Fenier

01-16-2006, 11:30 AM

This is just a listing of my current theories. I am looking for feedback and if your really outgoing, parses.

Based on my thread and study on Attack Reduction (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13107) I am going to infer a few things.

1: Weapons hit for set values. This appears to be a 5 part formula, which is unknown to the player base. It is believed that you will hit for specfic values based on your: Skill, Strength, Weapon Damage, Class and Damage Bonus.

2: If this is true, then we can assume that much like a mob, we will hit for a specfic spread of values.

3: We can also assume, that this spread is tilted one way or the other, based on the mob's mitigation AC.

It my belief, that the AC Reduction on our Ro's line of spells thus, has the following logical functions.

We know players have a Modal Hit. They hit for this value verus a given Mitigation AC more often then any other.

My theory is the AC debuffs is detracted against the mob's mitigation ac value - and possiably, the avoidance, but I have no confirmation of that.

This is important for several reasons, this means:

Debuffing a mob's AC does not make you hit harder then you normally would. You will still have the same max hit. As I have seen no claims of people hitting harder then their normal max hit, we can assume this is true.

This would however, provided the ac adjustment was large enough, possiably push you to a higher modal hit. This would raise your average hit total - and very likely your Damage Per Second.

This also, we can infer, means you hit for closer to max hit, more often. This would be due to the mob not mitigating the incoming damage as well. This would push your hit values to the higher end of what you can hit for.

That is, if a player can hit for 50 values (made up number as it is unknown) the player may hit for values 30-50 more often with AC debuffed then values 1-30.

Which begs the question, how do we prove this?:

We would need parses against one given mob.

One of the parses would need to be without AC reduction. We would be looking for the Players Min and Max hit, as well as their Modal Hit. Yaulp as a parser can calucate all of this. For ease - a player using one weapon (2-Hander, or just a single 1hander) would be perfered. Using Yaulp would would calucate the hit range based on every value the player hit for.

Next, we would have the same player (same buffs, weapon, haste) attack the same mob, but with reduced AC. We would again be looking for the Players Min and Max Hits, as well as their Modal Hit. We would chart out the hit range based on every value the player hit for.

Using this information we would look for the following:

1: A increase in the players Modal hit while mob is debuffed

2: An increase over the players max hit

3: An increase in average hit

4: We would see if the player's hit values shifted to the right on the second parse chart over the first.

This would require extensive parsing against the same mob, realistically we're talking several hours worth for strong results, tho 2 spans of 30 minutes each should generate some theories to support or dispell various aspects of my theory for sure.

-Fenier

Based on my thread and study on Attack Reduction (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13107) I am going to infer a few things.

1: Weapons hit for set values. This appears to be a 5 part formula, which is unknown to the player base. It is believed that you will hit for specfic values based on your: Skill, Strength, Weapon Damage, Class and Damage Bonus.

2: If this is true, then we can assume that much like a mob, we will hit for a specfic spread of values.

3: We can also assume, that this spread is tilted one way or the other, based on the mob's mitigation AC.

It my belief, that the AC Reduction on our Ro's line of spells thus, has the following logical functions.

We know players have a Modal Hit. They hit for this value verus a given Mitigation AC more often then any other.

My theory is the AC debuffs is detracted against the mob's mitigation ac value - and possiably, the avoidance, but I have no confirmation of that.

This is important for several reasons, this means:

Debuffing a mob's AC does not make you hit harder then you normally would. You will still have the same max hit. As I have seen no claims of people hitting harder then their normal max hit, we can assume this is true.

This would however, provided the ac adjustment was large enough, possiably push you to a higher modal hit. This would raise your average hit total - and very likely your Damage Per Second.

This also, we can infer, means you hit for closer to max hit, more often. This would be due to the mob not mitigating the incoming damage as well. This would push your hit values to the higher end of what you can hit for.

That is, if a player can hit for 50 values (made up number as it is unknown) the player may hit for values 30-50 more often with AC debuffed then values 1-30.

Which begs the question, how do we prove this?:

We would need parses against one given mob.

One of the parses would need to be without AC reduction. We would be looking for the Players Min and Max hit, as well as their Modal Hit. Yaulp as a parser can calucate all of this. For ease - a player using one weapon (2-Hander, or just a single 1hander) would be perfered. Using Yaulp would would calucate the hit range based on every value the player hit for.

Next, we would have the same player (same buffs, weapon, haste) attack the same mob, but with reduced AC. We would again be looking for the Players Min and Max Hits, as well as their Modal Hit. We would chart out the hit range based on every value the player hit for.

Using this information we would look for the following:

1: A increase in the players Modal hit while mob is debuffed

2: An increase over the players max hit

3: An increase in average hit

4: We would see if the player's hit values shifted to the right on the second parse chart over the first.

This would require extensive parsing against the same mob, realistically we're talking several hours worth for strong results, tho 2 spans of 30 minutes each should generate some theories to support or dispell various aspects of my theory for sure.

-Fenier