AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[Drueric]

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

I think it is because people don't understand how AC works. It negates max hits. They'll put a ton of AC on and expect to get straight 1s as incoming damage almost as if they activated DA but the rest of the hits are evenly distributed so you get less 82s but still ~25x 78s, 75s 72s and so on if you look at the above parses. So I suspect people will put AC on, see all the high hits and go like "this is bullshit". While soloing with my ranger in KC with ~200 AC worn I kept an eye on max hits and I was barely seeing any so AC does what it is supposed to do but with like ~2.4khp unbuffed (IIRC?) you're still going to feel the rest of the higher numbers in the distribution. After a long session of farming/grinding soloers/healers will definitely feel it though but not on single kills.

haha you are using a ranger as an example. They dont scale ac as well as a warrior, thats why they get their asses beat when trying to tank.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I think it's clear there isn't a fixed point after which there's no noticeable gains.
...
1) when you already have much higher AC than the mob's wrath you'll see a decreasing marginal return on adding more AC.
2) this is mob-specific and independent of any softcap decrease on marginal returns.

You were correct in claiming there is a squelch point, and it is mob specific. There isn't a database column for the squelch point though. The "fixed" squelch point is just the result of a mob's specific Wrath value staying the same generally speaking.

This is the reason why Orc Pawns almost always hit a level 60 for 1 damage. An Orc Pawn's Wrath is probably around 30. This means that a level 60 SK with 300 worn AC has a Mitigation value at least 10 times larger than the Orc Pawn's Wrath. The weighted D20 for the Orc Pawn's damage is probably averaging around 2 at this point, so you will get little to no gains at higher AC.

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

I think now that the squelching stuff is an emergent phenomenon due to the non-linear relationship between adding adding additional AC and seeing changes in average damage/hit.

However, the "squelch point" theory specifically has been proven wrong. This is because the crux of the "squelch point" theory relied on the "squelch point" essentially being in the wrong place to a large degree. There is no point in bringing it up any more. You should come up with a new theory with a different name if you still disagree with parts of my theory. You wouldn't maintain the name "Flat Earth Theory" if the goalposts in said theory were moved to the point where it was claiming the Earth was round. You would just say the "Flat Earth Theory" was disproven.

For example, you originally claimed that the "squelch point" would be somewhere around 30 AC against a level 5 mob.

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

My prediction is that this mob's squelch point is around 30, such that at any level and any AC above that you will get the same results.

The "squelch point" theory was predicting a value of 30 AC against a level 5 mob, when the real squelch point is more like 300+ AC against a level 5 mob. The "squelch point" theory was essentially replacing the class specific AC Softcaps with the squelch point at 300+ AC against a level 5 mob. Based on the data in this thread, the "squelch point" is not a replacement for class specific AC Softcaps. The data in this thread supports class specific AC Softcaps as well.

[Goregasmic]

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

Based on the data in this thread, the "squelch point" is not a replacement for class specific AC Softcaps. The data in this thread supports class specific AC Softcaps as well.

The squelch point theory made sense because SK/ranger/druid/cleric/pally all seem to get very similar results at ~200ac. The pally had like 523 worn and also softcapped at 200ac. So far the only person who softcapped above 200ac seems to be your SK and the druid clearly softcapped above 100ac so I wouldn't consider this a done deal just yet until those can be explained.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The squelch point theory made sense because SK/ranger/druid/cleric/pally all seem to get very similar results at ~200ac. The pally had like 523 worn and also softcapped at 200ac. So far the only person who softcapped above 200ac seems to be your SK and the druid clearly softcapped above 100ac so I wouldn't consider this a done deal just yet until those can be explained.

Where was the data for the pally with 523 worn AC? My guess is there is just something wrong with how the data was parsed/presented. Or was it on a different mob, not Shiel Glimmerspindle?

Again I am open to the possibility the Druid softcap is higher than 100. I am not saying all of the EQEMU values are set in stone. An AC softcap of 200 on a Druid doesn't provide any evidence supporting the squelch point theory.

[Goregasmic]

This is the single post: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...6&postcount=52

Tested on a storm giant escort. The 538ac test has about a 1000 hits. Shows returns but greatly diminishing after 200ac.

My ench has 99ac worn. I have most of the items to get to 150ac. I could run parses on shiel soon but I have like 1500hp unbuffed. It would take me like 30 hp bars to parse 1000 hits so I'm definitely not parsing that without a dedicated healer for like 3 different armor values.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is the single post: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...6&postcount=52

Tested on a storm giant escort. The 538ac test has about a 1000 hits. Shows returns but greatly diminishing after 200ac.

My ench has 99ac worn. I have most of the items to get to 150ac. I could run parses on shiel soon but I have like 1500hp unbuffed. It would take me like 30 hp bars to parse 1000 hits so I'm definitely not parsing that without a dedicated healer for like 3 different armor values.

Thank you for finding the post!

This data doesn't show a squelch point at 200 AC for the Paladin.

From ~100 AC to ~200 AC, the average of the "dmg total" column is ~70.

From ~200 AC to ~300 AC, the average of the "dmg total" column is ~58.

From ~438 AC to 538 AC, the average of the "dmg total" column is is ~54.

If the squelch point theory was correct from my understanding of it, the "dmg total" should stay close to ~58 at 538 AC.

A lot of the sample sizes in general are rather small too, between 100 and 200 hits.

I understand that the average damage values between 200 AC and 300 AC seem similar, but without the raw data it is difficult to know exactly why this occurred. This is why I usually ask for raw data, and provide it.

[bcbrown]

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

The reason for this is the AC mitigation formula isn't a linear equation:

1. ~10.5 D20 Damage Roll Average occurs when the Defender's Mitigation is equal to the Attacker's Wrath.

2. ~6.5 D20 Damage Roll Average occurs when the Defender's Mitigation is 2x larger than the Attacker's Wrath.

3. ~4.0 D20 Damage Roll Average occurs when the Defender's Mitigation is 4x larger than the Attacker's Wrath.

I'm working on a little project and getting different results. What version of the damage roll code are you using and how are you calculating the average roll?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm working on a little project and getting different results. What version of the damage roll code are you using and how are you calculating the average roll?

This is the EQEMU RollD20 function.

I would urge you to actually provide the raw data if you want to have a discussion about your results.

You can sum up the results like this if you don't want to provide the log data:

=========================
60 SK 1000 hits from Shiel Glimmerspindle - 351 AC, Using 55 AC Shield
=========================
DV, Count
19, 541
22, 29
25, 26
28, 25
32, 29
35, 25
38, 27
42, 27
45, 26
48, 18
52, 22
55, 26
58, 27
62, 21
65, 25
68, 20
72, 27
75, 22
78, 27
82, 10

Total Damage = 33211

[bcbrown]

I'll be starting a series of parses in a couple weeks and I'll be posting results as I go. Before I start the parses I'm working on a little explainer for the d20 roll, still working on it.

How did you calculate that e.g. a mitigation 2x the wrath results in an average roll of 6.5?

The calculations I'm doing say that a wrath of 100 and mitigation of 100 give an average roll of 9.9, and with 100 and 200 an average roll of 5.2, and with 100 and 300 an average roll of 3.8. But looking at it again I see one mistake in my calculations I'll have to fix.

That's why I'm curious how you calculated the average rolls, so that I can better double-check my work.

Edit: With the fix I'm now getting 10.8, 6.7, and 4.4. So much closer, but still different.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'll be starting a series of parses in a couple weeks and I'll be posting results as I go.

Awesome! Can't wait to see them.

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

That's why I'm curious how you calculated the average rolls, so that I can better double-check my work.

Edit: With the fix I'm now getting 10.8, 6.7, and 4.4. So much closer, but still different.

Feel free to post your work if you want a second pair of eyes.

The 10.5 value is the average roll of a d20. The 6.5 and 4.0 values were rough estimates, as the difference between the numbers is the main pattern to look for.

That is why I used the "~" symbol. It means approximately.

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

Before I start the parses I'm working on a little explainer for the d20 roll, still working on it.

I've been thinking about this. I tried a few ways to write some succinct math, but honestly I think most people glaze over the formulas when they have to calculate it themselves.

I made a dice roller using the EQEMU RollD20 Function.

Here is a link to the source code as well.

This should be the easiest way to show the function working at scale.

Here are the results using 100,000 rolls each:

1. When Mitigation = 100 and Wrath = 100, Average Roll = ~10.5
2. When Mitigation = 200 and Wrath = 100, Average Roll = ~6.25
3. When Mitigation = 400 and Wrath = 100, Average Roll = ~4.0
4. When Mitigation = 800 and Wrath = 100, Average Roll = ~3.0

A. Going from 100 Mitigation to 200 Mitigation reduces the Average Roll by ~4.25.
B. Going from 200 Mitigation to 400 Mitigation reduces the Average Roll by ~2.25.
C. Going from 400 Mitigation to 800 Mitigation reduces the Average Roll by ~1.00.

This shows the RollD20 function is non-linear.