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?
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.
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.
The words of a crazed psycho
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
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,
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?
Friday, May 02 2003, 05:49AM
I believe most people who are seriously into creating 'good'
equipment sets take ac very seriously.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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: 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