Best solo melee class?

[Goregasmic]

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

Ranger should be the least impacted by negative AC as they are only just above cloth when it comes to how much real ac they get.

So far it seems like rangers take more damage because their lower defense stat leads to taking more hits compared to warriors and knights.

If rangers take more hits that could technically mean AC has the most importance to them since it keeps those extra hits lower on the distribution.

[Ephirith]

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

So far it seems like rangers take more damage because their lower defense stat leads to taking more hits compared to warriors and knights.

If rangers take more hits that could technically mean AC has the most importance to them since it keeps those extra hits lower on the distribution.

This

EQ has always felt like your defense, dodge, parry, riposte caps account for 80% of your incoming damage and your worn AC the other 20%, which is the real reason why rangers, rogues, even shamans, just get rolled in spite of actually usually having decent worn AC, and monks are incredibly tanky even with worn AC often on the lower side (before Velious)

[bcbrown]

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

This

EQ has always felt like your defense, dodge, parry, riposte caps account for 80% of your incoming damage and your worn AC the other 20%, which is the real reason why rangers, rogues, even shamans, just get rolled in spite of actually usually having decent worn AC.

Yup, agreed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So far it seems like rangers take more damage because their lower defense stat leads to taking more hits compared to warriors and knights.

If rangers take more hits that could technically mean AC has the most importance to them since it keeps those extra hits lower on the distribution.

You are correct that Rangers take more damage due to their lower defense stat.

Rangers shouldn't have any class-specific penalties for AC, other than possibly a lower AC softcap. In the EQEMU code one possibility for AC softcaps is armor based. So a plate class has the highest AC softcap, a chain class (Ranger) has a lower AC softcap than plate classes, etc.

This means Rangers would be the only hybrid on the chain softcap. Knights would be on the plate softcap.

[bcbrown]

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

Rangers shouldn't have any class-specific penalties for AC, other than possibly a lower AC softcap. In the EQEMU code one possibility for AC softcaps is armor based. So a plate class has the highest AC softcap, a chain class (Ranger) has a lower AC softcap than plate classes, etc.

This is not true on p99, or at least any softcap that does exist is higher than the squelch point for mobs in the mid-40s. You can see that thread I linked for the details, but the effect of AC was the same across leather, chain, plate classes.

[Naethyn]

Chapter 5: Real AC vs. Displayed AC

While it comes as a shock to many, a person's displayed AC actually means relatively nothing. Displayed AC is affected by many things and in no way has no bearing on a persons Real AC (rAC).

Real AC is calculated using the following formula:

rAC = SoftCap + Shield + [ WornAC - (SoftCap + Shield) ]*OvercapReturn

Overcap Returns (Subject to Change):

Warrior: 0.45
SK/Pal/Monk: 0.33
Rang: 0.17
Silk: 0.02

The rest of you shouldnt be tanking, reason (Silk Overcap Return = 0.02)


Example:

Zyric has a worn AC of 2500, (This can be found using Magelo under Worn AC + Aug AC)

Shadowknight SoftCap = 915 (This changes for each class, consult your CC or respective community to find yours)

Shield AC = 218

Shadowknight OvercapReturn = 0.33

Zyric's rAC = 915 + 218 + [ 2500 - (915 + 218) ]*0.33 = 1584

While Zyric's ingame Displayed AC may be 5000, in reality his rAC is only 1584.


Displayed AC and its relationship to Raw AC:

Displayed AC = Raw AC * 1.575

If you get a 10 Raw AC upgrade, for instance upgrading from a 25AC aug to a 35AC aug, your displayed AC will actually increase by 15.75; not just by 10. **The 1.575 is a standard fudge factor for all classes excluding rogues and silkies**

Yes I realize this is from a later expansion, but if you consider how negative AC works, ranger is almost dead last on this list for how much of a negative they receive.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is not true on p99, or at least any softcap that does exist is higher than the squelch point for mobs in the mid-40s. You can see that thread I linked for the details, but the effect of AC was the same across leather, chain, plate classes.

According to one of the P99 devs, there is a softcap:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...8&postcount=13

There is a component to your defense rating based on level.

And we use a softcap system, not a hardcap based system.

Warriors get a 45% return above softcap.

Adding a shield increases ur softcap.

Based on new formulas from soe, i am removing the level part from defense rating. And increasing the ac component by 4/3. This helps ac mean more, and you get hit harder naked.

Other changes that are on beta, is iksar ac bonus is moved to be equal to level, 10 min, 35 max. Previously it was level/2. Not 15 like wiki had i guess.

At low levels the softcap is more level based than defense based. I basically doubled transition so at low levels ac means more.

I added a low level raw ac cap of level * 6 + 25.

It looks better now and i can see ac scaling damage up to soft cap, and lesser reductions above softcap.

H

But this post was from 2014, so it is certainly possible something changed over 10 years.

Honestly I don't think anybody has done a proper test on softcaps, especially in the last few years.

[Goregasmic]

The softcap formula gives you like 385 worn at 50. I'm not even sure a BiS ranger reaches that. I don't think this is the issue.

It also seems AC is mob level capped so I guess you'd only see returns for going over softcap on like vulak.

IIRC haynar said he was satisfied with that formula and didn't feel like touching it again but who knows.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The softcap formula gives you like 385 worn at 50. I'm not even sure a BiS ranger reaches that. I don't think this is the issue.

IIRC haynar said he was satisfied with that formula and didn't feel like it touch it again but who knows.

The way I read this post is the "raw ac cap" of (level * 6 + 25) is a hardcap put on lower levels. So a level 1 has a hardcap of 31 worn AC, and a softcap of X.

I know this contradicts his previous statement:

And we use a softcap system, not a hardcap based system.

But I don't think he would use the words "raw ac cap" instead of softcap if he was revealing the softcap formula. He also specified the formula is for low levels.

My guess is they didn't want to divulge the softcap information, but they wanted to give out the low level hardcap information.

EDIT: A warrior can go over 385 worn AC, but this "raw ac cap" is said to be for low levels, so it is probably removed well before level 60.

[Duik]

Are we still talking clickies?

This is one thread i was *actially* interested in.
Never had a decent ranger (or pally/SK for that matter).

There was hopefully gonna be an easily sortable forumy kinda list of ideas/options. Instead, it starts kinda well then the usual shitfuck begins.

There is only a certain number of ways you can say the same thing. (It's one)
So telling us clickies save mana and make a positive effect on the ability to "solo".
It's said. It's done. There is Good points, there is Bad points. Please let the reader decide.
The 20th time the same thing is said makes it sound like those old adverts on late night TV.
Ya gotta keep banging on about it until you find the weak spot in the listeners armor. Then BAM!.
Just like Janine Melnitz says on Ghostbusters.

We Got One!