HatchetHaro 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.
HatchetHaro 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.
HatchetHaro wrote: »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.
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.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
It is impossible to normalize crit rates, without introducing further error as long as overall parse crit rate is being used. Let me elaborate.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
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.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
You are intentionally shading this said person without showing the exact the context used by this person, which I will add here.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
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.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.
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.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
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.HatchetHaro wrote: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.
HatchetHaro 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.HatchetHaro wrote: »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.
Seraphayel wrote: »HatchetHaro 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.
HatchetHaro 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.HatchetHaro wrote: »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!!!
HatchetHaro 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.
It's on.Challenge accepted.
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.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.
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.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.
It is at this point where I think you're entirely misguided.It is impossible to normalize crit rates, without introducing further error as long as overall parse crit rate is being used. Let me elaborate.
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.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.
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.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'll give it to you, you do take criticism and make changes. Just in a flawed way."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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Once again, the word "variance". I begin to suspect you don't even know what it means.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.
Because your tests are done in chaotic environments with no semblance of control. It's called peer-review.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.
HatchetHaro wrote: »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.
Great post. And I'd say pretty much right on the money with my feelings.
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.
"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.
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
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.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.
Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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.
Yes Dunmer are hybrids. it give them extra stamina as magic build because of that, its an rater weak utility.MLGProPlayer wrote: »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.
HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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.
HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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.
I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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
Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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 wrote: »I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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
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.Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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 wrote: »I only went by the data on Alcast's site, where it says Major Defile: https://alcasthq.com/eso-status-effects/HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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
Just asked a few other people and they said Major as well.Naw. Argonians already have both immunities on Live, so if anything, they're still nerfed in terms of PvP.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »HatchetHaro wrote: »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.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.
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.Sorry it took me a while to respond.alexj4596b14_ESO wrote: »@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?
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.