AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[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.

[Snaggles]

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

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.

I’m not knocking the effort to understand the minutia of worn soft cap/clutch/squelch AC, I just can’t scale it to put it into practical use.

I parse a ton and expect DSM’s shaman test will be more my speed. I too need to do some AC testing since I carry multiple shields and outside the HP’s can’t give anyone tangible data if it matters outside my instinct…which means very little.

[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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.


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

It would be nice if you explain why you didn't think my previous posts showed what I was expecting. Was it simply formatting?

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.]

A. There is a 45 AC softcap, 20% diminishing returns after the softcap, and no worn AC clamp. The player has 400 worn AC, and no shield. 45 Uncapped AC + 355 softcapped AC * 0.2 diminishing returns = 116 worn AC that is used in combat.

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.

Also, I was confused about this part of your post:

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

For example, I was looking at the ratio of min-hit to max-hit, while you seem to be more interested in total damage or damage per hit.

I made it clear I was looking at min/max hits by explaining the D20 function:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...16&postcount=5

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

To answer your question about min and max values:

1. The game has a Roll D20 function with two inputs. I will call these inputs "Wrath" (attacker) and "Mitigation" (defender). The code confusingly calls them "offense" (attacker) and "defense" (defender), but these inputs are more than simply the attacker's offense skill and the defender's defense skill.

2. The D20 roll is weighted based on the ratio of the attacker's Wrath to the defender's Mitigation. An unweighted D20 has an average roll of 10.5.

3. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 100, the D20 has a weighted average roll of ~6.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

4. If the attacker's Wrath is 100 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has a weighted average of ~14.5. This is when you see the cluster of rolls at the maximum damage value.

5. If the attacker's Wrath is 50 and the defender's Mitigation is 50, the D20 has the unweighted average of ~10.5. This is when you see a roughly equal amount of rolls at the minimum and maximum damage values.

The 23 AC test is a scenario where my Mitigation is roughly equal to the Skeleton's Wrath. This is why the number of minimum hits and maximum hits are about the same. The Skeleton's Wrath is slightly higher, which is why there are a few more maximum hits compared to minimum hits.

The 55 AC test and 178 AC test are scenarios where my Mitigation is significantly higher than the Skeleton's Wrath, which is why you see the cluster of rolls at the minimum damage value.

If my AC wasn't hardcapped, you would see an increase in how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

My damage calculator shows the same pattern. It doesn't have the AC hardcap or softcap built in, so more AC will increase how many damage values were at the minimum damage value.

I include total damage because it is the easiest value for the average reader to look at. It's a good way to differentiate data sets at a glance, before digging into the hit count data.

It can also make it a bit easier to see the difference in two data sets that don't have a large difference, like the last datasets I posted:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...8&postcount=68

[Jimjam]

That shaman test will be amazingly useful. If low level ac and high level ac firs the model the. i’d think it would be fair to assume the intermediary levels fit the same model too.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I did some preliminary testing, and the results are concerning if my hypothesis is correct.

First, let me show you the order of operations for worn AC adjustment in the EQEMU. They are important to the conclusion:

1. Get Total Worn AC

2. Inflate worn AC. Worn AC = (Worn AC * 4) / 3

3. If you are under level 50, Apply the level * 6 + 25 worn AC clamp

4. Add Shield AC to Softcap

5. If inflated Worn AC > softcap, apply diminishing returns to all worn AC above the softcap.

While Haynar didn't specify the order, all of these steps were confirmed in Haynar's post.

Here is the parse data. Sets of 400 hits again for faster testing. I used a level 50 mob because a Shaman's max Defense is 200, which would be the same Defense as a level 50 mob.

================================
level 60 Shaman 157 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 60
37, 10
43, 17
49, 21
54, 6
60, 15
66, 20
71, 13
77, 20
83, 18
88, 18
94, 16
100, 12
105, 18
111, 19
117, 11
122, 13
128, 12
134, 16
140, 65

Total Damage = 34491

================================
level 60 Shaman 177 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 69
37, 18
43, 20
49, 18
54, 15
60, 16
66, 11
71, 19
77, 8
83, 10
88, 17
94, 12
100, 17
105, 10
111, 24
117, 12
122, 20
128, 12
134, 18
140, 54

Total Damage = 33297

================================
level 60 Shaman 200 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 71
37, 18
43, 9
49, 21
54, 15
60, 18
66, 17
71, 20
77, 24
83, 15
88, 15
94, 19
100, 17
105, 8
111, 7
117, 18
122, 19
128, 16
134, 10
140, 43

Total Damage = 32134

================================
level 60 Shaman 217 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 92
37, 8
43, 21
49, 20
54, 13
60, 19
66, 16
71, 17
77, 16
83, 18
88, 17
94, 15
100, 13
105, 19
111, 19
117, 12
122, 14
128, 16
134, 16
140, 19

Total Damage = 30228

================================
level 60 Shaman 250 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 117
37, 14
43, 14
49, 20
54, 16
60, 9
66, 13
71, 17
77, 12
83, 13
88, 14
94, 12
100, 18
105, 13
111, 10
117, 17
122, 14
128, 16
134, 10
140, 31

Total Damage = 29376

================================
level 60 Shaman 300 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 113
37, 12
43, 16
49, 12
54, 12
60, 17
66, 20
71, 16
77, 9
83, 16
88, 18
94, 17
100, 16
105, 12
111, 19
117, 8
122, 11
128, 21
134, 9
140, 26

Total Damage = 29444

================================
level 60 Shaman 386 worn AC vs level 50 mob
================================

DV, Count
32, 97
37, 16
43, 9
49, 20
54, 14
60, 20
66, 30
71, 12
77, 9
83, 14
88, 14
94, 18
100, 11
105, 12
111, 20
117, 26
122, 20
128, 11
134, 12
140, 15

Total Damage = 29808

===============================================
level 60 Shaman 411 worn AC (25 AC from shield) vs level 50 mob
===============================================

DV, Count
32, 125
37, 15
43, 17
49, 18
54, 20
60, 17
66, 11
71, 14
77, 17
83, 10
88, 21
94, 9
100, 18
105, 9
111, 18
117, 13
122, 7
128, 17
134, 21
140, 3

Total Damage = 27349

The data pattern seems to match the low level data I posted earlier in the thread, but with a different worn AC clamp. It looks like a worn AC clamp gets applied somewhere between 200 worn AC and 250 worn AC. After that worn AC doesn't seem to do anything unless you have a shield on.

I've seen posts where people suggest there was a Velious Hardcap of 289 worn AC for some period of time, but I do not know if it was on P99:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=48312

Conclusion/TLDR: What may be happening is the 289 worn AC clamp was added to P99, and it is being applied. Due to the (Worn AC * 4) / 3 formula, you reach the 289 worn AC clamp while wearing 217 worn AC. This is because 217 * 4 / 3 = 289, and this worn AC inflation occurs before the worn AC clamp and softcap in the order of operations. I know the EQEMU code doesn't show the 289 worn AC clamp, but that could be P99 specific code. As you can see, I did do a 217 worn AC parse, and it is quite similar to the 386 worn AC parse.

[Goregasmic]

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

I've seen posts where people suggest there was a Velious Hardcap of 289 worn AC for some period of time, but I do not know if it was on P99:

Nice findings, good to finally see more parses about this.

Don't quote me on that but I read a lot about AC last year and the 289AC thing was an old system that has been modified a couple of times since. The post you linked dates from 2011 and Haynar changed the system in 2014. In the 2014 post we had additional info about what happens for "low levels" though so that may as well still be current for 50+ characters.

I was previously found you'll cap at 200ac wornon a level 45 mob. Capping around 217 for a level 50 makes sense.

Also it seems to further confirm that what haynar calls a softcap is basically a hardcap unless you add a shield. I'm still a bit confused he couldn't see why people thought there was a hardcap. Further down in the 2014 thread:

Originally Posted by Haynar

Ppl parsed and concluded it was a hard cap system we were using.

How? No clue.