AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[DeathsSilkyMist]

After taking a look at Haynar's post on AC softcaps (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13), I decided to test if the formula given was a hardcap formula or a softcap formula:


I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25.


To test this I put a Fungi and some AC gear on my level 5 Bard mule. I had two level 5 skeletons attack me so I could get some hit data. I did one test with 55 AC, and one test with 178 AC. I sampled 400 hits from each test.

===========================================
55 worn AC ("raw ac cap" of level * 6 + 25)
===========================================

DV = Damage Value

DV, Count
01, 167
02, 19
03, 25
04, 17
05, 27
06, 23
07, 28
08, 11
09, 34
10, 25
11, 18
12, 6

Total Damage = 1731

=================================
178 worn AC (123 AC above 55 cap)
=================================

DV = Damage Value

DV, Count
01, 160
02, 28
03, 27
04, 4
05, 32
06, 30
07, 31
08, 12
09, 24
10, 33
11, 12
12, 7

Total Damage = 1728

As you can see, the amount of damage is basically the same, as is the number of hits for 1 damage.

Therefore, the following formula is a low level hardcap (I don't know what level range this is):


I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25.


Going off of this quote:


And we use a softcap system, not a hardcap based system.


This means there is a separate softcap system that is used as well.

The only things I saw that Haynar confirmed are the following:


Warriors get a 45% return above softcap.

Adding a shield increases ur softcap.


Using the information above, I will show what some of the EQEMU values are:


ClothACSoftcap = 75;
LeatherACSoftcap = 100;
MonkACSoftcap = 120;
ChainACSoftcap = 200;
PlateACSoftcap = 300;
WarriorACSoftcapReturn = 0.45;
KnightACSoftcapReturn = 0.33;
LowPlateChainACSoftcapReturn = 0.23;
LowChainLeatherACSoftcapReturn = 0.17;
CasterACSoftcapReturn = 0.06;


These are supposedly "old" values, but this is probably in the context of the EQEMU itself going past Velious. As you can see here, the Warrior AC softcap return is also 45%, so this is probably a good starting point for further testing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

For completion's sake I did a test at 23 AC with another level 5 skeleton, so we could see what under the hardcap looks like:

DV = Damage Value

DV, Count
01, 61
02, 32
03, 30
04, 12
05, 35
06, 35
07, 24
08, 9
09, 38
10, 30
11, 16
12, 78

Total Damage = 2642

At low levels AC does indeed seem to help quite a bit. Going from 23 AC to 55 AC reduced my damage by ~35%. This also means 123 AC should have done something noticeable if it was softcapped instead of hardcapped.

[Jimjam]

Very interesting. We had an earlier thread which seemed to show that ac mainly moved hits from the highest possible value to the lowest value (suggesting counts min + max should be about the same, but these hit distributions don’t replicate that finding.

Did you ensure melee skills like defence were capped before capturing your data?

How do these results compare to your calculator? Are there any other explanations for the similarities between the two ‘high’ ac values results, eg by 55 raw ac the mob’s attack is already squelched?

[Snaggles]

Scaling is often the issue, or seems the debate on the forums. Do you feel this model can scale accurately?

Anecdotally, it seems a heavily geared alt in the early levels greatly benefits from AC but this quickly fades. While cleric and shaman AC-only buffs are questionably helpful, they do increase in effect per rank.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Very interesting. We had an earlier thread which seemed to show that ac mainly moved hits from the highest possible value to the lowest value (suggesting counts min + max should be about the same, but these hit distributions don’t replicate that finding.

Did you ensure melee skills like defence were capped before capturing your data?

How do these results compare to your calculator? Are there any other explanations for the similarities between the two ‘high’ ac values results, eg by 55 raw ac the mob’s attack is already squelched?

My defense was capped.

To answer your question about min and max values:

1. The game has a Roll D20 function with two inputs. I will call these inputs "Wrath" (attacker) and "Mitigation" (defender). The code confusingly calls them "offense" (attacker) and "defense" (defender), but these inputs are more than simply the attacker's offense skill and the defender's defense skill.

2. The D20 roll is weighted based on the ratio of the attacker's Wrath to the defender's Mitigation. An unweighted D20 has an average roll of 10.5.

3. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 100, the D20 has a weighted average roll of ~6.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

4. If the attacker's Wrath is 100 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has a weighted average of ~14.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the maximum damage value.

5. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has the unweighted average of ~10.5. This is when you see a roughly equal amount of rolls at the minimum and maximum damage values.

The 23 AC test is a scenario where my Mitigation is roughly equal to the Skeleton's Wrath. This is why the number of minimum hits and maximum hits are about the same. The Skeleton's Wrath is slightly higher, which is why there are a few more maximum hits compared to minimum hits.

The 55 AC test and 178 AC test are scenarios where my Mitigation is significantly higher than the Skeleton's Wrath, which is why you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

If my AC wasn't hardcapped, you would see an increase in how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

My damage calculator shows the same pattern. It doesn't have the AC hardcap or softcap built in, so more AC will increase how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

[kjs86z2]

surely testing on a level 5 bard on level 5 skeletons with an armor difference of 120 is the 100% accurate way to prove something nobody gives a flying fuck about

[DeathsSilkyMist]

surely testing on a level 5 bard on level 5 skeletons with an armor difference of 120 is the 100% accurate way to prove something nobody gives a flying fuck about

The reason why the level 5 test matters is it shows that the formula provided by Haynar is not the softcap formula. It is a separate hardcap formula for low levels.

So we need to look elsewhere if we want to find the AC softcap for a level 60 melee class.

This also probably explains why Rangers feel like AC doesn't do as much for them. If they are hitting the softcap, they will see significant diminishing returns. This is especially true if a Ranger's softcap is lower than a Warriors or a Knights, which is suggested by the EQEMU numbers.

[Snaggles]

IMHO, I would probably use a level 5 warrior, monk, paladin or SK.

I still am not certain if there is some kind of scaling issue to account for, but nobody cares how AC affects bards and rangers.

[Jimjam]

I care >:-(

But only about rangers though.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

IMHO, I would probably use a level 5 warrior, monk, paladin or SK.

I still am not certain if there is some kind of scaling issue to account for, but nobody cares how AC affects bards and rangers.

You are correct that a Warrior would have less diminishing returns on the softcap, but my Bard hit the hardcap. Haynar did not say that the hardcap formula was different between classes.

[Snaggles]

I care >:-(

But only about rangers though.

Tunare blessed you with snare, root, and sow. It’s as if the gods said, “Don’t stop moving or you will die.”

[Ephirith]

I care >:-(

But only about rangers though.

I was once a crusader for the argument that a ranger is the optimal casual 6 person group tank, bringing snap agro like a knight, snaring and/or snapping charm breaks, dps kinda like a monk, and then tanking the slowed mobs.

Oh how I wanted to see people change their minds about my favorite class

[Jimjam]

I was once a crusader for the argument that a ranger is the optimal casual 6 person group tank, bringing snap agro like a knight, snaring and/or snapping charm breaks, dps kinda like a monk, and then tanking the slowed mobs.

Oh how I wanted to see people change their minds about my favorite class

They are tank with lowest avoidance which means you get more ‘free’ damage through damage shields, further boosting group dps and efficiency.

[bcbrown]

Very interesting. We had an earlier thread which seemed to show that ac mainly moved hits from the highest possible value to the lowest value (suggesting counts min + max should be about the same, but these hit distributions don’t replicate that finding.

Did you ensure melee skills like defence were capped before capturing your data?

How do these results compare to your calculator? Are there any other explanations for the similarities between the two ‘high’ ac values results, eg by 55 raw ac the mob’s attack is already squelched?

Good observations/questions. By the hit distributions not replicating you're talking about how the first two experiments showed 40-43% at min+max while the third is 35%? I'd chalk that up to small sample size, but it'd be interesting to see if the pattern still occurs at >1000 samples.

I think your suggestion that the mob's squelch point is below 55 worn AC is likely correct. We already know adding more AC past the squelch point to do almost nothing, which is consistent with the data in this thread so far. I don't see any evidence here that suggests any AC capping mechanic is in play.

If I wanted to figure out low level AC capping I'd first try to find the squelch point and the midpoint for some mob. Then use a toon where the possible AC cap is right around the midpoint.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We already know adding more AC past the squelch point to do almost nothing, which is consistent with the data in this thread so far. I don't see any evidence here that suggests any AC capping mechanic is in play.

If I wanted to figure out low level AC capping I'd first try to find the squelch point and the midpoint for some mob. Then use a toon where the possible AC cap is right around the midpoint.

At level 5 the AC cap in Haynar's formula is 5 * 6 + 25 = 55. That is what I was testing, and confirmed to be the case.

You don't need the midpoint when a developer tells you the formula verbatim. But 23 AC is basically the midpoint, as the D20 rolls were fairly close to the unweighted average.

It is unlikely two sample sizes of 400 would happen to get the same amount of damage and minimum hits.

If you believe the sample size is too small, you could provide a larger set of your own showing a bigger discrepancy.

[bcbrown]

Do you understand what we're talking about when we talk about a mob's squelch point? It was developed in that AC ranger parsing thread Sogundordor started earlier this year.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you understand what we're talking about when we talk about a mob's squelch point? It was developed in that AC ranger parsing thread Sugundor started earlier this year.

I understand the context of the "squelch point" you are referring to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the AC tests in that thread were done with higher level characters. The hardcap formula I am referring to only applies to "low levels", so the "squelch point" wouldn't be directly relevant.

Haynar's formula probably no longer applies to the characters doing the tests in that thread. Unless you were testing with characters under 40, Haynars formula would need 265+ worn AC to even begin testing. Did that thread have any tests with 40+ characters wearing 300+ worn AC?

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean level 60 tests when I say 40+, as max level wouldn't be low level. We don't know what the "low level" range is. Gregorgasmic suggested levels 1-50 at one point, but I don't think it was confirmed.

[bcbrown]

The point is that the AC squelch point is a mob characteristic. Every mob will have a different squelch point, and adding AC over that point will not have an impact. This is independent of any player-specific AC cap mechanism.

You need to find a mob with a squelch point that is higher than the Haynar cap formula for the toon you're using.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The point is that the AC squelch point is a mob characteristic. Every mob will have a different squelch point, and adding AC over that point will not have an impact. This is independent of any player-specific AC cap mechanism.

You need to find a mob with a squelch point that is higher than the Haynar cap formula for the toon you're using.

What would be the purpose of Haynar's formula if the "squelch point" was under 55 AC? If they both did the same thing, Haynar's formula would just be redundant.

Also, why do you think this mob's squelch point is under 55 AC?

[bcbrown]

What would be the purpose of Haynar's formula if the "squelch point" was under 55 AC? If they both did the same thing, Haynar's formula would just be redundant.

Also, why do you think this mob's squelch point is under 55 AC?

Yes, I agree it is mostly redundant. It would mostly apply to fighting red mobs I suspect, if in fact Haynar's formula is in effect.

The squelch point for a level 45 mob was 200 AC. Haynar's formula implies a cap of 199 at level 29, so it would only come into play for a player under 29 fighting a level 45 mob. Almost completely irrelevant.

I don't know what that mob's squelch point, but the data is consistent with a squelch point under 55 AC. In order to rule out that possibility you would first need to find the mob's squelch point. To find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of Haynar's formula you need to fight a mob where the mob's squelch point is higher than the Haynar cap.

This is what I meant by the midpoint. Find the worn AC value for a mob such that there's an equal number of min-hits and max-hits. Get a toon with a Haynar cap of about that value. Wear AC that hits the squelch point. If the results show almost no max-hits, the Haynar cap is not in effect. If the results show an equal number of max-hits, the Haynar cap is a hardcap. If the results are somewhere in between, the Haynar cap is a softcap.

Does that makes sense?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, I agree it is mostly redundant. It would mostly apply to fighting red mobs I suspect, if in fact Haynar's formula is in effect.

The squelch point for a level 45 mob was 200 AC. Haynar's formula implies a cap of 199 at level 29, so it would only come into play for a player under 29 fighting a level 45 mob. Almost completely irrelevant.

I don't know what that mob's squelch point, but the data is consistent with a squelch point under 55 AC. In order to rule out that possibility you would first need to find the mob's squelch point. To find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of Haynar's formula you need to fight a mob where the mob's squelch point is higher than the Haynar cap.

This is what I meant by the midpoint. Find the worn AC value for a mob such that there's an equal number of min-hits and max-hits. Get a toon with a Haynar cap of about that value. Wear AC that hits the squelch point. If the results show almost no max-hits, the Haynar cap is not in effect. If the results show an equal number of max-hits, the Haynar cap is a hardcap. If the results are somewhere in between, the Haynar cap is a softcap.

Does that makes sense?

The main problem I have with this theory is Haynar specifically added this formula to solve a problem. Based on his post it didn't sound like the problem was a niche issue like low levels fighting reds. It was more about how effective AC was as you equip more.

But I can do a few more test to confirm there isn't a "squelch point" before 55 AC. What AC do you want me to test?

[bcbrown]

I would suggest using a level 10 toon to find a mob with a squelch point above 55 AC. Then rerun the same experiment as before on a level 5 toon with AC of 25, 55, squelch-point.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I would suggest using a level 10 toon to find a mob with a squelch point above 55 AC. Then rerun the same experiment as before on a level 5 toon with AC of 25, 55, squelch-point.

I don't think you need to do the level 10 test.

My data already shows near identical results for 55 AC and 178 AC. We also know that going from 23 AC to 55 AC is a 35% damage reduction, so clearly more AC is working somewhere between 23 AC and 55 AC.

What it sounds like is I need to do a test at 40 AC and 50 AC to determine if I get identical results to the 55 AC test and 178 AC test sometime before 55 AC. If I get those results, then a "squelch point" exists somewhere between 23 AC and 55 AC. If I see damage reduction improvements instead at 50-54 AC, that would mean Haynar's formula is in effect.

Is that fair?

[bcbrown]

No, that's insufficient. You would still have the possibility of this mob having a squelch point of 55 AC.

You need to find a mob with a squelch point above the Haynar cap of the toon you're using for the experiment.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, that's insufficient. You would still have the possibility of this mob having a squelch point of 55 AC.

You need to find a mob with a squelch point above the Haynar cap of the toon you're using for the experiment.

A level 10 toon would have quite a bit more defense skill, so that may throw off the test to be honest. That is my hesitation.

How about this. I find a level 5 skeleton and leave it up. I will level to 6 on my bard, and go back to that mob. I'll check if I get damage reduction between 55 AC and 61 AC. If 61 AC becomes the new cap, this will show 55 AC isn't the squelch point, and Haynar's formula is in effect.

Fair?

[bcbrown]

The concern about whether the squelch point is truly only a mob characteristic is a legitimate one. My testing was done on toons who all had 200 defense. Here's the experiment I was thinking about last night when I first read this thread:

First, identify 4-6 mobs across a range of levels. Something like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and ideally each mob has no level variation. Find the upper squelch point, and the midpoint. This will mean multiple 5-minute fights, each time subtracting 10 worn AC, until you hit the squelch point. Then repeat the same process to find the midpoint.

To address the question of whether the squelch point is impacted by defense skill, repeat for each of these mobs as you level a toon up to 25 or 30, running the process every 5 levels, for every mob of the same or lower level. So at level 15 you'd do the measurements against the level 5, 10, 15 mob.

Now you've got a handful of mobs with known squelch points and are ready to test the existence of an AC cap. Calculate what level gives a Haynar cap at the midpoint for each mob. Fight each mob with a toon at that level, with worn AC equal to the squelch point.

If the cap doesn't exist, the results will have minimal max hits. If there's a hardcap, the results will show equal min and max hits. If there's a softcap, there will be some number more min hits than max hits.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The concern about whether the squelch point is truly only a mob characteristic is a legitimate one. My testing was done on toons who all had 200 defense. Here's the experiment I was thinking about last night when I first read this thread:

First, identify 4-6 mobs across a range of levels. Something like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and ideally each mob has no level variation. Find the upper squelch point, and the midpoint. This will mean multiple 5-minute fights, each time subtracting 10 worn AC, until you hit the squelch point. Then repeat the same process to find the midpoint.

To address the question of whether the squelch point is impacted by defense skill, repeat for each of these mobs as you level a toon up to 25 or 30, running the process every 5 levels, for every mob of the same or lower level. So at level 15 you'd do the measurements against the level 5, 10, 15 mob.

Now you've got a handful of mobs with known squelch points and are ready to test the existence of an AC cap. Calculate what level gives a Haynar cap at the midpoint for each mob. Fight each mob with a toon at that level, with worn AC equal to the squelch point.

If the cap doesn't exist, the results will have minimal max hits. If there's a hardcap, the results will show equal min and max hits. If there's a softcap, there will be some number more min hits than max hits.

I will try my test first. Honestly I don't have time to level a character to 30 just to do all of this.

If you are worried about an overlap between the squelch point and the Haynar cap, increasing your level by 1 would show you if the squelch point was 55 AC or not.

If I tested 10 different level 5 mobs, and the AC cap was 55 for all of them, that would be evidence of the Haynar cap as well. This is because the Haynar cap and the squelch point would be 100% redundant if they were always the same value.

[Snaggles]

Maybe it’s a silly question, but DSM has access to a 60 SK and can even progressively parse by adding gear from his nearby corpse. Arguably knight AC is one of the more interesting tests since they can tank almost any mob in the game (not to mention everything non-raid based).

Is the issue finding a healer to run parses with? Freeport gate guards hit remarkably weak for being level 61. Doubling for 74-200 with a zone line an inch away.

The nice thing is you can always find another person who’s level 60, with a different class/gear, who can hop in for a few minutes of bashing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Maybe it’s a silly question, but DSM has access to a 60 SK and can even progressively parse by adding gear from his nearby corpse. Arguably knight AC is one of the more interesting tests since they can tank almost any mob in the game (not to mention everything non-raid based).

Is the issue finding a healer to run parses with? Freeport gate guards hit remarkably weak for being level 61. Doubling for 74-200 with a zone line an inch away.

I was thinking of testing with my Shaman actually. He has a lot of raid AC gear. I should be able to test if an AC softcap exists, as I have plenty of AC to play with, and a Shaman's softcap is probably lower.

My SK isn't swimming in AC gear, so I may not even hit any caps.

[Snaggles]

I was thinking of testing with my Shaman actually. He has a lot of raid AC gear. I should be able to test if an AC softcap exists, as I have plenty of AC to play with, and a Shaman's softcap is probably lower.

My SK isn't swimming in AC gear, so I may not even hit any caps.

I thought based on the running theory it’s pretty easy to hit the cap. I don’t know stuff about squelches though :)

People say 1200+ is the magic number. It would be interesting to see if that’s placebo or measurable reality as it might influence the use of HGL’s, shields, and other items (BP of Eradication vs Vindi), etc.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I thought based on the running theory it’s pretty easy to hit the cap. I don’t know stuff about squelches though :)

People say 1200+ is the magic number. It would be interesting to see if that’s placebo or measurable reality as it might influence the use of HGL’s, shields, and other items (BP of Eradication vs Vindi), etc.

Based on the EQEMU code, the softcap would be 300 worn AC for plate classes like Warrior and Knights. I think my SK has like 250 right now. Not saying I won't run any tests, but my SK hasn't focused on AC gear. I think I could hit 300 with sword and board, but I wouldn't be able to go way over.

I can hit around 400 worn AC with my Shaman(no buffs), and the cap should be lower than 300.

[Snaggles]

I’m sure that would be interesting for some. Shamans tend to stack AC to very high levels. I’d hate to dash dreams but better to know if it’s doing something before picking up thousands of DKP of AC gear for a torp tank.

[Jimjam]

What would be the purpose of Haynar's formula if the "squelch point" was under 55 AC? If they both did the same thing, Haynar's formula would just be redundant.

Also, why do you think this mob's squelch point is under 55 AC?

it's a level 5 mob, surely it is tuned for a dude wearing a bunch of cloth and patchwork armor?

[bcbrown]

I will try my test first. Honestly I don't have time to level a character to 30 just to do all of this.

If you are worried about an overlap between the squelch point and the Haynar cap, increasing your level by 1 would show you if the squelch point was 55 AC or not.

If I tested 10 different level 5 mobs, and the AC cap was 55 for all of them, that would be evidence of the Haynar cap as well. This is because the Haynar cap and the squelch point would be 100% redundant if they were always the same value.

Sure, do as you like, I'm just explaining the level of rigor in methodology and experiment design before I'd accept the results as conclusive. Proper science takes a lot of time, and there's a reason I haven't wanted to do this :)

For what it's worth, the "squelch point" stuff for me is no more than a working hypothesis, not conclusive. It's the best theory to fit the data obtained, but there's a lot more experiments necessary for it to be conclusive.

Your proposed experiment will provide some clues, but no proof. For one thing, I worry that a single level's difference won't be enough difference to discern the signal from the noise. But if you want to run some smaller experiments, here's what I'd suggest:
First, run parses at level 5 at 40 and 50 AC. If the squelch point is lower than 55 AC than you should be able to find what the value is.

Next, level up to 10, running parses at each level. Run at least 1000 hits/parse. Keep an eye out for what Jimjam noticed, and see whether there's a constant proportion of min/max hits in each parse. At each level first parse at the Haynar cap, and then remove AC in increments of 5-10 until you find the squelch point at that level.

That won't be enough for anything conclusive, but it should be suggestive.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

it's a level 5 mob, surely it is tuned for a dude wearing a bunch of cloth and patchwork armor?

That is exactly correct. Haynar's formula is designed to prevent someone with like 150 AC from always taking minimum damage at level 5.

Going from 23 AC to 55 AC gave me a 35% damage reduction at level 5. Going from 55 AC to 100 AC would be a huge boost uncapped.

Occam's razor suggests Haynar put this low level AC cap in so low levels with high AC will still have a bit of a challenge when fighting mobs of roughly equal level. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

[Jimjam]

That is exactly correct. Haynar's formula is designed to prevent someone with like 150 AC from always taking minimum damage.

Going from 23 AC to 55 AC gave me a 35% damage reduction. Going from 55 AC to 100 AC would be a huge boost uncapped.

Occam's razor suggests Haynar put this low level AC cap in so low levels with high AC will still have a bit of a challenge when fighting mobs of roughly equal level. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

I understood that Haynar put them in, because an article on how the AC changes (late Sol/PoP) were implemented mentioned there was antitwink code which capped worn AC by level, so he put in his best guess for what they would be?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I understood that Haynar put them in, because an article on how the AC changes (late Sol/PoP) were implemented mentioned there was antitwink code which capped worn AC by level, so he put in his best guess for what they would be?

I don't know the history very well. I am just testing to see if it exists on P99 right now.

[bcbrown]

it's a level 5 mob, surely it is tuned for a dude wearing a bunch of cloth and patchwork armor?

Full patchwork is 19, so wouldn't surprise me if the squelch point for a level 5 mob would be 20-25. But DSM found it's above 23, so maybe something like 30.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Full patchwork is 19, so wouldn't surprise me if the squelch point for a level 5 mob would be 20-25. But DSM found it's above 23, so maybe something like 30.

Yeah I'll do a few tests between 23 and 55. Then I will test leveling up to 6 and see if the AC cap moves to 61. That would be the next cap in Haynar's formula.

[bcbrown]

Test at 61 AC while at level 5 too. And please run 1000 hits/parse, the fact that the min+max frequency at 23 AC being different from 55 makes me worry the sample size is too small.

Thinking about it once more, I'm very confident you'll find the exact same results at 61 AC at level 6. This is because there's just not many more max hits left. 6-7 of 400 is 1.75%. So I expect you'll see 1-2% max hits and ~40% min hits at level 6 and 61 AC.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Test at 61 AC while at level 5 too. And please run 1000 hits/parse, the fact that the min+max frequency at 23 AC being different from 55 makes me worry the sample size is too small.

Thinking about it once more, I'm very confident you'll find the exact same results at 61 AC at level 6. This is because there's just not many more max hits left. 6-7 of 400 is 1.75%. So I expect you'll see 1-2% max hits and ~40% min hits at level 6 and 61 AC.

Are you suggesting the squelch point is not fixed?

If the squelch point for a level 5 skeleton is 55, it would still be 55 at level 6. If the squelch point mirrors the Haynar formula, then I don't know how we can distingush the two.

[Jimjam]

Step8 (server) = if PlayerLevel < 50 and Step7 > (25 + (6*PlayerLevel)): = (25 + (6*PlayerLevel))

The above text illustrating how the 25+(6*level) worn ac cap for < 50 players comes from a 2014 live dev post on AC calculation https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/ac-vs-acv2.210028/#post-3078126 . This code is out of era for p99 as there was an earlier big revamp to melee between SoL and PoP - the 'monk "ramp tank" nerf'.



A post by Treats on this forum quotes an apparent live dev post explaining pre SoL revamp AC and Post SoL revamp ac. It was posted to explain to monks why their tanking changed. This post contains information about how p99 'should' be: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48312

This post is an incredible resource as it includes lots of live evidence for how level 51 and 60 melees should be tanking pre SoL nerf. Heck I'll post the quote in spoiler.


Re: Feed back on soft cap

Kavhok
EQ Designer
Posts: 14

Your AC cap was lowered. That was absolutely and unequivocally a nerf. I didn't mean in any way to imply otherwise.

Let me give a more full explanation of what happened, though. Here's how the AC formula used to work before the patch immediately preceding PoP:

The AC from your items was added up, but the value used for it was hard capped based on your level. This was the same for all classes. Once you had 289 raw AC from items (or 385 as a cloth class, since they get less effect from item AC), that was it. More AC from items wouldn't do anything.

After this, it added your class bonuses (including the monk bonus, which is equivalent to your level + 5 in raw item AC), defense skill bonus, agility bonus, and the AC from spell buffs.

Total AC at this point was capped again, this time based on class. In the Kunark-era code, this was a hard cap, but sometime during Velious it was changed to a soft cap for melee classes only. The return was fairly small, though.


The pre-PoP patch did a few things:

- The cap on item AC was no longer used except at lower levels (twinking was a concern since that was before recommended level items were in heavy use).
- Shield AC was added to the class-based cap to give shields more viability
- Class AC caps were changed. Monks were lowered the most, but beastlords were lowered to the same level as druids (yes, they were nerfed too). Cleric and shaman caps were raised above druids. The caps generally followed the armor archetypes of plate/chain/leather/cloth.
- All classes were given returns on AC over the cap, not just melee classes. All casters and priests received the least, followed by the melee classes. Rogues got the same return as monks, as did berserkers when the class was added. Beastlords and rangers got slightly more, followed by bards, then knights, then warriors.

The overall goal was to make the average dps (including mitigation, avoidance, block/dodge/etc.) taken for melee classes to be approximately:
Warrior > Knight > Monk > Bard > Ranger = Beastlord = Rogue

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

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


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


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

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

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


Several months into PoP, the nerf was partially repealed and the monk AC cap was raised to the same level as druids and beastlords. Their return on AC over the cap was left at the same level. The reasoning at the time was based on a number of factors: the percentage of hits for max made taking damage even more unpredictable and raised the likelihood of one-round deaths more than we wanted, median AC increased for nearly all levels 51+ due to the new armor in PoP and trickle-down of old armor into the economy, and other issues were brought up.


Addendum:

Why were monks below 1160 AC affected?

The AC number you see is a composite of mitigation and avoidance. Defense skill increases both mitigation and avoidance, so gaining skill levels 50+ makes both numbers go up. At level 51, before the mitigation changes, a monk with no buffs, 150 agi, and 163 raw item AC was at the original AC cap with a displayed AC of 985. The nerf made it so that same monk with 118 AC, or 914 displayed, was now at the soft cap. Any level 51 monk with more than that would've experienced the nerf to varying degrees.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Step8 (server) = if PlayerLevel < 50 and Step7 > (25 + (6*PlayerLevel)): = (25 + (6*PlayerLevel))

The above text illustrating how the 25+(6*level) worn ac cap for < 50 players comes from a 2014 live dev post on AC calculation https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/ac-vs-acv2.210028/#post-3078126 . This code is out of era for p99 as there was an earlier big revamp to melee between SoL and PoP - the 'monk "ramp tank" nerf'.



A post by Treats on this forum quotes an apparent live dev post explaining pre SoL revamp AC and Post SoL revamp ac. It was posted to explain to monks why their tanking changed. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48312

This post is an incredible resource as it includes lots of live evidence for how level 51 and 60 melees should be tanking pre SoL nerf. Heck I'll post the quote in spoiler.


Great find! That is evidence towards a hard cap, especially since the formula is the same.

[bcbrown]

Are you suggesting the squelch point is not fixed?

If the squelch point for a level 5 skeleton is 55, it would still be 55 at level 6. If the squelch point mirrors the Haynar formula, then I don't know how we can distingush the two.

I don't follow. Are you asking why I am suggesting running a parse at 61 AC and level 5? I expect that parse to be the same as the 55 AC parse. I suggest it purely as a kind of confirmation step. You can skip it if you want.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't follow. Are you asking why I am suggesting running a parse at 61 AC and level 5? I expect that parse to be the same as the 55 AC parse. I suggest it purely as a kind of confirmation step. You can skip it if you want.

My bad, I thought you suggested the 61 AC test at level 6 would yield the same results as the 55 AC test at level 5.

[bcbrown]

My bad, I thought you meant the 61 AC test at level 6 would yield the same results as the 55 AC test at level 5.

Oh, yes, I do mean that. Thanks for clarifying. My prediction is that this mob's squelch point is around 30, such that at any level and any AC above that you will get the same results. I think there's a fixed squelch point, and that this squelch point is lower than the Haynar cap of 55AC at level 55.

This is because there's already so few max hits, only 1.75%. I don't think it'll ever go below 1-2%. There's just no room for improvement left.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh, yes, I do mean that. Thanks for clarifying. My prediction is that this mob's squelch point is around 30, such that at any level and any AC above that you will get the same results. I think there's a fixed squelch point, and that this squelch point is lower than the Haynar cap of 55AC at level 55.

This is because there's already so few max hits, only 1.75%. I don't think it'll ever go below 1-2%. There's just no room for improvement left.

Thanks for that! I'll post the results when I have them.

[Naethyn]

Full set of SS on my paladin at 20 and red cons could hardly hit me. This changed in the late 40's and now mid 50's I'm not sure it is doing much at all.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Posting the level 5 data, both the old data and the new data so it is easy to see. I haven't gotten to the level 6 data yet. It does take a while to collect the data. I am still using 400 hit sample sizes so the damage values are not off from my original data provided.


===========
23 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 61
02, 32
03, 30
04, 12
05, 35
06, 35
07, 24
08, 9
09, 38
10, 30
11, 16
12, 78

Total Damage = 2642

===========
40 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 124
02, 31
03, 26
04, 22
05, 23
06, 21
07, 30
08, 13
09, 36
10, 40
11, 18
12, 16

Total Damage = 2021

===========
45 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 152
02, 29
03, 22
04, 16
05, 26
06, 24
07, 26
08, 7
09, 35
10, 47
11, 11
12, 5

Total Damage = 1818

===========
50 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 154
2, 27
3, 29
4, 15
5, 25
6, 24
7, 30
8, 13
9, 40
10, 33
11, 6
12, 4

Total Damage = 1742

===========
55 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 167
2, 19
3, 25
4, 17
5, 27
6, 23
7, 28
8, 11
9, 34
10, 25
11, 18
12, 6

Total Damage = 1731

===========
61 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 165
02, 28
03, 27
04, 7
05, 26
06, 23
07, 33
08, 11
09, 31
10, 30
11, 13
12, 6

Total Damage = 1711

===========
178 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 160
2, 28
3, 27
4, 4
5, 32
6, 30
7, 31
8, 12
9, 24
10, 33
11, 12
12, 7

Total Damage = 1728

So far this is what I was expecting. You can see the rate at which the damage is decreasing is fairly consistent between 23 and 45 AC.

600 Damage / 17 AC = 35 Damage per AC
200 Damage / 5 AC = 40 Damage Per AC

Once we are past 45 AC, we only see one more drop of about ~80 HP, which would translate to 47 AC being my bard's final worn AC value.

What is happening is the AC soft cap kicks in at 45 AC. Haynar said there is a softcap even at low levels.


At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based.


The softcap for bards is probably the following:


LowPlateChainACSoftcapReturn = 0.23;


I have 45 uncapped AC, and my worn AC is hard capped at 55 on my 55+ AC tests. This means I have 10 softcapped AC, which would be reduced to 10 * 0.23 = 2.3. 45 AC + 2.3 AC is 47 AC rounded down.

I may do a test with a shield to see if I can raise my softcap up to basically the hard cap of 55, but I will need to do that later. I will also do the level 6 tests later.

[bcbrown]

What it sounds like is I need to do a test at 40 AC and 50 AC to determine if I get identical results to the 55 AC test and 178 AC test sometime before 55 AC. If I get those results, then a "squelch point" exists somewhere between 23 AC and 55 AC. If I see damage reduction improvements instead at 50-54 AC, that would mean Haynar's formula is in effect.

Identical results at 45 and 50 AC, right? Looks like the squelch point is about 45.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Identical results at 45 and 50 AC, right? Looks like the squelch point is about 45.

=================================
55 AC Test, 12 of this AC is from a shield
=================================

DV, Count
1, 178
2, 22
3, 22
4, 16
5, 33
6, 25
7, 21
8, 12
9, 24
10, 30
11, 16
12, 1

Total Damage = 1614

What you think is the "squelch point" may just be the softcap. As you can see, equipping a shield did affect the result, even with the same AC. This makes sense when we look at what Haynar said: (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13)


Adding a shield increases ur softcap

At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based. I basically doubled transition so at low levels ac means more.

I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25.


So far the data seems to support what Haynar said, the guy who implemented this stuff.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

One more shield test before bed.

========================
190 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield
========================

DV, Count
1, 180
2, 22
3, 26
4, 10
5, 21
6, 20
7, 31
8, 14
9, 29
10, 29
11, 12
12, 6

Total Damage = 1651

It looks to me like the "squelch point" may indeed be the softcap. It is nice that shields adjust the softcap, as it allows for testing the softcap.

[Jimjam]

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

My current theory is the "squelch point" isn't a separate thing. It is just what people are calling the softcap.

Softcap returns can be quite low, especially if the EQEMU numbers are correct for non-warriors.

At 0.17 softcap return, the possible Ranger value, 50 AC over the softcap is reduced to 8.5 AC. At higher levels 8 AC probably isn't going to change much on a parse.

If 0.17 is the softcap return for Rangers, a Ranger with 200 AC above the softcap would only be getting 34 AC after the softcap reduction. A shield like buckler of insight with 45 AC would possibly be better than 200 AC over the softcap in this scenario for Rangers, as shields raise your softcap.

[kjs86z2]

more AC more gooder

[Goregasmic]

IMHO, I would probably use a level 5 warrior, monk, paladin or SK.

I still am not certain if there is some kind of scaling issue to account for, but nobody cares how AC affects bards and rangers.

So far we only found hardcaps on AC and class was irrelevant. War/sk/ranger capped at 200 worn on a level 45 mob and ranger (and druid?) at 180 on a level 40 mob. That is despite haynar himself talking down people thinking there's a hard cap. We already confirmed this before but DSM reconfirmed there seems to be a hardcap... even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

It could particularly matter for rangers because their lower defense means they get hit more and the main way to mitigate damage is AC so they could be the class who AC matters the most, depending on where the soft/hard caps are.

Everyone always assumed AC does nothing for rangers due to them taking more damage but no one was ever able to give a satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms behind the phenomenon.

[Goregasmic]

It looks to me like the "squelch point" may indeed be the softcap. It is nice that shields adjust the softcap, as it allows for testing the softcap.


Thanks for running the parses!

Couple observations:

Haynar formula yields 55ac softcap at level 5 but you seemed capped at 45ac until you put on a shield.

The 45ac cap seems to invalidate his formula but the shield basically lowering max hits past the usual 5% bottom seems to prove the existance of a softcap. Softcap generally implies diminishing returns though and it seemed you got no returns past 45ac all the way to 178ac until you put on a shield so it is more like a variable hardcap so far.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

Where did Haynar post a softcap formula? So far the data here shows the level * 6 + 25 formula is a hardcap for low levels, and there is also a softcap that exists before the hardcap.

Thanks for running the parses!

Couple observations:

Haynar formula yields 55ac softcap at level 5 but you seemed capped at 45ac until you put on a shield.

The 45ac cap seems to invalidate his formula but the shield basically lowering max hits past the usual 5% bottom seems to prove the existance of a softcap. Softcap generally implies diminishing returns though and it seemed you got no returns past 45ac all the way to 178ac until you put on a shield so it is more like a variable hardcap so far.

No problem!

The 45 AC does not invalidate Haynar's formula, as a softcap exists as well. The shield test shows the softcap. With a softcap, you can never actually hit the hardcap.

This is because once you hit the softcap of 45, the last 10 AC between 45 and 55 gets softcapped. The hardcap prevents you from having more than 55 worn AC, so 178 worn AC gets clamped to 55.

With a softcap at 45 and a hardcap at 55, the best AC you could get is 47 if the softcap return is 20%.

A shield increases softcap, so you get closer to 55.

[Goregasmic]

Where did Haynar post a softcap formula? So far the data here shows the level * 6 + 25 formula is a hardcap for low levels, and there is also a softcap that exists before the hardcap.

From the haynar post you linked:

"At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based. I basically doubled transition so at low levels ac means more.

I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25."

I understand it as a worn AC softcap but it is ambiguous.



The 45 AC does not invalidate Haynar's formula, as a softcap exists as well. The shield test shows the softcap. With a softcap, you can never actually hit the hardcap.

This is because once you hit the softcap of 45, the last 10 AC between 45 and 55 gets softcapped. The hardcap prevents you from having more than 55 worn AC, so 178 worn AC gets clamped to 55.

With a softcap at 45 and a hardcap at 55, the best AC you could get is 47 if the softcap return is 20%.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something a softcap would mean that you get less return every AC point but still get something past the softcap, until you bottom out max hits or run out of AC. You get literally no improvement from additional AC past 45. That looks like a hardcap to me. Only way to go beyond is a shield but the 55ac shielded parse doesn't prove there's a hardcap, it shows you bottomed out max hits at 0. It is probable that 55ac is where max hits bottom out though.

Haynar was adamant there is no hardcap so you should always get some return from AC after you reached softcap but that's not what we're seeing.

[Snaggles]

So far we only found hardcaps on AC and class was irrelevant. War/sk/ranger capped at 200 worn on a level 45 mob and ranger (and druid?) at 180 on a level 40 mob. That is despite haynar himself talking down people thinking there's a hard cap. We already confirmed this before but DSM reconfirmed there seems to be a hardcap... even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

It could particularly matter for rangers because their lower defense means they get hit more and the main way to mitigate damage is AC so they could be the class who AC matters the most, depending on where the soft/hard caps are.

Everyone always assumed AC does nothing for rangers due to them taking more damage but no one was ever able to give a satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms behind the phenomenon.

Thanks, that’s fair. I just figured if someone had a knight and could parse on an equivalent target it would be ideal. If the science is same, at minimum it would refute the naysayers. I also have a 60 pally and SK so I’m biased :).

Pragmatically, it just doesn’t matter for rangers. In order to stack AC it will often cost hps and/or svs. These are far more important for anyone not taking direct melee hits; even silly stats like wisdom and dex are better to prioritize. Anecdotally im not certain if my own gear replaced with like-kind AC gear would result in a lesser experience on a raid level. Margins are slim when you draw the ire of a city leader. Most the time I’ve not even asked for HP buffs (unless an AE heavy fight). I just spend more time hoping to resist AE’s and less time main tanking (outside 20 second bursts).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

From the haynar post you linked:

"At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based. I basically doubled transition so at low levels ac means more.

I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25."

I understand it as a worn AC softcap but it is ambiguous.




Unless I'm misunderstanding something a softcap would mean that you get less return every AC point but still get something past the softcap, until you bottom out max hits or run out of AC. You get literally no improvement from additional AC past 45. That looks like a hardcap to me. Only way to go beyond is a shield but the 55ac shielded parse doesn't prove there's a hardcap, it shows you bottomed out max hits at 0. It is probable that 55ac is where max hits bottom out though.

Haynar was adamant there is no hardcap so you should always get some return from AC after you reached softcap but that's not what we're seeing.

1. Haynar says (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13) "raw ac cap" for the level * 6 + 25 formula, not "softcap" or "hardcap". Since he said both "softcap" and "hardcap" in the same post, I would be suprised if he decided to use "raw ac cap" to mean "softcap" or "hardcap". The specific wording indicates a clamp on worn AC.

2. Haynar also confirms there is a softcap in that post, even at low levels, so we know a softcap exists. He also told us shields increase the softcap, so that should be testable.

3. When Haynar is talking about not having a hardcap, he is referring to an Eashen raid from my understanding. The worn AC clamp is specified for "low levels". This means Haynar is correct that a bunch of level 60s in a raid are not clamped on AC or hardcapped.

4. I'll show some examples of how a softcap works, and how a worn AC clamp will affect it:

A. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and no worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. 45 Uncapped AC + 355 softcapped AC * 0.2 diminishing returns = 116 worn AC that is used in combat.

B. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. 45 Uncapped AC + 10 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 47 worn AC that is used in combat.

C. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and 12 of that AC is from the shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. Then the softcap gets increased. We don't know how much a shield increases softcap but lets say the softcap goes up by 5. 50 Uncapped AC + 5 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 51 worn AC that is used in combat.

My data reflects these examples, and it is consistent with what Haynar said.

I will start using the wording "worn AC clamp" instead of hardcap. I think this might be the disconnect. A hardcap would imply that the AC is capped after the softcap is applied. A "worn AC clamp" would clamp the worn AC first. There is a bit of nuance there, but I think that is the confusion. This is why he said "raw ac cap" instead of softcap or hardcap. If there was a 55 AC hardcap, you could still get to 55 AC with enough softcapped AC. At 20% returns a person with 95+ AC would hit 55 AC.

[bcbrown]

The shield parse looks about the same to me as the others. I'd want to see another parse replicating it before I'd say there's any impact from a shield here. 400 hits is very noisy and the difference between 1 max-hit and 7 max-hits could easily just be noise.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The shield parse looks about the same to me as the others. I'd want to see another parse replicating it before I'd say there's any impact from a shield here. 400 hits is very noisy and the difference between 1 max-hit and 7 max-hits could easily just be noise.

Two 400 hit parses with a shield, one at 55 AC and one at 190 AC both show an average minimum hits of 179. That is 800 hits total.

Three 400 hit parses without a shield at 55 AC, 61 AC, and 178 AC show an average of 164 minimum hits. That is 1200 hits total.

The datasets are larger than 400 if you agree that I am not getting any additional returns at 55 AC and beyond.

There is a clear pattern where minimum hits increase and other hits decrease as AC increases when looking at all the data. This is also the expected result for the D20 function.

[bcbrown]

Perhaps. There's a hint of something being there, but nothing conclusive yet. I'm still dubious.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Perhaps. There's a hint of something being there, but nothing conclusive yet. I'm still dubious.

I will try to run some larger tests. These smaller tests were to show that the possibility exists, so it warrants further investigation. These tests do take a while to conduct, and mobs can deagro you over time if you aren't occasionally doing something like auto attacking with bare fists (so you don't kill the mob).

[Goregasmic]

1. Haynar says (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13) "raw ac cap" for the level * 6 + 25 formula, not "softcap" or "hardcap". Since he said both "softcap" and "hardcap" in the same post, I would be suprised if he decided to use "raw ac cap" to mean "softcap" or "hardcap". The specific wording indicates a clamp on worn AC.

2. Haynar also confirms there is a softcap in that post, even at low levels, so we know a softcap exists. He also told us shields increase the softcap, so that should be testable.

3. When Haynar is talking about not having a hardcap, he is referring to an Eashen raid from my understanding. The worn AC clamp is specified for "low levels". This means Haynar is correct that a bunch of level 60s in a raid are not clamped on AC or hardcapped.

4. I'll show some examples of how a softcap works, and how a worn AC clamp will affect it:

A. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and no worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. 45 Uncapped AC + 355 softcapped AC * 0.2 diminishing returns = 116 worn AC that is used in combat.

B. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. 45 Uncapped AC + 10 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 47 worn AC that is used in combat.

C. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and 12 of that AC is from the shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. Then the softcap gets increased. We don't know how much a shield increases softcap but lets say the softcap goes up by 5. 50 Uncapped AC + 5 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 51 worn AC that is used in combat.

My data reflects these examples, and it is consistent with what Haynar said.

I will start using the wording "worn AC clamp" instead of hardcap. I think this might be the disconnect. A hardcap would imply that the AC is capped after the softcap is applied. A "worn AC clamp" would clamp the worn AC first. There is a bit of nuance there, but I think that is the confusion. This is why he said "raw ac cap" instead of softcap or hardcap. If there was a 55 AC hardcap, you could still get to 55 AC with enough softcapped AC. At 20% returns a person with 95+ AC would hit 55 AC.

1. I assume raw AC cap means worn as opposed to displayed. It would be a dick move to introduce a new concept without defining it.

2. Agreed

3. Probable, I came to the same assumption.

4. If you're going to talk about softcaps or hardcaps I fully expect it to be option A with no clamp. That's basically how other stats work (int/wis/cha). In scenario B, C and D worn AC clamp is literally a hardcap in function if you don't use a shield.

I think it is kinda pointless to discuss haynar's hidden meanings though, if you're right the numbers are the numbers. His formula puts the "soft cap" at 259worn @lvl39 and 319worn @lvl49. 259 is basically beyond BIS for tunnel gear and 319 is probably around straight up BIS if even. So no point even bothering. The only thing that matters would be finding clamp points. At clamp points you nearly bottomed out the max hits anyway so I guess that is good enough. A 49 ranger seems to be clamping around 180ac which is a lot more reasonable goal, 51+ players around 200.

If mob level has no bearing on AC parses, like previously thought, that could explain why people claim going from tunnel BiS to straight up BiS feels like it does nothing. Everyone who has 200+ AC are already clamped anyway.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1. I assume raw AC cap means worn as opposed to displayed. It would be a dick move to introduce a new concept without defining it.

2. Agreed

3. Probable, I came to the same assumption.

4. If you're going to talk about softcaps or hardcaps I fully expect it to be option A. That's basically how other stats work (int/wis/cha). In scenario B, C and D worn AC clamp is literally a hardcap in function if you don't use a shield.

I think it is kinda pointless to discuss haynar's hidden meanings though, if you're right the numbers are the numbers. His formula puts the "soft cap" at 259worn @lvl39 and 319worn @lvl49. 259 is basically beyond BIS for tunnel gear and 319 is probably around straight up BIS if even. So no point even bothering. The only thing that matters would be finding clamp points. At clamp points you nearly bottomed out the max hits anyway so I guess that is good enough. A 49 ranger seems to be clamping around 180ac which is a lot more reasonable goal, 51+ players around 200.

If mob level has no bearing on AC parses, like previously thought, that could explain why people claim going from tunnel BiS to straight up BiS feels like it does nothing. Everyone who has 200+ AC are already clamped anyway.

Yes, I agree he is talking about worn AC. That is the better metric to go by, as the displayed AC in the UI is basically useless, other than letting you know if your AC went up or down.

Mob level does have an impact on parses.

Going back to the D20 function:


1. The game has a Roll D20 function with two inputs. I will call these inputs "Wrath" (attacker) and "Mitigation" (defender). The code confusingly calls them "offense" (attacker) and "defense" (defender), but these inputs are more than simply the attacker's offense skill and the defender's defense skill.

2. The D20 roll is weighted based on the ratio of the attacker's Wrath to the defender's Mitigation. An unweighted D20 has an average roll of 10.5.

3. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 100, the D20 has a weighted average roll of ~6.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

4. If the attacker's Wrath is 100 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has a weighted average of ~14.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the maximum damage value.

5. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has the unweighted average of ~10.5. This is when you see a roughly equal amount of rolls at the minimum and maximum damage values.


The lower the mob's wrath, the lower their damage is against you.

As an extreme example, let's take an orc pawn attacking a level 60. A level 60 Warrior is going to have at least 300 mitigation, and an Orc Pawn's wrath is probably going to be well below 100.

If 50 Wrath and 100 Mitigation weights the D20's average rolls to ~6.5, a Wrath value of 50 and a mitigation value of 300 would weight the average dice roll even lower. This is why orc pawns basically always hit high level characters for 1 if they aren't sitting.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I did a longer test. Two sets of 1400 hits with 178 AC. One set with a 12 AC shield, one set without.

==============================
178 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield
==============================

DV, Count
1, 603
2, 84
3, 92
4, 43
5, 118
6, 77
7, 83
8, 41
9, 87
10, 100
11, 62
12, 10

Total Damage = 5765

===============
178 AC, No shield
===============

DV, Count
1, 580
2, 78
3, 91
4, 34
5, 92
6, 99
7, 101
8, 56
9, 98
10, 102
11, 50
12, 19

Total Damage = 6034

Even at higher sample sizes, the shield is still performing better. Less damage and more minimum hits. The difference is small, so it looks like the softcap increase from a shield isn't 1 AC = +1 Softcap, at least at lower levels. I probably only got 1 or 2 extra AC.

In my opinion, this indicates that the level * 6 + 25 formula is a worn AC clamp for low levels, not a softcap. The falloff past ~45 AC comes from the softcap. Shields do increase the softcap, but it is not a 1 AC to 1 Softcap increase at level 5. It may increase as you level up.

[Jimjam]

So you think there is a cap on shield overcap ac? Maybe it is level based? so at level 5 maybe you can overcap by 5 ac?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you think there is a cap on shield overcap ac? Maybe it is level based? so at level 5 maybe you can overcap by 5 ac?

Yes, and it makes sense when you think about it. If the softcap increase was 1 AC to 1 softcap, a 45 AC softcap would be completely removed by a 10+ AC shield when a level 5's worn AC clamp is 55.

This would make shields a bit OP at low levels, especially with the abundance of 25 AC Sarnak Battle Shields.

The data right now indicates a 12 AC shield would only increase your softcap by 1 or 2. Maybe it's 10% of the shields AC at level 5, but I haven't compared other shields yet.

[Goregasmic]

Yes, I agree he is talking about worn AC. That is the better metric to go by, as the displayed AC in the UI is basically useless, other than letting you know if your AC went up or down.

Mob level does have an impact on parses.

Going back to the D20 function:



The lower the mob's wrath, the lower their damage is against you.

As an extreme example, let's take an orc pawn attacking a level 60. A level 60 Warrior is going to have at least 300 mitigation, and an Orc Pawn's wrath is probably going to be well below 100.

If 50 Wrath and 100 Mitigation weights the D20's average rolls to ~6.5, a Wrath value of 50 and a mitigation value of 300 would weight the average dice roll even lower. This is why orc pawns basically always hit high level characters for 1 if they aren't sitting.

My bad, that was a big shortcut. I was a little too much in my ranger's scenario. Ranger EC bis on a somewhat balanced build will be around 200 AC, which appears to be the squelch point on a 45 mob. With self buffs you can probably stay around that clamp point all the way to 60 on mobs around 45-51. Rangers get little wiggle room for optimization if you're not fine with going full glass canon before raid gear. Raid gear opens up more options but you don't really get hit at that point like snaggles said so extra AC becomes a moot point unless for some reason you want to tank high end group stuff.

TL;DR get ~200ac if you plan on getting hit then YOLO.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My bad, that was a big shortcut. I was a little too much in my ranger's scenario. Ranger EC bis on a somewhat balanced build will be around 200 AC, which appears to be the squelch point on a 45 mob. With self buffs you can probably stay around that clamp point all the way to 60 on mobs around 45-51. Rangers get little wiggle room for optimization if you're not fine with going full glass canon before raid gear. Raid gear opens up more options but you don't really get hit at that point like snaggles said so extra AC becomes a moot point unless for some reason you want to tank high end group stuff.

TL;DR get ~200ac if you plan on getting hit then YOLO.

I agree with 200 worn AC for Rangers.

It's easy enough to get with EC gear in Velious.

If the EQEMU softcap numbers are correct, 200 worn AC is the softcap for Rangers. With a 17% return for Rangers, 400 worn AC would amount to only 234 worn AC after the softcap is applied.

I have a hunch those EQEMU numbers are correct, as you figured out the 200 number yourself, and many Rangers feel like AC doesn't do much.

[bcbrown]

That last pair of parses certainly shows that shield AC has an effect when overcapped at level 5. I would urge you to start posting predictions in this thread before each future experiment. That way you can compare the actual results with your hypothesis.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That last pair of parses certainly shows that shield AC has an effect when overcapped at level 5.


Thank you!


I would urge you to start posting predictions in this thread before each future experiment. That way you can compare the actual results with your hypothesis.

I did explain what I was expecting already earlier. I've asked you before in other threads to read the thread before making claims like these.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765476&postcount=58


The 45 AC does not invalidate Haynar's formula, as a softcap exists as well. The shield test shows the softcap. With a softcap, you can never actually hit the hardcap.

This is because once you hit the softcap of 45, the last 10 AC between 45 and 55 gets softcapped. The hardcap prevents you from having more than 55 worn AC, so 178 worn AC gets clamped to 55.

With a softcap at 45 and a hardcap at 55, the best AC you could get is 47 if the softcap return is 20%.

A shield increases softcap, so you get closer to 55.

This post too:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765502&postcount=61

The last set of parses was post 68:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765568&postcount=68

[TytosOfEight]

I've heard it said a few times that spell AC is like shield AC in that it ignores the softcap. Have you tested that at all?

[Goregasmic]

I've heard it said a few times that spell AC is like shield AC in that it ignores the softcap. Have you tested that at all?

I think in the ranger thread we saw that it helps reaching squelch point but it won't let you go beyond like a shield would. It was like 1 parse though, more testing would need to be done.

[kjs86z2]

im really impressed that people take this as serious as they do

[Jimjam]

im really impressed that people take this as serious as they do

This is our generation’s cracking the enigma machine. But instead of shielding us from Nazi attacks it shields our rangers from skeleton hits.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is our generation’s cracking the enigma machine. But instead of shielding us from Nazi attacks it shields our rangers from skeleton hits.

Army Rangers fought Nazis. Nazis have skulls on their uniforms. Skeletons have skulls. Coincidence? I think not.

[bcbrown]

I did explain what I was expecting already earlier. I've asked you before in other threads to read the thread before making claims like these.

I guess I should be more clear. I'm talking about making a single specific prediction ahead of each experiment. For example, you just did an experiment with overcapped AC with and without a shield. What's the hypothesis that experiment was answering?

One hypothesis would be "There's gonna be a difference somewhere when you use a shield". Another could be "The average damage per hit will be lower with a shield". Or "adding 12 shield AC will be equivalent to adding 2 AC to an otherwise capped toon".

This has several benefits. For one, it gives any results that match your expectations greater credibility. Kind of like "calling your shot". It also forces you to think through exactly what question you're trying to answer, and making sure whatever experiment you run will help answer that question. Spending a moment on experiment design can help avoid wasting time on experiments that give inconclusive results. It can also help by forcing you to spend time thinking about what you're trying to measure and what metrics do you want to calculate. For example, I was looking at the ratio of min-hit to max-hit, while you seem to be more interested in total damage or damage per hit.

So what I'm suggesting is a practice that I think leads to good mental self discipline and better designed experiments that lead to easier analysis and more defensible conclusions. It's at the heart of the cycle of the scientific method:
* First you do exploratory experiments. You cannot draw any conclusions from these, but you can generate interesting questions and hypotheses
* Next you generate a testable hypothesis. This is a specific prediction that can be either confirmed or rejected, something measureable
* Next you design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Part of this (in our case) will be determining how many samples to parse for each side, and what metric to calculate.

After all that then you can run the experiment and report the results. Now, I'm not saying you have to go through all that process. But I do think taking steps towards that ideal will be helpful and productive. Just a simple "call your shot" before running an experiment. For example: "I'm going to measure average damage per hit with 178 AC, with and without a 12 AC shield. I'll take 1000+ hits per side. I expect the damage per hit to be lower with the 12 AC shield. This is because x, y z."

Another example: the evidence suggests that at level 5 there's a 45ac softcap, and a shield provides a couple AC above that. what's the softcap at level 6? One hypothesis is that the formula is 4*level+25 which would suggest a 49 ac softcap. So there's a couple experiments that you could run to test that hypothesis. And if shield AC provides some bonus with some multiplier value like 0.2 you can run some experiments to try to determine what that multiplier value is.

But to sum up:
I did explain what I was expecting already earlier. I've asked you before in other threads to read the thread before making claims like these.
That wasn't a claim, that was a suggestion. I've read the damn thread, that's why I've been participating in it. If you're going to get defensive and make unwarranted personal attacks I'm going to take that as my cue to bow out of this thread and leave you to it, absent an apology.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That wasn't a claim, that was a suggestion. I've read the damn thread, that's why I've been participating in it. If you're going to get defensive and make unwarranted personal attacks I'm going to take that as my cue to bow out of this thread and leave you to it, absent an apology.

I don't understand why you are getting defensive here, but I apologize if you think I was attacking you.

I have had multiple interactions with you where you clearly didn't read something I said. As a simple example:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3737484&postcount=88


I use my 9 second Epic Click in WW all the time. See my youtube channel. Free damage clickies save mana, because a 10 second manaless cast is cheaper than spending the mana and meditating. 95 mana is 5 ticks of meditate, which is 30 seconds. Using a 10 second clickie in this scenario saves 20 seconds of med time. In the case of being indoors, you can use ES Arms instead. Remember you are getting the mob down to a few hundred HP before breaking charm. Even Drones of Doom will finish off a mob that low in a few ticks after a 300 damage nuke while you med up or prep the next kill.


https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3737486&postcount=89

Anyone else wanna tell DSM why no one's gonna be using Lumi Staff in SolB, Chardok, Perma bears, or Kedge?

To me this looked like you wanted the gotcha moment more than a real conversation. I didn't get an apology from you after this either.

If you want to make up and start fresh, I do not mind. We can both apologize and move on. But please do not make this seem like I attacked you. I didn't. I just want to be sure you read the thread before I spend time replying.

To me, your post sounded like you were claiming I didn't already post my expectations for the test. I clearly did. I am not sure why you would be posting a suggestion to do something I already did.


I guess I should be more clear. I'm talking about making a single specific prediction ahead of each experiment. For example, you just did an experiment with overcapped AC with and without a shield. What's the hypothesis that experiment was answering?

One hypothesis would be "There's gonna be a difference somewhere when you use a shield". Another could be "The average damage per hit will be lower with a shield". Or "adding 12 shield AC will be equivalent to adding 2 AC to an otherwise capped toon".


https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765502&postcount=61


B. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. 45 Uncapped AC + 10 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 47 worn AC that is used in combat.

C. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and 12 of that AC is from the shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. Then the softcap gets increased. We don't know how much a shield increases softcap but lets say the softcap goes up by 5. 50 Uncapped AC + 5 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 51 worn AC that is used in combat.


In this post I describe the behavior I expect in detail. It may not be in the format you prefer, but I don't think this post is vague about what my expectations are.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:

That last pair of parses certainly shows that shield AC has an effect when overcapped at level 5. I would urge you to start posting predictions in this thread before each future experiment. That way you can compare the actual results with your hypothesis.

This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765502&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765514&postcount=65

[TytosOfEight]

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:



This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765502&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765514&postcount=65

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

Thank you for the support! I appreciate the post.

[Snaggles]

DSM and I have at times traded barbs but I appreciate the efforts to actually gather data. Where it sometimes falls flat is the practical application (I’m a bit simple), so I would prefer the conclusion to the findings. How can a random player apply the data to make prudent decisions. That’s just my opinion of course.

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself. Like a prototype it isn’t intended to be the end-product. Or even, it might be research in efforts to verify a glitch that should be submitted for review. Assuming the goal is to make this sim accurate to vintage era EQ.

Of all the heady posts on game mechanics, the most annoying are the one liners from those don’t want to put on the work. This game is mostly constructed of anecdotes, dogma and popsicle sticks so to repeating canned sayings may be cathartic and “cool” but it’s rarely helpful for those actually trying to figure this out. Throw another couple sentences and set context, or run your own damn numbers showing why you believe what you do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM and I have at times traded barbs but I appreciate the efforts to actually gather data. Where it sometimes falls flat is the practical application (I’m a bit simple), so I would prefer the conclusion to the findings. How can a random player apply the data to make prudent decisions. That’s just my opinion of course.

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself. Like a prototype it isn’t intended to be the end-product. Or even, it might be research in efforts to verify a glitch that should be submitted for review. Assuming the goal is to make this sim accurate to vintage era EQ.

Of all the heady posts on game mechanics, the most annoying are the one liners from those don’t want to put on the work. This game is mostly constructed of anecdotes, dogma and popsicle sticks so to repeating canned sayings may be cathartic and “cool” but it’s rarely helpful for those actually trying to figure this out. Throw another couple sentences and set context, or run your own damn numbers showing why you believe what you do.

Very well said! I do apologize for the barbs, I get frustrated at times. That isn't an excuse, so thank you for your patience!

[Snaggles]

Very well said! I do apologize for the barbs, I get frustrated at times. That isn't an excuse, so thank you for your patience!

Oh I’m just as much to blame and typically more childish with my jabs. Sorry as well :)

[Danth]

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself.

Always was. It's a hobbyist's pursuit. EQ's a loosely-tuned game, and full optimization of a character is seldom necessary to achieve success. These types of threads are typically more about knowledge for its own sake, the "why's" behind the curtain, or for maybe eeking out a few more mobs per hour, than about raw can-or-can't-do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The next test I am going to do is the level 60 AC softcap for Shamans. This is to determine if any of the EQEMU numbers are accurate. If they are, there is a stronger chance the others may be correct too.

I am going to do a test at 177 AC, 200 AC, and 300 AC.

If the 200 AC softcap with 0.23 diminishing returns is correct, the amount of damage reduced by going from 177 to 200 should be roughly the same as 200 to 300, as 100 AC over the softcap would be reduced to 23.

I may also do a shield test with 223 AC, 23 of which is shield AC. If the softcap increase from a shield is 1 AC to 1 Softcap at 60, I should see similar results to the 300 AC test.

[bcbrown]

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:

I appreciate and accept the sincere apology. If you were thrown off and confused by what I said, you could have pointed to those quotes and asked me for clarification. Hopefully my explanation helped. Here's a link with further (academic) discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science). Again, I'm not saying you should follow all those formalisms, just that spending a minute to articulate a precise prediction helps with experiment design and helps convince people like me if the experiment matches the prediction.

The next test I am going to do is the level 60 AC softcap for Shamans. This is to determine if any of the EQEMU numbers are accurate. If they are, there is a stronger chance the others may be correct too.
Excellent experiment design! I look forward to seeing the results.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I appreciate and accept the sincere apology. If you were thrown off and confused by what I said, you could have pointed to those quotes and asked me for clarification. Hopefully my explanation helped. Here's a link with further (academic) discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science). Again, I'm not saying you should follow all those formalisms, just that spending a minute to articulate a precise prediction helps with experiment design and helps convince people like me if the experiment matches the prediction.


Excellent experiment design! I look forward to seeing the results.

It would be nice if you explain why you didn't think my previous posts showed what I was expecting. Was it simply formatting?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765502&postcount=61


A. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and no worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. 45 Uncapped AC + 355 softcapped AC * 0.2 diminishing returns = 116 worn AC that is used in combat.

B. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. 45 Uncapped AC + 10 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 47 worn AC that is used in combat.

C. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and 12 of that AC is from the shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. Then the softcap gets increased. We don't know how much a shield increases softcap but lets say the softcap goes up by 5. 50 Uncapped AC + 5 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 51 worn AC that is used in combat.


Also, I was confused about this part of your post:


For example, I was looking at the ratio of min-hit to max-hit, while you seem to be more interested in total damage or damage per hit.


I made it clear I was looking at min/max hits by explaining the D20 function:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765216&postcount=5


To answer your question about min and max values:

1. The game has a Roll D20 function with two inputs. I will call these inputs "Wrath" (attacker) and "Mitigation" (defender). The code confusingly calls them "offense" (attacker) and "defense" (defender), but these inputs are more than simply the attacker's offense skill and the defender's defense skill.

2. The D20 roll is weighted based on the ratio of the attacker's Wrath to the defender's Mitigation. An unweighted D20 has an average roll of 10.5.

3. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 100, the D20 has a weighted average roll of ~6.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

4. If the attacker's Wrath is 100 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has a weighted average of ~14.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the maximum damage value.

5. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has the unweighted average of ~10.5. This is when you see a roughly equal amount of rolls at the minimum and maximum damage values.

The 23 AC test is a scenario where my Mitigation is roughly equal to the Skeleton's Wrath. This is why the number of minimum hits and maximum hits are about the same. The Skeleton's Wrath is slightly higher, which is why there are a few more maximum hits compared to minimum hits.

The 55 AC test and 178 AC test are scenarios where my Mitigation is significantly higher than the Skeleton's Wrath, which is why you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

If my AC wasn't hardcapped, you would see an increase in how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

My damage calculator shows the same pattern. It doesn't have the AC hardcap or softcap built in, so more AC will increase how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

I include total damage because it is the easiest value for the average reader to look at. It's a good way to differentiate data sets at a glance, before digging into the hit count data.

It can also make it a bit easier to see the difference in two data sets that don't have a large difference, like the last datasets I posted:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765568&postcount=68

[Snaggles]

Always was. It's a hobbyist's pursuit. EQ's a loosely-tuned game, and full optimization of a character is seldom necessary to achieve success. These types of threads are typically more about knowledge for its own sake, the "why's" behind the curtain, or for maybe eeking out a few more mobs per hour, than about raw can-or-can't-do.

I’m not knocking the effort to understand the minutia of worn soft cap/clutch/squelch AC, I just can’t scale it to put it into practical use.

I parse a ton and expect DSM’s shaman test will be more my speed. I too need to do some AC testing since I carry multiple shields and outside the HP’s can’t give anyone tangible data if it matters outside my instinct…which means very little.

[Jimjam]

That shaman test will be amazingly useful. If low level ac and high level ac firs the model the. i’d think it would be fair to assume the intermediary levels fit the same model too.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I did some preliminary testing, and the results are concerning if my hypothesis is correct.

First, let me show you the order of operations for worn AC adjustment in the EQEMU. They are important to the conclusion:

1. Get Total Worn AC (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1042)

2. Inflate worn AC. Worn AC = (Worn AC * 4) / 3 (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1066)

3. If you are under level 50, Apply the level * 6 + 25 worn AC clamp (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1070)

4. Add Shield AC to Softcap (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1115C1-L1115C24)

5. If inflated Worn AC > softcap, apply diminishing returns to all worn AC above the softcap. (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1116)

While Haynar didn't specify the order, all of these steps were confirmed in Haynar's post (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13).

Here is the parse data. Sets of 400 hits again for faster testing. I used a level 50 mob because a Shaman's max Defense is 200, which would be the same Defense as a level 50 mob.

================================
level 60 Shaman 157 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 60
37, 10
43, 17
49, 21
54, 6
60, 15
66, 20
71, 13
77, 20
83, 18
88, 18
94, 16
100, 12
105, 18
111, 19
117, 11
122, 13
128, 12
134, 16
140, 65

Total Damage = 34491

================================
level 60 Shaman 177 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 69
37, 18
43, 20
49, 18
54, 15
60, 16
66, 11
71, 19
77, 8
83, 10
88, 17
94, 12
100, 17
105, 10
111, 24
117, 12
122, 20
128, 12
134, 18
140, 54

Total Damage = 33297

================================
level 60 Shaman 200 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 71
37, 18
43, 9
49, 21
54, 15
60, 18
66, 17
71, 20
77, 24
83, 15
88, 15
94, 19
100, 17
105, 8
111, 7
117, 18
122, 19
128, 16
134, 10
140, 43

Total Damage = 32134

================================
level 60 Shaman 217 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 92
37, 8
43, 21
49, 20
54, 13
60, 19
66, 16
71, 17
77, 16
83, 18
88, 17
94, 15
100, 13
105, 19
111, 19
117, 12
122, 14
128, 16
134, 16
140, 19

Total Damage = 30228

================================
level 60 Shaman 250 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 117
37, 14
43, 14
49, 20
54, 16
60, 9
66, 13
71, 17
77, 12
83, 13
88, 14
94, 12
100, 18
105, 13
111, 10
117, 17
122, 14
128, 16
134, 10
140, 31

Total Damage = 29376

================================
level 60 Shaman 300 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 113
37, 12
43, 16
49, 12
54, 12
60, 17
66, 20
71, 16
77, 9
83, 16
88, 18
94, 17
100, 16
105, 12
111, 19
117, 8
122, 11
128, 21
134, 9
140, 26

Total Damage = 29444

================================
level 60 Shaman 386 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 97
37, 16
43, 9
49, 20
54, 14
60, 20
66, 30
71, 12
77, 9
83, 14
88, 14
94, 18
100, 11
105, 12
111, 20
117, 26
122, 20
128, 11
134, 12
140, 15

Total Damage = 29808

===============================================
level 60 Shaman 411 worn AC (25 AC from shield) vs level 50 mob
===============================================

DV, Count
32, 125
37, 15
43, 17
49, 18
54, 20
60, 17
66, 11
71, 14
77, 17
83, 10
88, 21
94, 9
100, 18
105, 9
111, 18
117, 13
122, 7
128, 17
134, 21
140, 3

Total Damage = 27349

The data pattern seems to match the low level data I posted earlier in the thread, but with a different worn AC clamp. It looks like a worn AC clamp gets applied somewhere between 200 worn AC and 250 worn AC. After that worn AC doesn't seem to do anything unless you have a shield on.

I've seen posts where people suggest there was a Velious Hardcap of 289 worn AC for some period of time, but I do not know if it was on P99:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48312

Conclusion/TLDR: What may be happening is the 289 worn AC clamp was added to P99, and it is being applied. Due to the (Worn AC * 4) / 3 formula, you reach the 289 worn AC clamp while wearing 217 worn AC. This is because 217 * 4 / 3 = 289, and this worn AC inflation occurs before the worn AC clamp and softcap in the order of operations. I know the EQEMU code doesn't show the 289 worn AC clamp, but that could be P99 specific code. As you can see, I did do a 217 worn AC parse, and it is quite similar to the 386 worn AC parse.

[TytosOfEight]

The relationship between AC and minimum hits is not immediately clear. While minimum hits generally increase with AC, there is noticeable fluctuation between AC 217 and 411. But this variability may stem from limited data points rather than a lack of underlying effects (i.e., a lack of statistical power).

In contrast, the trend in damage reduction is more straightforward. Eyeballing the data suggests no meaningful difference between AC 217 and 386. However, there is possibly a significant difference between AC 200 and 217, and again between AC 386 and 411 (when a shield is used).

[Snaggles]

Thanks for that DSM! Appreciate you taking the time and it’s something to mull over.

[Goregasmic]

I've seen posts where people suggest there was a Velious Hardcap of 289 worn AC for some period of time, but I do not know if it was on P99:

Nice findings, good to finally see more parses about this.

Don't quote me on that but I read a lot about AC last year and the 289AC thing was an old system that has been modified a couple of times since. The post you linked dates from 2011 and Haynar changed the system in 2014. In the 2014 post we had additional info about what happens for "low levels" though so that may as well still be current for 50+ characters.

I was previously found you'll cap at 200ac wornon a level 45 mob. Capping around 217 for a level 50 makes sense.

Also it seems to further confirm that what haynar calls a softcap is basically a hardcap unless you add a shield. I'm still a bit confused he couldn't see why people thought there was a hardcap. Further down in the 2014 thread:



Ppl parsed and concluded it was a hard cap system we were using.

How? No clue.

[Goregasmic]

The relationship between AC and minimum hits is not immediately clear. While minimum hits generally increase with AC, there is noticeable fluctuation between AC 217 and 411. But this variability may stem from limited data points rather than a lack of underlying effects (i.e., a lack of statistical power).

In contrast, the trend in damage reduction is more straightforward. Eyeballing the data suggests no meaningful difference between AC 217 and 386. However, there is possibly a significant difference between AC 200 and 217, and again between AC 386 and 411 (when a shield is used).

What was tested in the ranger thread is you have D20 distribution, D1 being min hits and D2 max hits. The more AC you have the more Max hits get sent into the Min hit bucket, while D2 to D19 is mostly flat around 4-5%. When Max hits are flattened to around 4-5% too, that is when you reached the "soft cap" and you won't go any lower. So far DSM found it seems the only way to go below the 4-5% floor is adding a shield and you can potentially bring that floor to near zero depending on RNG and the mob you're facing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm still a bit confused he couldn't see why people thought there was a hardcap. Further down in the 2014 thread:

Yeah I am confused about that too, but there are multiple possibilities:

1. He didn't want people to know, so he denied it. The devs don't give away all their secrets.

2. Perhaps it was added later. The 2014 post was Velious beta I believe, so the 289 worn ac clamp might not have been active or added at the time.

3. The way Haynar was testing AC might have involved guide tools, cheats, a separate program that runs the code outside the client, etc. Sometimes when testing with those methods, you get incorrect results because the code being run is different from what the players are using. So he may have thought it was correct.

[Jimjam]

Yeah I am confused about that too, but there are multiple possibilities:

1. He didn't want people to know, so he denied it. The devs don't give away all their secrets.

2. Perhaps it was added later. The 2014 post was Velious beta I believe, so the 289 worn ac clamp might not have been active or added at the time.

3. The way Haynar was testing AC might have involved guide tools, cheats, a separate program that runs the code outside the client, etc. Sometimes when testing with those methods, you get incorrect results because the code being run is different from what the players are using. So he may have thought it was correct.

If AC was hardcapped until very end velious (and only soft capped after this for melee) it could be that a) the classes we're testing on (hybrids and priests) are not considered melee for these purposes or b) there is a era based timelock which Haynar was testing outside of, but hasn't been properly activated on r/b/g so we're still getting pre-softcap era results?

[Goregasmic]

4- He's incredibly pedant about the use of softcap/hardcap terms. He's technically right but from a practical standpoint it is basically a hardcap for most players, especially in this 2hander era.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If AC was hardcapped until very end velious (and only soft capped after this for melee) it could be that a) the classes we're testing on (hybrids and priests) are not considered melee for these purposes or b) there is a era based timelock which Haynar was testing outside of, but hasn't been properly activated on r/b/g so we're still getting pre-softcap era results?

That is a good point about timelocked content. It sounds like the 289 worn AC clamp was removed sometime in Velious, but I am not 100% sure. It is possible there is a bug where the timelocked content that enables the 289 worn AC clamp is still active.

Testing this with a shaman shouldn't matter. The post (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48312) says there is a 385 worn AC clamp for the four cloth casters. All other classes use the 289 worn AC clamp.

[CrazyPro]

shield AC wasn't even a thing until luclin, why hasn't this been fixed yet?

[bcbrown]

Uploading some spreadsheets for three datasets: DSM level 5 vs level 5, my toons vs Shiel, DSM 60 shaman vs level 50. I find this is a more convenient format for looking at the data. Not a lot of conclusions yet from me. Min/max ratio seems noiser than damage/hit. Shield ac definitely has an effect.

https://i.imgur.com/h2UKsHV.png
https://i.imgur.com/6pMUQRX.png
https://i.imgur.com/ZbKDtNk.png

I think there's some more nuance in my results against Shiel than we've noticed so far. Looking at average damage per hit I think there's some hints of differences by class. Gonna do some more parses. Running one right now at 198 worn ac plus 61 spell ac for 259 total, empty shield slot. Gonna run another with exact same gear but moving lodi shield from back slot to shield slot. My hypothesis is that "shield ac" exists and is slot dependent, so should be less damage/hit in shield slot than back slot.

After that gonna run a series at like 160, 180, 200 with and without shield ac. Then gonna repeat with cleric and ranger (eventually) to look for any hint of difference between classes. Most of the parses from the last thread were just a couple hundred, too noisy to do much than eyeball the graph and see the same pattern.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

After doing some longer tests, I think I have some good news to report:

=========================================
Shaman 60 207 AC vs level 50 mob 800 hits
=========================================

DV, Count
32, 184
37, 21
43, 34
49, 35
54, 30
60, 33
66, 26
71, 23
77, 36
83, 30
88, 34
94, 39
100, 28
105, 27
111, 30
117, 26
122, 29
128, 34
134, 34
140, 67

Total Damage = 62544

=========================================
Shaman 60 217 AC vs level 50 mob 800 hits
=========================================

DV, Count
32, 188
37, 24
43, 32
49, 30
54, 24
60, 37
66, 29
71, 27
77, 28
83, 36
88, 37
94, 30
100, 23
105, 34
111, 41
117, 33
122, 27
128, 32
134, 28
140, 60

Total Damage = 62141

=========================================
Shaman 60 227 AC vs level 50 mob 800 hits
=========================================

DV, Count
32, 202
37, 27
43, 29
49, 33
54, 30
60, 20
66, 34
71, 26
77, 37
83, 25
88, 32
94, 31
100, 25
105, 31
111, 41
117, 31
122, 27
128, 31
134, 33
140, 55

Total Damage = 61208

=========================================
Shaman 60 300 AC vs level 50 mob 800 hits
=========================================

DV, Count
32, 209
37, 32
43, 33
49, 28
54, 33
60, 33
66, 37
71, 35
77, 27
83, 31
88, 33
94, 28
100, 33
105, 24
111, 37
117, 23
122, 21
128, 32
134, 23
140, 48

Total Damage = 58618

=========================================
Shaman 60 386 AC vs level 50 mob 800 hits
=========================================

DV, Count
32, 221
37, 29
43, 21
49, 30
54, 33
60, 34
66, 46
71, 28
77, 19
83, 27
88, 32
94, 31
100, 27
105, 23
111, 38
117, 36
122, 38
128, 26
134, 36
140, 25

Total Damage = 58631

On longer parses, we start to see a more consistent drop in damage as we increase AC. We also see an increase in Minimum hits, and a decrease in maximum hits.

It looks like the softcap is in effect well past 217 worn AC. The issue is simply that the softcap returns are quite small, which is expected for Shamans and Rangers.

My previous data sets with 400 hits per set were noisy enough to mask the subtle decrease in damage. I am thinking that is what happened in the Ranger thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=438517) as well. I don't think they were generally parsing around 1000 hits per AC value.

It is easy to see why people accused Haynar of having a hardcap on AC at high levels. He said he was running 3 hour parses (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424394&postcount=5) to test his changes, and most people aren't gathering that much data per AC value.

This does show that AC has large diminishing returns past the softcap for at least some classes, which is why people don't feel like it does much. In the data above, going from 207 worn AC to 386 worn AC reduces damage by about 6.5%. It may be a bit higher if I ran even longer parses, as we see the 386 worn AC parse was basically identical to the 300 worn AC parse damage-wise. Considering that the 386 worn AC parse had like half of the max hits and 12 more min hits, that may just be unlucky RNG.

So far the data supports what Haynar's post (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1424908&postcount=13) said about hardcaps and softcaps.

Uploading some spreadsheets for three datasets: DSM level 5 vs level 5, my toons vs Shiel, DSM 60 shaman vs level 50. I find this is a more convenient format for looking at the data. Not a lot of conclusions yet from me. Min/max ratio seems noiser than damage/hit. Shield ac definitely has an effect.


Thanks for the spreadsheets! Just be aware that some items like orbs do not count as shields, so be sure to test with an actual shield.

[sogundordor]

Really appreciate all the work DSM's put in!

"I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25." Haynar said...
(217-25)/6=32
if 217 worn ac is the soft cap, then "low level" means lv32?

i made some graph easier to read =P
https://1drv.ms/i/c/e103ff814df802df/IQTwbhATmGUOTZpu0XzNpeCEAfnLMacBHwi2x_FX_dbXcYM
Hrmm soft cap happen around 217 for both Lv45 and Lv50, what about "squelching theory" ?

[Jimjam]

Hrmm soft cap happen around 217 for both Lv45 and Lv50, what about "squelching theory" ?

In vanilla, PC offence skills cap around level 40, staying the same through 50. Perhaps NPCs have a similar lock on their attack (or 'wrath' as I think dsm coined it)?

If the idea of squelching (that the player's worn AC is just completly drowning the mob's 'wrath' so any slight signal of improvement from extra ac is lost in the noise of randomness) is correct, then could it be feasible that level 45 and 50 mobs have similar wrath just how lvl 45 and 50 vanilla melees have similar offence, and so 45 and 50 mobs similar squelch point in terms of raw worn ac?

[kjs86z2]

can we get a TLDR

maybe something like "more armor more good"

[Jimjam]

In the data above, going from 207 worn AC to 386 worn AC reduces damage by about 6.5%. It may be a bit higher if I ran even longer parses, as we see the 386 worn AC parse was basically identical to the 300 worn AC parse damage-wise.


Are you brave enough to conduct a similar test in Banded Armor? It would be good to see the improvement of a 100pp set of armour vs upper end.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you brave enough to conduct a similar test in Banded Armor? It would be good to see the improvement of a 100pp set of armour vs upper end.

I do plan on lower AC tests on my Shaman to find the softcap, but I probably won't have time over the next few days. I have to keep torporing myself to stay alive. The level 5 tests were easier since Fungi did all the work for me, I could do something else while it was going on.

In vanilla, PC offence skills cap around level 40, staying the same through 50. Perhaps NPCs have a similar lock on their attack (or 'wrath' as I think dsm coined it)?

If the idea of squelching (that the player's worn AC is just completly drowning the mob's 'wrath' so any slight signal of improvement from extra ac is lost in the noise of randomness) is correct, then could it be feasible that level 45 and 50 mobs have similar wrath just how lvl 45 and 50 vanilla melees have similar offence, and so 45 and 50 mobs similar squelch point in terms of raw worn ac?

NPCs have the same skill caps and level requirements as players as far as I am aware. This is why Warrior mobs don't get bash until level 6, for example. Warrior mobs should get +5 offense and +5 weapon skills each level, until they cap.

You are correct that a level 45 mob and a level 50 should have similar wrath due to the skill caps. However, mobs should have different strength values, and strength is used in wrath. So a Hill Giant would probably have more wrath than a human mob of the same level.

Weapon skill gives 1 Wrath per 1 Skill point.

Strength gives less than 1 Wrath per 1 STR point. If you have 100 total STR, you get ~17 wrath. 150 STR is ~50 wrath. 200 STR is ~84 wrath. 255 STR is 120 wrath. This is using my DPS calculator.

ATK also increases Wrath. In my DPS calculator I use 1 Wrath per 1 ATK, but this may be a bit different on P99. The EQMU code has a multiplier for ATK based on era, so I am not sure if they adjusted that on P99.

I would imagine buffed NPCs would have higher wrath if they have STR buffs and/or ATK buffs. Like an SK mob using Grim Aura.

[Snaggles]

can we get a TLDR

maybe something like "more armor more good"

Anyone needing specific information for their class should be parsing and analyzing their own data. There are like 50 geonids and running averages in HoT seems fairly reliable as long as you aren’t accounting for drakes which flee. Equip a shield, take it off, throw the HGL’s in the backpack. Do that for 10-20 mobs with similar buffs and see what happens. Or just parse on one specific kind of mob if you really want to lock down variables.

Parsers are free and the info you gain on the user side is invaluable.

[kjs86z2]

Anyone needing specific information for their class should be parsing and analyzing their own data. There are like 50 geonids and running averages in HoT seems fairly reliable as long as you aren’t accounting for drakes which flee. Equip a shield, take it off, throw the HGL’s in the backpack. Do that for 10-20 mobs with similar buffs and see what happens. Or just parse on one specific kind of mob if you really want to lock down variables.

Parsers are free and the info you gain on the user side is invaluable.

ok so more armor more good

got it

[DeathsSilkyMist]

ok so more armor more good

got it

It depends. The low level worn AC clamp means more armor does not always mean more good.

Using the level * 6 + 25 worn AC clamp formula, a level 20 can only use 145 worn AC. After that all worn AC above 145 gets clamped to 145. So 400 worn AC = 145 worn AC for all classes at level 20.

So far it seems like the low level worn AC clamp applies to levels 1-50, at least according to the EQEMU code.

[Duik]

can we get a TLDR

maybe something like "more armor more good"

At this point, it is just a numbers game my friend.

It's the game within the game.
Having said that, I would read with interest whether the make/buy banded armor makes as big of a difference here. I predict yes. Tea leaves.

[bcbrown]

On longer parses, we start to see a more consistent drop in damage as we increase AC. We also see an increase in Minimum hits, and a decrease in maximum hits.

It looks like the softcap is in effect well past 217 worn AC. The issue is simply that the softcap returns are quite small, which is expected for Shamans and Rangers.

My previous data sets with 400 hits per set were noisy enough to mask the subtle decrease in damage. I am thinking that is what happened in the Ranger thread as well. I don't think they were generally parsing around 1000 hits per AC value.

It is easy to see why people accused Haynar of having a hardcap on AC at high levels. He said he was running 3 hour parses to test his changes, and most people aren't gathering that much data per AC value.

This does show that AC has large diminishing returns past the softcap for at least some classes, which is why people don't feel like it does much. In the data above, going from 207 worn AC to 386 worn AC reduces damage by about 6.5%. It may be a bit higher if I ran even longer parses, as we see the 386 worn AC parse was basically identical to the 300 worn AC parse damage-wise. Considering that the 386 worn AC parse had like half of the max hits and 12 more min hits, that may just be unlucky RNG.

Good analysis. Nice to see you appreciate how the noise in a 400-hit parse can make it hard to see the impact of small effects. The screenshot/spreadsheet I posted earlier has the number of hits I parsed in the ranger thread; you can see there's two high-quality parses plus a bunch of noisy couple-hundred parses.

Just like it's possible that the 300 and 386 AC parses you took could be similar due to fluky RNG, it's also possible it's an accurate representation of some underlying mechanism. One of your earlier parses showed exactly 1 hit for max damage; for any metrics relying on the count of max hits that's clearly going to be too noisy to be of use. Not a criticism! I think you're applying the appropriate skepticism, I'm just riffing on questions of data quality.

This is also why I like to first skim the data looking for any fluky RNG that might make analysis unreliable. By doing that before further analysis I can avoid any subconscious bias to keep data that supports my hypothesis or throw out data that contradicts it.

One thing I'm very interested in seeing is some parses at those same AC values for your shaman against a different target. I'd love to see you do some parses against Shiel or some other level 40 mob, because then we can overlap our parses and also see if there's any mob-specific effects like the squelch point hypothesis from the other thread.

[kjs86z2]

have we cracked the code?

[Crede]

If we can somehow make rangers better tank then this thread will be a huge success

[kjs86z2]

If we can somehow make rangers better tank then this thread will be a huge success

not gonna happen

[Jimjam]

have we cracked the code?

CO_qJf-nW0k

[Snaggles]

Shamans have to torp tank when soloing.
Monk solo challenges seem heavily AC/Hp affected
A knight or warrior’s efficiency may result in a pass/fail outcome.

These are the classes who should be interested in the results of the thread. Ones that take more hits/hr than any other class. If they are serious players, they should be doing their own research already.

[kjs86z2]

Shamans have to torp tank when soloing.
Monk solo challenges seem heavily AC/Hp affected
A knight or warrior’s efficiency may result in a pass/fail outcome.

These are the classes who should be interested in the results of the thread. Ones that take more hits/hr than any other class. If they are serious players, they should be doing their own research already.

enchanters that stack armor are big brain

[Jimjam]

enchanters that stack armor are big brain

Need to stack Agi to 280 for max avoidance under bedlam, obvz.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If we can somehow make rangers better tank then this thread will be a huge success

Based on what I have learned so far, this would be my advise for Rangers:

1. Use a shield if you want more damage reduction. The evidence so far points to shields increasing your AC softcap, so you get good returns on the shield AC.

Sarnak Battle Shield, Lodi Shield, or the 25 AC Dragon resist shields would be the best non-raid options.

Whitestone Shield or Buckler of Insight for the raiders.

2. Proccing Avatar helps a bit due to the +100 AGI. According to my DPS calculator, gaining 100 AGI is roughly equivalent to +20 Defense skill. So you can be at like the equivalent of 240 Defense skill instead of 220. I wouldn't really advise sacrificing other stats for AGI, but Avatar is an easy win. You can also ask for Shaman AGI buff if you aren't capped on buffs.

3. The softcaps do appear to exist, but I haven't confirmed what the values are yet. When the softcap is found, you should hit the softcap, and then focus on other stats like HP and resists. More AC past the softcap will offer some returns, but they probably won't be large. Haynar said that Warriors get 45% returns past the softcap, and the EQEMU code reflects that number. All other classes in the EQEMU code get lower than 45% returns past the softcap.

4. Get Silver Whip of Rage for the Rune Proc. I think that is the best damage reduction proc a Ranger can get. I don't think Rangers have a good lifesteal proc weapon, but I could be wrong.

5. Slow the mob with a proc if the mob is slowable. Earthcaller would be the better option over Swarmcaller, as you can still use a shield or silver whip of rage.

It would be cool to see a Ranger do a parse with a Silver whip and a Shield, proccing avatar with a primal bow. That may be the best setup for a mob that is slowed already.

[Snaggles]

enchanters that stack armor are big brain

For specific situations, specific gear goals can be justified. The classes I mentioned are defined classically or situationally as “tanks”.

If a ranger by most definitions should forfeit AC over other melee stats, I’d argue enchanters should do the same.

[Snaggles]

4. Get Silver Whip of Rage for the Rune Proc. I think that is the best damage reduction proc a Ranger can get. I don't think Rangers have a good lifesteal proc weapon, but I could be wrong.


Outside the Essence Mace there are none. It seems the whip MH/Mace would be the most durable setup while switching it would be a bit more dps and damage taken.

If anyone wants to sell me a Prismatic Scale MQ on blue I’m glad to test it! I have a WTB post up in the trading section :D

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Outside the Essence Mace there are none. It seems the whip MH/Mace would be the most durable setup while switching it would be a bit more dps and damage taken.

If anyone wants to sell me a Prismatic Scale MQ on blue I’m glad to test it! I have a WTB post up in the trading section :D

Good catch! I always forget about the essence weapons. It would be cool to see what performs better mitigation-wise, whip + mace or whip + shield. I assume mace would be in offhand since the proc is 80 life, while whip is 150 life. Also essence mace doesn't look like it is unresistable, so it would only work on some mobs. That is one of the best features of silver whip, it casts on yourself rather than the target.

[kjs86z2]

hey wow rangers want vyem whip + epic combo

never woulda guessed that

[DeathsSilkyMist]

3. The softcaps do appear to exist, but I haven't confirmed what the values are yet. When the softcap is found, you should hit the softcap, and then focus on other stats like HP and resists. More AC past the softcap will offer some returns, but they probably won't be large. Haynar said that Warriors get 45% returns past the softcap, and the EQEMU code reflects that number. All other classes in the EQEMU code get lower than 45% returns past the softcap.


There is one caveat for this. On my Shaman stacking AC is still benefitial after the softcap, as harder mobs like 6+ Dragons can have dangerous damage spikes. Reducing how many max hits they can do is quite useful for Torpor Tanking.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765895&postcount=105

Going from 207 AC to 386 AC reduced my max hits from 67 to 25.

So stacking AC past the softcap can still be a good strategy when trying to avoid spikes in damage, like getting double attacked for max damage on both hits.

[TytosOfEight]

Based on what I have learned so far, this would be my advise for Rangers:

1. Use a shield if you want more damage reduction. The evidence so far points to shields increasing your AC softcap, so you get good returns on the shield AC.

Sarnak Battle Shield, Lodi Shield, or the 25 AC Dragon resist shields would be the best non-raid options.

Whitestone Shield or Buckler of Insight for the raiders.

2. Proccing Avatar helps a bit due to the +100 AGI. According to my DPS calculator, gaining 100 AGI is roughly equivalent to +20 Defense skill. So you can be at like the equivalent of 240 Defense skill instead of 220. I wouldn't really advise sacrificing other stats for AGI, but Avatar is an easy win. You can also ask for Shaman AGI buff if you aren't capped on buffs.

3. The softcaps do appear to exist, but I haven't confirmed what the values are yet. When the softcap is found, you should hit the softcap, and then focus on other stats like HP and resists. More AC past the softcap will offer some returns, but they probably won't be large. Haynar said that Warriors get 45% returns past the softcap, and the EQEMU code reflects that number. All other classes in the EQEMU code get lower than 45% returns past the softcap.

4. Get Silver Whip of Rage for the Rune Proc. I think that is the best damage reduction proc a Ranger can get. I don't think Rangers have a good lifesteal proc weapon, but I could be wrong.

5. Slow the mob with a proc if the mob is slowable. Earthcaller would be the better option over Swarmcaller, as you can still use a shield or silver whip of rage.

It would be cool to see a Ranger do a parse with a Silver whip and a Shield, proccing avatar with a primal bow. That may be the best setup for a mob that is slowed already.

I've been swapping in my PD sword (https://wiki.project1999.com/Sword_of_Rile) after EC/Whip slow, then swapping between that for the 230 rune and my primal 2hander to keep avatar up. I haven't parsed it or anything, but it feels a bit better than just putting whip in main hand. The stronger rune shield and 100% avatar is possibly offsetting the slight drop is dps.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I've been swapping in my PD sword (https://wiki.project1999.com/Sword_of_Rile) after EC/Whip slow, then swapping between that for the 230 rune and my primal 2hander to keep avatar up. I haven't parsed it or anything, but it feels a bit better than just putting whip in main hand. The stronger rune shield and 100% avatar is possibly offsetting the slight drop is dps.


Good idea! Yeah that is an extra 80 Rune compared to silver whip.

[Crede]

I've been swapping in my PD sword (https://wiki.project1999.com/Sword_of_Rile) after EC/Whip slow, then swapping between that for the 230 rune and my primal 2hander to keep avatar up. I haven't parsed it or anything, but it feels a bit better than just putting whip in main hand. The stronger rune shield and 100% avatar is possibly offsetting the slight drop is dps.

Interesting. Could you parse that against some mobs? Rile ratio is pretty bad, but curious how much the higher rune and less riposteS offsets the higher dps weapons.

[Snaggles]

A Meljeldin has a 23.4% better ratio if you count the relative damage bonuses.

I certainly think it would be a solid tanking weapon, just a matter of if doing less dps but getting a heavy rune makes up for it.

[TytosOfEight]

Interesting. Could you parse that against some mobs? Rile ratio is pretty bad, but curious how much the higher rune and less riposteS offsets the higher dps weapons.

Yeah I definitely can. My char is parked for a little while atm but I'll do some parsing as soon as I'm done here.

[Ennewi]

If only shield AC applied to back slot shields as well. Would up the value of lodi shield, compensating for its lack of HP. More shields should have been back slot equippable, with draco's remaining as it was originally.

[Jimjam]

If only shield AC applied to back slot shields as well. Would up the value of lodi shield, compensating for its lack of HP. More shields should have been back slot equippable, with draco's remaining as it was originally.

Have you tested that it doesn’t? (:

[Ennewi]

Too busy shielding self IRL. Perhaps when able to return to Norrath, I'll throw it on a 60 knight and let mobs have at it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Have you tested that it doesn’t? (:

My 386 AC test included a Lodi Shield on my back, and I didn't have a significant reduction in damage. I didn't do extensive testing, but so far I think shield AC only works while in your offhand.

[Jimjam]

My 386 AC test included a Lodi Shield on my back, and I didn't have a significant reduction in damage. I didn't do extensive testing, but so far I think shield AC only works while in your offhand.

Did that include a shield on secondary slot too?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did that include a shield on secondary slot too?

No. The 386 AC tests were without a shield in the secondary slot. Lodi Shield was in the backslot. The gains between 300 AC and 386 AC weren't large. I don't think I used Lodi Shield in the back slot for the 300 AC test, but I could be wrong. Equipping a Sarnak Battle shield in thr secondary slot, which boosted me to 411 AC, did give me larger gains.

[bcbrown]

I just finished a test against Shiel Glimmerspindel, using a 60 druid. Both sides had 198 worn ac and 61 spell ac for a total of 259. The first side had the lodi shield in the back slot, and the second side had it in the secondary slot. I ended up with 909 hits on the first test and 587 on the second. Back slot had 40 damage/hit, 33.55% min hit, 0.77% max hit. Secondary slot had 39.7 damage/hit, 33.22% min hit, 1.36% max hit.

I was hoping to take 1500-2000 hits per side, but took a peek, saw the hits and intermediate results, and decided to call it there. I'm going to restart the test at slightly lower total AC and compare three treatments: no lodi shield; lodi shield in back slot; lodi shield in secondary slot.

If no-shield and back-slot have the same damage/hit while shield in secondary has lower damage/hit, that means shield AC has an impact on a 60 druid against a 40 mob. If they're all the same that would imply it doesn't have an impact. Either way I'll then do another test with ~20 less worn ac. This'll all probaby be on Sunday; it takes a ton of time so I'm only doing it while watching football.

The preliminary results showed no difference in damage/hit between lodi shield in back slot and lodi shield in secondary slot, which seems to contradict DSM's results. I don't think we can rule out mob-specific AC squelching, but would love for DSM to run some tests at those same AC intervals as he did previously, but against Shiel.

[TytosOfEight]

So if the idea is that a shield, regardless of slot, acts as a shield and pushes AC above the soft cap, the design should be:

Test 1.
Same AC
Non-shield back slot
Shield in secondary vs. no shield
(this should tell you if a shield is pushing above softcap)

Test 2.
Same as above, but with shield in secondary vs. a none-shield AC item in secondary, something like a KDT orb.
(this should tell you if any AC if secondary acts as a “shield” and pushes you above softcap)

Test 3.
Same Ac
Back slot shield (Lodi etc.) vs. non-back slot shield
(this should tell you if items denoted as “shield” work in any lot and it’s not just AC “shield” item in secondary)

Ideally you would keep AC constant across all three tests.

There might be other ways to test it too, but this feels the most straightforward.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I just finished a test against Shiel Glimmerspindel, using a 60 druid. Both sides had 198 worn ac and 61 spell ac for a total of 259. The first side had the lodi shield in the back slot, and the second side had it in the secondary slot. I ended up with 909 hits on the first test and 587 on the second. Back slot had 40 damage/hit, 33.55% min hit, 0.77% max hit. Secondary slot had 39.7 damage/hit, 33.22% min hit, 1.36% max hit.

I was hoping to take 1500-2000 hits per side, but took a peek, saw the hits and intermediate results, and decided to call it there. I'm going to restart the test at slightly lower total AC and compare three treatments: no lodi shield; lodi shield in back slot; lodi shield in secondary slot.

If no-shield and back-slot have the same damage/hit while shield in secondary has lower damage/hit, that means shield AC has an impact on a 60 druid against a 40 mob. If they're all the same that would imply it doesn't have an impact. Either way I'll then do another test with ~20 less worn ac. This'll all probaby be on Sunday; it takes a ton of time so I'm only doing it while watching football.

The preliminary results showed no difference in damage/hit between lodi shield in back slot and lodi shield in secondary slot, which seems to contradict DSM's results. I don't think we can rule out mob-specific AC squelching, but would love for DSM to run some tests at those same AC intervals as he did previously, but against Shiel.

You should compare equal numbers of hits to check AC mitigation.

That is why I am comparing 400 hits to another set of 400 hits, 1400 hits to 1400 hits, etc.

Your second test has like half of the hits of the first, and we saw with my data that 400 hits can be a bit noisy.

You should compare two sets of 1000 hits, for example. The easiest explanation for your results is due to a significantly different amount of hits for each test, and the second test not having enough hit data to rule out noise.

That is why I did 1400 hits for each test on the level 5 shield/no shield experiment.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3765568&postcount=68

I'll try to get more data at some point, but kinda busy right now with other things.

[bcbrown]

So if the idea is that a shield, regardless of slot, acts as a shield and pushes AC above the soft cap, the design should be:

Gladiator's Chain Sleeves and Talisman of Benevolence combine for 23 AC, same as Lodi Shield. So my three parses will be:
1) Wear the sleeves, put the Talisman in ranged, empty back and shield slots
2) Empty arms and ranged, shield in back slot
3) Empty arms and ranged, shield in secondary slot

If a shield has an impact when worn in secondary slot, I'd expect 3 to parse lower and 1 & 2 to parse the same. If a shield has an impact in any slot than I'd expect 1 to parse higher and 2 & 3 to parse the same. If all three parse the same, that implies that at least sometimes shield ac has no effect.

I get where you're coming from with three separate experiments each with two parses, but this seems like a lot less work while answering substantially the same question. Only question this won't address is whether non-shield in secondary slot can push above softcap, I think, but I don't have any high-AC orbs anyway.

You should compare equal numbers of hits to check AC mitigation.

That is why I am comparing 400 hits to another set of 400 hits, 1400 hits to 1400 hits, etc.

Your second test has like half of the hits of the first, and we saw with my data that 400 hits can be a bit noisy.

You should compare two sets of 1000 hits, for example. The easiest explanation for your results is due to a significantly different amount of hits for each test, and the second test not having enough hit data to rule out noise.

Not gonna lie, it's kinda funny hearing you ask me for longer parses when my first post in this thread was asking you for longer parses and you defending 400-hit parses. But yes, in case I wasn't clear enough I don't think my results had enough hits on either side to be conclusive. Suggestive but not conclusive, which is why I'm going to restart the experiment with a better design and a third option.

But there's no need for the parses to be exactly the same length. 1800 hits vs 1700 hits is just as legitimate as 1700 hits vs 1700 hits. You just have to normalize the total damage into damage/hit and then it's comparable.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Not gonna lie, it's kinda funny hearing you ask me for longer parses when my first post in this thread was asking you for longer parses and you defending 400-hit parses. But yes, in case I wasn't clear enough I don't think my results had enough hits on either side to be conclusive. Suggestive but not conclusive, which is why I'm going to restart the experiment with a better design and a third option.

But there's no need for the parses to be exactly the same length. 1800 hits vs 1700 hits is just as legitimate as 1700 hits vs 1700 hits. You just have to normalize the total damage into damage/hit and then it's comparable.

400 hit parses are fine if you use them in the correct context. This isn't a black and white issue with only one answer.

I use smaller parses across a large range initially to check possible patterns, and then I hone in on areas of interest with larger parses.

This is because going from 0 AC to 300 AC should be a large enough difference to where noise is less likely to affect the outcome, as a simple example. My initial post had a difference of 123 AC at level 5. That is a very large gap.

Clearly you use smaller parses as well, so please do not pretend that you believe smaller parses have no merit. Since you complained about smaller parses, one would think you would lead by example and supply larger parses.

And yes, you need the same number of hits for each set. That is the only accurate way to compare total damage taken, and how many hits are on the lower half of the damage values vs. the upper half. There's no reason to use different hit amounts. If you have one set with 1800 and one set with 1700, just take 100 off of the 1800 test.

[bcbrown]

You don't need to compare total damage taken if you compute damage/hit. Likewise you can convert min-hits and max-hits (and all the rest) to percentages. There's no reason to throw away some of the signal just to match an arbitrary number. But I don't want to fight with you about it. We both agree the experiment I posted last night wasn't conclusive.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You don't need to compare total damage taken if you compute damage/hit. Likewise you can convert min-hits and max-hits (and all the rest) to percentages. There's no reason to throw away some of the signal just to match an arbitrary number. But I don't want to fight with you about it. We both agree the experiment I posted last night wasn't conclusive.

You want to reduce the odds of something affecting the the results. Theres really no reason to have sets with different hit amounts.

I request that your data sets in the future are the same number of hits. Or you can supply your logs.

[TytosOfEight]

Gladiator's Chain Sleeves and Talisman of Benevolence combine for 23 AC, same as Lodi Shield. So my three parses will be:
1) Wear the sleeves, put the Talisman in ranged, empty back and shield slots
2) Empty arms and ranged, shield in back slot
3) Empty arms and ranged, shield in secondary slot

If a shield has an impact when worn in secondary slot, I'd expect 3 to parse lower and 1 & 2 to parse the same. If a shield has an impact in any slot than I'd expect 1 to parse higher and 2 & 3 to parse the same. If all three parse the same, that implies that at least sometimes shield ac has no effect.

I get where you're coming from with three separate experiments each with two parses, but this seems like a lot less work while answering substantially the same question. Only question this won't address is whether non-shield in secondary slot can push above softcap, I think, but I don't have any high-AC orbs anyway.

This seems pretty solid and good, practical compromise. Looking forward to seeing the results of it.

Not gonna lie, it's kinda funny hearing you ask me for longer parses when my first post in this thread was asking you for longer parses and you defending 400-hit parses. But yes, in case I wasn't clear enough I don't think my results had enough hits on either side to be conclusive. Suggestive but not conclusive, which is why I'm going to restart the experiment with a better design and a third option.

But there's no need for the parses to be exactly the same length. 1800 hits vs 1700 hits is just as legitimate as 1700 hits vs 1700 hits. You just have to normalize the total damage into damage/hit and then it's comparable.

[bcbrown]

You want to reduce the odds of something affecting the the results. Theres really no reason to have sets with different hit amounts.

I request that your data sets in the future are the same number of hits. Or you can supply your logs.

I don't want to fight over it and this seems pretty important to you so sure, I'll include a same-hitcount analysis of any experiments in this thread. I'm glad you're paying attention to methodology!

I'm more interested in discussing the potential implications if this experiment I'll run on Sunday ends up with equivalent results for all three parses.

Looking again at DSM's parses with 60 shaman:

level 60 Shaman 157 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 86.22
level 60 Shaman 177 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 83.24
level 60 Shaman 200 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 80.33
level 60 Shaman 217 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 75.57
level 60 Shaman 250 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 73.44
level 60 Shaman 300 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 73.61
level 60 Shaman 386 worn AC vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 74.52
level 60 Shaman 411 worn AC (25 AC from shield) vs level 50 mob, 400 hits: 68.37

Shaman 60 207 AC vs level 50 mob, 800 hits: 78.18
Shaman 60 217 AC vs level 50 mob, 800 hits: 77.67
Shaman 60 227 AC vs level 50 mob, 800 hits: 76.51
Shaman 60 300 AC vs level 50 mob, 800 hits: 73.27
Shaman 60 386 AC vs level 50 mob, 800 hits: 73.28

The 800-hit parses don't seem to provide any evidence one way or the other, but that last 400-hit parse with 25 shield AC sure suggests shield AC can have an impact.

23 AC Test, 400 hits: 6.60
40 AC Test, 400 hits: 5.05
45 AC Test, 400 hits: 4.54
50 AC Test, 400 hits: 4.35
55 AC Test, 400 hits: 4.32
61 AC Test, 400 hits: 4.27
178 AC Test, 400 hits: 4.32

55 AC Test, 12 of this AC is from a shield, 400 hits: 4.03
190 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield, 400 hits: 4.12

178 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield, 1400 hits: 4.11
178 AC, No shield, 1400 hits: 4.31

Again, pretty good evidence that shield AC can have an impact. Looking at the 55 AC tests with and without shield AC shows 4.32 vs 4.03. 178 AC with and without shows 4.31 vs 4.11. The one anomaly that jumps out is that 55 AC with a shield has lower damage/hit than 178 AC with a shield, 4.03 vs 4.11. I don't think that's enough to invalidate anything.

So what could account for DSM finding evidence of shield AC mattering while I found evidence of shield AC not mattering? I think the most optimistic and least likely possibility is that shield AC applies even to a shield worn in the back slot, and when I rerun the experiment with a better methodology that's what I will find. I think the most likely possibility is that for (at least some) mobs it's possible to squelch their damage at a worn AC lower than any softcap such that shield AC is simply irrelevant. I notice that DSM's tests are lvl5 vs lvl5 and lvl60 vs lvl50, while mine was lvl60 vs lvl40, a bigger level difference.

The least likely but most hilarious possibility is that whenever I play EQ shield AC doesn't have an impact but whenever DSM plays EQ it does have an impact.

[Cecily]

When there's a mind watching something, it changes the results. So it follows that you testing would change the results but his don't change.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When there's a mind watching something, it changes the results. So it follows that you testing would change the results but his don't change.

I have plenty of videos supporting my various tests over the years. If you want to accuse me of being a master at video editing to the point where I can fake videos perfectly, that is honestly a compliment. That would be difficult to do.

I can record myself doing these tests if you want, but that won't change the results. Most people do not supply videos with their parses/logs, so you are accusing Bcbrown of the same thing you accuse me of.

[bcbrown]

When there's a mind watching something, it changes the results. So it follows that you testing would change the results but his don't change.

Heisenberg's Everquest, I love it!

I was actually musing on how to design an MMORP resistant to any statistical analysis of the mechanics. You could do stuff like at character creation getting a random +5 to one of the offensive skills and a random -5 to another, or one armor slot getting double the listed AC and another half. Maybe every time you login you get a random number between 0.95 and 1.05, and all your rolls are multiplied by that number.

I have plenty of videos supporting my various tests over the years. If you want to accuse me of being a master at video editing to the point where I can fake videos perfectly, that is honestly a compliment. That would be difficult to do.

I can record myself doing these tests if you want, but that won't change the results. Most people do not supply videos with their parses/logs, so you are accusing Bcbrown of the same thing you accuse me of.

You understand the concept of a joke, right? Cecily isn't accusing you of altering your parses...

But to get back on topic, what would be your reaction if my experiment this Sunday does show all three parses looking similar? Any suggestions for the methodology I proposed? Other than to take at least 1400 hits and analyze them all with the same number of hits, which I plan to do.

There's two experiments I'd be really interested in seeing you do. One is the same as the one I'll be doing, where you run three parses with the same AC value, one with no shield, one with a shield in the back slot, and one with the shield in the secondary slot. The other would be a range of AC values like you did previously, but against Shiel Glimmerspindle or some other ~lvl40 mob.

[Rofel952]

Just want to drop my appreciation to you guys putting in the time to test this stuff. It’s very interesting!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Heisenberg's Everquest, I love it!

I was actually musing on how to design an MMORP resistant to any statistical analysis of the mechanics. You could do stuff like at character creation getting a random +5 to one of the offensive skills and a random -5 to another, or one armor slot getting double the listed AC and another half. Maybe every time you login you get a random number between 0.95 and 1.05, and all your rolls are multiplied by that number.



You understand the concept of a joke, right? Cecily isn't accusing you of altering your parses...

But to get back on topic, what would be your reaction if my experiment this Sunday does show all three parses looking similar? Any suggestions for the methodology I proposed? Other than to take at least 1400 hits and analyze them all with the same number of hits, which I plan to do.

There's two experiments I'd be really interested in seeing you do. One is the same as the one I'll be doing, where you run three parses with the same AC value, one with no shield, one with a shield in the back slot, and one with the shield in the secondary slot. The other would be a range of AC values like you did previously, but against Shiel Glimmerspindle or some other ~lvl40 mob.

I do understand the concept of a joke. I'd ask you the same question.

It was a bad joke at best, and an attack on my credibility at worst. Joking that someone is altering their data or testing incorrectly in a thread about tests and data is poor form.

It's like joking that someone is a thief. While the joke may be funny, it does come with an actual implication of foul play. Some people may take the accusation seriously after the laughter subsides.

Surely I don't need to explain this.

As for the test, your methodology is sound. I'll be curious to see the results.

[Ennewi]

Just want to drop my appreciation to you guys putting in the time to test this stuff. It’s very interesting!

[bcbrown]

As for the test, your methodology is sound. I'll be curious to see the results.

Excellent. Care to make a prediction? My prediction is that all three parses will be similar because at 200+ ac my 60 druid has passed the squelch point of the level 40 Shiel Glimmerspindle. If the no-shield test is worse than the other two, I'll update my understanding to include that shields provide an effect, even when worn in the back slot. If only the shield in secondary is better than the other two, I'll update my understanding to be that shields provide an effect, but only when worn in the secondary slot.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Excellent. Care to make a prediction? My prediction is that all three parses will be similar because at 200+ ac my 60 druid has passed the squelch point of the level 40 Shiel Glimmerspindle. If the no-shield test is worse than the other two, I'll update my understanding to include that shields provide an effect, even when worn in the back slot. If only the shield in secondary is better than the other two, I'll update my understanding to be that shields provide an effect, but only when worn in the secondary slot.

My prediction is the same as what my data shows. Shield AC will have an effect in the secondary slot. My existing data has situations where I am wearing lodi shield on my back in the 200+ AC tests, and I didn't see a difference. I wasn't specifically testing that, so I don't remember exactly which ones had lodi shield on my back and which didn't aside from the 386 and 411 tests. 386 AC is what I have with everything but my shield in the secondary slot equipped. This includes Lodi Shield in the back slot. So for sure I had lodi shield on my back in the 386 AC tests and the 411 AC test with the 25 shield AC equipped in my secondary slot.

[Cecily]

I do understand the concept of a joke. I'd ask you the same question.

It was a bad joke at best, and an attack on my credibility at worst. Joking that someone is altering their data or testing incorrectly in a thread about tests and data is poor form.

It's like joking that someone is a thief. While the joke may be funny, it does come with an actual implication of foul play. Some people may take the accusation seriously after the laughter subsides.

Surely I don't need to explain this.

As for the test, your methodology is sound. I'll be curious to see the results.
lol

[Duik]

Cecily, were you alluding to the concept that observing the results (can) changes the results?
If so then DSM missed a banger.
Also he goes into full defensive mode needlessly. Up until that point it has been highly interesting/informative. Just relax dude.

He almost gained my respect (not that he needs it) during his extended interactions with bcbrown.

The fact he would take it as a compliment if he was altering the data (and getting away with it) is a bit disturbing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Cecily, were you alluding to the concept that observing the results (can) changes the results?
If so then DSM missed a banger.
Also he goes into full defensive mode needlessly. Up until that point it has been highly interesting/informative. Just relax dude.

He almost gained my respect (not that he needs it) during his extended interactions with bcbrown.

The fact he would take it as a compliment if he was altering the data (and getting away with it) is a bit disturbing.

Cecily has been attacking me across multiple threads. The post history is clear. At this point the assumption is he is attacking me, until he is willing to apologize. But please, gaslight and pretend Cecily hasn't been attacking me in other threads.

You are taking what I said way out of context, but that isn't suprising for you. My point was that I back up my data with logs and videos often times, making it difficult to fake. This is much stronger evidence than others often provide. To accuse me of faking data, you'd need to claim I am a master at video manipulation. I'd have to be really good at doing video manipulation to do that (I am not) so that is a big claim.

Please take your advise and relax yourself. You don't need to post off topic nonsense in every thread.

[Ripqozko]

**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/18 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/296 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1025 (0%)
+ Life: 7/2866 (0%)
```

[DeathsSilkyMist]

**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/18 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/296 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1025 (0%)
+ Life: 7/2866 (0%)
```

It is always great to see how much Ripqozko misses me. Thanks for the support! I'll raid with you again someday, do not worry.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did two tests on Shiel Glimmerspindle.

=========================================
363 AC Test, Lodi Shield in Back Slot, Nothing in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 381
22, 22
25, 33
28, 28
32, 35
35, 39
38, 27
42, 37
45, 37
48, 38
52, 28
55, 32
58, 23
62, 41
65, 41
68, 41
72, 44
75, 31
78, 33
82, 9

Total Damage = 39236

=========================================
363 AC Test, Nothing in Back Slot, Lodi Shield in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 418
22, 29
25, 35
28, 45
32, 29
35, 22
38, 34
42, 36
45, 32
48, 33
52, 25
55, 29
58, 37
62, 32
65, 30
68, 31
72, 29
75, 30
78, 40
82, 4

Total Damage = 37110

As you can see, the damage reduction is greater when the Lodi Shield is in the Secondary Slot, rather than the Back Slot. I fought a level 40 mob as requested to show that the "squelch point" is not a factor.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I forgot to mention, the two tests in the previous post were 1000 hits per test:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766553&postcount=162

[TytosOfEight]

Did two tests on Shiel Glimmerspindle.

=========================================
363 AC Test, Lodi Shield in Back Slot, Nothing in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 381
22, 22
25, 33
28, 28
32, 35
35, 39
38, 27
42, 37
45, 37
48, 38
52, 28
55, 32
58, 23
62, 41
65, 41
68, 41
72, 44
75, 31
78, 33
82, 9

Total Damage = 39236

=========================================
363 AC Test, Nothing in Back Slot, Lodi Shield in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 418
22, 29
25, 35
28, 45
32, 29
35, 22
38, 34
42, 36
45, 32
48, 33
52, 25
55, 29
58, 37
62, 32
65, 30
68, 31
72, 29
75, 30
78, 40
82, 4

Total Damage = 37110

As you can see, the damage reduction is greater when the Lodi Shield is in the Secondary Slot, rather than the Back Slot. I fought a level 40 mob as requested to show that the "squelch point" is not a factor.

This is starting to paint a much clearer picture. I have to admit, it’s a bit disappointing that the shield in the back slot doesn’t function the same way as it does in the offhand. That said, it’ll be fascinating to see if any AC items can act as a shield in the offhand, or if there’s something unique about the coding specifically for items labelled as both “shield” + “offhand.”

Keep up the good work, and just ignore the trolls.

[Jimjam]

I’d bet it does have to be a shield, not just ac (since shield is clearly an existing flag as it is checked for bash). This would be a little sad for the shield of the slain unicorn (which is a piercing weapon but not a shield). I wonder how the fiery defender works for shield ac (which unlike a shield worn on the back does unlock bash, so is a shield in that regard but is AC weapon worn in primary).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is starting to paint a much clearer picture. I have to admit, it’s a bit disappointing that the shield in the back slot doesn’t function the same way as it does in the offhand. That said, it’ll be fascinating to see if any AC items can act as a shield in the offhand, or if there’s something unique about the coding specifically for items labelled as both “shield” + “offhand.”

Keep up the good work, and just ignore the trolls.

Thanks for the support!

I’d bet it does have to be a shield, not just ac (since shield is clearly an existing flag as it is checked for bash). This would be a little sad for the shield of the slain unicorn (which is a piercing weapon but not a shield). I wonder how the fiery defender works for shield ac (which unlike a shield worn on the back does unlock bash, so is a shield in that regard but is AC weapon worn in primary).

Yeah people have been saying items like orbs (Orb of the Infinite Void for example) do not count as shields for years. You are also correct that shields must have a special flag so bash can work properly.

I may do a test on this at some point for completions sake, but I haven't really seen anyone claim that any item with AC in the offhand counts as a shield. Nor do I expect this to be the case.

Haynar specified "Shield AC" when he was talking about it increasing softcap. He didn't say something generic like "Offhand AC".

The EQEMU code also has a specific check for shields. (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1054)

[Jimjam]

Does the sk epic work like paladin one? That it can bash and has AC?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Does the sk epic work like paladin one? That it can bash and has AC?

SK epic can bash. It doesn't have AC though. Probably due to the SK Epic's proc already being such a good defensive proc.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did one more test without any shield in back or secondary. All tests are 1000 hits. Reposting the first two for easy viewing. This is against https://wiki.project1999.com/Shiel_Glimmerspindle .

=======================================
363 AC Test, Nothing in Back Slot, Nothing in Secondary Slot
=======================================

DV, Count
19, 373
22, 37
25, 33
28, 31
32, 25
35, 45
38, 26
42, 37
45, 32
48, 36
52, 30
55, 32
58, 41
62, 27
65, 44
68, 29
72, 34
75, 46
78, 33
82, 9

Total Damage = 39093

=========================================
363 AC Test, Lodi Shield in Back Slot, Nothing in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 381
22, 22
25, 33
28, 28
32, 35
35, 39
38, 27
42, 37
45, 37
48, 38
52, 28
55, 32
58, 23
62, 41
65, 41
68, 41
72, 44
75, 31
78, 33
82, 9

Total Damage = 39236

=========================================
363 AC Test, Nothing in Back Slot, Lodi Shield in Secondary Slot
=========================================

DV, Count
19, 418
22, 29
25, 35
28, 45
32, 29
35, 22
38, 34
42, 36
45, 32
48, 33
52, 25
55, 29
58, 37
62, 32
65, 30
68, 31
72, 29
75, 30
78, 40
82, 4

Total Damage = 37110

This shows that shield AC in the secondary slot does affect mitigation. This is due to the shield AC increasing your softcap. Sadly shield AC in the back slot does nothing. The NPC I was fighting is level 40, so this means the "squelch point" is not affecting the result. My current thought is that the "squelch point" isn't an actual mechanic.

[Jimjam]

I think this q is a and a but have you tried a shield in back and secondary simultaneously?

[Naethyn]

I've also been working on a project, but kinda the opposite. In my spare time I've been attacking https://wiki.project1999.com/Corudoth and recording the melee dps. Not sure it is useful, but these type of projects are fun and sometimes revealing.

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think this q is a and a but have you tried a shield in back and secondary simultaneously?

I did. On the 411 AC test against the level 50 mob I had Sarnak Battle Shield in Secondary and Lodi on my back.

To me the results looked like only the Sarnak Battle Shield was increasing the softcap.

I didn't try that test on speil. However, the results of my previous post show having lodi on back is the same as not having lodi on back, and having 23 AC elsewhere. Personally I highly doubt you'd get a special bonus by having shields in both slots specifically.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766594&postcount=169

I've also been working on a project, but kinda the opposite. In my spare time I've been attacking https://wiki.project1999.com/Corudoth and recording the melee dps. Not sure it is useful, but these type of projects are fun and sometimes revealing.

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

Corudoth is a great parse target. I use him quite a bit to test out different weapons and to get data on theories.

[bcbrown]

Good data DSM. One question that occurred to me, what weapon was Shiel using for those three tests? As a rogue she'll have a higher piercing skill. I'm on my third test now, and they've all been versus punches, no weapon.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Good data DSM. One question that occurred to me, what weapon was Shiel using for those three tests? As a rogue she'll have a higher piercing skill. I'm on my third test now, and they've all been versus punches, no weapon.

She had a spear of some kind. It wasn't a special graphic, so probably fine steel, combine, or rusty.

I don't believe she spawns with weapons. At least according to the wiki. Out of curiousity, did you give her the weapon? I was a little suprised to see her with a spear, and the Karanas aren't particularly busy on blue.

[Jimjam]

Thanks for having the patience to reanswer my double shield question DSM :)

[bcbrown]

I don't believe she spawns with weapons. At least according to the wiki. Out of curiousity, did you give her the weapon? I was a little suprised to see her with a spear, and the Karanas aren't particularly busy on blue.

Pretty sure she spawns with weapons. Since March she's hit me with 1496 crushes, 5405 pierces, and 13168 hand-to-hand.

[bcbrown]

Ok, finished my parses.

No Shield:
1723 hits
71563 total damage
41.534 damage/hit

Shield in back:
1060 hits
44391 total damage
41.878 damage/hit

Shield in secondary:
1397 hits
58285 total damage
41.721 damage/hit

This is awesome, the most-hilarious scenario I outlined the other day is coming true. I'll do a little more data analysis later and give DSM the equal-hit-count analysis he wants, but might be tomorrow before I get to it.

My total AC is in the mid-200s, so I'm guessing I'm below any cap that may exist

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok, finished my parses.

No Shield:
1723 hits
71563 total damage
41.534 damage/hit

Shield in back:
1060 hits
44391 total damage
41.878 damage/hit

Shield in secondary:
1397 hits
58285 total damage
41.721 damage/hit

This is awesome, the most-hilarious scenario I outlined the other day is coming true. I'll do a little more data analysis later and give DSM the equal-hit-count analysis he wants, but might be tomorrow before I get to it.

My total AC is in the mid-200s, so I'm guessing I'm below any cap that may exist

My tests are only using worn AC. Taking a look at your previous comment:

I just finished a test against Shiel Glimmerspindel, using a 60 druid. Both sides had 198 worn ac and 61 spell ac for a total of 259.

You are using spell AC to go over 200 AC.

My two guesses right now are:

1. Spell AC is not softcapped.
2. Priest softcap may be higher than 200. I haven't locked in any of the softcap values yet. I am using the EQEMU as a starting point.

Our tests aren't 1 to 1 right now since you are using spell AC, and you can't get above 300 AC. It isn't that suprising there may be a difference.

I'll do a spell AC test to see if it gets softcapped.

[bcbrown]

I'm confused and not sure what you think the hardcap and softcap values are that apply to a 60 druid. Could you lay out your theory in more detail?

I think it's something like this? There's a 100 ac softcap for leather classes, and a 0.17 multiplier on AC over 100. There's some hardcap, maybe 217 or 289? Shield AC can skip the softcap, and maybe spell AC, we don't know.

So for the example of a 60 druid with 198 worn ac and 61 spell AC, with 23 of that worn AC being a shield in the secondary slot, that would mean:
100 ac below the softcap counts for
98 ac above the softcap, 75 non-shield and 23 shield ac. 75 * 0.17 gives 12.75 ac, and the shield isn't scaled, so 35.75 ac
The 61 spell ac may not be softcapped, so it's worth 61 ac.
Total "effective AC" is 100 + 35.75 + 61 or 196.75

Is that your theory? Because if so, same scenario but with all the AC being non-shield:
100 ac below the softcap counts for
98 ac above the softcap. 98 * 0.17 gives 16.66 ac
The 61 spell ac may not be softcapped, so it's worth 61 ac.
Total "effective AC" is 100 + 16.66 + 61 or 177.66

So I don't see what you mean by talking about the spell AC component. Obviously in the numbers above we don't know if 100 softcap or 0.17 returns above are the right values.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you describe the methodology before you do any test for spell AC softcap interaction.

[bcbrown]

I guess another way to put it is, if spell AC is not softcapped, and shield AC is not softcapped, then if spell AC and worn AC is constant across the tests but one side has shield AC and one side doesn't, shouldn't the side with the shield still perform better?

[Naethyn]

Worn MR > Buff MR

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm confused and not sure what you think the hardcap and softcap values are that apply to a 60 druid. Could you lay out your theory in more detail?


Perhaps I should just show the formula in the EQEMU code. That will be more concise. This formula would work the same for all classes for the most part. The two class specific changes are which softcap to use, and which diminishing returns to use. I'll also be marking which pieces were confirmed by Haynar. I will be adjusting some of the variable names and condensing a few things to make it easier to read:


var TotalEffectiveAC = GetTotalWornAC(); // This does NOT include spell AC.

TotalEffectiveAC = ((TotalEffectiveAC * 4) / 3); // Confirmed by Haynar. This inflates your worn AC value.

if(PlayerLevel < 50 && TotalEffectiveAC > (PlayerLevel * 6 + 25))
{
TotalEffectiveAC = (PlayerLevel * 6 + 25); // Confirmed by Haynar.
}

TotalEffectiveAC += DefenseSkill / 3;

TotalEffectiveAC += SpellAC / 4;

TotalEffectiveAC += AGI / 20;

var ACSoftcap = GetACSoftcap(); // Confirmed by Haynar.

ACSoftcap += GetShieldAC(); // Confirmed by Hanar. Will add 0 to the softcap unless you have a shield equipped in secondary slot.

if( TotalEffectiveAC > ACSoftcap)
{
TotalEffectiveAC = ACSoftcap + ((TotalEffectiveAC - ACSoftcap) * GetDiminishingReturns()); // Confirmed by Haynar.
}

return TotalEffectiveAC;


Let's use my variables for this formula so you can see how it works. First I will do the shield parse. I am skipping the level * 6 + 25 portion, as I am level 60:


var TotalEffectiveAC = 363;

TotalEffectiveAC = ((363 worn AC * 4) / 3) = 484;

TotalEffectiveAC += (200 Defense Skill / 3) = 550;

TotalEffectiveAC += (0 Spell AC / 4) = 550;

TotalEffectiveAC += (80 AGI / 20) = 554;

Var ACSoftcap = 200; // Assuming 200 Softcap for priests.

ACSoftcap += 23 Lodi Shield AC = 223;

if (554 TotalEffectiveAC > 223 ACSoftcap)
{
TotalEffectiveAC = 223 + ((554 - 223) * 0.23 Diminishing Returns) = 299;
}

Return 299 AC;


Now we will go through the formula again without the shield:


var TotalEffectiveAC = 363;

TotalEffectiveAC = ((363 worn AC * 4) / 3) = 484;

TotalEffectiveAC += (200 Defense Skill / 3) = 550;

TotalEffectiveAC += (0 Spell AC / 4) = 550;

TotalEffectiveAC += (80 AGI / 20) = 554;

Var ACSoftcap = 200; // Assuming 200 Softcap for priests.

ACSoftcap += 0 Shield AC = 200;

if (554 TotalEffectiveAC > 200 ACSoftcap)
{
TotalEffectiveAC = 200 + ((554 - 200) * 0.23 Diminishing Returns) = 281;
}

Return 281 AC;


That is the expected result, assuming all of the EQEMU code is 1 to 1 on P99. You should see why my Shaman is getting better damage mitigation with a shield. The increase in the softcap from the shield provides me with 18 more AC.

My existing data shows that the shield softcap increase is being applied.

There are a few things that have not been confirmed by Haynar though to my knowledge.

1a. Does the Softcap also get inflated to match the inflated AC when doing the ((Worn AC * 4) /3) Step? If not, a player with 150 worn AC would hit a 200 AC softcap.

1b. Were the softcap values themselves increased to compensate for the inflated AC? For example, the Priest softcap may have been 200 originally, but got increased to 300 to compensate.

2. How does Spell AC get applied? If the EQEMU is correct, spell AC gets divided by 4 and applied after the Worn AC inflation. This makes it's effects fairly small.

3. Are the Defense Skill and AGI portions in P99?

4. Are the order of operations different at all in P99 vs. EQEMU?

One interesting thing about Spell AC on P99 is it may be added to the UI differently. For example, Shroud of the Spirits supposedly gives 28 AC. But the UI shows that the increase in AC is less than the equivalent of 28 worn AC. So either the UI is doing something different for spells, or the wiki value of 28 AC is wrong.

363 worn AC reads as 1118 AC on my UI. Shroud of the Spirits adds 27 AC to the UI, putting the number at 1145. If I remove 28 worn AC while my UI shows 1145, my UI number is reduced to 1100. Putting on a 2 AC item increases my AC by 3 on the UI. Casting Inner Fire, which supposedly increases my AC by 3, adds 3 to the UI. It feels like spell AC is added directly to the UI, while worn AC is multiplied by something like 1.54 on the UI.

I did do one 1000 hit parse, and the results were interesting. What I did was I cast Shroud of the Spirits on myself, and then removed worn AC until my UI showed 1118 AC. 1118 AC is what my UI reads when I have 363 worn AC:

================================================== ==============
346 AC Test, Nothing in Back or Secondary Slot. Has Shroud of the Spirits Buff (+28 AC?)
================================================== ==============

DV, Count
19, 368
22, 36
25, 34
28, 44
32, 36
35, 29
38, 43
42, 38
45, 22
48, 30
52, 34
55, 32
58, 48
62, 33
65, 47
68, 29
72, 33
75, 31
78, 26
82, 7

Total Damage = 38381

This might indicate Spell AC might be more effective than regular AC on P99. My 363 AC test without a shield in the secondary slot (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766594&postcount=169) had a little over 39,000 damage. A reduction of ~700 damage when adding 28 spell AC seems like it may be a bit much if it was simply softcapped. 346 + 28 = 374, which is only 11 more softcapped AC from the 363 AC test. This obviously isn't conclusive yet. I'll need to run more tests. But it is interesting.

[bcbrown]

My two guesses right now are:

1. Spell AC is not softcapped.
2. Priest softcap may be higher than 200. I haven't locked in any of the softcap values yet. I am using the EQEMU as a starting point.

Our tests aren't 1 to 1 right now since you are using spell AC, and you can't get above 300 AC. It isn't that suprising there may be a difference.

I don't see how any of that stuff in your most recent post explains hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 makes sense as a possibility. Do you still think hypothesis 1 is a possibility, and if so could you explain how?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't see how any of that stuff in your most recent post explains hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 makes sense as a possibility. Do you still think hypothesis 1 is a possibility, and if so could you explain how?

One extreme way would involve removing the worn AC * 4 / 3 AC inflation step. While this step was confirmed by Haynar, it doesn't necessarily mean it still occurs on P99. You would also add a step to use spell AC for softcap.

I can run through that possibility real fast:


var TotalEffectiveAC = 198;

TotalEffectiveAC += (200 Defense Skill / 3) = 264;

TotalEffectiveAC += (61 Spell AC / 4) = 279;

TotalEffectiveAC += (100 AGI / 20) = 284;

Var ACSoftcap = 200; // Assuming 200 Softcap for priests.

ACSoftcap += 23 Lodi Shield AC = 223;

ACSoftcap += 61 Spell AC = 284;

if (284 TotalEffectiveAC > 284 ACSoftcap)
{
// Not greater
}

Return 284 AC;


In this scenario you wouln't hit softcap, or you would just barely go over. I am not saying I am leaning towards this solution. But it was one way I was thinking about it at the time.

For reference, the original steps for the AC calculation are in my previous post:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766652&postcount=182

[Goregasmic]

Thanks for the support!



Yeah people have been saying items like orbs (Orb of the Infinite Void for example) do not count as shields for years. You are also correct that shields must have a special flag so bash can work properly.

I may do a test on this at some point for completions sake, but I haven't really seen anyone claim that any item with AC in the offhand counts as a shield. Nor do I expect this to be the case.

Haynar specified "Shield AC" when he was talking about it increasing softcap. He didn't say something generic like "Offhand AC".

The EQEMU code also has a specific check for shields. (https://github.com/EQEmu/Server/blob/8175ae61874cbf20d7b05102821f6f8a4f4d1c39/zone/tune.cpp#L1054)

On the wiki page discussion for OOIV a paladin says he can bash with it. It is probably considered as a shield for AC purpose. It also has a "shield" graphic so it tracks. Wouldn't be so sure about something like an iksar hide manual but I remember reading (not sure if still accurate) that the cloth softcap is much higher (something like 386 worn) because cloth lolz so I don't think it matters either way. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind that kind of exception though but for non raiders you'll never reach it.

I'd be more curious to see if spell AC moves the softcap or if it is considered as worn ac.

Good work guys by the way, very interesting.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

On the wiki page discussion for OOIV a paladin says he can bash with it. It is probably considered as a shield for AC purpose. It also has a "shield" graphic so it tracks. Wouldn't be so sure about something like an iksar hide manual but I remember reading (not sure if still accurate) that the cloth softcap is much higher (something like 386 worn) because cloth lolz so I don't think it matters either way. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind that kind of exception though but for non raiders you'll never reach it.

I'd be more curious to see if spell AC moves the softcap or if it is considered as worn ac.

Good work guys by the way, very interesting.

Good catch on orb of infinite void. Looks like the wiki was updated in january 2025 to say it works as a shield. Glad to see someone tested it. Yeah something lile iksar hide manual should not count as shield AC.

[Jimjam]

On the wiki page discussion for OOIV a paladin says he can bash with it. It is probably considered as a shield for AC purpose. It also has a "shield" graphic so it tracks. Wouldn't be so sure about something like an iksar hide manual but I remember reading (not sure if still accurate) that the cloth softcap is much higher (something like 386 worn) because cloth lolz so I don't think it matters either way. Not sure I understand the reasoning behind that kind of exception though but for non raiders you'll never reach it.

I'd be more curious to see if spell AC moves the softcap or if it is considered as worn ac.

Good work guys by the way, very interesting.

I believe the cloth cap was higher because they have lower returns on ac.

In the GoD era I swear cloth had lower cap, but decent returns over cap meant raid geared necromancers actually were silly good tanks.

It depends on where the code has been copypasted and how it has been tweaked.

[Goregasmic]

I believe the cloth cap was higher because they have lower returns on ac.

In the GoD era I swear cloth had lower cap, but decent returns over cap meant raid geared necromancers actually were silly good tanks.

It depends on where the code has been copypasted and how it has been tweaked.

Yeah I know they get next to nothing over the softcap but so far it seems like everyone gets the same returns. Maybe cloth is an exception, but why not just use one formula and put lower AC on itemization? *shrugs*.

[Naethyn]

I think itemtype has to equal 8 to count for shield ac.

Whitestone Shield: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=31316

GBS: type 10
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=10404

Iksar Hide Manual: type 11
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=5763

EoN: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=2498

Orb of the Infinite Void: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=25098

Of course these are live values. The history section does show a few changes made and when. I'd assume we are using values pre luclin.

[Goregasmic]

I think itemtype has to equal 8 to count for shield ac.

Whitestone Shield: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=31316

GBS: type 10
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=10404

Iksar Hide Manual: type 11
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=5763

EoN: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=2498

Orb of the Infinite Void: type 8
https://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemraw.html?id=25098

Of course these are live values. The history section does show a few changes made and when. I'd assume we are using values pre luclin.

Great find!

I checked a couple of items with AC and it seems like everything that is secondary only will be type 8 while items that are also primary and/or ranged, or a weapon will not be.

[bcbrown]

One extreme way would involve removing the worn AC * 4 / 3 AC inflation step. While this step was confirmed by Haynar, it doesn't necessarily mean it still occurs on P99. You would also add a step to use spell AC for softcap.
...
In this scenario you wouln't hit softcap, or you would just barely go over. I am not saying I am leaning towards this solution. But it was one way I was thinking about it at the time.

Thanks for explaining your thinking. Certainly possible, but I agree it's a little implausible.

I wanna take a step back for a second. The results of my experiment were surprising, and we know it's surprising because it's contrary to what you predicted the outcome would be. Any time that the (made in jest) theory "bcbrown never sees an effect from shield AC but DSM always sees an effect" is consistent with the results, we know there's still a lot we don't know.

What we do know is this: sometimes shields can have an effect, and sometimes they don't. They can have an effect at level 5, and they can have an effect at level 60. I think at this point almost anything else is still speculation. We don't know what impact class has (priest vs int-caster vs melee/hybrid), nor what impact armor-class has (plate vs chain vs leather vs cloth). We don't know how spell AC interacts with caps, and we don't know whether 1 ac from spells has an equivalent impact to 1 ac from armor.

Since my gear isn't great, I won't be able to help much with running experiments to help answer those questions. I did run a small experiment. First side had no Bladecoat. Second side had Bladecoat (37 ac on wiki), and I took off my pants and gloves (17 and 20 ac, respectively). Both sides had potg, and I ended up with 988 and 826 hits. I haven't looked at the results yet. I don't think we know enough to make a prediction worthwhile, but I think we can say that if there is a difference, that's evidence that spell ac is treated differently from worn ac, while if there is no difference, that's not really evidence for anything. And even if there is a difference, the number of hits for each side aren't enough to have really solid evidence. That all sound right to you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thanks for explaining your thinking. Certainly possible, but I agree it's a little implausible.

I wanna take a step back for a second. The results of my experiment were surprising, and we know it's surprising because it's contrary to what you predicted the outcome would be. Any time that the (made in jest) theory "bcbrown never sees an effect from shield AC but DSM always sees an effect" is consistent with the results, we know there's still a lot we don't know.

What we do know is this: sometimes shields can have an effect, and sometimes they don't. They can have an effect at level 5, and they can have an effect at level 60. I think at this point almost anything else is still speculation. We don't know what impact class has (priest vs int-caster vs melee/hybrid), nor what impact armor-class has (plate vs chain vs leather vs cloth). We don't know how spell AC interacts with caps, and we don't know whether 1 ac from spells has an equivalent impact to 1 ac from armor.

Since my gear isn't great, I won't be able to help much with running experiments to help answer those questions. I did run a small experiment. First side had no Bladecoat. Second side had Bladecoat (37 ac on wiki), and I took off my pants and gloves (17 and 20 ac, respectively). Both sides had potg, and I ended up with 988 and 826 hits. I haven't looked at the results yet. I don't think we know enough to make a prediction worthwhile, but I think we can say that if there is a difference, that's evidence that spell ac is treated differently from worn ac, while if there is no difference, that's not really evidence for anything. And even if there is a difference, the number of hits for each side aren't enough to have really solid evidence. That all sound right to you?

No problem!

Shield AC will only have a special effect if you are above the softcap. Your data is consistent with how shield AC would work if you don't hit the softcap.

What your data shows is that 198 worn AC + 61 Spell AC does not hit the softcap for Druids. At this point we need to find the softcaps. I can work on that since I have the AC. Priest softcaps should be the same.

It would be cool to see some more Spell AC tests on your end. I am curious if spell AC acts different even under the softcap. If the EQEMU code is correct, then spell AC is a bit different from worn AC, as it gets divided by 4 and doesn't get inflated by the inflation step. I don't think it works like that on P99, but not sure.

Just to be clear, AC doesn't affect how often the mob misses you. It only affects mitigation after you get hit.

[bcbrown]

What your data shows is that 198 worn AC + 61 Spell AC does not hit the softcap for Druids. At this point we need to find the softcaps. I can work on that since I have the AC. Priest softcaps should be the same.

My data does not show that. It raises that question. I realize how pedantic this sounds, but an experiment cannot result in a conclusion that it was not attempting to answer. I agree that at this point we need to find the softcaps, but my experiment does not answer that question, it raises that question. Not exactly a rigorous source, but here's a comic addressing a similar topic: https://xkcd.com/882/

Any speculation on results before I analyze the parse I did with and without Bladecoat?

Edit: to be clear, that experiment I did was not with 198 worn AC, because I was removing various slots for each parse. I usually have prexus totem equipped, but took that off to free up a slot, then removed 23 ac either via lodi shield or whatever else. I also added 1 ac by upgrading a bracer, so I think that puts it at 171 worn ac + 61 spell ac.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My data does not show that. It raises that question. I realize how pedantic this sounds, but an experiment cannot result in a conclusion that it was not attempting to answer. I agree that at this point we need to find the softcaps, but my experiment does not answer that question, it raises that question. Not exactly a rigorous source, but here's a comic addressing a similar topic: https://xkcd.com/882/

Any speculation on results before I analyze the parse I did with and without Bladecoat?

Data is data. Your data supports the softcap theory.

No speculations right now. I haven't done much spell AC testing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Edit: to be clear, that experiment I did was not with 198 worn AC, because I was removing various slots for each parse. I usually have prexus totem equipped, but took that off to free up a slot, then removed 23 ac either via lodi shield or whatever else. I also added 1 ac by upgrading a bracer, so I think that puts it at 171 worn ac + 61 spell ac.

Thanks for clarifying. So you were even further from any possible softcap. That makes sense.

[bcbrown]

Data is data. Your data supports the softcap theory.

No speculations right now. I haven't done much spell AC testing.

My data supports the softcap hypothesis. A theory has been confirmed by experiments done to test the hypothesis. But we're not going to resolve that philosophical difference in this thread so I'll try not to keep harping on it too much :)

With bladecoat (37 ac on wiki):
988 hits
41.155 dmg/hit

Without bladecoat (wearing crystal chitin gauntlets and gladiator's chain leggings):
826 hits
43.393 dmg/hit

Looks like it's worth further investigation!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My data supports the softcap hypothesis. A theory has been confirmed by experiments done to test the hypothesis. But we're not going to resolve that philosophical difference in this thread so I'll try not to keep harping on it too much :)

With bladecoat (37 ac on wiki):
988 hits
41.155 dmg/hit

Without bladecoat (wearing crystal chitin gauntlets and gladiator's chain leggings):
826 hits
43.393 dmg/hit

Looks like it's worth further investigation!

Haynar, the programmer who worked on this, said there was a softcap. The softcap is indeed a theory confirmed by Haynars own experiments:) We are simply reconfirming the theory.

The squelch point hypothesis has yet to be confirmed.

I agree, more inestigation is needed on spell AC.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Posting my 3 initial tests to find the softcap. They are all against Shiel Glimmerspindle (https://wiki.project1999.com/Shiel_Glimmerspindle), 1000 hits each:

=========================
100 AC Test, No Item in Secondary Slot
=========================

DV, Count
19, 121
22, 33
25, 33
28, 39
32, 36
35, 46
38, 31
42, 35
45, 38
48, 38
52, 44
55, 41
58, 35
62, 38
65, 36
68, 30
72, 36
75, 42
78, 31
82, 217

Total Damage = 53149

=========================
150 AC Test, No Item in Secondary Slot
=========================

DV, Count
19, 216
22, 35
25, 39
28, 38
32, 30
35, 40
38, 36
42, 34
45, 30
48, 44
52, 32
55, 49
58, 40
62, 37
65, 43
68, 39
72, 37
75, 43
78, 32
82, 106

Total Damage = 47028

=========================
200 AC Test, No Item in Secondary Slot
=========================

DV, Count
19, 289
22, 41
25, 41
28, 33
32, 32
35, 43
38, 43
42, 38
45, 40
48, 33
52, 38
55, 38
58, 37
62, 39
65, 33
68, 39
72, 41
75, 41
78, 34
82, 27

Total Damage = 41805

So far this suggests the softcap is not between 100 AC and 200 AC. The damage difference between 100 AC and 150 AC is similar enough to 150 AC and 200 AC.

My 363 AC tests (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766553&postcount=162) Show that the damage I took at 363 AC without a shield was 39236.

Going from 100 AC to 200 AC reduced my damage by 11346.

Going from 200 AC to 363 AC reduced my damage by 2569.

There is almost certainly a softcap somewhere between 200 AC and 363 AC. I'll try to pinpoint it when I run the next few tests.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did a few more tests to hone in where the softcap is:

========================
223 AC Test, No Shield Secondary
========================

DV, Count
19, 340
22, 33
25, 36
28, 40
32, 40
35, 27
38, 38
42, 42
45, 41
48, 28
52, 31
55, 47
58, 37
62, 29
65, 28
68, 26
72, 40
75, 37
78, 46
82, 14

Total Damage = 39948

=======================
223 AC Test, Lodi Shield Secondary
=======================

DV, Count
19, 341
22, 32
25, 35
28, 36
32, 40
35, 26
38, 33
42, 33
45, 31
48, 37
52, 31
55, 39
58, 42
62, 44
65, 43
68, 38
72, 42
75, 35
78, 37
82, 5

Total Damage = 40312

=======================
235 AC Test, Lodi Shield Secondary
=======================
DV, Count
19, 366
22, 33
25, 36
28, 35
32, 40
35, 36
38, 34
42, 39
45, 27
48, 31
52, 35
55, 36
58, 23
62, 42
65, 47
68, 35
72, 35
75, 31
78, 30
82, 9

Total Damage = 38829

=======================
250 AC Test, Lodi Shield Secondary
=======================

DV, Count
19, 370
22, 53
25, 36
28, 43
32, 32
35, 25
38, 29
42, 24
45, 25
48, 39
52, 21
55, 31
58, 35
62, 24
65, 33
68, 44
72, 41
75, 40
78, 41
82, 14

Total Damage = 39056

======================
250 AC Test, No Shield Secondary
======================

DV, Count
19, 333
22, 25
25, 23
28, 39
32, 35
35, 36
38, 46
42, 54
45, 30
48, 22
52, 44
55, 44
58, 32
62, 40
65, 35
68, 39
72, 40
75, 38
78, 39
82, 6

Total Damage = 40581

We can see that the 223 AC tests show the same pattern that Bcbrown saw, where the shield parse matches the non-shield parse. This makes sense, as Bcbrown said he had 171 worn AC + 61 Spell AC = 232 AC. While we are still not sure exactly how spell AC works, this total value is in the ball park.

Once we get to 250 AC, the shield parse starts to become better than the non-shield parse. The 235 AC shield parse shows basically no difference compared to the 250 AC shield parse.

This means the softcap for Shamans (and probably Druids/Clerics as well) is between 223 AC and 235 AC.

I believe the softcap returns may be 0.17 for Shaman, which is the EQEMU value for low chain classes. This would be like Shaman and Ranger.

This is because in my 363 AC Tests (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766553&postcount=162), my no shield parse is 39K damage with 380 minimum hits.

The 250 AC test with a shield in this post is 39K and close to 380 minimum hits. 23 AC is Shield AC, so taking that out would give us 227 AC. 363 AC - 227 AC = ~136 softcapped AC * 0.17 = ~23 AC, which is roughly the same AC as my shield. This suggests that 136 softcapped AC gave me the equivalent of ~23 worn AC.

[kjs86z2]

you can do it DSM

we believe in you

[Goregasmic]

What jumps at me is you save about 1.5khp over a thousand hits with the shield past the cap, which is sub 4%? Seems like you'd have better mitigation with quicker kills using a 2hand/DW.

Only real reason I see using a shield is maybe for raid encounters where a max hit round could 1shot the MT. It would lower the chances of getting such a round but I'm a non raider, wouldn't surprise me if MTs didn't bother at this point.

[sammoHung]

What jumps at me is you save about 1.5khp over a thousand hits with the shield past the cap, which is sub 4%? Seems like you'd have better mitigation with quicker kills using a 2hander.

Only real reason I see using a shield is maybe for raid encounters where a max hit round could 1shot the MT. It would lower the chances of getting such a round but I'm a non raider, wouldn't surprise me if MTs didn't bother at this point.

Agreed. In later xpacs, like GoD and OoW: Sword and Board was the preferred warrior MT setup. But that was with shields that had like 100AC and also Shield Block AA which allowed warriors to completely block incoming attacks with shield equipped.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What jumps at me is you save about 1.5khp over a thousand hits with the shield past the cap, which is sub 4%? Seems like you'd have better mitigation with quicker kills using a 2hand/DW.

Only real reason I see using a shield is maybe for raid encounters where a max hit round could 1shot the MT. It would lower the chances of getting such a round but I'm a non raider, wouldn't surprise me if MTs didn't bother at this point.

I believe the final value is closer to 2k damage according to my 363 AC tests:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766553&postcount=162

I think it was 1.5k on the 250 AC test because I wasn't that far above the softcap. But it could be a bit of RNG as well.

Assuming a 46 AC shield would double this value, a higher AC shield like whitestone shield at 39 AC would reduce damage by (39 / 46) * 4000 damage = 3388 damage.

That would be more like 8% for a Warrior with a 39 AC shield perhaps, but this is just a guess.

[Snaggles]

There is some rumor that Vulak axe ac acts like a shield. Or at least I’ve heard it floated once. Unfortunately there aren’t any 80 AC shields to use to test this, nor do I have a Vulak axe.

My pally does have a Rocksmasher which has 25 ac and I can borrow my Druids sarnak shield. Just a FYI it’s in the queue but I’m not sure when I’ll be able to get that done.

[Goregasmic]

I believe the final value is closer to 2k damage according to my 363 AC tests:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3766553&postcount=162

I think it was 1.5k on the 250 AC test because I wasn't that far above the softcap. But it could be a bit of RNG as well.

Assuming a 46 AC shield would double this value, a higher AC shield like whitestone shield at 39 AC would reduce damage by (39 / 46) * 4000 damage = 3388 damage.

That would be more like 8% for a Warrior with a 39 AC shield perhaps, but this is just a guess.

Yeah for sure, thought about that but I think the point still holds in the vast majority of situations.

There is some rumor that Vulak axe ac acts like a shield. Or at least I’ve heard it floated once. Unfortunately there aren’t any 80 AC shields to use to test this, nor do I have a Vulak axe.

My pally does have a Rocksmasher which has 25 ac and I can borrow my Druids sarnak shield. Just a FYI it’s in the queue but I’m not sure when I’ll be able to get that done.

Item type 1 according to lucy, so probably not.

[kjs86z2]

good job dsm