, You're the only person here I know for sure might be interested in this topic and have some input about it, but I'm hoping other RPG numbers game lovers might be interested as well. I also posted this over at Celestial Heavens.
So, I was really curious about game behavior I've been observing in MM 6, 7, and 8 about enemy hit rate versus armor class. So, I looked up the formula.
It's (Monster Level * 2 + 5) divided by (Monster Level * 2 + 10 + Player Armor Class)
That alone didn't tell me much. What exactly does, for example, AC 25 do for you, vs. AC 50, or AC 100? And, is it worth it to give up dual wielding or attack bonuses in favor of armor class?
I started plugging in a lot of numbers to the formula. Monster level 10 vs. AC 25. Monster level 25 vs. AC 50. Monster level 50 vs. AC 100. And also lower level monsters vs. very high AC.
I discovered something very, very interesting about the statistical curve I got.
No matter the monster level or the AC, the monster's base chance to hit before taking into account any armor was 95 to 98 percent. AC 50 started approaching a mathematical limit of 75% vs. just about any monster level. AC 100 started approaching a mathematical limit of 50% vs. just about any monster level.
Conclusions? It looks like no matter how much AC you put together, the highest level monsters are *always* going to have a 50/50 chance to hit you, vs. a 3/4 chance if you wear light armor, and close to 100% if you wear no armor at all.
So, considering that armor slows you down and reduces your attack rate, is it worth it to ever wear heavy armor or use shields? Higher dps seems better, because if you kill them faster they will stop swinging sooner.
Does Might and Magic basically follow the "Armor is Useless" trope, then?
It looks like the very complicated "Thac0" formula used in MM can be reduced mathematically to simply rolling a d4 to hit vs. AC 0, 25, 50, or 100. (Bigger numbers are better in MM, unlike in BG.)