Maintenance for the week of September 1:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 1
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 2, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 3, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

MagDKs & Nightblades received a damage boost in Wrathstone — [ Vulnerability calculation changes ]

TheYKcid
TheYKcid
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Note that the thread title pertains to PvP—the two mentioned classes are not buffed in PvE since NPCs do not use %-based mitigation as part of their defenses (AFAIK; please correct me if I'm wrong).

So a lot of PvP players have reported taking noticeably more damage since Wrathstone landed, and this new bug/feature appears to be one part of the puzzle—vulnerability debuffs are now calculated additively with your %-based mitigation by default.

Background info:
Prior to update 21, vulnerabilities (debuffs that increase your damage taken, eg. minor vulnerability from the Shock elemental status, etc. etc.) were calculated multiplicatively in the damage equation, as per this excerpt from the Damage Mitigation: Explanation thread by @paulsimonps.
VULNERABILITY=Vulnerability #1+Vulnerability #2+Vulnerability #3+etc etc
DAMAGE TAKEN=Base Damage*(1+(Vulnerability #1+Vulnerability #2+Vulnerability #3+etc etc)/100)
where "Base Damage" is the product of your resistance (armour) mitigation & all your sources of %-based mitigation

However, since Wrathstone's launch, vulnerabilities have become additive with your %-based mitigation, via this adjusted partial* formula:
Damage taken = (%-based mitigation + Vulnerabilities)
Where "%-based mitigation" represents the product of all the complements of your %-mitigation sources eg. (1-x)(1-y)(1-z)

* resistances, block, & execute multipliers (on the attacker) are excluded because they are all multiplicative with the above sub-expression, and thus do not influence the proportional damage increase

The consequences of this aren't immediately obvious, so here's an example calculation, comparing pre vs. post-update 21, given the following target stats (quite standard for a CP810 toon):
  • Stage 4 vamp (+25% fire damage vulnerability)
  • 66 pts Ironclad (22 %-based mitigation)
  • 37 pts Elemental Defender (9 %-based mitigation)
  • Minor protection (8 %-based mitigation)
OLD:
Damage taken = [(0.78) * (0.91) * (0.92)] * 1.25
Damage taken = (0.653016) * 1.25
Damage taken = 0.81627

NEW:
Damage taken = [(0.78) * (0.91) * (0.92)] + 0.25
Damage taken = (0.653016) + 0.25
Damage taken = 0.903016

Proportional damage increase = (0.903016 / 0.81627) - 1
Proportional damage increase = 0.1062712092812427260587795704853
Proportional damage increase = 10.6% (1 decimal place)

From the above workings we can see that fire damage dealt to our hypothetical target, post-Wrathstone, increased by a whopping 10.6%, without any changes whatsoever to the stats of attacker or target. The magnitude of this increase correlates with the amount of %-based mitigation the target stacks, as the Vulnerabilities term (a flat value) grows larger in proportion, relative to the shrinking value of the %-damage taken by the target.

As referenced in the title, this change primarily benefits two classes:
  1. MagDKs: Nearly all their damage output applies to the +10% fire vulnerability debuff from Engulfing Flames—which is boosted by this mechanic—AND this stacks with the Vampire fire vulnerability
  2. Nightblades: The "20% increased damage taken" debuff of Incap/Soulharvest is classified as a vulnerability, thus all follow-up damage is boosted by this change

Minor Vulnerability also benefits, to a lesser extent due to its smaller 8% value. Arguably favours Magsorcs—though any class can readily access it via shock glyphs or poisons. Also note that Dawnbreaker and other Fighters Guild skills do not benefit, as the "Skilled Tracker" passive is factored as a multiplicative bonus to the attacker, not a vulnerability on the target.
Edited by TheYKcid on March 4, 2019 5:10PM
PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    There's nothing intrinsically wrong about this new order of operations—but we're talking about some very substantial damage creep here.

    If this new equation is to be retained, the devs might want to consider reducing the values on the various vulnerabilities to normalise things.

    @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Gilliam
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Credits to @Reorx_Holybeard for discovering this change and sharing their findings with me. They also discuss some weird bugs that can temporarily disrupt the order of calculations in this earlier post.
    Edited by TheYKcid on March 4, 2019 1:49PM
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • technohic
    technohic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Interesting. I wonder if this had anything to do with the siege damage as well.
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    technohic wrote: »
    Interesting. I wonder if this had anything to do with the siege damage as well.

    Partially, yes, since Fire-based siege does get boosted by the vampire vulnerability. But unrelated to the siege-specific bug/s that boosted siege base damage through the roof and also bypasses shields (which the patch v4.3.6 notes claim to be fixed).
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • Qbiken
    Qbiken
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Would this apply for skills like werewolfs Piercing Howl as well, or does this goes under the same rules as Dawnbreaker as mentioned in your post?

    Crush enemy with a deafening howl, dealing 8291 Physical Damage.

    Deals 30% more damage to enemies that are feared
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    @Qbiken I've only tested Incap, Vamp fire vulnerability, Minor vulnerability, & the FG multiplier—so I can't say for sure (I also don't have any WW toons at the moment). However, the wording of the tooltip strongly suggests an attacker-specific bonus (either additive or multiplicative).

    I suppose it COULD be implemented as a debuff attached to Roar that functions as a vulnerability with regard to incoming Howls of Agony, but that seems highly convoluted. But I guess you never know with ESO coding!
    Edited by TheYKcid on March 4, 2019 1:35PM
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • John_Falstaff
    John_Falstaff
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    TheYKcid wrote: »
    Note that this thread pertains to PvP. It shouldn't have any relevance to PvE since NPCs do not use %-based mitigation as part of their defenses (AFAIK)—but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Begins to talk about issue irrelevant to PvE...
    TheYKcid wrote: »
    If this new equation is to be retained, the devs might want to consider reducing the values on the various vulnerabilities to normalise things.

    ...suggests to nerf PvE as a solution.

    Why not proportionally buff mitigation instead, then, if it will result in same desired outcome?
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    TheYKcid wrote: »
    Note that this thread pertains to PvP. It shouldn't have any relevance to PvE since NPCs do not use %-based mitigation as part of their defenses (AFAIK)—but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Begins to talk about issue irrelevant to PvE...
    TheYKcid wrote: »
    If this new equation is to be retained, the devs might want to consider reducing the values on the various vulnerabilities to normalise things.

    ...suggests to nerf PvE as a solution.

    Why not proportionally buff mitigation instead, then, if it will result in same desired outcome?

    Which would itself be a buff to PvE. Would further PvE power creep be preferable to PvE nerfs? Who decides that? It certainly isn't my call, nor yours.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reverting the equation to its previous iteration as the best solution. I'm just here to highlight an issue and explore options should ZOS commit to this new system. If I missed any possible outcomes, then I'm sorry that I'm not omniscient.
    Edited by TheYKcid on March 4, 2019 1:36PM
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • John_Falstaff
    John_Falstaff
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    @TheYKcid , well, in the above post, you've certainly proposed a nerf to PvE, so one would assume you've decided. More so, you've decided nerf to certain classes as opposed to uniform buff to all classes in PvE; again, who gets to decide PvE class balance. If it's PvP only discussion, then the proposed solutions should probably not come at expense of PvE, too many PvP people consider collateral damage to PvE as something normal as long as they get the changes they need for the part of the game they play.

    There are many solutions. I for one have always been a proponent of better separation between PvP and PvE and more liberal use of battle spirit to make PvP-specific changes. As another measure, some skills already contain clauses that alter their effect if they're used against players. Scaling PvP-specific mitigation is third solution. Scaling overall mitigation and simultaneously incoming damage from PvE sources is yet another. There are many ways to avoid ham-fisted nerf to some classes across the board because changes only concerned PvP performance.
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Thanks for suggesting alternatives. The devs were tagged in post #2 so I hope they see them.
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • Tasear
    Tasear
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ty for info
  • SkysOutThizeOut
    SkysOutThizeOut
    ✭✭✭✭
    @TheYKcid wonder if debuffs like Minor maim are performing the same.
  • Skwor
    Skwor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Seems appropriate. Fire damage was not much of a penalty before. IMO this is closer to what it should have been for vampires.
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    @Skwor Debate about the vamp penalty aside—this doesn't just hurt vamps. Anyone who gets debuffed by Incap, minor vuln, and/or Engulfing Flames, is taking substantially more damage than they should be. Everyone is liable, not just vamps.
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • SkysOutThizeOut
    SkysOutThizeOut
    ✭✭✭✭
    @TheYKcid I’m going to keep bumping this.

    @Skwor vamp is worthless to run now. Undeath is basically non existent. And for what stealth speed or 10% recovery?... then look at werewolf’s that have over 3k bleed ticks right now.
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    @SkysOutThizeOut Maims are factored as %-based mitigation for the target, so they fit into the equation along with everything else like defensive CPs, minor protection, etc, therefore no issues.
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • WrathOfInnos
    WrathOfInnos
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This seems like vamps will be taking a lot more fire damage in PVE too.
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    This seems like vamps will be taking a lot more fire damage in PVE too.

    Yeah it does. I guess I was a bit ambiguous when I said "not relevant to PvE"; I should've specified that that statement referred specifically to the thread title, about MagDKs & NBs. These classes are doing more damage now—but only in PvP.

    Edit: Edited the opening statement to make it less confusing
    Edited by TheYKcid on March 4, 2019 4:57PM
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • LordTareq
    LordTareq
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wow, that is ridiculous. Would have been nice if they added such a major change to the patchnotes. Guess I’m forced now to cure vampirism...thanks a lot zenimax.
    Edited by LordTareq on March 4, 2019 4:53PM
  • TheYKcid
    TheYKcid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    LordTareq wrote: »
    \Would have been nice if they added such a major change to the patchnotes].

    Well... that depends on whether it was an intentional change lol.

    Reorx's investigations (which I linked in post #3) reveal a lot of bugginess with the current vulnerability calculations, so it's anyone's guess how much of it was intended. That said, additive appears to be the new default behaviour.
    PC/NA — Daggerfall Covenant — BGs, Kaalgrontiid
    Kalazar ChalhoubRedguard Nord Stamplar
    Kalaron Caemor — Altmer Magsorc
    Kalahad Cirith — Dunmer Magden
  • ccmedaddy
    ccmedaddy
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    I like this change. Been thinking about dropping vamp on all of my mag chars (already dropped it on 2) and this has made that decision so much easier.
  • anatole1234
    anatole1234
    ✭✭✭
    NB do t have access to Minor vulnerability . Reason they hit harder is cause they ru. shadow mundie which got buffed by 5% and the other 10% from being khajit
  • Vapirko
    Vapirko
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good time to have finally started a mag dk. I knew engulfing flames felt good lol. I just didnt see it on many builds.
  • Ragnarock41
    Ragnarock41
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Because we obviously needed a stamblade buff, duh.

    Edit: I guess this explains how all these sorcs and stamblades were doing way too crazy damage all of a sudden. Informative, such a simple change affected so many things in gameplay. Interesting.
    Edited by Ragnarock41 on March 4, 2019 7:09PM
  • MalagenR
    MalagenR
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    TheYKcid wrote: »
    Credits to @Reorx_Holybeard for discovering this change and sharing their findings with me. They also discuss some weird bugs that can temporarily disrupt the order of calculations in this earlier post.

    You are awesome, thanks for sharing. How is the 10% bonus from Off Balance in CP's effected by this?
  • SkysOutThizeOut
    SkysOutThizeOut
    ✭✭✭✭
    @MalagenR could easily assume the same.
  • susmitds
    susmitds
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Because we obviously needed a stamblade buff, duh.

    Edit: I guess this explains how all these sorcs and stamblades were doing way too crazy damage all of a sudden. Informative, such a simple change affected so many things in gameplay. Interesting.

    It is barely 1 or 2% increase in DPS here. Doesn't explain the rise in DPS, which seems universal.
    Edited by susmitds on March 4, 2019 7:32PM
  • MalagenR
    MalagenR
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I mean if this effects CP's it's exactly why DPS is higher. You have to consider two things - maximum resources got a buff through the change to CP, and now it seems like based on what we are seeing here that some of the other one off damage bonuses have the same type of impact. If I'm understanding correctly, I could be totally wrong. But it makes for an interesting change, if people don't take advantage their damage will be quickly left behind. I wonder if they are trying to force people to move away from sustain and just go to hp tank / speed kill builds to shorten fights by boosting damage.
  • Ragnarock41
    Ragnarock41
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    susmitds wrote: »
    Because we obviously needed a stamblade buff, duh.

    Edit: I guess this explains how all these sorcs and stamblades were doing way too crazy damage all of a sudden. Informative, such a simple change affected so many things in gameplay. Interesting.

    It is barely 1 or 2% increase in DPS here. Doesn't explain the rise in DPS, which seems universal.

    Do you realize this whole post is about PvP? The changes are meaningless in PvE.
    Edited by Ragnarock41 on March 4, 2019 8:17PM
  • SkysOutThizeOut
    SkysOutThizeOut
    ✭✭✭✭
    Bump
Sign In or Register to comment.