Armor Class: Is there a chart somewhere which depicts its effectiveness?

[oweieie]

AC went from being important to 5% of the characters to 100% of the characters, now everyone benefits from increasing their AC, no matter how high or low it is. It may have been dead in the past, but it's alive now. You always benefit from more AC.

Someone drank the koolaid. This is what the devs said. It may even be what the devs intended. It is not what the devs gave us. AC is completely irrelevant now. EN/EH are a total joke, however much AC helps there is irrelevant, you'd beat them easily naked. In EE AC does nothing.

And no matter how good your AC is you cap out at 75% miss. You can no longer get away with maxing your AC in low level content and getting a 95% miss. You now take 5x the damage you used to. Ouch.

[Mastikator]

Someone drank the koolaid. This is what the devs said. It may even be what the devs intended. It is not what the devs gave us. AC is completely irrelevant now. EN/EH are a total joke, however much AC helps there is irrelevant, you'd beat them easily naked. In EE AC does nothing.

And no matter how good your AC is you cap out at 75% miss. You can no longer get away with maxing your AC in low level content and getting a 95% miss. You now take 5x the damage you used to. Ouch.

How can you base the entire system on how it only affects EH/EE? Seriously, how? How can the other 90% of the game not even matter?

[Dandonk]

How can you base the entire system on how it only affects EH/EE? Seriously, how? How can the other 90% of the game not even matter?

Well, I have no clue. But the devs changed the old system based off how it was performing in the old epics, so you might ask them.

[Missing_Minds]

DR is huge too. I have a druid with 26 DR(combined total from 4 sources/types of DR) 110 AC and 85% PRR.

Huh??? DR doesn't stack unless you are talking adamatine on a WF with FVS. Or barbarian DR/- with FotW.

Also PRR beats the **** out of DR.

[Ingemar]

I've never seen the need to worry about AC.

Aggro control is much more important.

Aggro control and high damage output works pretty well in this game. One of the best Aggro controls is killing your opponent before it gets close enough to hit you.

If you have to take damage, then enough hp so that you can survive a hit or two and make sure you can get healed, by a pocket hire if need be.

[Ape_Man]

How can you base the entire system on how it only affects EH/EE? Seriously, how? How can the other 90% of the game not even matter?

The rest of the game isn't difficult enough to matter.

Grape or cherry Koolaid?

[oweieie]

How can you base the entire system on how it only affects EH/EE? Seriously, how? How can the other 90% of the game not even matter?

They made EE only item drops.

They made EH and below so easy that how good or bad your character is is irrelevant.

Have 500 AC. Win EH easily. Have 0 AC. Win EH easily. Does that not explain how it doesn't matter?

[GoldyGopher]

I have the data, however it doesn't chart nice because it gets ugly when talking about PRR and Dodge.

When talking about AC I should point out the obvious, AC matters more the longer you are getting hit by a single mob. As chance and happenstance become more removed from the equation. Thus I consider AC more about tanking mobs then taking on a single mob mono-e-mono.

Against a CR 50 Mob for example (IE The Truthful One EE is a 51)
AC < 70 will be hit virtually 95% of the time
AC = 90 will be hit 73% of the time
AC = 110 will be hit 60% of the time
AC > 130 will be hit less than 50% of the time
This doesn't reflect PRR and or Dodge.

Against a CR 40 Mob for example (IE The Truthful One EN is a 42?)
AC < 50 will be hit virtually 95% of the time
AC = 65 will be hit 78% of the time
AC = 85 will be hit 60% of the time
AC > 100 will be hit less than 50% of the time
Again this doesn't reflect PRR and or Dodge.

My data doesn't extend past 150 because I wasn't sure what a truly reachable number is.
There are two huge differences between EN and EE, first is the CR of the mobs, the Truthful one increases his CR by 9 (assuming the numbers given to me are correct) and his HP are reduced by approximately 50% so he doesn't hit anywhere near as hard or as often and he would be there half the amount of time.

Against this CR 50 mob the sweet spot is roughly an AC of 90. Not taking into account PRR and Dodge. This is where the graph of hit chance vs. AC starts leveling off, ie the delta in the chance to be hit is larger from 89 to 90 than it is from 90 to 91. Between 70 AC and 90 roughly 1 point of AC reduces the chance of being hit by 1%. After 130 every 5 points of AC = 1% chance reduction in being hit.

Assuming a Dodge of 10% really only drops the sweet spot by 5 points (IE an AC of 85 with dodge 10% is roughly the equivalent of an AC of 90 with 0% Dodge.)
In looking at the data at the sweet spots I made the simplistic determination that 1% of Dodge is equal to the 100-[CR Level]/100 * Dodge Chance = AC. So a Level 51 Mob would be ((100-51)/100)*10% (Dodge) = 4.9 AC. There are multiple rounding issues there but it makes a simple formula which appears to be fairly close.

I can get into the math of what I call "Dodge Loss" later but needless to say a word of warning is needed: the higher your AC the MORE dodge helps you while the inverse is also true the lower your AC the LESS Dodge helps you over multiple attacks (fighting Red and Purple named mobs).

[Feithlin]

I have the data, however it doesn't chart nice because it gets ugly when talking about PRR and Dodge.

When talking about AC I should point out the obvious, AC matters more the longer you are getting hit by a single mob. As chance and happenstance become more removed from the equation. Thus I consider AC more about tanking mobs then taking on a single mob mono-e-mono.

Against a CR 50 Mob for example (IE The Truthful One EE is a 51)
AC < 70 will be hit virtually 95% of the time
AC = 90 will be hit 73% of the time
AC = 110 will be hit 60% of the time
AC > 130 will be hit less than 50% of the time
This doesn't reflect PRR and or Dodge.

Against a CR 40 Mob for example (IE The Truthful One EN is a 42?)
AC < 50 will be hit virtually 95% of the time
AC = 65 will be hit 78% of the time
AC = 85 will be hit 60% of the time
AC > 100 will be hit less than 50% of the time
Again this doesn't reflect PRR and or Dodge.

My data doesn't extend past 150 because I wasn't sure what a truly reachable number is.
There are two huge differences between EN and EE, first is the CR of the mobs, the Truthful one increases his CR by 9 (assuming the numbers given to me are correct) and his HP are reduced by approximately 50% so he doesn't hit anywhere near as hard or as often and he would be there half the amount of time.

Against this CR 50 mob the sweet spot is roughly an AC of 90. Not taking into account PRR and Dodge. This is where the graph of hit chance vs. AC starts leveling off, ie the delta in the chance to be hit is larger from 89 to 90 than it is from 90 to 91. Between 70 AC and 90 roughly 1 point of AC reduces the chance of being hit by 1%. After 130 every 5 points of AC = 1% chance reduction in being hit.

Assuming a Dodge of 10% really on drops the sweet spot by 5 points (IE an AC of 85 with dodge 10% is roughly the equivalent of an AC of 90 with 0% Dodge.)
In looking at the data at the sweet spots I made the simplistic determination that 1% of Dodge is equal to the 100-[CR Level]/100 * Dodge Chance = AC. So a Level 51 Mob would be ((100-51)/100)*10% (Dodge) = 4.9 AC. There are multiple rounding issues there but it makes a simple formula which appears to be fairly close.

I can get into the math of what I call "Dodge Loss" later but needless to say a word of warning is needed: the higher your AC the MORE dodge helps you while the inverse is also true the lower your AC the LESS Dodge helps you over multiple attacks (fighting Red and Purple named mobs).

Did you test it to get those results? If so, that would confirm To-hit = 2.5 * CR (actually a bit less, but with variations of course).

*Edit: It would be, based on your results, Attack = CR * 2.2 or 2.3 on eN and CR * 2.4 on eE. The variation probably comes from the limited sample I suppose.

[GoldyGopher]

Did you test it to get those results? If so, that would confirm To-hit = 2.5 * CR (with some variations of course).

I have done some testing (a couple of thousand data points) and was fairly close. I have a new toy that should help testing and verification of the results. A ring with insight 5 on it which theoretically should create noticeable 5% difference over multiple attacks considering I can hit a number of sweet spots with AC.

The data which would really require a decent DB to generate results more accurately rather then multiple Excel tables which creates some rounding issues which while I have tried to address is far more complicated than I expected and more difficult to clean up. By that I mean when dealing with PRR and Dodge together with AC.

[oweieie]

Against a CR 50 Mob for example (IE The Truthful One EE is a 51)
AC < 70 will be hit virtually 95% of the time
AC = 90 will be hit 73% of the time
AC = 110 will be hit 60% of the time
AC > 130 will be hit less than 50% of the time
This doesn't reflect PRR and or Dodge.

Being used as a cat scratching post in EE Reclaiming the Rift by the boss, I sure wasn't being missed 30% of the time. I don't know his CR off hand but it is pre-druid so it should only be stupid high instead of dropped-on-it's-head-as-a-baby high.

[redspecter23]

Being used as a cat scratching post in EE Reclaiming the Rift by the boss, I sure wasn't being missed 30% of the time. I don't know his CR off hand but it is pre-druid so it should only be stupid high instead of dropped-on-it's-head-as-a-baby high.

Which begs the question, is the entire mechanic bugged? I know I wasn't being missed 30ish% of the time when I was running a high AC monk in epic elites. This is one of those situations where there could be a massive bug that makes us all take more hits than we should but because of the convoluted system, there is very little we can do to prove it.

[taurean430]

There was a pretty good player write up regarding this issue in the Beta threads when they introduced this system. I'm not sure it's able to be found anymore but I'll take a look...

[Mastikator]

The rest of the game isn't difficult enough to matter.

Grape or cherry Koolaid?

A case can easily be made that since EH/EE represents a minority of the game and should only be given proportional consideration.
The fact that the AC change improved the vast majority of the total gameplay is still true, your rude comments not withstanding.

[mr.stone]

Without some kind of magic,i.e.+'s,buffs,DR,etc.,AC is basically nonexistant after the lower lvls.

[taurean430]

Here's a couple places to look for baseline analysis:

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=113

Originally posted by Moltier
Devs! Please read and reply.
(WARNING, huge post with way too much, but required info)

Since in the last update nothing really changed again, it is time for me to post again.
Maybe its not too late. Maybe.
But some quotes first:

“We look forward to your questions.

-Torc”


“Vargouille:
All of the threads are being read. Some posts take a lot more time, so it's not like dev attention is being supremely focused in one direction. Eladrin spent a long time writing up AC as well as Poison & Disease, but those first two (well, three) large posts are still only three posts. Writing up a short reply about one Epic Destiny Enhancement might take only a few minutes, so far more such posts may be written.

It's misleading to presume that number of posts within topics is the same thing as amount of focus and attention on those topics.”


Last post from a dev in these threads: (there were over 1600 posts around this point, in the dev started threads alone)
05-24-2012

Number of replies to AC threads: ~15.

Since beta1, basically nothing changed. Coincidence?

----------------

Hopefully this will open the devs eyes.
I bolded some lines to make the problems more noticable (both that hurt us and help us). Actually most lines should be bolded, but the problems are the same usually.

(Player’s Attack Bonus + 10.5) / (Target’s Armor Class * 2) + 25%, rounded to nearest 5%
(Not counting player attack sequence) (or Precision feat +5%)

-5 to hit lvl1 caster in full plate vs 5AC kobold: 80% chance (little bit broken)
-5 to hit lvl1 caster in full plate vs 35AC elite GH mob: 33% → 35% chance (totally broken)
-5 to hit lvl1 caster in full plate vs 65AC epic boss: 29% → 30% (seriously?)
-5 to hit lvl1 caster in full plate vs 80AC future boss: 28% → 30% (...)
-5 to hit lvl1 caster in full plate vs 160AC god: 26% → 25% (cute)

10 to hit lvl1 guy vs 5AC weak kobold: 230% → 95% chance (no change here)
10 to hit lvl1 guy vs 35AC elite GH mob: 54% → 55% chance (broken)
10 to hit lvl1 guy vs 65AC epic boss: 40% → 40% chance (seriously?)
10 to hit lvl1 guy vs 80AC future boss: 38% → 40% chance

30 to hit mid lvl guy vs 5AC weak kobold: 430% → 95% chance (no change here)
30 to hit mid lvl guy vs 35AC elite GH mob: 83% → 85% chance (good!)
30 to hit mid lvl guy vs 65AC epic boss: 56% chance (broken)
30 to hit mid lvl guy vs 80AC future boss: 50% chance

40 to hit undergeared lvl20 guy vs 5AC weak kobold: 95% (no change here)
40 to hit undergeared lvl20 guy vs 35AC elite GH mob: 97% → 95% (no change here)
40 to hit undergeared lvl20 guy vs 65AC epic boss: 63% → 65% (broken)
40 to hit undergeared lvl20 guy vs 80AC future boss: 56% → 55%

65 to hit epic melee vs 65AC epic boss: 83% → 85% (not good, but its ok)
65 to hit epic melee vs 80AC future boss: 72% → 70% (broken)
65 to hit epic melee vs 160AC god: 48% → 50% (the lvl caster with negative to hit can reach 25%...)

80 to hit future melee vs 65AC epic boss: 94% → 95% (broken, yet works)
80 to hit future melee vs 80AC future boss: 81% → 80% (broken)
80 to hit future melee vs 160AC god: 53% → 55%
80 to hit future melee vs 500AC: 34% → 35% (just for fun!)

The higher we go with to hit and enemy AC, the worst it become for us.

----------------

(Monster’s Attack Bonus + 10.5) / (Target’s Armor Class * 2)

0 to hit monster vs 10AC: 53% chance to hit
0 to hit monster vs 20AC: 26%
0 to hit monster vs 40AC: 13%
0 to hit monster vs 60AC: 9%
0 to hit monster vs 80AC: 7%
0 to hit monster vs 100AC: 5%
0 to hit monster vs 120AC: 5%

20 to hit monster vs 20AC: 76% chance to hit
20 to hit monster vs 40AC: 38%
20 to hit monster vs 60AC: 25%
20 to hit monster vs 80AC: 19%
20 to hit monster vs 100AC: 15%
20 to hit monster vs 120AC: 13%
20 to hit monster vs 140AC: 11%
20 to hit monster vs 160AC: 10%
20 to hit monster vs 180AC: 8%

40 to hit monster vs 30AC: 84% chance to hit
40 to hit monster vs 40AC: 63%
40 to hit monster vs 60AC: 42%
40 to hit monster vs 80AC: 32%
40 to hit monster vs 100AC: 25%
40 to hit monster vs 120AC: 21%
40 to hit monster vs 140AC: 18%
40 to hit monster vs 160AC: 16%
40 to hit monster vs 180AC: 14%

60 to hit monster vs 40AC: 88%
60 to hit monster vs 60AC: 59%
60 to hit monster vs 80AC: 44%
60 to hit monster vs 100AC: 35%
60 to hit monster vs 120AC: 29%
60 to hit monster vs 140AC: 25%
60 to hit monster vs 160AC: 22%
60 to hit monster vs 180AC: 20%

80 to hit monster vs 50AC: 90%
80 to hit monster vs 60AC: 75%
80 to hit monster vs 80AC: 57%
80 to hit monster vs 100AC: 45%
80 to hit monster vs 120AC: 38%
80 to hit monster vs 140AC: 32%
80 to hit monster vs 160AC: 28%
80 to hit monster vs 180AC: 25%

100 to hit monster vs 60AC: 92%
100 to hit monster vs 80AC: 69%
100 to hit monster vs 100AC: 55%
100 to hit monster vs 120AC: 46%
100 to hit monster vs 140AC: 39%
100 to hit monster vs 160AC: 35%
100 to hit monster vs 180AC: 31%

120 to hit monster vs 70AC: 93%
120 to hit monster vs 80AC: 82%
120 to hit monster vs 100AC: 65%
120 to hit monster vs 120AC: 54%
120 to hit monster vs 140AC: 47%
120 to hit monster vs 160AC: 41%
120 to hit monster vs 180AC: 36%
120 to hit monster vs 1000AC: 6.5%

---------------

If its not obvious, here are the problems:
The differences are way to low for the extra work. Often 3-5 point increase to hit or AC at high level means next to nothing. These both true for players and mobs.
Its always the last few points are the hardest to get, but now its the least usefull.
The usual epic mob hit almost as often then the current badass eLoB. And the higher these numbers go, the closer the hit chance get.

80 to hit future melee vs 80AC future boss: 81% → 80% chance to hit
75 to hit future melee vs 80AC future boss: 78% → 80%
65 to hit epic melee vs 65AC epic boss: 83% → 85%
70 to hit epic melee vs 65AC epic boss: 87% → 85%

107 to hit eLoB vs 120AC avarage tank: 49%
79 to hit nLoB vs 120AC avarage tank: 37%
75 to hit eHoroth vs 120AC avarage tank: 36%
65 to hit nHoroth vs 120AC avarage tank: 31%
70 to hit weak epic mob vs 120AC avarage tank: 33%
80 to hit avarage epic mob vs 120AC avarage tank: 38%
90 to hit strong epic mob vs 120AC avarage tank: 42%

107 to hit eLoB vs 80AC dps melee: 73%
79 to hit nLoB vs 80AC dps melee: 56%
75 to hit eHoroth vs 80AC dps melee: 53%
65 to hit nHoroth vs 80AC dps melee: 47%
70 to hit weak epic mob vs 80AC dps melee: 50%
80 to hit avarage epic mob vs 80AC dps melee: 57%
90 to hit strong epic mob vs 80AC dps melee: 63%

107 to hit eLoB vs 180AC avarage tank: 32%
79 to hit nLoB vs 180AC avarage tank: 25%
75 to hit eHoroth vs 180AC avarage tank: 24%
65 to hit nHoroth vs 180AC avarage tank: 21%
70 to hit weak epic mob vs 180AC avarage tank: 22%
80 to hit avarage epic mob vs 180AC avarage tank: 25%
90 to hit strong epic mob vs 180AC avarage tank: 28%

Then apply all the other sources like dodge, PRR, DR, concelament (or even incorp.) and they will be even closer to each other.
Put the 80AC mainly dps focused but high HP character into tanking position, and your golden.
With the new gears, 80AC isnt as hard to reach as before. Be a fighter or paladin and you are pretty close already. Or be a barbarian, and you have higher dodge.
Or put there the slow to level, most grind required AC tank, and heal half as much...
Epic LoB and any future melee boss would become a joke.
On the other hand, these tanks will take a lot of damage from mobs and will need heal there as well, and actually quite a lot since they kill slower then the dps guy with half as much AC.

Also, if i would take a huge meteor into the face, i would expect myself to take the hit and die. It doesnt matter if i wear a paper hat, or a metal helmet.
When elite horoth (the meteor) hit a low AC barbarian (the face), im sure the barbarian player expect to get hit. Maybe if the barbarian wears a lot of magical defenses, then the barb should have a chance.
When i swing a staff with a lvl1 wizard in full plate without armor proficiency, i expect my wizzy to miss high lvl mobs almost all the time. And especially not hit epic mobs 25% of the time and graze them 70% of the time. Btw sneak attacks apply to grazes, so a rogue with 8STR and DEX with his fist could do a hundred of damage/hit. Which means you can throw out the enemys ACs on the window vs rogues, since half of their damage comes from sneak attacks, and with the new system, they will hit often anyway.

------------------------

Let see the old broken AC system.
D20, so pretty easy, too easy actually, and thats its problem.

This a quote from Eladrin:
“(Tabletop D&D has a few systems that address the disparity, such as additional attacks per turn at increasing penalties - even if the first attack will hit you 95% of the time, the second or third attack might miss if you have some focus on AC.)”

I have suggested to apply these penalties to monsters before multiple times, and not just me but many of us.

This is how it should look like:
0-10 mob to hit: 0
11-30 mob to hit: 0/-5
31-50 mob to hit: 0/-5/-10 (GH, vale)
51-70 mob to hit: 0/-5/-10/-15 (amrath, cannith)
71-90 mob to hit: 0/-5/-10/-15/-20 (cannith, high lvl bosses, epic mobs)
91-110 mob to hit: 0/-5/-10/-15/-20/-25 (most epic bosses, eLoB)
111-130 mob to hit: 0/-5/-10/-15/-20/-25/-30 (future bosses)
etc...

Spells and special attacks shouldnt break these sequences.

Usefull AC ranges with the suggested system:
GH: AC range is 25-30 now. 35-40AC would be more usefull. AC with some investment would work there. Its not perfect protection, but it helps.
Amrath, Cannith: AC range is 35 now. 55-60AC would be usefull.
Cannith, High level bosses, epic mobs: AC range is 40 now. 70AC would work.
Epic LoB and epic bosses: AC range is 45 now. 90-95AC would work.

Now compare these to the new broken system:

New: 20 to hit vs 20, 30 and 40AC: 76%, 51%, 38%
Suggested: 20 to hit 20, 30 and 40AC: 87.5%, 42,5%, 5%

New: 40 to hit vs 40, 50 and 60AC: 63%, 51%, 42%
Suggested: 40 to hit vs 40, 50 and 60AC: 77%, 30%, 5%

New: 60 to hit vs 50, 60, 70 and 80AC: 71%, 59%, 50%, 44%
Suggested: 60 to hit vs 50, 60, 70 and 80AC: 91%, 65%, 24%, 5%

New: 80 to hit vs 70, 80, 90 and 100AC: 65%, 57%, 50%, 45%
Suggested: 80 to hit vs 70, 80, 90 and 100AC: 84%, 53%, 20%, 5%

New: 100 to hit vs 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120AC: 69%, 61%, 55%, 50%, 46%
Suggested: 100 to hit vs 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120AC: 92.5%, 75%, 45%, 17.5%, 5%

See the wonder? It scales well, it provides good defense for moderate AC character vs epic bosses, yet it wouldnt kill the very high AC characters.
In non epics even 60AC would work, in epics even 80AC would give almost 50% defense vs mobs.
As bonus for anyone with armor, give 5, 10, 15% DR (light, medium and heavy armor) if have proficiency, and 5% bonus to adamantine and mithral. More to defenders.
Player to hit would remain the same, so everyone happy. No PA rage, no need to change half the game (thats what devs doing atm).
Oh and its based on DnD!!!

Now about that magical 5%. First, that 5% after adding in the grazing hits are 15-20% in elites, epics.
Against mobs, it shouldnt bother the devs, since every caster can deal with them without trouble.
Why should melees have a goal to be well protected from them? Its not like these AC characters kill like a barbarian, or a caster.
Against bosses it could be a problem in a raid, if the raid is poorly designed, if nothing else happen, just a boss melee a tank. With the new system, tanks could be really close to this 5% without team effort. With my suggestion, tanks could reach it only with really really good team work in epic levels. Elite Horoth doesnt matter anymore. He is old. Though he is still badass vs non epic geared characters.
After more then a year, non ever could reach that 5% against eLoB with debuffs.
The new system would make AC and other sources OP there.
The suggested attack sequenc would make it usefull, but far from OP, but we could still have a goal to be better. With the new system its not possible. 1% with lot of effort isnt improvement, its silliness.

Again, with the attack sequence, just some basic changes needed.

Also, http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...94&postcount=9

No ... the moral of the story is that AC is far more useful in epic content than ever before. You used to get hit far more often in epic content than you do now. However do not be lulled into a false sense of security by the misleadingly high numbers shown on your character sheet. And the more to - Hit that a mob has the more that higher AC values help you.


I re ran the numbers for the 160 to hit that is posted in the wiki... even though that is higher than a dev said it was ..

AC 160 to hit
100 14.75%
105 18.81%
110 22.50%
115 25.87%
120 28.96%
125 31.80%
130 34.42%
135 36.85%
140 39.11%
145 41.21%
150 43.17%
155 45.00%
160 46.72%
165 48.33%
170 49.85%
175 51.29%
180 52.64%
185 53.92%
190 55.13%
195 56.28%
200 57.38%

And the well geared stalwart (160-170 AC) is getting missed almost half the time. while the less AC focused guys are getting hit about 70% of the time.... That is a HUGE difference in survivability. SO IMHO ... Build for AC ... then build for heal amp and PRR .... but AC first .... for a stalwart that it.

Both threads are chock full of useful tidbits. The big wheeeeee occurred when it was noted that there was no way that the to hit numbers for enemy mobs would stay at the low levels the devs were reporting. We can all see that today clearly if you've run anything on an ac toon in 20 and above level content. That proposed high end 114 to hit bonus was a silly low number to estimate from. It's suspected that mobs have CRX3+bonuses in epic content and perhaps even more than that.

[GoldyGopher]

I should point out there are a lot of variables involved in AC discussions now-a-days and my excel spreadsheet had four tables on 75 pages duplicated four times. Simply put it's ugly.

The "to hit" of mobs is the CR of the Mob multiplied by two adding in a modifier for quest difficulty, mob color and if developer decides this mob needs more cow bell.

Specific mobs don't seem to work in my formula, I think there are ~four of them. And they all share a similar characteristic of multiple simultaneous attacks or virtually simultaneous attacks. It appears that something in the formula on the Turbine side is not working as intended. For example Khaszlokhar has two virtually simultaneous attacks, the Lord of Blades Whirlwind Attack, Lailat's Triple Swing are example of what I am talking about here, these never seem to miss.

My spreadsheets and the work I put into them were about finding sweet spots for combinations of AC, Dodge and PRR. I have no doubt that my work in the current form is flawed the further you go from the sweet spot, how flawed is another story.

The other potential flaw in the discussion is the CR level of mobs, I haven't seen The Truthful One I have only been told the CR of him, but Epic Elite Lord of Blades is a CR 58, assuming that is correct and there is no discussion on more Cow Bell which means an AC of about 150 is needed (assuming no dodge or PRR) to get 50% hit chance.

[redspecter23]

Both threads are chock full of useful tidbits. The big wheeeeee occurred when it was noted that there was no way that the to hit numbers for enemy mobs would stay at the low levels the devs were reporting. We can all see that today clearly if you've run anything on an ac toon in 20 and above level content. That proposed high end 114 to hit bonus was a silly low number to estimate from. It's suspected that mobs have CRX3+bonuses in epic content and perhaps even more than that.

Well if the last reported dev comment is that a "high" hit score would be 114 and we are currently up to CR*3+X then that would lead me to believe there is an extra "bugged" multiplier in there somewhere and it's not working as intended. A dev comment at this time would be greatly appreciated as it seems we were told one thing about the system, but we got something very much different.

[shores11]

Armor Class: Is there a chart somewhere which depicts its effectiveness? I have been looking through the forums and ddo wiki and other sources and I am having a difficult time finding a chart or information for when ac starts making a difference and how effective it is at different AC levels and against what mobs, etc.? I wish the developers would provide some insight into this? It seems very difficult for a player to tell what levels of ac to shoot for and when they should care about ac or not care about it.

Your request is absolutely what should not be done. Things like this are best left to the players speculation and/or planning. The DDO team should not be posting at what number it takes to make AC effective against what monster or any other stat for that matter (i.e. DC's, spell penetration, saves etc...)

Doing something like what you want reduces the game to just a mathmatical equation and leaves no room for character development. All I need to know is the higher I go the more effective it is.

[elraido]

Huh??? DR doesn't stack unless you are talking adamatine on a WF with FVS. Or barbarian DR/- with FotW.

Also PRR beats the **** out of DR.

Yeah, I kind of noticed that as well. Then I thought, maybe he has some sort of really weird build to where he figured out how to get that much....besides the DoD.