Ranger ac parsing (I'm serious)

[Snaggles]

Originally Posted by Vear99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who are you talking about? I was interested enough in the OP to run my own experiment, and if you want to tank 10,000 hits on a L55+ NPC with multiple AC levels and classes and do all of the appropriate confidence interval math, I'd be very interested.

He was responding to this:

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

This is a sample of a lot of hits but there still is a chance of the relatively small sample pool providing scatter. Someone like bcbrown could probably use the right terms for what I’m trying to say.

Just like the law of large numbers tends to stabilize statistics, sometimes shorter runs can lead to sporadic results. That doesn’t villainize an attempt but it can mean the test itself is less illustrative than one would prefer.

I don’t intend to knock anyone’s effort to understand this game. Literally all my own testing is me trying to read the tea leaves because my samples are far too small. The closest thing to running a 10k parse like you said is just several Yeli parses averaged.

[Snaggles]

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

This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.

I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.

So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?

Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.

Not wanting to stamp something into scientific law doesn’t mean trying to maliciously squash the test. Much of EQ knowledge is really lore that has become law. The OP has run a lot of really good tests though and should be applauded for getting closer to this than most have.

At the end of the day this is a game, we aren’t getting paid to run 8hrs or 80 hrs of experiments in a controlled environment. The best thing we can hope for is many people testing similar situations over time. You can draw some basic truths from that data, even with a few disclaimers.

As for AC vs HP’s, the crux of this is for rangers. Personally I wouldn’t gear a ranger for AC for sake of other things I’d rather gear it for. I spent 3 hours tonight in HoT and took about 8 melee hits. Warriors are a different topic all together.

[Snaggles]

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

He was responding to this:

Actually he wasn’t now that I re-read that lol. Oops, sorry.

I’m sure the person “in the past” was not this thread. Most of us spin in circles and get a bit heated so it could have been anything [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by Vear99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who are you talking about? I was interested enough in the OP to run my own experiment, and if you want to tank 10,000 hits on a L55+ NPC with multiple AC levels and classes and do all of the appropriate confidence interval math, I'd be very interested.

My apologies. I can see how you might have thought I was talking about the data you provided, but that was not my intention. I haven't really had enough of a chance to look at any of the data in this thread to form an opinion on how conclusive it is. That's part of why my response to Snaggles was purely theoretical (coin flips) and not practical.

When you provided your data you included the appropriate caveats about sample sizes. If you were willing to provide me with the raw logs of hits and misses I'd be very interested in taking a look.

I wish I could do that experiment myself, but my main is a druid with about 141 worn ac, and I don't think anyone is all that interested in how well a druid can tank. If I could find a good constant-level subject for my 30 bard I could run some tests from 100-200 worn ac. When I get my ranger to 50 (47 now) I plan to run some tests against a froglok hunter in Trakanon's Teeth, but he only has about 140 worn ac so I'm not sure how useful that will end up being. I've got a 54 cleric with close to 200 worn ac I'd like to parse against a froglok hunter as well.

If anyone ever wants to run a long parse, I'm happy to provide heals on my cleric on either blue or green, but no one's ever taken me up on that.

[Snaggles]

My play time is a bit iffy these days but I’d offer to help heal as well. I wonder what would be a good target to plunk on. Maybe like a Freeport gate guard?

Note: https://wiki.project1999.com/Guard_Jacsen

Similar minimum to max hit ratio (2.7x) and level as some ToV npcs but far more sustainable for testing.

[Goregasmic]

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

This is not a very good way to put it.Typically what happens is posters like OP provide real in-game data for analysis. Other posters who dislike the implications of the data will claim the sample size is too small. It's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. You can throw away all data you disagree with, because there is always a chance the data is wrong in some manner.

I think most people understand there is always a risk of the sample size tainting any conclusions drawn. However, most people who claim a sample size is too small do not provide a larger sample size themselves.

So we end up in a conundrum: Do you trust real data that may be flawed due to sample size? Or do you prefer trusting detractors of the data who merely have anecdotes and no data themselves?

Personally I prefer to trust data over anecdotes generally speaking. This is especially true on P99. People have memories from Everquest live, current P99, and previous P99 patches. It's always possible for anecdotes to be from live or a previous p99 patch, rather than how P99 currently works today.

Data means nothing until you interpret it. You can disagree on the interpretation but if you're going to throw out a data set with no counter argument you're just acting in bad faith.

Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningless but people have to understand it sits below the bottom of the "levels of evidence" pyramid.

I, for one, have only been on these forums a couple months and already saw two instances of a major "this has been parsed to death and we already know the answer" being wrong. So I'll take a sketchy parse over common knowledge any day but if the parse isn't great you have to keep your certainties in check when it comes to your interpretations.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Data means nothing until you interpret it. You can disagree on the interpretation but if you're going to throw out a data set with no counter argument you're just acting in bad faith.

Anecdotal evidence isn't meaningless but people have to understand it sits below the bottom of the "levels of evidence" pyramid.

I, for one, have only been on these forums a couple months and already saw two instances of a major "this has been parsed to death and we already know the answer" being wrong. So I'll take a sketchy parse over common knowledge any day but if the parse isn't great you have to keep your certainties in check when it comes to your interpretations.

Agreed! And yes, it is sadly not uncommon on these forums to get the "it's been parsed to death but I won't/can't give you said parses" answer. That is why I am glad to see posters like OP provide data so we can look at it.

[Vivitron]

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

Big thanks to Snaggles and Jimjam~ you remind me some important things: spell ac and sample size~

1. in the beginning, i was design to test is it my ranger stacking ac can have better mitigation, so he has all the buff including son/coe/coat/skin and sow, there is about 70ac
2. Plan B sk test, i was focusing on the 200 worn ac point, and sk has no self buff, only jboot
3. About sample size, each data take after the mob swing 500+ times, that is about 200+ successful hit

I have some new interesting data, my friend joined the test and got some new data beyond 400 worn ac, its a good news, and bad news is today is the last day of my lunar new year holiday, i can't continue test in a short time~

friend is a high end raider, paladin with 538 worn ac with self buff (59ac i guess)
we have not enough time, can only test from 443-538 worn ac, and we increase the sample size to 700+ swing
i try to put all data in the same graph and adjust y-axis we can easier to compare

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

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

1. lines in the graph is not smooth, clearly sample size is not large enough
2. from 100-200 worn ac, ranger and sk both has decreasing trend, ranger has about 70ac spell ac, i believe spell ac is working at this range
3. from 200-400 worn ac, although can't see a clear decreasing trend, average hit is getting lower very slightly, sample size larger is better, spell ac seems has no effect at this range
4. sk=knights=pally, i believe they the the same, pally can reach a new record when stacking over 500 worn ac, theres a decreasing trend, and some missing data between 367-443 worn ac
5. if spell ac is working on pallys part it will decrease average hit, from the graph average is getting lower as ac higher, i believe its worn ac working
6. about ranger, still need more data

conclusion:
1. i believe there is a soft cap at 200 worn ac, and ac return after soft cap is far lower than i think before
2. ranger maybe have lower return after soft cap, it need to continue to test
3. spell ac works good below 200 worn ac

*warrior riposte chance lower? sample size or facing issues make sense~ warrior suppose to be higher~
*about "Riposte+Parry+Dodge" thing, i was thinking its related to defense skill, knights and warrior both 252 max, but i have no idea how to proof it yet, just call it secret class difference =P

Interesting info, thanks for sharing. I did one parse with a storm giant escort on a 60 bard. Tiny sample and I only checked for avg hit not misses/dodge/block/parry but I'll toss it on the pile. 353 worn ac + aego + arch shielding = 1317 displayed ac:

Hits: 102, Average: 63.0588, Min: 24, Max: 146, Sum: 6432
Misses: 120
Dodge: 13
Parry: 13
Riposte: 5

edit: I excluded bash/kick lines from the analysis.

[Jimjam]

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

edit: I excluded bash/kick lines from the analysis.

I forgot to mention this for my results, but I also only included ‘hits’ not bashes, kicks or anything else [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Vivitron]

It looks like 769 would be absolute max worn ac on a bard; 674 without held items. That paladin's 538 is probably within the ballpark of what I would get with bis-ish gear viewing ac as worthwhile but tertiary to hp and resists.

If I count how many times I got hit for each specific amount of damage this is what I get:

     37 24
      5 30
      2 37
      3 44
      4 51
      9 57
      4 64
      4 71
      1 78
      2 85
      2 91
      3 98
      3 105
      6 112
      4 119
      5 125
      3 132
      1 139
      4 146

It would be interesting to compare this distribution to a parse against a lowbie mob (just high level enough to have 20 distinct hit buckets*), and also against parses vs desired targets.

It would also be interesting to read the eqemu source and see if the behavior matches; if so we may have an exact answer there.

* I note I only got hit for 19 different values here.