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

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

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

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

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

Do want

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

wts all kinds of cobalt armor because of this parse!

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...33&postcount=1

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Treat's post suggests the iksar bonus should apply to avoidance, but the actual wayback machine suggests mitigation. http://web.archive.org/web/200408221...#_Toc536608108 It sounds like no one was really sure. Mitigation would certainly make way more sense.

Bump.

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

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

The Iksar bonus is applied to Mitigation AC not Avoidance

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

Hardcap ACs are all wrong

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

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

AC from Buffs have no Hardcap

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

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

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

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