AC softcap and low level hardcap discussion

[TytosOfEight]

I've heard it said a few times that spell AC is like shield AC in that it ignores the softcap. Have you tested that at all?

[Goregasmic]

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

I've heard it said a few times that spell AC is like shield AC in that it ignores the softcap. Have you tested that at all?

I think in the ranger thread we saw that it helps reaching squelch point but it won't let you go beyond like a shield would. It was like 1 parse though, more testing would need to be done.

[kjs86z2]

im really impressed that people take this as serious as they do

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by kjs86z2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im really impressed that people take this as serious as they do

This is our generation’s cracking the enigma machine. But instead of shielding us from Nazi attacks it shields our rangers from skeleton hits.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This is our generation’s cracking the enigma machine. But instead of shielding us from Nazi attacks it shields our rangers from skeleton hits.

Army Rangers fought Nazis. Nazis have skulls on their uniforms. Skeletons have skulls. Coincidence? I think not.

[bcbrown]

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

I did explain what I was expecting already earlier. I've asked you before in other threads to read the thread before making claims like these.

I guess I should be more clear. I'm talking about making a single specific prediction ahead of each experiment. For example, you just did an experiment with overcapped AC with and without a shield. What's the hypothesis that experiment was answering?

One hypothesis would be "There's gonna be a difference somewhere when you use a shield". Another could be "The average damage per hit will be lower with a shield". Or "adding 12 shield AC will be equivalent to adding 2 AC to an otherwise capped toon".

This has several benefits. For one, it gives any results that match your expectations greater credibility. Kind of like "calling your shot". It also forces you to think through exactly what question you're trying to answer, and making sure whatever experiment you run will help answer that question. Spending a moment on experiment design can help avoid wasting time on experiments that give inconclusive results. It can also help by forcing you to spend time thinking about what you're trying to measure and what metrics do you want to calculate. For example, I was looking at the ratio of min-hit to max-hit, while you seem to be more interested in total damage or damage per hit.

So what I'm suggesting is a practice that I think leads to good mental self discipline and better designed experiments that lead to easier analysis and more defensible conclusions. It's at the heart of the cycle of the scientific method:
* First you do exploratory experiments. You cannot draw any conclusions from these, but you can generate interesting questions and hypotheses
* Next you generate a testable hypothesis. This is a specific prediction that can be either confirmed or rejected, something measureable
* Next you design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Part of this (in our case) will be determining how many samples to parse for each side, and what metric to calculate.

After all that then you can run the experiment and report the results. Now, I'm not saying you have to go through all that process. But I do think taking steps towards that ideal will be helpful and productive. Just a simple "call your shot" before running an experiment. For example: "I'm going to measure average damage per hit with 178 AC, with and without a 12 AC shield. I'll take 1000+ hits per side. I expect the damage per hit to be lower with the 12 AC shield. This is because x, y z."

Another example: the evidence suggests that at level 5 there's a 45ac softcap, and a shield provides a couple AC above that. what's the softcap at level 6? One hypothesis is that the formula is 4*level+25 which would suggest a 49 ac softcap. So there's a couple experiments that you could run to test that hypothesis. And if shield AC provides some bonus with some multiplier value like 0.2 you can run some experiments to try to determine what that multiplier value is.

But to sum up:

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

I did explain what I was expecting already earlier. I've asked you before in other threads to read the thread before making claims like these.

That wasn't a claim, that was a suggestion. I've read the damn thread, that's why I've been participating in it. If you're going to get defensive and make unwarranted personal attacks I'm going to take that as my cue to bow out of this thread and leave you to it, absent an apology.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:

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

That last pair of parses certainly shows that shield AC has an effect when overcapped at level 5. I would urge you to start posting predictions in this thread before each future experiment. That way you can compare the actual results with your hypothesis.

This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=65

[TytosOfEight]

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

I feel like I was too harsh on Bcbrown. I sincerely apologize for that.

I am wary of his behavior due to past interactions, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone deserves second chances.

His advise on the scientific method is sound. I appreciate the suggestion.

I was just genuinely confused as to why he gave the advise.

I think I got hung up on the "urge you to start" part of his comment:



This implies I didn't explain my predictions at all in this thread, and I should start doing it moving forward.

I am not sure how he can think that I haven't been explaining my predictions. I feel like the post below is a detailed explaination for how I am interpreting Haynar's post, and what I am expecting to see:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...2&postcount=61

I also told him I would do a larger test after he said my samples were too small. I thought the context was clear that I would repeat the same experiment with a larger sample size:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=65

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You haven’t done anything wrong. From the start of this thread, your intentions and what you were testing have been clear. This isn’t an academic paper, and while this is kind of a peer review process, the context here is much more informal. Bcbrown’s point about you needing to state an a priori hypothesis, while technically correct, comes off as the kind of pedantic argument an undergraduate might make to win a petty debate. In this context, it’s completely irrelevant.

Frankly, the toxicity directed at you in these threads is bizarre. You haven’t done anything to warrant such attacks, and honestly, it’s just a bit odd. You come across as someone genuinely interested in the game and trying to approach things properly and with good intentions.

My advice is to just ignore the bullies and keep doing what you’re doing.

Thank you for the support! I appreciate the post.

[Snaggles]

DSM and I have at times traded barbs but I appreciate the efforts to actually gather data. Where it sometimes falls flat is the practical application (I’m a bit simple), so I would prefer the conclusion to the findings. How can a random player apply the data to make prudent decisions. That’s just my opinion of course.

I fully acknowledge sometimes the academics is the quest itself. Like a prototype it isn’t intended to be the end-product. Or even, it might be research in efforts to verify a glitch that should be submitted for review. Assuming the goal is to make this sim accurate to vintage era EQ.

Of all the heady posts on game mechanics, the most annoying are the one liners from those don’t want to put on the work. This game is mostly constructed of anecdotes, dogma and popsicle sticks so to repeating canned sayings may be cathartic and “cool” but it’s rarely helpful for those actually trying to figure this out. Throw another couple sentences and set context, or run your own damn numbers showing why you believe what you do.