Test Update 10/08/2019 - New Bugs Only

Discussion in 'Test Update Notes and Bug Roundup' started by EQ Dev, Oct 8, 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. Sumteengex Journeyman

    - - Bard - Fading Memories - Removed ranks 4-40. Ranks 1-3 now consume 12, 6, and 2% of your maximum mana to activate. This ability now applies Evader's Invisibility regardless of your proximity to attackers.
    - - Ranger - Cover Tracks - Increased the success chance to 100% (up from 90%). Removed ranks 4-15 and adjusted the hastening so that this ability has a 10-minute reuse by rank 3 at level 85 (up from 3 minutes at level 100). This ability now applies Evader's Invisibility regardless of your proximity to attackers. This ability now consumes 8% of your mana to activate.
    - - Rogue - Escape - Reduced the reuse of ranks 3-11 and added rank 12 resulting in a 1.5-minute reuse timer at level 85. This ability now applies Evader's Invisibility / Evader's Shroud of Stealth regardless of your proximity to attackers. This ability now consumes 2% of your maximum endurance to activate.

    No AAs refunded for the ranked that were removed, for these 3 class's. ive only checked these 3 class's as they are the ones i play most.
  3. svann Augur

    Did not refund the removed aas.
    Did charge me 32 aas to rebuy ranks 1-3.

    I can understand the first one, but the second is just wrong. I already had fading memories maxxed. Why do I need to pay more?
    Yinla likes this.
  4. Narlee Developer



    we are taking a look
  5. Narlee Developer


    Tried to reach out in General chat on test, but if you did a /testcopy after the server up then the old ranks weren't transfered over in the testcopy script and you will have to rebuy on test. You should not experience missing aa ranks on Live.

    No refund of AA is the intended behavior in this case.
    klanderso and svann like this.
  6. Dahaman Augur

    Shaman AA: Call of Ancients (ranks 1-6)

    Issue: The amount of regen granted does not align with the AA description. It's off by 500 (Ex: 675 per description, 175 per application).

    This is likely not a "new" issue, but a "new-to-me" issue as I just got Rank 6 of the AA on Coirnav. The description (or regen amount) is still not correct. Does it ever align in the future? Can someone check a higher level rank to verify how high the error goes?

    Method to check: Look at your regen rate. Turn on the ability and note how much the regen rate increases.
  7. Yinla Augur

    This was on live, I hope this has been fixed on test to stop it happeing once the /pick changes go through
  8. Braikkarrii Journeyman

    The SHM alliance spell 'Ancient Alliance' (any rank) prevents the Abundant Healing HOT from landing on the target when other priest classes cast direct heals on the target.

    Prerequisite:
    1. A SHM that has the 'Ancient Alliance' spell scribed.
    2. Another level 96+ priest (CLR, SHM, or DRU) that has ranks of the Abundant Healing AA purchased.

    Steps to reproduce:
    1. Have a SHM cast 'Ancient Alliance' on a target that is able to accept the buff (preferrably another human player to make this defect easier to reproduce).
    2. Have another priest class cast a direct healing spell (level 96+) on the target. Repeat this step multiple times to attempt to trigger the Abundant Healing HOT.
    3. Observe. The Abundant Healing HOT never lands on the target.

    What unexpectedly happens is that the other priest casting the direct heal receives the Abundant Heal HOT instead of the intended target.
  9. Leigo Augur

    [IMG]
    Can we get this fixed when able? TY!
    Note this is inspecting from spell book, the scroll has the correct description.
  10. Wulfhere Augur

    Not true and this is not a new "bug".
    Alliance target behavior has been consistent since the spells were released afaik. Raiders (and groupers) who excel at alliance healing know this. In short:

    Druid and Shaman alliance rains center around the priest casting the direct heal (as above).
    Cleric alliance rains center around the PC that has the alliance buff (i.e. the tank).

    There is nothing in the SPDAT that accounts for this behavior (they should all behave as cleric alliances does). Therefore we must conclude it's been coded to behave this way and strategize accordingly. I.e. working as intended and not all that unexpected.
    Mediik likes this.
  11. Braikkarrii Journeyman

    That is an interesting story. If the mechanics of the SHM spell's AE heal functioned as you describe, then the target will mostly be exempt from the additional healing, which is contradictory to the in-game description of the spell and completely non-sensical (if you actually think about it for more than three seconds). Therefore, we must conclude you have unintentionally described another defect.

    At any rate, the problem that was described has nothing to do with the AE heal effect of the Alliance spell (please read and understand the defect carefully next time). The problem is the unexpected behavior that results in the interaction between the Abundant Healing passive AA (please read the in-game description of the ability) and the Ancient Alliance spell (also read its in-game description).
  12. Wulfhere Augur

    Depends on where the priests are standing relative to the buffee. Hence the strategic expertise that has developed among raiders.

    Rereading your post, I believe that the alliance buff is causing Abundant to fall under the same "code based" re-targeting logic that is active for shaman and druid alliance buffs. I bet you'll see the same bug with druid alliance on the test subject, while cleric alliance will not cause this bug.
  13. Mediik Augur

    Also for druid/shaman the tank must have line of sight of the caster for the splash to happen around them. It does make for some interesting strategy.
    Wulfhere likes this.
  14. Ngreth Thergn Developer

    Lets keep it on point. The bug was passed to Dzarn and Aritso, and we'll let them evaluate if it is a bug and fix it if it is, speculation isn't for this thread.

    This is the Bug reporting thread.

    Thank you!
    Thunderkiks likes this.

Share This Page