I've play 150 AC toons. IT DOES NOTHING against anything worth tanking. EE LOB hits this every shot as does EE TO. That 30% number was pulled out of the air with no basis in reality.
Heck with your suspicions and theory-crafting gibberish, I'VE ACTUALLY DONE THIS stuff in game and it does NOTHING.
Last edited by IWIronheart; 09-11-2013 at 09:05 PM.
The question is whether sword and board tanks can get competitive numbers in concealment (yes), incorporeality (maybe) and dodge (no). It is the inability to do some of those things that is hurting sword and board -- not armor class.
I'll try to illustrate this for you, although I doubt you'll accept it.
Unarmored can get 30% AC reduction, 20% concealment reduction, 25% incorporeality reduction and 30% dodge reduction. In 100 successful attacks that results in ~30 actual hits for damage.
Armored can get 50% AC reduction, 20% concealment reduction, 10% incorporeality reduction and 10% dodge reduction. In 100 successful attacks that results in ~33 actual hits for damage.
Now, talking about the AC reduction, that might be 150AC for the unarmored character and 200AC for the armored character -- meaning that the armored character has more AC but drops values in the other areas ending up taking more hits. If dodge or incorporeality could be raised to even 20% the effect would be for the armored character to have better defenses. But, it is difficult to do that.
So, you could argue that AC is meaningless because of the work needed to get to the high numbers or the failure to give better protection than what the unarmored character gets. But, the fault isn't with the AC number -- it is in the other corners of the defense, incorporeality and dodge.
You are right about the effect you are seeing but you are wrong about the cause of that effect.
These 30% and 50% numbers are pulled out of the air with no basis in reality. I would LOVE to get a 50% miss on an armored tank.
Meaningless = no worth investing in.
Have you actually ever run a high AC toon in EEs? Don't bother answering because I won't believe you regardless.
I see this all of the time on the forums. The more a person talks down to the other posters the more it illustrates that they are just arguing from a position of weakness. Anyone can make claims about eElite content and how great they are. What they almost always fail to do is to provide evidence of their claims.
If 150AC is meaningless then where are your screen shots showing that you are being hit. Where are your screenshots showing the combined effectiveness of your dodge, AC, concealment and incorporeality. Until you provide more than your assertions there is no reason to suspect that you are doing anything other than living up to your identifier as a troll and being argumentative simply for the sake of arguing.
Second, it might well be that the to-hit numbers are well above the 180 that you cite. Whether that is insane or not depends a great deal on your perspective concerning eElite content. According to the wiki the monster to-hit is (Monster’s Attack Bonus + 10.5) / (Target’s Armor Class * 2). At 180 to-hit v 140AC this gives .68 -- ie, ~70% as both you and OP speculate. At 200 to-hit and 140AC this gives .75 (75%).
OTOH, 180 to-hit v 200AC gives .47 -- or ~50% as I stated. At 200 to-hit and 200AC this becomes .52, or still ~50%. Thus getting to 200AC is valuable regardless of whether mob to-hit is 180 as you and OP speculate or 200 (which you call insane).
And, this means that the maths I offer illustrate that it is not a problem with AC but with the other corners of defense if you are getting hit inordinately with high AC numbers.
To make this even more clear to you we will assume 200 to-hit. Once more, 100 attacks ignoring auto miss and auto hit. This is a simplification but still a legitimate comparison since the same assumption applies in all cases.
140AC gives 25% protection. Dodge can easily be 30%, concealment can easily be 20%, and incorporeality can easily be 25%. This character will take 100(.75)(.7)(.8)(.75)=31.5 actual hits -- round up to 32.
200AC OTOH gives 47% protection. Dodge will rarely exceed 10%, concealment can still easily be 20% and incorporeality will rarely exceed 10%. If you don't like these numbers then cite the gear and/or abilities that will raise these numbers. Until then what we have with this character is 100(.53)(.9)(.8)(.9)=34.3 actual hits -- round down to 34.
Now, how is it that the AC is meaningless in either of these calculations? It provides most of the damage mitigation for the armored character at 200AC and is not the least important factor for the unarmored one. The reason the unarmored character does better -- 32/100 v 34/100 -- is because of the other factors.
The maths don't lie. If you are having a different experience and pushing the 150AC number then it is because some element other than AC is too low. This demonstrates, yet again, that it is not an AC issue.
You are correct that the sequence written to the combat record probably leads people to conclude that there is more value in the other three elements than in AC. But, from a purely math viewpoint this is untrue since the effect is the same regardless of the sequence in which the four items are checked.
The goal of 90% damage mitigation is pretty difficult to achieve since concealment, incorporeality and dodge all have limitations. On top of that, the effects are not additive -- 20% concealment and 25% incorporeality does not give 45% miss chance -- it only gives 40% miss chance. Add in 30% dodge and you are not at 75% but at 58%. To get to 90% miss chance from there you would need enough AC to give you 75% reduction in remaining hits.
Going back to previous discussions on 180 to-hit for monsters this is means you'd need 381AC. (190.5/2x=.25, 190.5=.5x, 190.5/.5=x, 381=x). I doubt you were getting to that number.
Try not to think so much in terms of "does it have an absolutely measurable quantity like the mass of rotten fast food" and instead in terms of benefit "a man who has other food options gains no actual benefit from fast food".
Ghallanda - now with fewer alts and more ghostbane
However, the maths clearly show that it is worth pursuing and that it is one of the highest sources of damage prevention available -- but only if it is high enough.
This is, for most players, the real issue. Due to the way the game is built and the characteristics of armor, most players find themselves unable to reach an AC high enough to begin to make a difference.
Nevertheless, AC in the 140 range is not going to be worthless in spite of your analogy or the assertions of others. To the contrary, even at mob to-hit numbers of 200 an AC of 140 provides a measurable increase in a character's defenses.
Again, maths do not lie.
Math proves nothing without in-game tests proving the maths are close. Our tests show 170 AC gives no noticiable amounts of misses above the 5% miss everything gets when rolling a one.
You're math is worthless (just like AC).
Go test it, get a toon with 150 AC in let some EE GH trash beat on you. Tank the EE LOB and EE TO.
I've done this, you have not. You know nothing.
Last edited by Teh_Troll; 09-11-2013 at 08:05 PM.
See, you get the analogy. It has to be "high enough". Again, the "how" part of the "value". Not "is it measurable" but "is it relatively worth while to pursue".However, the maths clearly show that it is worth pursuing and that it is one of the highest sources of damage prevention available -- but only if it is high enough.
And there you're talking about "how" as a part of the value and suggesting that it isn't worth pursuing.This is, for most players, the real issue. Due to the way the game is built and the characteristics of armor, most players find themselves unable to reach an AC high enough to begin to make a difference.
Few things are truly worth nothing. Many things are not worth pursuing. See?Nevertheless, AC in the 140 range is not going to be worthless in spite of your analogy or the assertions of others. To the contrary, even at mob to-hit numbers of 200 an AC of 140 provides a measurable increase in a character's defenses.
Maths don't lie, kittens using guns lie.Again, maths do not lie.
Ghallanda - now with fewer alts and more ghostbane
While others continue to offer no reason not to get AC I thought I'd do something extraordinary. I took my gimp monk into eElite Cabal and made a note of how the combats went.
I entered with 112AC and 23% dodge. After pulling the first archer mobs I fought the warlord. The warlord recorded 11 attacks in the combat log. Six of those hit, 3 missed and 2 were dodged.
Now, of 11 attacks with 23% dodge the expected result is 11(.23)=2.53. That means the result of 2 misses is well within expectations given the small sample size.
Armor stopped 3 of 11 attacks so is roughly 30%. If we do the math 11(.77)(.7)=5.9 or ~6 hits in 11 attacks. Six successes in 11 attacks is 6/11=.55.
Since I know the AC was 112 I can calculate the to-hit of the mob. (x+10.5)/(112*2)=.55. This becomes x+10.5=224*.55. And in turn this becomes x=123.2-10.5. The result is that x=113. The eElite warlord's to-hit in a solo eElite cabal is ~113. I say ~113 because there is some margin of error due to the small sample size.
Note that 112AC gave MORE protection than 23% dodge gave.
FWIW, I took screen shots and will post if necessary.
But, bottom line is that the maths once again show that the emotional, non-fact based assessments given by others are without merit. A full compliment of defenses will in fact provide substantial protection even in eElite GH quests. Since these were cited as among those game changing quests it was an easy place to go to show the fallacy of AC being meaningless.
Last edited by Therigar; 09-11-2013 at 08:56 PM.
Go ahead, ask me for the screen shots to prove it. Glad to provide them for you -- something you are unable and unwilling to do. Of course, that is because I actually am the one that is right in this discussion. But we knew that didn't we.
I'll except YouTube video as proof. We used Cabal EE for out test. The archers were mostly missing our 170 AC crash-test dummy. We then pulled one of the mooks with an axe and Mr. 170 AC got hit every shot.
This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.Reload