Game Mechanics: AC/Level Mitigation & Backstabs

[Hasbinbad]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Murphy]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Haul]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hahaha finally you contribute something funny. You're still a tool though-

[Aadill]

Your "common sense" interpretation is actually an interpolation of that statement. It doesn't say that it is Level * (3/2) + 0.05n where n is the # of levels above 51. It says the minimum damage goes up, which makes sense because Level changes in the Level * (3/2) calculation.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a large gap between 59 and 60, but your "common sense interpretation" has nothing to back it up except your own discontent. That ain't no research. You edited your post so I'll edit mine: I want to say that Level 60 is a pretty big deal. Wizards get Sunstrike, Monks get Triple Attack, Shamans get Torpor. It's a pretty powerful level. There should be something defining for your class upon reaching 60.

PS I am looking for info on it too but everything I found ONLY says Level * (3/2) until 60, which is what the devs implemented. That's the best they can and should do unless someone comes up with something. As far as Backstabbing for minimum entirely too much, that's something that they should be focused on but can only work on if people give them something to look at. Provide more numbers.


You know, my biggest complaint is that weapon skill level seems to have a MASSIVE effect on how often you hit for more than minimum. As a ranger my skills are 15 points lower than pretty much everyone elses, so I do even WORSE dps on raid mobs than other classes simply because the melee formula seems so dependent on it. Every time I gain a level my DPS jumps a significant amount, all from 4 points of offense and weapon skills. I assume rogues are max offensive but maybe the dependency on offensive skills is too high and skewing everyone's memory of live? I'm just throwin that out there.

[Shiftin]

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

Your "common sense" interpretation is actually an interpolation of that statement. It doesn't say that it is Level * (3/2) + 0.05n where n is the # of levels above 51. It says the minimum damage goes up, which makes sense because Level changes in the Level * (3/2) calculation.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a large gap between 59 and 60, but your "common sense interpretation" has nothing to back it up except your own discontent. That ain't no research.

My attempt at smoothing it out is absolutely just that, my best attempt based on how I read the sentence. We have a starting formula and an ending formula and all we have for inbetween is "it goes up". The method by which "It goes up" (gradually and scaled like most damage formulas in EQ or all at once) is unclear.

I've spent more than a few hours on the safehouse and archive.org trying to find any parses where we can derive minimum backstab at intermediary levels and can't find one. What is also notably absent, however, is people talking about the huge jump at 60 or how much their damage jumped at 60. If such a huge gap existed, it seems like someone would have posted about it somewhere or any of the rogues i've talked to would remember it. The "carrot" for rogues at 60 was assasinate, not a massive boost in DPS from a single level.

It's hard to get people to take the time to post in here, but I know hasbinbad and a few other actually leveled rogues through 51-60 during classic kunark and I'd appreciate hearing which interpretation of "it goes up" they feel is correct. I already know the answer from conversations with plenty of fellow rogues in game, but my word is no better than yours.
[/quote]

PS I am looking for info on it too but everything I found ONLY says Level * (3/2) until 60, which is what the devs implemented. That's the best they can and should do unless someone comes up with something.

If you have found something that uses this phrasing, please link it. The only evidence I've seen uses very different phrasing, which makes all the difference.

As far as Backstabbing for minimum entirely too much, that's something that they should be focused on but can only work on if people give them something to look at. Provide more numbers.

I'm not sure if you're serious here. Have you looked through the rest of the thread? Every rogue is parsing out at around 45% minimum damage backstabs. How many people need to post almost the exact same stats which directly contradict the goal kanras himself stated he was going for?

You know, my biggest complaint is that weapon skill level seems to have a MASSIVE effect on how often you hit for more than minimum. As a ranger my skills are 15 points lower than pretty much everyone elses, so I do even WORSE dps on raid mobs than other classes simply because the melee formula seems so dependent on it. Every time I gain a level my DPS jumps a significant amount, all from 4 points of offense and weapon skills. I assume rogues are max offensive but maybe the dependency on offensive skills is too high and skewing everyone's memory of live? I'm just throwin that out there.

I think there's a good chance you are on to something here.

[Aadill]

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

If you have found something that uses this phrasing, please link it. The only evidence I've seen uses very different phrasing, which makes all the difference.

Touche. My interpretation is that of at level 51 it is X and at level 60 it is Y. This, to me, means that the formula does not change. That may not necessarily be the case but without any information in between the assumption, without a formula to back it up, is that 52-59 offer no change in damage calculations until the marked change at level 60.

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

I'm not sure if you're serious here. Have you looked through the rest of the thread? Every rogue is parsing out at around 45% minimum damage backstabs. How many people need to post almost the exact same stats which directly contradict the goal kanras himself stated he was going for?

Dead serious. What I meant by provide more numbers is people need to get together and post their ATK, their skills (which should all be the same at level 60, but post them for posterity because Kanras may have created a char with the wrong skill levels), their STR, level, weapons, and the mobs they attack, then parse those logs. Parses against xxxx mob or yyyy camp with no information except "I hit for very little", even over an extended period of time, don't help as much as knowing the EXACT situation to replicate and test. If Kanras were to recreate Hasbinbad or Shiftin and test vs a thifling focuser or protector of growth, maybe he'd see something significantly different than using a lvl 60 rogue with a Ragebringer on the test server. I don't get how Kanras can be getting such significantly different results unless the players on P99 have extremely different stats or gear. So, recreate it to the best of the abilities of both the players and the devs. If anything Kanras should have Hasbinbad or yourself or Baxter or Tigole or anyone go over to the test server and do some parsing that way. Uthgaard and a few others did that a while back... no reason why it can't be done again.

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

I think there's a good chance you are on to something here.

I just pulled this out of my ass but I look forward to leveling just so my DPS goes up by a few points even though my gear hasn't changed much since level 50. I use the gobby earring as a serious buff because I worry my ATK, which can reach about 1200, isn't high enough and is the sole reason why my DPS is shit. In reality I'm starting to wonder if the skills are what's causing issues for melee.

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

I already know the answer from conversations with plenty of fellow rogues in game, but my word is no better than yours.

I am not a rogue, I never played a rogue, and I probably never will play a rogue. The devs took the same interpretation as I did and whether or not it's wrong I don't know, but there's no evidence to the contrary. There's no evidence for the "jump" either, so you're absolutely right. The only problem is there's no other way to interpret it without throwing in numbers no one has documented in a mathematical formula. Whether or not it's wrong the current implementation at least has some documented basis. If we find anything in logs that would be super useful, but you'd need a time appropriate log with a documented level. I'll be looking as well when I get off work~

[Aadill]

In a quick search:
http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/s...ead.php?t=6326

Originally Posted by Some Dude

Just a Question. I thought that once you hit 51 the lowest backstab that was possible was 79 points of damage. Well I was in a LDoN group, and I backstabbed for 15 points of damage. Is that a bug, or did something happen that I'm not aware of?

This was LDoN based but they still had *about* the same damage cap as is expected here. That's level 51, though, which we already know.

Also, I do see the damage formula posted EVERYWHERE in the exact same phrasing so it was widely accepted as right (or widely copied wrong)

From here: http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/s...ead.php?t=2857
Posted: 04-25-00, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Some Other Dude

At 51st, the new minimum backstab damage is Level*3/2, rounded down. 76 is the least you will hit for at 51st, and it goes up. At 60th, the minimum backstab is Level*2 (120).

I think the important thing is the pronoun usage. In my mind "it" is referencing the minimum backstab damage. If "it" is in reference to the damage formula it's highly unclear and vague as to what those values are.

[Baxter]

This was LDoN based but they still had *about* the same damage cap as is expected here. That's level 51, though, which we already know.

This rogue backstabed a runed mob and only saw the damage after the rune wore off. This happens all the time and is no indication of the situation we are facing now.

[Shiftin]

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

In a quick search:
http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/s...ead.php?t=6326



This was LDoN based but they still had *about* the same damage cap as is expected here. That's level 51, though, which we already know.

Also, I do see the damage formula posted EVERYWHERE in the exact same phrasing so it was widely accepted as right (or widely copied wrong)

From here: http://www.thesafehouse.org/forums/s...ead.php?t=2857
Posted: 04-25-00, 06:05 AM


I think the important thing is the pronoun usage. In my mind "it" is referencing the minimum backstab damage. If "it" is in reference to the damage formula it's highly unclear and vague as to what those values are.

Even if "it" references the damage vs the modifying formula, "it" can still go up gradually until it reaches its new clearly stated formula. We have different interpretations of the same sentence.

I don't know the original author of that sentence but it's just copy/pasted verbatim everwhere. Unfortunately, we don't know which "it" is being referred to, but pretty basic EQ logic dictates that damage increases gradually.

One of the tables above is an attempt at recreating both the logic used in melee mechanics throughout the game and peoples memories, and one matches the easiest way to code the first google results for minimum backstab damage (2 formulas vs a table or 10 formulas).

[Aadill]

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

We have different interpretations of the same sentence.

Yep. So do the GMs. There is no evidence to prove that the damage formula changes between 52 and 59, so they went with the interpretation they can back up. I'm not arguing for it but that's what they have to go by so they did. I'd be just as happy to see the min dmg curve make some load of sense but since when did things get changed without proof? Besides, technically, the damage *does* go up per level.

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

but pretty basic EQ logic dictates that damage increases gradually.

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

pretty basic EQ logic

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

basic EQ logic

Whoa there, sailor. Be careful.

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

and one matches the code that all google results imply for minimum backstab damage

I fixed this. Like I said, not disagreeing, but there is NO empirical evidence thus far that proves that it should be a smooth curve. I'm scouring thesafehouse.org right now but don't see anything related to this.

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

This rogue backstabed a runed mob and only saw the damage after the rune wore off. This happens all the time and is no indication of the situation we are facing now.

He mentions 79 as the min backstab at level 51. That is a fair approximation of the situation as it is now, but isn't helpful because we already know that. I'm just giving indication that it isn't anything new. The runed mob bit has nothing to do with the relevant information in that post.. I just didn't go to the trouble to delete it.


PS Just trying to be an advocate for proper research not trying to piss off rogues. Anecdotes don't mean anything because we've seen that people have been dead wrong about a lot of bug reports.