So basically, AC is useless for everybody but stalwarts, DoS, and possibly monks because nobody else is going to have enough AC to matter in elites...pretty much the same system we had before except gearing for tanks is a lot easier now.
Printable View
So basically, AC is useless for everybody but stalwarts, DoS, and possibly monks because nobody else is going to have enough AC to matter in elites...pretty much the same system we had before except gearing for tanks is a lot easier now.
And monk-splashes are nerfed to useless regarding defense, but your assessment looks spot on otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isolani
But only for AC Tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
Neither the opening thesis statement of your OP nor your Thread Title alludes to the fact that this is a study of Tanks. Hence, the normal toon player who wanders in here and sees that 100AC is still going to be hit 100% of the time according to your numbers, is going to come to the conclusion that AC is just as worthless as ever.
No. The whole reason I like the change to the AC/to-hit system is that it makes efficient melee less costly, because frankly melee isn't that useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
I just went into epic elite "Don't Drink the Water" and tested displacement and uncanny dodge against a mudman. I was "missed" 5 times in a row, which is not a very likely occurrence if I have a 70% chance (0.2%) of getting hit. No, from my cursory observations it would seem that I had about a 38% chance of getting hit (combining the statistics with my understanding of how dodge/concealment stacks).
Newsflash: the changes to the combat mechanics made it less necessary to min-max. I know that ruins most everyone's day, but the name of the game is now to balance your statistics so that you have a little bit of everything.
you missed the point. the lower ac will sure help you a lot against trash mobs. not everything in the game has the same to-hit modifier as EE LOB. My numbers show a variety of AC against several to-hit values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
So yes even an 80 AC is going to provide some protection against trash mobs. But if you want to go up against the highest to-hit mobs I also show what AC is necessary to help there.
Obviously not everyone needs to get high AC ... it would be pointless as most melee characters will not end up tanking EE LOB. '
I also purposely left dodge / concealment / prr calculations from this thread as it was "Thoughts on AC" . As far as relying on blur and displacement go ... raid bosses have true seeing.
I'm trying to figure out how the above sentence makes sense unless your idea of "balanced stats' on a melee is dumping everything except STR and CON.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Regarding defense in post U14 DDO your stats don't matter.
No, I'm sorry it doesn't. Not in EE despite what that chart says.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
The other "stuff" helped from a decent amount of testing I've observed with trash you need to get to at least 120 to see enough misses for it to be more than luck.
Sure over 120 is a lot better than 80 ... I didn't say i recommended running around with 80 AC in EE content just that it would provide some protection against trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ape_Man
I never advocated relying soley on AC. post MOTU defense in DDO is a blend of many factors. I am merely pointing out what the AC calculation really is and what that means against various to-hit numbers.
It makes sense to those who understand balancing trade-offs. For min-maxers that can usually be a chore, because they see everything in black and white. If something is "good" it needs maximized, if its "not good" it needs to be minimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ape_Man
Welcome to the world of grey. The whole point of my post was to show that I attained reasonable levels of defense with basically no AC at all. Add raid buffs and my AC probably reaches levels that mitigate some damage, added to the already reasonable level of defense means that I'm close to a Stalwart without much expense.
As for dumping everything but strength and con, once again you fail to see the big picture. Improved trip requires combat expertise which requires 13 intelligence. UMD requires skill points which increase in quantity with intelligence. A better will save requires wisdom, feats, or charisma+feat. A better reflex save utilizes dexterity, feats, or int+feat. All of these things increase a melee's ability to function in the game, and with decreased melee costs they become applicable. Some fighters may even choose to specialize in ranged and melee equally.
Min-max now equals gimp. You can protest all you want about it, it's just the way it is.
But those other statistics work in parallel with AC and some of them work almost identically. You can't ignore them, you have to look at the whole picture if you want to discuss AC in any meaningful light.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
My response was to your claim that non-AC guys will be getting hit 70% of the time. In a raid-boss situation, the non-AC guys will probably not be getting hit at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
No the other stats stack with AC. My claim dealt with the AC portion only of defense on purpose. As to what AC and non AC toon means that is up to the individual to decide how much investment to put into it for the returns it gives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
I largely did the research on this subject because I constantly heard in game that 125 AC was about equivalent to 150 AC. So after researching the matter I presented the facts here.
My charts were solely provided to help visualize and understand what Y ac means against X mob to-hit.
It really never ceases to amaze me how people can misinterpret such numbers.
Now if I were to post a thread entitled "Thoughts on Defense" I would have obviously included other such stats. This thread was solely for helping to understand what AC meant. So yeah you may have a decent defense without AC ... Go make a thread to talk about it.
When building defenders in post U14 DDO this is NOTHING to trade off, nothing to think about, nothing to plan, no need to be creative, no need to bother to mitigate losses. Your ED/class/PRE and basic junk does all the work for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Quite simply put . . . there is NOTHING to minimax.
Despite what many apes post on the forums the needed be minimax raw DPS or pure defense has never been needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
There is a huge difference between building for some AC and mini-maxing.
Building for AC now is pointless as ANYTHING beyond basic gear like armor does so little it doesn't matter.
We live in a world of +3 tomes falling from the sky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
10 Int + 3 tome equals almost no investment. And yes, Improved trip is awesome.
No point in putting any more in DEX than the MDB of your armor. This used to be a more important stat when 5 more points of AC mattered, now it's so watered down you might as well dump it. Anything more than the TWFing investment is a waste in now that S&B is as good as it is that's a better path.
Your will-save on a fighter will be terrible anyway. hell, mine used to be monk splashed with a 14 starting Wisdom an his will save is STILL terrible :)
I have 107+ intimidate now on a stalwart who started with 8 CHR.
Okay, so maybe STR/CON 18/16 at hitting the bear minimums is needed for other stats.
It's always = gimped. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
We seem to share this opinion
What other stat works parallel with AC? I'm still not getting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
The non-AC guy will get hit a hell of a lot more than that in EE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Ah, I see. For electrical engineers the statement "in parallel" probably carries more meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by PainStealer
If my AC is mitigating 25% damage by itself, and my concealment is mitigating 50% damage, by itself, the combination does not mitigate 75% damage. It mitigates 62%.
So, ya it stacks, but in a way that makes it impossible to discuss AC separately without taking other things into consideration (it's non-linear). For a clearer picture, let's assume I have 50% concealment, 10% dodge, 10% incorporeal, and 33 PRR (18.4%). I'm already taking 0.50 * 0.90 * 0.90 * 0.816 = 0.33 (33%) of the damage I would take without defense, so whether my AC is 200 or 80 is only going to shift the damage I take within that 33% window (and actually within a window about two-thirds that size).
Which is why you work with shades of gray. You balance your AC for the maximum benefit against the least amount of cost (a cost-benefit economic analysis). If AC is very cheap up to a certain point, but displacement has a very high entry cost - you may decide to forego displacement. Note that there are multiple routes to get displacement as well (Shroud item(s), Elf Dragonmark, Scrolls, or even Wizard splash), just as there are multiple ways of getting AC. Natural +5 and Deflection +5 are usually very cheap to acquire - is wearing that +6/+7 item really going to be worth it?
The changes to the game made the cheapest prices occur in the midrange. So, basically you want to balance all your stats so they hit midpoints. You'll wind up with the best stats overall.
What does any of the have to do with a character's stats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Because once you have hit the cheapest midpoints, the options that remain are not limited to "spend everything in STR and CON."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ape_Man
We could talk about to-hits the same way we are talking about AC, I just felt it was beyond the scope of this discussion. But let's go there. If you have a 56 strength, easily boostable to lets say 70 - then 6 build points spent in STR moving it from 18 to 20 is netting you a total increase of damage output of approximately 1/80 = 1.25%.
If you spend the same 6 build points in intelligence, moving it from a 6 to a 12, you wind up with an extra 69 skill points, 46 usable to move UMD from 0 to 23. You can use that UMD to cast Tensor's scrolls which give you bonuses that increase your damage output and defense by more than the 1.25% you lost.
Also, choosing elf for the dragonmark feats requires that you automatically take -2 con and +2 (+4 with enhancements) to dexterity.
Trying to follow . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
With you so far . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Sorta following your train of thought . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
You lost me at "elf" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Raithe
Ok so with so many threads about AC on EE, which one is wrong?
AC from having changed and not working for the new endgame?
Or EE from being the too hard challenge that plays around your build?
If AC is wrong is it because you can't have high enough for EE? would having more of it to reach higher solve it?
Or needs absolutely to be changed to the old way because that would work with EE? (assuming EE won't cheat again)
If EE is wrong, is the multiple defenses working as intended? where you slap AC with PRR and dodge, displace, etc.
Is multiple defenses failing because EE numbers are too high or because there's not enough sources for everyone?
Is it affecting all tanks or only dex builds and non-stance monks?
Or maybe everyone is meant to be hit badly in EE? does that need changing?
Aside of EH being too easy, if that would be intended for non maxxers.
The raid scenario may or may not be a different issue, which supposedly lacks the long term goal of the old endgame.
And the easy gear in the expansion may also be intended for the new players reaching that stage.
Would having a new pack or raid with gear worth grinding kill both of the issues in one shot?
ofc that would get into the issue about the vicious circle spoiling the challenge.
Question:
Where is the "investment" in armor class?
Using the OP's numbers, an insane armor class of 200 against the lowest to-hit provided represents a 75% defense chance. Now that Mabar is here assume that everyone and their uncle who fights in melee range is going to:
1. Use Blur, Smoke Screen or otherwise get 20% concealment
2. Wear a Mabar cloak for 10% incorporeality
3. Players are still granted the legacy "Mobs always miss 5% of the time anyways"
A mob with the lowest to-hit provided attacking a 200 AC character with the above buffs has an 18% hit chance.
The same mob attacking a 0 Armor Class character with the above buffs has a 68% hit chance.
If you add in 10% dodge:
The 200 AC character gets hit 16% of the time
The 0 AC character gets hit 62% of the time
It seems that under these conditions, that at best Massive AC provides less than 3 times the damage mitigation of 0 AC.
I don't know, but it seems that people would be better served by grinding Mabar tokens and getting the cloak than building for Armor Class.
I'm sure I'm missing something here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusCleardawn
I'm no math-ologist, but the difference between being hit 16% and 62% is, um, a lot.
The difference between 16 and 62 percent is not worth building for AC?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusCleardawn
Also take into account that the two are not mutually exclusive. Its not an OR situation but an AND situation. The best way to build for total protection is to have good AC -AND- good blur / ghostly / dodge. PRR doesnt hurt for when you do take damage as well.
The difference between 16% and 68% is something. But that is the maximum difference, and most of the time it won't be that large as most will be using the new random loot from the MoTU expansion. Given the parabolic nature of armor class, this coincidental armor class will provide much more mitigation point for point than in the 200+ AC build. But, the real issue is "Where is the investment?"
Most of the Armor in Armor Class comes from actual armor. The best of which, currently, is generally randomly generated loot from the MoTU expansion. There is relatively little investment in getting random loot that possibly drops from any quest of sufficient level, unlike say the grind to get ToD rings, Levic's Defender, the Chattering Ring, etc.
It also seems that the new shield feat bonuses have significantly reduced the DPS hit from going sword and board.
To me, when you say "Armor Class is a worthwhile investment" you have to compare it to what you gave up to get it. In the old days, we had to give up a lot of DPS or other nifty things to eke out that last bit of Armor Class, e.g. taking a Chattering Ring instead of ToD ring, or putting an insight bonus on a Greensteel weapon instead of a burst effect.
One of the things that people often fail to account for in their durability/damage mitigation evaluations is the amount of damage mitigation of killing the other guy more quickly. To illustrate, imagine a character being beat upon by 5 enemies. If the AC build has sacrificed enough DPS so that it takes an extra swing to defeat each opponent. The AC build is subject to more 15 attacks (5+4+3+2+1 = 15) assuming mob attack rate and player attack rates are equivalent.
Assuming it took 4 attacks for the AC build to defeat an opponent and the DPS build only 3, then the DPS build achieves an additional 25% damage mitigation by receiving 25% fewer attacks.
I think I'll sleep now and see if I make sense later.