Eladrin - a request for an AC experiment on Lamannia

[sirgog]

While you are playing around with AC tanks (and making some much-needed improvements to Defender lines), any chance of revisiting epic purple-named To-Hits?

As an experiment on Lamannia, can you adjust the Epic Cojoined Abashai Devastator to have 60+3d20 To-Hit (instead of the current 100+1d20 or whatever it is)? The first die rolled would still determine critical threats, grazes, and auto-misses, like Minion.

If you do this and we can test the encounter, it will hopefully help you fix the mess that is Epic monster To-Hit. If you feel it improves the feel of the encounter, perhaps it could be rolled out onto the Live servers (with potentially slightly different numbers for other bosses).


Here's the amount of physical damage mitigation that certain ACs would provide. This assumes that grazing hits deal 35% damage (in practise it's probably closer to 40%, but I set up my spreadsheet before properly thinking this through). Also note that misses due to natural 1s cause 5% mitigation even for a 0AC Kensai.


Plausible, sustainable/semi-sustainable ACs for a threat tank with 400+ threat per second:

70 AC - 5.7% mitigation
75 - 8.575%
80 - 15.05%
85 - 26.07%
90 - 40.6%
93 - 49.75%
95 - 55.61%
97 - 61.1%
100 - 68.3%

and more degenerate ACs (not currently sustainable on any character that's likely to be able to hold aggro)
105 - 76.7%
108 - 79.64%
110 - 80.92%
120 or anything higher - 82.75%

Note that you'd need an AC of 97 or so to take the same amount of physical damage from the CAD as players do on Live - Displacement and rolls of natural 1s provides 52.5% mitigation on Live, and the CAD hits harder on Lama than on Live by about 30 points.


Edit: Some other people have suggested 60+1d60, or 60+1d40 plus the usual d20 roll. Both could work, although I prefer to suggest dice that exist in pen and paper. 60+1d60 would reward sub-75 ACs quite a bit, which I wasn't really trying to do, and would require different mechanics than the present '1=automiss, 20=autohit, 13+=graze if it's not a hit'. 60+1d40 plus a standard 1d20 attack roll would make every point of AC from 81 to 99 worth almost exactly the same amount of extra mitigation (2.5% before consideration of grazing hits).

[The_Brave2]

If you do this and we can test the encounter, it will hopefully help you fix the mess that is Epic monster To-Hit.

but...but... that would make AC usefull. o_O

[grodon9999]

/signed

[sirgog]

but...but... that would make AC usefull. o_O

Yep. And every single point from 64 to 120 would matter too

But each point would be a maximum of about 3% mitigation (mostly closer to 2%), rather than the 5% that you get, say, going from 82 to 83 on Elite Horoth, or even the ~3.5% you get (less because of grazing hits) going from 88 to 89 on elite Horoth.

[The_Brave2]

Yep. And every single point from 64 to 120 would matter too

But each point would be a maximum of about 3% mitigation (mostly closer to 2%), rather than the 5% that you get, say, going from 82 to 83 on Elite Horoth, or even the ~3% you get (less because of grazing hits) going from 88 to 89 on elite Horoth.

I like that idea, something like that for trash mobs in epics would be a nice change also. trying to run the numbers in my head right now but failing to do so. 1 point giving 3% mitigation on a larger scale seems like a much better way to do things than 5% on a very small and difficult to hit range.

/Signed on the OP btw.

[voodoogroves]

I'd love to see this.

Esp. before I start TRing some toons; I wouldn't mind going the AC route on one if it was more rewarding.

[wax_on_wax_off]

Interesting idea but I'd prefer the suggestion in the other thread titled something like Iterative Attack Rolls.

Ie, roll for defense as well as offense and then compare results.

[DragonTroy]

this would be an excellent change, and would give people a legitimate chance at AC in epic, which i think has been needed. and this would also help to offset the weakening of players from raid bosses gaining true seeing

[sirgog]

Some damage mitigation figures from AC based on 60+3d20, and no grazing hits (Edit: Post 11 adds in grazing hits):

AC 50 - 5% (auto-miss on 1)
AC 60 - 5%
AC 65 - 5.0125%
AC 70 - 5.7%
AC 75 - 8.575%
AC 80 - 15.2%
AC 85 - 26.9875%
AC 90 - 43.05%
AC 95 - 60.3625%
AC 100 - 75.8%
AC 105 - 86.5%

Degenerate ACs (120+) - 95%

Actual damage mitigation would be noticeably lower in the 90+ range once grazing hits were factored in, as on Epic, if the first die roll is a 13-19 and the attack misses, a lot of damage still comes through.


Putting it another way - if you require one heal every 5th time you are hit by the CAD, you'd need a heal after the following number of swings (on average);

50-75: About every 5.25 -5.4 swings
80: About every 6 swings
85: About every 7 swings
90: About every 9 swings (7-ish when you are in his Acid Fog)
95: About every 12.5 swings (or every 9 in Acid Fog)
100+: Grazing hits are too significant at this level to ignore here, without me redoing the numbers counting them.


As for epic trash - I think most of it should be in the 50+2d20 to 70+2d20 range, with the 50+2d20 mobs hitting significantly harder than the 70+2d20 mobs. Epic rednameds mostly in the 50+3d20 range.

[The_Brave2]

Some damage mitigation figures from AC based on 60+3d20, and no grazing hits:

AC 50 - 5% (auto-miss on 1)
AC 60 - 5%
AC 65 - 5.0125%
AC 70 - 5.7%
AC 75 - 8.575%
AC 80 - 15.2%
AC 85 - 26.9875%
AC 90 - 43.05%
AC 95 - 60.3625%
AC 100 - 75.8%
AC 105 - 86.5%

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS.

[sirgog]

Edit - This post has basically been copied into Post 1.


Added in grazing hits on a 13 (and will assume a graze does 35% of the damage of a regular hit, 40% is probably more accurate in hindsight but the spreadsheet was set up at 35%).

Plausible, semi-sustainable ACs

70 AC - 5.7% mitigation
75 - 8.575%
80 - 15.05%
85 - 26.07%
90 - 40.6%
93 - 49.75%
95 - 55.61%
97 - 61.1%
100 - 68.3%

and more degenerate ACs:
105 - 76.7%
108 - 79.64%
110 - 80.92%
120 or anything higher - 82.75%

Note that for classes with AC increasing clickies (mostly rogues) that build for AC, they can significantly increase their survivability in a pinch by hitting these clickies. A baseline 84 AC rogue has 23.50% damage mitigation under this system - hit Uncanny Dodge, and that's instantly pushed up to 40.6%, perhaps letting you fill in after a tank stood in fire and died, at least until they can get rebuffed. Other AC builds usually have smaller AC boosts available.

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS.

The present system jumps much more.

Assuming 100+1d20, and grazes for 40% damage on a 13, it's like this:

105: 20% mitigation
110: 45%
115: 66%
116: 69%
120 or higher: 81%

That's 5% mitigation per AC point for a range, as opposed to about 3.1% maximum on the 3d20 setup.

[The_Brave2]

(mostly rogues) perhaps letting you fill in after a tank stood in fire and died, at least until they can get rebuffed.

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

[grodon9999]

I like this idea, but if it's done the grazes need to go.

[sirgog]

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

My first VOD completion had one. Probably one of the factors behind the 594 minute completion time. (This was when you could reenter after a wipe; I was only there for two hours of that).

[-Zyxas-]

I like this idea, but if it's done the grazes need to go.

Hmm... maybe they grazing hits could have an attack roll too, but a bit higher bonus, so they aren't completely gone so one isn't nearly fully invulnerable to damage except in bursts from spells?

[grodon9999]

Hmm... maybe they grazing hits could have an attack roll too, but a bit higher bonus, so they aren't completely gone so one isn't nearly fully invulnerable to damage except in bursts from spells?

You WILL NOT be invulnerable with a 60 +3d20 to-hit

Remember, the most SUSTAINABLE AC anything with very high threat can put out is 90-95ish.

[grodon9999]

Did....you just say let the rogue tank? ._.

Lelo's rogue used to tank stuff all the time.

[Dolphious]

/signed

As a long time PnP player I appreciate that Turbine tries not to move too far from the basic3.5 rules, but 1d20 is just not enough randomness to make for a meaningful AC vs. AB interplay at epic levels. Giving epic mobs 2d20, and epic bosses 3d20 (with a lower AB) would be a nice modest step that could make AC useful and interesting without altering the fundamentals of the game. I could see going even further, but one step at a time.

[The_Brave2]

Lelo's rogue used to tank stuff all the time.

My shock isnt about a rogue tanking, its about them loosing so much sneak attack damage tanking, so why bother

[Jaid314]

Seems like it takes a huge jump between those AC amounts. Overall looks solid, most builds would fall under the 15-35%ish mitigation while the exceptional builds would be hitting around 60% ish.

I like it. Would validate my AC build FVS.

naturally. the roll of 3d20 will tend towards the middle values much more than the rolls of 1d20...

that is, there is an even distribution from 1-20 on a d20, with a 5% chance of each number occuring (in theory). the odds of rolling a 10 or 11 are actually equal to the odds of rolling 1 or 20.

on 3d20, assuming you had that exactly equal distribution of numbers, you would only get a 3 in 1 out of every 8,000 rolls or something crazy like that (that is, you'd need to hit 3 consecutive 1/20 chances, so 1/20/20/20 = 1/8,000).

in comparison, to get a 4, it's something like... you could roll: 1,1,2 = 4, or you could roll 1, 2, 1 = 4, or you could roll 1, 1, 2 = 4, so three times as likely if i'm not mistaken... or 3/8,000 which is still not a very high chance.. for a 5, it could be 1, 1, 3 or 1, 3, 1 or 3, 1, 1 or 2, 2, 1 or 1, 2, 2 or 2, 1, 2, so 5 chances out of 8,000 (much higher, but still not high). this sort of thing continues on, with theoretically most rolls coming out right near the middle of the "bell curve" so to speak. as a result, you see a lot more variation in numbers close to the theoretical average value of 3d20 + 60 (ie 91.5).

this is why a 5 point difference from 70-75 (close to 3%) is worth so much less than the 5 point difference from 90-95 (close to 15%)

and of course, starting from 75 and onwards (the lowest value where the "first" roll can be 13 and up), each AC point tends to be slightly less valuable than it otherwise would be, although this is mostly overridden by the overall trend for AC to matter close to ~91.