The issues have been resolved, and the ESO Store and Account System are now available. Thank you for your patience!
The issue is resolved, and the North American and European megaservers are now available. Thank you for your patience!
ESO Mitigation Issue (100% mitigation achieved)
Sparkrip
✭✭✭
Before I can start explaining what I mean by this title I need to first explain how mitigation works in ESO, since its something almost nobody knows. As a tank main people I'm always curious about how the game works and how I can change things to improve my performance in content. One day I started creating a spreadsheet about all types of different tanking tools and then I got to mitigation. The complete lack of knowledge of how mitigation works made me essentially have to piece it together by myself. So I spent 3 days testing and retesting to make sure I got it right, I'm glad to say I now have a spreadsheet that can calculate the amount of dmg you take exactly. This spreadsheet was created close to the end of last patch, with the coming of scribing we have several new sources of mitigation so I decided to jump in and test them out. What I found is, disappointing, and I will explain why.
Before I can explain what is disappointing I first need to explain how mitigation works. Many people just assume its all the mitigation numbers multiplied together, and that would be ideal solution but the way zos does it is different. There are subcategories to mitigation, the way it works is that first the mitigation in the subcategories is added together then the whole subcategory is multiplied into the equation. I'm not sure why its done this way, my speculation is its easier on the back end calculation, regardless lets stay on topic. Now not everything has a subcategory, for instance the slottable cp is multiplied in directly as you would expect. So far I have found 4 subcategories, there might be more but in terms of PVE tanking these are the only ones that really affect me. The 4 subcategories are block mitigation, resistances, transferred dmg, and miscellaneous mitigation.
Now that you have a general understanding of the subcategories, I will explain the issue ESO is currently facing with mitigation. Which is all the recent additions to mitigation, well I say recent but I mean since Elsweyr, have been added into the same subcategory, which is why you see vampirism and necro dmg mitigation under that miscellaneous subcategory. Have you ever wondered why necromancers outperform all the other tanks by miles when it comes to dot dmg reduction? yes they have some nice passives for it but it doesn't end there, the necro dot dmg reduction which is written as 15% mitigation in game is actually under the miscellaneous subcategory. Now when they first started doing this it wasn't too big of an issue, because you see if they put 15% into the math in reality it would have been closer to 20% mitigation because its added together with other items in the subcategory, to combat this zos made the dmg reduction only 12% in the math. Now this isn't a big deal by itself, the issue starts when you start stacking mitigation in that subcategory. If you take vamperism and a necro you get some insane results reducing damage drastically, (vampirisms is up to 24% in the math), you add the 24 and 12 together you get 36, add the 10% base game mitigation, preparation and hardy, and you get an insane amount of 58% dmg reduction in one subcategory which rivals the resistance subcategory.
Now unfortunately that is only where the issue begins, as I mentioned before zos has been adding every single dmg mitigating item into that subcategory. Obviously this will eventually lead to that subcategory hitting 100% mitigation. To prevent this, starting from esoteric greaves zos has imposed a mitigation penalty in that category, what this means is, for instance the greaves by themselves are 45% dmg reduction in the math, minor aegis is 4%. so together I would expect them to give a 49% reduction. but that isn't the case, I only get a 47% reduction, because with that particular combination of mitigation you get a 2% penalty. as in they subtract 2% dmg mitigation from that category. And this is where my real issue begins, there is no way that I have found yet to predict the penalty, from my testing these are the different penalty combinations that I have discovered.
As you can imagine this is convoluted and honestly a poor way to manage mitigation, it feels half hazard, oh we will fix this later type attitude. Well it is now later and its now become an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpG9YfKJtU
In the video above you will see me taking 0 damage from olms, in the first section of the video I will only have vamperism to keep my health down without actually using the undeath passive. In the second part of the video I do have the undeath passive from vamperism.
As you can see I'm taking no damage from veteran olms because I have maxed out that subcategory's mitigation, its reached 100%. I think its time to start fixing mitigation, I have several solutions to this i hope you can either use them as inspiration or as a solution but things really cant stay as they are.
1) Separate the miscellaneous subcategory into multiple categories, for instance have a separate mythic category, as well as a scribing category, and please remove the penalty for having multiple dmg mitigation sources, for instance if you look at the screenshot above, you will see that the line with 0.23 penalty has 30% scribing, minor protection, lucid, and the greaves mythic, the problem with this penalty system is if i include the 8% scribing skill the penalty goes to 0.3 which is a 7% increase, and similar with necro dot mitigation passive it isn't 8% in the math but rather only 7% so there is literarily no benefit to slotting the 8% mitigation skill for extra mitigation if you have those mitigation options because it gets completely canceled out.
2) The other solution would be impose a mitigation cap for that subsection, and remove the penalties as well since there wont be any need for them. I think having a 90% mitigation cap would be acceptable since its not too easy to reach the mitigation maximum for that category. Or if you intend to introduce more items to that subcategory maybe making it 80% mitigation maximum would be a better choice.
3) The last option is definitely one I prefer but I don't know how feasible it is to do on the server end. Make everything have its own category, don't put anything together spread it our just like you did with cp. This would be the ideal solution making the mitigation easy to understand and calculate. Of course you can still have some subcategories to maybe make it easier to calculate but generally not more than 4 things in one category, we have like 10+ right now in one of them and that is causing the issue.
To anyone who wants to have access to the spreadsheet here it is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZDnmtfHZ_xudB5MJovryVMOovwn_Vtz-Pe550rxpygI/edit#gid=328501056
Second video I had to make to demonstrate: it starts with bad microphone but I fix it when I start explaining.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqMOSTtgglw
Edited by Sparkrip on April 25, 2024 5:48PM Before I can explain what is disappointing I first need to explain how mitigation works. Many people just assume its all the mitigation numbers multiplied together, and that would be ideal solution but the way zos does it is different. There are subcategories to mitigation, the way it works is that first the mitigation in the subcategories is added together then the whole subcategory is multiplied into the equation. I'm not sure why its done this way, my speculation is its easier on the back end calculation, regardless lets stay on topic. Now not everything has a subcategory, for instance the slottable cp is multiplied in directly as you would expect. So far I have found 4 subcategories, there might be more but in terms of PVE tanking these are the only ones that really affect me. The 4 subcategories are block mitigation, resistances, transferred dmg, and miscellaneous mitigation.
Now that you have a general understanding of the subcategories, I will explain the issue ESO is currently facing with mitigation. Which is all the recent additions to mitigation, well I say recent but I mean since Elsweyr, have been added into the same subcategory, which is why you see vampirism and necro dmg mitigation under that miscellaneous subcategory. Have you ever wondered why necromancers outperform all the other tanks by miles when it comes to dot dmg reduction? yes they have some nice passives for it but it doesn't end there, the necro dot dmg reduction which is written as 15% mitigation in game is actually under the miscellaneous subcategory. Now when they first started doing this it wasn't too big of an issue, because you see if they put 15% into the math in reality it would have been closer to 20% mitigation because its added together with other items in the subcategory, to combat this zos made the dmg reduction only 12% in the math. Now this isn't a big deal by itself, the issue starts when you start stacking mitigation in that subcategory. If you take vamperism and a necro you get some insane results reducing damage drastically, (vampirisms is up to 24% in the math), you add the 24 and 12 together you get 36, add the 10% base game mitigation, preparation and hardy, and you get an insane amount of 58% dmg reduction in one subcategory which rivals the resistance subcategory.
Now unfortunately that is only where the issue begins, as I mentioned before zos has been adding every single dmg mitigating item into that subcategory. Obviously this will eventually lead to that subcategory hitting 100% mitigation. To prevent this, starting from esoteric greaves zos has imposed a mitigation penalty in that category, what this means is, for instance the greaves by themselves are 45% dmg reduction in the math, minor aegis is 4%. so together I would expect them to give a 49% reduction. but that isn't the case, I only get a 47% reduction, because with that particular combination of mitigation you get a 2% penalty. as in they subtract 2% dmg mitigation from that category. And this is where my real issue begins, there is no way that I have found yet to predict the penalty, from my testing these are the different penalty combinations that I have discovered.
As you can imagine this is convoluted and honestly a poor way to manage mitigation, it feels half hazard, oh we will fix this later type attitude. Well it is now later and its now become an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRpG9YfKJtUIn the video above you will see me taking 0 damage from olms, in the first section of the video I will only have vamperism to keep my health down without actually using the undeath passive. In the second part of the video I do have the undeath passive from vamperism.
As you can see I'm taking no damage from veteran olms because I have maxed out that subcategory's mitigation, its reached 100%. I think its time to start fixing mitigation, I have several solutions to this i hope you can either use them as inspiration or as a solution but things really cant stay as they are.
1) Separate the miscellaneous subcategory into multiple categories, for instance have a separate mythic category, as well as a scribing category, and please remove the penalty for having multiple dmg mitigation sources, for instance if you look at the screenshot above, you will see that the line with 0.23 penalty has 30% scribing, minor protection, lucid, and the greaves mythic, the problem with this penalty system is if i include the 8% scribing skill the penalty goes to 0.3 which is a 7% increase, and similar with necro dot mitigation passive it isn't 8% in the math but rather only 7% so there is literarily no benefit to slotting the 8% mitigation skill for extra mitigation if you have those mitigation options because it gets completely canceled out.
2) The other solution would be impose a mitigation cap for that subsection, and remove the penalties as well since there wont be any need for them. I think having a 90% mitigation cap would be acceptable since its not too easy to reach the mitigation maximum for that category. Or if you intend to introduce more items to that subcategory maybe making it 80% mitigation maximum would be a better choice.
3) The last option is definitely one I prefer but I don't know how feasible it is to do on the server end. Make everything have its own category, don't put anything together spread it our just like you did with cp. This would be the ideal solution making the mitigation easy to understand and calculate. Of course you can still have some subcategories to maybe make it easier to calculate but generally not more than 4 things in one category, we have like 10+ right now in one of them and that is causing the issue.
To anyone who wants to have access to the spreadsheet here it is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZDnmtfHZ_xudB5MJovryVMOovwn_Vtz-Pe550rxpygI/edit#gid=328501056
Second video I had to make to demonstrate: it starts with bad microphone but I fix it when I start explaining.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqMOSTtgglw49
-
ssewallb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭A common criticism was/is excessive diminishing returns from % based mitigation sources, maybe that's why so many are additive now.
That's interesting about the hidden penalties though. Definitely not an ideal way to solve either problem.2 -
SkaraMinoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The idea of ZOS implementing penalties based on combinations of mitigation sources seems unrealistic.
Also, it's possible that mitigation sources may change buckets based on various criteria. This was the case in the past with certain champion points based on @paulsimonps investigation over the years.
Reference: Damage Mitigation: Explanation UPDATED 21/03/2021
Edited by SkaraMinoc on April 25, 2024 11:48AMPC NA3 -
SkaraMinoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I'll do some testing once I'm out of PTS jail on main account.
Edited by SkaraMinoc on April 25, 2024 11:49AMPC NA1 -
SkaraMinoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I'm unable to reproduce Undeath and Esoteric being additive. When I test on PTS, they are multiplicative and commutative.
Are you sure this isn't a bug with the boss or PTS desync?
Examples:
At 2:46 you get hit but no damage taken and you remain at 100% stamina.
At 2:49 you dodge but remain at 100% stamina.
Please test on a different monster and provide the exact mitigation sources you are using. Thanks.
Edited by SkaraMinoc on April 25, 2024 11:53AMPC NA0 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭@SkaraMinoc, the lucid set is bugged and falls off every time you tp, you need to equip and unequip. If you do that it'll work.
I also have expert evasion cp so free dodge.
I'm using 5 heavy (0 light), new heavy trial set, undeath, and esoteric greaves, in your cp you need to have preparation and hardy in the blue subtree in the middle they are passives.
this only works on physical light attacks so don't test it in dots or spell attacks.
A side note about the penalty, I know its accurate because I'm getting exact numbers, its not close or almost right, its exact.
6 -
paulsimonps✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I do not understand what you mean by penalties? And that the numbers are "different in the math" Back when I was still actively testing almost everything that I was able to figure out had the exact same number in the formula as it did in the tooltip. The basis for my testing was to test everyone possible combination of mitigation sources to make sure that I got the correct numbers based on the tooltip values. I do recall one combination that I never had a chance to full deep dive into before IRL took me away from all my testing, which I think had something to do with Minor Protection not giving me the correct number I wanted, but I digress.
Thank you @SkaraMinoc for the throwback. Been a while since I tested things, do miss it.
In the past they have added things that do remove 100% mitigation, see old Block Mitigation patches to Heavy Armor Active Skill and the Sorcs Bound Armor.1 -
alexj4596b14_ESO✭✭✭Just another reason to remake the vampire line from scratch, at least then you'd not have unkillables.1 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭@alexj4596b14_ESO its not really a vampire issue but rather how things add in that subcategory, I was able to achieve 0 damage without using vampire as well
@paulsimonps @SkaraMinoc
Since typing it all out will be an essay longer than the one before I made a video about it, you can watch it here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqMOSTtgglw
(I just uploaded it so if the quality is bad just open it a bit later its probably not done processing to HD)
10 -
benzenexz✭✭✭
Now unfortunately that is only where the issue begins, as I mentioned before zos has been adding every single dmg mitigating item into that subcategory. Obviously this will eventually lead to that subcategory hitting 100% mitigation. To prevent this, starting from esoteric greaves zos has imposed a mitigation penalty in that category, what this means is, for instance the greaves by themselves are 45% dmg reduction in the math, minor aegis is 4%. so together I would expect them to give a 49% reduction. but that isn't the case, I only get a 47% reduction, because with that particular combination of mitigation you get a 2% penalty. as in they subtract 2% dmg mitigation from that category. And this is where my real issue begins, there is no way that I have found yet to predict the penalty, from my testing these are the different penalty combinations that I have discovered.
In order to calculate the final reduction if the afore-mentioned ones don't add up linearly (as you've suggested, multiplicative by category), you have to do the math on actual dmg taken.
For example, 2 blocks yield respectively x1%, x2% dmg reduction, the final reduction X% would be:
X%=1-(1-x1%)(1-x2%)
Esoteric gives 50% dmg reduction and minor aegis 5% reduction. For the combination of these 2, the final theoretical reduction would then be 1-(0.95*0.5)=0.525=52.5%.
if using your number or 45% and 4%, it is 0.472=47.2%
by comparing your claim of 47.2%, it means that they should be multiplied instead of added up. and from your table of penalty test result, it looks just in accordance of a quick first order expansion of the multiplicative formula.
and with multiplication, as long as one block does not reach 100% reduction, you won't get 100% reduction as final. to this end and from my experience, I believe that block mitigation and dmg reduction from armor are of separate categories. I think esoteric generally should be of an individual category, as well as most of the other special things, but I haven't done any test.
Also in terms of protection and aegis buff, you might want to test them both individually and in combination, also along with if they add up with reduction from armor.
All in all, for each thing added to test, you gonna have to verify that it does not belong to any of the category you already know so that you can create a new one. And from your claim of the video, it might be of interest to investigate if vp dmg reduction add up in some other categories instead of being a separate one.0 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭@benzenexz if you watch the second video you'll see that its not 47.2 its actually 47% exactly. That's how I know its a penalty and not just multiplication.1
-
JoarikSoul ShrivenI haven't tested damage mitigation, but I did test some time ago cost reduction and found that it was always multiplicative, including within categories, with the final result rounded. So, if the multiplicative calculation resulted in 47.2% it would be rounded to 47%. For ability cost reduction that always gave the correct result in my tests. Could something like that also explain this, rather than some arbitrary penalties?
Rounding makes sense for server-side calculation efficiency, as well, I believe.1 -
paulsimonps✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I haven't tested damage mitigation, but I did test some time ago cost reduction and found that it was always multiplicative, including within categories, with the final result rounded. So, if the multiplicative calculation resulted in 47.2% it would be rounded to 47%. For ability cost reduction that always gave the correct result in my tests. Could something like that also explain this, rather than some arbitrary penalties?
Rounding makes sense for server-side calculation efficiency, as well, I believe.
Oh no, there are for sure categories within damage mitigation that are additive within its own category. A easy example to use if you want to test is block mitigation. Try taking damage with no mitigation what so ever, then try again with blocking, then start adding it different sources of block mitigation.0 -
JoarikSoul Shrivenpaulsimonps wrote: »
Oh no, there are for sure categories within damage mitigation that are additive within its own category. A easy example to use if you want to test is block mitigation. Try taking damage with no mitigation what so ever, then try again with blocking, then start adding it different sources of block mitigation.
Maybe, but I'm just saying that there's round off that happens in the game's calculations, so saying something is happening based on 47.2% when the actual is 47% might be a wrong conclusion. As I said, I haven't tested mitigation categories, but some of the analysis in this discussion appears to be drawing conclusions based on what actually might just be round off error.1 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭I havent seen any round off also they claimed they made lucid echoes multiplicative now, not that that fixes anything but im going to log into pts and check it out because somehow i doubt that its actually multiplicative now.0
-
Sparkrip✭✭✭Well sorry to disappoint but they in fact did not make it multiplicative.... they lowered the additive portion from 0.2 to 0.17 and added a significant penalty increase to having the vampire, lucent, greaves, minor aegis combination. Last test cycle this combination produced 0.08 penalty it now makes a 0.18 penalty. @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin. Do I need to make another video of me getting to 100% mitigation? because I checked and I can. Please stop slapping fixer upper solutions and fix this please.....6
-
NoSoup✭✭✭✭if it only affects physical attacks (ie being able to get to 100% mitigation) and not spell or dots is it really that big of a deal?Formally SirDopey, lost forum account during the great reset.....0
-
Kaysha✭✭✭✭Yes it is. If this is true (which is hard to doubt for me after this video), it surely has been done to reduce the server load in PvP.
It is probably the reason why the value of major/minor protection has been decreased patches ago.
It is the explanation for the so called tank meta and the invulerable builds.
In short: it´s game breaking and ZOS cannot fix it.
0 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭@NoSoup the 100% mitigation is just an example taken to the extreme. I've mentioned this in my post but there is a reason necro tanks are the preferred tanks to deal with dot dmg. because all the class passive dmg reduction abilities are in this additive category and end up stacking with vamperism on top of that. ( also to everyone complaining about vamperism undeath, fire dmg increase is also in this category and it actually increases the amount of fire dmg you take significantly more than the said 13 and 20%) in fact the 0.2 almost completely cancels the 0.24 additive section of undeath. Long story short, you get way too much effectiveness when you use things in this subcategory, it makes people have way more mitigation than they should. It also makes mitigation unnecessarily complicated and hard to calculate. As for the server side is it really that much harder to multiply everything together instead of having a bunch of additions and then a penalty subtraction to then have to multiply it with the other things that aren't in this category? Like why is Major evasion in the subcategory while Major protection is not? I simply do not see the unnecessary complications this brings. I also don't like that it makes the numbers you get on the skills very untrustworthy, they are simple estimations of how much they should reduce the dmg instead of actually reducing it by that amount. I was testing 33% pearlescent yesterday with a companion and found it reduced the dmg more by like 40%, its just depressing to be honest. For me its not a terribly big deal to go and die to olms a bunch to then figure out how this *** is calculated but to a new player or even most players they will never know how eso calculates mitigation because its just wayy to convoluted, and this shouldn't be the case.3
-
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Lucent Echoes: Fixed an issue where the damage reduction bonus from this set was additive instead of multiplicative
Just thought this was relevant2 -
Synapsis123✭✭✭✭✭Vampire undeath should've been removed a long time ago. You see every single person in pvp running around as vamp 3.Edited by Synapsis123 on May 1, 2024 6:58AM1 -
Aurielle✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »Vampire undeath should've been removed a long time ago. You see every single person in pvp running around as vamp 3.
Not me, because fashion. I still manage to survive just fine without it.3 -
Zabagad✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Lucent Echoes: Fixed an issue where the damage reduction bonus from this set was additive instead of multiplicative
Just thought this was relevant
Unfortunately this topic is split into 2 threads and the answer to your post is here:
PTS
So regarding Sparkrip its still not solved and even that set is not multiplicative - they just added a bigger penalty. (if I understood that right)
Oh and he already addressed it 4 post above your post:
#19Edited by Zabagad on May 1, 2024 11:42AMPC EU (noCP AD) Grey/Grau AD
Please raise the population caps.
@ZOS - Convert the heal on "Hardened Ward" into a HoT pls.0 -
katanagirl1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »Vampire undeath should've been removed a long time ago. You see every single person in pvp running around as vamp 3.
Not me, because fashion. I still manage to survive just fine without it.
I don’t but I am probably not as strong as I could be if I used it. I just don’t think werewolf or vampire skill lines should give benefits over class, weapon, and other martial skills in PvP.
Khajiit Stamblade main
Dark Elf Magsorc
Redguard Stamina Dragonknight
Orc Stamplar PVP
Breton Magsorc PVP
Dark Elf Magden
Khajiit Stamblade
Khajiit Stamina Arcanist
PS5 NA0 -
Sparkrip✭✭✭Just giving everyone an update, with the new patch note changes it wasn't clear how they changed it. I'll be testing the changes today. I logged in briefly yesterday and it wasn't clear how it worked now. I'll probably stream it.6
