AC v. HP's v. et al

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
the only thing to worry about? Or something else?

I have a 48 paladin right now and I think I'm doing ok.

http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=844342

AC and HP's are not accurate, not sure why. Alternate weapon is WMBS.

I'm thinking that any upgrades be primarily based on AC but maybe
that's not correct.

~F

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:24:14 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
>the only thing to worry about? Or something else?

AC should remain the most important stats for a pally. Then STA and
finally hp. With good AC, you'll last longer in a combat than with
just high hp.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
: the only thing to worry about? Or something else?

: I have a 48 paladin right now and I think I'm doing ok.

: http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=844342

: AC and HP's are not accurate, not sure why. Alternate weapon is WMBS.

: I'm thinking that any upgrades be primarily based on AC but maybe
: that's not correct.

The Steelwarriors had and likely still has a big thread on this subject.
The general answer is "It depends". Primarily on where you are fighting.
The combat engine, loosely, looks at the difference between AC and mob ATK
to slant where the distribution of damage is, i.e., a totally overmatched
AC will generate nearly total minimum hits and conversely a totally
undermatched AC will generate mostly maximum hits.

However, there are some mobs with a really tight span from min-max
Ta'Grusch in Torment comes immediately to mind who hits for a min of like 1100
and a max of 1400. HP is teh win there.

K

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A thousand monkeys banging on keyboards posted the following under the
name Hippie Ramone <kdeacon@scrye.com>:

>Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
>: the only thing to worry about? Or something else?
>
>: I have a 48 paladin right now and I think I'm doing ok.
>
>: http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=844342
>
>: AC and HP's are not accurate, not sure why. Alternate weapon is WMBS.
>
>: I'm thinking that any upgrades be primarily based on AC but maybe
>: that's not correct.
>
>The Steelwarriors had and likely still has a big thread on this subject.
>The general answer is "It depends". Primarily on where you are fighting.
>The combat engine, loosely, looks at the difference between AC and mob ATK
>to slant where the distribution of damage is, i.e., a totally overmatched
>AC will generate nearly total minimum hits and conversely a totally
>undermatched AC will generate mostly maximum hits.
>
>However, there are some mobs with a really tight span from min-max
>Ta'Grusch in Torment comes immediately to mind who hits for a min of like 1100
>and a max of 1400. HP is teh win there.

We had a debate on our guild boards once a few months back, one of our
best warriors was talking with a dev about whether the ratio of 10 hp
to 1 AC that I guess Steelwarriors had suggested was fair. He was more
inclined to give weight to AC (some of his AHR loot probably had
something to do with that ). I think he said after a point he
looked at the ratio more like 15 hp to 1 AC, raising the value of AC
in his opinion against hp. However, the dev said that if anything the
10x1 ratio was too kind to AC, and hinted the warriors should think in
terms of even higher ratios (more value to hp). When the warrior
debated his side more, the dev did say he knew the actual combat
formulas, but that the warrior could believe whatever he liked.

The original poster should make sure every piece of gear they have has
hp on it. As long as they're using gear meant for a paladin, it should
have reasonable AC anyways.


--

"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Ben Sisson <ilkhanikeDIESPAM@yahoo.ca> wrote:
: We had a debate on our guild boards once a few months back, one of our
: best warriors was talking with a dev about whether the ratio of 10 hp
: to 1 AC that I guess Steelwarriors had suggested was fair. He was more
: inclined to give weight to AC (some of his AHR loot probably had
: something to do with that ). I think he said after a point he
: looked at the ratio more like 15 hp to 1 AC, raising the value of AC
: in his opinion against hp. However, the dev said that if anything the
: 10x1 ratio was too kind to AC, and hinted the warriors should think in
: terms of even higher ratios (more value to hp). When the warrior
: debated his side more, the dev did say he knew the actual combat
: formulas, but that the warrior could believe whatever he liked.

The Steelwarriors arguments derived mainly from extensive parsing done by
folks like Bruutal and Frodlin. I trust measured numbers way more than
RandomDev_00 saying he "knows" the formula. Fenyman once said "It doesn't
matter how smart you are or how beautiful your theory is. If it doesn't
agree with experiments it's wrong". For a raid war at the end of a ch-chain
the only question is "Do I have enuf hp to live to the next ch?"

Seriously tho, as a rule of thumb, if your getting hit modal is above the
mean, go for AC, if under HP.

K

: The original poster should make sure every piece of gear they have has
: hp on it. As long as they're using gear meant for a paladin, it should
: have reasonable AC anyways.
:
:
: --

: "Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:24:14 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
>the only thing to worry about? Or something else?
>
>I have a 48 paladin right now and I think I'm doing ok.
>
>http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=844342
>
>AC and HP's are not accurate, not sure why. Alternate weapon is WMBS.

If you fix the magelo (put your skills in so it shows correct AC)
it's a lot easier judge your gear overall with the correct AC total.

At your level I found the 10:1 hp:ac equivalancy worked pretty well
as a rule of thumb, but really "it depends" is the name of the game.
If your AC is high enough that the mobs you're fighting don't get
too many max hits then it's cool to work on hp. If you hp are high
enough that you don't die to damage spikes before a heal lands, then
it's good to work up your AC to make those damage spikes rarer.

You might try posting your query to the Equipment forum at
http://p202.ezboard.com/bpaladinsofnorrath
(be a good idea to fix your magelo first)


kaev http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=889173

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:sq4kr0hsicu0ohkc4ttnsj8hb78vgd21io@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:24:14 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
> >the only thing to worry about? Or something else?
>
> AC should remain the most important stats for a pally. Then STA and
> finally hp. With good AC, you'll last longer in a combat than with
> just high hp.

Meh...HP > all depending on the ATK of the mobs you fighting.

Vs low ATK mobs, AC > HP, vs high ATK mobs, HP > AC.

I generally go HP > all, but then I play a ranger (ac hahahah).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lief wrote:
> "Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
> news:sq4kr0hsicu0ohkc4ttnsj8hb78vgd21io@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:24:14 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
>>>the only thing to worry about? Or something else?
>>
>>AC should remain the most important stats for a pally. Then STA and
>>finally hp. With good AC, you'll last longer in a combat than with
>>just high hp.
>
>
> Meh...HP > all depending on the ATK of the mobs you fighting.
>
> Vs low ATK mobs, AC > HP, vs high ATK mobs, HP > AC.
>
> I generally go HP > all, but then I play a ranger (ac hahahah).
>
>
Well also 200 Ranja AC is not equal to 200 Paladin AC.
Different charts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:05:13 GMT, "Lief" <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:

>
>"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
>news:sq4kr0hsicu0ohkc4ttnsj8hb78vgd21io@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:24:14 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Is there some point where more AC just doesn't matter? Where HP's are
>> >the only thing to worry about? Or something else?
>>
>> AC should remain the most important stats for a pally. Then STA and
>> finally hp. With good AC, you'll last longer in a combat than with
>> just high hp.
>
>Meh...HP > all depending on the ATK of the mobs you fighting.

That is just flat out wrong for a plate tank. AC is, was, and
probably always will be, king of the combat stats for a plate tank.

>
>Vs low ATK mobs, AC > HP, vs high ATK mobs, HP > AC.

That is exactly backwards. vs. low ATK mobs you reach diminishing
returns on AC much sooner. (Again, from the perspective of a plate
tank, which the OP is.)

>
>I generally go HP > all, but then I play a ranger (ac hahahah).

AC is less effective for classes other than WAR/SHD/PAL. This is
probably why you think AC is more important vs. low ATK mobs, as
you would likely be below the point of substantial improvement
vs. high ATK mobs at your level. i.e. for you as a high level
Ranger what you said may well be true, but it is not true for a
plate tank.


kaev

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <j07kr0hftte7gb25cu3vnj05s6vk7dulbq@4ax.com>, Ben Sisson wrote:
> in his opinion against hp. However, the dev said that if anything the 10x1
> ratio was too kind to AC, and hinted the warriors should think in terms of
> even higher ratios (more value to hp). When the warrior debated his side
> more, the dev did say he knew the actual combat formulas, but that the
> warrior could believe whatever he liked.

Does anyone analyzing this kind of thing take into account things like
downtime? For example, suppose you had 1000 HP and 0 AC, fighting a mob
that does ~1000 points of damage to you in the time you can kill it, and you
want to be able to take two of these back to back. Suppose you could raise
HP to 2000 HP, or raise AC high enough to reduce the damage you take to 500.
Both would let you on average take two of the mobs back to back.

However, the "raise HP" approach would leave you with more downtime, as you
have 2000 HP to get back, or would require more mana from the healers. The
"raise AC" approach would leave you only needing to regen or be healed for
1000 HP.

On the other hand, the 2000 HP would be a lot nicer when you run into a
caster mob whose attack doesn't give a damn about your AC, and dying
certainly adds a lot of downtime.

Anyway, I suspect to really figure out which is more important requires log
parsing over a variety of encounters over a long time.

--
--Tim Smith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:01:15 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In article <j07kr0hftte7gb25cu3vnj05s6vk7dulbq@4ax.com>, Ben Sisson wrote:
>> in his opinion against hp. However, the dev said that if anything the 10x1
>> ratio was too kind to AC, and hinted the warriors should think in terms of
>> even higher ratios (more value to hp). When the warrior debated his side
>> more, the dev did say he knew the actual combat formulas, but that the
>> warrior could believe whatever he liked.
>
>Does anyone analyzing this kind of thing take into account things like
>downtime?

Of course, or more generally cost of recovery from damage taken.
It's no accident that highend tanks are reporting buffed ACs well
in excess of 2500. It's not uncommon to see advice along the lines
of "with only #### AC you'll need a second healer to tank there".

>For example, suppose you had 1000 HP and 0 AC, fighting a mob
>that does ~1000 points of damage to you in the time you can kill it, and you
>want to be able to take two of these back to back. Suppose you could raise
>HP to 2000 HP, or raise AC high enough to reduce the damage you take to 500.
>Both would let you on average take two of the mobs back to back.
>
>However, the "raise HP" approach would leave you with more downtime, as you
>have 2000 HP to get back, or would require more mana from the healers. The
>"raise AC" approach would leave you only needing to regen or be healed for
>1000 HP.
>
>On the other hand, the 2000 HP would be a lot nicer when you run into a
>caster mob whose attack doesn't give a damn about your AC, and dying
>certainly adds a lot of downtime.
>
>Anyway, I suspect to really figure out which is more important requires log
>parsing over a variety of encounters over a long time.

Actually, in-game experience is sufficient. If you're dying to damage
spikes you need more HP. If you're a mana sponge (i.e. you're running
your healer OOM) you need more AC. I think part of the reason HP are
often trumpeted as most crucial, besides the well known CH-chain
tactic, is that the former problem really demands rapid correction,
while the latter is less urgent and so gradual improvement is
acceptable to all.


kaev