Maintenance for the week of May 25:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 25
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – May 27, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EDT (20:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 25
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – May 27, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 4:00PM EDT (20:00 UTC)
Spell Cost Passive and Glyph Discussion
Joosef_Kivikilpi
✭✭✭✭
I was doing testing yesterday on my new use of the Spell Cost Reduction glyphs instead of the coveted Magick Recovery glyphs.
I fell in love at first use on my Mageblade.
I began doing tests then to check the effectiveness of Spell Cost Reduction glyphs to Spell Cost Reduction passives.
I did the test with Harness Magick. I don't have the exact numbers on me due to being at work, but I'll do an example to show the point.
Harness Magicka Cost = 4594 (Okay, maybe that's a bit more exact than I thought I could recall haha)
Light Armor Passives (2%) x 5 = 10% Cost Reduction
Breton Passives (1%) x 3 = 3% Cost Reduction
Truly Superb Glyph of Spell Cost Reduction = 203 Spell Cost Reduction
I did basic mathematics. 3996 529
---Test One: (with 13% Cost Reduction, then 3 Spell Cost Reduction Glyphs Gold)
(4594 x .87) - 609 = 3387
---Test Two: (with 3 Spell Cost Reduction Glyphs Gold, then 13% Cost Reduction)
(4594 - 609) x .87 = 3466
Don't worry. The actual result of what is happening in game is Test Two. Real BIG sad face.
I did the test in order to see if being my Breton homeboy passives were the coolest thing since the VMA Lightning Staff. With the result, I concluded that the ZOS code does the Glyph reduction calculations FIRST, which thus LOWERS the effective overall benefit given from each Glyph by the Spell Cost Reduction passives, in my case being 13% (which made me sad being my Breton then). With the difference in the code calculation, the formula would be allowing Harness Magicka to be cast for 79 less magick per cast.
The reason for this Discussion:
May we discuss: having Formula One be done in relation to Cost Reduction Glyphs and Passives to get the most out of the effect, since inversely it works the according to Formula Two for Recovery Glyphs and Passives, thus increasing its total effectiveness of recovery to the maximum amount.
Anyone who knows Devs, you could tag if you'd like.
Let's have a healthy and constructive discussion and conversation. ZoS does a pretty good job at listening to players as we both, player and developer, work on making the game better all around.
I fell in love at first use on my Mageblade.
I began doing tests then to check the effectiveness of Spell Cost Reduction glyphs to Spell Cost Reduction passives.
I did the test with Harness Magick. I don't have the exact numbers on me due to being at work, but I'll do an example to show the point.
Harness Magicka Cost = 4594 (Okay, maybe that's a bit more exact than I thought I could recall haha)
Light Armor Passives (2%) x 5 = 10% Cost Reduction
Breton Passives (1%) x 3 = 3% Cost Reduction
Truly Superb Glyph of Spell Cost Reduction = 203 Spell Cost Reduction
I did basic mathematics. 3996 529
---Test One: (with 13% Cost Reduction, then 3 Spell Cost Reduction Glyphs Gold)
(4594 x .87) - 609 = 3387
---Test Two: (with 3 Spell Cost Reduction Glyphs Gold, then 13% Cost Reduction)
(4594 - 609) x .87 = 3466
Don't worry. The actual result of what is happening in game is Test Two. Real BIG sad face.
I did the test in order to see if being my Breton homeboy passives were the coolest thing since the VMA Lightning Staff. With the result, I concluded that the ZOS code does the Glyph reduction calculations FIRST, which thus LOWERS the effective overall benefit given from each Glyph by the Spell Cost Reduction passives, in my case being 13% (which made me sad being my Breton then). With the difference in the code calculation, the formula would be allowing Harness Magicka to be cast for 79 less magick per cast.
The reason for this Discussion:
May we discuss: having Formula One be done in relation to Cost Reduction Glyphs and Passives to get the most out of the effect, since inversely it works the according to Formula Two for Recovery Glyphs and Passives, thus increasing its total effectiveness of recovery to the maximum amount.
Anyone who knows Devs, you could tag if you'd like.
Let's have a healthy and constructive discussion and conversation. ZoS does a pretty good job at listening to players as we both, player and developer, work on making the game better all around.
4
-
Dracane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Cost reduction never gives its full potential sadly, each source is diminished.
Regeneration is attractive, because it has no penalty and gets boosted alot by passive % increases, possibly almost doubling every single point of regen you add. It just feels worthy and rewarding.
I still think cost reduction is actually better, because I spam all kinds of spells, 1 every second or more even.
Regen only ticks every 2 seconds. Cost reduction will quickly stack with each cast and will leave regen behind. So if you must choose, I will always prefer 1 cost reduction glyph on my yewelry instead of 1 regen glyph.
After all these heavy cost reduction nerfs and removals, they could at least remove the diminshing return of cost reduction and make it apply the values, you would expect.Edited by Dracane on December 20, 2017 4:18PMAuri-El is my lord,
Trinimac my ward,
and Magnus my mind.4 -
Joosef_Kivikilpi✭✭✭✭Cost reduction never gives its full potential sadly, each source is diminished.
Regeneration is attractive, because it has no penalty and gets boosted alot by passive % increases, possibly almost doubling every single point of regen you add. It just feels worthy and rewarding.
I still think cost reduction is actually better, because I spam all kinds of spells, 1 every second or more even.
Regen only ticks every 2 seconds. Cost reduction will quickly stack with each cast and will leave regen behind. So if you must choose, I will always prefer 1 cost reduction glyph on my yewelry instead of 1 regen glyph.
After all these heavy cost reduction nerfs and removals, they could at least remove the diminshing return of cost reduction and make it apply the values, you would expect.
Exactly. You're right on point.
Reduced cost for Magicka leaves Recovery far behind if casting 1-2 spells per second.
I completely agree with you in regards to the change to cost reduction nerfs and Champion point removal for it, that it could at LEAST work to the most beneficial manner, inversely speaking since it is "reducing" cost instead of "increasing" as recovery is, as the calculations for Recovery work.Edited by Joosef_Kivikilpi on December 20, 2017 4:27PM0 -
Dracane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »Cost reduction never gives its full potential sadly, each source is diminished.
Regeneration is attractive, because it has no penalty and gets boosted alot by passive % increases, possibly almost doubling every single point of regen you add. It just feels worthy and rewarding.
I still think cost reduction is actually better, because I spam all kinds of spells, 1 every second or more even.
Regen only ticks every 2 seconds. Cost reduction will quickly stack with each cast and will leave regen behind. So if you must choose, I will always prefer 1 cost reduction glyph on my yewelry instead of 1 regen glyph.
After all these heavy cost reduction nerfs and removals, they could at least remove the diminshing return of cost reduction and make it apply the values, you would expect.
Exactly. You're right on point.
Reduced cost for Magicka leaves Recovery far behind if casting 1-2 spells per second.
I completely agree with you in regards to the change to cost reduction nerfs and Champion point removal for it, that it could at LEAST work to the most beneficial manner, inversely speaking since it is "reducing" cost instead of "increasing" as recovery is, as the calculations for Recovery work.
Thank you. As I see it, cost reduction is the only stat, that does not provide what it claims on tooltip. You do not get these 201 cost reduction from a golden glyph. I think it's more like 170 or so.
Not necessary in my opinion, letting cost provide what it claims to provide, will not break the game or bring forth infinite ressource builds. Even more so, you sacrifice damage once you add a cost reduction glyph, I should get what I expect in return.Auri-El is my lord,
Trinimac my ward,
and Magnus my mind.2 -
Joosef_Kivikilpi✭✭✭✭Just did the math for Recovery Boost:
Example of what a lot of people run on:
High Elf = 10%
Vampire = 10%
Light Armor x 5 = 20%
Champion Points = 14%
Truly Superb Glyph of Recovery = 169
... which turns into 260 for a basic rune.
Recovery vs Reduction Glyph:
260 (every 2 seconds) vs 203 (per cast)
So to even outpace the recover casually, you HAVE to get a cast off every 1-1.5 seconds, but that takes work for sure, very defined weaving. Not for the casual to get the most from this in DPS or Healer circumstances.
Definitely feel ZoS should rework the calculation formula for spell cost reduction to give it the most full benefit in comparison to recovery.
0 -
Dracane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »Just did the math for Recovery Boost:
Example of what a lot of people run on:
High Elf = 10%
Vampire = 10%
Light Armor x 5 = 20%
Champion Points = 14%
Truly Superb Glyph of Recovery = 169
... which turns into 260 for a basic rune.
Recovery vs Reduction Glyph:
260 (every 2 seconds) vs 203 (per cast)
So to even outpace the recover casually, you HAVE to get a cast off every 1-1.5 seconds, but that takes work for sure, very defined weaving. Not for the casual to get the most from this in DPS or Healer circumstances.
Definitely feel ZoS should rework the calculation formula for spell cost reduction to give it the most full benefit in comparison to recovery.
And as I said, it's not even 203 per cast. It is so strongly diminished, that it's around 150-170 (Only tested it recently, but was not interested in the exact number at that point). I however spam spells all the time, no matter if pvp or pve. The moment I stop doing something, is where I am doing something wrong. Cost reduction has its value, but should not be diminished like this.Auri-El is my lord,
Trinimac my ward,
and Magnus my mind.0 -
Joosef_Kivikilpi✭✭✭✭
Thank you. As I see it, cost reduction is the only stat, that does not provide what it claims on tooltip. You do not get these 201 cost reduction from a golden glyph. I think it's more like 170 or so.
Not necessary in my opinion, letting cost provide what it claims to provide, will not break the game or bring forth infinite ressource builds. Even more so, you sacrifice damage once you add a cost reduction glyph, I should get what I expect in return.
From my example above of being Breton in 5 light, receiving 13% magick cost reduction, a 203 Glyph ends up giving 176.6 spell cost reduction.
It is a sad day... STILL better if casting 1-2 spells per second... but come on, give us a break and give us the full amount of the glyph.1 -
Dracane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »
Thank you. As I see it, cost reduction is the only stat, that does not provide what it claims on tooltip. You do not get these 201 cost reduction from a golden glyph. I think it's more like 170 or so.
Not necessary in my opinion, letting cost provide what it claims to provide, will not break the game or bring forth infinite ressource builds. Even more so, you sacrifice damage once you add a cost reduction glyph, I should get what I expect in return.
From my example above of being Breton in 5 light, receiving 13% magick cost reduction, a 203 Glyph ends up giving 176.6 spell cost reduction.
It is a sad day... STILL better if casting 1-2 spells per second... but come on, give us a break and give us the full amount of the glyph.
I sign your petition my dear.Auri-El is my lord,
Trinimac my ward,
and Magnus my mind.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Cost reduction glyphs are only good if only casting spells. Once heavy attacks enter the build regen becomes more benedificsl since regen continues to work during nb the HA.
At a point if changing glyphs from spell damage to something else dps output drops.0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.Edited by SodanTok on December 20, 2017 6:00PM0 -
Chelo✭✭✭✭✭Cost reduction never gives its full potential sadly, each source is diminished.
Regeneration is attractive, because it has no penalty and gets boosted alot by passive % increases, possibly almost doubling every single point of regen you add. It just feels worthy and rewarding.
I still think cost reduction is actually better, because I spam all kinds of spells, 1 every second or more even.
Regen only ticks every 2 seconds. Cost reduction will quickly stack with each cast and will leave regen behind. So if you must choose, I will always prefer 1 cost reduction glyph on my yewelry instead of 1 regen glyph.
After all these heavy cost reduction nerfs and removals, they could at least remove the diminshing return of cost reduction and make it apply the values, you would expect.
Thats exactly why cost reduction will always won in PvP. If you cast 3 skills in 1 second or spam shields when you are defending, Cost Reduction is better than the 2 seconds tick of regeneration...1 -
Chelo✭✭✭✭✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.
I have combat logs in PvP of people casting even 4 skills in the same second...0 -
LordSemaj✭✭✭✭✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.
I have combat logs in PvP of people casting even 4 skills in the same second...
And then probably not casting anything at all for a few seconds. Cost reduction is great if you want to reduce the cost of your combo so that it fits your stat bar while leaving the amount of resources you desire left over. But recovery is almost always better, and where reduction carries penalties, recovery benefits from stacking increases.0 -
NyassaV✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭ZoS loves math issues... GEMDASFlawless Conqueror ~ Grand OverlordShe/Her ~ PC/NA | I record things for fun and for info0 -
SodanTok✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.
I have combat logs in PvP of people casting even 4 skills in the same second...
You have nothing like that. Unless you mean they casted 4 spells in 4 seconds that all arrived at you in one.
Tho you probably meant some rare instance of cheat or glitch.Edited by SodanTok on December 20, 2017 10:49PM1 -
RouDeR✭✭✭✭✭
✭Remove your rings and clothes , reset your skills , put them again and than equip the gear and finaly put the Jeweries , this will fix your diminishing returns bug.0 -
ToRelax✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »Just did the math for Recovery Boost:
Example of what a lot of people run on:
High Elf = 10%
Vampire = 10%
Light Armor x 5 = 20%
Champion Points = 14%
Truly Superb Glyph of Recovery = 169
... which turns into 260 for a basic rune.
Recovery vs Reduction Glyph:
260 (every 2 seconds) vs 203 (per cast)
So to even outpace the recover casually, you HAVE to get a cast off every 1-1.5 seconds, but that takes work for sure, very defined weaving. Not for the casual to get the most from this in DPS or Healer circumstances.
Definitely feel ZoS should rework the calculation formula for spell cost reduction to give it the most full benefit in comparison to recovery.
You are completely ignoring secondary resource returns here. The more magicka you restore outside of standard regen ticks, the better cost reduction becomes compared to regen.DAGON - ALTADOON - CHIM - GHARTOK
The Covenant is broken. The Enemy has won...
Elo'dryel - Sorc - AR 50 - Hopesfire - EP EU2 -
Chelo✭✭✭✭✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.
I have combat logs in PvP of people casting even 4 skills in the same second...
You have nothing like that. Unless you mean they casted 4 spells in 4 seconds that all arrived at you in one.
Tho you probably meant some rare instance of cheat or glitch.
Enjoy...0 -
Malamar1229✭✭✭✭✭
✭Depending on the class, cost redux shines. On a PvP sorc where you are spamming 1 spell per second, those reduction glyphs are worth about 400 magicka recovery.
That's why I always argued seducers being a staple set.0 -
sevomd69✭✭✭✭✭
✭You are never casting 1-2 spells per second, you are always casting at maximum 1 and on average usually less than 1 spell per second. Ultimates, heavy attacks, channeling and off resource skills lessen this value even more.
This^^...with global cd...can't cast 2 spells per second...0 -
Lightspeedflashb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭You understand that that if the math didn't work like you said, that there are skill in the game that would cost almost nothing. Looking at channeled focus and funnel health. This is clearly not part of the the game plan that zos wants.0 -
Joosef_Kivikilpi✭✭✭✭Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »You understand that that if the math didn't work like you said, that there are skill in the game that would cost almost nothing. Looking at channeled focus and funnel health. This is clearly not part of the the game plan that zos wants.
I mean, they took away "no cost" Funnel Health by increasing it's cost by 33%... it used to be no cost at all, though haha 0
