acuity has a 4 piece "Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka & Adds 1096 Maximum Stamina" bonus,
Shacklebreaker has a 4 piece "Adds 129 Stamina Recovery, Adds 129 Magicka Recovery" bonus,
Innate Axiom has a 4 piece "Adds 833 Weapon Critical & Spell Critical" bonus.

Monster Sets with hybrid stats are quite common as well actually. And we just have to look at new racials of hybrid races to see it.

So, that's just to explain why I only looked at their individual per-stat recovery. If you do that for e.g. Bloodthorn or Mazzatun you see that the recovery values for just Magicka and Stamina are very close, but lower, to that of Trappings/Warlock. These sets are also sets I considered to have a very very simple trigger condition and are most likely the least inflated ones. Which is also why I used a 2.31 ratio instead of a 2.8875 (remember it's up to 25% stronger on proc sets, not always 25% more)

With a 2.31 ratio it's about 65 recovery per second for Trappings/Warlock, compare that to other recovery bonuses.

One 2-4 piece (about 3.5%) cost reduction provides about 98 "recovery" per second, on average, for magicka/stamina combined. One 2-4 piece recovery bonus provides about 65 recovery per second, without bonuses. So, back when they implemented it we could maybe talk about Major Endurance with easy access for every class to bring it up to about 77 resource per second.

So... what I'm getting at is, yes you could say I compare them to 129 recovery bonuses.
However, what this achieves is that I value them slightly lower, in my initial versions where I did actually compare them to 129 recovery set bonues the Redguard recovery proc (as is on the PTS) was worth 2.95 set bonuses, when you compare that against proc recovery per second it's 2.93.

Okay, so let's flat out ignore barskins health restore and snare reduction.

1000 stamina every 5 seconds = 200 stamina every second

200/2.8875=~69 resources/second.

This would indicate that the resource restore portion of barskins 5 pc bonus is relatively in line with the 2-4pc recovery set bonuses (that are sporting ~65 resources/second without % modifiers).

But then barkskin also offers health restore and also(!) snare duration reduction. But I thought barkskin was already at its 2.8875 set bonus limit?

Apparently it actually has more than 2.8875 2-4 pc set bonuses, because the health restore and snare reduction bonuses are still there.

This is very inconsistent with other 5pc bonuses, like hundings rage, that are held to the 2.31 2-4 pc set bonus limit.

An argument can be made that the resource restore from barkskin shouldn't be valued as a full set bonus for a measly ~69 resources/second because it doesn't benefit from %modifiers like 2-4pc recovery bonuses do, but then that would create an inconsistency with trappings of invigoration/warlock in which these 5 pc set bonuses would then fall below even the 2.31 2-4 pc item set bonus mark, despite being proc sets. No matter which way you cut it, there is inconsistency between 5 pc bonuses.

This is an example of why I believe ZOS's logic for balancing the races off of 5 set bonuses, and not 2-4 pc bonuses, is fundamentally flawed. Because 5 pc bonuses simply lack the consistency the 2-4 pc set bonuses provide.

muh

You're right that some sets obviously fall outside of the norm, I do not disagree with you here. You just have to look at Relequen to know that even with their stated 2.8875 ratio it'd be ridiculous on 2-4 piece and would be stupid OP compared to curently available throuput 2-4 pieces in single target fights (gut feeling, didn't do any math or fact checking on this one).
It's about 1 1/2 years ago that they brought up the up to 2.8875 ratio. I honestly expect that "up to" to be higher now.

If all they ever did was create 5pc sets that fall within the 2.31 to 2.8875 range we wouldn't have nearly as much power creep. E.g. Perfected versions from Cloudrest already come with another 2-4 piece bonus on top of whatever their 5 piece is.

I'm just fairly confident that ZOS has their own base values to budget effects against. Values they use to scale things up with. Values that they adjust with expected uptime etc. Something that at least I only considered as much as "do I think I could trigger that on cooldown?".

I also do not think they randomly slap a value on a 5pc, or anywhere, and then calculate if it somehow fits into their expected power range. My expectation of how their tools work is more along the lines of

• Insert Bonuses they want to have on a 5 piece, scale up to 5 piece (2.31)
• Add a cooldown (so something like scaled value of bonus * cooldown)
• Add a trigger condition (which then further adjusts the cooldown adjusted value with ZOS internal black magic)
• Rounded up or down to a nicer number if necessary

And the last two points are where I expect that a lot of the inconsistencies we see, and can't reasonably explain with the data we have come from.

My intention with the spreadsheet is to get as close to what I expect to be their base value for certain effects. Now it could absolutely be that they evaluate the strength of recovery procs against flat recovery bonuses. But in that case I doubt they'll first adjust the recovery bonus with every possible buff.

Now to beat the dead horse called Barkskin further, thinking about the proc condition it's another one of those that are fairly obscure. How often do you get snared in normal gameplay? Is it realistic to have a 100% uptime? I don't think so. I shouldn't have considered it at all to be honest, but its resource return was close enough to my baseline (Trappings/Warlock) to give it a chance.

---

I'm only using Trappings/Warlocks for Stamina/Magicka and Juggernaut for Health for now. At this point I'm fairly confident that these are the baseline values. Easy trigger, single resource return and the effect is mirrored-ish for all resources. Applying the 2.31 ratio brings them right on par with unmodified flat recovery bonuses for Stamina/Magicka, which would be a weird accident.

Looking at the recovery procs on PTS, they kind of fit as well.

• Altmer recovery was 575 (magicka) initially, which is close to 1.5 set bonuses
• Argonian were supposed to have 3600 health/stamina/magicka with 4.3.0, which turns out to be 0.6 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 3 x 2-4 recovery procs.
• Imperial recovery is around 0.5 Health, 1 Stamina and 1 Magicka recovery procs.
• Redguard recovery is worth about 3 recovery set bonuses

---

Now if you or anyone has other suggestions, you're more than welcome to present them to me. Just saying that the way I do it now is not correct because reasons will not cut it, though. Please bring compelling arguments why it should be done differently.

twing1_

muh wrote: »

You're right that some sets obviously fall outside of the norm, I do not disagree with you here. You just have to look at Relequen to know that even with their stated 2.8875 ratio it'd be ridiculous on 2-4 piece and would be stupid OP compared to curently available throuput 2-4 pieces in single target fights (gut feeling, didn't do any math or fact checking on this one).
It's about 1 1/2 years ago that they brought up the up to 2.8875 ratio. I honestly expect that "up to" to be higher now.

If all they ever did was create 5pc sets that fall within the 2.31 to 2.8875 range we wouldn't have nearly as much power creep. E.g. Perfected versions from Cloudrest already come with another 2-4 piece bonus on top of whatever their 5 piece is.

I'm just fairly confident that ZOS has their own base values to budget effects against. Values they use to scale things up with. Values that they adjust with expected uptime etc. Something that at least I only considered as much as "do I think I could trigger that on cooldown?".

I also do not think they randomly slap a value on a 5pc, or anywhere, and then calculate if it somehow fits into their expected power range. My expectation of how their tools work is more along the lines of

• Insert Bonuses they want to have on a 5 piece, scale up to 5 piece (2.31)
• Add a cooldown (so something like scaled value of bonus * cooldown)
• Add a trigger condition (which then further adjusts the cooldown adjusted value with ZOS internal black magic)
• Rounded up or down to a nicer number if necessary

And the last two points are where I expect that a lot of the inconsistencies we see, and can't reasonably explain with the data we have come from.

My intention with the spreadsheet is to get as close to what I expect to be their base value for certain effects. Now it could absolutely be that they evaluate the strength of recovery procs against flat recovery bonuses. But in that case I doubt they'll first adjust the recovery bonus with every possible buff.

Now to beat the dead horse called Barkskin further, thinking about the proc condition it's another one of those that are fairly obscure. How often do you get snared in normal gameplay? Is it realistic to have a 100% uptime? I don't think so. I shouldn't have considered it at all to be honest, but its resource return was close enough to my baseline (Trappings/Warlock) to give it a chance.

---

I'm only using Trappings/Warlocks for Stamina/Magicka and Juggernaut for Health for now. At this point I'm fairly confident that these are the baseline values. Easy trigger, single resource return and the effect is mirrored-ish for all resources. Applying the 2.31 ratio brings them right on par with unmodified flat recovery bonuses for Stamina/Magicka, which would be a weird accident.

Looking at the recovery procs on PTS, they kind of fit as well.

• Altmer recovery was 575 (magicka) initially, which is close to 1.5 set bonuses
• Argonian were supposed to have 3600 health/stamina/magicka with 4.3.0, which turns out to be 0.6 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 3 x 2-4 recovery procs.
• Imperial recovery is around 0.5 Health, 1 Stamina and 1 Magicka recovery procs.
• Redguard recovery is worth about 3 recovery set bonuses

---

Now if you or anyone has other suggestions, you're more than welcome to present them to me. Just saying that the way I do it now is not correct because reasons will not cut it, though. Please bring compelling arguments why it should be done differently.

I wanna say that you've done a great job with your analysis and I feel you've done a great job nearly mirroring what I perceive to be ZOS's thought process behind their current racial balance based on item set bonuses.

In my discussion, I never meant to attack your methods or question the accuracy of your analysis, as I think it is the closest the forums have gotten to justifying ZOS's choices. I definitely didn't intend to discredit your views and study.

My venting was more at ZOS's decision to conduct their balance this way, and my justifications were for why they should have done it another way. I know you weren't and aren't involved in their decision making process. I was just getting my opinion out there.

I apologize if I came accross as aggressive or combatitive, I was just (maybe overly) engaged in discussion and this wasn't my intention.

I sincerely thought I was constructively contributing to the discussion.

Gnortranermara

Man, I picture this bright future ahead where you two become the best of homies and do graphs and charts and data crunching together on PTS for the rest of the game and start a website together all about PTS analysis and get rich and famous and become class reps and ZOS hires you and maybe one day the game can start making some damned sense. ::sigh::

muh

twing1_ wrote: »

I apologize if I came accross as aggressive or combatitive, I was just (maybe overly) engaged in discussion and this wasn't my intention.

I sincerely thought I was constructively contributing to the discussion.

No need to apologize, I really do appreciate your feedback and the discussion we had.

It certainly made me reconsider some (wrong) assumptions I made earlier, where my approach wasn't ideal.

So, thank you.

---

Now while I wrote I want to see compelling arguments, that's primarily for recovery procs at this point.
If there is anything anyone feels is off, please let me know.