Claw of Lightning is disappointing (ranger)

[Snaggles]

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

The last line on each parse group is just that - the total damage / time. It showed basically the same overall dps for both weapons.

Oh thanks. I’m seeing that now but recall you mentioned this when you initially posted it.

[kjs86z2]

no raid mob is not going to die over a rangers weapon choice

[Snaggles]

Originally Posted by kjs86z2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no raid mob is not going to die over a rangers weapon choice

A+ contribution. Liked and Subscribed.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by kjs86z2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no raid mob is not going to die over a rangers weapon choice

Oakwynd should be a weapon of choice for rangers by now. This long into SoV, let at least one or two rangers live the dream.

[bcbrown]

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

I couldn’t find my monk log files (probably on a different partition), so I parsed more: I did 20 Geonids with 1237 AC and 20 Geonids with 1312 AC, a difference of 75 AC. I expected to see at least a small difference, but with 1237 AC I took 12.4 dps worth of damage (Dmg to PC 23851 / time 1922) and with 1312 AC I also took 12.4 dps worth of damage (Dmg to PC 25296 / time 2052). No difference.

On my ranger, I did 30 Geonids with 1055 AC and took 10.5 dps worth of damage (Dmg to PC 31149 / time 2966); and did 30 Geonids with 1160 AC and also took 10.5 dps worth of damage (Dmg to PC 33635 / time 3218). No difference again.

So you must be correct, that AC is related to a mobs atk and that ranger AC is working correctly.

Thanks for going back and running an experiment! If you don't mind sharing the logs either here or in DM I'd like to generate hit distribution graphs like the ones I posted in the ranger AC thread. I'll bet that they all have <3% max hits and around 30% min hits.

I wish the "What is this bullshit we parsed this a decade ago" people would explain what they're talking about because if they're talking about xp mobs I'm pretty sure they're wrong. If they're talking about raid mobs I remain open to the possibility that something is broken, but I would love to see some data showing that.

If in fact the "ranger AC is broken" thing is pure folklore here's my speculation on how it came to be:

* Ranger is an inherently inferior tank due to lower skill caps on defensive skills
* Because rangers are usually pulling or adding DPS and since gear choices always have tradeoffs, most people gear their ranger for strength, dex, and resists. And since all the ranger races start out with fairly low str/sta/dex there's more ground to make up there too.
* Because of those first two points, when a ranger is forced to step in and tank, the healer's gonna notice the difference compared to other tanks
* Because there's mob-specific hardcaps on the impact of AC, it's easy to accidentally run an experiment and conclude AC has no impact
* Because most people look at DPS instead of a hit distribution histogram, it's harder to tell exactly what AC is doing

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I wish the "What is this bullshit we parsed this a decade ago" people would explain what they're talking about because if they're talking about xp mobs I'm pretty sure they're wrong. If they're talking about raid mobs I remain open to the possibility that something is broken, but I would love to see some data showing that.

They probably won't provide data sadly. I've asked them before, and they haven't provided anything yet. But we can always hope.

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

If in fact the "ranger AC is broken" thing is pure folklore here's my speculation on how it came to be:

* Ranger is an inherently inferior tank due to lower skill caps on defensive skills

This is probably the reason. 32 less Defense skill at 60 will be noticeable. Defense affects both mitigation and how often you get hit. It's even worse for a good portion of the server's timeline, because Rangers are capped at 200 Defense skill until the Oct 1, 2001 patch. So people have experienced playing a Ranger with 52 less Defense skill at level 60.

As I said in the post before, if AC softcaps do exist on P99, Rangers may be getting softcapped sooner than Warriors/Paladins/SKs as well. This is because Rangers use Chain instead of Plate, and the EQEMU code does have the option to specify softcaps for Cloth, Leather, Chain, and Plate.

So Rangers kinda get screwed on both Defense Skill and AC. I assume the idea was Rangers are better at dodging/parrying/etc. That's the idea in Dungeons and Dragons, but it doesn't really work in practice on P99.

[Solist]

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

Thanks for going back and running an experiment! If you don't mind sharing the logs either here or in DM I'd like to generate hit distribution graphs like the ones I posted in the ranger AC thread. I'll bet that they all have <3% max hits and around 30% min hits.

I wish the "What is this bullshit we parsed this a decade ago" people would explain what they're talking about because if they're talking about xp mobs I'm pretty sure they're wrong. If they're talking about raid mobs I remain open to the possibility that something is broken, but I would love to see some data showing that.

If in fact the "ranger AC is broken" thing is pure folklore here's my speculation on how it came to be:

* Ranger is an inherently inferior tank due to lower skill caps on defensive skills
* Because rangers are usually pulling or adding DPS and since gear choices always have tradeoffs, most people gear their ranger for strength, dex, and resists. And since all the ranger races start out with fairly low str/sta/dex there's more ground to make up there too.
* Because of those first two points, when a ranger is forced to step in and tank, the healer's gonna notice the difference compared to other tanks
* Because there's mob-specific hardcaps on the impact of AC, it's easy to accidentally run an experiment and conclude AC has no impact
* Because most people look at DPS instead of a hit distribution histogram, it's harder to tell exactly what AC is doing

What are you talking about.

I have two rangers. One in vulak gear. Other in garbage SS etc.

With 300 ac difference they take identical damage in every parse. And a best in slot ranger (another 150ac) tanks identical too.

This is not the case for any other class. It’s been tested extensively.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

It’s been tested extensively.

You need to post that data if you want people to listen. I don't think anybody in this thread has seen the data you are talking about.

[bcbrown]

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

What are you talking about.

I have two rangers. One in vulak gear. Other in garbage SS etc.

With 300 ac difference they take identical damage in every parse. And a best in slot ranger (another 150ac) tanks identical too.

This is not the case for any other class. It’s been tested extensively.

Look at what I posted in https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...438517&page=10 and the next four pages and tell me what I'm missing.

Or post some data.

[Jimjam]

Wasn't there a big AC overhaul just over 10 years ago, so if the position is "we parsed this like 10 years ago" then it may not be relevant to how the mechanics currently are?

re rangers being balanced by dodge/parry, I have seen posters claim that dodge/parry is not using math from 199-2001 but post pop where things got rejigged thanks to the ever growing skill caps.