Armor Class and Raid Tanking

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Or they both softcap at ~200 due to shiel's low attack values and the difference between both parses come from the softcapped returns since knight get a 33% diminishing return and shaman only gets 17%.

If this is true, there should be a 16% difference between the 2 parses but since shaman has an extra 63AC this could explain why there is only a 9% difference.

All these parses at different AC values on different mobs using different classes makes it hard to see an actual pattern.

All of the recent data I have shown is on the same mob, Shiel Glimmerspindle. I would ignore Bcbrowns old data, as even they admit the data is not very good.

Let me post the data in a simpler way:

363 AC, No Shield, 1000 Hits from Shiel Glimmerspindle
===================
60 Shaman = 39236 Damage Taken

300 AC, No Shield, 1000 Hits from Shiel Glimmerspindle
===================
60 SK = 35754 Damage Taken

200 AC, No Shield, 1000 Hits from Shiel Glimmerspindle
===================
60 SK = 41544 Damage Taken
60 Shaman = 41805 Damage Taken

The Shaman is taking 2569 less damage with 163 AC over 200, no shield.

The SK is taking 5790 less damage with 100 AC over 200, no shield.

The softcap return difference alone cannot account for this discrepancy.

If the softcap was 200 on both classes, the AC values would look like this:

363 - 200 = 163 * 0.17 = 27.71 + 200 = 228 worn AC on the Shaman.
300 - 200 = 100 * 0.33 = 33 + 200 = 233 worn AC on the Shadowknight.

A difference of 5 worn AC after softcap would not reduce the Shadowknight's damage taken by 2x compared to the Shaman.

[bcbrown]

The data is good, it's just that without calculations like average damage per hit and frequency of min and max hit and with the somewhat arbitrary AC values it's hard to draw definitive conclusions.

But the charts alone do make clear that softcap or no, going from ~100 to ~150 worn AC on a druid has a substantial impact.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The data is good, it's just that without calculations like average damage per hit and frequency of min and max hit and with the somewhat arbitrary AC values it's hard to draw definitive conclusions.

But the charts alone do make clear that softcap or no, going from ~100 to ~150 worn AC on a druid has a substantial impact.

I am not saying you are lying about the data. The way you typically present data is not very good.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=100

This posts has charts without labeling the X and Y, or the different colored lines, as a simple example. Ideally you would post the raw data along with the charts and label your charts, so it is easy to figure out what you are trying to show.

The data I have provided shows softcaps clearly exist. You can just take a look at my previous post:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...1&postcount=21

Unless you have an alternate explaination?

I am open to the possibility the softcap on leather is higher than 100 if the data can show this. But I doubt it is going to be higher than the 200 chain softcap, or somehow show softcaps don't exist.

[bcbrown]

Yeah, sorry man, but I'm just not interested right now in trying to have a conversation with someone who's insulting and criticizing me and misrepresenting what I've said. Sorry you had a hard time understanding that hit distribution graph without a legend though.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yeah, sorry man, but I'm just not interested right now in trying to have a conversation with someone who's insulting and criticizing me and misrepresenting what I've said. Sorry you had a hard time understanding that hit distribution graph without a legend though.

You are bad at accepting constructive critisism. You can continue to display your data poorly if you want.

Whining, displaying data poorly, and refusing to have a discussion just makes you and your argument look bad.

Let me know when you are ready to have a discussion like an adult. So far you have no evidence to suggest class based softcaps for AC do not exist. Nor do you have evidence for your squelsh point theory.