Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80
  1. #41
    Founder & Hero jjflanigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Level progression can be ranger, ranger, monk, monk. Now take paladin, paladin, paladin, paladin. You are L8 with the following character 2 ranger/2 monk/4 paladin. So, it is easy to get the progression in.

    Master and Grandmaster only require a single monk level. They are otherwise based on total character level. Again, no problem. To get in the 6 ranger levels at L15 becomes a trivial effort.



    You were.

    That would be true, except that in order to take Master Stances, you have to already have Adept Stances -- and you only get that for free with 6 monk levels. That leads us back to needing 16 total levels by level 15, doesn't it?

    -JJ

  2. #42
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    <Stuff>
    Seriously, do you even play this game on EE at all? I don't think the amount of ignorance you spout about the defensive system can properly be expressed with words.

    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.

  3. #43
    Founder & Hero jjflanigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddmatt70 View Post
    Rangers and monk levels first and pally levels last basically. Ranger level 4 also qualifies for empower healing.
    Level 1 ranger
    Level 2 paladin (for intimidate)
    Level 3 ranger
    Level 4 monk
    Level 5 monk
    Level 6 Ranger
    Level 7 Monk
    Level 8 Ranger
    Level 9 Monk
    Level 10 Monk
    Level 11 Monk
    Level 12 Ranger
    Level 13 Paladin
    Level 14 Ranger
    Level 15 Paladin
    Level 16 Monk
    Level 17 Paladin
    Level 18 Paladin
    Level 19 Monk
    Level 20 Paladin

    You sure about Ranger level 4 qualifying for Empower Healing? When I tested it with an iconic, it didn't make it available and the tooltip stated it required 8 levels of ranger.

  4. #44
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjflanigan View Post
    You sure about Ranger level 4 qualifying for Empower Healing? When I tested it with an iconic, it didn't make it available and the tooltip stated it required 8 levels of ranger.
    It's ranger 8

  5. #45
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    Armor Class. The S&B tanks can still get the best AC. But since that's worthless it effectively adds nothing.
    My turn to use the word wrong. AC is not worthless. It is less effective than you want it to be and it must be used in conjunction with other abilities to give the four corners of defense, but it is not worthless.

    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.

  6. #46
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post

    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.
    This is all nonsense. You are wrong.

    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.

  7. #47
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    Just start agreeing with me, you might get to know what it feels like to be right for a change.
    Agreeing with you when you are so intent on being dismissive of others is not likely to happen. What is more likely to happen is that you will be challenged to provide proof of your assertions, that you'll fail to provide them and that you'll continue to pretend to be an expert in spite of having nothing to substantiate your claims.

    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.

  8. #48
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddmatt70 View Post
    I do think a 138 ac is about a 30% miss chance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    If the formulas are right (which I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND) 180 to-hit will hit 140 AC 70% of the time. You still get hit more than that. So either the to-hits are insane (+200 or more) or the formula is bugged, or both.
    First off, I am not pulling numbers out of the air, I'm relying on the information you and OP are providing and simply doing the maths. Here it is evident that both you and OP are in agreement that ~140 AC gives ~30% defenses. Now, regardless of whether I am a genius or the village idiot the maths for that are the same and it is obvious to anyone who looks at this impartially that mobs missing 30% of the time is a good thing and not a meaningless thing.

    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.

  9. #49
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddmatt70 View Post
    I agree with you it does not matter from a mathematical standpoint, but when you see the text in game and it checks incorpeality first and it says so and so was missed due to incorpeality and dodge after that then that leaves the player with the impression that ac does not matter as much as it does and the mobs are hitting a higher % then they are when it comes to AC. I had a 130 ac on a previous tank in the MOTU epic elites and I got missed at least 30% if not more. I think that players undercut the value ac brings. I had a non tank build that had a crazy goal of 90% total damage mitigation which a part of which inolved getting an ac that mattered some to reduce a small % of damage taken.
    There are four things that get checked -- incorporeality, concealment, dodge and armor class. In some cases the mobs have abilities that ignore these. For example, true seeing will negate concealment and ghost touch will negate incorporeality. With the new content some of the Shadar-kai may well be negating some dodge. This makes it a little difficult when looking for the perfect balance but that should not prevent players from undertaking that pursuit.

    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.

  10. #50
    Community Member voodoogroves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    9,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Funny how you have done just what I expected. Rather than offering any evidence of your spurious claims you simply continue this inappropriate behavior towards others.

    Other readers of the thread can easily see that there is no substance to your assertions and that you offer no evidence to support your contentions. Meanwhile the maths do not lie and they show that AC is not worthless.
    Therigar, you are confusing the word "value".

    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

  11. #51
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Funny how you have done just what I expected. Rather than offering any evidence of your spurious claims you simply continue this inappropriate behavior towards others.

    Other readers of the thread can easily see that there is no substance to your assertions and that you offer no evidence to support your contentions. Meanwhile the maths do not lie and they show that AC is not worthless.
    I don't need to offer any evidence as I'm right, the burden on you is to prove me wrong. But you can't do that because I'm right.

    I am teh_troll, it's my privilege.
    Last edited by Teh_Troll; 09-11-2013 at 07:37 PM.

  12. #52
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    I don't need to offer any evidence as I'm right, the burden on you is to prove me wrong. But you can't do that because I'm right.

    I am teh_troll, it's my privilege.
    Since every piece of evidence shows you are wrong I'll let the maths speak for themselves.

    As I said before, you won't offer any substance because it does not exist. Maths do not lie. If all you intend to do is troll then back under the bridge with you.

  13. #53
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Since every piece of evidence shows you are wrong I'll let the maths speak for themselves.

    As I said before, you won't offer any substance because it does not exist. Maths do not lie. If all you intend to do is troll then back under the bridge with you.
    What evidence? You've presented none. Numbers pulled out of the air aren't evidence.

    Quit while you're behind, you know nothing.

  14. #54
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voodoogroves View Post
    Therigar, you are confusing the word "value".

    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".
    An interesting analogy. I suppose AC is the rotten fast food. I'm just confused over whether the food is rotten as in moldy and inedible or rotten as in bad tasting. In either case, it is clearly a pejorative analogy intended to convey that AC isn't worth pursuing.

    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.

  15. #55
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Again, maths do not lie.
    There is so much potential awesome in quoting this, I'll let somebody else get the slam dunk.

    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.

  16. #56
    Community Member voodoogroves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    9,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    An interesting analogy. I suppose AC is the rotten fast food. I'm just confused over whether the food is rotten as in moldy and inedible or rotten as in bad tasting. In either case, it is clearly a pejorative analogy intended to convey that AC isn't worth pursuing.
    Analogy yes, pejorative not really.

    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.
    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".

    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.
    And there you're talking about "how" as a part of the value and suggesting that it isn't worth pursuing.

    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.
    Few things are truly worth nothing. Many things are not worth pursuing. See?

    Again, maths do not lie.
    Maths don't lie, kittens using guns lie.
    Ghallanda - now with fewer alts and more ghostbane

  17. #57
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voodoogroves View Post

    Maths don't lie, kittens using guns lie.
    That is brilliant.

  18. #58
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    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.

  19. #59
    Community Member Therigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    Go test it, get a toon with 150 AC in let some EE GH trash beat on you.
    Really? Because my previous post shows that I have tested it and know exactly what I'm talking about.

    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.

  20. #60
    Community Member Teh_Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    5,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therigar View Post
    Really? Because my previous post shows that I have tested it and know exactly what I'm talking about.

    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 don't actually read your posts beyond your first sentence, the wrong is usually strong enough that it's not needed.

    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload