Test Update 09/10/2019 - New Bugs Only

Discussion in 'Test Update Notes and Bug Roundup' started by EQ Dev, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. EQ Dev Developer

    This thread is for new bugs and how to reproduce them only. Please keep all opinions, discussions, posts about balance, and anything else in the other thread.
    Patch notes and discussions thread
  2. Nilwean Journeyman

    - Consolidated mount buffs. In nearly all cases, the buff is equal to or an improvement over the previous buff. The exception is the old Izah buff. None of the new buffs have as much AC as that buff offered.

    Some mount buffs are worse on test than on live, such as:
    Bridle of the Balefire Wyvern
    Saddle of the Lava Snail
    Efreeti Carpet
    Scaled Stonegazer Saddle

    Others have been over buffed :
    Radiant Platinum Pridewing Bridle

    Something went wrong here...

    ----

    - Restored mana preservation to The Burning Lands evolving shoulders that include classes with mana.

    The focus description says beneficial spells when it should be both beneficial and detrimental.
  3. Ssdar Augur

    To expand on this a bit, after looking through all my mounts: the Mount Blessings formerly Rena, Sana, Taza, and Uzah all seem to have the incorrect new Mount Blessings attached to them.

    All buffs with Rena were changed to Jaka (Should be Geza), Sana were changed to Izah (should be Heda), Taza were changed to Geza (should be Izah), Uzah were changed to Heda (should be Jaka).

    The following items were impacted by this bug:
    [Item ID] (Live) {Test} |Anticipated| Item Name

    [129866] (Rena) {Jaka} |Geza| Radiant Amber Pridewing Bridle
    [129867] (Rena) {Jaka} |Geza| Radiant Platinum Pridewing Bridle
    [129868] (Rena) {Jaka} |Geza| Radiant Sable Pridewing Bridle
    [148819] (Rena) {Jaka} |Geza| Armored Frontier Rhinocerous Saddle
    [148816] (Sana) {Izah} |Heda| Bridle of Queen Velazul's Sokokar
    [148840] (Sana) {Izah} |Heda| Golden Frontier Rhinocerous Saddle
    [151890] (Sana) {Izah} |Heda| Cockatrice Mount
    [151894] (Taza) {Geza} |Izah| Bridle of the Balefire Wyvern
    [128738] (Taza) {Geza} |Izah| Scaled Stonegazer Saddle
    [161431] (Taza) {Geza} |Izah| Carpet of Stratos
    [97629] (Uzah) {Heda} |Jaka| Firiona Vie's Unicorn Horseshoe
    [161437] (Uzah) {Heda} |Jaka| Saddle of the Lava Snail
    [129904] (Uzah) {Heda} |Jaka| Efreeti Carpet
  4. kizant Augur

    So, I was testing these changes and they appear to work OK. However, I did find a small bug in your patch notes. You left out the change to the proc rate. It looks like it'll be 1/3 of what it used to be.
    Slot: 1 SPA: 383 Base1: 3 Base2: 51914

    What this change means is that average sustained DPS for Arcane Fusion has decreased when the Wizard has no ADPS and you need a full raid burn to see a small bump. Assuming you're lucky enough for it to proc during those phases. Previously if you got 1 or 2 during a single target burn you were pretty lucky. Now just getting 1 every other week during those burns seems like the new norm. Unless you're just trolling Beimeith I don't really think this change was worth the effort imo.
    Brohg, Yinla and Sancus like this.
  5. Ngreth Thergn Developer

    Thanks. That was NOT intentional. I'll get it fixed. Thanks.
  6. Kinadorm Augur

    1. The benefits of this AA (faster cast/recast/twincast) no longer apply to the actual spell. Since it got removed from the focus tab this may be intentional.
    2. If the AA is to replace the spell the recast should be reduced. The recast on this is currently set to 20 seconds. The previous version of the AA set the recast at 6 seconds.
    Yinla likes this.
  7. josh Augur

    I believe this is a bug, it is certainly messing with gamparse and causing riposte percentages to be reported as much higher than they really are

    [Wed Sep 11 16:52:41 2019] A reef crawler tries to bash YOU, but YOU riposte!
    [Wed Sep 11 16:52:41 2019] You slash a reef crawler for 14551 points of damage. (Riposte Critical)
    [Wed Sep 11 16:52:41 2019] A reef crawler bashes YOU for 978 points of damage. (Riposte Strikethrough)

    So, it says i successfully riposte, i do my counter attack damage, and then it correctly tells me that this was a strikethrough and the mob actually hit me. pretty sure mobs can't double bash so this is all one hit.

    Even if this is intentional, it's confusing. the messaging should at the very least make it clear that i successfully counterattacked, but am still going to get hit. the way it currently is, it seems like i avoided a hit with riposte and then got hit again and failed to avoid the damage of the second hit.
  8. niente Developer

    I think this is what happened:
    NPC attempts to bash
    You roll a successful riposte, NPC fails to strikethrough, you roll a critical hit
    You roll a successful double riposte, NPC successfully strikethroughs.

    I agree it is confusing, maybe someone can make suggestions for how to better display this sort of scenario so it's clear what is going on. The strikethrough messages have always been pretty unclear (especially a riposte strikethrough)

    I think (but am not sure) gamparse uses the first line to parse riposte rates. This would mean a double riposte shouldn't affect your "riposte %" in gamparse, but would affect your riposte DPS (not measured by gamparse afaik). I wanted to remove the first line when this was implemented, but didn't for that reason.

    Edit: When you riposte, you can hit twice with your primary (a double riposte), and do a special attack (i.e. kick/bash)
  9. josh Augur



    I don't know if i fully understand what you are saying but I'll try to respond with what i think you are saying, if I'm misunderstanding you, hopefully you can clarify.

    both of his attacks, the one that misses and the one that hits are bashes. He missed a bash, and he hit a bash. If he had counterattacked me, it would have been a punch on this particular mob because he's using his fists. EDIT: (actually this guy bites i was thinking of a different mob i was testing on) He can't bash twice as far as I'm aware. so i was told he missed the bash and hit the same bash
  10. qweasy Augur

    I'd say the problem isn't how you're displaying it but the logic behind how it works. There's no reason having the double riposte AA should increase the amount of damage you take.

    If you riposte a mob they already failed the strikethrough check, getting a double riposte shouldn't change that. Likewise getting a strikethrough on the first riposte shouldn't get a chance to proc a double riposte (I don't know if this is actually possible.)

    edit: And if you believe how it works now is better the AA should be togglable like any other that has the possibility of having a negative affect.
  11. josh Augur


    I don't think mobs can riposte bash can they? that is an AA only given to tanks. And i think melee classes were given an AA chance to kick on riposte right? regardless this is a mob and I'd be surprised if they had that ability.

    Edit: also, the riposte would still be accompanied with an attempt to bite me even if there was also a bash.
  12. josh Augur

    beimeith is arguing with me about this as well so I'm going to share some of the stuff i shared with him as well

    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] Dark Waters Sing tries to kick YOU, but YOU riposte!
    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] You try to bash Dark Waters Sing, but miss! (Riposte)
    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] You slash Dark Waters Sing for 8375 points of damage. (Riposte Strikethrough)
    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] You are fortified by Brell's Stone Balm.
    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] You avoid the stunning blow.
    [Mon Aug 26 19:21:40 2019] Dark Waters Sing kicks YOU for 20449 points of damage. (Riposte Strikethrough)

    again, this is a kick, mobs can't double kick as far as I'm aware. Not only that, but this is a raid boss. Raid bosses cannot be riposted without an avoidance disc and i wasn't using one.

    Here's the original post where me and p2aa discover the issue

    https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/augs-thread.258762/

    gamparse is currently reporting a much higher riposte rate than it was before the april 17th update and it's because we are getting a success message regardless of whether we were successful or not.
  13. niente Developer

    OK I will test further with the raid boss. Thanks
  14. josh Augur


    Lol this is why i never like posting bugs. I hate the idea of making more work for you guys. here it is, almost bedtime, and I'm making you reply to me and giving you work to do. and now I'm giving you something new to read, in a selfish attempt to assuage my guilt. You guys do great work, and i really appreciate all your efforts.
  15. Wulfhere Augur

    I can pretend to read that log as a single kick that strikes through a single riposte. The kick could have been a parry or dodge strike through hit (or miss) just as easily. I'm curious about processing of strike through swings that miss (is that a nested hit/miss check that is unaffected by the reordering?).
  16. josh Augur


    If that message is staying, i still feel it should be reworded.
    If the mob is successful at hitting me regardless of my riposte, then it should be worded

    Dark Waters Sing kicks YOU, and YOU riposte!

    When i am successful at avoiding the damage the message can probably just stay the same.

    At least this way there is some distinction between a successful riposte where i avoid damage and counterattack, and one where i just counterattack.
  17. Metapsyche Augur

    I thought that every parry/riposte on raid mobs was a strikethru? The only time I get “blocks” even is if I’m running shield flash. Lousy heroic strikethru having bums...
  18. Wulfhere Augur

    We have log snippets like this:

    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] An elemental of pure flame hits YOU for 8937 points of damage. (Riposte Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You try to slash an elemental of pure flame, but miss! (Riposte Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 102180 points of damage. (Strikethrough Critical)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 27789 points of damage. (Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You try to slash an elemental of pure flame, but miss! (Flurry)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 107814 points of damage. (Lucky Critical Flurry)

    That combat round is not so easy to understand. I guess I initiated 4 swings thanks to triple attack and flurry. The ripostes of swings precede the swings that caused them. That feels backwards and confusing. Who swung first? Me or the mob? I must have swung first because its first swing, and the first swing in the round, is a riposte. So apparently I'm to understand that its riposte resolved first. The side effect of my swing attempt resolved before my swing. Also my own defense of its riposte, itself a riposte, also preceded my initial swing but follows its riposte. Effect preceded cause. Response preceded initiative. Mostly.

    I think you can clear this up by building the list of actions with initiative ordering. Then when the round is finalized, send it to the output function. If combat parsing is a like-a traversal, then I think you want output to be done pre-order, not in-order or post-order. What it seems like now is a weird hybrid traversal. This should all work even with /loginterval 0.

    Pre-order it would look like this:

    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 102180 points of damage. (Strikethrough Critical)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] An elemental of pure flame hits YOU for 8937 points of damage. (Riposte Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You try to slash an elemental of pure flame, but miss! (Riposte Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 27789 points of damage. (Strikethrough)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You try to slash an elemental of pure flame, but miss! (Flurry)
    [Sun Sep 08 17:59:47 2019] You slash an elemental of pure flame for 107814 points of damage. (Lucky Critical Flurry)
  19. Dzarn Developer

    My mistake, only half the data got pasted in regarding this change.
    The SPA has been changed from 383 to 339 so that it should be a consistent 3% chance rather than a variable weighted proc chance. The description strings for all ranks have been updated to reflect the 3% chance change.


    When changing this from a focus ability to an activated ability I opted to set the initial reuse time at 30 seconds as freeing up a spell gem in favor of an AA button seemed worth the tradeoff. I'm open to review the changes based on community feedback as part of a discussion outside of the bug report thread. Thanks.
    Beimeith and kizant like this.
  20. Braikkarrii Journeyman

    When used, the SHM AA "Turgur's Virulent Swarm" is also landing on the caster. Luckily, it is not landing on other group members.

    Steps to reproduce:
    (must have a SHM character with the AA skill Turgur's Virulent Swarm purchased)

    1. Target any NPC. Make sure it is nearby.
    2. Cast the AE effect Turgur's Virulent Swarm on the npc.
    3. Observe. The casting SHM gets hit with the AE slow/debuff effect.

Share This Page