Vault - AC Changes question

Vault › General › DDO-Specific Discussion › AC Changes question

(Moderator: Strakeln)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1

Normal Topic

AC Changes question (Read 3325 times)

Merrick DQ Assaulter Offline Posts: 456 Joined: Nov 29^th, 2011 Gender:	AC Changes question Jun 24^th, 2012 at 9:31am	Print Post
	There was a post somewhere here or in an otherwise less visible forum that had someone breaking down the AC changes, mathematically. I did some rudimentary searching but came up with nothing. Would anyone who knows what I'm talking about care to link the post?


	IP Logged

mystafyi Abbot Raider Offline I Love Drama! Posts: 836 Joined: Nov 10^th, 2010	Re: AC Changes question Reply #1 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:27am	Print Post
	Merrick wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 9:31am: There was a post somewhere here or in an otherwise less visible forum that had someone breaking down the AC changes, mathematically. I did some rudimentary searching but came up with nothing. Would anyone who knows what I'm talking about care to link the post? stillwaters on the other forum has been posting quite a few tables.


	IP Logged

Spelljammer Waterworks Kobold Offline Posts: 107 Joined: Jun 4^th, 2012 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #2 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 12:27pm	Print Post
	Links or it didn't happen.

	bbqzor: "This game is, in some ways, a pile of leftover broken things."
	WWW IP Logged

Nubicus Dragon Raider Offline Dick 2020 Posts: 232 Joined: Apr 22^nd, 2012	Re: AC Changes question Reply #3 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 1:20pm	Print Post
	http://www.ddovault.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1337862371


	IP Logged

Carpone Puppy Farmer Offline I Love Drama! Posts: 1695 Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2011 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #4 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 2:08pm	Print Post
	sirgog posted analysis of AC/Dodge vs. PRR vs. HP.� Don't bother searching it out unless you do calculus on a daily basis. Existing epic content (Chrono/MA/LOB/DQ) will be a joke with the new avoidance and mitigation mechanics. Even if you totally eliminate avoidance through AC/Dodge, damage reduction for tanks will go from 25% (Improved Shield Mastery w/ tower shield) to 65% (100 PRR is easily achieved with Unyielding Sentinel).
	« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2012 at 2:09pm by Carpone »

	IP Logged

Allo Waterworks Kobold Offline I Love Drama! Posts: 107 Joined: Aug 30^th, 2010	Re: AC Changes question Reply #5 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 3:45pm	Print Post
	100 PP is not 65% reduction I don't remember the math but it's more like 38%


	IP Logged

Carpone Puppy Farmer Offline I Love Drama! Posts: 1695 Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2011 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #6 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 4:28pm	Print Post
	Allo wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 3:45pm: 100 PP is not 65% reduction I don't remember the math but it's more like 38% Er, yep. Dunno why I thought it was linear; it's not. 1 PRR = 0.65% damage reduction on a sliding scale. ddowiki needs a PRR calculator.


	IP Logged

Glenalth Puppy Farmer Offline Not banned, just bored Posts: 1602 Location: Albuquerque Joined: Sep 13^th, 2010 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #7 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 5:33pm	Print Post
	Fairly easy for a tank with a shield to get into the 120 area. Code PRR Incoming Damage 0 100.00 1 99.35 2 98.70 3 98.06 4 97.43 5 96.79 6 96.16 7 95.54 8 94.92 9 94.30 10 93.69 11 93.08 12 92.47 13 91.87 14 91.27 15 90.68 16 90.09 17 89.51 18 88.92 19 88.35 20 87.77 21 87.20 22 86.63 23 86.07 24 85.51 25 84.96 26 84.40 27 83.86 28 83.31 29 82.77 30 82.23 31 81.70 32 81.17 33 80.64 34 80.11 35 79.59 36 79.08 37 78.56 38 78.05 39 77.54 40 77.04 41 76.54 42 76.04 43 75.55 44 75.06 45 74.57 46 74.08 47 73.60 48 73.12 49 72.65 50 72.18 51 71.71 52 71.24 53 70.78 54 70.32 55 69.86 56 69.41 57 68.96 58 68.51 59 68.06 60 67.62 61 67.18 62 66.74 63 66.31 64 65.88 65 65.45 66 65.02 67 64.60 68 64.18 69 63.77 70 63.35 71 62.94 72 62.53 73 62.12 74 61.72 75 61.32 76 60.92 77 60.52 78 60.13 79 59.74 80 59.35 81 58.97 82 58.58 83 58.20 84 57.82 85 57.45 86 57.07 87 56.70 88 56.33 89 55.97 90 55.60 91 55.24 92 54.88 93 54.53 94 54.17 95 53.82 96 53.47 97 53.12 98 52.78 99 52.43 100 52.09 101 51.76 102 51.42 103 51.08 104 50.75 105 50.42 106 50.09 107 49.77 108 49.45 109 49.12 110 48.81 111 48.49 112 48.17 113 47.86 114 47.55 115 47.24 116 46.93 117 46.63 118 46.32 119 46.02 120 45.72 121 45.43 122 45.13 123 44.84 124 44.55 125 44.26 126 43.97 127 43.68 128 43.40 129 43.12 130 42.84 131 42.56 132 42.28 133 42.01 134 41.73 135 41.46 136 41.19 137 40.93 138 40.66 139 40.40 140 40.13 141 39.87 142 39.61 143 39.36 144 39.10 145 38.85 146 38.59 147 38.34 148 38.09 149 37.85 150 37.60 151 37.35 152 37.11 153 36.87 154 36.63 155 36.39 156 36.16 157 35.92 158 35.69 159 35.46 160 35.23 161 35.00 162 34.77 163 34.54 164 34.32 165 34.10 166 33.87 167 33.65 168 33.44 169 33.22 170 33.00 171 32.79 172 32.57 173 32.36 174 32.15 175 31.94 176 31.74 177 31.53 178 31.32 179 31.12 180 30.92 181 30.72 182 30.52 183 30.32 184 30.12 185 29.93 186 29.73 187 29.54 188 29.35 189 29.16 190 28.97 191 28.78 192 28.59 193 28.41 194 28.22 195 28.04 196 27.85 197 27.67 198 27.49 199 27.32 200 27.14


	WWW IP Logged

Spelljammer Waterworks Kobold Offline Posts: 107 Joined: Jun 4^th, 2012 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #8 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 7:47pm	Print Post
	Huh. That's logarithmic. For some reason I was expecting a Gaussian distribution. So there's no magic number to shoot for that's an optimal return on investment, it simply has a diminishing return. And the curve is steeper than I thought it would be. The change in damage taken from PRR 12 to 13 is exactly 0.60% while 121 to 122 is exactly 0.30%. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they still made it worth the effort to squeeze in as much PRR as possible, even at high values.

	bbqzor: "This game is, in some ways, a pile of leftover broken things."
	WWW IP Logged

popejubal Completionist (i.t.p.) Offline fnord Posts: 6364 Location: Argo Joined: Aug 6^th, 2010 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #9 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:01pm	Print Post
	Yep. If you can get more PRR without giving up anything significant, then go for it. Having at least some PRR is a really good idea. Giving up something singificant to go from PRR 120 to 125 isn't going to be worthwhile. I kind of like that setup. I don't know if I'll like the results as a whole. Time will tell. So far, the AC change is one of the less offensive changes in U14 that I can see.

	fnord
	IP Logged

Glenalth Puppy Farmer Offline Not banned, just bored Posts: 1602 Location: Albuquerque Joined: Sep 13^th, 2010 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #10 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:20pm	Print Post
	Spelljammer wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 7:47pm: Huh.� That's logarithmic. For some reason I was expecting a Gaussian distribution. So there's no magic number to shoot for that's an optimal return on investment, it simply has a diminishing return. And the curve is steeper than I thought it would be. The change in damage taken from PRR 12 to 13 is exactly 0.60% while 121 to 122 is exactly 0.30%. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they still made it worth the effort to squeeze in as much PRR as possible, even at high values. I based it on the last info I had, which was a .65% reduction in damage stacking for each point of PRR. Looks like the Wiki has different numbers. http://ddowiki.com/page/Physical_Resistance_Rating


	WWW IP Logged

scraap Ex Member	Re: AC Changes question Reply #11 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:38pm	Print Post
	Glenalth wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:20pm: I based it on the last info I had, which was a .65% reduction in damage stacking for each point of PRR. Looks like the Wiki has different numbers. http://ddowiki.com/page/Physical_Resistance_Rating Wiki's more accurate. Took a wip tank in, 75 PRR (SD3 w 1 shield feat) hit around 31% first number mitigation as far as the display goes, at least.


	IP Logged

Spelljammer Waterworks Kobold Offline Posts: 107 Joined: Jun 4^th, 2012 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #12 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:42pm	Print Post
	Um, wow, yeah, that's quite a difference. Damn misinformation. We're going to have to start checking sources.

	bbqzor: "This game is, in some ways, a pile of leftover broken things."
	WWW IP Logged

scraap Ex Member	Re: AC Changes question Reply #13 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:50pm	Print Post
	Erladrin's little PR PRR chart didn't exactly help, since it was using active boosts for that green line. Whoever cooked that up needs shooting. Edit: Frankly between heavy and light only offering about a 10PRR swing, and dex being practically meaningless unless you go full retard, seriously considering turning that SD into an 18/2 with insightful and just dumping the entire stat off the side.
	« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:53pm by »

	IP Logged

popejubal Completionist (i.t.p.) Offline fnord Posts: 6364 Location: Argo Joined: Aug 6^th, 2010 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #14 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:59pm	Print Post
	Glenalth wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:20pm: I based it on the last info I had, which was a .65% reduction in damage stacking for each point of PRR. Looks like the Wiki has different numbers. http://ddowiki.com/page/Physical_Resistance_Rating It is 0.65% reduction in damage, but each point multiplies the amount given by the last, so it ends up 0 PRR = full damage 1 PRR = (100% - 0.65%) = 99.35% of damage taken 2 PRR = 99.35% * 99.35% 3 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 3 10 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 10 = 93.78% of incoming damage taken = 6.22% damage reduced 20 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 20 = 88.16% of incoming damage taken = 11.84% damage reduced etc.

	fnord
	IP Logged

Spelljammer Waterworks Kobold Offline Posts: 107 Joined: Jun 4^th, 2012 Gender:	Re: AC Changes question Reply #15 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:49pm	Print Post
	popejubal wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 8:59pm: It is 0.65% reduction in damage, but each point multiplies the amount given by the last, so it ends up 0 PRR = full damage 1 PRR = (100% - 0.65%) = 99.35% of damage taken 2 PRR = 99.35% * 99.35% 3 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 3 10 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 10 = 93.78% of incoming damage taken = 6.22% damage reduced 20 PRR = 0.9935 ^ 20 = 88.16% of incoming damage taken = 11.84% damage reduced etc. So then 75 PRR = 0.9935^75 = 61.31% of incoming damage taken =� 38.69% damage reduced If that's true, then what's with these numbers? Quote: Took a wip tank in, 75 PRR (SD3 w 1 shield feat) hit around 31% first number mitigation as far as the display goes, at least.

	bbqzor: "This game is, in some ways, a pile of leftover broken things."
	WWW IP Logged

scraap Ex Member	Re: AC Changes question Reply #16 - Jun 24^th, 2012 at 11:00pm	Print Post
	Spelljammer wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:49pm: If that's true, then what's with these numbers? 75PRR = (1-(0.9^75))*.65 <<given calculation = 0.64 = 35% reduction. Not entirely sure where it lost that 3-4 percentage points display-wise, and since most mobs don't hit for 100+ melee damage, it's not really relevant, either, since it won't even shave off a point.
	« Last Edit: Jun 24^th, 2012 at 11:01pm by »

	IP Logged

Azog Ex Member	Re: AC Changes question Reply #17 - Jun 25^th, 2012 at 12:29am	Print Post
	Spelljammer wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 7:47pm: Huh.� That's logarithmic. For some reason I was expecting a Gaussian distribution. So there's no magic number to shoot for that's an optimal return on investment, it simply has a diminishing return. And the curve is steeper than I thought it would be. The change in damage taken from PRR 12 to 13 is exactly 0.60% while 121 to 122 is exactly 0.30%. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they still made it worth the effort to squeeze in as much PRR as possible, even at high values. Nobody expects the logarithmic damage reduction!!


	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

Vault » Powered by YaBB 2.6.11!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge