[<a href='7858.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='7856.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='7863.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='7855.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 7857 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Tue Oct  5 19:51:37 BST 1999 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Kimes, Dean W. <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Twinking <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1145788086"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt;I still need to test the &quot;armor absorption&quot; theory.  When I<br/>
&gt;tested it 10 levels ago, in full plate with an AC in the low<br/>
&gt;500s, wisps would usually hit me for 1-2 points with an<br/>
&gt;occasional 20s.  In full mesh with an AC around 460, they&#39;d<br/>
&gt;regularly hit me for 20s.  Now that my AC naked is in the<br/>
&gt;500s, I&#39;ll have to test it again while naked and see if I&#39;m<br/>
&gt;being hit for 1-2 or 20s.  Assuming of course that Verant<br/>
&gt;didn&#39;t tweak the game mechanics since then...<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I think this is still more easily explained by the levelling factor being a<br/>
flat bonus as opposed to a &#39;curved&#39; one.  If critter A modifies you AC by<br/>
-400 then the difference between an armor of 500 and 460 is no longer 10%,<br/>
suddenly its a whopping<br/>
40% change.  It seems from the mechanics that critters have an Offensive<br/>
Bonus (static) and armor provides a Defensive Bonus (also static).  These<br/>
bonuses are added to some simple random attack roll (RND).  Hence Wisp at OB<br/>
300 has maximum attack value of 300+RND vs your AC.  This effectively makes<br/>
its attacks your AC (500) - its OB (300) crossreferenced vs RND to determine<br/>
hit and damage.  Hence going from 500 - 460 whould have an enormous effect<br/>
on combat outcome.  This would also explain why creatures far lower in level<br/>
than you would be unable to hit you or do minimal damage when they do.  Add<br/>
the concept of open-ended rolls (ala RoleMaster) for RND into this equation<br/>
and you end up with a system extremely like that in RoleMaster.  The results<br/>
I see in EQ are so like those typically seen in Rolemaster it is uncanny.  I<br/>
have been playing that game for 15 years and was shocked when I saw how<br/>
closely the mechanics seemed to model onto it.<br/>
<br/>
Just a side note, in RoleMaster, high value armors like Plate reduce the<br/>
agility bonus for performing skills.  This also seems to hold true in EQ<br/>
though is far tougher to check.  This could also account for the &quot;damage<br/>
absorbtion&quot; that is perceived by many, especially monks who seem to see it<br/>
the most.  If those &quot;less absorbing&quot; armors actually lowered agility bonuses<br/>
more than the &quot;more absorbing&quot; ones, the result would be the same or at<br/>
least very similar.<br/>
<br/>
I have started playing with some of the log parsers and will see what I can<br/>
get out of them to disprove my ideas.  Its far to easy to look at them and<br/>
try to prove my concepts, I&#39;m more interested in seeing how hard to disprove<br/>
they are.<br/>
<br/>
	Kitasi<br/>
--<br/>
John H. Kim<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:kim@...">kim@...</a></div>