Restore Bracing - Never Ask for Buffs

Personofsecrets · April 2016

laced wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Thank you for stopping by @Nebthet78 . I really really really hope that @wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert and @ZOS_Finn didn't create this change with Cyrodiil in mind after past nerfs were heavily, and I mean heavily, criticized for being PVP nerfs that caused collateral damage to PVE.

This nerf damages pvp just as bad as pve, dont make this a pve v pvp debate. Both sides - HATE - this change. Even as a tanky dps HA sword and shield player I HATE this change, I am going to die SO much faster because of having to give up my impen traits and having a MUCH higher blocking cost. This is ESPECIALLY awful for the non CP campaigns. This change was made with CPs in mind, and without them, you might as well just not even block after the DB patch.

I think that your analysis, along with the analysis that ZOS wants to further punish blocking in general, are more correct analysis than the PVP one.

I think that PVP may play a small role in changes that have happened, but not a big enough role to scapegoat it.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

hrothbern wrote: »

Constitution needs in my opinion still a further buff:

Comparing Resource sustain between HA and LA,MA:

The Constitution passive gives a flat recovery, whereas LA give mainly a percentual cost reduction and a smaller flat recovery.
In order to make a comparison, this wall of Math is therefore aimed at calculating for what amount of ability costs there is a break even between HA and LA,MA.
For abilities higher than that break even, the percentual cost reduction of LA and MA will always favor LA and MA above HA.

Important note:
The HA Constitution passive gives both Magicka as Stamina restoration.
IF you use only Magicka or only Stamina abilities, the hybrid recovery purpose of Constitution will NEVER be really valuable for you !

The first assumption to be made is how to handle the hybrid resource regain of Constitution (Mag + Stam) so that we get a "like for like" with the mono Resource sustain of LA or MA.

The easiest way to do that is by conforming to the already by ZOS used method for hybrid features.
Those are Food (tri-stat, two-stat and one-stat), Drinks (same) and for example the bonus for Spell & Weapon Damage used in the Black Rose set.

If we normalise the values of Food and Drinks, and put the one-stat value at 100,
you get for Food:
one-stat: 100/---/---
two-stat: 80/80/---
tri-stat: 67/67/67
The same ratios are used for Drinks.
So the total stat increase effect for Food is for tri-stat 200, compared to 160 of the two-stat and 100 of the one-stat.
Hybrid and tanky-Tank builds use tri-stat. Focussed/stacking DPS/HPS builds use two-stat.
And apparently everybody of the playerbase is comfortable with this method of giving BOTH dimishing returns PER stat for the more Hybrid Food, but also giving a higher overall total.

The same happens more or less with the hybrid Black Rose set if we compare that for example with the Kagrenac's hope set.
Black Rose has a 5 piece bonus for a damage effect of 154 more Spell AND Weapon Power, besides a second effect of increasing Constitution.
Kagrenac's hope has a 5 piece bonus for a Damage effect of 224 more Spell Power, besides a second effect of the 25% rezz time and the Magicka regain when an ally is rezzed.
If you divide the 154 by the 224 you get 68%.
So if you normalise that, you either get the one-stat bonus of 100 or two times 68 for Mag and Stam. (there is no Health Power)

So....
Ignoring Health and Health recovery aspects of Food and Drinks, because Constitution is about Magicka and Stamina only, 2x67 should be converted in 1x100
ZOS has done the same with the Black Rose set. They applied 2x68 in Black Rose instead of 1x100 in Kagenac.

Applying this to convert the two-stat Constitution bonus to a one stat, I think it is justified to say that we must take 67-68 as base to convert Constitution to a one stat recovery.
So if Constitution gives 186 per piece per 4 seconds of Stamina AND Magicka.
Then the converted value is 279 Magicka OR Stamina per piece per 4 seconds.
That is: Converted to 1 stat Constitution gives during combat per piece of HA Armor 70 Magicka per second OR 70 Stamina per second.

If you take for example one piece of LA, you get 4% Magicka Recovery, during combat and out of combat and you get 3% Cost reduction.
When your base Magicka Recovery would be around 700, the 4% per piece deliver 28 Magicka Recovery. When you have 71 CP in Arcanist for 20% more recovery, you get 34 Magicka Recovery per piece of LA, which is 17 Magicka per second.

Assuming for the sake of simplicity that you cast 1 ability per second:
If the 3% Cost reduction from one piece of LA gives (70 -17) = 53 Magicka Cost reduction, you have a break even between Constitution and LA passives.
1 divided by 3% = 33.3. So we have a this break even when abilities used have an average cost of 1766.
Assuming that you have put 100 CP, the rest of your 171 CP, in Magician for 16% Cost reduction:
The break even takes place at (1766/84%) = 2102.

Concluding:
LA or MA are better in sustain than HA, if the average base value costs of your abilities per second casted are higher than 2102 !

In my opinion that break even point has to be shifted up from 2102 to 2700 minimal.
That means that the to one stat converted Constitution must deliver 86 Magicka or Stamina per second.
Or that the unconverted two-stat Constitution must deliver 57.6 Magicka AND Stamina per second.
This is 230 per piece instead of the PTS value of 186 per piece, or a 24% increase of the PTS value.

But my suggestion to increase the PTS Constitution value is ofc a personal opinion and open for debate, where the break even ability costs used in practice are pivotal.

Here below the PTS base costs of some abilities, which are BTW increased compared to live !

Puncturing Sweeps: 2952
Reflective Light: 2700
BOL: 4590
Grand Healing: 3510
Regeneration: 2160
Force Shock:2700
Uppercut: 3240
Strife: 1367
Veiled Strike morphs: 2700 Magicka or 2160 Stamina
Sap Essence: 3240
Burning Embers: 1350 Magicka
Lava Whip: 2700
Dragon Blood/Inhale/Earthen Heart: >4000
CrystalFragments: 4050 (2025)
Liquid Lightning: 3510
Conjured Ward: 3510

@Wrobel ,

Why would you take away the percentual benefit of wearing heavy armor? The other armor types still have that.

You are breaking heavy armor.

You are not going to make people using heavy armor do more damage.

You are taking away the best heavy armor passive.

You are not making people want to use heavy armor, they are already theory crafting how to NOT USE heavy armor.

This doesn't have to happen, but are you going to take our feedback? There is already a poll with 50% of voters against this change.

And no @ZOS_RichLambert , the other 50% aren't for the change. Some are, but some also haven't decided are don't care. This isn't a 50% versus 50% scenario. Can you please make the pro-player choice this time rather than the pro-nerf choice?

Personofsecrets · April 2016

hrothbern wrote: »

But my suggestion to increase the PTS Constitution value is ofc a personal opinion and open for debate, where the break even ability costs used in practice are pivotal.

You have a solid argument.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

mzapkeneb18_ESO wrote: »

Even if they buff sturdy, the whole situation would be still bad.
Their revamped the traits so all of them be viable but if tanks are forced to run the same trait only, they missed their goal.

I may go as far to argue that @ZOS_RichLambert has to miss the goal with the trait changes. There is always going to be a BIS trait. Making some traits better isn't going to suddenly open up build diversity. There may be a new BIS, but whatever that may be will be all that people will care about and we will all still absolutely despise getting bad traits on our gear.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

boundsy88 wrote: »

so im suppose to use heavy armor over light armor now for exactly what reason now? same block cost with more magic recovery and skill cost reduction. bracing was the only reason ANYBODY ever used heavy armor before. now we have to give up our tankiness just to use it. because we cant use impen on the traits. impen will always be the best damage mitigation and its now been taken away as an option for heavy armor

I wonder if @Wrobel knows that bracing was the best part of HA so that is why they removed it.

They didn't just chose Bracing by accident and it is despicable to see HA picked on when they are supposed to be making it better.

Vaelen · April 2016

The ZOS Devs obviously want to eliminate the pure tank role, so I guess dodge roll-tanking in medium armor will be much more viable from now on, while heavy armor can be used for dps roles. We'll just have wait and see what happens next...

Armitas · April 2016

No response?

Well, I'm thinking of tanking in a light armor Armor Master set with bracing so I can sit at mit cap in my light armor, blocking like a pro, with tons of health while spamming harness magicka (or igenous) and self heals like it has no cost.

Ajaxduo · April 2016

This is...a poorly thought change at best, the only real appeal to having 5 heavy was the block cost reduction. So now what's the point? I will just run 5 med 2 heavy armor master on my stamplar tank tbh, as others have said cheaper costs and cheaper dodge rolls. More changes are needed before this goes live.

Joy_Division · April 2016

In general, I agree the transfer of bracing from heavy to the sturdy trait is questionable.

However, it would be nice to see actual gameplay clips the illustrate what most people here are hypothesizing would happen if these changes go through. It certainly would make the case more compelling and apt to convince ZoS, who obviously already believes the removal of bracing is manageable, to revisit the matter.

hrothbern · April 2016

Joy_Division wrote: »

In general, I agree the transfer of bracing from heavy to the sturdy trait is questionable.

However, it would be nice to see actual gameplay clips the illustrate what most people here are hypothesizing would happen if these changes go through. It certainly would make the case more compelling and apt to convince ZoS, who obviously already believes the removal of bracing is manageable, to revisit the matter.

agree

We need Field experience feedback

Personofsecrets · April 2016

I'll make a video, but videos don't change the loss of 20% block cost reduction.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

Personofsecrets wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Thank you for stopping by @Nebthet78 . I really really really hope that @wrobel @ZOS_RichLambert and @ZOS_Finn didn't create this change with Cyrodiil in mind after past nerfs were heavily, and I mean heavily, criticized for being PVP nerfs that caused collateral damage to PVE.

This nerf damages pvp just as bad as pve, dont make this a pve v pvp debate. Both sides - HATE - this change. Even as a tanky dps HA sword and shield player I HATE this change, I am going to die SO much faster because of having to give up my impen traits and having a MUCH higher blocking cost. This is ESPECIALLY awful for the non CP campaigns. This change was made with CPs in mind, and without them, you might as well just not even block after the DB patch.

I think that your analysis, along with the analysis that ZOS wants to further punish blocking in general, are more correct analysis than the PVP one.

I think that PVP may play a small role in changes that have happened, but not a big enough role to scapegoat it.

I thought about it more and it is rather convenient that the devs have people scapegoating PVP players. It really is the devs fault and the devs fault alone for crappy changes even if some minor PVP influence brought them about.

Jade1986 · April 2016

Weesacs wrote: »

This nerf damages pvp just as bad as pve, dont make this a pve v pvp debate. Both sides - HATE - this change. Even as a tanky dps HA sword and shield player I HATE this change, I am going to die SO much faster because of having to give up my impen traits and having a MUCH higher blocking cost. This is ESPECIALLY awful for the non CP campaigns. This change was made with CPs in mind, and without them, you might as well just not even block after the DB patch.

Agreed. This x1000. (I gave u an awesome). Some people just don't realise how important impenetrable is especially in a very CC-entric place like Cyrodill.

You also make a great point in regards the non-vet campaigns where the reduced blocking from CP won't be available - I hadnt thought about that before - those guys will be particularly affected by this.

Yeah, this really does boggle your mind to be honest.

ZoS " Hey lets make some non cp campaigns"

Non CP campaigns made

Non Cp campaigns become very popular in EU

"HEY LETS NERF BLOCKING SO YOU HAVE TO USE CPS IN ORDER TO BLOCK AT ALL!"

Non CP campaigns die

: face desk to china :

Personofsecrets · April 2016

Joy_Division wrote: »

In general, I agree the transfer of bracing from heavy to the sturdy trait is questionable.

However, it would be nice to see actual gameplay clips the illustrate what most people here are hypothesizing would happen if these changes go through. It certainly would make the case more compelling and apt to convince ZoS, who obviously already believes the removal of bracing is manageable, to revisit the matter.

How can we make an accurate test when the block cost on PTS isn't the value that it should be? (it is lower than it should be)

NBrookus · April 2016

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Holy smokes, somebody is still using GDB???

I use it for the regen buff; I'm a regen tank. It sure isn't a heal.

How sad is it that I'm theorycrafting a heavy armor mag templar dps... and considering putting my tank in light? Because if I can reach the mitigation caps in light, why would I possibly use heavy now that it's best perk is gone?

Now if you could run 5 piece Footman + 5 piece Black Rose + Lord Warden or Engine Guardian or Bloodspawn... that might put me in 7 heavy.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

That makes more sense for the regen than the heal I suppose.

SirSilverMask · April 2016

NBrookus wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Holy smokes, somebody is still using GDB???

I use it for the regen buff; I'm a regen tank. It sure isn't a heal.

How sad is it that I'm theorycrafting a heavy armor mag templar dps... and considering putting my tank in light? Because if I can reach the mitigation caps in light, why would I possibly use heavy now that it's best perk is gone?

Now if you could run 5 piece Footman + 5 piece Black Rose + Lord Warden or Engine Guardian or Bloodspawn... that might put me in 7 heavy.

If they changed the armor mitigation cap, that would be one reason to use 7 heavy as you described, other then that the costs really do outweigh the benefit there though.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

Wow, I sure wish that HA reduced the cost of something (block)

Personofsecrets · April 2016

@Wrobel

No passive skill should go from being considered the reason to wear heavy armor to something the we don't even have to put skill points into (I will be saving my 2 skill points if wrath actually makes it to live).

TheValkyn · April 2016

I like the wrath passive.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

Did you know that you can enchant your jewelry with spell or weapon damage enchantments?

It is also useful to use the thief or shadow stone while equipped with divines gear for some increased damage.

VaxtinTheWolf · April 2016

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

I made a video with my average geared Nightbalde tank. I guess the changes really upset those many other class tanks that don't have Siphoning attacks like we do, but it just makes Sap-tanking more effective when you have enough enemies focused on you. I've no real reason to complain about it, just making one or two suggestions to add something more instead, like up front damage reduction in heavy armor, if the bracing passive isn't reverted.

Personofsecrets · April 2016

VaxtinTheWolf wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

I made a video with my average geared Nightbalde tank. I guess the changes really upset those many other class tanks that don't have Siphoning attacks like we do, but it just makes Sap-tanking more effective when you have enough enemies focused on you. I've no real reason to complain about it, just making one or two suggestions to add something more instead, like up front damage reduction in heavy armor, if the bracing passive isn't reverted.

Do you already use 3 spell/wpn damage enchants?

r.jan_emailb16_ESO · April 2016

Changing the title of this thread all the time confuses me, and it's always like 4+ pages to catch up on. So what's the status now? Bugged on PTS? Lowered cost intentionally?

Personofsecrets · May 2016

r.jan_emailb16_ESO wrote: »

Changing the title of this thread all the time confuses me, and it's always like 4+ pages to catch up on. So what's the status now? Bugged on PTS? Lowered cost intentionally?

I doubt it is intentional, but the cost of block is the same on PTS that it is on Live, but the cost on PTS should be higher to match how much the cost of block will be when DB is released.

Basically all of the testing people are doing and feelings that they are getting from the testing shows heavy armor to be in alot better place than it will actually be once costs are increased as patch notes say they should be.

Personofsecrets · May 2016

so much for the "you have to test it first to know" when the testing environment is faulty.

TheValkyn · May 2016

Personofsecrets wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

Did you know that you can enchant your jewelry with spell or weapon damage enchantments?

It is also useful to use the thief or shadow stone while equipped with divines gear for some increased damage.

Why wouldn't I know about the power enchants? Is there something wrong with liking the Wrath passive?

VaxtinTheWolf · May 2016

Personofsecrets wrote: »

VaxtinTheWolf wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

I made a video with my average geared Nightbalde tank. I guess the changes really upset those many other class tanks that don't have Siphoning attacks like we do, but it just makes Sap-tanking more effective when you have enough enemies focused on you. I've no real reason to complain about it, just making one or two suggestions to add something more instead, like up front damage reduction in heavy armor, if the bracing passive isn't reverted.

Do you already use 3 spell/wpn damage enchants?

No actually. I personally really dislike the community market. Medium story short, I was recommended willpower but I found some Purple footman jewelry instead, just for the 3-piece. I believe it has the stock enchantment of a option cooldown and the rings have block cost reduction. My one handed weapon, and all other gear are in fact all Blue VR14.

Out of combat I have about 1k damage since I planned to be a tank and all, and after the passive maxed out and one use of sap essence I have 1500/1600 spell/weapon damage respectively with basically no other bonuses.

Personofsecrets · May 2016

TheValkyn wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

Did you know that you can enchant your jewelry with spell or weapon damage enchantments?

It is also useful to use the thief or shadow stone while equipped with divines gear for some increased damage.

Why wouldn't I know about the power enchants? Is there something wrong with liking the Wrath passive?

It's rude to answer a question with a question.

TheValkyn · May 2016

Personofsecrets wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

I like the wrath passive.

Did you know that you can enchant your jewelry with spell or weapon damage enchantments?

It is also useful to use the thief or shadow stone while equipped with divines gear for some increased damage.

Why wouldn't I know about the power enchants? Is there something wrong with liking the Wrath passive?

It's rude to answer a question with a question.

Then Socrates must have been an ass. So I'll ask again - is there something wrong with liking the Wrath passive?