Revised ac/wc calculation

[RealDDc]

Currently the AC/WC calculation in battles between two players in physical combat asides of sparring grounds:

WC of the attacker greater than AC of the attacked 100per.

(Ex. 70 v 30 = 100per. chance to hit)

AC of the attacked greater than WC of the attacker 0per.

(Ex. 30 v 70 = 0per. to hit)

(Since im not firm with the GK pvp, cause it doesn't catch my interest at all currently, im not absolutely sure about this, but that is what I've experienced from studying the calculations.)

Revised AC/WC calculation in battles between two players in physical combat:

WC of the attacker devided with the AC of the attacked to determine the hit chance. (>)

(Ex. 70 v 30 = Exceeds the chance over 100per. (233 to be exactly)

WC of the attacker devided with the AC of the attacked to determine the hit chance. (=)

(Ex. 50 v 50 = 100per. chance to hit)

WC of the attacker devided with the AC of the attacked to determine the hit chance. (<)

(Ex. 30 v 70 = 42,85..per. chance to hit)



Similar to the npc attack calculation, and by far the best solution for the AC/WC imbalance currently.

The resistances (physical, magical etc.) determine the protection and thus the strengh of a attack. And so the AC would be logically to determine the chance to hit with a melee weapon, regardless of the powers that the melee weapon is imbued with.

[Cubes]

You should always beable to hit, your ac should just reduce some of the damage, just not all of it.

[RealDDc]

Originally Posted by Cubes

You should always beable to hit, your ac should just reduce some of the damage, just not all of it.

Completely nonsense.

[MajinDragon]

Originally Posted by dennis1410

Completely nonsense.

HAHA

But on a serious note. I wouldn't mind this at all. I can still hit perfectly fine and it just decreases the effectiveness of AC just enough to allow more players to pvp, but also not completely open up pvp of a level 10 vs a level 110.

[bioboi]

Originally Posted by Cubes

You should always beable to hit, your ac should just reduce some of the damage, just not all of it.

That's what physical resistance does, otherwise you'd be getting hit for 200's every time you get hit.

AC's not too big of a problem really, take some initiative and get to 50-60 phys it's not hard. Leveling on all games is tedious.

[RealDDc]

The resistances are the factors to determine the defensive amounting of attacks. Would be completely nonsensical to have the armor class as a factor to do the equivalent.

[MajinDragon]

Originally Posted by bioboi

That's what physical resistance does, otherwise you'd be getting hit for 200's every time you get hit.

AC's not too big of a problem really, take some initiative and get to 50-60 phys it's not hard. Leveling on all games is tedious.

AC's just pretty offputting to new players, i like it and would rather have it made less important than to completely remove it. But how can you expect alot of new players to see they need level 50-60+ phys to just hit someone? Especially once they experience the cruve, some can't even fathom level 110.

Originally Posted by dennis1410

The resistances are the factors to determine the defensive amounting of attacks. Would be completely nonsensical to have the armor class as a factor to do the equivalent.

AC makes alot of sense, but plays too much of a factor in pvp which should be part of the attraction to the game.

[RealDDc]

Originally Posted by MajinDragon

AC makes alot of sense, but plays too much of a factor in pvp which should be part of the attraction to the game.

It wouldn't anymore if it does exactly the same than resistances. Maybe you should have another look uppon the entry posting here.

[MajinDragon]

Originally Posted by dennis1410

It wouldn't anymore if it does exactly the same than resistances. Maybe you should have another look uppon the entry posting here.

I meant that AC makes sense in the way it's used now... Not as a resistance but as a barrier, can be mistaken for a 'resitance to'.

[RealDDc]

Originally Posted by MajinDragon

I meant that AC makes sense in the way it's used now...).

Yeah it does, I never say'd it doesn't. Infact it does its role just to well currently.

Originally Posted by MajinDragon

(...Not as a resistance but as a barrier, can be mistaken for a 'resitance to'.

I understand the resistance as a factor to lower the efficiency of an effect. And this game thing has enough resistances already, enough and to spare.

[MajinDragon]

Well, resists are fine, ac just needs to be revised to open up pking to more people and make things less tedious for people.

This should be in Q3 imo.

[Draenin]

There is no need to divide these numbers. A simple check for whether or not the player's current WC beats the enemy's AC is all that's needed. Reworking these algorithms to include a new 'accuracy' percentage (which is basically what you seem to be doing) is unwise because hitting someone with High AC is already difficult to do, and lowering the attacker's accuracy based on the enemy's AC will make players hit each other even less.

Take this advice from a dude who's already written a complete set of battle algorithms.

[Cubes]

Originally Posted by Cubes

You should always beable to hit, your ac should just reduce some of the damage, just not all of it.

I actually take this back. It shouldn't reduce damage at all because a level 10 wouldn't beat a level 110 anyways. It should be you can break everyone but if you want more damage and more slots you have to level up.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Cubes

It should be you can break everyone but if you want more damage and more slots you have to level up.

That's not how it should be, that's how it is. And yes, additional damage reduction would be a very bad idea. It would just make combat more boring and drawn out than it already is.

[Cubes]

Originally Posted by Draenin

That's not how it should be, that's how it is. And yes, additional damage reduction would be a very bad idea. It would just make combat more boring and drawn out than it already is.

Funny, I could have sworn I haven't been able to break anyones ac the last few times I tried.

[Draenin]

There are a bunch of spells and attack types that temporarily lower AC, dude. Make use of them.

If you can't get high AC, bring them down to your level. Why the heck do you think I run around as a Brigid follower using a bunch of spells to trip people up all the time? You should develop a method for fighting that goes beyond the classic hack-n-slash. You'd be surprised how far a little preparation before combat will go.

And if you can't use spells, there are plenty of other options you have to raise your WC and possibly lower theirs. Poison is especially good, and always has been. Each + you get on a weapon raises your WC by +1, so if you get something like an Ice Dagger of Ogma +9 and enchant that with 11 slots to take it to a +20, the poison is going to be that much more effective when it continuously hits them. And you get the benefit of high WC just by having it on. Poison only takes effect if you can actually hit them, so enchanting an Ogma weapon is actually a good route to go. Similarly, a high Gov enchantment is nice to have, because a lot of people still haven't woken up to the fact that elemental resistances actually reduce melee weapon damage too. The only one without a resistance to reduce the damage is weaponmagic, and that's why it's so strong.

Pair any of these enchantments with a pair of Marks and keep your Str maxed at 30 for an additional +22 WC, and you've got +42 WC right there in addition to whatever you've earned from leveling up. (Remember that you get +1 WC per every 2 levels, which makes for about +15 by the time you get to level 30 and can enchant up to 11 slots. So that's like +57 WC.) You can get WC from a lot of stuff, surprisingly enough. And when you get to a level so high that you no longer need WC, you can start enchanting your weapons with raw damage for PvP purposes.

[Cubes]

Like what? and this thread isn't about spells that lower ac (although i would like to know which ones.)

[RealDDc]

Originally Posted by Draenin

(...Reworking these algorithms to include a new 'accuracy' percentage (which is basically what you seem to be doing) is unwise because hitting someone with High AC is already difficult to do, and lowering the attacker's accuracy based on the enemy's AC will make players hit each other even less.

I dont see the need to reply to your long post, you clearly either didn't understand the calculation, didn't read it well enough, or don't know the current calculation.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Cubes

this thread isn't about spells that lower ac

You're complaining about how AC is too high. I'm telling you how to overcome it. It's a very relevant topic.

Originally Posted by dennis1410

I dont see the need to reply to your long post, you clearly either didn't understand the calculation, didn't read it well enough, or don't know the current calculation.

Do I really need to make another post talking about how much your calculations suck?

[Cubes]

It's pointless arguing with you people, especially dennis. If a majority of the players think something should be done then it should be at least tried out for a while.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Cubes

If a majority of the players think something should be done then it should be at least tried out for a while.

The opinions of the majority generally suck too.

[Cubes]

2 people happy(dennis and whoever) < 30 people happy (omg majority)

[RealDDc]

Originally Posted by Draenin

You're complaining about how AC is too high. I'm telling you how to overcome it. It's a very relevant topic.
Do I really need to make another post talking about how much your calculations suck?

I don't now what you gonna do, but what I am not gonna do is to waste my time and hammer something in a stubborn head.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by dennis1410

what I am not gonna do is to waste my time and hammer something in a stubborn head.

Great, because nobody wants to hear it anyway.