AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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