Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Wrathstone Racial Changes, Flawed Mathematics, Misinformation, and Suggestions

  • xaraan
    xaraan
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great post. And I'd say pretty much right on the money with my feelings.

    My biggest issue has been the class rep program. Though at its core it's a good idea, I think the fact that it became more about a popularity contest and not about skill and intelligence has hurt it in the end. Not saying this applies to everyone in the program as some really know their stuff, but not all of them. The popularity contest portion especially because the reps (and streamers in addition, or both in some cases) have little cult followings that lap up anything they say whether it's right or wrong. One rep in particular was either purposefully spreading misinformation or embarrassingly wrong about a bunch of numbers in patch one and still running off at the mouth as if they are an expert. The intelligence comment may sound like a dig, but fact is, it's worth mentioning that in some of the end-game circles a few of the class reps are not looked at very favorably from people that have experience with them in game skill and knowledge wise. I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking, but it's a legitimate issue that should be addressed by zos on this program (and combined with the concern that some class reps were trying to benefit in game with inside knowledge is also concerning and hasn't ever been addressed publicly by zos). And as someone in the past that has given feedback to zos and as you can see, doesn't always do so very eloquently, the fact the company is more concerned over how something is said to them than what is said means they are more worried about perception than actually fixing things IMO. If all this sounds rough, please take it as a wake up call about how your program and game changes are being taken by many and don't just get defensive about my lack of tact (because the same things I complained about harshly that got me in trouble feedback wise years ago are still major pain points in the game/dungeon designs and have only gotten worse and I'm not alone with these feelings).

    Which brings me to my real concern. The races are not balanced after all this work. The imbalance is only moved around a bit. One can argue that the gap of top dps is smaller than it used to be, which I think is good and probably somewhat true, though not to the extent some state. Not to mention, we all know, once this stuff goes live and people really start crunching builds and perfecting things, the dps gaps will widen. And what concerns me is the "not actually fixing things" part. Because once this comes out, they probably won't touch the races that aren't strong enough and will only adjust something if it's too strong b/c of outrage. We saw how long they left Nord as a blah choice. We've watched them change prosperous to an equally useless trait and leave a trait essentially a waste for years now. Staffing is different now, so maybe the outcome of what I expect should be as well, but I guess I want to see it to believe it and I haven't yet. Still hoping though.

    As an obvious Argonian player, many assume I have built in bias, which is fine, but from my PoV it's more about having simply having skin in the game and a reason to be concerned and not dismissive of this particular races balance. See, if you aren't an end game player, or if you don't have argonians at all, or maybe your 5th alt that you tank with once in a blue moon is an argonian I think that has more position for bias. As it would do me no good to try and ask for ridiculous buffs as they would be ignored, but those players can easily join the chorus of players essentially saying Argonians have passives that are good enough so we should just shut up about it. Well, shocking though it may be, I don't want to play 15 argonian tanks or healers. And I don't even expect them to be competing with best of the best at dps, but I would like to not feel like a waste of a choice. I've also not always played argonians and have gone from meta race choices to what I 'liked' to play instead and have seen the real and not assumed power difference of things like the potion passive vs. some of the buffs other races got and I can say it is definitely not OP, even in PvP. It was simply worth giving up all the power done, which is how it should be if you are giving up all the power out, you should have power in that is worth it. So, IMO, if they want to nerf their support, they should have given them a little love in the damage dealing department.

    At this point, if we were allowed to pick our 'racial passive package' to go along with our race of choice, I would not choose Argonian passives for any of my builds unless I opted to do some kind of expensive potion cooldown build maybe. But even for tanking I'd go to a couple other choices first depending on class. And the only thing I'd miss is the swim speed bonus. But, I do think Argonians could be made "appealing" for more than just 2nd place in tanking and healing and last place in dps. I don't need to outperform the top DPS races, but it would be nice to not be dismissed as a dps role simply b/c of my racial choice - which is something that I've never seen happen to the guys showing up on tanks with random races (as it simply doesn't matter, even at end game). OP's suggestions on the argonian would make the viable without making them OP or even equal to the top performers. As for other races, I'm sure others have more suggestions than me, but it felt like Orc was over-tuned (esp for pvp) and Bosmer and Khajiits got a bit screwed during the whole process as changes rolled out.

    In the end, great post by OP. Hopefully someone will listen.

    -- @xaraan --
    nightblade: Xaraan templar: Xaraan-dar dragon-knight: Xaraanosaurus necromancer: Xaraan-qa warden: Xaraanodon sorcerer: Xaraan-ra
    AD • NA • PC
  • alexj4596b14_ESO
    alexj4596b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭
    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
  • Pevey
    Pevey
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Pevey wrote: »
    I agree with all of the suggestions and would also add:

    Redguards should be given some weapon damage to return them to their rightful place as a top-tier stam dps. (they are the warrior race, should not be behind dunmer!)

    Imperial is still terrible. They should not be shoehorned into tanking, especially since as you pointed out so well any race can tank. They need something for dps. But I sound like a broken record here.

    I haven't personally tested this but I think that Redguards and Bosmer are actually going to deal more damage compared to Orcs and Dunmer on classes and rotations that are more resource-intensive, such as Stamina Sorcerer, especially when using gold food, which is mathematically the most powerful food a DPS can use.

    Imperials are actually already most of the way there on Stamina DPS. The resource return and reduced ability cost makes them closer to Redguards, though it definitely doesn't hold a candle to Redguard Adrenaline Rush. I think just a bit of extra Weapon Damage (replace some of their Health) would put them in the middle between Redguards and Orcs in terms of DPS for both sustainable and resource-intensive rotations.

    Interesting feedback, thanks. I have been planning to use the race change tokens to move some of my characters around rather than actually get rid of any except in one case. For instance, my redguard NB will become a breton and respec to mag, but her name and appearance will be used on my stam sorc.
    Edited by Pevey on February 22, 2019 8:40PM
  • Oathunbound
    Oathunbound
    ✭✭✭
    Yea its unfortunate when great info backed up with thorough testing will either be ignored because the person posting it itsnt as well known or it is seen as biased towards a particular race. It seems to me that zos hit the mark and got some races right in terms of viability but really just winged it with others.

    Granted the numbers only truely matter when it comes to competive end game trial score runs but the perception of meta or gtfo is only getting worse. I'm fully for just getting rid of fixed racials and let us pick a package from the racial perks already in place, just move any resistances to the base racial and that will solve alot of issues.

    But it seems we will be stuck with what they will roll out for quite some time. I hope I'm wrong and they will keep tweeking until the balance is much more in line, but their track record goes against that happening.
  • susmitds
    susmitds
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    There have been plenty of mentions of a series of tests done by a specific player (not saying who) using an entirely flawed testing methodology, and the ESO forums community has gobbled it all up. When the state of peer-review becomes so bad that even one of our Class Representatives (again, not saying who) is spreading misinformation through their flawed mathematics and false claims, you know that this "racial passive balance" is going nowhere.
    Also, I added in the comments about the misinformation because I am tired of all the BS that has been spread. I at least double check my facts and make sure my calculations are correct, and make corrections if I'm wrong. My "entitled" attitude is backed up by a ton of research, testing, and calculations, and I don't recall if I've ever been wrong with my calculations. In fact, if any errors in my analyses do come up, I address the issue, fix my mistakes, and give credit to whoever points it out.

    Challenge accepted.

    You accuse this "said person" of using an entirely flawed testing methodology. Yet, you never mention what flaw this said person made in his testing. On the other hand, it can be proven that your testing, conclusions and even one of your suggestions is flawed.
    • Both the tests showed here are Solo-Buffed Skeleton DPS tests, which is an entirely different scenario than Raid-Buffed DPS tests. Firstly Solo-Buffed Skeleton DPS tests forces the user to be more dependent on their own sustain, which artificially increases the racial gap differences. In raid-buffed DPS scenarios, a part of the racial deficiencies get carried by the group support provided. This is not just for races. Even class deficiencies can be covered by group support, which is seen by the fact that Magblades have higher solo DPS than Magplars but in raids, Magplars have more or less equal DPS, sometimes even coming out on top.
    • In fact, the elimination of human error is so important that I have resorted to using AutoHotKey scripts for my parsing. Not just that; due to the complexity of all of my rotations that include buffing up, recasting buffs, using potions, and taking orbs. I have created a program in Processing that writes my scripts. Automating automation. Amazing.
      A static rotation is being used here, which is itself flawed even though more consistent, as dynamic rotation are always better for DPS. By maximizing DPS as far as possible is a better procedure, as that is the same as essentially decreasing error rates.
    • The RNG that affects our parses the most is our Crit Chance; even with 10 parses per race, the Crit Chance RNG can vary wildly; my formula recalculates all of my parses with a normalized Critical Chance based on my stats, completely eliminating any and all lucky and unlucky Crits in play within parses.
      It is impossible to normalize crit rates, without introducing further error as long as overall parse crit rate is being used. Let me elaborate.

      Error Introduced crit variance - I am using the example of a Stamina Nightblade here, as that is the class as I have the highest experience with. Lets consider a situation where every single of my Bow proc, Execute fail to crit and every single one of my other attacks crit. Let's assume this gives an overall crit rate of X%. This is far lower DPS than true X% crit chance, where every single skill has same crit rate, as the boost I get from the Crit damage depends on the damage by the hit being calculated and the Bow proc and executes have the highest individual damage and they don't crit, I lose on a huge chunk of damage inspite of having the same crit rate.

      Condition/Time introduced crit variance - I can have 100% crit rate till 25% HP mark and then get 0% crit rate. Let's assume this gives an overall crit rate of X%. This is far lower DPS than true X% crit chance, as the use of Bloodthristy, Butcher(Atronach CP 75 passive) and executes, if used, makes damage vary with Health of the target, so the same attack to low HP target hits harder and hence crit damage also varies. Sorcerer's new passive Amplitude affects this further.
    • Radiant Oppression is slotted, but is not used. Executes are unpredictable and can make results vary a lot between parses. My scripts are also not reactive; they have no way of detecting when a dummy reaches a certain Health threshold and switching to a different rotation seamlessly. In any case, as far as I know, all of my abilities scale the exact same way, including Light Attacks, so in terms of damage difference between races, this is still accurate.
      Execute phases are the most critical parts of any parse, and by omitting the execute phase while using Bloodthirsty, you are essentially manually decreasing peak DPS in your tests.
    • I did not equalize all the Health values between races for my parses. While it is someone's preferred way of doing it for the misguided sake of "balanced values", it produces results that are unfairly skewed towards races with more Health, when in fact DPS in scorepushing trials do not do that.
      You are intentionally shading this said person without showing the exact the context used by this person, which I will add here.
      Health will affect PvE but not exactly in every scenario. For Raids, all races will already hit 18K HP with Blue Food without Ebon if CP scaling works right. The place where HP will help is extreme soloing, dungeon no-death skin runs and for PUG runs. And obviously PvP and Shields.
      This person did not equalize HP in any of his relevant standard tests and made a separate test to show the effects of the resources, after being exclusively requested for that.
    • Redguards and Bosmer are right behind them on blue bi-stat food on sustainable classes like Nightblades, and would surpass all of them when using gold food on classes or rotations that are more Stamina-intensive, such as Sorcerers.
      Wrong. The reason sustain races are coming on top on the sorcerer tests, is because the damage races are being starved of the required sustain for a full-LA weave parse. An Orc with an Infused Stamina Recovery enchant will match Bosmer stats with just higher HP. The whole process of Solo-testing in stamina tests linked here is fundamentally wrong. Highest DPS always comes from a full-LA weave parses, after investing the minimum amount of sustain required to do that.
    • These conclusions and suggestions reek of Argonian bias. To anyone with high enough PvP experience and theorycrafting capability to complement it, it should be obvious why Argonians are rightfully considered broken in PvP. It is because of the fact that Potion passive acts as a second chance in situations in which no other race would survive. In the dynamic nature of PvP, 45 sec is not a long time. This gives Argonian unmatched great stalemate creating capability which usually allows them to outsustain other races and indirectly allows investing in more damage and defense. I will give an example with a build. Argonian StamDen Clever Alchemist(Infused Potion Enchant rings + 2H) + Veiled Heritance(5H) + Balorgh(1M/1L) + Master DW. Give me an example of a single build with higher balance of sustain, defense, offense without sacrificing else where.
    • The core issue of Argonian balance is impossible unless the potion is replaced with some that cannot procced at will. Till there is no one way to boost Argonian damage without making them OP in PvP.
    • PvE Tanking, Healing, and PvP are all reactive roles; the effectiveness of these roles are much more dependent on player skill than stats. For example, a great player can tank on an Altmer just as effectively as they can on an Argonian, complete with Engulfing Flames and Alkosh uptimes. Case in point, I know of quite a few great tanks that do not run "meta" races anyway; you guys know Woeler, who runs a Khajiit tank, I know of a pal who runs a Bosmer tank and is great at it, one of my raid lead runs a Nord already and is amazing at it, and I know of one more top-tier tank who runs an Orc and scorepushes trials regularly.
      One of the best PvP magblades on live PC/NA is a Khajiit, which has zero magicka passives on live. That does not make Khajiit a good race for PvP magblades on live. It just means the player is good enough to compensate for not having racial bonuses. Same tanking for tanking. If someone can't see the obvious benefit getting 4K of each resource every 20 secs for tanking, they probably should steer clear of commenting on class balance.

    It all comes down to that fact the test done is different from the tests done by the said person in very different conditions. The procedure used here is using the parse data of an edge class (Magplars are the worst to base tests on, due to low crit chance and high crit dmg, resulting in highest variance of all classes) to retrofit to different situations by a procedure(again flawed as the only way to normalize crit is to manually consider every single hit from the combat log, which is virtually impossible due to high number of hits). It is itself an acceptable test focusing on consistency rather than maximum performance.

    The process was the person mentioned here was taking parse data in the exact same situations as raids without introducing external variance for a significantly large sample across various classes, which results in normalization of variance itself in the mean value due to the size of sample, while not manually affecting the data and presenting it directly as it is. It is a test focusing solely on maximum performance.

    Funny thing here, this results in very similar results as the tests and with almost identical conclusions and suggestions except Argonian. Yet, somebody feels the need to shade another tester.
    Edited by susmitds on February 22, 2019 10:41PM
  • nsmurfer
    nsmurfer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    susmitds wrote: »
    There have been plenty of mentions of a series of tests done by a specific player (not saying who) using an entirely flawed testing methodology, and the ESO forums community has gobbled it all up. When the state of peer-review becomes so bad that even one of our Class Representatives (again, not saying who) is spreading misinformation through their flawed mathematics and false claims, you know that this "racial passive balance" is going nowhere.
    Also, I added in the comments about the misinformation because I am tired of all the BS that has been spread. I at least double check my facts and make sure my calculations are correct, and make corrections if I'm wrong. My "entitled" attitude is backed up by a ton of research, testing, and calculations, and I don't recall if I've ever been wrong with my calculations. In fact, if any errors in my analyses do come up, I address the issue, fix my mistakes, and give credit to whoever points it out.

    Challenge accepted.

    Holy ****

    Grabs popcorn!!!
  • TheInfernalRage
    TheInfernalRage
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Seraphayel wrote: »
    You can not, in any way, tell me that Argonians have the potential to out-damage Altmer "due to human error and differing testing environments", especially when my full month of testing has reflected stats and numbers that have been consistent the entire time.

    They don't and they don't have to. That's exactly the point. Nord, Argonian and Imperial outperforming Altmer / Dunmer / Orc / Redguard etc. when it comes to damage wouldn't make any sense as that is not the main purpose of those races / their racials. What would be the reason to pick any of the pure damage races then? There needs to be a difference somewhere.

    I like that you put so much thoughts into your post and I appreciate that.

    But your in some parts entitled attitude and indirectly shaming one of your "testing fellows" and a Class Rep (everybody who followed the forums in the last weeks about this topic knows exactly who your post is about) is a questionable addition to this thread/topic.

    And thus the real point of the OP gets revealed.
  • Tib
    Tib
    ✭✭✭
    nsmurfer wrote: »
    susmitds wrote: »
    There have been plenty of mentions of a series of tests done by a specific player (not saying who) using an entirely flawed testing methodology, and the ESO forums community has gobbled it all up. When the state of peer-review becomes so bad that even one of our Class Representatives (again, not saying who) is spreading misinformation through their flawed mathematics and false claims, you know that this "racial passive balance" is going nowhere.
    Also, I added in the comments about the misinformation because I am tired of all the BS that has been spread. I at least double check my facts and make sure my calculations are correct, and make corrections if I'm wrong. My "entitled" attitude is backed up by a ton of research, testing, and calculations, and I don't recall if I've ever been wrong with my calculations. In fact, if any errors in my analyses do come up, I address the issue, fix my mistakes, and give credit to whoever points it out.

    Challenge accepted.

    Holy ****

    Grabs popcorn!!!

    ^^^^^
    ~Tibbie~
    Senior Achievement Seeker, Scholar of UESP and the laziest trader in Tamriel
    Editor and Recent Changes Patroller at UESP
    Member of Beyond Skyrim: Iliac Bay
  • DoobZ69
    DoobZ69
    ✭✭✭✭
    DoobZ69 wrote: »
    I agree with the reasoning and the conclusions but I do not agree with the suggestions because they are not backed up with solid enough evidence.

    I assume that my reasoning, conclusions, and testing results are evidence enough, but it seems you need more from me to convince you.


    Argonians:
    Resourceful: Increases your Max Magicka and Max Stamina by 1000. Restore 4000 3600 Health, Magicka, and Stamina when you drink a potion.
    Life Mender: Increases your Healing Done by 6%. Wrath of the Hist: Upon receiving healing, gain 5% Weapon and Spell Critical for 5 seconds. OR Upon receiving healing, gain 129/200 Weapon and Spell Damage for 5 seconds.

    Several changes I've listed here. First of all, I want to give them an additional 1000 Max Stamina. Argonians have always been something of a hybrid race with their sustain, and since Dunmer and Khajiit are now the same way, I see no reason not to have Argonians be brought up closer to their level, with the lowest damage and highest sustain.

    Secondly, what made Argonians strong as tanks and at PvP in the first place was their tri-stat sustain. Their first PTS iteration of it nerfed the Live 4600 Resources per potion down to 3600, so about 80 resources/s, and I thought that was a healthy amount; then they buffed it back up to 4000 (88 resources/s) because they realized that their nerfs were too heavy-handed. The thing is that this just retains their pain-point in PvP while still being an overall nerf to PvE, and PvE is something they absolutely do not need a nerf in, what with the buffs to other races taking their roles already.

    Thirdly, as I've stated, Healing Done is way too niche of a stat; it does nothing for any role except for healers, and the fact of the matter is that healers in raids already have more than enough healing power.

    Rather, I would trade that for more damage, since that is the exact role they have been lacking in the entire time. I've put in two different choices, either Critical Chance or raw Damage; Critical Chance gives damage without really buffing their PvP ability too much (since Critical Chance isn't too powerful in PvP), and Spell+Wep Damage gives them more consistent damage and healing. I've also made them proc only when healing is received just to maintain the lore consistency and also to make people work a bit more for it in PvP by keeping heals on themselves.

    I also suggested giving them additional 2s of any Major buffs they apply to the group; it makes them a bit more viable for tanking, healing, and DPS, without intruding too far into those roles and disrupting the rankings.

    I hope this is enough.

    Thanks for the break-down. I'll focus on the Argonian just for now to keep it simple. I'll add the full list here (of your suggestion) for my own sanity.

    Resourceful: Increases your Max Magicka and Max Stamina by 1000. Restore 3600 Health, Magicka, and Stamina when you drink a potion.
    Argonian Resistance: Increases your Max Health by 1000 and your Disease Resistance by 2310. You are immune to the Diseased status effect. ( this is still on the PTS so I've added here because you haven't mentioned changing it.)
    Upon receiving healing, gain 5% Weapon and Spell Critical for 5 seconds. (i'll stick with this one because its consistent as opposed to 129/200 weap/spell damage)

    Here's my thoughts on this:
    Resourceful: Works for all roles. Has lower stats compared to focused races such as Orc and High Elf. An alternative sustain compared to Breton/Redguard, not as strong but covers all rss. Unique strength of being an "oh ***" button or a consistent sustain. Allows for build focus diversity (focus on dps/sustain/pot enchants). Can be an absolute 1-fight U-turner or at least always a strong advantage.
    Argonian Resistance: Works for all roles. Ironically should be on par with Altmer or Poison resistance compared to the Bosmer in the lore. A definite bonus for PvP and some tanking.
    Wrath of the Hist: On paper appears to work for all roles but actually doesn't help healers all that much and requires you to be healed. This is slightly lop-sided away from healing and swings in the opposite direction of what they are now. I don't agree with this change because I think this is the reason Khajiit crit % got taken away - it wasn't useful to healing. It just leaves it up in the air and not entirely clear, leaving a mark for required future alteration. Is taking a pot a form of healing received? These kinds of questions.

    Final thoughts: You've hit the universal role application pretty nicely, par the final one which brushes off healers. The pot racial is still a pain point at 3600 and its not the numbers that are the problem, its the design itself. Its hard to justify giving it a return over time because it benefits those who chug it on the timer more and the "oh ***" users get punished. Sustain builders benefit if you change it to a rss % gain increase, tanks will suffer. Changing the strength of the pot just creates a myriad of other problems. Its tied to taking a potion, a cost, so a problem in itself. I would go as far as to say they should get the ultimate generation which the Nords got (5 ultimate when hit, every 10 seconds) instead and the Nords get their drinking racial, but this is too radical of a notion and leaves sustain out of the equation and because Argonians have low max stats it just damns them. Maybe tie it to food/drink strength increase instead of potions. I dunno. You've said it rightly - the potion is a blessing and a curse. Its too OP in some instances and makes them garbage Elsewyr. So seems nice but doesn't quite hit the nail. Rework the pot racial completely, rethink Wrath of the Hist to be hybrid/universal, whatever you want to call it, advocate for Poison resistance on "lore" grounds (just personal opinion). And at the end of the day what do you want Argonians to be? Because you're happy for the DPS races to excel you can't say a non-DPS race can also excel. So if HE is mag (eg.) and Orc is stam (eg.) then Argonian has to be poopie at both. That's just how my logic works.

    B-
  • HatchetHaro
    HatchetHaro
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    susmitds wrote: »
    Challenge accepted.
    It's on.
    susmitds wrote: »
    Both the tests showed here are Solo-Buffed Skeleton DPS tests, which is an entirely different scenario than Raid-Buffed DPS tests. Firstly Solo-Buffed Skeleton DPS tests forces the user to be more dependent on their own sustain, which artificially increases the racial gap differences. In raid-buffed DPS scenarios, a part of the racial deficiencies get carried by the group support provided. This is not just for races. Even class deficiencies can be covered by group support, which is seen by the fact that Magblades have higher solo DPS than Magplars but in raids, Magplars have more or less equal DPS, sometimes even coming out on top.
    1. My testing is not done solo. For my own tests, Elemental Drain, Orbs, and Worm were provided by an assistant. It is important to state here that the goal for my tests is to test for DPS difference between races, not to fully emulate a raid-buffed scenario. However, I still strived to maintain a scenario that gets as close as possible to raid scenarios without introducing more factors that can skew parses (mainly non-persistent buffs like Aggressive Horn), therefore everything was done with raid-ready sustain in mind, since all of those could be easily automated with a macro or is persistent already.

    2. The testing referenced for the Stamina tests was, yes, solo-buffed, but I will take those tests over anything else because the tester was transparent about his testing methodology, tried to minimize the variance in Minor Vulnerability uptimes, and ultimately the difference between his tests and mine are human error (which seems to be minimized based on his consistent results) and sustain, from which we can more reliably estimate the difference between races with raid-ready sustain.

    3. You are correct in saying that classes will differ in raid-buffed scenarios, but I have to point out that it doesn't even matter. Once again, the goal is to test the DPS differences between races, and the main buff that Magblades have over Magplars is Minor Berserk, which is just a flat 8% damage buff, so it does not increase or decrease the damage % differences between races. The only other buff Magblades have over Magplars is an 8% Max Magicka increase, and I made it clear that this can alter the damage differences between races especially in terms of how much Max Magicka they have.

    susmitds wrote: »
    A static rotation is being used here, which is itself flawed even though more consistent, as dynamic rotation are always better for DPS. By maximizing DPS as far as possible is a better procedure, as that is the same as essentially decreasing error rates.
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a static rotation. Fact of the matter is that all abilities scale the same way, and, to reiterate, the goal of my tests is to test for damage difference between races, not to see how high I can parse. In the end, with more consistent data, people can draw a more accurate conclusion of what they can expect. You are simply introducing more variables by going with a dynamic rotation.

    Also, since you've quoted my comment about my scripting program, I don't think you realize this, but I am fully capable of putting in a full dynamic Magblade rotation into my program; it can hold 20 full rotations (and more if I increase the size of the whole thing) and as long as I count the light attacks right and make it cast the bow proc on time, it will be a full "dynamic" rotation that has been fully pre-determined. The only things it can not do are reactive rotations such as Magsorc, since Crystal Fragments procs can not be pre-programmed into my scripts.

    susmitds wrote: »
    It is impossible to normalize crit rates, without introducing further error as long as overall parse crit rate is being used. Let me elaborate.
    It is at this point where I think you're entirely misguided.

    Here is the thing: it is entirely possible to normalize crit rates.

    Before I go into the maths behind it, I'll just respond straight to your reasons first.

    susmitds wrote: »
    Error Introduced crit variance - I am using the example of a Stamina Nightblade here, as that is the class as I have the highest experience with. Lets consider a situation where every single of my Bow proc, Execute fail to crit and every single one of my other attacks crit. Let's assume this gives an overall crit rate of X%. This is far lower DPS than true X% crit chance, where every single skill has same crit rate, as the boost I get from the Crit damage depends on the damage by the hit being calculated and the Bow proc and executes have the highest individual damage and they don't crit, I lose on a huge chunk of damage inspite of having the same crit rate.

    Condition/Time introduced crit variance - I can have 100% crit rate till 25% HP mark and then get 0% crit rate. Let's assume this gives an overall crit rate of X%. This is far lower DPS than true X% crit chance, as the use of Bloodthristy, Butcher(Atronach CP 75 passive) and executes, if used, makes damage vary with Health of the target, so the same attack to low HP target hits harder and hence crit damage also varies. Sorcerer's new passive Amplitude affects this further.
    You have raised a situation where every single one of your bow procs and executes failed to crit and where every single one of your other attacks crit. What you don't realize is that the contrary can also be true: you have the exact same scenario where every single one of your bow procs and executes crit and where every single one of your other attacks don't crit.

    In the same way, you can also have the exact same scenario of 0% crit rate till the 25% HP mark and then get 100% crit rate.

    Basically, you have the same chance of getting 10% less crit chance in your parses as you getting 10% more crit chance in your parses.

    I understand what you mean in the case of executes, and I am using Bloodthirsty; however, since I am not actually using my executes, any skewing of data is not going to be atrocious, and the total % of critical damage done remains the same, with additional parses serving to equalize any differences to provide a more accurate number. I use Bloodthirsty purely because it is more accurate to realistic scenarios and is a flat damage increase that can be taken into account, and also to maintain the consistency of my first bout of testing which originally had Bloodthirsty slotted as well for comparison's sake.

    In the end, the crit rate doesn't matter; I am not measuring crit rate. What I am measuring is damage from critical hits; entirely different.

    I'll give you the maths straight on: Combat Metrics gives you all the data you need. Total critical damage done, critial damage %, critical chance, your full damage, and the damage from uncrittable sources.

    Here is the formula:
    total base damage = (total damage - total critical damage) + (total critical damage / critical damage %)

    Let's just take one of my parse numbers: I dealt a total of 6,021,893 damage, the total critical damage was 3,815,614, and I know my critical damage % is 190%. That's all I need for now.

    total base damage = (6021893 - 3815614) + (3815614 / 1.9)
    total base damage = 4214496.895

    This is the complete damage with all critical hits converted to non-critical hits.

    All I have to do here is to take this base damage, subtract all the damage from non-critical sources in my parses, and recalculate it with the base critical chance I have, which is 51.8%.

    full damage with equalized crit = ((total base damage - damage from non-crit sources) * crit chance * critical damage %) + ((total base damage - damage from non-crit sources) * (1 - critical chance))) + damage from non-crit sources

    full damage with equalized crit = 5,913,083.96

    Divide that with the total time spent in combat. 126.58, and you get an overall DPS with critical chance that is fully equalized, which is 46714.2 DPS.

    So yes, it is fully possible to normalize critical chance in parses. I had passed my formula along to other raiders to peer-review, and my methodology has been up for weeks without anyone challenging it. If even the best mathematicians in the raiding community approve of it, consider it scientifically accurate.

    susmitds wrote: »
    Execute phases are the most critical parts of any parse, and by omitting the execute phase while using Bloodthirsty, you are essentially manually decreasing peak DPS in your tests.
    Once more, just to reiterate, I am not going for the highest parse; I am going for consistent results. Abilities all scale the same way, including with Light Attacks, so excluding executes does not change the damage % differences between races.

    There is the exception, of course, that Radiant Oppression deals more damage the higher your Magicka pool is, but since I run all of my characters almost completely out of Magicka in my parses anyway, it becomes a negligible point that can be factored in post-parsing, not to mention that executes from other classes don't do that.

    susmitds wrote: »
    "Health will affect PvE but not exactly in every scenario. For Raids, all races will already hit 18K HP with Blue Food without Ebon if CP scaling works right. The place where HP will help is extreme soloing, dungeon no-death skin runs and for PUG runs. And obviously PvP and Shields."

    This person did not equalize HP in any of his relevant standard tests and made a separate test to show the effects of the resources, after being exclusively requested for that.
    I'll give it to you, you do take criticism and make changes. Just in a flawed way.
    Blue food in all tests is, honestly, not a good way of doing it. Sure, it is one less variable to deal with, but forcing races that have less sustain to heavy attack more just skews the damage % differences between races. By all accounts, gold food is, mathematically, the most powerful food a DPS can use, and the only situation in which a DPS should use blue food instead is if they are oversustaining on gold food.

    Also, the places where HP will help which you have described don't matter, because they are not representative of the end-game PvE scene which is where stats take the most effect. PvE DPS in scorepushing trials don't really ever spec points into health. PvE DPS in non-scorepushing trials have things that are more concerning than races, such as actually learning the trial.

    susmitds wrote: »
    Wrong. The reason sustain races are coming on top on the sorcerer tests, is because the damage races are being starved of the required sustain for a full-LA weave parse. An Orc with an Infused Stamina Recovery enchant will match Bosmer stats with just higher HP. The whole process of Solo-testing in stamina tests linked here is fundamentally wrong. Highest DPS always comes from a full-LA weave parses, after investing the minimum amount of sustain required to do that.
    Then just do it on an Orc and pretend you're a Bosmer. It'll be about the same damage then. Fact of the matter is that in identical builds or somewhere close to it, a bit more sustain would come out further on top, but what this also means is that on classes that don't require it such as Stamina Nightblades, the race without the excessive amount of sustain still wins out.

    susmitds wrote: »
    These conclusions and suggestions reek of Argonian bias. To anyone with high enough PvP experience and theorycrafting capability to complement it, it should be obvious why Argonians are rightfully considered broken in PvP. It is because of the fact that Potion passive acts as a second chance in situations in which no other race would survive. In the dynamic nature of PvP, 45 sec is not a long time. This gives Argonian unmatched great stalemate creating capability which usually allows them to outsustain other races and indirectly allows investing in more damage and defense. I will give an example with a build. Argonian StamDen Clever Alchemist(Infused Potion Enchant rings + 2H) + Veiled Heritance(5H) + Balorgh(1M/1L) + Master DW. Give me an example of a single build with higher balance of sustain, defense, offense without sacrificing else where.
    I do have high enough PvP experience and theorycrafting capability to complement it, and I have commented on it in my original post. You even said so yourself: that passive acts as a "second chance" in those situations, except that, at its very core, is no stronger than a simple flat 102 resources/s regen, and if you think about it, all the stuff people are complaining about are just PvPrs salty that an Argonian surprised them by turning back on them. If it was just a flat 102 resources/s regen, no one would think that way.

    And I'm not even trying to buff them in terms of PvP; if you actually checked, I've even gone for a nerf towards their Resourceful passive which was the exact pain point those PvPrs had.

    If you want mathematics, I'll give you mathematics.

    My suggestion for Argonians: 80 resources/s regen, 1000 Magicka, Stamina, and Health, 5% crit chance / 200 Weapon and Spell Damage.
    My suggestion for Khajiit: 71+ resources/s regen, 875 Magicka, Stamina, and Health, 4% crit chance, 5% crit damage.
    Dunmer: 0 resources/s regen, 1875 Magicka and Stamina, 258 Weapon and Spell Damage.

    What my suggestion will do is still put them slightly above the other two "hybrid races" in terms of sustain, but Khajiit and Dunmer would still be better in terms of damage.

    Here's the math: Khajiiti on 8% crit chance puts them at about 7.09% damage above no-racials, not factoring in the differing critical damage or % Magicka bonuses on different classes. Khajiiti on 10% crit damage instead puts them at about 6.14% above no racials; Dunmer and Bretons are at 6.82% and 6.31% respectively. What my suggestions will do is put Khajiiti somewhere in the middle of where they used to be, so about 6.5% above no-racials, and will put Argonians at about 5%, 5.5% max.

    I'm not trying to overbuff Argonians; if I want to do Argonian bias, I would just go "*** it up fam, 1000 Weapon and Spell Damage". Heck, I even suggested a revert on the Argonian Resourceful passive back down to 3600 resources per potion to keep them from being overpowered in PvP and tanking, and the only other buff I wanted to give them was just 2s on each Major buff they apply, which only helps with group utility to make them slightly more attractive for tanking and healing without overly buffing their damage.

    Your comments reek of pure anti-Argonian sentiment without understanding why it was that way in the first place.

    susmitds wrote: »
    The core issue of Argonian balance is impossible unless the potion is replaced with some that cannot procced at will. Till there is no one way to boost Argonian damage without making them OP in PvP.
    First of all, it is not procced at will; potions are on a 45-second cooldown, and 21-seconds even with Infused Potion Speed glyphs, though at that point you're still just going to be better off with flat damage or sustain glyphs instead. Besides, if Resourceful is the thing making Argonians OP in PvP, no other stat can fix that.

    Here's how you can boost Argonian damage without making them OP in PvP: critical chance. Critical chance is not such a good stat in PvP, because it affects sustained damage more than it does burst damage. Even better, lock that stat behind a healing received event, so the player has to make sure they have heals on them at all times when engaging.

    Critical Damage, on the other hand is stat that benefits PvP more in that it that makes Gankblades more annoying than they have to be simply due to a higher burst damage potential. It's why I wanted to change that on Khajiiti because my PvP friends have raised concerns about it.

    susmitds wrote: »
    One of the best PvP magblades on live PC/NA is a Khajiit, which has zero magicka passives on live. That does not make Khajiit a good race for PvP magblades on live. It just means the player is good enough to compensate for not having racial bonuses. Same tanking for tanking. If someone can't see the obvious benefit getting 4K of each resource every 20 secs for tanking, they probably should steer clear of commenting on class balance.
    You're just further proving my point with that PvP Khajiit Magblade example. PvP is a reactive role with performance much more related to skill than stats, and yes, as long as the player is good enough they can be at the top.

    Exactly the same for tanking, more of my point.

    Here's the thing: there is such a thing as over-sustaining in the world of tanking, healing, and PvP. Sure, there's a benefit to extra resources, but when the role itself does not need that much resources to stay just as effective, then the extra resources is simply just wasted. Case in point, if a Nord can tank Z'maja easily with top Engulfing Flames and Alkosh uptimes without any sustain issues, sure, running an Argonian instead would make sustaining easier but it is absolutely not necessary for the top-tier level of debuffing the player can already do, and, like the examples I have stated, those players exist and are already thriving. If someone can't see the lack of necessity for certain stats, they probably should steer clear of commenting on class balance.

    susmitds wrote: »
    It all comes down to that fact the test done is different from the tests done by the said person in very different conditions. The procedure used here is using the parse data of an edge class (Magplars are the worst to base tests on, due to low crit chance and high crit dmg, resulting in highest variance of all classes) to retrofit to different situations by a procedure(again flawed as the only way to normalize crit is to manually consider every single hit from the combat log, which is virtually impossible due to high number of hits). It is itself an acceptable test focusing on consistency rather than maximum performance.
    I at least take the time to even re-calculate parses the lower critical damage % to emulate what the damage difference is going to be on MagDKS and Magdens, and I also make it clear that the damage differences can vary in favor of races with more max Magicka with the +8% max Magicka bonuses that Magblades and Magsorcs have.

    And, since you're talking about variance again, might I add that Magblades are actually the same way, and at this point even all of my Magplar parses combined throughout the PTS cycles has lower variance than any of your tests.

    (And no, I've already just mathematically proven you wrong on the part where I manually re-calculate all of my critical damage. Again, entirely possible. Algebra is quite fun and actually useful.)

    susmitds wrote: »
    The process was the person mentioned here was taking parse data in the exact same situations as raids without introducing external variance for a significantly large sample across various classes, which results in normalization of variance itself in the mean value due to the size of sample, while not manually affecting the data and presenting it directly as it is. It is a test focusing solely on maximum performance.
    Once again, the word "variance". I begin to suspect you don't even know what it means.

    There's no such thing as good variance when trying to get accurate results. Ultimately, the average is what we are looking for, and that is where our actual variance in critical hits and realistic raiding scenarios will be based upon. It doesn't matter about "how good that class/race is supposed to perform"; it matters "how good this class/race performs in a controlled situation, the data on which we can do further calculations and estimations."

    The issue here isn't even you introducing variance into your parses; it is introducing so many variables that the variance is impossible to keep track of and calculate out.

    Much in the same way scientific experiments aren't done by throwing a bunch of crap into a beaker and letting it all boil together; they are done by doing multiple tests with as few variables as possible, from which we can draw our conclusions.

    susmitds wrote: »
    Funny thing here, this results in very similar results as the tests and with almost identical conclusions and suggestions except Argonian. Yet, somebody feels the need to shade another tester.
    Because your tests are done in chaotic environments with no semblance of control. It's called peer-review.


    Listen, dude, I have a lot of respect for you for spending that much time parsing, and I understand that you mean well. Unfortunately, any inaccurate information can still affect the population, and I can not let that happen. People have to judge for themselves on whether results are reliable, but since most people can't do that, I have to take matters into my own hands.
    Edited by HatchetHaro on February 23, 2019 4:07PM
    Best Argonian NA and I will fight anyone for it

    17 Argonians

    6x IR, 6x GH, 7x TTT, 4x GS, 4x DB, 1x PB, 3x SBS, 1x Unchained
  • firedrgn
    firedrgn
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hatchet why cant you just present you analysis without making it personal.

    Dk move
  • Ankaridan
    Ankaridan
    ✭✭✭
    In a game that is part of the "Elder Scrolls" franchise, racial identity is always going to be a big draw and a huge part of the enjoyment of the game. However, with these changes, raiders would be more incentivized to switch to a race they don't like to play or risk being removed from the core teams they raid in. This is already a problem currently in Murkmire, with certain groups being so *** as to kick people for playing a Khajiit rather than a Redguard. I myself have been removed from a vCR progression team simply for running an Argonian DPS, even though I have repeatedly demonstrated my skill and ability as a DPS and have cleared vCR+3 multiple times. When the entire ESO community goes up in arms about only receiving one race-change token for this update, it means that whatever changes that are coming aren't balanced.

    Agreed. This is the single biggest concern I have coming into the new racial rebalancing.
    xaraan wrote: »
    Great post. And I'd say pretty much right on the money with my feelings.

    Also agreed.

    My ability to critically deconstruct and analyze the various studies performed, as opposed to accepting it as presented, is sadly limited. So whether HatchetHaro is more or less correct than the other poster is not something I can comment on.

    But his statements, and sentiments, as well Xaraan's, I adamantly support and agree with. I've seen a lot of flavour commentary from "knowledgeable sources" recently that does not sit well with me, and I deeply respect that someone is willing to call it out. I also agree that too much of current 'gameplay meta' is sourced on the basis of a popularity contest.
  • Ratzkifal
    Ratzkifal
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great analysis. Now that we have gone over the mathematical part of it, let's go over ZOS' own goals for a bit.

    Here is are the goals ZOS had for this update summarized:
    1. Allow more effective options when picking a race for each role in tanking, healing, or damage dealing.
      This goal was one of our largest targets for this pass, since many playstyles had only one option for what was viable. This was done by converting percent bonuses into flat ones so they provide similar bonuses to all playstyles. Please note that these flat values will now scale with other % modifiers, so there will be less of a delta between builds. We also expanded many of the interactions and proc conditions for the passives, so more builds could engage with them and allow for improved diversity.
    2. Equalize the overall power that each race provides by using our set bonus efficiency system, which compares the total amount of power that a bonus provides under equal terms.
      When we’re balancing numerical bonuses, this is our general procedure with the values you see. The system works by looking at the total power a bonus provides and comparing it to a bonus from a 2-4 item set. For example, if we have 2000 Stamina, we would compare that to a 2 piece value of Stamina, which is 1096. The final result would be 2000/1096 = 1.82 set bonus efficiency. We did this for each bonus a race provides so they would all be roughly equal in the power they provide.
      We decided to find a healthy standard for total racial power provided and used that budget (roughly 6.5 set bonuses) for the power that each passive would grant. We used the previous version of Redguard and Altmer as our target goal. Note that some of our hybrid races will be a slightly higher value, since their power is divided. Most of the races received buffs to reach this figure.
    3. Retain and enhance the unique feeling and gameplay patterns that each race allows.
      Every race will now have a different way to engage with the game. This is either a new small but unique bonus, or an improvement to their core passive. Note that the smaller bonuses are not meant to work with every build, since these are meant to be more for flavor.
    4. Improve the sense of progression that the racial passives provide when leveling up.
      We want each race to have a similar rate of gaining power as you level up, and as such, we’ve restructured the unlock order of some passives. Less powerful passives will unlock first, while the larger more defining ones will unlock at later levels. Note that we’ll be refunding all of your racial skill points if you’ve already unlocked these passives. You will not need to unlock them again on characters you’ve already obtained them on.
    5. Achieve the above goals while still obeying our rich and structured lore and storytelling.
      This was one of our more challenging but exciting tasks, as it gave us additional opportunities to work with other teams. We delved deep into our rich and established lore to make bonuses that highlight racial differences. This means that we didn’t outright balance each race to be equal in every avenue of the game, as there’s a story to be told with how the races engage with the world around them. Nords are well known for being hardier races who can take a hit, while High Elves are better at wielding magical spells. If we were to balance them to be equal in both, we’d lose the unique identities of these races.

    Let's what became of them:
    • 1. Arguably achieved, for every role apart from healer. Instead of having only one or two top tier options for DPS - only one for stamina - There are now five more or less equivalent stamina races, and four more or less equivalent magicka races. There are three viable tank options with Orc being interesting as a fourth offtank option.
    • 2. Arguably achieved Measured by the set-standard, each race choice has a similar gain in set-bonus-numbers, however as the OP of this thread pointed out, not all set boni are of equal worth, which has not been taken into account. Still, the goal that ZOS set was achieved despite not being ideal.
    • 3. Not achieved in every case. Although most races are the same in that regard, the Bosmer have taken a hit as their sneaking has not been retained at all and gameplay patterns were negatively affected. Sneaking is also part of the game! Detection does not create any new or interesting nor unique gameplay patterns. Actual flavor has been replaced with the lack of it.
    • 4. Not achieved in every case. Some races have indeed this scaling and sense of progression. Redguards, Orcs, Nords, Imperials, Argonians, Bretons have increasingly strong and interesting racial passive. However Bosmer, again, gain their most impactful passive first and have a situational flavor passive last.
    • 5. Not achieved. As long as Orcs are not inherently sturdier than Imperials, Bosmer (that's three in a row) have no bonuses improving sneaking in particular, and Altmer gaining an unexplained and unprecedented boost to stamina when using magic, this goal is far from being achieved.

    It's great ZOS spend so much time "delving deep into our rich and established lore to make bonuses that highlight racial differences" and "working with other teams" if they fail on the lore aspect of it starting in week 1 of PTS with 2 out of 3 issues and only gaining one more along the way. That goal 2 was achieved is only thanks to semantics and being "technically correct".
    Edited by Ratzkifal on February 23, 2019 6:15AM
    This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.
  • phantasmalD
    phantasmalD
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    DoobZ69 wrote: »
    Wrath of the Hist: On paper appears to work for all roles but actually doesn't help healers all that much and requires you to be healed. This is slightly lop-sided away from healing and swings in the opposite direction of what they are now. I don't agree with this change because I think this is the reason Khajiit crit % got taken away - it wasn't useful to healing. It just leaves it up in the air and not entirely clear, leaving a mark for required future alteration. Is taking a pot a form of healing received? These kinds of questions.

    Why do you think it's not useful for healers? Are healers banned from healing themselves?
    Or do you think spell damage doesn't affect healing? Because it absolutely does.

    This is how the healing power of Healing Springs is calculated:
    Summon restoring spirits with your staff, healing you and your allies in the target area for $1 Health and an additional $2 Health every 1 second for 3 seconds. You restore 273 Magicka for each friendly target hit by the initial heal, up to a maximum of 3 targets.

    $1/$2 = (0.0309941 Magicka + 0.324186 SD + 1.54021) [*multipliers]
    (Magicka, R2 = 0.999997, ratio = 10.46)
    129 spell damage would be about on par with 3% healing done.

    Personally tho I'd now prefer a 'longer buff duration' racial as that would be slightly more unique.

    Khajiit crit% wasn't taken away because it wasn't useful for healing (it was useful for healers btw as crit affects healing). The crit change was, as far as people can tell, because of the Shadow mundus.

    Edited by phantasmalD on February 23, 2019 10:10AM
  • idk
    idk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have to agree that the OP is a very good read and some points made are very much what many raiders are discussing. The suggestions, as OP suggested, will probably not go very far since it is so close to launch of the update. However, I think it really needs the attention of the class reps to get actual traction with Zos anyhow. That seems to be mostly what Zos has listened to when considering feedback from the forums.

    I also like how they pointed out misinformation and the forums have been full of misinformation and twisting's things.
  • Faulgor
    Faulgor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm just glad we have such data-focused lively debates, even though I'm not qualified enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    But I do agree with the general pain points of the current racial passives, namely that Altmer, Khajiit, Nord and Argonians deserve another look (as well as Bosmer, although for slightly different reasons). These also seem to be the races that come up continously in feedback. Imperials which were always a problem child before seem to have been buffed to satisfaction, so there's no reason to think this shouldn't happen for others as well.
    Alandrol Sul: He's making another Numidium?!?
    Vivec: Worse, buddy. They're buying it.
  • MLGProPlayer
    MLGProPlayer
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's crazy that we are comparing Altmer and Dunmer viability based on whether stamina regen or stamina pool is better. This on classes that were purely magicka-based on live. It makes some sense with Dunmer, but with Altmer, it's beyond lore-breaking.
    Edited by MLGProPlayer on February 23, 2019 1:42PM
  • The_Lex
    The_Lex
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    While I dislike the Altmer change, it's not completely unprecedented, lore wise.

    In Skyrim's Companions quest line, you can read a lore book in Jorrvaskr entitled "Great Harbingers" written by Swyk the Long-Sighted. In this book, you learn of one of the most honored Harbingers...an elf by the name of Henantier the Outsider. He was considered a fierce warrior who "taught" the Companions honor. On his deathbed, his successor said that even an elf can be born with the heart of a Nord. Although it does not say if he was an Altmer, Hernantier is an Altmer name.

    My point is that he was clearly a fierce non-magical warrior, i.e., stamina-based. If there was one stamina Altmer, then there were others. Although I dislike the Altmer changes, it is not completely lore-breaking.

    https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Great_Harbingers

    Edited by The_Lex on February 23, 2019 2:31PM
  • therift
    therift
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    "They brought results to the table but the tests they used that brought those results are flawed and in no way represent the real differences in DPS across races. They have failed to factor in human error, the variance from critical chance, and even the variance from Minor Vulnerability which they are even unaware of, and they have used a testing methodology that absolutely does not emulate the end-game raiding scene. Their numbers vary up to 6k between parses and the fluctuating data alone makes their results unreliable."

    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
  • Imryll
    Imryll
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for a good read! I'd like to have the opportunity to test the changes you suggest.
  • T3hasiangod
    T3hasiangod
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    therift wrote: »
    "They brought results to the table but the tests they used that brought those results are flawed and in no way represent the real differences in DPS across races. They have failed to factor in human error, the variance from critical chance, and even the variance from Minor Vulnerability which they are even unaware of, and they have used a testing methodology that absolutely does not emulate the end-game raiding scene. Their numbers vary up to 6k between parses and the fluctuating data alone makes their results unreliable."

    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.

    You do not understand statistics if you think the mean is not an average...

    Averages are taken as the mean in most statistical applications. The median is also occasionally used, though more for checking certain statistical assumptions, rather than used as an average.
    PC/NA - Mayflower, Hellfire Dominion

    Dro-m'Athra Destroyer - Divayth Fyr's Coadjutor - Voice of Reason - Gryphon Heart - The Unchained - Extinguisher of Flames

    Tank - Healer - DPS (all classes, all specs)

    Youtube - Twitch
  • Ratzkifal
    Ratzkifal
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The_Lex wrote: »
    While I dislike the Altmer change, it's not completely unprecedented, lore wise.

    In Skyrim's Companions quest line, you can read a lore book in Jorrvaskr entitled "Great Harbingers" written by Swyk the Long-Sighted. In this book, you learn of one of the most honored Harbingers...an elf by the name of Henantier the Outsider. He was considered a fierce warrior who "taught" the Companions honor. On his deathbed, his successor said that even an elf can be born with the heart of a Nord. Although it does not say if he was an Altmer, Hernantier is an Altmer name.

    My point is that he was clearly a fierce non-magical warrior, i.e., stamina-based. If there was one stamina Altmer, then there were others. Although I dislike the Altmer changes, it is not completely lore-breaking.

    https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Great_Harbingers

    @The_Lex The problem I see here though is that racial passives are supposed to reflect the race on average and all of their inherent traits. Shalidor was a great nord mage and one of the greatest to have ever lived and yet he was a nord. He is an exception to the rule, but even he has a greater resistance to frost. Similarly there are well trained Altmer, but even they are more frail and have less stamina than a Nord with the same lifestyle. That Altmer can be warriors too is already being reflected enough by the fact that you can equip stamina weapons and spec into stamina on an Altmer.
    This Bosmer was tortured to death. There is nothing left to be done.
  • HatchetHaro
    HatchetHaro
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.
    Edited by HatchetHaro on February 23, 2019 5:40PM
    Best Argonian NA and I will fight anyone for it

    17 Argonians

    6x IR, 6x GH, 7x TTT, 4x GS, 4x DB, 1x PB, 3x SBS, 1x Unchained
  • The_Lex
    The_Lex
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Ratzkifal wrote: »
    The_Lex wrote: »
    While I dislike the Altmer change, it's not completely unprecedented, lore wise.

    In Skyrim's Companions quest line, you can read a lore book in Jorrvaskr entitled "Great Harbingers" written by Swyk the Long-Sighted. In this book, you learn of one of the most honored Harbingers...an elf by the name of Henantier the Outsider. He was considered a fierce warrior who "taught" the Companions honor. On his deathbed, his successor said that even an elf can be born with the heart of a Nord. Although it does not say if he was an Altmer, Hernantier is an Altmer name.

    My point is that he was clearly a fierce non-magical warrior, i.e., stamina-based. If there was one stamina Altmer, then there were others. Although I dislike the Altmer changes, it is not completely lore-breaking.

    https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Great_Harbingers

    @The_Lex The problem I see here though is that racial passives are supposed to reflect the race on average and all of their inherent traits. Shalidor was a great nord mage and one of the greatest to have ever lived and yet he was a nord. He is an exception to the rule, but even he has a greater resistance to frost. Similarly there are well trained Altmer, but even they are more frail and have less stamina than a Nord with the same lifestyle. That Altmer can be warriors too is already being reflected enough by the fact that you can equip stamina weapons and spec into stamina on an Altmer.

    I don't disagree. My point was to refute those who claim that it's completely and totally lore breaking. Well, no it's not, really.

    Edited by The_Lex on February 23, 2019 5:47PM
  • zaria
    zaria
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's crazy that we are comparing Altmer and Dunmer viability based on whether stamina regen or stamina pool is better. This on classes that were purely magicka-based on live. It makes some sense with Dunmer, but with Altmer, it's beyond lore-breaking.
    Yes Dunmer are hybrids. it give them extra stamina as magic build because of that, its an rater weak utility.
    On the other hand the old magic regen was to OP. +10% to shield strength or other utility is probably better.

    And the Argonian buff is way to strong as you have some incoming heal up all the time. Compare it to SPC.
    Yes Argonians need an buff, but knowing the limit is kind of important.
    Grinding just make you go in circles.
    Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.
  • Jhalin
    Jhalin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Quick correction, Disease damage can only apply *Minor Defile, not Major.

    Major Defile can only be applied as a direct effect of abilities, sets, and poisons
  • alexj4596b14_ESO
    alexj4596b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Thank you sir, so Argos are still we even more now a prime PvP class.
  • HatchetHaro
    HatchetHaro
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jhalin wrote: »
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Quick correction, Disease damage can only apply *Minor Defile, not Major.

    Major Defile can only be applied as a direct effect of abilities, sets, and poisons
    I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/

    Just asked a few other people and they said Major as well.
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Thank you sir, so Argos are still we even more now a prime PvP class.
    Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.
    Edited by HatchetHaro on February 23, 2019 6:23PM
    Best Argonian NA and I will fight anyone for it

    17 Argonians

    6x IR, 6x GH, 7x TTT, 4x GS, 4x DB, 1x PB, 3x SBS, 1x Unchained
  • alexj4596b14_ESO
    alexj4596b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭
    Jhalin wrote: »
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Quick correction, Disease damage can only apply *Minor Defile, not Major.

    Major Defile can only be applied as a direct effect of abilities, sets, and poisons
    I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/

    Just asked a few other people and they said Major as well.

    Thanks for the heads up, though; I'll test it some time later and correct it if it turns out to be Minor.
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Thank you sir, so Argos are still we even more now a prime PvP class.
    Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.

    I guess I'm finally understanding why people are so up in arms about Argos. Hmm poison resist glyf?
  • Jhalin
    Jhalin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Jhalin wrote: »
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Quick correction, Disease damage can only apply *Minor Defile, not Major.

    Major Defile can only be applied as a direct effect of abilities, sets, and poisons
    I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/

    Just asked a few other people and they said Major as well.
    therift wrote: »
    This.

    As soon as I see a test in which a table of parses are averaged for comparison, I know the test conclusions are flawed. Averaging is incorrect since it will be skewed by uncontrolled variables in the parses and by any datum that that varies significantly from the mean.

    Do not average your data. Find the mean, calculate standard deviation, and only then are you on the path to a reliable conclusion.

    All these 'tests' using averaged data and relying on "I'm really consistent with rotations" are Dewey Defeats Truman results. In short, useless for purposes of analysis.

    However, the charts of unreliable results are pretty.
    Actually, if the data is consistent enough, the mean/average is actually often an accurate representation of the results. I mean (ha ha), I represent my results this way as well, but I also prioritize consistency and transparency of data.

    I think your issue with the "averages" isn't about the averages being flawed, but rather the skewing of results that is the average of flawed data.

    Otherwise, I think I understand your point and would agree with you.

    @HatchetHaro

    I hope I did this right..I don't normally tag people. I have only just made a Warden Lizard Specifically for PvP. I would like to ask a question. What would the balance difference if they were given poison resistant and and immunity instead of disease.

    also why make the DPS passive change Procy?
    Sorry it took me a while to respond.

    Disease resistance means that you don't get the Diseased status effect that applies a Major Defile (30% less healing received) on you.
    Poison resistance means you don't get the Poisoned status effect which is just damage-over-time.

    In general, the Disease resistance is better for PvP because it completely negates that healing debuff. People generally like to run the Disease glyph in PvP just to apply that status effect, and it makes getting healed back up so much harder for the target, so gaining immunity to that is quite a big deal.

    I believe that Poison resistance is better for PvE. Now, you don't have to care about any Poison damage in most situations in PvE since your healers should take care of you no problem. The only reason why I think it is a tiny bit useful for PvE is that there is a long-running bug in Sanctum Ophidia where you have a tiny chance of getting one-shot while having the troll poison on you; the Poison resistance negates that entirely. Take this with a grain of salt, though; this is just pure speculation based on the fact that I've never died to that bug on my Argonian.

    So yes, the balance would be different. The Diseased status effect is quite a big thing in PvP.

    Thank you sir, so Argos are still we even more now a prime PvP class.
    Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.

    Wow, you’re right. Just read the wiki and apparently a genius decided the widely available Disease damage should give a Major debuff, what in the absolute hell?

    Those secondary effects should be changed to Minor, that’s ridiculous
Sign In or Register to comment.