AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

That wasn't a claim, that was a suggestion. I've read the damn thread, that's why I've been participating in it. If you're going to get defensive and make unwarranted personal attacks I'm going to take that as my cue to bow out of this thread and leave you to it, absent an apology.

I don't understand why you are getting defensive here, but I apologize if you think I was attacking you.

I have had multiple interactions with you where you clearly didn't read something I said. As a simple example:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=88

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

I use my 9 second Epic Click in WW all the time. See my youtube channel. Free damage clickies save mana, because a 10 second manaless cast is cheaper than spending the mana and meditating. 95 mana is 5 ticks of meditate, which is 30 seconds. Using a 10 second clickie in this scenario saves 20 seconds of med time. In the case of being indoors, you can use ES Arms instead. Remember you are getting the mob down to a few hundred HP before breaking charm. Even Drones of Doom will finish off a mob that low in a few ticks after a 300 damage nuke while you med up or prep the next kill.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...6&postcount=89

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

Anyone else wanna tell DSM why no one's gonna be using Lumi Staff in SolB, Chardok, Perma bears, or Kedge?

To me this looked like you wanted the gotcha moment more than a real conversation. I didn't get an apology from you after this either.

If you want to make up and start fresh, I do not mind. We can both apologize and move on. But please do not make this seem like I attacked you. I didn't. I just want to be sure you read the thread before I spend time replying.

To me, your post sounded like you were claiming I didn't already post my expectations for the test. I clearly did. I am not sure why you would be posting a suggestion to do something I already did.

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

I guess I should be more clear. I'm talking about making a single specific prediction ahead of each experiment. For example, you just did an experiment with overcapped AC with and without a shield. What's the hypothesis that experiment was answering?

One hypothesis would be "There's gonna be a difference somewhere when you use a shield". Another could be "The average damage per hit will be lower with a shield". Or "adding 12 shield AC will be equivalent to adding 2 AC to an otherwise capped toon".

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61

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

B. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. 45 Uncapped AC + 10 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 47 worn AC that is used in combat.

C. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and a 55 worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and 12 of that AC is from the shield. First the 400 worn AC gets clamped to 55. Then the softcap gets increased. We don't know how much a shield increases softcap but lets say the softcap goes up by 5. 50 Uncapped AC + 5 softcapped AC * 0.2 = 51 worn AC that is used in combat.

In this post I describe the behavior I expect in detail. It may not be in the format you prefer, but I don't think this post is vague about what my expectations are.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:

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

That last pair of parses certainly shows that shield AC has an effect when overcapped at level 5. I would urge you to start posting predictions in this thread before each future experiment. That way you can compare the actual results with your hypothesis.

This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=65

[TytosOfEight]

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

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:



This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=65

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

Thank you for the support! I appreciate the post.

[Snaggles]

DSM and I have at times traded barbs but I appreciate the efforts to actually gather data. Where it sometimes falls flat is the practical application (I’m a bit simple), so I would prefer the conclusion to the findings. How can a random player apply the data to make prudent decisions. That’s just my opinion of course.

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself. Like a prototype it isn’t intended to be the end-product. Or even, it might be research in efforts to verify a glitch that should be submitted for review. Assuming the goal is to make this sim accurate to vintage era EQ.

Of all the heady posts on game mechanics, the most annoying are the one liners from those don’t want to put on the work. This game is mostly constructed of anecdotes, dogma and popsicle sticks so to repeating canned sayings may be cathartic and “cool” but it’s rarely helpful for those actually trying to figure this out. Throw another couple sentences and set context, or run your own damn numbers showing why you believe what you do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

DSM and I have at times traded barbs but I appreciate the efforts to actually gather data. Where it sometimes falls flat is the practical application (I’m a bit simple), so I would prefer the conclusion to the findings. How can a random player apply the data to make prudent decisions. That’s just my opinion of course.

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself. Like a prototype it isn’t intended to be the end-product. Or even, it might be research in efforts to verify a glitch that should be submitted for review. Assuming the goal is to make this sim accurate to vintage era EQ.

Of all the heady posts on game mechanics, the most annoying are the one liners from those don’t want to put on the work. This game is mostly constructed of anecdotes, dogma and popsicle sticks so to repeating canned sayings may be cathartic and “cool” but it’s rarely helpful for those actually trying to figure this out. Throw another couple sentences and set context, or run your own damn numbers showing why you believe what you do.

Very well said! I do apologize for the barbs, I get frustrated at times. That isn't an excuse, so thank you for your patience!

[Snaggles]

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

Very well said! I do apologize for the barbs, I get frustrated at times. That isn't an excuse, so thank you for your patience!

Oh I’m just as much to blame and typically more childish with my jabs. Sorry as well [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Danth]

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

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself.

Always was. It's a hobbyist's pursuit. EQ's a loosely-tuned game, and full optimization of a character is seldom necessary to achieve success. These types of threads are typically more about knowledge for its own sake, the "why's" behind the curtain, or for maybe eeking out a few more mobs per hour, than about raw can-or-can't-do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The next test I am going to do is the level 60 AC softcap for Shamans. This is to determine if any of the EQEMU numbers are accurate. If they are, there is a stronger chance the others may be correct too.

I am going to do a test at 177 AC, 200 AC, and 300 AC.

If the 200 AC softcap with 0.23 diminishing returns is correct, the amount of damage reduced by going from 177 to 200 should be roughly the same as 200 to 300, as 100 AC over the softcap would be reduced to 23.

I may also do a shield test with 223 AC, 23 of which is shield AC. If the softcap increase from a shield is 1 AC to 1 Softcap at 60, I should see similar results to the 300 AC test.

[bcbrown]

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

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:

I appreciate and accept the sincere apology. If you were thrown off and confused by what I said, you could have pointed to those quotes and asked me for clarification. Hopefully my explanation helped. Here's a link with further (academic) discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science). Again, I'm not saying you should follow all those formalisms, just that spending a minute to articulate a precise prediction helps with experiment design and helps convince people like me if the experiment matches the prediction.

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

The next test I am going to do is the level 60 AC softcap for Shamans. This is to determine if any of the EQEMU numbers are accurate. If they are, there is a stronger chance the others may be correct too.

Excellent experiment design! I look forward to seeing the results.