AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[bcbrown]

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

Are you suggesting the squelch point is not fixed?

If the squelch point for a level 5 skeleton is 55, it would still be 55 at level 6. If the squelch point mirrors the Haynar formula, then I don't know how we can distingush the two.

I don't follow. Are you asking why I am suggesting running a parse at 61 AC and level 5? I expect that parse to be the same as the 55 AC parse. I suggest it purely as a kind of confirmation step. You can skip it if you want.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I don't follow. Are you asking why I am suggesting running a parse at 61 AC and level 5? I expect that parse to be the same as the 55 AC parse. I suggest it purely as a kind of confirmation step. You can skip it if you want.

My bad, I thought you suggested the 61 AC test at level 6 would yield the same results as the 55 AC test at level 5.

[bcbrown]

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

My bad, I thought you meant the 61 AC test at level 6 would yield the same results as the 55 AC test at level 5.

Oh, yes, I do mean that. Thanks for clarifying. My prediction is that this mob's squelch point is around 30, such that at any level and any AC above that you will get the same results. I think there's a fixed squelch point, and that this squelch point is lower than the Haynar cap of 55AC at level 55.

This is because there's already so few max hits, only 1.75%. I don't think it'll ever go below 1-2%. There's just no room for improvement left.

[Jimjam]

Step8 (server) = if PlayerLevel < 50 and Step7 > (25 + (6*PlayerLevel)): = (25 + (6*PlayerLevel))

The above text illustrating how the 25+(6*level) worn ac cap for < 50 players comes from a 2014 live dev post on AC calculation https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/.../#post-3078126 . This code is out of era for p99 as there was an earlier big revamp to melee between SoL and PoP - the 'monk "ramp tank" nerf'.



A post by Treats on this forum quotes an apparent live dev post explaining pre SoL revamp AC and Post SoL revamp ac. It was posted to explain to monks why their tanking changed. This post contains information about how p99 'should' be: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=48312

This post is an incredible resource as it includes lots of live evidence for how level 51 and 60 melees should be tanking pre SoL nerf. Heck I'll post the quote in spoiler.

 

Re: Feed back on soft cap

Kavhok
EQ Designer
Posts: 14

Your AC cap was lowered. That was absolutely and unequivocally a nerf. I didn't mean in any way to imply otherwise.

Let me give a more full explanation of what happened, though. Here's how the AC formula used to work before the patch immediately preceding PoP:

The AC from your items was added up, but the value used for it was hard capped based on your level. This was the same for all classes. Once you had 289 raw AC from items (or 385 as a cloth class, since they get less effect from item AC), that was it. More AC from items wouldn't do anything.

After this, it added your class bonuses (including the monk bonus, which is equivalent to your level + 5 in raw item AC), defense skill bonus, agility bonus, and the AC from spell buffs.

Total AC at this point was capped again, this time based on class. In the Kunark-era code, this was a hard cap, but sometime during Velious it was changed to a soft cap for melee classes only. The return was fairly small, though.


The pre-PoP patch did a few things:

- The cap on item AC was no longer used except at lower levels (twinking was a concern since that was before recommended level items were in heavy use).
- Shield AC was added to the class-based cap to give shields more viability
- Class AC caps were changed. Monks were lowered the most, but beastlords were lowered to the same level as druids (yes, they were nerfed too). Cleric and shaman caps were raised above druids. The caps generally followed the armor archetypes of plate/chain/leather/cloth.
- All classes were given returns on AC over the cap, not just melee classes. All casters and priests received the least, followed by the melee classes. Rogues got the same return as monks, as did berserkers when the class was added. Beastlords and rangers got slightly more, followed by bards, then knights, then warriors.

The overall goal was to make the average dps (including mitigation, avoidance, block/dodge/etc.) taken for melee classes to be approximately:
Warrior > Knight > Monk > Bard > Ranger = Beastlord = Rogue

Aggregate data from live servers at the time was taken to determine median-AC stats for each class. Parses were run against NPCs 3-4 levels lower, facing front. The characters had cleric AC and shaman agility buffs and faced the NPC. The results of the parse were consistent with statistical analysis of the formulas in code:

Class War Pal Mnk
Level 51 51 51
Raw Item AC 184 181 107
Agility 157 144 169
Dodge 3.4% 3.1% 4.4%
Block 0 % 0% 10.2%
Riposte 4.4% 3.9% 4.1%
Parry 5.2% 4.6% 0%
Skill Evasion 12.9% 11.5% 18.7%
Hit Rate 61.2% 61.3% 58.2%
Avg Hit 72.6 72.9 74.6
% Hits for Max 10.2% 10.5% 11.5%
Avg Dmg / Round 59.7 61.1 54.5
DPS 28.2 28.8 25.7


Class War Pal Mnk
Level 60 60 60
Raw Item AC 296 281 163
Agility 177 152 187
Dodge 4.3% 3.9% 4.9%
Block 0 % 0% 11.4%
Riposte 4.8% 4.3% 4.5%
Parry 5.8% 5.2% 0%
Skill Evasion 14.9% 13.4% 20.8%
Hit Rate 59.4% 59.7% 59.3%
Avg Hit 107.3 109.9 113.6
% Hits for Max 10.4% 11.7% 13.6%
Avg Dmg / Round 87.4 91.7 86.1
DPS 50.8 53.3 50


The problem was that the average plate-equipped warriors and knights had barely any lead on monks in mitigation, due to the monk bonus, but the monk still had the lead in evasion. Contrary to popular belief, this is what prompted the nerf to monk mitigation, NOT high-end monks being rampage tanks.

The changes had little effect on average level 51 warriors and knights, but since the average level 51 monk was over the new nerfed AC cap, it increased their average damage taken per hit and increased the percent chance of max hits (in the above example) to 13%. Monks who had better than this median AC were hit harder by the nerf since it lowered their effective AC even more. Level 60 monks with exceptionally high item AC (Ssra+) weren't hit quite as hard because the uncapping of item AC gave them more returns on AC over the class cap. The median level 60 changes looked like this (evasion, of course, remained the same):

Class War Pal Mnk
Avg Hit 106 108.9 121.3
% Hits for Max 9.8% 11.2% 18.4%
Avg Dmg 86.4 90.9 91.9
DPS 50.2 52.8 53.4


Several months into PoP, the nerf was partially repealed and the monk AC cap was raised to the same level as druids and beastlords. Their return on AC over the cap was left at the same level. The reasoning at the time was based on a number of factors: the percentage of hits for max made taking damage even more unpredictable and raised the likelihood of one-round deaths more than we wanted, median AC increased for nearly all levels 51+ due to the new armor in PoP and trickle-down of old armor into the economy, and other issues were brought up.


Addendum:

Why were monks below 1160 AC affected?

The AC number you see is a composite of mitigation and avoidance. Defense skill increases both mitigation and avoidance, so gaining skill levels 50+ makes both numbers go up. At level 51, before the mitigation changes, a monk with no buffs, 150 agi, and 163 raw item AC was at the original AC cap with a displayed AC of 985. The nerf made it so that same monk with 118 AC, or 914 displayed, was now at the soft cap. Any level 51 monk with more than that would've experienced the nerf to varying degrees.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Step8 (server) = if PlayerLevel < 50 and Step7 > (25 + (6*PlayerLevel)): = (25 + (6*PlayerLevel))

The above text illustrating how the 25+(6*level) worn ac cap for < 50 players comes from a 2014 live dev post on AC calculation https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/.../#post-3078126 . This code is out of era for p99 as there was an earlier big revamp to melee between SoL and PoP - the 'monk "ramp tank" nerf'.



A post by Treats on this forum quotes an apparent live dev post explaining pre SoL revamp AC and Post SoL revamp ac. It was posted to explain to monks why their tanking changed. https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=48312

This post is an incredible resource as it includes lots of live evidence for how level 51 and 60 melees should be tanking pre SoL nerf. Heck I'll post the quote in spoiler.

Great find! That is evidence towards a hard cap, especially since the formula is the same.

[Naethyn]

Full set of SS on my paladin at 20 and red cons could hardly hit me. This changed in the late 40's and now mid 50's I'm not sure it is doing much at all.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Posting the level 5 data, both the old data and the new data so it is easy to see. I haven't gotten to the level 6 data yet. It does take a while to collect the data. I am still using 400 hit sample sizes so the damage values are not off from my original data provided.


===========
23 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 61
02, 32
03, 30
04, 12
05, 35
06, 35
07, 24
08, 9
09, 38
10, 30
11, 16
12, 78

Total Damage = 2642

===========
40 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 124
02, 31
03, 26
04, 22
05, 23
06, 21
07, 30
08, 13
09, 36
10, 40
11, 18
12, 16

Total Damage = 2021

===========
45 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 152
02, 29
03, 22
04, 16
05, 26
06, 24
07, 26
08, 7
09, 35
10, 47
11, 11
12, 5

Total Damage = 1818

===========
50 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 154
2, 27
3, 29
4, 15
5, 25
6, 24
7, 30
8, 13
9, 40
10, 33
11, 6
12, 4

Total Damage = 1742

===========
55 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 167
2, 19
3, 25
4, 17
5, 27
6, 23
7, 28
8, 11
9, 34
10, 25
11, 18
12, 6

Total Damage = 1731

===========
61 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
01, 165
02, 28
03, 27
04, 7
05, 26
06, 23
07, 33
08, 11
09, 31
10, 30
11, 13
12, 6

Total Damage = 1711

===========
178 AC Test
===========

DV, Count
1, 160
2, 28
3, 27
4, 4
5, 32
6, 30
7, 31
8, 12
9, 24
10, 33
11, 12
12, 7

Total Damage = 1728

So far this is what I was expecting. You can see the rate at which the damage is decreasing is fairly consistent between 23 and 45 AC.

600 Damage / 17 AC = 35 Damage per AC
200 Damage / 5 AC = 40 Damage Per AC

Once we are past 45 AC, we only see one more drop of about ~80 HP, which would translate to 47 AC being my bard's final worn AC value.

What is happening is the AC soft cap kicks in at 45 AC. Haynar said there is a softcap even at low levels.

At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based.

The softcap for bards is probably the following:

LowPlateChainACSoftcapReturn = 0.23;

I have 45 uncapped AC, and my worn AC is hard capped at 55 on my 55+ AC tests. This means I have 10 softcapped AC, which would be reduced to 10 * 0.23 = 2.3. 45 AC + 2.3 AC is 47 AC rounded down.

I may do a test with a shield to see if I can raise my softcap up to basically the hard cap of 55, but I will need to do that later. I will also do the level 6 tests later.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

One more shield test before bed.

========================
190 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield
========================

DV, Count
1, 180
2, 22
3, 26
4, 10
5, 21
6, 20
7, 31
8, 14
9, 29
10, 29
11, 12
12, 6

Total Damage = 1651

It looks to me like the "squelch point" may indeed be the softcap. It is nice that shields adjust the softcap, as it allows for testing the softcap.

[Jimjam]

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

My current theory is the "squelch point" isn't a separate thing. It is just what people are calling the softcap.

Softcap returns can be quite low, especially if the EQEMU numbers are correct for non-warriors.

At 0.17 softcap return, the possible Ranger value, 50 AC over the softcap is reduced to 8.5 AC. At higher levels 8 AC probably isn't going to change much on a parse.

If 0.17 is the softcap return for Rangers, a Ranger with 200 AC above the softcap would only be getting 34 AC after the softcap reduction. A shield like buckler of insight with 45 AC would possibly be better than 200 AC over the softcap in this scenario for Rangers, as shields raise your softcap.