AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

IMHO, I would probably use a level 5 warrior, monk, paladin or SK.

I still am not certain if there is some kind of scaling issue to account for, but nobody cares how AC affects bards and rangers.

You are correct that a Warrior would have less diminishing returns on the softcap, but my Bard hit the hardcap. Haynar did not say that the hardcap formula was different between classes.

[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.

[Goregasmic]

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

IMHO, I would probably use a level 5 warrior, monk, paladin or SK.

I still am not certain if there is some kind of scaling issue to account for, but nobody cares how AC affects bards and rangers.

So far we only found hardcaps on AC and class was irrelevant. War/sk/ranger capped at 200 worn on a level 45 mob and ranger (and druid?) at 180 on a level 40 mob. That is despite haynar himself talking down people thinking there's a hard cap. We already confirmed this before but DSM reconfirmed there seems to be a hardcap... even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

It could particularly matter for rangers because their lower defense means they get hit more and the main way to mitigate damage is AC so they could be the class who AC matters the most, depending on where the soft/hard caps are.

Everyone always assumed AC does nothing for rangers due to them taking more damage but no one was ever able to give a satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms behind the phenomenon.

[Goregasmic]

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

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.

Thanks for running the parses!

Couple observations:

Haynar formula yields 55ac softcap at level 5 but you seemed capped at 45ac until you put on a shield.

The 45ac cap seems to invalidate his formula but the shield basically lowering max hits past the usual 5% bottom seems to prove the existance of a softcap. Softcap generally implies diminishing returns though and it seemed you got no returns past 45ac all the way to 178ac until you put on a shield so it is more like a variable hardcap so far.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

Where did Haynar post a softcap formula? So far the data here shows the level * 6 + 25 formula is a hardcap for low levels, and there is also a softcap that exists before the hardcap.

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

Thanks for running the parses!

Couple observations:

Haynar formula yields 55ac softcap at level 5 but you seemed capped at 45ac until you put on a shield.

The 45ac cap seems to invalidate his formula but the shield basically lowering max hits past the usual 5% bottom seems to prove the existance of a softcap. Softcap generally implies diminishing returns though and it seemed you got no returns past 45ac all the way to 178ac until you put on a shield so it is more like a variable hardcap so far.

No problem!

The 45 AC does not invalidate Haynar's formula, as a softcap exists as well. The shield test shows the softcap. With a softcap, you can never actually hit the hardcap.

This is because once you hit the softcap of 45, the last 10 AC between 45 and 55 gets softcapped. The hardcap prevents you from having more than 55 worn AC, so 178 worn AC gets clamped to 55.

With a softcap at 45 and a hardcap at 55, the best AC you could get is 47 if the softcap return is 20%.

A shield increases softcap, so you get closer to 55.

[Goregasmic]

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

Where did Haynar post a softcap formula? So far the data here shows the level * 6 + 25 formula is a hardcap for low levels, and there is also a softcap that exists before the hardcap.

From the haynar post you linked:

"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."

I understand it as a worn AC softcap but it is ambiguous.

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

The 45 AC does not invalidate Haynar's formula, as a softcap exists as well. The shield test shows the softcap. With a softcap, you can never actually hit the hardcap.

This is because once you hit the softcap of 45, the last 10 AC between 45 and 55 gets softcapped. The hardcap prevents you from having more than 55 worn AC, so 178 worn AC gets clamped to 55.

With a softcap at 45 and a hardcap at 55, the best AC you could get is 47 if the softcap return is 20%.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something a softcap would mean that you get less return every AC point but still get something past the softcap, until you bottom out max hits or run out of AC. You get literally no improvement from additional AC past 45. That looks like a hardcap to me. Only way to go beyond is a shield but the 55ac shielded parse doesn't prove there's a hardcap, it shows you bottomed out max hits at 0. It is probable that 55ac is where max hits bottom out though.

Haynar was adamant there is no hardcap so you should always get some return from AC after you reached softcap but that's not what we're seeing.

[Snaggles]

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

So far we only found hardcaps on AC and class was irrelevant. War/sk/ranger capped at 200 worn on a level 45 mob and ranger (and druid?) at 180 on a level 40 mob. That is despite haynar himself talking down people thinking there's a hard cap. We already confirmed this before but DSM reconfirmed there seems to be a hardcap... even though haynar gave the softcap formula.

It could particularly matter for rangers because their lower defense means they get hit more and the main way to mitigate damage is AC so they could be the class who AC matters the most, depending on where the soft/hard caps are.

Everyone always assumed AC does nothing for rangers due to them taking more damage but no one was ever able to give a satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms behind the phenomenon.

Thanks, that’s fair. I just figured if someone had a knight and could parse on an equivalent target it would be ideal. If the science is same, at minimum it would refute the naysayers. I also have a 60 pally and SK so I’m biased [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.].

Pragmatically, it just doesn’t matter for rangers. In order to stack AC it will often cost hps and/or svs. These are far more important for anyone not taking direct melee hits; even silly stats like wisdom and dex are better to prioritize. Anecdotally im not certain if my own gear replaced with like-kind AC gear would result in a lesser experience on a raid level. Margins are slim when you draw the ire of a city leader. Most the time I’ve not even asked for HP buffs (unless an AE heavy fight). I just spend more time hoping to resist AE’s and less time main tanking (outside 20 second bursts).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

From the haynar post you linked:

"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."

I understand it as a worn AC softcap but it is ambiguous.




Unless I'm misunderstanding something a softcap would mean that you get less return every AC point but still get something past the softcap, until you bottom out max hits or run out of AC. You get literally no improvement from additional AC past 45. That looks like a hardcap to me. Only way to go beyond is a shield but the 55ac shielded parse doesn't prove there's a hardcap, it shows you bottomed out max hits at 0. It is probable that 55ac is where max hits bottom out though.

Haynar was adamant there is no hardcap so you should always get some return from AC after you reached softcap but that's not what we're seeing.

1. Haynar says "raw ac cap" for the level * 6 + 25 formula, not "softcap" or "hardcap". Since he said both "softcap" and "hardcap" in the same post, I would be suprised if he decided to use "raw ac cap" to mean "softcap" or "hardcap". The specific wording indicates a clamp on worn AC.

2. Haynar also confirms there is a softcap in that post, even at low levels, so we know a softcap exists. He also told us shields increase the softcap, so that should be testable.

3. When Haynar is talking about not having a hardcap, he is referring to an Eashen raid from my understanding. The worn AC clamp is specified for "low levels". This means Haynar is correct that a bunch of level 60s in a raid are not clamped on AC or hardcapped.

4. I'll show some examples of how a softcap works, and how a worn AC clamp will affect it:

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.

My data reflects these examples, and it is consistent with what Haynar said.

I will start using the wording "worn AC clamp" instead of hardcap. I think this might be the disconnect. A hardcap would imply that the AC is capped after the softcap is applied. A "worn AC clamp" would clamp the worn AC first. There is a bit of nuance there, but I think that is the confusion. This is why he said "raw ac cap" instead of softcap or hardcap. If there was a 55 AC hardcap, you could still get to 55 AC with enough softcapped AC. At 20% returns a person with 95+ AC would hit 55 AC.

[Goregasmic]

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

1. Haynar says "raw ac cap" for the level * 6 + 25 formula, not "softcap" or "hardcap". Since he said both "softcap" and "hardcap" in the same post, I would be suprised if he decided to use "raw ac cap" to mean "softcap" or "hardcap". The specific wording indicates a clamp on worn AC.

2. Haynar also confirms there is a softcap in that post, even at low levels, so we know a softcap exists. He also told us shields increase the softcap, so that should be testable.

3. When Haynar is talking about not having a hardcap, he is referring to an Eashen raid from my understanding. The worn AC clamp is specified for "low levels". This means Haynar is correct that a bunch of level 60s in a raid are not clamped on AC or hardcapped.

4. I'll show some examples of how a softcap works, and how a worn AC clamp will affect it:

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.

My data reflects these examples, and it is consistent with what Haynar said.

I will start using the wording "worn AC clamp" instead of hardcap. I think this might be the disconnect. A hardcap would imply that the AC is capped after the softcap is applied. A "worn AC clamp" would clamp the worn AC first. There is a bit of nuance there, but I think that is the confusion. This is why he said "raw ac cap" instead of softcap or hardcap. If there was a 55 AC hardcap, you could still get to 55 AC with enough softcapped AC. At 20% returns a person with 95+ AC would hit 55 AC.

1. I assume raw AC cap means worn as opposed to displayed. It would be a dick move to introduce a new concept without defining it.

2. Agreed

3. Probable, I came to the same assumption.

4. If you're going to talk about softcaps or hardcaps I fully expect it to be option A with no clamp. That's basically how other stats work (int/wis/cha). In scenario B, C and D worn AC clamp is literally a hardcap in function if you don't use a shield.

I think it is kinda pointless to discuss haynar's hidden meanings though, if you're right the numbers are the numbers. His formula puts the "soft cap" at 259worn @lvl39 and 319worn @lvl49. 259 is basically beyond BIS for tunnel gear and 319 is probably around straight up BIS if even. So no point even bothering. The only thing that matters would be finding clamp points. At clamp points you nearly bottomed out the max hits anyway so I guess that is good enough. A 49 ranger seems to be clamping around 180ac which is a lot more reasonable goal, 51+ players around 200.

If mob level has no bearing on AC parses, like previously thought, that could explain why people claim going from tunnel BiS to straight up BiS feels like it does nothing. Everyone who has 200+ AC are already clamped anyway.

[Jimjam]

I care >:-(

But only about rangers though.