That isn't true.
Cost reduction has diminishing returns.
Regeneration does not.
Cost reduction becomes less effective the more you have, making regeneration the favored choice when you start seeing diminishing returns.TerraPython wrote: »That isn't true.
Cost reduction has diminishing returns.
Regeneration does not.
Okay, im not sure exactly what you mean by that. Could you possibly explain your comment a little further?
Im making my conclusion based on actual observations. The stamina on the reduction build lasted >100% longer.
Cost reduction becomes less effective the more you have, making regeneration the favored choice when you start seeing diminishing returns.
(Max out your cost reduction in your champion points, then do your regeneration. Regeneration on Gylphs tend to give more sustain also. And High Elf Magicka Regeneration is BiS)
It changes per race and class for regeneration and cost reductions based on small things etc but the
TL;DR as CP progresses Regeneration will outdo Cost Reduction, and at the moment it currently is in most circumstances.
You also didn't mention character's race... because Altmer for Magicka and Bosmer for Stamina add bonus racials for regeneration making regen with CP much more effective.
Although, with the changes coming in DB, I've heard that ability costs have increased roughly 5%.
TerraPython wrote: »Cost reduction becomes less effective the more you have, making regeneration the favored choice when you start seeing diminishing returns.
(Max out your cost reduction in your champion points, then do your regeneration. Regeneration on Gylphs tend to give more sustain also. And High Elf Magicka Regeneration is BiS)
It changes per race and class for regeneration and cost reductions based on small things etc but the
TL;DR as CP progresses Regeneration will outdo Cost Reduction, and at the moment it currently is in most circumstances.
Okay @Nifty2g - I see what you mean now. As you invest more CP in cost reduction, you get less +% for it.
This IS however the same for regen - as you put more points on, you get less for it.
I think what my post was meant to show is that for someone with a spam style of play, priortising cost-reduction would be the most efficent way.
Im not saying that regen is completley redundant here, as I still get some regen from my set bonuses etc, and any CP above 100 will go into regen. Its just that you to get way more Steel Tornado for your Stamina when you focus on cost reduction.
Ive been playing regen focus builds forever on ESO, and didnt actually understand the bonus of reduce cost until today.
Ill certinaly be changed my 100points into reduce cost, and the others into regen, but each and every player should do what suits them
TerraPython wrote: »Hello there,
tl;dr of below; Reduce cost is significantly more effective than regen for ability spamming.
I have seen threads already that discuss +Regen and -Cost_of, but haven't managed to find any definitive answer for which one is better.
A friend and I went on the PTS today - (PTS for Dark Brotherhood - 2.4.0) - and tested the two to find out which was better.
Test Method
We both created identical characters in terms of;The build worked out quite well too, btw.
- Level - 50 + 300CP
- Armor - 5pc Hundings, 2 molag kena
- Jewelery - 3pcs Agility set, robust
- Weapons - Malestrom daggers DW, and Malestrom Bow
Champoin Points: For one char, 100 points was spent on reduce the cost of, the other char had 100 points spent on revovery.
Enchantments: For armour, all stamina - for jewelery - one char had all reduce, the other all recovery.
We then started to spam the same spell at the same time to see who ran out of stamina quicker. We spammed Steel Tornado just for the test.
Results
The regen focused char ran out of stamina way before the reduce-cost based char.
The regen build deemed to be 50% less effective as the reduce-cost build.
The regen char ran out of stamina after 24sec of spamming, whereas the reduce-cost char ran out after 52secs of spamming. Hence, an extra 28 sec for the reduce-cost build.
Conclustion
Reduce cost is more effective than regen for ability spamming.
The test was only conducted for a Stamina NB, but I assume that the same will apply for a magicka build.
We focused on the spamming of abilities, like Steel Tornado, which is our play style, especially in dungeons. For players that do not spam abilities, the results may actually prove to be different. It all comes down to your play style.
Let me know your thoughts below, and anything you have noticed with respect to the above findings.
Also - sorry about the writing style of the report - I have just finished writing a dissertation, and cant seem to shake it! haha
TerraPython wrote: »@susmitds - Yeah actually you are right. Regen is still needed for that, so maybe thats where the extra 64 points go - regen.
Or maybe only 80 in cost reduction, and the rest in regen.
The point is still that I would rather focus on reduce cost, than regen. Personally, I dont dodge roll more than a few times a boss fight, and again break is only a few times a fight - at MOST.
The solution here could be the Serpant mundus stone. That provides a flat increase to Regen We never used mundus stones in the test cause they were too far away, and no wayshrines! hehe
That isn't true.
Cost reduction has diminishing returns.
Regeneration does not.
I believe @Asayre has the specificsThat isn't true.
Cost reduction has diminishing returns.
Regeneration does not.
@Nifty2g I understand that this may differ from race to race, but I was wondering if there is a specific percentage/number when reduced cost already has diminishing returns? I always worry about when to stop putting points on my reduction cost on both magicka and stamina.
khele23eb17_ESO wrote: »What Id like to know is.... If you have 160 points to spend is it better to go:
a) 160 - reduction
b) 160 - regen
c) 100 reduction + 60 regen
d) 100 regen + 60 reduction
e) other combination of the above.