History Edit

• Stat
  • pre LU29 Stat Cap = (7 * Level) + 20
  • with LU29 Stat Cap = (15 * Level) + 20
• Skill
  • pre LU29 Skill Cap = 6 * Level
  • with LU29 Skill Cap = 6.5 * Level
• Mitigation
  • pre LU29 Mitigation Cap = 80 * Level = 80%
    • Total Mitigation / (100*Level) = Mitigation% vs. a mob the same level and ability
    • Example: A level 70 Guardian with 5000 mitigation would mitigate 5000/(100*70)=71.4% of a hit from a level 70 mob. If she buffed her mitigation up to 6000, she would mitigate 80% because 6000/(100*70)=85.7% which is above the cap. This only holds true for even level non-epic mobs. There is an unknown modifier for higher and lower level mobs as well as epics for determining mitigation, so the true cap is unknown at this time. For this reason it pays to have a higher mitigation than the cap.
  • with LU29 Mitigation Cap = 150 * Level = 75%
    • Mitigation increases result in increasing returns until (52.5 * Level) at which point mitigation suffers from diminishing returns.

- Chillispike 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

CA/Spell Damage Cap Edit

I removed the lines about exceeding the spell damage cap having a penalty because it is, quite simply, wrong. Having CA or Spell damage mod above the cap for an individual spell does not have a negative effect. It would be quite ridiculous if it did. Spell/CA damage mod is a rather simple cap and not a diminishing returns curve; only on a diminishing returns curve could you see a net negative effect for greatly exceeding the cap (well, at least until they fixed them to not do that).

I don't know where you got that info from originally Chilli, but it's not true. I even tested things in-game just in case; I looked at a spell with a damage range of 302-350 (meaning +mod cap should be ~151). At +150 mod, it went up by ~150 (slightly more than just the +spell mod due to a couple of points of int that got added on). At +300 mod, it did not really change (slightly went up, again due to added int). At +450 mod again it did not change (besides a few points due to int). -- lordebon 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I know that the downturn curve was there, but it't defo a while ago like one of the updates after Rok came, with that change the downturn curve was there. But by the look of it it got fixed. -- ( Talk ) 22:38, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Needs Work Edit

I've added and formatted the overcap explanation from Xelgad at the end of the article but it really needs to be integrated with the main body. If anybody has time to do it, go for it! -- Camelotcrusade ( talk ) 20:20, August 31, 2012 (UTC)