AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[bcbrown]

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

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]

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

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.