The maintenance is complete and the PTS is now back online. The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test!
The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Maintenance for the week of April 15:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 16, 8:00AM EDT (12:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 16, 8:00AM EDT (12:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
Talfyg's Treachery vs Law of Julianos [Uesp build editor answer]
martijnlv40
✭✭✭
So I was wondering if this set is going to be worth it above Julianos, in general but perhaps also class specific. This is from a PvE perspective, and just assuming the 10% extra flame damage doesn't matter at all.
Talfyg’s Treachery:
2 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
3 – Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka
4 – Adds 129 Spell Damage
5 – Increases Spell Damage by 372. Increases damage taken from Flame and Fighter’s Guild abilities by 10%.
Law of Julianos:
2 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
3 – Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka
4 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
5 – Increases Spell Damage by 300
I understand that it's quite build/stats specific, and thus maths heavy, but I'd love to get an answer or a good equation. The little math I could do on it showed that it might be worse than Julianos, even with the increased stats. And I didn't even factor the other new light set Elemental Catalyst in yet. So it's basically 3,8% crit chance vs 201 spell damage, which is buffable to ~261, a bit more with the sorc class.
Answer: yes, it very likely beats out Julianos, especially on a Sorcerer. Doesn’t make it the best set or anything, but still fun. Perhaps a small buff to 389 spell damage (3x the set bonus) would give it some more incentive to farm.
Edited by martijnlv40 on July 28, 2020 5:27PM Talfyg’s Treachery:
2 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
3 – Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka
4 – Adds 129 Spell Damage
5 – Increases Spell Damage by 372. Increases damage taken from Flame and Fighter’s Guild abilities by 10%.
Law of Julianos:
2 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
3 – Adds 1096 Maximum Magicka
4 – Adds 833 Spell Critical
5 – Increases Spell Damage by 300
I understand that it's quite build/stats specific, and thus maths heavy, but I'd love to get an answer or a good equation. The little math I could do on it showed that it might be worse than Julianos, even with the increased stats. And I didn't even factor the other new light set Elemental Catalyst in yet. So it's basically 3,8% crit chance vs 201 spell damage, which is buffable to ~261, a bit more with the sorc class.
Answer: yes, it very likely beats out Julianos, especially on a Sorcerer. Doesn’t make it the best set or anything, but still fun. Perhaps a small buff to 389 spell damage (3x the set bonus) would give it some more incentive to farm.
1
-
albertberku✭✭✭For PvP, Talfyg is better. Incoming damage is never an issue. Just has to keep an eye on if there are MagDK s or Dawnbreakers around. I will go with Talfyg + New Moon. And then mythic ring for speed. On top of that, i will be a vampire, as well.
Main difference is 4th piece stat for me. Mag Damage vs. Critical. And how i see it, it is straight +130 extra dmg, as criticals doesnt really mean much for pvp if you are not building for it specificially, like a khajiit stamblade with shadow mundus, etc.
0 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭albertberku wrote: »For PvP, Talfyg is better. Incoming damage is never an issue. Just has to keep an eye on if there are MagDK s or Dawnbreakers around. I will go with Talfyg + New Moon. And then mythic ring for speed. On top of that, i will be a vampire, as well.
Main difference is 4th piece stat for me. Mag Damage vs. Critical. And how i see it, it is straight +130 extra dmg, as criticals doesnt really mean much for pvp if you are not building for it specificially, like a khajiit stamblade with shadow mundus, etc.
Excuse me, I forgot to mention I meant in PvE situations, so for example in vMA. I figured it would be better in PvP since crits matter less there. I'll edit my post, thank you anyway!0 -
thadjarvis✭✭✭✭It is more stat dense that Julianos. Probably NMA too: get 29 spell damage and incurr 5% cost? Could maybe still use it for trash for the pen and higher spell damage, but the new set looks strong against it generally in PvE.
Though in general BSW is likely a stronger alternative to them all.
BSW would average 490*75% = 367.5. That is 4.5 less but for short fights it's up immediately so the average will be higher. The burning status effect likely does more damage than ~5 spell damage. You can front bar BSW without loosing the 5th piece bonus unlike the other sets. IE BSW is superior as a body set and easier to farm. Significantly superior if in need of a front barred set.Edited by thadjarvis on July 28, 2020 2:21PM0 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭thadjarvis wrote: »It is more stat dense that Julianos. Probably NMA too: get 29 spell damage and incurr 5% cost? Could maybe still use it for trash for the pen and higher spell damage, but the new set looks strong against it generally in PvE.
Though in general BSW is likely a stronger alternative to them all.
BSW would average 490*75% = 367.5. That is 4.5 less but for short fights it's up immediately so the average will be higher. The burning status effect likely does more damage than ~5 spell damage. You can front bar BSW without loosing the 5th piece bonus unlike the other sets. IE BSW is superior as a body set and easier to farm. Significantly superior if in need of a front barred set.
While I agreed with you at first, you are quite off, I just didn't notice it. BSW has a 66,7% uptime at most, which gives 327 spell damage. That's better than julianos, but again BSW has a spell damage bonus instead of a crit bonus. I think the 50 spell damage is better than the burning proc, unless you're a DK. So that would make Talfyg's Treachery a better set than BSW on the other classes. So my question still stands, how does the crit chance compare to the extra spell damage?0 -
thadjarvis✭✭✭✭incorrect math removed to not confuse otheresEdited by thadjarvis on July 28, 2020 2:21PM0
-
martijnlv40✭✭✭thadjarvis wrote: »@martijnlv40
We have compare the same patch. The new set is PTS. BSW has been changed. See 6.1.0 notes:
"Burning Spellweave:
Reduced the Spell Damage granted from this set to 490, down from 525.
This set no longer has a proc chance. Now when you deal damage with a flame ability, you apply the burning status effect to the enemy and increase you spell damage by 490 for 8 seconds. This effect can occur once every 12 seconds."
Yeah we do that already, but I think you're making a calculation error in your head. 8 seconds every 12 seconds = 2/3 = 66,7%, not 75%, that would be 9 seconds every 12 seconds.0 -
thadjarvis✭✭✭✭Correct thanks.
You'd have to test it as mundus, class, race, other sets can all affect the difference between crit vs damage. If you dont have PTS you can plug it into the uesp build editor to get an estimate.Edited by thadjarvis on July 28, 2020 2:17PM0 -
CleymenZero✭✭✭✭✭
✭Umm why are you guys not considering Perfected Siroria?
At 5 stacks, it bests BSW and at 6 stacks it's better than Talfyg.
You'll say my math is wrong but and I'll just point out that you get an extra 1k max mag which is about 104 spell damage I think.
So, it takes 5-6 seconds for Siroria to equal these sets and anything extra is stronger.
The requirement to have a stationary fight no longer applies or is simply not as severe. Heck, I see myself using it in vAS, I tried it in vCR before and it was decent (and I'm leagues away from the best players).
All in all, the changes to Siroria are welcome and it will only be a little bit tricky to fully take advantage of its power and will be easy to at least equal those sets mentioned above.1 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭CleymenZero wrote: »Umm why are you guys not considering Perfected Siroria?
At 5 stacks, it bests BSW and at 6 stacks it's better than Talfyg.
You'll say my math is wrong but and I'll just point out that you get an extra 1k max mag which is about 104 spell damage I think.
So, it takes 5-6 seconds for Siroria to equal these sets and anything extra is stronger.
The requirement to have a stationary fight no longer applies or is simply not as severe. Heck, I see myself using it in vAS, I tried it in vCR before and it was decent (and I'm leagues away from the best players).
All in all, the changes to Siroria are welcome and it will only be a little bit tricky to fully take advantage of its power and will be easy to at least equal those sets mentioned above.
I definitely know about Siroria, but I was specifically wondering about Julianos vs Talfyg's, and perphaps BSW is also one that can be considered in that comparison.0 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭So I did the build editor, and it would seem there is a definite advantage towards Talfyg's Treachery compared to Julianos.
Talfyg's: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Special:EsoBuildData?id=261550
Julianos: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Special:EsoBuildData?id=261555
The editor can't really comprehend the pts values and sets yet when you preview a build but I assure you everything is correct.
This is on my own build, using Julianos instead of Siroria or False God's Devotion or whatever, and this inclused an extra 8% bonus spell damage. So I think this is definitely a good set to pick up, despite its small disadvantages. Dragonknights will still probably go for Burning Spellweave, but I think both BSW and Talfyg's are a small, though direct upgrade to Julianos.
I removed the 8% extra spell damage (passive) and got this:
19448 / 19236 = 1,1% difference
18876 / 18690 = 1% difference
So Talfyg's (of course) even a little bit better to run on a sorc compared to the other classes.
The only thing is your front bar enchant will crit a bit less often, which will reduce the difference to less than the 1%, still an upgrade though.Edited by martijnlv40 on July 28, 2020 3:33PM0 -
WrathOfInnos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭In trials, with Warhorn and Elemental Catalyst, the 4pc crit will perform better than the 4pc Spell Damage by about 0.5% to 0.9% DPS. It takes about half of the extra 72 Spell Damage to make up this difference, so Talfyg’s ends up better by 30-something Spell Damage. IMO that’s not worth taking 10% more Fire Damage.1 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭WrathOfInnos wrote: »In trials, with Warhorn and Elemental Catalyst, the 4pc crit will perform better than the 4pc Spell Damage by about 0.5% to 0.9% DPS. It takes about half of the extra 72 Spell Damage to make up this difference, so Talfyg’s ends up better by 30-something Spell Damage. IMO that’s not worth taking 10% more Fire Damage.
Elemental Catalyst indeed a good point which I couldn't factor in the editor (yet). I did factor in Warhorn though, I did a trial dummy scenario buffwise. I'd say Talfyg really seems like a dungeon or overworld set, and a bit less so arena. Not a bad one to obtain.0 -
WrathOfInnos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I see no reason why anyone would use Talfyg over BSW. BSW is more burst for the first 8s, and the extra Burning procs will more than make up for the difference in average Spell Damage. BSW also works well on front bar, while Talfyg and Juli do not carryover to back. I wouldn’t use Talfyg even if the 10% Fire vulnerability was removed.Edited by WrathOfInnos on July 28, 2020 4:53PM0 -
martijnlv40✭✭✭martijnlv40 wrote: »WrathOfInnos wrote: »In trials, with Warhorn and Elemental Catalyst, the 4pc crit will perform better than the 4pc Spell Damage by about 0.5% to 0.9% DPS. It takes about half of the extra 72 Spell Damage to make up this difference, so Talfyg’s ends up better by 30-something Spell Damage. IMO that’s not worth taking 10% more Fire Damage.
Elemental Catalyst indeed a good point which I couldn't factor in the editor (yet). I did factor in Warhorn though, I did a trial dummy scenario buffwise. I'd say Talfyg really seems like a dungeon or overworld set, and a bit less so arena. Not a bad one to obtain.
Alright so I factored Elemental Catalyst manually, and honestly it barely matters. It's about 0,11% dps change towards Julianos.WrathOfInnos wrote: »I see no reason why anyone would use Talfyg over BSW. BSW is more burst for the first 8s, and the extra Burning procs will more than make up for the difference in average Spell Damage. BSW also works well on front bar, while Talfyg and Juli do not carryover to back. I wouldn’t use Talfyg even if the 10% Fire vulnerability was removed.
Yeah I guess you're right, I undervalue burning procs probably. The only argument I will put against that is that you might be on your back bar for some of the 8 seconds BSW is up, which lessens the benefit.0 -
WrathOfInnos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yeah Burning deals decent damage, and increases Unstable Wall damage by 20%.0 -
albertberku✭✭✭I am not much PvE r but from what i have observed so far i would assume people would prioritize julianos over talfyg, if these are going to be only options. But as other people mentioned, bsw is preferred over julianos.
Mainly because crits are far more important than damage. If you test both on a dps dummy for example, i dont think talfyg will be able to perform better over julianos, or at least there will be very little difference. And i wouldnt go to vMA or trials and maybe some veteran dungeons, as well with 10% extra incoming fire damage.
If we are talking strictly about vMA, i would personally pick julianos among 3 options, since it is just reliable.Edited by albertberku on July 28, 2020 6:40PM0 -
YandereGirlfriend✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭If you're using Force Pulse you should also consider Scathing Mage.
IMO, it's the best compromise between stacking Spell Critical and raw Spell damage for a magSorc's non-trial set.0