Best solo melee class?

[Ephirith]

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

So far it seems like rangers take more damage because their lower defense stat leads to taking more hits compared to warriors and knights.

If rangers take more hits that could technically mean AC has the most importance to them since it keeps those extra hits lower on the distribution.

This

EQ has always felt like your defense, dodge, parry, riposte caps account for 80% of your incoming damage and your worn AC the other 20%, which is the real reason why rangers, rogues, even shamans, just get rolled in spite of actually usually having decent worn AC, and monks are incredibly tanky even with worn AC often on the lower side (before Velious)

[bcbrown]

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

This

EQ has always felt like your defense, dodge, parry, riposte caps account for 80% of your incoming damage and your worn AC the other 20%, which is the real reason why rangers, rogues, even shamans, just get rolled in spite of actually usually having decent worn AC.

Yup, agreed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

So far it seems like rangers take more damage because their lower defense stat leads to taking more hits compared to warriors and knights.

If rangers take more hits that could technically mean AC has the most importance to them since it keeps those extra hits lower on the distribution.

You are correct that Rangers take more damage due to their lower defense stat.

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 means Rangers would be the only hybrid on the chain softcap. Knights would be on the plate softcap.

[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.

[Cecily]

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

If you read the thread, he is wearing woven bark earring. So yes, it is related. Unequipping a max HP item like Hammered Golden Loop will remove that extra HP you have if you are at full HP. So even swapping between woven bark earring and HGL affects the utility of HGL to some degree.

The core message is frustration and I don't want to continue talking to you. And you reinforce that feeling with an itemized list of points you've already made. I have some experience working with autistic children, so just let me know if you ever need a neurotypical read on someone's post.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

The core message is frustration and I don't want to talk to you by, stupidly, talking to you. And you reinforce that feeling with an itemized list of points you've already made. I have some experience working with autistic children, so just let me know if you ever need a neurotypical read on someone's post.

When you can't win with facts and logic, you act like a child.

I am sorry you think you know everything. It blinds you to learning anything new.

My posts have facts. Your posts have silly insults and nonsense. I feel sorry for you.

[Ephirith]

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

When you can't win with facts and logic, you act like a child.

The problem is that there is no point engaging with someone who has a very poor capacity for logic themselves. Your ability to coherently progress from premises to conclusions across multiple variables is pitiful and embarrassing; your "arguments" are rhetoric disguised as reasoning.

It should be a clue for you that almost everyone who engages with you eventually realizes this; in thread after thread, you develop this reputation. It took me two years and being on a different account that didn't have you on ignore to make this mistake again.

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

Unfortunately true. Bcbrown and Cecily will continue to use the argument from authority fallacy, while proving no evidence or counter points of their own.

If they are so confident in their knowledge, they wouldn't use fallacies to try and win a debate.

What they didn't teach you in your undergrad writing class is that appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when the conduct of your argument is generating such a negative consensus about you that it's undermining your ability to effectively engage with the community. It's like a man waving his dick at traffic and chastising all the honking cars for honking instead of using 'logic'.

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

Yeah it seems like most people with a lot of experience with melee in EQ think AC isn't very important on a ranger. When I did a little parsing I didn't find any ranger-specific limitations on AC, but I was also comparing to a druid and a cleric so I don't have a high degree of confidence in my conclusions. I found that there's a hit distribution where roughly a third of hits are either for min or max value, and that adding AC shifts hits from max value to min, and that once there's <3% hits for min value adding AC doesn't help.

My interpretation of the "don't bother gearing rangers for AC" school of thought is that when raiding you're either not getting hit or you're bumping, so it's not a priority. That makes a ton of sense, but I'm not 60 yet so I'm still gearing AC for when I'm tanking.

I'd love to hear your detailed thoughts on ranger AC, and perhaps your thoughts on the parsing I did in this thread.

Just to add another kinda weak data point, when I played my ranger there was a time I went the ultra-high AC route, given that I was often tanking for groups, and I thought I was being clever. I parsed a few sessions (not enough sessions for it to be super meaningful data), but I never really noticed a difference between my very high AC set and my normal set (and the normal set had low-moderate priority for AC).

[bcbrown]

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

Just to add another data point, when I played my ranger there was a time I went the ultra-high AC route, given that I was often tanking for groups, and I thought I was being clever. I parsed a few sessions (not enough sessions for it to be super meaningful data), but I never really noticed a difference between my very high AC set and my normal set (and the normal set had low-moderate priority for AC).

Appreciate the data point. I'd love it if you'd read that thread and give your thoughts. One conclusion is that there's a mob-specific "squelch point" above which there's minimal hits for max damage, and more AC above that value isn't helpful. For level 40-45 mobs that value is around 150-200 worn AC. How much worn AC was in your normal set and what level were the mobs you were fighting?

[Danth]

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

For level 40-45 mobs that value is around 150-200 worn AC.

Note that these values are higher than can readily be reached during the classic period. Later-era Kunark and Velious equipment trickling down throws a lot of impressions out of whack. A era-appropriate ranger wearing banded and maybe a few nicer random pieces like crested spauldors will typically gain from whatever AC he can scrounge up. Today's ranger alt wearing a bunch of Velious hand-me-downs, perhaps not so much.