Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Kaedis** · (This post was last modified: 03-26-2012 10:43 AM by Kaedis.)

Skeleton, I realize your hesitance on this, and it's not illogical. However, at this time, we're not going to reveal our methods, for very specific reasons. If that causes you to doubt our findings, so be it. However, keep in mind several things:

Georg has a rather irrational hatred of us that we've not yet really been able to understand. He would deplore our findings even if they were spot-on accurate, simply because he doesn't like what we do. I wouldn't put much stock in his statements.
This is the only circumstance I can recall in which I deliberately concealed my methods or sources (excluding back in Beta, when we were skirting the grey areas of the NDA. Incidentally, my reasons here are somewhat similar). Otherwise, I've always backed up my information, or was able to if asked. I think I'm justified in asking for you to simply trust my motives here, considered the wealth of work and information I've provided to this community to date.
We're not doing this for any sort of business reasons. The reasoning behind this doesn't begin with greed, marketing, or to cross-promote to any other website (for the record, MMO-Mechanics is really just the parent site to Sithwarrior.com, it's all the same company, so cross-promotion isn't really meaningful). Sithwarrior.com is the hub of theorycrafting for this game, and if and when we do reveal our methodology, it will be here.

Ultimately I must simply ask you to trust my intentions with this. I realize that providing claims, particularly claims against current community understanding, are difficult to stomach without a verifiable and critiquable source, and being very science-minded myself, I perfectly understand the reasoning behind that. However, I will assure you that my motives are pure in this. I am concealing our methodology and sources for honest reasons, with no ulterior or sinister motives. I'm working closely with cmf on this, holding his testing to a very high standard of certainty, for precisely that reason (we're also, incidentally, not using it as the sole source of this information, we're confirming it with secondary sources and sometimes tertiary sources). You may choose to accept the information or not. I would ask you, however, you suspend your suspicions this once, however.

**LagunaD** · 03-27-2012, 01:14 AM

I don't want to pour fuel on any fires, but let me just suggest for consideration that methods which need to be concealed should not be used by or associated with a site that aims for the highest levels of respectability and transparency. For the same reasons such a site shouldn't accept advertising from seedy gold sellers and powerlevelling services.

While I'm obviously not in charge here, it seems to me that the reputation of this site is worth a lot more than the information in question.

hxxr · 03-27-2012, 02:11 AM

(03-26-2012 10:43 AM)Kor Wrote: However, at this time, we're not going to reveal our methods, for very specific reasons. If that causes you to doubt our findings, so be it.

I trust you are aware that any finding is worth absolutely nothing without display of methodology!
Try publish an article like this and you'll damage your integrety severely.

(03-26-2012 10:43 AM)Kor Wrote: Otherwise, I've always backed up my information, or was able to if asked. I think I'm justified in asking for you to simply trust my motives here, considered the wealth of work and information I've provided to this community to date.

There is no NDA now. And I'm sure you just want to supply truthful information to your best ability, but ...

(03-26-2012 10:43 AM)Kor Wrote: I realize that providing claims, particularly claims against current community understanding, [...]

... this doesn't go against community understanding. It goes against what's actually going on in the game. I do not miss with Power Shot or Unload.
Can't speak for anyone else and at this point I do not care. But on Live there is no worth in more than 8% Accuracy and being in charge of supplying my raid with such numbers and caps I will still tell them that 8% is the real thing.

May I ask you this: Is the 10% finding somehow related to the PTR? Because we all know Geoge Zoeller did announce a change in stats for 1.2.

Izod · 03-27-2012, 07:50 AM

Interesting that CMF said "spawn with" and also that he used Blade Turning to test it.

(I'll test again when I get home, but I'm almost 99.9% positive Blade Turning does effect melee as well as ranged despite Torhead's tooltip).

You can choose to believe it or not, it's really up to you as an individual. Thus far Kor hasn't given a single reason for someone not to trust his findings, or something that he's backed. I get that you want transparency and methodology, but there have been plenty of times in various games where testing has gone into the grey category of what may or may not be either 'EULA ok' or perceived as 'socially unacceptable' etc. I'm not saying this does, I don't know what method is being used. I have a few guesses but it's not worth speculating.

Knowing the result, if you are so inclined I'd recommend you go out testing yourself, and trying to verify these claims. That would further the discussion and what we know - rather then get us sidetracked.

**Freehugs** · (This post was last modified: 03-27-2012 11:53 AM by Kaedis.)

There's no point getting in a twist about this, CFM and Kore have given the information they have but can't name it's source. Obviously that doesn't sit well, but their reasons may be perfectly valid i.e. perhaps CFM got it directly from a developer and doesn't want to get that person into trouble. For what's it's worth I trust Kore.

You don't have to accept this information as true, that's perfectly valid, but before you defend the 8% too heatedly try to remember where it came from. Here's a quote from only 3 weeks ago:

Quote:Freehugs Wrote: An 8% hit cap should not be presented as fact because it's not. The defense and resistances of bosses could vary per difficulty or even per boss, we don't know. However Style's test is still the best information available, it's all we have to go on. Please feel free to do your own tests and add to the sum of knowledge here.

As always, I suggest that if you don't support a particular claim, you should make an effort to disprove it. 1.2 has combat logs making accuracy pretty easy to test.

Edit: Altered the end of the first paragraph ("i.e. CFM got it" -> "i.e. perhaps CFM got it") to emphasize that his example was hypothetical, as Freehugs does not have any direct knowledge of our methodology in this. ~Kor

**Kaedis** · 03-27-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:I don't want to pour fuel on any fires, but let me just suggest for consideration that methods which need to be concealed should not be used by or associated with a site that aims for the highest levels of respectability and transparency. For the same reasons such a site shouldn't accept advertising from seedy gold sellers and powerlevelling services.

While I'm obviously not in charge here, it seems to me that the reputation of this site is worth a lot more than the information in question.

To a degree, I agree with you, Laguna. However, this isn't anything seedy like gold selling and powerleveling stuff. It's more that we're willing to bend the rules a bit to get past intentional obfuscation by a dev team openly hostile to our work here.

**Rystet** · (This post was last modified: 03-27-2012 06:22 PM by Rystet.)

In regards to the boss defense question presented earlier, I had a developer at the guild summit come right out and say it was 10%.

This has been backed up on the pts. Logs have shown my special attacks being defended (dodged/parried) by bosses while having 108.97% special accuracy.

Scrolling combat text is not accurate, and does a lot of things that are misleading. Sometimes it will show a miss but will not show defended attacks. Georg has mentioned that it will combine multiple attacks into one number to cut down on screen clutter.

Dont use the pts training dummies to test def either, they dont have any defense atm.

**Freehugs** · 03-27-2012, 09:05 PM

Thanks Rystet.

**LagunaD** · 03-28-2012, 12:50 AM

(03-27-2012 06:09 PM)Rystet Wrote: Dont use the pts training dummies to test def either, they dont have any defense atm.

/facepalm

**Kaedis** · 03-28-2012, 12:56 AM

Quote:In regards to the boss defense question presented earlier, I had a developer at the guild summit come right out and say it was 10%.

Evidence in favor, though recall just how often Devs have either lied about something or simply been wrong in their statements. That said, cmf has been doing a great deal of secondary testing using log parsing on the PTS to confirm his initial findings, which he'll be posting here soon.