AC may not be working correctly

[Splorf22]

I did this test for the SK shield thread. The error bars aren't small enough to be really sure (and I'm not going to do the 3 hour test that would require) but the basic point is that equipping a 40AC shield was somewhere between worthless and actively bad for mitigation even over a decently sized test. 40 item ac (70 displayed AC) is a huge, huge amount: it's basically the equivalent to wearing a Kunark tank BP and going commando.

I did a test with Sakuragi vs the Cliff Golem in OT with and without the Shield of Elders (40 item AC). Both tests were about 5 minutes and had about 150 hits with various damage values. I then bootstrapped the data (my new favorite technique) to get:

1120: mean: 113.5 +- 3.4 [95% CI: 106.6 120.4]
1050: mean: 111.3 +- 3.9 [95% CI: 103.6 119.1]
1120 > 1050: 66.7%

What this means is that with 1120AC, I expect the average hit to be around 113.5 and almost certainly in the range 106-120. With 1050AC, I expect the average hit to be 111.3 (yes, this is LESS. I double checked to make sure I didn't mix up the parses) and almost certainly in the range 104-119. The probability that you will take more damage with 1120 AC is 67%.

The variance in this data is quite high. From what I understand, hits are either min, max, or a purely random hit in between. So I modified the data appropriately, which removes some of the randomness:

Replacing any number not 48 or 172 by 109.5
1120: mean: 111.8 +- 2.6 [95% CI: 106.6 117.1]
1050: mean: 111.5 +- 3.0 [95% CI: 105.6 117.5]
1120 > 1050: 52.0%

Thus we can see that the 1050 parse was a bit luckier on the damage interval hits, but the variance is still quite large. The variance goes down as the square root of the number of samples, so we'd need about 50 times as much data (3 hours with each configuration) to get a confidence interval with a size of +- 1. Needless to say, I don't think I can rent Coeur for 6 hours.

My conclusions:
1. Someone not named Sakuragi should tank the cliff golem for a few hours
2. Pasi is correct; for raids HP >> AC. Not only is the average value of AC quite small, but you care about about the worst case more. Based on this test if you are a main tank I would not give up even one HP for additional AC. This is actually good news for Iksar warriors!
3. Even if AC is working correctly (which is only a 50% chance according to this data, heh) the benefit of a ridiculous +40AC shield is very unlikely to be more than a few percent for high-level mobs.

Of course, all of this may be different for xp mobs with lower attack values. For reference, without the shield Sakuragi has about 170 raw item AC.

[Handull]

Is there an AC hardcap or softcap on p99 that makes a 40ac shield useless? Should there be such a soft/hardcap if one exists?

[Splorf22]

/GU Tanking summary for: Sakuragi --- Total damage: 99562 --- Avg hit: 83 --- Swings: 2837 --- Defended: 368 (13%) --- Hit: 1186 (41.8%) --- Missed: 1283 (45.2%) --- Accuracy: 48% --- Dodged: 111 (4.3%) --- Parried: 162 (5.7%) --- Blocked: 0 (0%) --- Riposted: 95 (3.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

/GU Tanking summary for: Lavarian --- Total damage: 21748 --- Avg hit: 73 --- Swings: 604 --- Defended: 36 (6%) --- Hit: 296 (49%) --- Missed: 272 (45%) --- Accuracy: 52.1% --- Dodged: 15 (2.6%) --- Parried: 7 (1.2%) --- Blocked: 0 (0%) --- Riposted: 11 (1.8%) --- Absorbed: 3 (0.5%)

/GU Tanking summary for: Winajil --- Total damage: 6087 --- Avg hit: 86 --- Swings: 112 --- Defended: 0 (0%) --- Hit: 70 (62.5%) --- Missed: 42 (37.5%) --- Accuracy: 62.5% --- Dodged: 0 (0%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 0 (0%) --- Riposted: 0 (0%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

So basically from a mitigation standpoint a L60 bard does better than I do by 15%; in fact a L58 shaman is almost as good. My warrior gets hit at exactly the same rate as well. In fact from a per swing standpoint he takes almost exactly the same damage as a bard (worse mitigation vs higher dodge/riposte/etc), so the only difference is higher hp. I'm also surprised that he was missed at exactly the same rate: I would think the iksar bonus (supposedly to avoidance) and higher defensive skills would be at work here as well.

edit: Also I just looked at Lavarian's wiki page and it shows about 153AC of gear. I'm guessing that he wasn't wearing his resist gear; if not we could give him another +20 for 173, which would put him about the same as Sakuragi. But its not like he had some huge mitigation bonus.

Again, these kind of parses just don't add up. The steel warrior ubermob tanking guide http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13 suggests that 100AC should be good for a 3-4% damage reduction against a high-level dragon; I would think it would be more against something like the cliff golem.

[Tecmos Deception]

And to think you told me I should make a warrior alt!

[Splorf22]

And to think you told me I should make a warrior alt!

They are fun anyway!

AC has been known to be broken on here for years my friend, but good you are getting it down to the nitty gritty

Well technically, as an Iksar Warrior, I'm likely to get worse if they ever fix it :D

Also it occurred to me that I did tank High Scale Kirn (max hit =400) so I went back and removed everything from the parse except revenants and wanderers. Results:

/GU Tanking summary for: Sakuragi --- Total damage: 80275 --- Avg hit: 84 --- Swings: 2159 --- Defended: 271 (12.6%) --- Hit: 950 (44%) --- Missed: 938 (43.4%) --- Accuracy: 50.3% --- Dodged: 79 (4%) --- Parried: 119 (5.5%) --- Blocked: 0 (0%) --- Riposted: 73 (3.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

/GU Tanking summary for: Lavarian --- Total damage: 18491 --- Avg hit: 77 --- Swings: 453 --- Defended: 29 (6.4%) --- Hit: 239 (52.8%) --- Missed: 185 (40.8%) --- Accuracy: 56.4% --- Dodged: 13 (3%) --- Parried: 5 (1.1%) --- Blocked: 0 (0%) --- Riposted: 9 (2%) --- Absorbed: 2 (0.4%)

Mitigation doesn't really change, but at least my warrior is getting hit a bit less now.

[Adolphus]

Can confirm that AC is broken. Rolled a paladin in live in the same era and the mitigation for a paladin on p1999 isn't even close. It's not just slightly off - it's way, way off here.

[Splorf22]

Bumping this despitethe fact that my iksar warrior might get worse. Was talking to Sentenza, and he saying that he feels as an Iksar SK he tanks just as well as a 'normal' SK despite a lack of some 100 AC. And he did win the BOTB despite what should have been a moderately decent handicap.

[Zapatos]

How does your damage taken change if your character is naked vs being fully equipped in AC gear? Maybe that sort of parse was already posted somewhere but it seems like that would be a smoking gun to your argument.

[Splorf22]

I mean I'm sure there is some code in the server that is a function of AC and is related to mitigation. I just don't think its working correctly.

For example if Lavarian and I both have the same item AC, I would think that as a warrior I would take less damage than him owing to my higher defense skill. Instead he's taking less than me. And we haven't even mentioned my iksar AC bonus which in theory should be doing . . . something.

Also we know from the Steel Warriors post that 100 AC should be 3-4% damage reduction vs a L70 boss. So a 40AC shield (70 displayed ac) should be 2-3% vs a L70 boss and I'm guessing much higher against a lower level mob like the cliff golem . . . say 5%, maybe even a bit more. For example, the warrior guide recommends AC. There is simply no way people would figure this kind of stuff out without parsers unless stacking AC really could reduce your damage by 10% or more.

Or read the enchanter guide. He seems seriously concerned about one hasted (not dual wielding) pet. Maybe thats because enchanters mitigate too well here? If cloth casters took even 10% more damage per hit that would make a bit difference in enchanter soloing which I know everyone hates.

[Tecmos Deception]

Or read the enchanter guide. He seems seriously concerned about one hasted (not dual wielding) pet. Maybe thats because enchanters mitigate too well here? If cloth casters took even 10% more damage per hit that would make a bit difference in enchanter soloing which I know everyone hates.

Xorn's enchanter guide?

[koros]

I think you're right on cloth casters mitigating too well. That's probably a big part of the reason that charm seems so much "easier" here.

[Splorf22]

I just checked my old test. Sak was getting hit for max 10% of the time; Loraen 20%. That is the only difference in mitigation. Now, enchanters do get hit a lot more. But again, even changing that number to 25-30% would make a big difference in terms of enchanter soloing.

I was looking back at my older tests and it does look like I was maybe able to distinguish some effect from AC. I'm going to try and run another test or two to see what the difference is (the results there: 1053AC: 79 hit, 1016AC: 76 hit, 960AC: 83 hit, 874AC: 91.5 hit). So maybe either I was just real, real unlucky, or AC only matters vs much lower level mobs.

I'll try and run a few more tests and figure stuff out. Or Nilbog could post the damage code and save me a lot of time :D

[diplo]

Ancient Cyclops seems to be working correctly in OOT. ;)

[khanable]

Or Nilbog could post the damage code and save me a lot of time :D

Do want

[koros]

I wish they would, it's not like 95% of the playerbase will care, and in addition this is a recreation of 14 year old content, they haven't been overly secretive about internal code in the past. Rogean has posted many code snippets.

[spoils]

wts all kinds of cobalt armor because of this parse!

[Splorf22]

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=397733&postcount=1

OK, I am guessing that Kanras directly implemented the formulas Treats found. Lets assume this is so. In that case

Melee Mitigation = (Buffs/4) + (Defense/3) + (Equipment * 4/3)

So we can assume that since Warriors and Monks have almost the same defense skill, their mitigation should depend almost entirely on equipped AC. The really good part about this post is the part we can take as more or less gospel by Kahvok, an EQ designer. They ran some tests around Luclin before the monk AC nerf:


Class War Pal Mnk
Level 51 51 51
Raw Item AC 184 181 107 (effective: 163)
Avg Hit 72.6 72.9 74.6
% Hits for Max 10.2% 10.5% 11.5%

Class War Pal Mnk (prenerf)
Level 60 60 60
Raw Item AC 296 281 163 (effective: 228)
Avg Hit 107.3 109.9 113.6

Class War Pal Mnk (postnerf)
Effective: 295 281 195
Avg Hit 106 108.9 121.3

Since warriors and monks both have the same defense skill, if the information in Treats' post is correct, then we can compare them directly. Going from 195 to 228 was good for a huge 6.5% reduction in damage. Going from 228 to 289 was good for an additional 5.5% reduction in damage. If there is some sort of diminishing returns (logical) then going from 155 to 195 as I did in my test should be MORE than 6.5% (40 vs 33, and in a higher part of the curve). That's well out of the range of error of the test. Again, these are the kind of numbers that make sense. AC was supposed to be good; no one would have figured out how to stack AC if +40AC was a 2-3% decrease in damage.

If you run the numbers, you'll find that 1AC is good for about a 0.11% increase in damage. 5000HP * 0.1% = 5.5HP, which is exactly the kind of ratio people used to quote. It's probably a bit less for ubermobs with huge attack values, and a bit more for XP mobs with lower values. A bit more if your AC is lower and a bit less if its higher. You get the idea.

Actually this thread is too depressing, lets just let it die. On Live Iksar warriors didn't have to go 3 years without armor upgrades. RAGE

P.S. Treat's post suggests the iksar bonus should apply to avoidance, but the actual wayback machine suggests mitigation. http://web.archive.org/web/20040822100650/http://members.cox.net/sherrick/eqnumbers.htm#_Toc536608108 It sounds like no one was really sure. Mitigation would certainly make way more sense.

[Zeelot]

Bump.

I agree that AC needs to be looked at. On p99 it is much more beneficial to practically ignore AC and just max out hp. This isn't how it should be!

[Treats]

There are a lot of things wrong in my AC post unfortunately. I don't think Kanras implemented any of it here, he would have posted and I think there would have been a larger discussion.

The Iksar bonus is applied to Mitigation AC not Avoidance

There is also a Bonus for the Rogue Class (I think it's the same as Monk, not positive)

Hardcap ACs are all wrong

Hardcap Mitigation AC is based on the Raw Worn AC cap -- Melee 289 @ Level 60

Avoidance AC needs no Hardcap -- It's capped by Defense Skill and AGI cap (255)

AC from Buffs have no Hardcap

I had a discussion about AC a few months ago with someone (some of you can probably guess who) and his conclusion was AC on P1999 needs to be totally reworked. There are way too many things wrong with how it is determined.

It was explained to me how it was suppose to work correctly but I don't remember now (I wouldn't share his work anyway if I did remember).

I would only reference Kavhok's information from my AC post.

[gotrocks]

:( this is very depressing. Means being an iksar in velious doesn't mean what it should, and that being an iksar in kunark means more than it should :D

[xcyberpeenixx]

:( this is very depressing. Means being an iksar in velious doesn't mean what it should, and that being an iksar in kunark means more than it should :D

The entire thing is depressing. If AC is truly broken is it even being looked at? That's kind of a big part of the game. Does anyone know if its being addressed or?

[Jimjam]

I'm begining to think maybe AC hard caps are working okay and maybe mobs have much higher offensive skills than they should for their level?

[Wrathis]

Have we heard one way or the other if this is still an issue? I'm looking at gearing my Paladin and as of right now I was looking at high AC items. If AC is all wonky I might just look at stamina and HP items instead.

[pallius]

60 pal here. I focus on hp and resists. Haven't seen any solid evidence that AC works right but I was away for 2 months.

HP and resists definitely work, though.

Really hope they get AC solid before Velious. Lots of nice pally gear that is good due to high AC....

[Kutsumo]

After reading this, wondering if I should regear my monk. I went top AC gear in most slots at the expense of stats.

[heartbrand]

dunno ac makes a huge dif on my warrior

[Furniture]

Ok I do not have time to read through the whole thread but I want to add that about a year ago I parsed fights on p99 with a mid level druid to as a basis on fixing ac on my private server. With different sets of gear I noticed significant reduction of average hits so I am certain that the ac code does work. If mobs at higher levels are not showing the same results the issue may be the atk rating on the high mobs are set too high. If this is the case then we would need a lot of parses at different levels to determine at which point mob atk rating needs to be scaled. I am not home so I couldn't read through the thread so if this wasn't the case i apologize.

[Lostprophets]

For what it's worth...

Over the years, I've heard this is an Emulator bug, not a P99 bug (correct me if I'm wrong but that's my guess is to why no devs have posted here in the 3 months it's been posted/replied on). I agree it needs to be looked at, but it's basically in a whole other ball park from the looks. After having experience playing a War / SK / Pal, I can agree that SK / Pally mitigation is garbage. lol

I've also heard AC works same way from P99 to EZ Server, once reaching around 5-6k AC is when it starts to work accurately (which isn't right obviously as we'll never see 5-6(ish)k AC on p99..I think? I never played back in '99 to know for sure).

I know this is not classic, nor do i have valid proof - but just relaying word of mouth from what I've heard about the subject after seeing this thread pop up again and again.

I would personally recommend any tank class to focus on STA / HP gear over AC if / until this can get fixed.

[big mouth chew]

ac works in pve for sure
wear ac gear and tank then switch it for resist gear and tank the same mob
u'll notice a biiig difference

[Alecta]

I know 100% for sure it doesn't work in pvp, as i get hit just as hard on my warrior as i would on any other character. I probably have one of the highest AC warriors on red and I tend to get hit by high level mobs for their maximum damage pretty consistently as well. I'm assuming since this thread has no developer response that it hasn't been looked into but going off of the parses posted in this thread it's pretty obvious that it isn't working quite right.

In PvP you mitigate as if you were a mob (Don't ask me why it's set up that way.) So AC matters in PvP, but not as much as in PvE, which apparently isn't as much as it should.

It's something that's on my radar to fix (the PvP part). I noticed that when I was mucking around with defensive disciplines in PvP.

[Retti_]

My cleric has highest ac on server

[Splorf22]

ac works in pve for sure
wear ac gear and tank then switch it for resist gear and tank the same mob
u'll notice a biiig difference

If you had bothered to read the original post, you would have noticed that I equipped a 40AC shield and took either more or the same damage over a 10 minute fight. If you don't have a parse, you are simply deluding yourself.

Also Alecta I don't suppose you could do us all a big favor and post the AC code? I mean its not impossible that its just hard to measure.

[MrSparkle001]

In PvP you mitigate as if you were a mob (Don't ask me why it's set up that way.) So AC matters in PvP, but not as much as in PvE, which apparently isn't as much as it should.

It's something that's on my radar to fix (the PvP part). I noticed that when I was mucking around with defensive disciplines in PvP.

Fix the PvE part first. It's kind of a big deal for AC to work properly.

[Nizzarr]

Fix the PvE part first. It's kind of a big deal for AC to work properly.

Location: Red '99

[big mouth chew]

If you had bothered to read the original post, you would have noticed that I equipped a 40AC shield and took either more or the same damage over a 10 minute fight. If you don't have a parse, you are simply deluding yourself.

Also Alecta I don't suppose you could do us all a big favor and post the AC code? I mean its not impossible that its just hard to measure.

nope
looks like you didnt bother reading ppls replies about a softcap
shits classic & ur mad

[Holey]

as tested, backstabbing only on warriors i was doing average of less than 200 i might get lucky and pull off a 400+ on an sk.

[Alecta]

Also Alecta I don't suppose you could do us all a big favor and post the AC code? I mean its not impossible that its just hard to measure.

Yar, will ask about it and let ya know. I post a lot of the guts of the pvp code because, well, no one else on staff cares too much. Will check on the AC stuff.

Fix the PvE part first. It's kind of a big deal for AC to work properly.

I will get on it right after I start working on Velious.

[Splorf22]

nope
looks like you didnt bother reading ppls replies about a softcap
shits classic & ur mad

Shield AC goes over the softcap . . . which was not implemented until Luclin, before which we had a hardcap . . . which is at 289, while my Iksar warrior has 160ish base AC and 200 with the shield . . . were the AC changes to be implemented, my warrior would get worse, not better.

Conclusion: 'u mad bro' has become the new feces for knuckledragging morons to sling over the Internet.

P.S. Thanks Alecta!

[Nirgon]

I will get on it right after I start working on Velious.

Head mole, son

[big mouth chew]

min-maxxers like you have ruined your own lands, you'll not ruin mine!

[MrSparkle001]

Location: Red '99



Fixing AC on red99 to be broken like PvE would suck. It doesn't seem like AC does anything in PvE, but admittedly I haven't tested it extensively. So you fix it so it works properly in PvE then fix it on red99. Why would you purposely make it broken, you know?

[Aeolwind]

IIRC AC didn't do much on live either. It was a byproduct of pumping HP/STA/Relevant stat. It wasn't until Velious that it actually started to matter. AOW & Lord Vyemm made it pretty important.

Most of the mobs in Velious had sick, disgusting AC's. The '1' spam on Vulak is rather humorous from the logs I have.

KEEP WORKING ON THIS however. It is important to get the DB/DI working correctly with AC/Defense in general. It'll make it easier for me to kill you then =D.

[Splorf22]

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=397733&postcount=1

OK, I am guessing that Kanras directly implemented the formulas Treats found. Lets assume this is so. In that case

Melee Mitigation = (Buffs/4) + (Defense/3) + (Equipment * 4/3)

So we can assume that since Warriors and Monks have almost the same defense skill, their mitigation should depend almost entirely on equipped AC. The really good part about this post is the part we can take as more or less gospel by Kahvok, an EQ designer. They ran some tests around Luclin before the monk AC nerf:


Class War Pal Mnk
Level 51 51 51
Raw Item AC 184 181 107 (effective: 163)
Avg Hit 72.6 72.9 74.6
% Hits for Max 10.2% 10.5% 11.5%

Class War Pal Mnk (prenerf)
Level 60 60 60
Raw Item AC 296 281 163 (effective: 228)
Avg Hit 107.3 109.9 113.6

Class War Pal Mnk (postnerf)
Effective: 295 281 195
Avg Hit 106 108.9 121.3

Since warriors and monks both have the same defense skill, if the information in Treats' post is correct, then we can compare them directly. Going from 195 to 228 was good for a huge 6.5% reduction in damage. Going from 228 to 289 was good for an additional 5.5% reduction in damage. If there is some sort of diminishing returns (logical) then going from 155 to 195 as I did in my test should be MORE than 6.5% (40 vs 33, and in a higher part of the curve). That's well out of the range of error of the test. Again, these are the kind of numbers that make sense. AC was supposed to be good; no one would have figured out how to stack AC if +40AC was a 2-3% decrease in damage.

If you run the numbers, you'll find that 1AC is good for about a 0.11% increase in damage. 5000HP * 0.1% = 5.5HP, which is exactly the kind of ratio people used to quote. It's probably a bit less for ubermobs with huge attack values, and a bit more for XP mobs with lower values. A bit more if your AC is lower and a bit less if its higher. You get the idea.

Actually this thread is too depressing, lets just let it die. On Live Iksar warriors didn't have to go 3 years without armor upgrades. RAGE

P.S. Treat's post suggests the iksar bonus should apply to avoidance, but the actual wayback machine suggests mitigation. http://web.archive.org/web/20040822100650/http://members.cox.net/sherrick/eqnumbers.htm#_Toc536608108 It sounds like no one was really sure. Mitigation would certainly make way more sense.

Aeolwind, I think this is a pretty reasonable estimate of how AC should work. I mean I can only bug the devs so much before I feel like an asshole. That's why I don't continuously bump my Loraen Bugs post. But there is a lot of stuff in there that I think is pretty important: resist caps, mage pets casting more, mobs being immune to memblur, AC, not getting weapons back from charmed pets.

[Aeolwind]

Aight, I'll throw some fuel on the fire then. 2 caveats, I'm posting from work and really not paying attention here and 2nd I am not a source dev, this is 'me' talking, not developer talking.

Values that modify 'attack'

Raw Attack modifiers like Avatar/Firefist
Strength stat and buffs
Weapon Skill of weapon type (Slash, blunt)
Weapon Skill of Wielding type (DW/2h)
??????????

Anything else?

Values that modify 'Armor'

Item AC
Shield AC
Agility stat and buffs
Defense skill
Raw AC Buffs like Shield of Words

What else?

Values that modify avoidance

Dodge
Parry
Riposte
Dexterity stat and buffs maybe?

Anything else?

[happyhappy]

Agility stat increases AC, not Dexterity.

[Aeolwind]

Agility stat increases AC, not Dexterity.

Thanks, other game on the brain.

[Splorf22]

Aeolwind I'm told there is a #AC command for gms. How about you play with it and give us the results? I only did 150 hits each, so its not impossible I was just extremely unlucky.

[Aeolwind]

Aeolwind I'm told there is a #AC command for gms. How about you play with it and give us the results? I only did 150 hits each, so its not impossible I was just extremely unlucky.

Give me a list of gear to have equipped, class, level, mob you want me to get pummeled by and the # the skills should be at. I'll let Nil decide what to do with the info after I gather it.

I'm not sure there is an AC Command honestly, never went looking. But using it would/could taint the results.

[Splorf22]

Aggregate data from live servers at the time was taken to determine median-AC stats for each class. Parses were run against NPCs 3-4 levels lower, facing front. The characters had cleric AC and shaman agility buffs and faced the NPC. The results of the parse were consistent with statistical analysis of the formulas in code:

Class War Pal Mnk
Level 51 51 51
Raw Item AC 184 181 107
Agility 157 144 169
Dodge 3.4% 3.1% 4.4%
Block 0 % 0% 10.2%
Riposte 4.4% 3.9% 4.1%
Parry 5.2% 4.6% 0%
Skill Evasion 12.9% 11.5% 18.7%
Hit Rate 61.2% 61.3% 58.2%
Avg Hit 72.6 72.9 74.6
% Hits for Max 10.2% 10.5% 11.5%
Avg Dmg / Round 59.7 61.1 54.5
DPS 28.2 28.8 25.7


Class War Pal Mnk
Level 60 60 60
Raw Item AC 296 281 163
Agility 177 152 187
Dodge 4.3% 3.9% 4.9%
Block 0 % 0% 11.4%
Riposte 4.8% 4.3% 4.5%
Parry 5.8% 5.2% 0%
Skill Evasion 14.9% 13.4% 20.8%
Hit Rate 59.4% 59.7% 59.3%
Avg Hit 107.3 109.9 113.6
% Hits for Max 10.4% 11.7% 13.6%
Avg Dmg / Round 87.4 91.7 86.1
DPS 50.8 53.3 50


The problem was that the average plate-equipped warriors and knights had barely any lead on monks in mitigation, due to the monk bonus, but the monk still had the lead in evasion. Contrary to popular belief, this is what prompted the nerf to monk mitigation, NOT high-end monks being rampage tanks.

The changes had little effect on average level 51 warriors and knights, but since the average level 51 monk was over the new nerfed AC cap, it increased their average damage taken per hit and increased the percent chance of max hits (in the above example) to 13%. Monks who had better than this median AC were hit harder by the nerf since it lowered their effective AC even more. Level 60 monks with exceptionally high item AC (Ssra+) weren't hit quite as hard because the uncapping of item AC gave them more returns on AC over the class cap. The median level 60 changes looked like this (evasion, of course, remained the same):

Class War Pal Mnk
Avg Hit 106 108.9 121.3
% Hits for Max 9.8% 11.2% 18.4%
Avg Dmg 86.4 90.9 91.9
DPS 50.2 52.8 53.4


It should look like this. 51 and 60 warriors/monks, items to that that amount of AC, etc.

Also my understanding is the #AC command does not set your AC to X (which would be plausible) but instead simulates multiple hits against a given AC. However one of the GMs assured me that AC was indeed working and based his opinion on this command, so <shrug>

[Alecta]

Disclaimer: I cant step through my debugger right now, it's late, and I am out of town for the week, so this information might be wrong.

The AC system isn't very clean, but from what I can tell:


The shield AC isnt handled any differently from normal AC
Soft caps arent in place (?)


These are both due to the fact that the "NPC hitting a target" code uses the AC variable (which is what is displayed client side) and doesnt use the RealAC variable (which is what takes into account soft caps, shield AC, etc).

Also, I'd ignore the #ac_test command since that simulates "Player attacking something" and not "NPC attacking something" - and those follow different code paths.

NPC::ProcessAttack -> Mob::MeleeMitigation -> defender->GetAC()
vs
Client::ProcessAttack -> Client::ThrowATKvAC_D20I -> defender->GetRealAC()

Off topic: I am curious if the Monk AC bonus is working properly all the time. It seems that due to the order the bonuses are calculated, it might not be.

Anyway, will post more when I have more time to dig into this.

[Furniture]

How much of the code was changed from the original eqemu ac code? I am very familiar with AC code on eqemu and i'm sure you guys have changed it somewhat since i remember at the start of this server ac wasnt working at all and one of the patch notes said that you guys had fixed ac to be more important

can you let us know what exactly did you guys change? original eqemu code does definitely have the softcaps and shield ac code in place so unless you removed them I don't see how they wouldnt still be there

[Splorf22]

The shield AC isnt handled any differently from normal AC
Soft caps arent in place (?)


I'm guessing that this code implements the post from Treats I linked in the OP. According to him both the soft cap and the shield AC thing are from the Luclin rework.

[koros]

Parses seem to indicate softcaps aren't in place, so that makes sense. Can you share the code of the methods utilized so we can see if they match up with the softcap info from the original devs? It's possible people just have a lot more ac now than they had on live and are noticing it to a much greater degree.

[Alecta]

Can you share the code of the methods utilized so we can see if they match up with the softcap info from the original devs?

Nilbog said he was fine with it, waiting on permission from Rogean.

Again, I'm pretty new here and am really just supposed to work on PvP stuff, so I am not comfortable posting other peoples contributions to the code base.

[Treats]

Disclaimer: I cant step through my debugger right now, it's late, and I am out of town for the week, so this information might be wrong.

The AC system isn't very clean, but from what I can tell:


The shield AC isnt handled any differently from normal AC
Soft caps arent in place (?)


These are both due to the fact that the "NPC hitting a target" code uses the AC variable (which is what is displayed client side) and doesnt use the RealAC variable (which is what takes into account soft caps, shield AC, etc).

Also, I'd ignore the #ac_test command since that simulates "Player attacking something" and not "NPC attacking something" - and those follow different code paths.

NPC::ProcessAttack -> Mob::MeleeMitigation -> defender->GetAC()
vs
Client::ProcessAttack -> Client::ThrowATKvAC_D20I -> defender->GetRealAC()

Off topic: I am curious if the Monk AC bonus is working properly all the time. It seems that due to the order the bonuses are calculated, it might not be.

Anyway, will post more when I have more time to dig into this.

(Don't use anything from my previous post here in the Bug forums about AC, some of it is not correct)

Player vs NPC AC

NPC AC is easy to calculate but the problem is determining the value of their Mitigation AC from Equipment
NPC Avoidance AC = Agility from Table + (Defense * 16/9)
NPC Mitigation AC = (Buffs/4) + (Defense/3) + (Equipment * 4/3)

NPC's rarely wear any armor. The only thing I could think of that NPCs would have used was the max capped value for their level. This would be determined in relation to whether they were a Melee or a Caster.

Melee (non casters)

60 - 289
59 - 275
58 - 261
57 - 247
56 - 233
55 - 219
54 - 205
53 - 191
52 - 177
51 - 163
50 - 149 or 50 - 160
40 - 119 or 40 - 130
30 - 89 or 30 - 100
20 - 59 or 20 - 70
10 - 29 or 10 - 40
1 - 2 or 1 - 10

Caster (Nec/Wiz/Mag/Ench)

60 - 385
59 - 366
58 - 348
57 - 329
56 - 310
55 - 292
54 - 273
53 - 254
52 - 236
51 - 217
50 - 198
40 - 158
30 - 118
20 - 78
10 - 38
1 - 2

So an Enchanter NPC that is level 42 would have 166 Raw AC for Mitigation -- Just like a player wearing that amount of Hardcapped Raw Mitigation AC. This would also explain why Trakanon Mitigated damage so well, I think he was classified as a fucking Necro (lol) so his Mitigation AC was off the charts.

Bonuses

These are the three bonuses that I know of (think there is one more):

Iksar Bonus (Level / 2) + 5 added to Mitigation
Monk Bonus ((Level + 5) * 4) / 3 to Mitigation
Rogue bonus ((Level + 5) * 4) / 3 to Mitigation

Hardcaps/Softcaps

In reality there should not be any Total Hardcaps or Softcaps
Defense Skill is capped per level
Agility is capped at 255
Melee Raw AC is capped per level
Caster Raw AC is capped per level
Buffs Values are exact depending on Spell

Player AC

NPC::ProcessAttack -> Mob::MeleeMitigation -> defender->GetAC()

This needs to totally be reworked from the ground up, its fucked here.

[nilbog]

Nilbog said he was fine with it, waiting on permission from Rogean.

Again, I'm pretty new here and am really just supposed to work on PvP stuff, so I am not comfortable posting other peoples contributions to the code base.

I do not mind sharing the information for collaborative efforts to improve it. I feel as though we have enough people here to contribute.

[Jimjam]

If AC doesn't work how come there seems to be decent mitigation at lower levels?

Is there a component to mitigation besides worn AC (ignoring spells) that is more effective at lower levels? or does NPC attack outscale player AC too much at higher levels?

[Fregar]

All of this sounds classic to me o.0
Is it how AC should work in a modern game? No.
Is it how it worked in 2000-2001 Everquest? I think so.

I used to play SK on live Velious/SOL/POP, doing raids Mostly. Had lvl 40-50ish ench/wiz/clr/war alts too.

If I remember correctly, AC had a soft cap, and past that cap you had to stack a huge amount of it to make even a small difference.
Thats the reason why I used skyshrine armor over kael one.
And we didn't bother with shields either.

This is from a sk point of view of course, I don't remember details about warriors MT'ing Vyemm and AoW.

If someone would do some parsing to show AC is or is not broken, It would better be done with a lvl 40 plate class from naked to full stuff vs a sabrethooth tiger imo.

[Splorf22]

Did you actually read this thread?

[Jimjam]

He does have a point that evaluating whether AC is broken or not is probably best done with a mid level character where you can stack a lot of armour.

I'd probably try it in a non-kunark zone first, aren't kunark mobs meant to be considerably harder hitting than 'old world' stuff?

[skipdog]

must be a blue server thing
still working fine on red
confirmed daily by situational gear sets

proven? where? how?

I'm not sure how you expect posts like this to make any difference.

[Thulack]

All of this sounds classic to me o.0
Is it how AC should work in a modern game? No.
Is it how it worked in 2000-2001 Everquest? I think so.

I used to play SK on live Velious/SOL/POP, doing raids Mostly. Had lvl 40-50ish ench/wiz/clr/war alts too.

If I remember correctly, AC had a soft cap, and past that cap you had to stack a huge amount of it to make even a small difference.
Thats the reason why I used skyshrine armor over kael one.
And we didn't bother with shields either.

This is from a sk point of view of course, I don't remember details about warriors MT'ing Vyemm and AoW.

If someone would do some parsing to show AC is or is not broken, It would better be done with a lvl 40 plate class from naked to full stuff vs a sabrethooth tiger imo.

Shield Always added AC even after softcap. Thats why everyone always stuck their highest AC aug(yes later on down the line) in their shield slot.

[Jimjam]

I'm pretty sure shields adding unreduced AC was a change added post revamp to make them more attractive.

[Fregar]

Did you actually read this thread?

Yes, what do you think is wrong in what I said?

Your testing on the cliff golem tells us that either AC is broken OR there is some sort of cap in effect in this specific case.

Someone else did some testing at lower level vs a freeport guard, and his results show AC is working in this specific case.

This leads toward AC not beeing broken, but capped.

To the real question: is it classic or not?

Unless someone dig up an old post from 2000 we'll have to rely on what peoples remember from that time.
What I can tell about 2001-2002 (so not 2000, but close after) is that my personal feeling at that time was that HP>AC past a certain amount of AC.

[baalzy]

Yes, what do you think is wrong in what I said?

Your testing on the cliff golem tells us that either AC is broken OR there is some sort of cap in effect in this specific case.

Someone else did some testing at lower level vs a freeport guard, and his results show AC is working in this specific case.

This leads toward AC not beeing broken, but capped.

To the real question: is it classic or not?

Unless someone dig up an old post from 2000 we'll have to rely on what peoples remember from that time.
What I can tell about 2001-2002 (so not 2000, but close after) is that my personal feeling at that time was that HP>AC past a certain amount of AC.

What does a soft cap have to do with taking increased damage when your AC is increased, if anything it should stay the same?

[h0tr0d (shaere)]

Heck I remember much the same, pre-kunark I could tank better than a warrior (as a monk), always took a half to one less CH when testing on Fire giants. Rangers would go crunch, kunark there was alot of mucking about with disciplines, and ac became king. IN Velious I recall more the mobs ac and hp being ridiculous, but I recall it differently in that hp was more important for tanks because of the diminishing returns for AC after a certain point.

[Jimjam]

What does a soft cap have to do with taking increased damage when your AC is increased, if anything it should stay the same?

Phrased like that it sounds the soft cap* is subtracting diminishing returns instead of adding it?

*which shouldn't exist in this time period, there should be a hard cap by level on worn.

[Rail]

Edited: I am not aware of how the damage interval works. Excuse my ignorance please!

And fix AC!

[Splorf22]

Fregar: if you had actually read the thread, you would have noticed:

Shield AC goes over the softcap . . . which was not implemented until Luclin, before which we had a hardcap . . . which is at 289, while my Iksar warrior has 160ish base AC and 200 with the shield . . . were the AC changes to be implemented, my warrior would get worse, not better.

The AC system isn't very clean, but from what I can tell:


The shield AC isnt handled any differently from normal AC
Soft caps arent in place (?)


Rail: I am well aware of how the damage interval works. You are not.

I do not understand how people can post incorrect information in this thread with such confidence.

[Rail]

Edited!

[Treats]

These parses are too small to notice any real long term difference.

From what I see, attacks are structured like this:

Full attack damage,
Half attack damage,
1/3rd attack damage,
1hp attack damage...

It is not a random number between 1 and max dmg when you hit. It is always Max damage + str bonus, and then divided by half, or 1/3rd or reduced to 1.

With AC buffs at low level, you will be hit for 1 more often. But you can see you will be getting hit for full amount less often, and the AC will mitigate the damage to half/third or 1.

At the highest levels, mob attack and STR are much to high for AC to mitigate much...

Splorf, damage interval does not work the same way for NPC hitting PC.

Rail's description is fairly accurate without going into a long detailed explanation.

There is a thread here from a long time ago where someone did a few tests, I could not find it though.

[kaev]

1) If AC implementation here is similar to live, there are hardcaps only, no softcap implemented yet at this time.

2) Sakuragi's test was a fairly small sample size. Based on what I've seen with the RNG here while doing tradeskills, I wouldn't risk any generalizations with less than a few thousand samples per config of ac/level/mob. His results are no stranger than I've had doing blacksmithing.

Honestly it appears that there is a hardcap somewhere in the rough vicinity of 1000 displayed AC. It might vary with level, and go a bit higher than that, but really that's the explanation that fits what I've observed, what Fregar says he has observed, and Sakuragi's data also given the small sample size.

[Splorf22]

Splorf, damage interval does not work the same way for NPC hitting PC.

Rail's description is fairly accurate without going into a long detailed explanation.

There is a thread here from a long time ago where someone did a few tests, I could not find it though.

It is not. Try checking out the hit histogram with GTT sometime.

[koros]

It's been a while but mob hit range is mob (db + di(1)) to (db + di(20)) right? It's pretty straightforward.

[tristantio]

So, what is the conclusion on the code sharing and existing state of AC? Stack stats over AC at this time at all levels? or only when displayed AC exceeds 1000?

[drktmplr12]

bump

[tristantio]

So, I have some parse data and tests done for AC comparisons on my level 35 Erudite ShadowKnight while fighting dark blue/light blue mobs.

Damage report with 639AC

--------------------------------------------------------
DAMAGE TAKEN REPORT (AC)
--------------------------------------------------------

Data for 405 hits:

Breakdown (attacks done to you):
--------------------------------------------------------
Misses: 48.14814814814814814800
Dodges: 3.45679012345679012300
Parry: 2.46913580246913580200
Riposte: 2.71604938271604938200
Hit For: 43.20987654320987654300

Damage Spread (damage taken and how often it was taken):
--------------------------------------------------------
3 (25.1429%) 18 (2.85714%) 45 (1.71429%) 23 (1.14286%) 25 (0.571429%)
2 (16.5714%) 47 (2.28571%) 42 (1.71429%) 16 (1.14286%) 17 (0.571429%)
29 (4.57143%) 39 (2.28571%) 36 (1.71429%) 12 (1.14286%) 15 (0.571429%)
4 (3.42857%) 34 (2.28571%) 26 (1.71429%) 53 (0.571429%) 13 (0.571429%)
37 (3.42857%) 11 (2.28571%) 24 (1.71429%) 41 (0.571429%) 10 (0.571429%)
8 (2.85714%) 7 (1.71429%) 9 (1.14286%) 40 (0.571429%)
5 (2.85714%) 6 (1.71429%) 43 (1.14286%) 35 (0.571429%)
31 (2.85714%) 50 (1.71429%) 38 (1.14286%) 27 (0.571429%)

Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------
15.8171 damage taken per successful hit
6.83457 damage taken per swing (adding avoidance)


Damage report with 750AC:

--------------------------------------------------------
DAMAGE TAKEN REPORT (AC)
--------------------------------------------------------

Data for 338 hits:

Breakdown (attacks done to you):
--------------------------------------------------------
Misses: 47.63313609467455621300
Dodges: 1.77514792899408284000
Parry: 4.73372781065088757300
Riposte: 2.07100591715976331300
Hit For: 43.78698224852071005900

Damage Spread (damage taken and how often it was taken):
--------------------------------------------------------
2 (25%) 25 (2.7027%) 41 (1.35135%) 13 (1.35135%) 23 (0.675676%)
3 (14.8649%) 18 (2.7027%) 40 (1.35135%) 9 (0.675676%) 22 (0.675676%)
10 (5.40541%) 6 (2.02703%) 39 (1.35135%) 7 (0.675676%) 17 (0.675676%)
4 (4.05405%) 5 (2.02703%) 35 (1.35135%) 50 (0.675676%) 15 (0.675676%)
34 (4.05405%) 36 (2.02703%) 26 (1.35135%) 42 (0.675676%) 12 (0.675676%)
8 (3.37838%) 31 (2.02703%) 24 (1.35135%) 32 (0.675676%)
11 (3.37838%) 16 (2.02703%) 21 (1.35135%) 29 (0.675676%)
37 (2.7027%) 47 (1.35135%) 14 (1.35135%) 28 (0.675676%)

Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------
13.723 damage taken per successful hit
6.00888 damage taken per swing (adding avoidance)


And the comparison/averages:

In 750AC on average I was hit for 13.723 when hit (6.00888 per swing if you factor in those enemy misses/dodges/ripostes/parries)

In 639AC on average I was hit for 15.8171 when hit (6.83457 per swing if you factor in self avoidance)

The spread also seems much more favorable (less high damage spike attacks received).

Conclusion: As a level 35 Erudite ShadowKnight, 111 AC does make a noticeable difference when fighting dark blues/light blues.

[Asap]

So, I have some parse data and tests done for AC comparisons on my level 35 Erudite ShadowKnight while fighting dark blue/light blue mobs.

Damage report with 639AC

--------------------------------------------------------
DAMAGE TAKEN REPORT (AC)
--------------------------------------------------------

Data for 405 hits:

Breakdown (attacks done to you):
--------------------------------------------------------
Misses: 48.14814814814814814800
Dodges: 3.45679012345679012300
Parry: 2.46913580246913580200
Riposte: 2.71604938271604938200
Hit For: 43.20987654320987654300

Damage Spread (damage taken and how often it was taken):
--------------------------------------------------------
3 (25.1429%) 18 (2.85714%) 45 (1.71429%) 23 (1.14286%) 25 (0.571429%)
2 (16.5714%) 47 (2.28571%) 42 (1.71429%) 16 (1.14286%) 17 (0.571429%)
29 (4.57143%) 39 (2.28571%) 36 (1.71429%) 12 (1.14286%) 15 (0.571429%)
4 (3.42857%) 34 (2.28571%) 26 (1.71429%) 53 (0.571429%) 13 (0.571429%)
37 (3.42857%) 11 (2.28571%) 24 (1.71429%) 41 (0.571429%) 10 (0.571429%)
8 (2.85714%) 7 (1.71429%) 9 (1.14286%) 40 (0.571429%)
5 (2.85714%) 6 (1.71429%) 43 (1.14286%) 35 (0.571429%)
31 (2.85714%) 50 (1.71429%) 38 (1.14286%) 27 (0.571429%)

Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------
15.8171 damage taken per successful hit
6.83457 damage taken per swing (adding avoidance)


Damage report with 750AC:

--------------------------------------------------------
DAMAGE TAKEN REPORT (AC)
--------------------------------------------------------

Data for 338 hits:

Breakdown (attacks done to you):
--------------------------------------------------------
Misses: 47.63313609467455621300
Dodges: 1.77514792899408284000
Parry: 4.73372781065088757300
Riposte: 2.07100591715976331300
Hit For: 43.78698224852071005900

Damage Spread (damage taken and how often it was taken):
--------------------------------------------------------
2 (25%) 25 (2.7027%) 41 (1.35135%) 13 (1.35135%) 23 (0.675676%)
3 (14.8649%) 18 (2.7027%) 40 (1.35135%) 9 (0.675676%) 22 (0.675676%)
10 (5.40541%) 6 (2.02703%) 39 (1.35135%) 7 (0.675676%) 17 (0.675676%)
4 (4.05405%) 5 (2.02703%) 35 (1.35135%) 50 (0.675676%) 15 (0.675676%)
34 (4.05405%) 36 (2.02703%) 26 (1.35135%) 42 (0.675676%) 12 (0.675676%)
8 (3.37838%) 31 (2.02703%) 24 (1.35135%) 32 (0.675676%)
11 (3.37838%) 16 (2.02703%) 21 (1.35135%) 29 (0.675676%)
37 (2.7027%) 47 (1.35135%) 14 (1.35135%) 28 (0.675676%)

Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------
13.723 damage taken per successful hit
6.00888 damage taken per swing (adding avoidance)


And the comparison/averages:

In 750AC on average I was hit for 13.723 when hit (6.00888 per swing if you factor in those enemy misses/dodges/ripostes/parries)

In 639AC on average I was hit for 15.8171 when hit (6.83457 per swing if you factor in self avoidance)

The spread also seems much more favorable (less high damage spike attacks received).

Conclusion: As a level 35 Erudite ShadowKnight, 111 AC does make a noticeable difference when fighting dark blues/light blues.

Awesome job, thank you for this

[tristantio]

No problem! Also please note in the avoidance section (parry/dodge/riposte/miss/hit) those are percents of the total hits, meaning "Hit for: 43.21993" means that mobs actually hit my guy 43% of the time or so.

[Jimjam]

There is a lvl 20 froglok (rogue?) spawn that can be triggered in misty thicket. Since his level/class is always the same this mob might be useful for testing AC effectiveness.

It would be interesting to see a parse of him against high/low ac against characters of various levels at both high and low AC set ups.

[Splorf22]

science

Hmm, maybe I was just unlucky? Or maybe there are some strange cap/level issues at play?

[tristantio]

It might be, what con was the mob you fought?

I'd be interseted in seeing how your data parses out with the parser I put together for my own analysis.

Can you send me your logs, or parse with the script I put together for this (requires *nix or cygwin on windows, as it is a bash script)?

https://github.com/ahungry/p99-patcher/blob/master/eq-damage-parser.sh

Edit: Maybe tonight I'll try out some other parses, such as the effect of AC when tanking many greens (although this would be easier if I had a bard to do it with).

If anyone at all wants to send me logs for comparison, feel free to PM me them and I'll post the parse results.

[Solb]

So I am curious, what ever happened out of all of this? Is there a new updated thread on Armor Class explaining how effective it is/is not? Was there ever any "fix', or conclusion to this dilemma?

[Trax]

Any AC over 800'ish, doesn't seem to have any effect at all. Especially against raid targets.

AC seems to only work well against green con mobs.

I'll parse it today and report back so people stop thinking AC is working as intended.

[Trax]

Perun level 60 Monk vs. A Cliff Golem level 58 Warrior
Fight duration – 3minutes.


584 AC Perun --- Total damage: 10481 --- Avg hit: 161 --- Swings: 149 --- Defended: 41 (27.5%) --- Hit: 65 (43.6%) --- Missed: 43 (28.9%) --- Accuracy: 60.2% --- Dodged: 6 (5.3%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 29 (19.5%) --- Riposted: 6 (5%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

815 AC Perun --- Total damage: 7312 --- Avg hit: 109 --- Swings: 150 --- Defended: 41 (27.3%) --- Hit: 67 (44.7%) --- Missed: 42 (28%) --- Accuracy: 61.5% --- Dodged: 9 (7.6%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 28 (18.7%) --- Riposted: 4 (3.3%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

906 AC Perun --- Total damage: 6500 --- Avg hit: 114 --- Swings: 150 --- Defended: 54 (36%) --- Hit: 57 (38%) --- Missed: 39 (26%) --- Accuracy: 59.4% --- Dodged: 13 (11.9%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 32 (21.3%) --- Riposted: 9 (7.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

1080-1100 AC Perun --- Total damage: 7340 --- Avg hit: 101 --- Swings: 153 --- Defended: 40 (26.1%) --- Hit: 72 (47.1%) --- Missed: 41 (26.8%) --- Accuracy: 63.7% --- Dodged: 4 (3.4%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 29 (19%) --- Riposted: 7 (5.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

Link to video - http://youtu.be/Abb6yA31ohs

As you can see between 600ac and 800ac there is a noticeable improvement in mitigation. However, after 800ac it's a marginal difference. When tanking raid targets, there is little to no difference between 800ac and 1,000ac. Also consider the random number generator factor.

[heartbrand]

this is INCREDIBLY important that it be fixed for velious

[Trax]

We actually need to be able to resist AE's other than MR based spells, before Velious is launched.

[Trax]

Will be doing more test trials later.

Plan is same ac values, 5minute fights. 5 sets of each.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I got this log if anyone would like to parse, not sure if it helps you guys or not:

[Mon Feb 10 19:06:44 2014] You say, 'begin parse on a cliff golem, 868 AC, level 60 ranger'
[Mon Feb 10 19:06:57 2014] You say, 'ready to watch guys?'
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:06 2014] You say, 'fraps on?'
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:10 2014] You hit a cliff golem for 3 points of damage.
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:11 2014] a cliff golem hits YOU for 242 points of damage.
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:11 2014] a cliff golem hits YOU for 215 points of damage.
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:12 2014] You have been knocked unconscious!
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:12 2014] You have been slain by a cliff golem!
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:12 2014] You have lost experience.
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:12 2014] Returning to Oggok, please wait...
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:12 2014] LOADING, PLEASE WAIT...
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:35 2014] You have entered Oggok.
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:38 2014] You say to your guild, 'FRAPS OFF'
[Mon Feb 10 19:07:47 2014] You say to your guild, 'delete that fraps pls'

[Splorf22]

Great stuff Perun, and of course Yendor.

[Telin]

Great video. I felt smarter just listening to it.

[Trax]

Perun level 60 Monk vs. A Cliff Golem level 58 Warrior
Fight duration - 5minutes per trial.


799ac Trial 1
Perun --- Total damage: 11412 --- Avg hit: 115 --- Swings: 246 --- Defended: 64 (26%) --- Hit: 99 (40.2%) --- Missed: 83 (33.7%) --- Accuracy: 54.4% --- Dodged: 17 (8.5%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 38 (15.4%) --- Riposted: 9 (4.3%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

799ac Trial 2
Perun --- Total damage: 11702 --- Avg hit: 115 --- Swings: 241 --- Defended: 71 (29.5%) --- Hit: 101 (41.9%) --- Missed: 69 (28.6%) --- Accuracy: 59.4% --- Dodged: 18 (9.6%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 44 (18.3%) --- Riposted: 9 (4.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

799ac Trial 3
Perun --- Total damage: 12510 --- Avg hit: 118 --- Swings: 243 --- Defended: 67 (27.6%) --- Hit: 106 (43.6%) --- Missed: 70 (28.8%) --- Accuracy: 60.2% --- Dodged: 15 (7.9%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 43 (17.7%) --- Riposted: 9 (4.5%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)


906ac Trial 1
Perun --- Total damage: 11491 --- Avg hit: 107 --- Swings: 244 --- Defended: 68 (27.9%) --- Hit: 107 (43.9%) --- Missed: 69 (28.3%) --- Accuracy: 60.8% --- Dodged: 14 (7.4%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 46 (18.9%) --- Riposted: 8 (4%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

906ac Trial 2
Perun --- Total damage: 10355 --- Avg hit: 109 --- Swings: 231 --- Defended: 59 (25.5%) --- Hit: 95 (41.1%) --- Missed: 77 (33.3%) --- Accuracy: 55.2% --- Dodged: 10 (5.5%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 41 (17.7%) --- Riposted: 8 (4.2%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

906ac Trial 3
Perun --- Total damage: 11961 --- Avg hit: 104 --- Swings: 241 --- Defended: 58 (24.1%) --- Hit: 114 (47.3%) --- Missed: 69 (28.6%) --- Accuracy: 62.3% --- Dodged: 8 (4.2%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 42 (17.4%) --- Riposted: 8 (4%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)


1100ac Trial 1
Perun --- Total damage: 10032 --- Avg hit: 105 --- Swings: 255 --- Defended: 78 (30.6%) --- Hit: 95 (37.3%) --- Missed: 82 (32.2%) --- Accuracy: 53.7% --- Dodged: 13 (6.8%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 54 (21.2%) --- Riposted: 11 (5.5%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

1100ac Trial 2
Perun --- Total damage: 11045 --- Avg hit: 107 --- Swings: 246 --- Defended: 57 (23.2%) --- Hit: 103 (41.9%) --- Missed: 86 (35%) --- Accuracy: 54.5% --- Dodged: 14 (6.9%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 33 (13.4%) --- Riposted: 10 (4.7%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

1100ac Trial 3
Perun --- Total damage: 11084 --- Avg hit: 103 --- Swings: 243 --- Defended: 69 (28.4%) --- Hit: 107 (44%) --- Missed: 67 (27.6%) --- Accuracy: 61.5% --- Dodged: 8 (4.4%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 47 (19.3%) --- Riposted: 14 (7.1%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)




Perun level 60 Monk vs. A Cliff Golem level 58 Warrior
Fight duration – 3minutes per trial.

584ac --- Total damage: 10481 --- Avg hit: 161 --- Swings: 149 --- Defended: 41 (27.5%) --- Hit: 65 (43.6%) --- Missed: 43 (28.9%) --- Accuracy: 60.2% --- Dodged: 6 (5.3%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 29 (19.5%) --- Riposted: 6 (5%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

815ac --- Total damage: 7312 --- Avg hit: 109 --- Swings: 150 --- Defended: 41 (27.3%) --- Hit: 67 (44.7%) --- Missed: 42 (28%) --- Accuracy: 61.5% --- Dodged: 9 (7.6%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 28 (18.7%) --- Riposted: 4 (3.3%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

906ac --- Total damage: 6500 --- Avg hit: 114 --- Swings: 150 --- Defended: 54 (36%) --- Hit: 57 (38%) --- Missed: 39 (26%) --- Accuracy: 59.4% --- Dodged: 13 (11.9%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 32 (21.3%) --- Riposted: 9 (7.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

1080-1100ac --- Total damage: 7340 --- Avg hit: 101 --- Swings: 153 --- Defended: 40 (26.1%) --- Hit: 72 (47.1%) --- Missed: 41 (26.8%) --- Accuracy: 63.7% --- Dodged: 4 (3.4%) --- Parried: 0 (0%) --- Blocked: 29 (19%) --- Riposted: 7 (5.6%) --- Absorbed: 0 (0%)

Link to video of the 3minute trials. - http://youtu.be/Abb6yA31ohs

As you can see between 600ac and 800ac there is a noticeable improvement in mitigation. However, after 800ac it's a marginal difference. When tanking raid targets, there is little to no difference between 800ac and 1,000ac. Also consider the random number generator factor. In my opinion on P99 currently - HP still reigns supreme especially when engaging raid targets. Use this data for whatever you'd like.

[koros]

Link to video of the 3minute trials. - http://youtu.be/Abb6yA31ohs

As you can see between 600ac and 800ac there is a noticeable improvement in mitigation. However, after 800ac it's a marginal difference. When tanking raid targets, there is little to no difference between 800ac and 1,000ac. Also consider the random number generator factor. In my opinion on P99 currently - HP still reigns supreme especially when engaging raid targets. Use this data for whatever you'd like.

Your sample size is sufficient to establish a pretty strong confidence interval. AC clearly caps off at some point. From what I recall of dev postings, there was indeed a hardcap on worn AC, but I feel like it's much lower here than it was on live. In retrospect, I'm sure that's why the devs put 40-50+ ac on items in Velious, because it wouldn't make as big of a difference as players expected it would.

One thing that would be beneficial to establish is how the AC equation works. Is there a difference in ac from defense, buffs, or gear. Does certain AC cap at a point? Is there a class cap? Etc.

[Jimjam]

I'm sure this has already been linked, but this is good reading: http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48312

[Splorf22]

with velious on the horizon, what's the chance we could get the code for AC posted?

[mostbitter]

bump

[Fysts]

On live there was a softcap to ac, i believe it was around 289 worn ac,after the softcap returns dimiahed but did not go away. The advantage to plate wearers was the 289ac from softcap yielded more ac return. There was also believed to be a hardcap around 1300ac calculated, and this is why monks were able to tank so well in velious, because they could hit the hardcap by wearing the high ac itemz even though they didnt get the ac return of plate.

[hablabba]

Just started p1999 up again and in doing some research came across this thread. Was anything ever solved in terms of AC being changed / formula being posted?

Apologies for the necro if so. Otherwise, I would be curious to see where we are at with this.

[Scrubosaur]

From what I understand the issue doesn't lie solely with how AC works but also on the amount of ATK rating of individual mobs. Even if the AC math matched classic EQ you would still need to know the attack ratings of mobs and how that factored into AC on a per hit basis.