Has anyone documented the maximum damage caps per class?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I noticed something interesting today. It seems that in addition to the weapon damage caps that unlock as you level up, there is also just a maximum damage cap that you cannot go above (similar to pets).

With a 20 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 84, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

With a 18 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 76, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

With a 15 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 63, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

When my strength is 200 and my offense is 200 (no Avatar), I do 80 damage with a 20 damage weapon. This matches the formula Weapon Damage * (([Offense Skill] + [STR]) / 100), and Shamans don't get any damage bonuses.

If there wasn't a damage cap, I should be doing at least 90 damage with 255 STR, and more with Avatar.

This means the maximum damage cap for 60 Shamans is 4.2 Damage per 1 Weapon Damage.

I couldn't find this on the wiki, so I was curious if this was documented somewhere, or if nobody has realized this yet. This is definitely different per class, so it would be interesting to know what the caps are for each class.

[Ripqozko]

It’s been capped for while that’s why rod of annihilation sucks now, previously casters weren’t capped on melee dps like that. Hope that helps welcome to 2023 , sorry you are new to the server.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It’s been capped for while that’s why rod of annihilation sucks now, previously casters weren’t capped on melee dps like that. Hope that helps welcome to 2023 , sorry you are new to the server.

I don't see this on the wiki anywhere, it would be good to add it per class.

To be clear, I am not talking about WEAPON DAMAGE CAP. That is why Rod sucks, because your weapon is capped to 20 damage. I am saying there is a second cap, specifically a maximum damage cap. So even when you are under the WEAPON DAMAGE CAP, you still have a maximum damage cap.

[Ripqozko]

I don't see this on the wiki anywhere, it would be good to add it per class.

To be clear, I am not talking about WEAPON DAMAGE CAP. That is why Rod sucks, because your weapon is capped to 20 damage. I am saying there is a second cap, specifically a maximum damage cap. So even when you are under the WEAPON DAMAGE CAP, you still have a maximum damage cap.

Page loramin and make sure to test it on a cliff golem, the only mob test that matters.

[Jimjam]

Classically most stats had diminished returns after 200.

Maybe something similar is going on here?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Classically most stats had diminished returns after 200.

Maybe something similar is going on here?

At first I thought that may be the case. If STR worked like INT and it only gave you half the bonus past 200, then 84 would roughly be correct. The problem is Avatar gives you +100 attack, so I 100% should go past 84 with Avatar on and 255 STR.

The fact that each weapon damage perfectly ends up being 4.2 damage per 1 weapon damage is pretty conclusive evidence to me that there is some kind of maximum damage cap occurring.

Maybe for melee classes the maximum damage cap is too high to matter, but I would be interested if some weapons on some melee classes are actually hitting the maximum damage cap.

[Allishia]

/nod

[loramin]

Page loramin

The entire point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it :p

[Encroaching Death]

The entire point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it :p

You don't edit it yourself?

[ya.dingus]

I noticed something interesting today. It seems that in addition to the weapon damage caps that unlock as you level up, there is also just a maximum damage cap that you cannot go above (similar to pets).

With a 20 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 84, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

With a 18 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 76, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

With a 15 damage weapon, my damage is always capped at 63, with 255 STR, Avatar, and 200 offense.

When my strength is 200 and my offense is 200 (no Avatar), I do 80 damage with a 20 damage weapon. This matches the formula Weapon Damage * (([Offense Skill] + [STR]) / 100), and Shamans don't get any damage bonuses.

If there wasn't a damage cap, I should be doing at least 90 damage with 255 STR, and more with Avatar.

This means the maximum damage cap for 60 Shamans is 4.2 Damage per 1 Weapon Damage.

I couldn't find this on the wiki, so I was curious if this was documented somewhere, or if nobody has realized this yet. This is definitely different per class, so it would be interesting to know what the caps are for each class.


I'd regret rolling Ogre too. Looks like yet another reason why over-stating in vanilla is a poor choice late game.

Roll Barb or Troll or Iksar and never look back.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'd regret rolling Ogre too. Looks like yet another reason why over-stating in vanilla is a poor choice late game.

Roll Barb or Troll or Iksar and never look back.

You seem to be the only one with race regrets here. I have no problem having the min/max race for Shaman. I think Ogres look great too. Same with Trolls.

Sorry you have so much regret you have to randomly post nonsense in other unrelated threads:)

[loramin]

You don't edit it yourself?

I do, sometimes, but I generally don't do much content editing anymore. Instead, I restrict myself to doing stuff other people can't, like adding those NPC location X's to the map.

Ultimately, the community can't depend on any one editor for the wiki; it needs a community of editors.

[Patrece]

Wait till torpor drains mana per this timeline

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Wait till torpor drains mana per this timeline

That would be interesting for sure. But I don't think there is any evidence to show when the mana drain was in (if it ever was). I think the problem was that not a lot of people were level 60 Torpor Shamans in the Kunark timeline, so there isn't a ton of data to go off of. Even if that was in the game for a period of time during Kunark, nobody knew about it because they didn't have the spell. The Kunark Strategy Guide didn't mention it either, they didn't give detailed descriptions of each spell.

[ya.dingus]

You seem to be the only one with race regrets here. I have no problem having the min/max race for Shaman. I think Ogres look great too. Same with Trolls.

Sorry you have so much regret you have to randomly post nonsense in other unrelated threads:)

You dont have the mix/max shaman though. You're stuck in boomer logic land and absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong. Delusional boomer.

Your own posts show that overstating is a massive waste of investment points, frontal stun helps in less than 5% of the situations where stun immunity could save your life, and you look stupid and lose fashionquest to boot.

You're stuck in 1999 mode because you just don't want things to change despite having the truth in front of you.

Keep making these threads that invalidate your race choice by all means, I enjoy them.

Boomers, hah.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You dont have the mix/max shaman though. You're stuck in boomer logic land and absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you're wrong. Delusional boomer.

Your own posts show that overstating is a massive waste of investment points, frontal stun helps in less than 5% of the situations where stun immunity could save your life, and you look stupid and lose fashionquest to boot.

You're stuck in 1999 mode because you just don't want things to change despite having the truth in front of you.

Keep making these threads that invalidate your race choice by all means, I enjoy them.

Boomers, hah.

Everything you said is nonsense. Why waste time typing it?

[Ripqozko]

Everything you said is nonsense. Why waste time typing it?

950

[Trexller]

Boomers, hah.

Generalizing, that always works out well.

[ya.dingus]

There are some CRAZY salty boomers in this thread. Yikes.

"NoThInG mAkEs SeNsE."

I'd say that too if I was a boomer hell bent on nothing changing, especially in the face of actual math and mechanics.

Cringe Boomers.

[Trexller]

I'd say that too if I was a boomer hell bent on nothing changing, especially in the face of actual math and mechanics.

the devs who would go write new code and change mechanics are boomers, with jobs, families and real life commitments.

[ya.dingus]

the devs who would go write new code and change mechanics are boomers, with jobs, families and real life commitments.

Is this where you perform mental gymnastics and tell me how throwing away a majority of your points based on vanilla optimization and a racial talent make you the best race for the class?

Please son. People optimizing for 20 points at char screen start for 100+ or more hp end game, and you're going to argue that throwing away nearly 50 str and stamina to gear overstating doesn't matter.

Ogre hasn't been Min/Max alternative for *anything* since Velious.

Thems.Are.The.Breaks.

The only thing that made you good were the stats, fsi is a meme, and your fashion is bad.



I mean, look at the thread we're in. OP is crying about going over 200 str with no avatar and reaching the same dps caps nearly because of diminishing returns (if they even exist).

Enjoy your piss poor wis/int/dex pools I guess.

[Vivitron]

At first I thought that may be the case. If STR worked like INT and it only gave you half the bonus past 200, then 84 would roughly be correct. The problem is Avatar gives you +100 attack, so I 100% should go past 84 with Avatar on and 255 STR.

The fact that each weapon damage perfectly ends up being 4.2 damage per 1 weapon damage is pretty conclusive evidence to me that there is some kind of maximum damage cap occurring.

Maybe for melee classes the maximum damage cap is too high to matter, but I would be interested if some weapons on some melee classes are actually hitting the maximum damage cap.

There's no attack in the formula you suggested above, though. On my bard I seem to get 97 max prime hand with a 16 damage weapon, and 92 prime hand with a 15 damage, regardless of avatar status.

Looking through my logs it looks like rogues are probably hitting 96 with a 15 damage prime hand.

[Jimjam]

Yea attack doesn’t increase your hit values, it just weights the dice. Attack doesn’t make you hit for more than you could before, it just makes you more likely to hit for your higher values.

[Duik]

What's a "boomer"? Serious question.
Assigning labels rarely ends well.
Born 1965.
Own home.
Worked/works shit jobs (low pay so to speak)
Smart. Imho.
Young wife, 22yrs younger.
2 kids 12 and 10.
Not rich so not sugar daddy.
Label me.
Go.
In B4.
Insults dont count. Unless they make me laugh.

[Duik]

You become better at dodge insult (237).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There's no attack in the formula you suggested above, though. On my bard I seem to get 97 max prime hand with a 16 damage weapon, and 92 prime hand with a 15 damage, regardless of avatar status.

Looking through my logs it looks like rogues are probably hitting 96 with a 15 damage prime hand.

I am not 100% sure what you mean here when you are talking about "There's no attack in the formula you suggested above".

But thank you for supplying some numbers people can check to see if their bards/rogues are hitting higher than that. The damage cap is certainly on a per class basis, so I would assume melee classes have a higher cap. My Shadowknight can hit for 132 with a 25 damage weapon, so Shadowknights definitely have a higher cap than 4.2 damage per 1 weapon damage. It is at least 5.3 damage per 1 weapon damage, but I am sure it is higher than that. I need to get Avatar on him sometime to see what his damage is then with 255 STR and +100 attack.

Yea attack doesn’t increase your hit values, it just weights the dice. Attack doesn’t make you hit for more than you could before, it just makes you more likely to hit for your higher values.

Yeah, attack from something like Avatar or AoB items doesn't increase chance to hit. The only thing that increases your chance to hit are weapon skills. It's just confusing because both of those values get rolled into attack stat on your character sheet.

Attack does increase your max damage values. When you say "weight the dice", what you are referring to is the combination of your damage range and the maximum damage cap.

If your damage range is 1-100 and your maximum damage cap is 84, you have more of a chance of getting an 84, because the cap occurs as the LAST step. This means you can still roll a 100, it just becomes an 84. So you have a 16% chance to roll an 84 , instead of a 1% chance to roll a 100 if your maximum damage cap was 100.

[Vivitron]

I am not 100% sure what you mean here when you are talking about "There's no attack in the formula you suggested above".

The post I quoted suggested you expected a higher max hit from avatar's +atk, but your first post and the wiki quote a suggested max damage formula that is only a function of str, offense, weapon damage, and damage bonus -- not +atk.

So, +atk not upping your max damage may be due to attack not factoring in to max damage rather than further evidence of a damage cap.

[Vivitron]

Yeah, attack from something like Avatar or AoB items doesn't increase chance to hit. The only thing that increases your chance to hit are weapon skills. It's just confusing because both of those values get rolled into attack stat on your character sheet.

Attack does increase your max damage values. When you say "weight the dice", what you are referring to is the combination of your damage range and the maximum damage cap.

If your damage range is 1-100 and your maximum damage cap is 84, you have more of a chance of getting an 84, because the cap occurs as the LAST step. This means you can still roll a 100, it just becomes an 84. So you have a 16% chance to roll an 84 , instead of a 1% chance to roll a 100 if your maximum damage cap was 100.

Here you seem to be saying attack doesn't matter, so perhaps it's just a miscommunication. I was responding to your statement that "The problem is Avatar gives you +100 attack"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Here you seem to be saying attack doesn't matter, so perhaps it's just a miscommunication. I was responding to your statement that "The problem is Avatar gives you +100 attack"

Oh I see. What I meant was that even when I got +100 attack, I was still only hitting for 84, which was reinforcing the evidence to show that there is a maximum damage cap. On my Shadowknight getting +Attack from Aura of Battle, Grim Aura, and Firefist is increasing my max damage. Without 2x Aura of Battles, Grim Aura, and Firefist I hit for 124 max with a 25 damage weapon. I hit for 132 with a 25 damage weapon with 2x Aura of Battles, Grim Aura, and Firefist.

I was saying +Attack doesn't increase chance to hit.

[Jimjam]

When I say attack doesn’t increase your hit values, i’m not talking about chance to hit.

I mean the 20 sided die has a different amount of damage on each face. Attack doesn’t increase the number on any of these faces. Instead it makes the faces with the larger numbers more likely to be rolled (ie weights the dice, ie ie more likely to hit closer to max).

That was my understanding at least, but from like pop+ era based on Yoda’s parses. Perhaps it is different here/in this era.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When I say attack doesn’t increase your hit values, i’m not talking about chance to hit.

I mean the 20 sided die has a different amount of damage on each face. Attack doesn’t increase the number on any of these faces. Instead it makes the faces with the larger numbers more likely to be rolled (ie weights the dice, ie ie more likely to hit closer to max).

That was my understanding at least, but from like pop+ era based on Yoda’s parses. Perhaps it is different here/in this era.

This is my current understanding of how it works:

Attack does increase your max damage values. When you say "weight the dice", what you are referring to is the combination of your damage range and the maximum damage cap.

If your damage range is 1-100 and your maximum damage cap is 84, you have more of a chance of getting an 84, because the cap occurs as the LAST step. This means you can still roll a 100, it just becomes an 84. So you have a 16% chance to roll an 84 , instead of a 1% chance to roll a 100 if your maximum damage cap was 100.

[Vivitron]

Oh I see. What I meant was that even when I got +100 attack, I was still only hitting for 84, which was reinforcing the evidence to show that there is a maximum damage cap. On my Shadowknight getting +Attack from Aura of Battle, Grim Aura, and Firefist is increasing my max damage. Without 2x Aura of Battles, Grim Aura, and Firefist I hit for 124 max with a 25 damage weapon. I hit for 132 with a 25 damage weapon with 2x Aura of Battles, Grim Aura, and Firefist.

I was saying +Attack doesn't increase chance to hit.

Interesting with the sk and attack, I get what you're saying now.

I think you must be right about a class specific element as well: according to the wiki bards and rogues have the same piercing and offense caps.

[Vivitron]

Although according to this (https://web.archive.org/web/20011113024943/https://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/everquest/Forum1/HTML/000346.html) bards and rogues are supposed to be on the same damage table after Oct 2001, so perhaps the difference in max hit between them with the same damage weapon is a bug.

[messiah_b]

I know that the P99 code is branched from this and not public, but curiously there is a very familiar number in a custom damage cap for shaman listed in the public code as part of a section supporting hard-coded class based caps.

Line 1303: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/97edb09fba533416a81b4caaa0303213d3209aee/zone/attack.cpp

else if (level >= 40) {
switch (GetClass()) {
case CLERIC:
case DRUID:
case SHAMAN:
cap = 80;
break;

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I know that the P99 code is branched from this and not public, but curiously there is a very familiar number in a custom damage cap for shaman listed in the public code as part of a section supporting hard-coded class based caps.

Line 1303: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/97edb09fba533416a81b4caaa0303213d3209aee/zone/attack.cpp

else if (level >= 40) {
switch (GetClass()) {
case CLERIC:
case DRUID:
case SHAMAN:
cap = 80;
break;

Glad to see someone else is looking at the code! I believe that is the WEAPON damage caps, not the MAXIMUM damage caps. on P99 at least, the MAXIMUM damage cap seems to be based on weapon damage. For Shamans it looks like 4.2 MAXIMUM damage per 1 WEAPON damage. This is why I can only hit for 63 with a 15 damage weapon. If 80 was the static MAXIMUM damage, I should be hitting higher than 63 with a 15 damage weapon with 255 STR and Avatar.

[radbeard]

Of course there is a maximum damage, because stats only get so high. I think probably that is what you are seeing.

I don't see anywhere that +ATK increases maximum damage. +ATK decreases the effectiveness of the target AC so that on average you roll higher damage numbers, but doesn't increase the max damage.

It also seems possible that over 200 strength more strength is half as effective at increasing the damage mod.

When you plug those numbers in you get damage values very very close to what you're suggesting here. Probably we could work it out exactly if you posted the exact stats and buffs and did a long-ish parse on some low level mobs. Your SK magelo, for example, doesn't have max str and thats with a +25 STR stat 2hander. So in an earlier post I don't know what 25 damage weapon you referenced but are you sure you were at max str with it and attacking a mob that had low-ish ac (the low AC won't increase the max it will just make you see the max more often so it takes less time to establish)?

Below is what I think you would expect to see as the max damage for a 25 DMG 1-hander used by different classes with max stats assuming STR is half as effective over 200.

This same formula suggests you should be able to hit for 64 with a 15 damage weapon as a shaman. So maybe you could hit for 1 higher potentially (easier to parse this on a lower AC target) or maybe its how rounding is handled somewhere in the code, but its a very similar result. The +ATK from Avatar should not increase your cap, just increase your average.

Mod Formula: ((Off_Skill+Str(Cap200)+(Str_Over_200/2))/100) = MOD
Max Damage Formula: (MOD*WPN_DMG)+DMG_Bonus

Str over cap below is just 55 strength divided by 2, to account for a softcap.
https://imgur.com/1seQjy2.jpg

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Of course there is a maximum damage, because stats only get so high. I think probably that is what you are seeing.

I don't see anywhere that +ATK increases maximum damage. +ATK decreases the effectiveness of the target AC so that on average you roll higher damage numbers, but doesn't increase the max damage.

It also seems possible that over 200 strength more strength is half as effective at increasing the damage mod.

When you plug those numbers in you get damage values very very close to what you're suggesting here. Probably we could work it out exactly if you posted the exact stats and buffs and did a long-ish parse on some low level mobs. Your SK magelo, for example, doesn't have max str and thats with a +25 STR stat 2hander. So in an earlier post I don't know what 25 damage weapon you referenced but are you sure you were at max str with it and attacking a mob that had low-ish ac (the low AC won't increase the max it will just make you see the max more often so it takes less time to establish)?

Below is what I think you would expect to see as the max damage for a 25 DMG 1-hander used by different classes with max stats assuming STR is half as effective over 200.

This same formula suggests you should be able to hit for 64 with a 15 damage weapon as a shaman. So maybe you could hit for 1 higher potentially (easier to parse this on a lower AC target) or maybe its how rounding is handled somewhere in the code, but its a very similar result. The +ATK from Avatar should not increase your cap, just increase your average.

Mod Formula: ((Off_Skill+Str(Cap200)+(Str_Over_200/2))/100) = MOD
Max Damage Formula: (MOD*WPN_DMG)+DMG_Bonus

Str over cap below is just 55 strength divided by 2, to account for a softcap.
https://imgur.com/1seQjy2.jpg

Ah yes, I didn't mean to sound like I was surprised there was a max damage. All variables have a limit, and the EQEMU code has a max damage as well. I am more interested if the max damage was low enough for melee classes to hit it. For Shaman it is certainly the case.

Based on my testing I am fairly certain +ATK increases max damage. I couldn't hit my old max damage without the +40ish attack, and I didn't change my STR. The 25 damage weapon I was referring to is https://wiki.project1999.com/Eye_of_the_Rigtorgn .

If the max damages are correct from this post https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415495 , that would suggest a ranger's max damage is more like 6 max damage per 1 weapon damage. The last bit of damage is coming from the 2h bonus probably. That is why Primal hits for a bit more, because the delay is higher.

There's no attack in the formula you suggested above, though. On my bard I seem to get 97 max prime hand with a 16 damage weapon, and 92 prime hand with a 15 damage, regardless of avatar status.

Looking through my logs it looks like rogues are probably hitting 96 with a 15 damage prime hand.

Vivitron's post seems to suggest basically 6 max damage per 1 weapon damage as well for Rogues/Bards. So that may be the case for most melees. But I would be interested to see if people can post higher numbers (not crits, those aren't quite the same).

[radbeard]

There are a bunch of people here saying that +ATK doesn't increase their max damage, and that is what all the formulas I can find say. I think the simplest explanation here is that +ATK doesn't increase your max damage.

You seem to be assuming that isn't true. And maybe you are correct, but if so I think you should do some intentional parses to compare.

Get to max str with zero + ATK items and parse a bit to establish a max attack and then do it again with avatar and/or with +ATK items. And then post the results so we can see exactly what is happening. If it does go up with + ATK items on then try it with +10, +20, +30, +40 gear to see if it stops going up.

The next thing to do would be to get well below max str and only use +ATK items and compare the same low strength with and w/o + ATK items. This would side-step your theory about a damage cap since the low str would keep you under it.

[meathook]

Yeah, there is a max damage, but most people wont reach it. On my monk at some point stacking STR + AOB + Avatar I capped my max hit and adding additional AOB / +ATK items didnt matter.

If your toon is stacked on ATK items/buffs, you can easily see this by having someone sit, hitting them, and then adding/subtracting +ATK gear and still hitting for the same max dmg.

That doesnt mean your average dmg wont continue to increase. I have no proof it does or it doesnt cause that was a parse I didnt want to do. I just know at a certain point your max dmg caps.

[magnetaress]

if u want to hit hard don't roll a caster

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There are a bunch of people here saying that +ATK doesn't increase their max damage, and that is what all the formulas I can find say. I think the simplest explanation here is that +ATK doesn't increase your max damage.

You seem to be assuming that isn't true. And maybe you are correct, but if so I think you should do some intentional parses to compare.

Get to max str with zero + ATK items and parse a bit to establish a max attack and then do it again with avatar and/or with +ATK items. And then post the results so we can see exactly what is happening. If it does go up with + ATK items on then try it with +10, +20, +30, +40 gear to see if it stops going up.

The next thing to do would be to get well below max str and only use +ATK items and compare the same low strength with and w/o + ATK items. This would side-step your theory about a damage cap since the low str would keep you under it.

I already did intentional parses. I had 225 STR and +0 ATK vs 225 STR and +40ish ATK. Without ATK I hit for up to 124, with +40ish ATK I hit for up to 132. This is with a 25 damage weapon https://wiki.project1999.com/Eye_of_the_Rigtorgn . I haven't hit the damage cap yet with my Shadowknight, only my Shaman.

[Toxigen]

can we get a tldr on this

[Jimjam]

I already did intentional parses. I had 225 STR and +0 ATK vs 225 STR and +40ish ATK. Without ATK I hit for up to 124, with +40ish ATK I hit for up to 132. This is with a 25 damage weapon https://wiki.project1999.com/Eye_of_the_Rigtorgn . I haven't hit the damage cap yet with my Shadowknight, only my Shaman.

that is like an 8% increase in damage, ignoring damage bonus... is every 5 attack just giving +1% to max random damage?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

that is like an 8% increase in damage, ignoring damage bonus... is every 5 attack just giving +1% to max random damage?!

I looked into the EQEMU code, and it seems like +ATK just gets added to Offense.

With the formula Weapon Damage * (([Offense Skill] + [STR]) / 100):
25 * (([220 + 0] + [225]) / 100) = 111 + 11 = 122.
25 * (([220 + 40] + [225]) / 100) = 121 + 11 = 132.

This seems to add up more or less.

[7thGate]

Its kind of interesting, the Damage Table appears to be where this might be adding in as far as I can tell. Here's where it is in EqEmu: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L4690

If I am reading this correctly, its taking your offense and subtracting some number from the table, then dividing that by 2, then doing a random between 0 and that number to add as an extra % to your damage.

So here's an example level 60 damage table entry:

{ 285, 23, 65 }, // 60

Those numbers are Max Extra, Chance, Minusfactor.

There's a 23% chance it just doesn't do anything on a hit. Then subtracts 65 from offense, which has GetAtk as a component, divides by 2, does a random between 0 and (offense - 65)/2 and adds to 100, compares to 285 to see which is smaller, then uses that.

I think based on that, this would lead to larger max hits if (offense - 65)/2 +100 is smaller than 285, because then you can't cap.

offense appears to be skill+atk+(2 * str-150)/3. At 225 Str, on an sk with a 225 skill cap, that would be (225 + (225*2 -150)/3 - 65)/2 + 100, which is 230, so under 285. Up to 110 additional atk would increase max damage. For a Rogue with Epic and 255 Str, it would be (250+(255*2-150)/3+40-65)/2 + 100, which is at 272.5, so up to 25 ATK would increase max damage. Rogues getting Raid buffed will usually have VoG and some combination of Aura of Battle/Grim Aura/Strength of Nature/Call of the Predator, which would make something like Avatar or Bard +ATK songs not add any additional max damage.

Additional +ATK would still impact the roll20 function, which was applied before the damage table as a multiplier between 0.1 and 2.0 that was dependent on the relative offense vs. ac rolls.

I bet this effect is why there are a lot of claims +ATK doesn't add to max damage but only skews the distribution, but you're seeing a +max damage boost from it.

What is really interesting to me is that the actual Offense skill doesn't seem to be used as part of the damage calc directly, just as part of the compute_tohit here: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L149

Whew, all this stuff is complicated. I wonder how much P99 changed it as well?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Its kind of interesting, the Damage Table appears to be where this might be adding in as far as I can tell. Here's where it is in EqEmu: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L4690

If I am reading this correctly, its taking your offense and subtracting some number from the table, then dividing that by 2, then doing a random between 0 and that number to add as an extra % to your damage.

So here's an example level 60 damage table entry:

{ 285, 23, 65 }, // 60

Those numbers are Max Extra, Chance, Minusfactor.

There's a 23% chance it just doesn't do anything on a hit. Then subtracts 65 from offense, which has GetAtk as a component, divides by 2, does a random between 0 and (offense - 65)/2 and adds to 100, compares to 285 to see which is smaller, then uses that.

I think based on that, this would lead to larger max hits if (offense - 65)/2 +100 is smaller than 285, because then you can't cap.

offense appears to be skill+atk+(2 * str-150)/3. At 225 Str, on an sk with a 225 skill cap, that would be (225 + (225*2 -150)/3 - 65)/2 + 100, which is 230, so under 285. Up to 110 additional atk would increase max damage. For a Rogue with Epic and 255 Str, it would be (250+(255*2-150)/3+40-65)/2 + 100, which is at 272.5, so up to 25 ATK would increase max damage. Rogues getting Raid buffed will usually have VoG and some combination of Aura of Battle/Grim Aura/Strength of Nature/Call of the Predator, which would make something like Avatar or Bard +ATK songs not add any additional max damage.

Additional +ATK would still impact the roll20 function, which was applied before the damage table as a multiplier between 0.1 and 2.0 that was dependent on the relative offense vs. ac rolls.

I bet this effect is why there are a lot of claims +ATK doesn't add to max damage but only skews the distribution, but you're seeing a +max damage boost from it.

What is really interesting to me is that the actual Offense skill doesn't seem to be used as part of the damage calc directly, just as part of the compute_tohit here: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L149

Whew, all this stuff is complicated. I wonder how much P99 changed it as well?

Yeah I think that is a good overview of the code!

My SK is 58, so he would be using this table entry: { 265 Max Extra, 28 Chance, 70 Minusfactor.}

I had slightly off numbers for my STR and Offense. He has 226 STR and 224 Offense, and +48 ATK with 2 AoB items, Firefist, and Grim Aura. He is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Eye_of_the_Rigtorgn , which has 25 Damage on it, and is a 1h weapon.

Based on the EQEMU formula my max damage would be as follows:

1. Calculate the "Offense" variable, which isn't simply the offense skill: 224 Offense Skill + ((2 * 226 Strength - 150) / 3) + 48 ATK = 372.6666666666667.

2. Apply the damage table:
2a. 372.6666666666667 "Offense" - 70 Minusfactor = 302.6666666666667
2b. (302.6666666666667 / 2) + 100 = 251.3333333333334 "extra percent damage"
2c. ((25 Weapon Damage * 2) * 251.3333333333334) / 100 = 125.6666666666667 damage. Add the 11 main hand weapon bonus for a total of 136 max damage. I have only hit for 132 so far, but maybe I could go a bit higher, or the calculation is a tad different on P99.

The one assumption I am making is they are multiplying weapon damage by 2 on step 2c. I can't actually find that anywhere in the code, but it is common knowledge that weapon damage is multiplied by 2.

Either that is P99 specific, or somewhere in the code I can't find. The function that pulls weapon damage on EQEMU seems to just pull the raw damage value. Maybe the damage gets doubled somewhere else a bit further along the function chain.

[Encroaching Death]

They should teach Math using MMORPG mix/max theory in schools.

I'd probably be in Harvard if they did that with me

[DeathsSilkyMist]

They should teach Math using MMORPG mix/max theory in schools.

I'd probably be in Harvard if they did that with me

Lol I agree, teaching people how to make games would probably be a lot more fun than a traditional math class.

[Vivitron]

Yeah I think that is a good overview of the code!

My SK is 58, so he would be using this table entry: { 265 Max Extra, 28 Chance, 70 Minusfactor.}

I had slightly off numbers for my STR and Offense. He has 226 STR and 224 Offense, and +48 ATK with 2 AoB items, Firefist, and Grim Aura. He is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Eye_of_the_Rigtorgn , which has 25 Damage on it, and is a 1h weapon.

Based on the EQEMU formula my max damage would be as follows:

1. Calculate the "Offense" variable, which isn't simply the offense skill: 224 Offense Skill + ((2 * 226 Strength - 150) / 3) + 48 ATK = 372.6666666666667.

2. Apply the damage table:
2a. 372.6666666666667 "Offense" - 70 Minusfactor = 302.6666666666667
2b. (302.6666666666667 / 2) + 100 = 251.3333333333334 "extra percent damage"
2c. ((25 Weapon Damage * 2) * 251.3333333333334) / 100 = 125.6666666666667 damage. Add the 11 main hand weapon bonus for a total of 136 max damage. I have only hit for 132 so far, but maybe I could go a bit higher, or the calculation is a tad different on P99.

The one assumption I am making is they are multiplying weapon damage by 2 on step 2c. I can't actually find that anywhere in the code, but it is common knowledge that weapon damage is multiplied by 2.

Either that is P99 specific, or somewhere in the code I can't find. The function that pulls weapon damage on EQEMU seems to just pull the raw damage value. Maybe the damage gets doubled somewhere else a bit further along the function chain.

This formula works out perfectly for the high str/attack rogue with a 15 damage weapon*. It also works out perfectly for all of your shaman's avatar numbers**. (Edit: this might work for your shaman's non-avatar numbers too but I'm not sure on your exact +atk and exact str.)

To me these numbers suggest that the October 2001 patch to bring (edit: pally/sk/bard) onto the (edit: high) damage table has not been applied to p1999. https://web.archive.org/web/20011113024943/https://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/everquest/Forum1/HTML/000346.html

* Eqemu damage table of { 285, 23, 65 }
** Eqemu damage table of { 210, 49, 105 }

[7thGate]

Either that is P99 specific, or somewhere in the code I can't find. The function that pulls weapon damage on EQEMU seems to just pull the raw damage value. Maybe the damage gets doubled somewhere else a bit further along the function chain.

I believe this comes in the Roll20 function. Its called as part of MeleeMitigation here: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L960

RollD20 is selecting one of these values to multiply the damage by: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L915 , based on the difference between an offense roll and an AC roll. This is how additional +ATK increases average damage even if it doesn't increase max damage.

MeleeMitigation is called here, right before the damage table is applied: https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/834062fbf957c17a5492a1c3628d8af610ef5618/zone/attack.cpp#L1348

[Vivitron]

1. Calculate the "Offense" variable, which isn't simply the offense skill: 224 Offense Skill + ((2 * 226 Strength - 150) / 3) + 48 ATK = 372.6666666666667.


I was poking around the eqemu code a little too and I think the skill used in the "offense" calculation is (confusingly) the weapon skill not the offense skill.

[Swish]

I was poking around the eqemu code a little too and I think the skill used in the "offense" calculation is (confusingly) the weapon skill not the offense skill.

https://i.imgur.com/spBZKhz.gif

[Vivitron]

https://i.imgur.com/spBZKhz.gif

// The Sleeper Tomb Avatar proc counts towards item ATK
// The client uses a 100 here, so using a 100 here the client and server will agree
// For example, if you set the effect to be 200 it will get 100 item ATK and 100 spell ATK
if (IsValidSpell(SPELL_AVATAR_ST_PROC) && FindBuff(SPELL_AVATAR_ST_PROC)) {
itembonuses.ATK += 100;
spellbonuses.ATK -= 100;
}

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I was poking around the eqemu code a little too and I think the skill used in the "offense" calculation is (confusingly) the weapon skill not the offense skill.

Yes, I saw that too. I assume on P99 they changed that part of the code. The normal EQEMU codebase supports expansions past Velious, so that is probably related to future expansions. I am mostly curious to see if the max damage formula is the same as EQEMU. That indicates they didn't have any data from classic to justify changing the formula. The formulas in P99 are probably the same as EQEMU in any situation where they couldn't find an alternative.

[arc]

What's a "boomer"? Serious question.
Assigning labels rarely ends well.
Born 1965.
Own home.
Worked/works shit jobs (low pay so to speak)
Smart. Imho.
Young wife, 22yrs younger.
2 kids 12 and 10.
Not rich so not sugar daddy.
Label me.
Go.
In B4.
Insults dont count. Unless they make me laugh.
groomer vibes

[Valakut]

any GMs that can move this thread to RNF?