Discussion Archives Index

AC Question|U6

Current Index

Posted by Pop on 05/06

Why does ac only go to -100 when many people have equipment that takes their armor class far below that? Shouldn't people with very good ac be rewarded beyond keeping -100 ac if their stuff gets damaged -- it would be a good incentive to keep your stuff in good shape if you went beyond -100 and it would make -ac a bigger deal -- maybe people would make getting low -ac a priority the same as getting high offensive stats such as hit/dam. Just curious because the cap seems arbitrary....why put it in at all? Pop |U6

From: Sandra Thursday, May 01 2003, 09:35PM While you can only see up to -100, if you have more than that, and items get damaged, you will remain at -100 until your ac is actually raised up enough by eq damage or removing items. |U6

From: Archaon Thursday, May 01 2003, 10:29PM umm didnt he say that? that you get lots peps with -100 ac and all their stuff is damaged and they still got max armour. I agree that is pretty bad, i mean if you got -100, THEN wear an item with -20, you should get better protection, not just more protection incase something gets broke. I've often wondered why you even HAVE ac, i mean its not like many people try to get low ac over other stuff, because it tends to naturally get that way. That and I still dont notice that much diff in how hard someone hits against you when you got -100 or -50 ac, and i HAVE had both, well actually... i've had -100, and quite abit worse than -50 and STILL not noticed any diff. I mean armour should do what its designed to do, PROTECT you not look pretty. I say make armour do more, increase the limit of armour to say -300, and have ac scaled as stat, ie increase to 6-7 stat net items where every 10 or so armour is equivalant to 1 stat. So you get amour doing stuff, and you get hitters reducing their stats for +hit/dam/hp AND armour. So that way you get hitters hitting as hard as hitters, and getting hit as hard as proper warriors, and maybe, just maybe if you rip someone to shreds, or nearly send them to their grave you will do just that not just arbitary messages for how much dam you do. Archaon The words of a crazed psycho |U6

From: Sandra Friday, May 02 2003, 01:13AM -300? Yikes. Every stat, including armor, needs a limit. It does no good to have 110 strength compared to 100, except if you're weakened. The same goes for armor class. And it's late, I forgot what else I was going to say, so that's it! -Sandra |U6

From: Archaon Friday, May 02 2003, 02:12AM

From: nod sandra

From: everything needs a limit but there are obvious benifits with 100 stat over 90 stat it dont matter what stat it is, its an obvious benifit (depending on char class i suppose). But -90 ac over -100 ac,

From: I

From: havent noticed much difference, now whether that be because everyone hits so irratitcally that its hard to determine or i havent paid REALLY close attention, or if its just that it doesnt do much i dont know. But again i think armour should be a 'stat' that people should value rather than i'll make an eq set and if i get good armour i get good armour if not, well hey who cares? |U6

From: Kae Friday, May 02 2003, 05:49AM I believe most people who are seriously into creating 'good' equipment sets take ac very seriously. |U6

From: Pop Friday, May 02 2003, 04:03PM -100 seems too low is all I'm saying. It is too easy for a mage to add -ac with the armor spell -- a thief for instance should have better -ac than a warrior unless they both have 100 dex and perception. Well dex at least....using a certain item that is -25 hp and -25 ac might be a good option -- people certianly do take ac into account all else equal -- but people don't sacrifice stats or offensive capabilities for -ac --- I think a cap of -150 would be good, -200 even better -- it is too easy to get -100 and people should be stratified more. -POP |U6

From: Alashar Saturday, May 03 2003, 07:18PM I disagree Kae. I'm very good at getting the stats I want out of a list, and I have never once cared what the ac on my items was because with a VERY select few cases, I've never came out with less then -80. Whoever said you just kinda get good armor without trying is right...you do. Besides, ac makes no difference past about level 30. Its nice to have, it looks pretty, it just doesn't do anything, or it's affect is so miniscule it doesn't matter anyway. Kinda like my opinion. |U6

From: LadyAce Sunday, May 04 2003, 07:40PM You guys make it sound like what we really need to do is make it harder to get so much AC :P -LA |U6

From: Primo Sunday, May 04 2003, 07:55PM I think that's exactly what he's saying. I agree that if ac is going to play a significant part in stats it should not be so easy to obtain -100. But as it stands its rather immaterial, seeing how little difference it really does make. |U6

From: Mugwump Monday, May 05 2003, 01:31PM You hit the nail on the head, LA. Well, one of them anyway. The secondary question is whether AC is even worth considering, though when low ac can be had without considering, well, that answers itself. I remember thinking a long time ago that AC was too easy to get, even (or especially) with relatively low dex. But more than limiting AC as is done with stats, I think rent cost is a bigger issue. A 5 stat neck item with -10 AC for 2500+ rent seems right, but net 5 boots with -13 AC rent for 1k? Or even 5 about body with -30ac. I know there are other factor to consider such as how easily the the item is damaged or how difficult to aquire, etc. But, assuming low AC is worth having, it ought to add to the rent of items the same way hitroll and damroll do. |U6

From: Alashar Monday, May 05 2003, 02:19PM The key is making -100 ac worth anything more then -60, and you aren't going to convince me it matters at 50 atm. Not enough to justify spending rent on anyway. |U6

From: Pop Monday, May 05 2003, 10:34PM Yes, that's what I was saying LadyAce -- I enjoyed the spirit of adding all these new skills in the game and making lima better and forcing people to become more stratified out throughout the game -- that's my point also on the -ac question -- I bet all level 50 mobs have close to if not -100 ac. I personally have probably around -130 to -40 er that should be -140 and I think I deserve a reward for it. I wear a bag around my body for crying out loud. Because I am not pk I don't care how hard it is for people to get ac relative to mine, what I do care about is getting some sort of reward for having very high dex and utilizing items in the game which give me such low ac. Likewise my characters with crapola ac should take significantly more damage than me per round, but they do not. I would think that having 40 ac points lower than another person should reduce the damage taken by all hits around 30% -- like you are resistant to normal weapon attacks because I'm encased in high quality armor and am nimble and spry. |U6

From: Wren Tuesday, May 06 2003, 07:23AM Err... what me would like to see is a more logical kinda...erm way for ac to work. As it is, -99 is MUCH worse off than -100. It's silly! And crap ac _does_ make you take significantly more damage per round - but more compared with -100 than -99. About the ease of getting high ac.

From: scritch

From: Well sometimes it's easy and sometimes not. Some of my sets get -100+ without me even trying, others, cause I need to use ooky ac gear for some reason or de udder, are sooo sad - ebben though those mes have high dex. Omm.... YA! So would just like -99 to be even close to -100, cause at the moment if you have -99 you might just as well have -70

From: giggle

From: Wren-birdy! |U6


Current Index