Talk:Dodging

Things that need updated
I think there are several pieces of information in this article that are wrong or outdated.
 * The formula: 300 * (a + 25)/(a + b + 50) – 100
 * It is simply missing a "minus" at the end. When trying to edit, it reveals that there's actually the correct formula in math tags, but for some reason the minus gets lost. Math tags may be pretty, but... it would be better to just remove them and post it in plain text?


 * The percentage of AP that are lost:
 * "When the dodge roll fails, the character attempting the dodge roll loses all MP, and a percentage of AP equal to the probability to dodge, using the equation above. For example, if the character has 6 AP and 50% chance to dodge, and the roll fails, the character loses 3 AP."
 * Firstly, it is only half that. In the example that's used here, the character would lose 1 AP (25% of their AP, which is 1.5 and rounded down). Source being the official announcement of version 1.27, posted by Nabolo. The changelog uses a character with 8 AP and 50% chance to dodge as exeample, who then loses 2 AP on a dodge fail.


 * And secondly, it is likely that there was a typo in Nabolo's announcement. The post says "...the loss of points as a percentage is equal to the percentage chance of successful dodge divided by 2."
 * In other words this would mean, a character with very low agi failing a dodge roll would lose only 1 or even no AP - while a character failing a roll when they had almost a 100% chance to dodge would lose half their AP. This isn't what happens in reality, it is exactly the other way round. The lower the chance to dodge, the more AP the character will lose. Hence it was more likely to be "...the loss of points as a percentage is equal to the percentage chance of dodge fail divided by 2." This needs to be updated in the Wikia article too.


 * Dodging multiple opponents:
 * Recently discussed on Imps Village, the consensus seems to be so far that a character rolls for dodging against every opponent and has to be successful on all. At least that's what the ingame observations suggest. Does anyone have any other test data?

If there are no contrary observations I would like to completely rewrite that article (in an easier to read style, because I don't think the current article structured that well) with updated information. Or maybe someone else would volunteer to... because I'm neither very familiar with Wiki formatting, nor is english my first language. Ala (talk) 15:25, February 16, 2010 (UTC)