Fencer Archive
Thread: i know thi shas been rehashed and rehashed: DODGE
I believe the job of the correspondant is to facilitate the flow of 'correct' information to the exponents of the class and to make concerns known to the developers.
Personally I think you are stepping outside your role if you are censoring what information can and cannot be passed to us.
If the developers expressly forbid youfrom disseminating the information on Dodge stacking then I could understand that but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I also don't agree on asking the player base whether they want to know this information or not.
I think it's only fair that those thinking this is about "censorship" or that I am stepping outside of the boundaries defined as a Correspondent should understand a few elements of the situation.
Do I step outside the defined role as a Correspondent?
Yes. All the time. All the overly-detailed testing I do, and the FAQ posts, and answering the dozens of daily PMs, and spending 100% of my play time to try and work out little details like this, are all outside of the boundaries of my "defined" role. But nobody seems to get upset about that.
Am I "censoring" this information?
I don't believe so. If I was told, outright, buy the Developers the exact details of this information, and was directed to post it here, but then took it upon myself to second-guess the wisdom of informing everyone based on my own judgment, biases, and/or opinions.... then I would indeed be guilty of censorship.
But that is not what has happened here. No Developer came out and said, "Here is the way this works... go forth and tell your community." In fact, I ask several times directly for them to tell me. They don't tend to like to reveal stuff like that. However, if you provide irrefutable evidence that you know it works a certain way, and ask for a confirmation, you can sometimes get one. Even if you DO get one, the Developer's reply comes with an understood "You may not repeatthe information in this post without direct approval."
Therefore I decided to test this information myself. I collected all the data and got my facts straight during the holidays (this was what I have been doing thatdelayed the FAQ progress), and then brought it to a Developer for confirmation. Only then did I get a response. This response didn't include a "Please let everyone know."It simply confirmed my testing. This confirmation was a "nice thing to hear," but I was already 99.9% certain I understood how it worked... the confirmation just sealed the deal. I would have gone to my grave confident in the knowledge of how it worked without that confirmation.
Those that are claiming I would be doing something wrong by not publishing the results of my own personal testing, consider this: What all have you discovered in the game through your own labors that you decided would be best not to make public, for one reason or another? Perhaps an exploit that would ruin the game if others knew. Perhaps a really effective macro gives you an edge. Perhaps a quiet little hunting spot you don't want overrun.
This is information I discovered outside of my "official duties" as Correspondent, so it is not my "responsibility" to publish it. The only aspect of it that had to do with being a Correspondent was that after I already found out the truth I was able to convice a Developer to admit that I was correct. Since that Developer did not express I could relay direct information from his post, I would be adhering to my "defined duties" by not posting it.
The only reason I even mentioned it here, is because I knew a clever reader can look at my words and know the answer anyways. It was my way of trying to inform people without directly posting the words, and possibly getting in trouble.
So if I were to post the answer it would be as a player that spent their own time testing the data (just as any other player is capable of doing if they chose to invest the time) and having to decide if they think the results they discovered would produce more good for the profession, or cause more harm. It wouldn't be as a Correspondent posting information directed to them by a Developer.
But... I am true to my word. I said if enough of you wanted me to post it that I would. I am not a welcher, so here is the answer:
Dodge works exactly as I have been saying it works over the past several weeks in several posts, and seems to perform the way it has recently for the exact same reasons that Isaid it did.
Know what is ironic? When I posted this same information all those other times... I wasn't believed. Now people are ready to hang me because I wouldn't tell them something they didn't accept the last time I posted it. 
Message Edited by Raphayl on 01-09-2004 10:50 PM
Too bad i left the fencer forum for a couple of days and jumped on this post late. I'm behind you 100% on what you decide to do Raphayl. The sole reason being what you stated, you have stepped beyong the call of duty and done far more for the fencer profession as a player, as acommunity member, and as a correspondent. Sometimes people just want things spoonfed to them bite by bite. People wants all the edge, but doesnt want to do any work to get them. I still think that you're THE BEST correspondent out of all any professions bar none.
As for the rest of you who jumped on Raphayl, especially regarding the "un-correspondently behavior," shame on you. When was the last time you contributed so much to the community? When was the last time you did extensive testing on your own time simply for the benefit of others? If any of us spends 1/10, heck 1/100 of the time Raphayl spends on her thorough tests, I will be pleasantly surprised. The truth is, we shouldn't expect anyone to do anything for the community we didn't/wouldn't do, outrightly censuring is outrageous. Next time you want call someone out, look in the mirror first and make sure your own image isnt stained.
Raphayl wrote:
Wellllllllllll... It just so happens that I now know for certain the reality of the Dodge (and Block and Counterattack) stacking and cap issues. (Both as tested and now Developer confirmed.)
The only thing is I'm wondering if it might not be a better thing for theFencer profession to let it remain an unknown element.
But, seriously, sometimes things are best left unknown.
I call foul... you are the coorespondent, its your job to answer the questions, not to lead us on with this non-sense. Don't be lame, if you don't want the job, then step down and turn it over to someone else.
Raphayl wrote:
Dodge works exactly as I have been saying it works over the past several weeks in several posts, and seems to perform the way it has recently for the exact same reasons that Isaid it did.
This apparently wasn't enough according to 3 ugly PM's I just got, soI'll spell it out:
- There has been no change to Dodge: Fencer Dodge still stacks with Pistoleer Dodge.
- There has been no change to Dodge:No cap has been implimented.
- There has been no change to Dodge: A recent patch changed the ACCURACY of mobs, some more than an additional +60 over what they previously had, making it appear that your Dodge is weaker.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The way Dodge is caculated has not changed.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The "proof" you see people posting that says otherwise was either only very short data sets that had too little raw data to reliably produce results, or their testing was corrupted by including unknown variables that tainted the results.
In summary:
There has been no change to Dodge.
let me clarify that statement...
You agreed to be the coorespondent. Therefore, you are our link to the dev's. Whether or not youdid the testing of your own accord, you asked the dev's a question, they gave you an answer. They did not tell you to not post that information. Therefore, it is of course your perogative (up to you)to post that information. Now, we have asked you a question, one which the dev's answered for you. We rather expect, as the coorespondent, that you now answer our question.
Your personal testing has nothing to do with this, your personal time has nothing to do with this question, nor with this post. It is a fact that you now have an answer to a question that the community has been asking for some time, and that this answer is a dev given answer. Is it right that you hold that information from us, so that, as you stated in your post, you can gain a distinct advantage by it? If you feel that you can, in good conscience, do this and not respond to your community, then by all means, do it. However, since you were asked a question by the community, and you then asked the dev's, who responded in turn with a positive answer (does not take into account your own personal testing) then I feel that you have a responsibility to turn over that information to the community at large.
I am sorry if the previous post offended you, please know, that I did not intend it as a personal attack, simply a statement of frustration. We can discern what you mean in your posting, we are capable of determining what you "want" to say, but we are asking for more, a numerical based answer, or an answer based on how much of dodge will actually stack.
Raphayl wrote:
Raphayl wrote:
Dodge works exactly as I have been saying it works over the past several weeks in several posts, and seems to perform the way it has recently for the exact same reasons that Isaid it did.
This apparently wasn't enough according to 3 ugly PM's I just got, soI'll spell it out:
- There has been no change to Dodge: Fencer Dodge still stacks with Pistoleer Dodge.
- There has been no change to Dodge:No cap has been implimented.
- There has been no change to Dodge: A recent patch changed the ACCURACY of mobs, some more than an additional +60 over what they previously had, making it appear that your Dodge is weaker.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The way Dodge is caculated has not changed.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The "proof" you see people posting that says otherwise was either only very short data sets that had too little raw data to reliably produce results, or their testing was corrupted by including unknown variables that tainted the results.
In summary:
There has been no change to Dodge.
LOL...
thank you...
Purmal wrote:
I call foul... you are the coorespondent, its your job to answer the questions
You have been misled. It is NOT my job to be a walking Fencer Encyclopedia. It is NOT my job to spend hundreds of unpaid hours testing things to break the gamecodefor you. My "job" is to collect your opinions about the profession and your testing of issues and your concerns to the Developers. Then, if and when they respond, to bring that information back here.
I do all of the above because I care about the profession and the community and want to see them prosper. I do all the above because it's what Idid before I was Correspondent, and I saw no reason to stop just because I was.
Don't be lame, if you don't want the job, then step down and turn it over to someone else.
If I don't want the job?
Is this your first visit to this forum?
If this community wants me to step down, or feels that I have failed them, they have but to ask me to and I will. Perhaps you can be elected as the new Fencer Correspondent and demonstrate how it should be done.
Raphayl wrote:
Raphayl wrote:
Dodge works exactly as I have been saying it works over the past several weeks in several posts, and seems to perform the way it has recently for the exact same reasons that Isaid it did.
This apparently wasn't enough according to 3 ugly PM's I just got, soI'll spell it out:
- There has been no change to Dodge: Fencer Dodge still stacks with Pistoleer Dodge.
- There has been no change to Dodge:No cap has been implimented.
- There has been no change to Dodge: A recent patch changed the ACCURACY of mobs, some more than an additional +60 over what they previously had, making it appear that your Dodge is weaker.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The way Dodge is caculated has not changed.
- There has been no change to Dodge: The "proof" you see people posting that says otherwise was either only very short data sets that had too little raw data to reliably produce results, or their testing was corrupted by including unknown variables that tainted the results.
In summary:
There has been no change to Dodge.
lmao.
I think I'm going to become a Fencer JUST because of the correspondent.
Raphayl wrote:
If this community wants me to step down, or feels that I have failed them, they have but to ask me to and I will. Perhaps you can be elected as the new Fencer Correspondent and demonstrate how it should be done.
Please dont Raphayl. Pretty plz with sprinkles and cherry on top?
If Purmal were to become the Fencer Correspondent, we'll be like a blind cat trying to catch mice, bumpin around in the dark.