Best solo melee class?

[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.

[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.

[Goregasmic]

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

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:



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.

By raw I guess he meant worn.

He stated "lower level" was below 51.

50*6+25=325 @lvl50. Which means at least 385 @60.

He says there's no hardcap so I always assumed that cap was a softcap. I always felt that cap was ridiculously high but if it is a one size fits all type of deal it has to work for warriors too so I guess it makes sense.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

By raw I guess he meant worn.

He stated "lower level" was below 51.

50*6+25=325 @lvl50. Which means at least 385 @60.

He says there's no hardcap so I always assumed that cap was a softcap. I always felt that cap was ridiculously high but if it is a one size fits all type of deal it has to work for warriors too so I guess it makes sense.

Good catch on the level 51 comment.

Yeah the softcap post is worded a bit loosely. My assuption is the level * 6 + 25 formula isn't the softcap formula, since it gets removed at 51+. I'd be suprised if the softcap was removed entirely 51+, but I haven't done a lot of research on the topic.

[Goregasmic]

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

Good catch on the level 51 comment.

Yeah the softcap post is worded a bit loosely. My assuption is the level * 6 + 25 formula isn't the softcap formula, since it gets removed at 51+. I'd be suprised if the softcap was removed entirely 51+, but I haven't done a lot of research on the topic.

I haven't read anywhere it gets removed at 51? I'm assuming it just ramps up for a cap higher than 385.

Btw that softcap formula until 50... it says it is until 50 on the "statistics" wiki page but the source linked doesn't confirm this. I tried rereading haynar's posts to find a source for this and haven't found anything. Unless I'm brainfarting I don't think we know what "low level" is.

Also: later in the thread haynar goes on a rant about people saying AC was hardcapped while it wasn't, and didn't understand why people came to that conclusion. The recent parses in the ranger thread seemed to show mob level (atk proxi?) hardcapped player AC returns so I'm not sure what baffled haynar so much as to why players drew that conclusion. Is it possible that the mob hardcap was added later? Because that system probably negates the need for a softcap until you reach raiding

[Goregasmic]

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

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:



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.

WARNING: Wild assumptions based on partial/contradictory claims and evidence.

We know from the sogundordor parses a level 45 mobs will have a 200ac hardcap against them. Bcbrown found 180ac @40.

If that thing is linear, at lower levels it yields:
lvl----cap----softcap
25---120---175
20---100---145
15----80---115
10----60----85
5----40----55
1----20----31

Lvl being player level and cap being mob hardcap. My guess would be "lower level" being something like up to 20 and they removed the hardcap so you could not max out AC until ~25 with bronze armor.

The softcap would be 295ac at lvl45 but the hardcap was parsed at 200. No point in having a softcap if hardcap is lower. I'd guess the hardcap was lifted in kunark for mob 50+ since haynar says there's no hardcap but he's talking to raiders discussing velious raid targets.

That's what would seem to make the most sense so far but we have very little data. I'm currently working on my ranger with hopes of parsing some of that stuff to make sense of all this.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

WARNING: Wild assumptions based on partial/contradictory claims and evidence.

We know from the sogundordor parses a level 45 mobs will have a 200ac hardcap against them. Bcbrown found 180ac @40.

If that thing is linear, at lower levels it yields:
lvl----cap----softcap
25---120---175
20---100---145
15----80---115
10----60----85
5----40----55
1----20----31

Lvl being player level and cap being mob hardcap. My guess would be "lower level" being something like up to 20 and they removed the hardcap so you could not max out AC until ~25 with bronze armor.

The softcap would be 295ac at lvl45 but the hardcap was parsed at 200. No point in having a softcap if hardcap is lower. I'd guess the hardcap was lifted in kunark for mob 50+ since haynar says there's no hardcap but he's talking to raiders discussing velious raid targets.

That's what would seem to make the most sense so far but we have very little data. I'm currently working on my ranger with hopes of parsing some of that stuff to make sense of all this.

I made a new thread about the ac hardcap/softcap discussion here.

[Ephirith]

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

I made a new thread about the ac hardcap/softcap discussion here.

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