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.

[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

[Rofel952]

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

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Rofel952 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[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]

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

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]

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

**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.