AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[Naethyn]

Worn MR > Buff MR

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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 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]

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

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]

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

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/s...&postcount=182

[Goregasmic]

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

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.