Ranger ac parsing (I'm serious)

[sogundordor]

Hello hello~ i'm a Lv60 ranger in blue
for the past few weeks, my ranger has some nice ac item upgrade, finally over 1400 display ac with self buff, so i decided to do some ac parsing again~

why again? because i keep check my log to see am i doing better dps/tanking when soloing, although it "feels" getting better everytime when i get some small upgrade, but the "numbers" in log tells me thats not quite true, sometimes better sometimes worse, maybe its because i keep killing geonids, they have different level spawn
then i try to kill some steady level spawn according to wiki, when reading logs they have different hps, which means maybe they still have some difference between spawns

So today, i'm not killling them, just taking hit and heal until i'm oom then camp and relog, keeping the same mob to parse

the following damage taken by the "same" storm giant escort, form 1123-1396 display ac (244-412 worn ac), taking from 494 to 636hits and record the average damage

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQS8W8lCDefIRpmUETVEZ198Ab1WX6gV3dJiRICN6aTmYbA?wi dth=1024

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQSikOu5mWEjQKcBciG4xVtjAWK67ZiAC1GE76IDdtk4u3k?wi dth=1024

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQ_DHl5m4ewQZOIiAu-kXViAfwOeqgiFcpsC17Jsasxs0I?width=1564&height=766

conclusion:
1. When a lv60 ranger killing a lv45 storm giant escort, ac has no meaning (from 1123-1396 display ac)
2. also no worn ac soft cap can find from the result (between 244-412 worn ac)

I've heard ranger ac is broken before many times, until i have this data
there must something i don't understand, the level difference? is it the same for other class? its really broken? i don't know but i'll continue stack ac when i have dkp:cool:

[Duik]

At least he brings numbers.
Sorry this (appears to be/is) true.

Rangers do jot need to be screwed more.

Maybe the tailored Tiger Raptor armour with great stats and low armor class is actually great (for twinking...).

[sogundordor]

Hello Solist~ i need to say sorry to you~ at the first time i read about you said ranger ac broken i don't believe you, i was thinking thats not make sense, how can it be stacking ac has no affect damage taken~

When i was upgrading ac item and keep killing geonids, i can see there some new best record, which means i can kill a geonid just taking 5% hp, so i think stacking ac can do something~
on the other hand i also found there are some worst record too, like use over 75% hp to kill one, seems worse than ever...i can't explain this at that time...

i keep studying the data and make this graph:
https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQS7aZK5m_mHR6HNpna1dEgpAYiaipuq2N5hrwywi1b8Y-I?width=1024

When you have lower ac, you always close to 60, highest/lowest and calculate average
When you have higher and higher ac, you can have a lowest record under 60, which is nice
but you also have a chance to get hit more, but the calculate average is nearly the same
that my understanding of how ac works at this situation~

i don't think its developer intended to be, so i agree its some kind of broken~

[Ripqozko]

Hello hello~ i'm a Lv60 ranger in blue
for the past few weeks, my ranger has some nice ac item upgrade, finally over 1400 display ac with self buff, so i decided to do some ac parsing again~

why again? because i keep check my log to see am i doing better dps/tanking when soloing, although it "feels" getting better everytime when i get some small upgrade, but the "numbers" in log tells me thats not quite true, sometimes better sometimes worse, maybe its because i keep killing geonids, they have different level spawn
then i try to kill some steady level spawn according to wiki, when reading logs they have different hps, which means maybe they still have some difference between spawns

So today, i'm not killling them, just taking hit and heal until i'm oom then camp and relog, keeping the same mob to parse

the following damage taken by the "same" storm giant escort, form 1123-1396 display ac (244-412 worn ac), taking from 494 to 636hits and record the average damage

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQS8W8lCDefIRpmUETVEZ198Ab1WX6gV3dJiRICN6aTmYbA?wi dth=1024

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQSikOu5mWEjQKcBciG4xVtjAWK67ZiAC1GE76IDdtk4u3k?wi dth=1024

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQ_DHl5m4ewQZOIiAu-kXViAfwOeqgiFcpsC17Jsasxs0I?width=1564&height=766

conclusion:
1. When a lv60 ranger killing a lv45 storm giant escort, ac has no meaning (from 1123-1396 display ac)
2. also no worn ac soft cap can find from the result (between 244-412 worn ac)

I've heard ranger ac is broken before many times, until i have this data
there must something i don't understand, the level difference? is it the same for other class? its really broken? i don't know but i'll continue stack ac when i have dkp:cool:

This has been parsed ad naseum but people refused to believe solist and few others like me that said ac on ranger is broke and pointless, gear for hp and resists if you are gonna aim for stats. People still dont think cek sword is bis too.

[Jimjam]

It is a level 45 mob. At level 45 it wouldn't be unrealistic to expetc a ranger to be in banded or maybe Ivy Etched in era - maybe 100 worn AC. You are a level 60 with 250+ worn AC.

To be critical, a potential flaw in the methodology could be your level/ac/defence are so high compared to the mob's attack that the attack is completely squelched, so adding more AC doesn't really do anything.

I suggest keep stripping off AC until you find the point where mitigation starts to noticably worsen.

Once you've found this point, you could retry the methodology with a mob of a presumably different attack rating. By doing this you could compare whether the observed cut off in mitigation/ac returns is due to excess worn AC squelching the mobs attack (which should be at a different point for each mob depending on it's attack), or there is a universal hardcap with 0% softcap return for rangers (there should be a similar mitigation for all mobs over a certain attack value at the same worn AC value).

Alternatively you could use other classes to demonstrate mitigation improvements with more worn AC against the Storm Giant Escort (is she expensive?), if you could do that it would be good evidence for the ranger being broken.

Moving past criticality, I do think you have demonstrated that ranger AC does need to be investigated. I have recently posted a bug thread raising concerns, linking to previous threads. It may be worth going to that thread and linking to this discussion to provide your futher (excellent) evidence.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=435250

[Goregasmic]

I supose this has been submitted as a bug before? Did devs say anything about it? Just a "this is/isn't a bug" would be nice.

Edit: jimjam posted while I was writing.

Maybe the tailored Tiger Raptor armour with great stats and low armor class is actually great (for twinking...).

Yeah I had the same thought. It is disregarded because of the low AC but is has pretty much enough AC to bring you close to the cap while being a decent stat salad. Makes me wonder if verant was aware of the low AC cap for rangers back then. Gear like the hammered golden hoops could make a lot of sense too.

But then again in the grand scheme of things they do decent group tanks. They were never meant to be on par with knights either so if they weren't made to soak up damage and definitely not on par on damage with rogues/monks, I guess they thought the added utility made up for it?

Or maybe they were botched and that's why they got a boost during luclin.

P.S. Kinda funny the "build your ranger like a tank" crowd apparently never parsed shit unless they went full HP.

[sogundordor]

Hello JimJam~
I choose storm giant escort because the camp is 99% open~noone will come to kill my target hehe, and Lv45 mob is a blue /con for Lv60 player, reasonable target for solo.

i don't understand " level/ac/defence are so high compared to the mob's attack that the attack is completely squelched" i always think more ac is better, is that mean there is some kind of hard cap? or "higher" ac need higher atk mob to show mitigation effect? in my data showing worn ac has nearly no return is the point i don't understand~

I'll try your plan later (next long holiday hehe)
Plan A: stripping off AC is good but today my bags are full of trash, no room for remove item
Plan B: I have a lv60 SK can do this, but shes under 1300ac, no matter she reach soft cap or not, its doable~

[Jimjam]

by "ac squelching a mob's attack" I mean you already have so much AC, the mob is already bottomed out on it's ability to damage you, so adding more AC would do nothing.

Does that make more sense?


I think that is one viable explaination for the lack of impact of AC, BUT, there seems to be other data which suggest the hypothesis that rangers just don't benefit from AC >100 is a more likely explaination.

[Salaryman]

do shields and weapons with ac count towards the cap beacuse I have:

Shield of the Water Dragon
SHield of the Red Dragon
SHield of the Green Dargon

on RED99

[Snaggles]

Thanks for the tests. My 60 ranger has sub 1k AC. It’s never been an issue but outside bumping I do very little with a mob swinging at me and am quick to swap to another class if that’s the need. I think first floor of hate and some Fear is all I’ve raid tanked since we needed a quick MA. Random blue cons like Seb are no big deal because of slow. The Vyemm whip made a pretty noticeable impact to blue cons durability.

I tend to give up all my AC, and a lot of hps for SV’s, MR in particular. No math behind that but it’s tastier placebo.

[Salaryman]

Thanks for the tests. My 60 ranger has sub 1k AC. It’s never been an issue but outside bumping I do very little with a mob swinging at me and am quick to swap to another class if that’s the need. I think first floor of hate and some Fear is all I’ve raid tanked since we needed a quick MA. Random blue cons like Seb are no big deal because of slow. The Vyemm whip made a pretty noticeable impact to blue cons durability.

I tend to give up all my AC, and a lot of hps for SV’s, MR in particular. No math behind that but it’s tastier placebo.

Do you have a Shield of the Water Dargon, Shield of the Red Dargon and Shield of the Green dargon and Swift Blade of Zek, Guardian Robe and Brizleblots frigid gnasher? because otherwise these tests are pointless.

I have all those btw on RED99 the only srever that matters.

I also have a Large Coin Purse

[sogundordor]

Plan A: stripping off AC
around 100 worn ac is my bottom line cos its started have chance to die at the last root~
heres the result down to 97 worn ac

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQXc1PnN2e4TZYm_Ro1Cn55AfCBUJsZc_Ov1C0AFAXoaLU?wi dth=1024

From the test result,
1. between 100-200ac, mitigation gain is linear
2. after 200ac, there nearly no mitigation gain
3. from wiki, "Soft-cap (raw ac/worn ac): Level * 6 + 25 This only applies to characters level 50 or below." which is 325 worn ac, there is no mitigation change in the graph
4. "IF" the soft cap not change at 60, which is 385, there is also no mitigation change in the graph
5. from the graph, it "looks like" a hard cap setting, maybe there is some mechanic running behind i don't know
6. maybe like jimjam said, "the mob is already bottomed out on it's ability to damage", if it happen at like 200ac, i think its too low for a velious era hunting

[Goregasmic]

I don’t know how many more times I’ve needed to say it.

I’ve parsed on every mob in the game within reason on two rangers, one full of vulak loot and one in kunark shit.

I laughed whenever like full BIS rangers like Aadill took identical damage to a fresh 60 in a fungi.

Yeah but I've always seen 100ac floated as the ranger cap and this guy's chart shows it is at least 200, if not more on higher level mobs. So that's good to know.

Like he said the cap is supposed to be at least 385 for everybody (except purecasters IIRC) so there is no reason it caps at 200 for rangers as by their own formula it falls 50% short. For that reason I'm not sure it matters what happens to other chain classes, the formula just doesn't work as advertised.

I'd like to see 200+AC tested on a 50+ mob to test jimjam's theory of squelched attack but if it doesn't do much on vulak I don't think we'll get anything different.

[Duik]

on RED99

Literally nobody cares.

[Jimjam]

.

I'd like to see 200+AC tested on a 50+ mob to test jimjam's theory of squelched attack but if it doesn't do much on vulak I don't think we'll get anything different.

Again, devil’s advocate cos i also reckon ranjor ac is borked, but doesn’t vulak have high attack so going above 200+ ac may have as much benefit as upgrading from cloth to tattered leather against him?

[sogundordor]

I never hear about the ranger 100ac story~ whats that about?
50+ mob test seems can't be done by solo, need a healer i think, hard to find a partner to do it, maybe it need 1-2 hours

just curiosity, is it only ranger ac "seems" broken? no other class has similar problem?
i'm doing plan B, although its unfinish, at this moment data is interesting~

[Goregasmic]

Again, devil’s advocate cos i also reckon ranjor ac is borked, but doesn’t vulak have high attack so going above 200+ ac may have as much benefit as upgrading from cloth to tattered leather against him?

Possibly, that is why I'd like a test on higher group tier mobs. I have no healer though so it is hard for me to help.

I never hear about the ranger 100ac story~ whats that about?
50+ mob test seems can't be done by solo, need a healer i think, hard to find a partner to do it, maybe it need 1-2 hours

just curiosity, is it only ranger ac "seems" broken? no other class has similar problem?
i'm doing plan B, although its unfinish, at this moment data is interesting~

It is a number I've seen floated around a couple times without any proof. Your parse seem to indicate it is wrong and more like 200.

As for if other classes are broken, I'm curious but I'm not sure if it is relevant. They said the cap should be 385+ at 60, if tops at 200, something is not right. Also I don't think many rogues/shaman gear with a strong emphasis on AC so I'm not sure how many out there can parse with a +300ac worn outside maybe high end raiders.

[Ripqozko]

Possibly, that is why I'd like a test on higher group tier mobs. I have no healer though so it is hard for me to help.



It is a number I've seen floated around a couple times without any proof. Your parse seem to indicate it is wrong and more like 200.

As for if other classes are broken, I'm curious but I'm not sure if it is relevant. They said the cap should be 385+ at 60, if tops at 200, something is not right. Also I don't think many rogues/shaman gear with a strong emphasis on AC so I'm not sure how many out there can parse with a +300ac worn outside maybe high end raiders.

others classes see benefits with ac more, rangers dont. people can parse but thatll be the conclusion youll run into. its just broke, broke broke. gear for hp/resists and enjoy the class. i still love the toolkit and the dps rangers can do with cek sword or bfg disc.

[bcbrown]

50+ mob test seems can't be done by solo, need a healer i think, hard to find a partner to do it, maybe it need 1-2 hours

I can bring a 52 cleric to heal you.

[Goregasmic]

others classes see benefits with ac more, rangers dont. people can parse but thatll be the conclusion youll run into. its just broke, broke broke. gear for hp/resists and enjoy the class. i still love the toolkit and the dps rangers can do with cek sword or bfg disc.

It is not that I don't believe you guys but knowing the exact cut off point on worn AC is interesting for gearing choices. I'm also hopeful that with the relevant parses showing without a doubt this appears broken we could get a dev to weight in but I'm not holding my breath.

[Snaggles]

It is not that I don't believe you guys but knowing the exact cut off point on worn AC is interesting for gearing choices. I'm also hopeful that with the relevant parses showing without a doubt this appears broken we could get a dev to weight in but I'm not holding my breath.

This game has two expansions and gear drops with preset stats. That means people have finite options to what they can buy with plat or DKP. Any time someone prioritizes a stat they are deprioritizing another. The goal of high AC generally costs you something, even if you have access to the best stuff.

[Ripqozko]

Yea some stuff has both, what im saying is if you had a choice of +ac or +hp, i would choose the hp, ie: chardok ears is really good on a ranger, because hoocars on the ac penalty. by all means parse it and come to the same conclusion. end game gear is end game gear regardless, itll have both.

[Snaggles]

100% agreed. HGL’s are great; I have one and am only missing the other due to laziness. I’m looking for a few hundred more hps but not at a loss for MR.

[Salaryman]

you n00bs are just mad bad and sad about the fact that my range is amazing on a server where you are supposedly greifed from even getting to level 2,

maybe for you n00bs you cant even get to level 2 on RED99 (the only server that matters) and I feel sorry for you.

[sogundordor]

Plan B: shadow knight worn ac test
to compare ranger ac with other class, my sk testing worn ac from 97 to 367

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQSaKkkeEGWiR6ZTROa1cTrQAUXZwPzsULlc3d_H634Hdek?wi dth=1024

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQRDP2GWdtPBR6Zgvebi-sXCAWl0iZo281-JHOGxD0px9IE?width=1024

1. the result is similar to rangers, mitigation gain stops at 200ac
2. can't proof ranger ac is broken, or its both ranger and sk are broken
3. still no trace for soft cap

outside the graph, the average hit rate (being hit) is different~ about 7% difference~
ranger: 38.04%
sk: 31.31%

conclusion:
1. its about avoidance, not mitigation, and avoidance is not related to worn ac
2. ac has the same effect for different class, at least ranger and sk

[Jimjam]

Really appreciate the work you’re putting in. Very interesting.

[Jimjam]

People are saying a worn cap of like 385 AC, I think this cap may have been either very late velious or more likely post melee revamp (luclin?)

I remember a live dev post which explained the monk nerf and it explicitly mentioned the worn AC caps for level 51 and level 60. I’ve not hunted down the quote, but I did find this reference to it:

“the 51 and 60 kunark/early velious hardcaps for melees were 163 and 289”

Take with a pinch of salt! But regardless of the true classic / p99 hard/soft caps it would be nice to use more than 200 AC!

[sogundordor]

People are saying a worn cap of like 385 AC, I think this cap may have been either very late velious or more likely post melee revamp (luclin?)

I remember a live dev post which explained the monk nerf and it explicitly mentioned the worn AC caps for level 51 and level 60. I’ve not hunted down the quote, but I did find this reference to it:

“the 51 and 60 kunark/early velious hardcaps for melees were 163 and 289”

Take with a pinch of salt! But regardless of the true classic / p99 hard/soft caps it would be nice to use more than 200 AC!


thats base on Haynar the Developer said "I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25." at 04-23-2014
i know it can't direct apply to lv60, but its logic is "cap goes higher as your level higher" right? cap can't be under 325/385 at lv60

I need some more advice~ how do you read the data/graph?
and about your theory, what will you predict the graph will look like?
and i'll try to get some more data before my lunar new year holiday ends =P

[Jimjam]

First of all, I think there are a few parts to the discussion:

How things worked on live (and this changed at least a couple of times in the trilogy era)

How things work here (there have been changes here too, you’ve highlighted one instance). From the great monk nerf live dev post it seems to me Haynar’s by level AC cap is an equation from outside the era (or he just wanted twinking to be more effective than the og devs did).

How things interact (using an unclassic AC system could produce more classic results if mobs are also not classically tuned - they could balance out)

How things are intended to work (pure classic results? More difficult or easier than live? Remove caps?)

With those points in mind and answering your question: It looks to me like there is an ac cap around 200 at 60 for ranger and sk. The fact that the Sk has a different average hit shows this is not due to ac/mitigation squelching mob attack - the SK’s improved defence skill wouldn’t have further lowered the average hit if that was the case.

[sogundordor]

and about your theory, what will you predict the graph will look like?

err.. maybe i'm sleepy~
i mean about your theory, if the target change to a lv50 velious mob, what will you predict the graph will look like?

[Jimjam]

err.. maybe i'm sleepy~
i mean about your theory, if the target change to a lv50 velious mob, what will you predict the graph will look like?

At the moment I reckon the graph would show the same cut off - there seems to be a cap on worn AC but SK has ways to further lower average hit - perhaps the better defence skill.

have we been using AC buffs on either class? These may be subject to a separate cap and may explain the difference. Likewise did the SK use a shield (or maybe epic which seems to be a pseudo shield)? In the live AC revamp shield ac got added as worn ac but then added again after the cap … many suggest that system is used here (even though it may actually be out of era).

[Goregasmic]

thats base on Haynar the Developer said "I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25." at 04-23-2014
i know it can't direct apply to lv60, but its logic is "cap goes higher as your level higher" right? cap can't be under 325/385 at lv60

I need some more advice~ how do you read the data/graph?
and about your theory, what will you predict the graph will look like?
and i'll try to get some more data before my lunar new year holiday ends =P

Interesting, SKs have ~20% more defense and ranger take ~20% more damage.

But SKs have 155 dodge and 200 parry.

Rangers have 170 dodge and 220 parry.

Technically rangers should have a lower mitigation but more avoidance?

This thread has some avoidance/mitigation formulas but we're not sure it is the p99 ones and I'm not smart enough to draw any definitive conclusions.

https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=40543

I'd still be really curious to see a test with higher level mobs to know if there's a mitigation split at some point for both classes.

[Jimjam]

Dodge and parry are shite. Defence increases avoidance more than they do. Sk has better defence so much better avoidance.

[sogundordor]

Goregasmic you've found something interesting~

about "Riposte+Dodge+Parry" skill
ranger: 185+170+220=575
sk: 200+155+205=560
*sk is 2.6% lower than ranger~

in my data:
ranger average "Riposte+Dodge+Parry" = 22.65%
sk average "Riposte+Dodge+Parry" = 24.77%
*sk is 8.5% higher than ranger~

sk is is doing better at lower skill~ damn why?!
perhaps its some kind of game mechanics, "The order is: Parry/Block --> Riposte --> Dodge --> Shield Block." something like that~

Oh wait, i can check the logs now~ let me see~
ranger parry:9.8%, riposte: 6.4%, dodge: 8.3%
sk parry:11.7%, riposte:7.5%, dodge:8.5%


*ummm... chance of parry is not only parry skill, its also related to something like Defense? this is something new i was only focusing on mitigation~

[Jimjam]

Imagine if dodge/parry/riposte are being triggered on misses instead of swings or hits haha

[Salaryman]

My AC is 1 million.

[Snaggles]

Classes very well can have some baked in advantage regardless of the displayed AC number. Call it whatever you want. Comparing Ranger to Knight mitigation isn’t the same, knights to monks/warriors, etc.

All the reason to just beat them on the dps parse with a ranger. It’s more fun anyways.

[Keebz]

Did anyone parse with spell ac versus armor ac? IIRC spell AC is different in certain ways. Probably won't make a difference, but worth validating.

[Duik]

Maybe take that hint Mr Sewerageman.

Literally.
Nobody.
Cares.
About.
Red.

[Snaggles]

Did anyone parse with spell ac versus armor ac? IIRC spell AC is different in certain ways. Probably won't make a difference, but worth validating.

True to the intent of the original post, I feel you raised the most important question.If worn AC is broken but spell buff AC is not (or less so for rangers), the Ranger spells especially when cast on themselves have far more meaning. This logic might carry forward to the Druid who also has a Coat-line buff but is limited to leather.

Call of Earth and Thorncoat alone are 56 AC, Skin like Nature is an extra 16. These all last at minimum one hour. There are some blocking issues but these can be sorted situationally. Dain Hammer won’t stack with Thorncoat; Ring 8/9/10 and Shissar won’t stack with Call of Earth, Aego/PoTG/Heroism won’t stack with SoN. Rangers get Feet Like Cat which is another tickle of AC via AGI but I haven’t ever cast it.

I tend to run around with Arch Shielding and R9 clicked but if there was a reasonable argument for the AC versions, if tanking in a group, I’m all for it. Also, I’m too lazy to test this :).

[Jimjam]

IMO the differences in ranger tanking in xp groups are most pronounced between those that appear to use Coe/thorns and those who don't.

273 attempts, 61 average hit, 60 Iksar warrior with 204 worn AC and potg.

Will report back without potg. yah small sample size, but I had no heal available :)

[Jimjam]

172 attempts, 59 average hit, 60 Iksar warrior with 204 worn AC and no potg.


small sample sizes, but no drastic difference in incoming damage between potg and no potg. Certainly I'd suggest any effect is smaller than the noise of RNG.

[Jimjam]

153 attempts, 82 average hit, 60 Iksar warrior with 104 worn AC and no potg.

[Salaryman]

Looks like you n00bs dont have any shields,
I have a SHield of the Red Dragon,
Shield of the Water Dragon
and Shield of the Green Dragon

But i dont need to do any tests because I am already the Number #1 Top PVPer in all of EverQuest History

[Ripqozko]

Looks like you n00bs dont have any shields,
I have a SHield of the Red Dragon,
Shield of the Water Dragon
and Shield of the Green Dragon

But i dont need to do any tests because I am already the Number #1 Top PVPer in all of EverQuest History

the same red that lost to green in pvp?

[Jimjam]

Looks like you n00bs dont have any shields,
I have a SHield of the Red Dragon,
Shield of the Water Dragon
and Shield of the Green Dragon

But i dont need to do any tests because I am already the Number #1 Top PVPer in all of EverQuest History

congrats, keep working on becoming #1 forum poster too.

[Snaggles]

Looks like you n00bs dont have any shields,
I have a SHield of the Red Dragon,
Shield of the Water Dragon
and Shield of the Green Dragon

But i dont need to do any tests because I am already the Number #1 Top PVPer in all of EverQuest History

So bowquesting n00bs with an 11pt damage bonus is better than a 56pt damage bonus?

I truly fear for your foes.

[Salaryman]

I dont bowquest because its a bug, the shields are for resists, obviously.

Do you even play the game?

And you have yet to do tests with a shield, does daddy guild master not let you roll on shields?

On RED99 we take what we want, like when I ninja l00ted the Robe and Azure Sky and Stole a Manastone, not asking gm to please give l00t.

[Jimjam]

163 attempts, 62 average hit, 60 Iksar warrior with 248 worn AC and no potg.

Seems 200AC is the drop off point for AC on 60 iksar warrior on a storm giant escort also, and POTG (24 spell AC) doesn't appear to have a strong (or any?) effect being added to that amount of worn ac.

certainly the 100ish AC log took a much higher average hit (80ish) than the 200+ logs (60ish). Can this result be replicated in longer, parses? How is worn AC working on magi or priests? Can we find other mobs to test on, do they show different drop off points? More research is needed.

[Snaggles]

Yea I have 255 MR in my runaround gear.

[Jimjam]

riposte, parry and dodge skill and percent from the most recent log
_____________________
|rskl|pskl|dskl| sum|
|----|----|----|----|
| 225| 230| 175| 630|

_____________________
| %r | %p | %d | sum|
|----|----|----|----|
| 7.2|15.6|10.8|33.6|


Riposte+Parry+Dodge" skill
ranger: 185+220+170=575
sk: 200+205+155=560
warrior: 225+230+175=630

ranger riposte: 6.4%, parry:9.8%, dodge: 8.3%
sk riposte:7.5%, parry:11.7%, dodge:8.5%
warrior riposte:7.2%, parry:15.6%, dodge:10.8%

I'm not gonna dive into why those chances and skills seem mismatched. Lets just say poor sample size or facing issues?

[sogundordor]

Big thanks to Snaggles and Jimjam~ you remind me some important things: spell ac and sample size~

1. in the beginning, i was design to test is it my ranger stacking ac can have better mitigation, so he has all the buff including son/coe/coat/skin and sow, there is about 70ac
2. Plan B sk test, i was focusing on the 200 worn ac point, and sk has no self buff, only jboot
3. About sample size, each data take after the mob swing 500+ times, that is about 200+ successful hit

I have some new interesting data, my friend joined the test and got some new data beyond 400 worn ac, its a good news, and bad news is today is the last day of my lunar new year holiday, i can't continue test in a short time~

friend is a high end raider, paladin with 538 worn ac with self buff (59ac i guess)
we have not enough time, can only test from 443-538 worn ac, and we increase the sample size to 700+ swing
i try to put all data in the same graph and adjust y-axis we can easier to compare

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQT6P-RbsBlASZm9O2DLhEgyAXzVVusGb2V7CvxM95Q9UOM?width=10 24

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQvk6jiat-WQrF1yThorYwXAZ9Vv8BhcvpPF_TgZoy0GfU?width=1024

1. lines in the graph is not smooth, clearly sample size is not large enough
2. from 100-200 worn ac, ranger and sk both has decreasing trend, ranger has about 70ac spell ac, i believe spell ac is working at this range
3. from 200-400 worn ac, although can't see a clear decreasing trend, average hit is getting lower very slightly, sample size larger is better, spell ac seems has no effect at this range
4. sk=knights=pally, i believe they the the same, pally can reach a new record when stacking over 500 worn ac, theres a decreasing trend, and some missing data between 367-443 worn ac
5. if spell ac is working on pallys part it will decrease average hit, from the graph average is getting lower as ac higher, i believe its worn ac working
6. about ranger, still need more data

conclusion:
1. i believe there is a soft cap at 200 worn ac, and ac return after soft cap is far lower than i think before
2. ranger maybe have lower return after soft cap, it need to continue to test
3. spell ac works good below 200 worn ac

*warrior riposte chance lower? sample size or facing issues make sense~ warrior suppose to be higher~
*about "Riposte+Parry+Dodge" thing, i was thinking its related to defense skill, knights and warrior both 252 max, but i have no idea how to proof it yet, just call it secret class difference =P

[Goregasmic]

It seems all classes have 200ac cap despite varying mitigation/avoidance stats, for this mob at least.

What we know FOR SURE from the devs mouth:

- The soft cap should be 325 at level 50
- There is no hard cap
- Warrior post softcap returns are 45%.

We aren't seeing any of that. Either it is broken, we're missing something or there is a cut off mechanism we aren't aware of. Level difference generally plays a huge part in mitigation so maybe they put a dynamic ceiling based on mob level so raid geared melees don't walk around mostly immune to mobs up to ~50?

I'd really like to see more testing on higher level mobs but all I have on p99 is a chanter. Unless you want me to haste the mob and C2 your healer I can't do much sadly.

[Kich867]

It seems all classes have 200ac cap despite varying mitigation/avoidance stats, for this mob at least.

What we know FOR SURE from the devs mouth:

- The soft cap should be 325 at level 50
- There is no hard cap
- Warrior post softcap returns are 45%.

We aren't seeing any of that. Either it is broken, we're missing something or there is a cut off mechanism we aren't aware of. Level difference generally plays a huge part in mitigation so maybe they put a dynamic ceiling based on mob level so raid geared melees don't walk around mostly immune to mobs up to ~50?

I'd really like to see more testing on higher level mobs but all I have on p99 is a chanter. Unless you want me to haste the mob and C2 your healer I can't do much sadly.

This is the assumption I'm getting reading this thread. Your level, or possibly your Defense skill, relative to your opponent's Offense skill/level, can reach a damage mitigation cap that for a level 60 only requires a bit of AC to reach.

I'd be very interested to see how a higher level mob looks when charted out, but I understand there aren't a ton of options. A Lava Walker in Skyfire is apparently level 52, can maybe pull one of those to zone and test there. Keep it snared, zone out if needed, should stay put while snared. Would probably have to bring a healer friend though.

[Salaryman]

Yea I have 255 MR in my runaround gear.

useless on a pve server, you wasted your time.

[one_chill_cat]

Refreshing to see some real data!! Thanks for taking the time to do this. Curious how warriors parse out.

Not thrilled to see there seems to be a very real cap @ 200 ac for melee/knight classes.. especially considering it was thought to be closer to 400.

So am I correct to assume there is little to no point in going over 200 worn AC on my ranger (and paladin)? This would change my gearing path significantly.

[Kich867]

Refreshing to see some real data!! Thanks for taking the time to do this. Curious how warriors parse out.

Not thrilled to see there seems to be a very real cap @ 200 ac for melee/knight classes.. especially considering it was thought to be closer to 400.

So am I correct to assume there is little to no point in going over 200 worn AC on my ranger (and paladin)? This would change my gearing path significantly.

I think all you can confidently say about this is that there's no point to go over 200 worn AC for a ranger against a level 44 mob.

Personally I'd love to see some data against higher level mobs.

[Snaggles]

Personally I'd love to see some data against higher level mobs.

Why? Lol.

Outside the curiosity for the sake of science, much of this thread is trying to pull a ski boat with a Honda Civic. It’s not what the thing was meant to do.

At least when it comes to DPS/Speed the Ranger/Civic has a shot when built properly.

[Kich867]

Why? Lol.

Outside the curiosity for the sake of science, much of this thread is trying to pull a ski boat with a Honda Civic. It’s not what the thing was meant to do.

At least when it comes to DPS/Speed the Ranger/Civic has a shot when built properly.

It's purely for the curiosity. Same reason I'm trying to do some better ZEM testing. Does it actually matter? Not a ton, but I get a lot of enjoyment out of the process.

[Jimjam]

Lots of reasons to try out parsing other targets. Imagine if the by level AC cap is checking the attacker’s level instead of the defender!

[bcbrown]

Outside the curiosity for the sake of science

Don't need more of a reason than this!

[Goregasmic]

Why? Lol.

Outside the curiosity for the sake of science, much of this thread is trying to pull a ski boat with a Honda Civic. It’s not what the thing was meant to do.

At least when it comes to DPS/Speed the Ranger/Civic has a shot when built properly.

Well at first the cap was said to be ~100ac worn, which is demonstrably false.

Now we know it is at least 200. 100 worn AC was attained without trying. 200 is relatively easy for a non raider and going over it could be detrimental especially considering group setting.

If it ends up being 300, if you want to reach it, the average player will have to put more thought into it as a ranger. You can ignore it if you want but depending on your playstyle it can be far from inconsequential.

Same for knights/warriors. If the cap is, let's say, 250 worn AC for level 55 mobs and you decide you will only do group content, you can orient your gear choices toward that cap and allow more stats elsewhere after you've reached it.

I've VERY OFTEN read "AC is king" but from what we're seeing so far, gearing for AC may very well be a waste for a lot of players past certain points and I find it interesting to know where that point is. It's also funny that this was supposed to be parsed ad infinitum already and sogundordor found something no one seemed to have picked on.

[Snaggles]

I've VERY OFTEN read "AC is king" but from what we're seeing so far, gearing for AC may very well be a waste for a lot of players past certain points and I find it interesting to know where that point is. It's also funny that this was supposed to be parsed ad infinitum already and sogundordor found something no one seemed to have picked on.

Context is important, I’ve never seen anyone say this about rangers.

It’s interesting but it won’t change how people gear or play the class. It won’t change how a raid operates and picks trash tanks. Concerning yourself with AC over other priorities as you put it: “depending on your playstyle it can be far from inconsequential.”

The only reason a ranger might favor one piece of armor over another with an AC benefit is if the item also had a ton of hps on it. No ranger is looting a Cloak of Thorns and think about tanking stuff like a boss. Except Salary Man with his collection of Druid shields.

It’s a time locked server. Accounts are free. The ranger is by far my favorite class here but if the job calls for a tank I’m the first one to swap. I’m not trying to hold back science, just offer a pragmatic voice.

My quote was in reference to AC making a bigger impact on high level stuff over low level stuff. It just pains me to think about spending hours CH chaining a ranger on gate guards outside Freeport.

[bcbrown]

My quote was in reference to AC making a bigger impact on high level stuff over low level stuff. It just pains me to think about spending hours CH chaining a ranger on gate guards outside Freeport.

Seems more enjoyable than spending hours CH chaining while your guild kills the same dragons for the thousandth time. At least you might learn something new (like apparently SKs and pallys might share a 200 ac softcap with rangers?).

My offer to heal anyone (on either blue or green) who wants to run ac/dps experiments remains open to anyone interested.

[Goregasmic]

Context is important, I’ve never seen anyone say this about rangers.

It’s interesting but it won’t change how people gear or play the class. It won’t change how a raid operates and picks trash tanks. Concerning yourself with AC over other priorities as you put it: “depending on your playstyle it can be far from inconsequential.”

The only reason a ranger might favor one piece of armor over another with an AC benefit is if the item also had a ton of hps on it. No ranger is looting a Cloak of Thorns and think about tanking stuff like a boss. Except Salary Man with his collection of Druid shields.

It’s a time locked server. Accounts are free. The ranger is by far my favorite class here but if the job calls for a tank I’m the first one to swap. I’m not trying to hold back science, just offer a pragmatic voice.

My quote was in reference to AC making a bigger impact on high level stuff over low level stuff. It just pains me to think about spending hours CH chaining a ranger on gate guards outside Freeport.

If you're already raiding you probably maxed or will max all relevant stats with all the good buffs to lean on and a bunch of warriors on tap that are geared to the gills anyway. Good for you that must be nice (no sarcasm).

Your average EC gear ranger on a budget will be grouping in velks with 3 rogues, a mage and a druid. Might have to tank more often than he'd like to and he can't afford to max more than one thing really. If that ranger wants to be versatile, wether the cap is 100AC or 300AC will matter to him. Basically, if you have limited ressources you'll have choices to make and knowing those things helps being more effective.

[Snaggles]

I mean, a lot of rangers do geos and Karnors too since they can use harmony. Half those mobs cast root, blind, slow, and some even cast gflux. A nominal amount of cheap MR gear might be more of a safety net.

Keep on parsing. I hope you can crack this AC nut.

[Vear99]

I have had a very high opinion of AC on this server for a while, so I was quite shocked to see these results. Rangers weren't so surprising, but the SK was. I took a quick look at our logs versus Lord Yelinak.

Catzi: 1262 AC

432 hits
136 max hits (31.5%)
16 min hits (3.7%)
295 average hit defensive
430 average hit normal
0.63 DI fraction

Ruba: 1389 AC

377 hits
123 max hits (32.6%)
16 min hits (4.2%)
277 average hit defensive
436 average hit normal
0.59 DI fraction

Sakuragi: 1433 AC

252 hits
69 max hits (27.4%)
10 min hits (4.8%)
271 average hit defensive
404 average hit normal
0.56 DI fraction

171 displayed AC between Catzi and Sakuragi should be 107 item AC.
5.9% increased HP * 6000 HP / 107 = 3.36 HP:AC
8.3% increased HP * 6000 HP / 107 = 4.63 HP:AC

Catzi is superior to Sakuragi and his rather sad 5795 max HP if he has more than 6150 HP when defensive or more than 6276 HP otherwise, which he probably does. Also, I know people will say 'but AC doesn't matter because in the end you get quadded for max'. In reality, even Sakuragi would need 10 max hits to die from Yelinak. The chance of getting 10 max hits is 0.274^10 which is about 1:400,000.

TLDR: unless I made some grievous math errors (always possible) and bearing in mind the small sample size (you need LONG parses) I'm keeping my Orb of the Deep Sea.

[Jimjam]

Thank you for posting.

According to wiki, for context, Yelinak hits for 125 - 600, which I think puts his damage interval around 25.

I suppose those 3 characters are warriors as they use defensive? How were you able to split out hits based on whether they were defensive or not? Also did any character have anything which could confound the results, ie a rune / proc being cast on them or different ac buff/song cast on them? Likewise were all parses tun without any str/attack debuffs cast on Lord Yeli, or were shamans/enchanters using cripple etc which may have landed at different time ms in the fight? Dod any character use a shield (which allegedly counts differently?) are all ogres the same race? Were any an iksar?

[bcbrown]

are all ogres the same race?

What a philosphically interesting question.

[Jimjam]

I feel i may have just conceded ogre as master race for warrior lol

[Duik]

When stunned do u still use defensive (disc) and dodge/defense? That would make ogre better. /shrug

[Jimjam]

Sorry for that block of text with atrocious spelling. Not so well recently and clearly the paracetamol hadn’t kicked in yet.

[Vear99]

Yelinak is MR immune I believe, so there was no cripple and I do not think there was any Rune. Sakuragi is Iksar; Catzi is Halfling, and Ruba is a Barbarian (no ogres). No one used a shield although I was using Dagas (MH, though). But ultimately this was a quake raid, not a scientific experiment. I remember doing much more significant experiments before, and being quite convinced that AC was very effective, so I am not going to bother to do more at this point.

Also, I thought Yelinak's min was 150; I missed the hits for 125. I redid some of the calculations but they do not change much. If Yelinak had the DI/DB of a burning guardian, AC is only 2.5 HP (1.5 when defensive).

Anyway, I am pretty happy with these results because Sakuragi feels like the only warrior on the server that stacks AC; everyone else loads up on the BP of Vindication and HGLs and talks about their 'X HP warrior' without even mentioning AC. Of course, those aren't bad items at all, and Sakuragi is never going to be a legit velious main tank, but unless significant new evidence comes out I'm satisfied with the gearing choices I made.

[Snaggles]

This is a sample of a lot of hits but there still is a chance of the relatively small sample pool providing scatter. Someone like bcbrown could probably use the right terms for what I’m trying to say.

The AC difference between the iksar and Ruba is just over 3%. The results between Catzi and Ruba about 10%. So either there is a significant break at 1400, iksar’s have some sort of small cap advantage due to racial ac, or more parses would even out these results.

I’m not sure. There is no argument that AC scales well for warriors and monks, only that at some point you are trading raw hps which depending on the target or goal might not be worth it.

As for knights and rangers, they don’t take hits nearly as well but that won’t change their usage. No other class can generate more hate per second outside maybe a bane wizard and nobody uses those to tank Lord’s and Lady’s.

[Goregasmic]

Yelinak is 70. Except for kerafyrm I think that's the highest mob level. If there's a mob based cap it is surely lifted on the level 70 mobs so you could find the true softcap, if attainable.

If there's truly a mob cap we still don't know what goes on between level 45 - 70 though.

[bcbrown]

This is a sample of a lot of hits but there still is a chance of the relatively small sample pool providing scatter. Someone like bcbrown could probably use the right terms for what I’m trying to say.

I don't have a snappy name for the principle you're trying to describe, but I can probably illustrate it. Imagine you have two coins, and you're trying to figure out which one is more likely to come up heads - one or both of them might not be exactly fair. Imagine that although you do not know this, one has a 50% chance of heads and one has a 60% chance. Lets say you decide to flip them each ten times, and then say that the coin with more heads is the one that's more likely to come up heads than the other one.

If you flip a 50% coin 10 times, there's a 37.7% chance you get at least 6 heads. If you flip a 60% coin 10 times, there's a 36.7% chance it comes up no more than 5 times. Since these probabilities are independent, there's a 0.377 * 0.367 = 13.8% chance that this scenario happens.

If you instead flip each coin 100 times, there's a 2.8% chance that the 50% coin has at least 60 heads. There's a 2.7% chance that the 60% coin has no more than 50 heads. There's a .08% chance that this scenario occurs.

You can plug your own numbers in here to run any variation on these calculations: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=binomial+distribution%2C+n+%3D+100%2C+p+%3 D+0.5%2C+X+%3E%3D+60

Neither of these calculations is exactly answering the question "what's the likelihood that the 50% coin has more heads than the 60% coin with n flips", but they illustrate the principle that the likelihood that you pick the wrong coin drops as you increase the number of flips. This page (https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/113602/test-if-two-binomial-distributions-are-statistically-different-from-each-other) discusses the exact answer to this question, but the answers are too filled with jargon to be readily understandable.

Perhaps this is a succinct description of what Snaggles was trying to say: "Are we confident that the sample size for each toon is large enough that the possibility that the one that appears to do better was just exceptionally lucky, and/or the one that appears to do worse was just exceptionally unlucky, is small enough that we can conclude that the one that appears better actually is better." Maybe that's not very succinct. It's hard to put into words.

I cannot help myself but to note that in the past on this forum I've had interactions with people who were aggressively uninterested in this question when an experiment with a small sample size resulted in an outcome that supported their argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I cannot help myself but to note that in the past on this forum I've had interactions with people who were aggressively uninterested in this question when an experiment with a small sample size resulted in an outcome that supported their argument.

This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.

I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.

So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?

Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.

[Duik]

So (to me it's) trust the data given (even if it is small in some peoples opinions) until a more robust set is provided.
But how big is big enough?

This scenario is really only applicable to a p99 server locked in one finite min/max era.

There is a literal max HP available.
There is a max mana and AC etc.

Many on live would not have had the option to test 3 BIS items for a given slot to even be able to discern a difference large enough to make an impact. (Given that they most likely went on to luclin etc).

Seems weird to me that a 55AC bp with 100hp (in this era) has much less/more impact than a 45AC bp with AoB.
Either would have been fine for all but the MT back in 2000. Guilds went to the Nth degree to outfit an MT for good reason.
I do enjoy the probability discussions though.

[Vear99]

I cannot help myself but to note that in the past on this forum I've had interactions with people who were aggressively uninterested in this question when an experiment with a small sample size resulted in an outcome that supported their argument.

Who are you talking about? I was interested enough in the OP to run my own experiment, and if you want to tank 10,000 hits on a L55+ NPC with multiple AC levels and classes and do all of the appropriate confidence interval math, I'd be very interested.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So (to me it's) trust the data given (even if it is small in some peoples opinions) until a more robust set is provided.
But how big is big enough?

I would say samples have merit when multiple samples from different mobs match a proposed math formula. P99 uses math formulas for all of the combat calculations, including the chance of being hit. Once you know the math formula, you can apply it to every scenario the math formula is designed for, unless there is some exception in the code somewhere. While that is always possible, it is typically bad practice to add these exceptions coding-wise. Sticking to the existing math forumlas as much as possible is more consistent and easier to debug.

I think my post about the player melee damage formula is a good example of samples matching a proposed math formula:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3708955&postcount=440

I proposed a math formula based on EQEMU code, and got parse data from a few different mobs of varying level (and different expansions). The data matched the math formula fairly closely, and the sample size of each mob tested wasn't huge. The Epic Fist + SoS data was a sample size of roughly 1000 hits/misses per mob if I recall correctly.

It isn't as likely multiple samples from different mobs in different expansions would just so happen to line up with my formula by chance. Obviously this isn't a guarantee I am correct, and people can try to disprove my post. But I think it's a good starting point for determing if a sample size has merit, without assuming you need a large sample size like 1 million hits/misses.

[Snaggles]

Who are you talking about? I was interested enough in the OP to run my own experiment, and if you want to tank 10,000 hits on a L55+ NPC with multiple AC levels and classes and do all of the appropriate confidence interval math, I'd be very interested.

He was responding to this:

This is a sample of a lot of hits but there still is a chance of the relatively small sample pool providing scatter. Someone like bcbrown could probably use the right terms for what I’m trying to say.


Just like the law of large numbers tends to stabilize statistics, sometimes shorter runs can lead to sporadic results. That doesn’t villainize an attempt but it can mean the test itself is less illustrative than one would prefer.

I don’t intend to knock anyone’s effort to understand this game. Literally all my own testing is me trying to read the tea leaves because my samples are far too small. The closest thing to running a 10k parse like you said is just several Yeli parses averaged.

[Snaggles]

This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.

I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.

So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?

Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.

Not wanting to stamp something into scientific law doesn’t mean trying to maliciously squash the test. Much of EQ knowledge is really lore that has become law. The OP has run a lot of really good tests though and should be applauded for getting closer to this than most have.

At the end of the day this is a game, we aren’t getting paid to run 8hrs or 80 hrs of experiments in a controlled environment. The best thing we can hope for is many people testing similar situations over time. You can draw some basic truths from that data, even with a few disclaimers.

As for AC vs HP’s, the crux of this is for rangers. Personally I wouldn’t gear a ranger for AC for sake of other things I’d rather gear it for. I spent 3 hours tonight in HoT and took about 8 melee hits. Warriors are a different topic all together.

[Snaggles]

He was responding to this:


Actually he wasn’t now that I re-read that lol. Oops, sorry.

I’m sure the person “in the past” was not this thread. Most of us spin in circles and get a bit heated so it could have been anything :)

[bcbrown]

Who are you talking about? I was interested enough in the OP to run my own experiment, and if you want to tank 10,000 hits on a L55+ NPC with multiple AC levels and classes and do all of the appropriate confidence interval math, I'd be very interested.

My apologies. I can see how you might have thought I was talking about the data you provided, but that was not my intention. I haven't really had enough of a chance to look at any of the data in this thread to form an opinion on how conclusive it is. That's part of why my response to Snaggles was purely theoretical (coin flips) and not practical.

When you provided your data you included the appropriate caveats about sample sizes. If you were willing to provide me with the raw logs of hits and misses I'd be very interested in taking a look.

I wish I could do that experiment myself, but my main is a druid with about 141 worn ac, and I don't think anyone is all that interested in how well a druid can tank. If I could find a good constant-level subject for my 30 bard I could run some tests from 100-200 worn ac. When I get my ranger to 50 (47 now) I plan to run some tests against a froglok hunter in Trakanon's Teeth, but he only has about 140 worn ac so I'm not sure how useful that will end up being. I've got a 54 cleric with close to 200 worn ac I'd like to parse against a froglok hunter as well.

If anyone ever wants to run a long parse, I'm happy to provide heals on my cleric on either blue or green, but no one's ever taken me up on that.

[Snaggles]

My play time is a bit iffy these days but I’d offer to help heal as well. I wonder what would be a good target to plunk on. Maybe like a Freeport gate guard?

Note: https://wiki.project1999.com/Guard_Jacsen

Similar minimum to max hit ratio (2.7x) and level as some ToV npcs but far more sustainable for testing.

[Goregasmic]

This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.

I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.

So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?

Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.

Data means nothing until you interpret it. You can disagree on the interpretation but if you're going to throw out a data set with no counter argument you're just acting in bad faith.

Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningless but people have to understand it sits below the bottom of the "levels of evidence" pyramid.

I, for one, have only been on these forums a couple months and already saw two instances of a major "this has been parsed to death and we already know the answer" being wrong. So I'll take a sketchy parse over common knowledge any day but if the parse isn't great you have to keep your certainties in check when it comes to your interpretations.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Data means nothing until you interpret it. You can disagree on the interpretation but if you're going to throw out a data set with no counter argument you're just acting in bad faith.

Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningless but people have to understand it sits below the bottom of the "levels of evidence" pyramid.

I, for one, have only been on these forums a couple months and already saw two instances of a major "this has been parsed to death and we already know the answer" being wrong. So I'll take a sketchy parse over common knowledge any day but if the parse isn't great you have to keep your certainties in check when it comes to your interpretations.

Agreed! And yes, it is sadly not uncommon on these forums to get the "it's been parsed to death but I won't/can't give you said parses" answer. That is why I am glad to see posters like OP provide data so we can look at it.

[Vivitron]

Big thanks to Snaggles and Jimjam~ you remind me some important things: spell ac and sample size~

1. in the beginning, i was design to test is it my ranger stacking ac can have better mitigation, so he has all the buff including son/coe/coat/skin and sow, there is about 70ac
2. Plan B sk test, i was focusing on the 200 worn ac point, and sk has no self buff, only jboot
3. About sample size, each data take after the mob swing 500+ times, that is about 200+ successful hit

I have some new interesting data, my friend joined the test and got some new data beyond 400 worn ac, its a good news, and bad news is today is the last day of my lunar new year holiday, i can't continue test in a short time~

friend is a high end raider, paladin with 538 worn ac with self buff (59ac i guess)
we have not enough time, can only test from 443-538 worn ac, and we increase the sample size to 700+ swing
i try to put all data in the same graph and adjust y-axis we can easier to compare

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQT6P-RbsBlASZm9O2DLhEgyAXzVVusGb2V7CvxM95Q9UOM?width=10 24

https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQvk6jiat-WQrF1yThorYwXAZ9Vv8BhcvpPF_TgZoy0GfU?width=1024

1. lines in the graph is not smooth, clearly sample size is not large enough
2. from 100-200 worn ac, ranger and sk both has decreasing trend, ranger has about 70ac spell ac, i believe spell ac is working at this range
3. from 200-400 worn ac, although can't see a clear decreasing trend, average hit is getting lower very slightly, sample size larger is better, spell ac seems has no effect at this range
4. sk=knights=pally, i believe they the the same, pally can reach a new record when stacking over 500 worn ac, theres a decreasing trend, and some missing data between 367-443 worn ac
5. if spell ac is working on pallys part it will decrease average hit, from the graph average is getting lower as ac higher, i believe its worn ac working
6. about ranger, still need more data

conclusion:
1. i believe there is a soft cap at 200 worn ac, and ac return after soft cap is far lower than i think before
2. ranger maybe have lower return after soft cap, it need to continue to test
3. spell ac works good below 200 worn ac

*warrior riposte chance lower? sample size or facing issues make sense~ warrior suppose to be higher~
*about "Riposte+Parry+Dodge" thing, i was thinking its related to defense skill, knights and warrior both 252 max, but i have no idea how to proof it yet, just call it secret class difference =P

Interesting info, thanks for sharing. I did one parse with a storm giant escort on a 60 bard. Tiny sample and I only checked for avg hit not misses/dodge/block/parry but I'll toss it on the pile. 353 worn ac + aego + arch shielding = 1317 displayed ac:

Hits: 102, Average: 63.0588, Min: 24, Max: 146, Sum: 6432
Misses: 120
Dodge: 13
Parry: 13
Riposte: 5

edit: I excluded bash/kick lines from the analysis.

[Jimjam]

edit: I excluded bash/kick lines from the analysis.

I forgot to mention this for my results, but I also only included ‘hits’ not bashes, kicks or anything else :)

[Vivitron]

It looks like 769 would be absolute max worn ac on a bard; 674 without held items. That paladin's 538 is probably within the ballpark of what I would get with bis-ish gear viewing ac as worthwhile but tertiary to hp and resists.

If I count how many times I got hit for each specific amount of damage this is what I get:


37 24
5 30
2 37
3 44
4 51
9 57
4 64
4 71
1 78
2 85
2 91
3 98
3 105
6 112
4 119
5 125
3 132
1 139
4 146


It would be interesting to compare this distribution to a parse against a lowbie mob (just high level enough to have 20 distinct hit buckets*), and also against parses vs desired targets.

It would also be interesting to read the eqemu source and see if the behavior matches; if so we may have an exact answer there.

* I note I only got hit for 19 different values here.

[bcbrown]

If I count how many times I got hit for each specific amount of damage this is what I get:

It would be interesting to compare this distribution to a parse against a lowbie mob (just high level enough to have 20 distinct hit buckets*), and also against parses vs desired targets.

This is the analysis that I think will prove the most fruitful. Looking at average hit can provide hints, but looking at the full distribution has a lot more detail.

My understanding of the damage calculations is that it's meant to be a normal distribution with some mean that gets shifted around the DI values depending on the ac/atk comparison, with tails clipped. The number of hits you recorded obviously isn't enough for definitive conclusions, but just eyeballing it I bet 57 is the mean value. Since it's so far below the middle value of the DI, the clipping on the lower tail provides a huge number of minimum hits. I bet if you took a longer parse, the missing 20th value would be the highest number, 152 or 153.

So your AC is fairly completely blanketing the mob's attack value here. Obviously it would be way too much work for anyone to do, but a really interesting experiment would be to play with the worn ac value until you get the mean hit to be the 10th and 11th values of the DI of 85 and 91, then finding how much worn ac you need to add/remove to move that up or down by one AC interval.

[sogundordor]

I keep reading this post but quite busy working in these days to reply~
about the distribution thing,
the following chart shows the hits distribution of 97 worn ac:
https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQS71grbfnXvRKzzC_ihpAyIAc89qCFzBK8YfB6jTfw7zrw?wi dth=1024

this chart is shows 1396worn ac:
https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQQOEBVdDKO-TrSzfBWUmsqdAW1mYb7I4DrPSfm2dTQcacA?width=1024

*Higher ac = higher chance for minimum hit = lower chance for max hit
*Lower ac = lower chance for minimum hit = higher chance for max hit
*no idea how those middle value works

Maybe how ac work is very simple~ just control the chance of min/max hitting =P

*I excluded bash/kick lines from all of my analysis too~

[busted]

I like this thread. Nice work sogundordor and friends.

sogundordor have you tried any parses messing around with AGI stat? I'm curious what you find

[Goregasmic]

Maybe how ac work is very simple~ just control the chance of min/max hitting =P


That was understood long ago I think. The higher the AC the lower you'll sit on the distribution. It seems like defense plays a big role in avoidance though and rangers lower def compared to knights and warriors is possibly where it hurts a lot, considering the AC soft cap is supposed to be the same for everyone.

[bcbrown]

the following chart shows the hits distribution
Maybe how ac work is very simple~ just control the chance of min/max hitting =P

Thanks for including that! Definitely doesn't look like a normal distribution, so maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe you're right - AC just controls the min/max hit distribution. I'm gonna do some parsing on my cleric - at least I can heal myself. I'm using Shiel Glimmerspindle as my target - considers blue, but probably on the lighter end.

[Goregasmic]

Old 2010 thread referencing all this:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20689

"Mob damage is two parts, DB (Damage Base/Bonus or Fixed Damage /Vig), and (1-20)*DI, which is Damage Interval. You can see this by parsing, that there are 20 discrete amounts of damage any mob can deal on a successful hit. It's not quite /random 1 20, because AC makes a big huge difference in how many low hits you have, but you still have the whole range.
If a mob has a damage base of 200, and a damage interval of 20, then (once they hit you) they'll deal either 220 damage, or 240, 260... etc ... 580, or 600 damage."

"High AC (from gear /Vig) reduces the damage taken from the (1-20)*DI portion a lot, making many more low #*DI than high."

The other part of AC is the "avoidance AC" which is defined by your Defense Skill and your AGI stat. Taraddar writes: "Normally your defense skill and agility contribute to your "avoidance" ac and increase your chance of being missed. AC from gear doesn't effect this at all."

Note some of the AC numbers they go on about are no longer applicable on here since AC caps were changed in 2014.

[Goregasmic]

Thinking about it, the most simple explanation is that there is probably no "mob level cap" on AC but a floor value where AC can't squelch the DI portion of the calculation any lower, which is why you'd see a seemingly hard cap on AC even though there is only supposed to be a soft cap way above observed values. Also explains why AC buffs do nothing and why avoidance shines.

Like, on the storm giant escort you still get the full 1-20 bracket and the full damage range but wether you have 200 worn or 400 worn you're almost only gonna random 1 past 200 so it seems you're hard capped but you actually just can't go below getting a whole bunch of minimum hits with some small randomness thrown in.

[bcbrown]

In addition to worn AC and defense skill, the level differential matters as well right? Against the same level 50 mob, a level 50, 55 and 60 character with same class, gear, and skill levels will have different amounts of damage taken?

On my 54 cleric against Shiel, the damage is completely squelched. A quarter of the hits are for min damage and all the other DI values are roughly the same at about 3-4% each. 194 worn AC and ~65 self-buffed AC. Running more experiments at lower AC later today.

[Goregasmic]

In addition to worn AC and defense skill, the level differential matters as well right?

Not sure. I haven't seen anything that suggests it but not impossible. Skill caps go up as you level and your gear should get better so that could account for the difference.

At high level, low level mobs often just miss, I have no idea what's the formula for their hit rate.

[bcbrown]

I ran two experiments on my 54 cleric, one with 195 worn ac and one with 132 worn ac. Both had the full cleric buff line with ~64 ac. Here's the magelo (https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Green:Philomelas). I'd fight Shiel Glimmerspindle, a level 40 rogue, until I had 4-500 hp, then root, CH, re-engage. I'd do that until oom, then root, atone, med up.

On the first experiment I took snapshots at 755 and 1399 hits before concluding the experiment with 1983 hits. Here's the hit distribution for those snapshots:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24742&stc=1&d=1740090493

Some statistics on the full experiment:
Hit%: 55.6%
Average hit: 42.4
Average hit excluding min value: 51.0
Min hit %: 26.8%

The hit chart does not look normally distributed. Excluding the minimum hit, the rest of the DI intervals each had around 3-5% of the total number of hits, with an average of 29 hits per interval. Here's a chart showing each interval as a ratio of the 29 average number per interval:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24743&stc=1&d=1740090493

The ratios for the full experiment ranged from 80% to 125%. So still pretty noisy but it does look like a uniform distribution is a better fit than a normal distribution.

For the second experiment I took 1150 total hits.
Hit%: 58.4%
Average hit: 48.5
Average hit excluding min/max value: 50.6%
Min hit %: 19.3%
Max hit %: 12.7%

And here's the chart:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24744&stc=1&d=1740090493

[Jimjam]

I'm super interested in how the 'low' ac parse has a peak at min and max hits, but the 'high' ac parse has only the peak at min hit.

I wonder if intermediatery AC value parses were done we could see the second peak from the low AC parse move to the left as AC increases, eventually merging with the min hits peak as perhaps it has done in the high AC parse?

[bcbrown]

The 132-AC has a max-hit peak that's about 2/3rds the height of the min-hit parse, so I think this is in that intermediate range. I'll do a smaller 160ish parse and then I'm hoping a 100ish parse will either have same-height peaks or a higher peak on the max hit. Then I want to see whether there's a difference with spell-ac vs worn-ac and whether there's any difference with or without shield ac.

The other thing that jumped out to me was that the avg hit excluding min/max was almost unchanged in the two experiments at 51 and 50.6.

[Goregasmic]

Another thing I'd like to test eventually is the "1ac = 5/10/15hp" thing. When researching melee gear I've seen that one come up a lot and it seems like it is way too much of a situational thing to come up with any sort of general rule without context. Never seen the reasoning behind it either.

[Jimjam]

The 132-AC has a max-hit peak that's about 2/3rds the height of the min-hit parse, so I think this is in that intermediate range. I'll do a smaller 160ish parse and then I'm hoping a 100ish parse will either have same-height peaks or a higher peak on the max hit. Then I want to see whether there's a difference with spell-ac vs worn-ac and whether there's any difference with or without shield ac.

The other thing that jumped out to me was that the avg hit excluding min/max was almost unchanged in the two experiments at 51 and 50.6.

Do you think maybe the 132 is below the threshold for seeing mitigation improvements, and the 195 exceeds the threshold of maximum mitigation?

[zelld52]

Another thing I'd like to test eventually is the "1ac = 5/10/15hp" thing. When researching melee gear I've seen that one come up a lot and it seems like it is way too much of a situational thing to come up with any sort of general rule without context. Never seen the reasoning behind it either.

That was a thing for tanks in live, but later expacs. The idea was 10ac is equivalent to 50hp on gear when choosing upgrades. But that’s when stuff had like 150-200 on it. And I only ever remember applying that to shield. (When warriors got good discs and AAs sword and board was preferred setup on raids) Ie: 60ac 150HP shield is better than 48ac 200HP shield.

[Snaggles]

Weighing an item per its stats is a great way to compare two items of the same slot. As for if those stats are particularly relevant (outside placebo), that’s a different matter.

Coming up with a personal upgrade path and comparing items leads to less spontaneous spending and excessive point use. I’d rather burn those points on alts than bank replaced NTOV gear. Perhaps more important, it gives someone agency to own those decisions.

[Goregasmic]

That was a thing for tanks in live, but later expacs.

I've seen it floated in many threads on p99 forums.

You could probably find that value but I feel like it would most likely only be applicable to mobs in that range, for that AC value and probably with a similar time to kill. And once you are past flattening the DI, HP>AC.


Weighing an item per its stats is a great way to compare two items of the same slot. As for if those stats are particularly relevant (outside placebo), that’s a different matter.

Coming up with a personal upgrade path and comparing items leads to less spontaneous spending and excessive point use. I’d rather burn those points on alts than bank replaced NTOV gear. Perhaps more important, it gives someone agency to own those decisions.

Oh for sure, especially for hybrids where ideally you'd max a couple stats, which is impossible on EC gear so you have to find your balance. Ranger if you go all out tank you'll have like 145str, almost no dex and no mana. Cool if you mt but if you're called on for DPS and you don't have like 190str you'll be failing your DPS role to an extent. If you want to bow stuff you'll need the str/dex and if you fear kite you'll probably want str/mana. Those choices come at a cost and if you don't want to carry full bags of gear you'll have to find your sweet spot somewhere. For some slots it is a no brainer but for others it is a lot more nuanced.

[bcbrown]

Do you think maybe the 132 is below the threshold for seeing mitigation improvements, and the 195 exceeds the threshold of maximum mitigation?

I think 195 ac exceeds the threshold, and adding more ac wouldn't do much damage mitigation for this specific mob. I bet when I test against a level 45 mob there will be room for further mitigation with more worn ac.

132 worn AC is squarely in the realm where adding more AC adds more damage mitigation. I ran a small test with 163 AC and although it's noisy (only 218 hits), it suggests that 163 is right around where maximum mitigation is reached for this mob. There's a small spike at the max hit, but barely more than the other hit values.

I ran a longer test (506 hits) at 106 AC, and that's right around the value where max and min hits occur equally frequently. Note that all of these also occur with ~63 spell AC as well.

I've run a small parse so far on my level 49 ranger with 137 worn ac and 35 spell ac, or 173 total. Only 139 hits; I'm actually killing Shiel on the ranger and there's a 30 minute respawn time, so harder to get a lot of hits in. I think I'll be able to add about 30 worn ac in upgrades and will run another parse when that happens. Compared to the cleric with 106 worn and 63 spell, or 169 total, ranger looks like it mitigates better. Looks most similar to the cleric parse with 132 worn acc, or 194 total. Cleric is using a shield, ranger is not. This makes me wonder if spell ac matters less than worn ac, but there's still far too little data to be confident in that.

[Goregasmic]

I think 195 ac exceeds the threshold, and adding more ac wouldn't do much damage mitigation for this specific mob. I bet when I test against a level 45 mob there will be room for further mitigation with more worn ac.

132 worn AC is squarely in the realm where adding more AC adds more damage mitigation. I ran a small test with 163 AC and although it's noisy (only 218 hits), it suggests that 163 is right around where maximum mitigation is reached for this mob. There's a small spike at the max hit, but barely more than the other hit values.


Very interesting. So bucket 2-19 are basically always flat and the more AC you get, the hits from the max hit bucket get transfered to the min hit bucket. I would have expected a smoother increase in the second half of the buckets.

So that means if your parse flattened the max hits you're at or above the squelch number for that mob.

I ran a longer test (506 hits) at 106 AC, and that's right around the value where max and min hits occur equally frequently. Note that all of these also occur with ~63 spell AC as well.

So 63 spell AC did nothing even though you're far below squelch point? That's odd.

I guess it is probable that for most group content, the softcap is mostly inconsequential (unless you're a heavy twink) since you'll reach the squelch point way before you reach the soft cap and charting the squelch points at various mob levels would be more useful. High end raid mobs probably cannot be squelshed even with the soft cap reached.

[bcbrown]

Very interesting. So bucket 2-19 are basically always flat and the more AC you get, the hits from the max hit bucket get transfered to the min hit bucket. I would have expected a smoother increase in the second half of the buckets.

So that means if your parse flattened the max hits you're at or above the squelch number for that mob.

That's what it looks like to me too.



So 63 spell AC did nothing even though you're far below squelch point? That's odd.


No, I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I had the spell AC on for every graph I've posted here. So it's better to think that, for example, the graph showing equal numbers of max-hit and min-hit is best thought of as being at (106 worn AC plus 63 spell AC). Maybe that's equivalent to 169 worn AC and 0 spell AC, I'm not sure.


I guess it is probable that for most group content, the softcap is mostly inconsequential (unless you're a heavy twink) since you'll reach the squelch point way before you reach the soft cap and charting the squelch points at various mob levels would be more useful. High end raid mobs probably cannot be squelshed even with the soft cap reached.

That's my conclusion too.

[Salaryman]

The 132-AC has a max-hit peak that's about 2/3rds the height of the min-hit parse, so I think this is in that intermediate range. I'll do a smaller 160ish parse and then I'm hoping a 100ish parse will either have same-height peaks or a higher peak on the max hit. Then I want to see whether there's a difference with spell-ac vs worn-ac and whether there's any difference with or without shield ac.

The other thing that jumped out to me was that the avg hit excluding min/max was almost unchanged in the two experiments at 51 and 50.6.

RED99

Well I feel bad for you because you have no shields

On my LEvel 60 EPIC RANGER

I have a:

Shield of the Red Dragon

Shield of the Green Dragon (420 every day)

Shield of the Water Dargon


and I think you should:

Learn 2 Play


https://i.imgur.com/hNQWkS7.png


RED99

[Duik]

Look at me mommy!
I got a bucket and a spadw and i built a sandcastle.
Mommy mommy looook.
I sword and board on my ranga.
I caught them all!

[Ripqozko]

RED99

Well I feel bad for you because you have no shields

On my LEvel 60 EPIC RANGER

I have a:

Shield of the Red Dragon

Shield of the Green Dragon (420 every day)

Shield of the Water Dargon


and I think you should:

Learn 2 Play


https://i.imgur.com/hNQWkS7.png


RED99

i got an aary shield on mine, im sorry you never progressed past kunark

[Jimjam]

^The real pvp happens on the forums.

[Vear99]

Thanks for doing those parses, bcbrown. It definitely seems like the best explanation is that NPCs always get ~65% interval hits and the remaining 35% are either min or max depending on relative AC/ATK. The ad hoc nature of Project 1999 game mechanics never ceases to amaze me, considering how pedantic Nilbog is about quests and such.

The most interesting thing about this is that if true, it implies that tanks want AC for raiding and HP for farming/leveling, while most people take the opposite approach.

i got an aary shield on mine, im sorry you never progressed past kunark

Salaryman has been defeated by Ripqozko in the Ranger ac parsing (I'm serious) thread!

[Snaggles]

Thanks for doing those parses, bcbrown. It definitely seems like the best explanation is that NPCs always get ~65% interval hits and the remaining 35% are either min or max depending on relative AC/ATK. The ad hoc nature of Project 1999 game mechanics never ceases to amaze me, considering how pedantic Nilbog is about quests and such.

The most interesting thing about this is that if true, it implies that tanks want AC for raiding and HP for farming/leveling, while most people take the opposite approach.


Or really, if you just focus on HP’s it serves both purposes. Not to say turning a blind eye to AC as a raid tank is a good idea, but most raid issues don’t involve AC or the last couple hundred hps.

[Goregasmic]

The most interesting thing about this is that if true, it implies that tanks want AC for raiding and HP for farming/leveling, while most people take the opposite approach.


Care to elaborate?

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand the main goal of a high end content raid tank gear wise is not getting one-rounded? It seems like AC reduces the risk of that happening but will never completely negate it. That's assuming you can come close to squelching the mob's attack but on raid encounters like vulak I doubt it is even possible on P99 so HP seems a better insurance policy?

For grouping at lower levels, yeah, get the minimum required AC and move on to other stats but we only tested a level 45 mob. Not sure if neglecting AC is the best way to go on stuff like juggs or DN rats.

[Salaryman]

i got an aary shield on mine, im sorry you never progressed past kunark

RED99

Well then why dont you do some tests with the shield you supposedly have on your ranger, which you have no screenshots of or other proof of having?

https://i.imgur.com/0krcBlV.png

Read that in your goblin tongue

RED99

[sogundordor]

Salaryman has been defeated by Ripqozko in the Ranger ac parsing (I'm serious) thread!

damn it made laugh out loud in office~

Thanks for doing tons of parsing bcbrown~ distribution is more interesting than average dmg~

not getting one-rounded is good idea for ranger keeping aggro rdy to bump:D

[Snaggles]

RED99

Well then why dont you do some tests with the shield you supposedly have on your ranger, which you have no screenshots of or other proof of having?

RED99

Probably doesn’t have any screenshots because that thing almost rots every time.

You are literally the only one nerding over shields for rangers, let alone collecting kunark Druid ones.

Try Blue or Green if you want to get passable gear and learn how to play the game. Or stay on Red farming Paineel while you finish your manifesto.

[kjs86z2]

Try Blue or Green if you want to get passable gear and learn how to play the game. Or stay on Red farming Paineel while you finish your manifesto.

[Salaryman]

RED99

I play for pvp, you play to kill the same dragon over and over and look nice in the freeport tunnels, if thats "gameplay" for you I feel bad for you.

RED99

[Snaggles]

Pity from a Red99 shield ranger?

*clutches pearls*

[Goregasmic]

RED99

I play for pvp, you play to kill the same dragon over and over and look nice in the freeport tunnels, if thats "gameplay" for you I feel bad for you.

RED99

Coming from the guy who won't shut up about his stupid robe, that's rich.

[bcbrown]

Ignore the tedious guy begging anyone to care about his silly shields and let's keep talking AC parsing. Here's two short parses on my 60 druid, one with 146 worn and 61 spell ac, and one with 99 worn and 61 spell ac. On the 54 cleric, 132 + 64 was noticeably below the squelch point, and 163 + 64 was either at or above the squelch point.

If the druid isn't being softcapped, 60 druid at 146 + 61 should be in between those two graphs, and that is indeed what it looks like. The second parse at 99 + 61 was meant to be the same as the 106 + 64, but I messed up and took off one too many pieces of armor. It looks like this is slightly below the midpoint where there's an equal number of max and min hits, which again tracks with the cleric results. Both druid parses are only around 250 hits, so they're pretty noisy.

So now that is parses on three classes, with plate, chain, and leather armor types. None of them show any signs of a softcap. They show that for at least this single mob ac up to around 200-250 gives an improvement in damage taken, in the form of what would otherwise be max hits turning into min hits. All three have identical defense skills of 200.

Next steps: one, upgrade my ranger to see if he can either hit the squelch point or show signs of being softcapped. Second, do some more parsing on a tougher mob. Froglok hunter/forager are level 45 instead of 40, so I think that's who I'll try next.

[Salaryman]

Ignore the tedious guy begging anyone to care about his silly shields and let's keep talking AC parsing. Here's two short parses on my 60 druid, one with 146 worn and 61 spell ac, and one with 99 worn and 61 spell ac. On the 54 cleric, 132 + 64 was noticeably below the squelch point, and 163 + 64 was either at or above the squelch point.

If the druid isn't being softcapped, 60 druid at 146 + 61 should be in between those two graphs, and that is indeed what it looks like. The second parse at 99 + 61 was meant to be the same as the 106 + 64, but I messed up and took off one too many pieces of armor. It looks like this is slightly below the midpoint where there's an equal number of max and min hits, which again tracks with the cleric results. Both druid parses are only around 250 hits, so they're pretty noisy.

So now that is parses on three classes, with plate, chain, and leather armor types. None of them show any signs of a softcap. They show that for at least this single mob ac up to around 200-250 gives an improvement in damage taken, in the form of what would otherwise be max hits turning into min hits. All three have identical defense skills of 200.

Next steps: one, upgrade my ranger to see if he can either hit the squelch point or show signs of being softcapped. Second, do some more parsing on a tougher mob. Froglok hunter/forager are level 45 instead of 40, so I think that's who I'll try next.


RED99

I am not just gloating about the fact that my items are better then yours, This is a thread Dedicated to Ranger AC parsing, Rangers can use shields, if you had even just 1 shield (you dont) you would know that.

So do some tests with a shield (you have none) if you actualy want to contribute to the Thread and what it is Dedicated towards.

Because I am busy being the Top #1 Number 1 PVPer in all of EverQuest History to bother with "parsing" or "raiding" or anything else a nerd would do.

RED99

[Snaggles]

Do your own science, you have all the “best” shields!

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=437049

My ranger carries 10 weapons and no shields. If I cared about shield AC and low dps, I would have logged in my 60 sk or 60 paladin in the last 6 months.

[Duik]

Do your own science, you have all the “best” shields!

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=437049

My ranger carries 10 weapons and no shields. If I cared about shield AC and low dps, I would have logged in my 60 sk or 60 paladin in the last 6 months.


Just Lolocaust.

*DED99*

[Tethler]

Bro in here PvPing on the forum because no one plays on

RED99

[Jimjam]

Anyone have updates to this thread?

For years, I've been saying a narrow band of AC is actually useful for each mob - bcbrown's cleric results suggests this could be as little as a difference of 30 AC or less. To me that is crazy!

The other thing I was interested in, is how AC seems to be almost like a switch - you either mitigate well or mitigate badly. The posts in this thread don't seem to indicate there is much transition between those two states in the narrow band where AC is actually relevant.

[Salaryman]

Anyone have updates to this thread?

For years, I've been saying a narrow band of AC is actually useful for each mob - bcbrown's cleric results suggests this could be as little as a difference of 30 AC or less. To me that is crazy!

The other thing I was interested in, is how AC seems to be almost like a switch - you either mitigate well or mitigate badly. The posts in this thread don't seem to indicate there is much transition between those two states in the narrow band where AC is actually relevant.

RED99

Looks like these nerds got real quiet once I called them out on the fact that they supposedly have access to all these raid shields but have yet to actually test shield ac or even test ac on rangers, which is what the thread is about.

I can tell you from First Hand Experience (FHE) that using a Guardian Robe instead of my Tolunds Darkplate of the Glade has minimal effect and I think the ac cap is around 120 worn ac for rangers, do I take alot of damage from bows and melee in pvp? I dont know, most fights end in my favor because I have faction with the zone or my Legendary status of the Top #1 Number #1 PVPer in all of EverQuest History deters hostility, and rarely have to actualy fight anyone.

Am I going to test anything like the nerds in this thread? No, min maxing is for pve nerds, I am a PVP Legend the Top#1 Number #1 MVP PVPer in all of EverQuest History.

And thats all First Hand Experience (FHE)

RED99

https://i.imgur.com/s3emsAH.png

[bcbrown]

Anyone have updates to this thread?

For years, I've been saying a narrow band of AC is actually useful for each mob - bcbrown's cleric results suggests this could be as little as a difference of 30 AC or less. To me that is crazy!

The other thing I was interested in, is how AC seems to be almost like a switch - you either mitigate well or mitigate badly. The posts in this thread don't seem to indicate there is much transition between those two states in the narrow band where AC is actually relevant.

Why do you think the difference could be as little as 30? Looking back over my posts, I found that for the cleric, 163 worn ac + 63 spell ac was almost-fully squelched and 106 worn ac + 63 spell ac had equal spikes at min and max. So that implies 50-60 ac to go from midpoint to squelch, and if it's also 50-60 to go from midpoint to under-squelched (all max hits and no min hits), that implies there's about a 100-120 band within which AC provides a benefit.

I just calculated the average hit for those two parses and got 45.9 and 50.8. So going from midpoint to fully squelched for this mob is about a 5-point-per-hit change, or about 6% or the max 82 hit value. Extrapolating out to something that max-hits for 300, that would be equivalent to a 18 point per hit swing. If we assume a 30 delay and two hits per interval, that's a 12 DPS swing, and if we assume 4 hits per interval, that's a 24 DPS swing. For a mob that has a max hit of 600 and quad hits on every swing that would be 50 dps.

Obviously that extrapolation is unfounded, but I wanted to get a sense of what the DPS impact of AC might be on an easier raid mob. If Shiel gets one hit per swing with a 30 delay that would be going from 15.3 DPS to 16.7 DPS. Would that be significant change in mana used healing in an xp group? Dunno. I was killing Shiel in about 2:30 on the ranger, so 150 seconds, which means a difference of about 240 damage over the whole fight. That's a difference of about 2.5 casts of Healing, or 150 mana. At 18 mana/tick for medding, that would take 49 seconds to recover. So going from midpoint to squelch point in AC in a typical solo fight against a low blue might save you between a half minute to a minute in recovery time. That seems significant.


Thanks for doing those parses, bcbrown. It definitely seems like the best explanation is that NPCs always get ~65% interval hits and the remaining 35% are either min or max depending on relative AC/ATK. The ad hoc nature of Project 1999 game mechanics never ceases to amaze me, considering how pedantic Nilbog is about quests and such.

After doing those parses I reread Torven's research which Jimjam had previously linked in a different thread: https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=40543. Here's the quote that jumps out to me:

The probability distribution of rolling one of these twenty values follows a shallow bell curve such that DI10 and DI11 will appear more frequently than other values except for DI1 or DI20 when offense == mitigation. DI1 and DI20 appear the most frequently because the ends of the bell curve are compressed into those intervals. When offense == mitigation, DI1 and DI20 will both parse slightly higher than 15%. I call this the "double 15 point".

Lvl61War 224wAC 1061AC 273def 126agi backface Lvl60NPCTestSixty.txt
1] 102: 6694 (15.2%)
2] 119: 1171 (2.6%)
3] 135: 1387 (3.1%)
4] 152: 1483 (3.3%)
5] 168: 1558 (3.5%)
6] 184: 1735 (3.9%)
7] 201: 1772 (4%)
8] 218: 1898 (4.3%)
9] 235: 2068 (4.7%)
10] 251: 2125 (4.8%)
11] 267: 2206 (5%)
12] 284: 2048 (4.6%)
13] 300: 1888 (4.2%)
14] 317: 1808 (4.1%)
15] 333: 1635 (3.7%)
16] 350: 1593 (3.6%)
17] 367: 1456 (3.3%)
18] 383: 1370 (3.1%)
19] 400: 1307 (2.9%)
20] 416: 6778 (15.4%)



There's a few things I want to mention here. First, he did way more parsing than me, 44 thousand total hits. Second, although I earlier concluded that the interval hits were a uniform distribution, I think that might just because I didn't log anywhere near enough hits to distinguish between a uniform distribution and a shallow bell curve - I didn't realize just how shallow the bell curve is. Third, although I agree it looks ad hoc, it does also look like the classical mechanic that p99 is trying to emulate - the original developers were ad hoc, and Nilbog et al are accurately and pedantically replicating it.

[Jimjam]

I must have misunderstood your post for the part about 163, 132 ac for squelch?

[shovelquest]

_5thuw_0dcA

[Duik]

Looks like these nerds got real quiet once I called them out on the fact that they supposedly have access to all these raid.. blsh blah

Nobody cares about red.
If they do they just play it.

Clever people figure out that banging on about DED99 to PVEers is as pointless as a condom vending machine in the Vatican.

Read the room fool.

[Goregasmic]

After doing those parses I reread Torven's research which Jimjam had previously linked in a different thread: https://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=40543. Here's the quote that jumps out to me:

Wow, I glossed over that section because it was under pvp (shut up salaryman) but it was there all along. At least we confirmed it worked like this here.

Seeing a mob's distribution we could probably calculate its DB and DI and with enough parsing we could figure out the squelch point for that attack value but I guess mob level is a decent enough proxy for your average mob even if imperfect. It would give us AC gearing targets depending on the content you're going for.

[bcbrown]

I must have misunderstood your post for the part about 163, 132 ac for squelch?

I think so. The 163 graph shows a full squelch. The 132 graph shows a roughly 2:1 ratio for min:max hits. The 106 graph shows equal spikes for min and max hits. So it's about 50-60 worn ac to go from the midpoint to full squelch for this mob. Which is still not that big a range - a 44 cleric would have about 40 ac in buffs available, so could take someone about two thirds of the way from the midpoint to the squelch point.

In terms of updates, I've spent my grinding time this past month getting some more AC gear. I got my Kael factions up so I could do the turnin for Barbed Dragonscale Boots, which while perhaps not optimal generally on a ranger are certainly useful for running AC parses. I've also gotten a handful of AC upgrades on my druid, which has led to my guild playfully teasing me as a "druid tank" when I do things like loot a Poison Etched Wristband or Gladiator's Chain Armor. This is why, guys!

I do have a couple of graphs of distributions for Grobb bashers and coldain/velium miners. The bashers were a mix of green and blue while the miners are all xp green. All just about completely squelched, but you can see a couple of the bashers (probably the blue ones) still get in a couple more max hits than the others.

What kind of updates would you like to see? What unanswered questions would you like to see me investigate (with the toons and gear I have available)? My vague plan is to try some parses against level 45-50 mobs to see how the midpoint and squelch points change and what the meaningful range of worn AC values is.


Wow, I glossed over that section because it was under pvp (shut up salaryman) but it was there all along. At least we confirmed it worked like this here.

Seeing a mob's distribution we could probably calculate its DB and DI and with enough parsing we could figure out the squelch point for that attack value but I guess mob level is a decent enough proxy for your average mob even if imperfect. It would give us AC gearing targets depending on the content you're going for.

It's amazing how much detail and knowledge there is in that post. I think there's going to be a long process where I go through a long investigation just to find out I've relearned something Torven already explained. In terms of your point about parsing DB and DI, that's really easy to do. You don't need a long parse to find the 20 unique hit values. I think the really valuable long-term project is to find the squelch points for a broad variety of mobs of differing levels and try to come up with a formula that tells you the usable AC range by level of mob. If, for example, we find that 100 worn AC is the squelch point for lvl 20 mobs, 150 for lvl 30 mobs, and 200 for lvl 40 mobs, that lets you gear to hit the squelch point while finding either +str or +hp gear in other slots, then slowly replace that gear with AC gear as you level.

One more note: in my previous post I sketched out some estimates on how much damage is mitigated by hitting the squelch point from the hitpoint. I found that ~50-60 ac mitigates about ~240 damage in a 2:30 fight. So if you're concerned with survivability in a solo fight and have AC in the unsquelched range, the conversion ratio for hp or ac gear is about 4-5 hp to one AC. That's approximately the conventional wisdom, isn't it?

I also re-read the latter half of this thread today, and one thing jumped out to me:


Catzi: 1262 AC
136 max hits (31.5%)

Ruba: 1389 AC
123 max hits (32.6%)

Sakuragi: 1433 AC
69 max hits (27.4%)

All my parsing has been on non-raid xp targets. This is some data on a raid target. It looks to me like this means that Catzi and Ruba are below the AC value where AC converts max hits into min hits, so every "clipped tail" hit is a max hit, while Sakuragi is within that realm (my prediction is a ~5-8% min hit value). I would love to see the worn AC values and min hit frequency for these three toons.