The more I think about it, the more I agree with the op. Something needs to be done about protective. Either reduce the total armor at gold to ~1k (this would be around 1.5% damage reduction in PvP) or make it so that the trait is either only physical or spell resistance (this is 3% damage reduction for either spell OR physical). I would prefer the first though and then I would combine the Glyphs of Decrease Physical Harm and decrease spell harm together. Then I would amp that to ~1980 spell and physical resistance, so you actually have to give up a good amount of damage or regen to get the resistance. As it stands right now, the 927 of either physical OR spell resistance of these Glyphs for jewelry is not even close to the value of 174 weapon/spell damage or 169 magic or Stam regen you can get on jewelry Glyphs, or block cost reduction or hell even potion cool down.

Crixus8000 wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

Fortified Brass is itself overtuned, IMO. It gives just a tad less than permanent Major Resolve + Ward without consuming the buff slots. Compare to Duneripper's Scales, which gives 4300 phys+spell resistance only while blocking. Tormentor, giving 3642 phys+spell resistance after Charge. Trial by Fire, giving 7727 spell resistance against one element only. Although these are trash sets even outside comparison with Fortified Brass, point stands -- there are many inconsistencies in 5pc bonuses, picking the right set to prove a point does not prove much.

I always thought brass was undertuned. There are better defensive sets. Honestly the 5p bonus just isn't that great, especially when bleeds and oblivion completely ignore it, and they are both very popular, at least in no cp.

I don't think it's fair to compare it to sets like dunerippers though like you said because that set is totally useless, it's not worth slotting on any build, like many sets in the game that just need changing tbh. I could list them and it would be a pretty big list. But since these sets never get used by anyone and would never be a good choice for any build I would rather see them chaged than decent sets and things like brass nerfed.

going by the rules that ZoS has laid out, that being a 5 piece is a set piece times 2.31, brass is under tuned, it ought to be something like 6869 armor. dune ripper needs something more, like block cost reduction, like 50% or something, to have it be worth using. armor master has the 5% more health and the fact that you can single bar it if you want to make up for the less armor.

Tormentor, giving 3642 phys+spell resistance after Charge.

and taunts. and can be single bared.

Trial by Fire, giving 7727 spell resistance against one element only.

and probably immunity to status effects, like jewelry glyphs that only apply to one element and can be one bared, probably.

Merlight wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

going by the rules that ZoS has laid out, that being a 5 piece is a set piece times 2.31, brass is under tuned, it ought to be something like 6869 armor.

That'd be like 6895 physical OR spell resistance, not both.

there are monster sets single bonus that have both, eg Lord Warden and Mighty Chudan. and the lady mundus and defending weapon trait have both. there is precedent. though if i had my way, i would just make all single set resist bonuses 1487 spell AND physical resists.

Lord_Dexter wrote: »

Strange to find someone complaining being overtuned,

This trait is probably least used in game and need some kind of buff to be par with others.

Look folks, a PvE'er

Merlight wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

going by the rules that ZoS has laid out, that being a 5 piece is a set piece times 2.31, brass is under tuned, it ought to be something like 6869 armor.

That'd be like 6895 physical OR spell resistance, not both.

there are monster sets single bonus that have both, eg Lord Warden and Mighty Chudan. and the lady mundus and defending weapon trait have both. there is precedent.

Monster sets are not a baseline, they're quirks. Some of them lump two regular small set bonuses into one. Warden and Chudan being the only two that actually gain double utility from that.

Mundus Stones have numbers that are almost twice a small set bonus (Apprentice 238 vs 129; Mage 2028 vs 1096). Defending gives 1376 phys+spell resist on one piece. I don't see how that supports your argument that Fortified Brass should get full value on both resistances.

So again, going by the rule that you put forth -- 5pc is a set piece times 2.31 -- Fortified Brass should give 6895 phys, or 6895 spell, or 3447 of both.

man, i really wish you would read my posts.

there are more examples of resists coming in both, see lady, defending and protective. the only times they are just either spell or physical resists is a set bonus or jewelry glyph, both of which i have said now, i would change to have both, a set bonus being 1487 spell and physical resists and the jewelry glyph being 1980 spell and physical resists, at gold. this would make the glyph more useful and bring the set bonus inline with everything else.

as for your statement "Mundus Stones have numbers that are almost twice a small set bonus", we know the exact number uses for those, a mundus stone is 1.85 a set bonus. see this-

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/365904/pc-mac-patch-notes-v3-1-5-horns-of-the-reach

. Mundus Stone values and bonuses have been re-tuned with a focus on improving overall diversity. The Lady was upgraded to grant both Spell and Physical Resistance, and The Lover was completely redesigned to grant Spell and Physical Penetration to counteract The Lady and provide greater flexibility in stat choices.

We’ve also standardized Mundus Stone values against other systems that grant similar bonuses, such as enchantments or Item Sets, so you can customize the stats you care about in each system without needing to worry about weighing the exact values against each other. Mundus Stones are now equivalent to 1.85x of an Item Set bonus.

. Similar to how Mundus Stones were changed, Weapon Trait values have also been rebalanced with a focus on improving overall diversity. Weapon Trait values have a 1:1 pairing with the effectiveness of Mundus Stones; this means if you want armor, you can get the Lady Mundus Stone or a Defending weapon and they will both give you 2752 armor.

. The bonus for having 5 pieces is approximately 2.31x the value of a one-piece bonus. For example, you can get a set bonus of 129 Spell Damage, or a 5-piece bonus of 299 Spell Damage on Julianos.

Some sets, such as Necropotence, have conditional bonuses. Since it’s harder to get these bonuses, we are allowing them to provide up to a 25% increase over other sets. This is why Draugr Hulk now gives 2540 max resource and Necropotence now gives 3150. .

through this, we see that the lady is based off of defending and NOT a item set bonus. just like the thief is based off of precise. so bring up one handed traits, which only matter to 2 skill lines out of 7, that is the majority of them, 72% of the weapon skill lines, or 6 out of the 7 skill lines or 85% more precisely, as the only one that HAS to have half the value of a weapon trait is S/B, is really illogical and as you put it, "they're quirks".

i have said all along that the 2974 of the single set bonuses is the anomaly but you can see how they got that number, as it is simply the lady mundai, 2752/1.85= 1487, which happens to be single set bonus of pen, and then that number is multiplied by 2 for some reason, probably to make up for the fact it is just spell or physical resist, as it was probably easier to code the set bonuses that way then to put physical along with spell resist or visa versa on every set bonus, so you get 1487*2 to get 2974. so using this logic, would put brass at 3434 armor and spell resists. you would probably understand that one. which i would support too. i was simply using 2974 as the baseline for the literal math out that we are given right now. and right now by ZoSes own rules, that being a 5 piece is 2.31, you would get 6869 armor for brass.



but i have to remind you and everyone again, at the end of the day, we are talking about single digit difference in "real world" applications. the difference in mitigation between even 6869 and 3434 is only 5% damage mitigation. and that is not the actual amount you would get, as all mitigation sources in eso are multicative and they are actually closer to 1-2% in difference.

Merlight wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

...
we know the exact number uses for those, a mundus stone is 1.85 a set bonus.

...

i have said all along that the 2974 of the single set bonuses is the anomaly but you can see how they got that number, as it is simply the lady mundai, 2752/1.85= 1487, which happens to be single set bonus of pen, and then that number is multiplied by 2 for some reason, probably to make up for the fact it is just spell or physical resist, as it was probably easier to code the set bonuses that way then to put physical along with spell spell on every set bonus, so you get 1487*2 to get 2974. so using this logic, would put brass at 3434 armor and spell resists. you would probably understand that one. which i would support too. i was simply using 2974 as the baseline for the literal math out that we are given right now. and right now by ZoSes own rules, that being a 5 piece is 2.31, you would get 6869 armor for brass.

I tried to follow your math, really did, and I still don't understand how you reached the conclusion that by current ZOS rules brass would get 6869 armor (that is both physical and spell resistance).

I'll take Lady, divide by 1.85 to get set bonus value, then multiply by 2.31 to get 5pc bonus value.
2752 / 1.85 * 2.31 = 3436

Right now Fortified brass 5pc is ~1.88x Lady, that is ~3.48x set bonus. Way above 2.31x

Read the last sentences.

Here-

. . i was simply using 2974 as the baseline for the literal math out that we are given right now. and right now by ZoSes own rules, that being a 5 piece is 2.31, you would get 6869 armor for brass.

Then read the sentences beforehand-

. i have said all along that the 2974 of the single set bonuses is the anomaly but you can see how they got that number, as it is simply the lady mundai, 2752/1.85= 1487, which happens to be single set bonus of pen, and then that number is multiplied by 2 for some reason, probably to make up for the fact it is just spell or physical resist, as it was probably easier to code the set bonuses that way then to put physical along with spell resist or visa versa on every set bonus, so you get 1487*2 to get 2974. so using this logic, would put brass at 3434 armor and spell resists. you would probably understand that one. which i would support too

.

Abhaya wrote: »

Compared to a generic set bonus of 2975 physical OR spell resist, protective gives 1844 of both resists. Multiply this by 2 since it gives both puts the total value at 3688 total resist added which is 1.24 the value of a set bonus. This is taking into consideration that monster sets (as far as I can remember) are the only pieces that give both resists in a 1 set bonus and won’t be used in this comparison since they are unique. Compare this to robust which gives 870 stam when a stam 1 set bonus gives 1096 stamina putting the robust trait at 0.796 the value of a 1 set bonus. You can do the same with infused weapon damage giving about 88 weapon damage which is .68 the value of a 129 weapon damage set bonus.

Min/maxing in this game would be much less convoluted if there were any pattern to the numbers and I’m sure this example isn’t the only case. If you truly want to make the most of your stats you can’t even decide if you want to run a damage set with protective traits on jewelry or a defensive set with infused or robust traits because one option is just more stat dense than the other. #builddiversity

Edit: Got my math wrong on infused and it is closer to the value of protective at about 1.12 the value of a standard armor set bonus if you are in medium. While still slightly behind, it is definitely better off than my initial conclusion while robust is now the farthest behind.

Bro no it is not. Leave it as is, tired of senseless nerfs to things.