AC issues are starting to be really problematic.

[Splorf22]

chance to hit = chance to hit * 21845 / 31768 ofc, because we hate division

[Rogean]

Our code calculates it from the chance to hit perspective, so any math needs to be done from that.

It's impossible to get a 100% chance to hit pre-discipline, as those values are clamped at 10/90.

But let's say they weren't clamped. In your example you forgot to add it back to chance to hit. So if chance to hit is 100%, chance to avoid is 0%.. You can't increase 0% by any number, so yes it would still remain a 100% chance to hit.

[Rogean]

chancetohit = clamp(chancetohit - (((100 - 68) * AvoidChance) / 1000)), 0, 100);

(In code, AvoidChances are * 10.. so evasive is 500).

[Splorf22]

Hmm, actually I just thought about this, but any time a NPC would have a less than 33% chance to hit that would become 0 by this math. So maybe this isn't as good as I was thinking.

Maybe just change the original code from 50% to 33%

[Rogean]

What situations would a mob have a 33% hit chance to start.. and maybe it should be set to 0?

If a high level player on eqlive walks into a low level dungeon where the mobs would already have such a low chance to hit.. and he hits evasive. What's the result? He would probably never get hit. So I'd imagine that would be intended.

[Splorf22]

sounds reasonable to me, now that you put it that way

now if you can just convince Haynar to implement a classic AC cap

[Haynar]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sounds reasonable to me, now that you put it that way

now if you can just convince Haynar to implement a classic AC cap

And here you go from being all helpful to this.

Just ask anyone who has parsed, its a hard cap based system.

Done!

No need to parse anymore, load up on that hp gear.

H

[Sylexis]

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

And here you go from being all helpful to this.

Just ask anyone who has parsed, its a hard cap based system.

Done!

No need to parse anymore, load up on that hp gear.

H

........

......

What did you just DO!!?!

I feel like I just got Haynar'd and I wasn't even in the thread.

*clutches gear defensively*

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Haynar

And we use a softcap system, not a hardcap based system.

Warriors get a 45% return above softcap.

Is simply not classic. FWIW, I think in a vacuum your system is probably better, as Warriors in particular will cap AC easily. Verant agreed with all of us and eventually changed their mechanics. But the point is to recreate classic, right?

I suppose you probably feel I have some sort of vendetta against you or something, Haynar, but really I just want a classic server. And it has bothered me for a long time that this project has an almost fanatical attention to detail in terms of replicating typos in NPC names and reconstructing little used quests, but we have gaping holes in really important mechanics. I mean Kunark has been out for 4 years, and we just figured out that warriors are taking *three quarters* of the damage they should be with evasive discipline on. That means all raid tanking just became 33% harder. That is going to have a huge, huge impact on everyone whether it's Sky or VP or whatever. It also means Paladins and SKs just got a lot better, relatively (only 50% worse, not 100% worse).

I would really love to see some test code where we select a bunch of different tanks with different AC and pit them against a bunch of different mobs and create a big spreadsheet and then try to tune it to match classic. I don't actually think it would be that hard: really its just a double for loop that then runs the 'get average hit' 10000x and reports the results. Hell, I'm not even saying your system is necessarily wrong. I just think we have to tweak the system first before adjusting individual NPCs.

Really, I appreciate this project a great deal. I have had big personal projects before, so I know how much work it is. So please don't take this as a personal criticism. All I am suggesting is that you guys apply the same rigor to game mechanics that you do to quests and NPC names and such.

[Rogean]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just think we have to tweak the system first before adjusting individual NPCs.

This is where you're wrong. You can't have an accurate system without adjusting individual NPC's. Again, you guys seem to think that it's the system that's wrong and not that the NPC's have bad values. Both are best guessed systems. There is no way we would have been able to determine what mob AC and Attack values were on live.

You cannot have an accurate system without accurate values, and you cannot have accurate values without an accurate system.