AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Identical results at 45 and 50 AC, right? Looks like the squelch point is about 45.

=================================
55 AC Test, 12 of this AC is from a shield
=================================

DV, Count
1, 178
2, 22
3, 22
4, 16
5, 33
6, 25
7, 21
8, 12
9, 24
10, 30
11, 16
12, 1

Total Damage = 1614

What you think is the "squelch point" may just be the softcap. As you can see, equipping a shield did affect the result, even with the same AC. This makes sense when we look at what Haynar said:

Adding a shield increases ur softcap

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.

So far the data seems to support what Haynar said, the guy who implemented this stuff.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

One more shield test before bed.

========================
190 AC, 12 of this AC is from a shield
========================

DV, Count
1, 180
2, 22
3, 26
4, 10
5, 21
6, 20
7, 31
8, 14
9, 29
10, 29
11, 12
12, 6

Total Damage = 1651

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.

[Jimjam]

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If the squelching point maps on to the softcap does that mean returns after softcap aren’t being made? Or is it ‘Wrath’ is balanced to fizzle out against players with mitigation from worn ac meeting the softcap?

I’m a bit confused.

My current theory is the "squelch point" isn't a separate thing. It is just what people are calling the softcap.

Softcap returns can be quite low, especially if the EQEMU numbers are correct for non-warriors.

At 0.17 softcap return, the possible Ranger value, 50 AC over the softcap is reduced to 8.5 AC. At higher levels 8 AC probably isn't going to change much on a parse.

If 0.17 is the softcap return for Rangers, a Ranger with 200 AC above the softcap would only be getting 34 AC after the softcap reduction. A shield like buckler of insight with 45 AC would possibly be better than 200 AC over the softcap in this scenario for Rangers, as shields raise your softcap.

[kjs86z2]

more AC more gooder

[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).