Update Bugs 11/19/14

Thanks for the update, players have to make do with whatever information is available. It is unfortunate that more information is provided by the parsers instead of the game. We as players simply know there is a problem. You as developers hopefully fix the problem.

From what I saw before it went live, it was additional exp. Some of the really easy tasks, it is more, just not lots more.

And in this case, the parsing is not what lead to the discovery, but actual player experience in game.
Logging out now to make the actual changes.

D'oh! This is now fixed internally and should go out with the next update.

http://spells.eqresource.com/history.php?mdy=11192014
https://forums.station.sony.com/eq/index.php?threads/game-update-notes-november-19-2014.215265/

"Wild guesses" not in the patch notes

Twincast: - Slot 7 changed from '' to 'Stacking: Block new spell if slot 1 is Twincast Chance and less than 150'
Cascade of Decay I: - Spell Range changed from '100' to '200'
Chromatic Haze: - Slot 4 changed from '' to 'Limit Min Mana Cost: 10'
Guardian of the Forest: - Slot 8 changed from 'Increase Attack by 445' to 'Increase Attack by 465', - Slot 9 changed from 'Increase Hit Damage by 68%' to 'Increase Hit Damage by 70%'
Screaming Fury: - Slot 1 changed from 'Decrease Weapon Delay (-115)' to 'Decrease Weapon Delay (-125)'

I wonder why players rely on parsers.

Just to be clear when you say "we did find the issue that is causing it.". Is this in reference specifically to the level 105 Smokeshade trap? and does that mean that a fix the problem is not on live yet? or the fix for the problem is on live and we are experiencing the correct functionality?
I believe Turlo was referencing my earlier post on the issue, none of the differences I mentioned between the 100 Smokecloud Effect and 105 Smokeshade Effect are relating to resistances at least based on what we know (or think we know). One of the changes is a range element that was never previously set, and the other is a modifier to in or out of combat...
Thanks!

2nd rank still shows on slot 1 which still conflicts (according to the parsers) with screaming Axes.

Maybe the answer is tuning the guy down a little so that he's not so rough and people aren't as likely to die, and then increase the seargent at the end to where he's the one whose tough to kill.

Would Rozz #2: Royal Access be one that would be considered "easy" because a person in the task that didn't have the Daily HA quest received the same or more on the end hail than I did between the 2.

He received 19 AA from the end hail
I received 4 AA on the end hail, and 15 for the HA bonus quest.

This is why it was odd to me, if I would have received 19 + whatever for the HA daily Quest I wouldn't be concerned. I was at 90% AA 10% regular XP.

Most CotF HA have given me between 16-18 AA for non daily win at 105. the heroic daily's seem to give 4-5 AA for completing the mission and 14-16 AA from the daily quest.

Daily's seem to add about 20% more exp when you combine the daily reward with the mission reward.

I think someone made a mistake and daily quest was supposed to add 4-5 AA and mission was supposed to be 14-18 AA but they got reversed.

That certainly could be, and i was on 90/10 and he may have been 100% aa. that would make up for the difference, but still a bug in how it is reporting it.

It's intended that the bonus from doing the HA daily is substantial and it should be much more than completing the HA. Also, keep in mind that the experience rewarded for completing a HA will vary depending on the steps that are randomly selected.

You really need to reevaluate the increase. Turning something in to a massive pita just because you can does not make it a challenge. it makes it another tedius thing in an expansion full of tedious things.
Please remember you're in the entertainment business. Not the frustrate the customer so they throw their hands up in disgust business.

I am talking specifically about the content of the post from Turblo about resists. I am not speaking of any other functionality of that spell, JUST the resists.

Today... We found an issue with the Sku22 Physical resist spells. It is in the hidden formula that does not parse (though it probably shows in the parse data... it is just a mystery number to parties outside of the EQ team)
We have made the change today and sent it to Peer testing. From there it goes to QA, and from there... Waits until the next patch. To make the change take effect requires a server down.
So Sku22 physical resists spells/disciplines on live will NOT be behaving correctly until the next server down patch.

The problem is that my wizard has 0/10 however my paladin has 0/9 with nothing in the mount key ring.

I'm pretty sure some of this has been adjusted - and thank you for that. Pulling in/around the quarry is much more reasonable.

I think the outdoor aggro radius in Dredge is still quite large. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about -

I am standing within aggro radius of a see invis mob in the water, from this point:



It would be really nice if underwater mobs wouldn't aggro you if you are on land. They can't get out of the water to get you, anyway, and instead get stuck. This happens often in the lagoon with sharklings as well.

These mobs are quite distant from each other, but still apparently within assist radius:



After aggroing my target, the second mob assists:



This is not a huge issue, but is very strange aggro behavior for normal EQ. I can't think of a place in EQ where two mobs so far apart would assist each other.

Here I am standing on the outside of the SW building, with lots of regrua/crabs. From the broken half I am standing by ("window" area), mobs below are within aggro range.

Not only is the pather within aggro range, but the assist radius is so large I am about to get 4 additional adds. He will now train me and warp up to my location:



Most common result of large aggro radius in the Dredge:

Dead bards

I really love this zone, and I have been having a hell of a time playing here since the aggro radius has changed. It doesn't fit in well with the rest of the expansion - in Degmar, for example, you can pull mobs single that are pretty much standing next to each other. I enjoy challenging pulls, but the type of pulls you get in Dredge are very unexpected - I tag one mob, and other mobs I can't see are assisting. If a pather you don't know about happens to see you from a distance, you get trained without knowing what happened. The adjustments to indoor areas are appreciated, but I think the outdoor radius is abnormally large.

It only took me a couple times to figure out pulling wasn't a strategy until you broke an area. Many spots, I would break invis next to the mobs I wanted to fight. Often by mezing the expected adds. I would target a spot where I expected only 1 or 2 adds I could quickly get under control. Make an opening and then start breaking the other spawn points from there. Reminded me of older EQ where you had to break in to camps. I find it fun compared to cotf where it was challenge to pull more than 2 or 3 mobs if you tried. A group with a real tank could suck it up and take on the first couple mobs to get things opened up. From there, alternate kills if you can to split the spawns for easier singles on repop.

My issues with the zone are the pathing. Your pictures showed a good example. The pathing in the towers are especially bad. Mobs going the long way around the center bringing multiple friends. Mobs warping out of rooms and popping on the other sides of the tower. Mobs deciding to fall downstairs and taking a couple minutes to come back up, often with friends.

I think this stuff should be tested better. Not get thrown at us and we have to suffer it till enough people complain, it gets looked at and then fixed. This can take months, months of bad gaming for no real reason.

This is a small bug but noticed it after patch.

Chat channels are not staying in correct order.

I.E.: <player>:made channel, <player>:made channel, <general>:channel, <general>:channel

Log off and log back in:

<general>:channel, <general>:channel, <player>:made channel, <player>:made channel

Small issue but a little annoying none the less.

I would advise submitting a bug report. That is in code, and outside my purview.