issue 26 Patch Notes for January 23rd, 2020 - Issue 26, Page 4

[Wavicle]

17 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Pulled Chance for +Fury from followup and attacked a pylon. With my followup, focus, slash, repeat attack chain, fury is capped at 83%. That rather sucks. Put the proc back in followup and I get between 91-99%. The fury change being based on cast time needs to be further considered methinks. We shouldn't have to rely on an AT IO to get where we're supposed to be with a constant attack chain.

I got it up to about 87% fighting two spawns at once.

Let me ask this, if we COULD reliably get that last 10%, what would be the point of the IO?  Is this A) not working as intended and B) really a problem?  Are we not doing enough damage?

Again, I don't have that much experience with brutes.  Did Brutes USED to be able to get Fury higher than this normally?

[karremania]

Does the 50% arc/aoe bonus actualy shows ingame? As staff it still says 10ft aoe, but that should be 15ft now right?

[VileTerror]

Can confirm the Rest Log flooding.  Like over 20 messages PER SECOND.

[Captain Powerhouse]

19 minutes ago, karremania said:

Does the 50% arc/aoe bonus actualy shows ingame? As staff it still says 10ft aoe, but that should be 15ft now right?

 

Should show as a buff, but not on the power info.

[Mystic_Cross]

20 minutes ago, karremania said:

Does the 50% arc/aoe bonus actualy shows ingame? As staff it still says 10ft aoe, but that should be 15ft now right?

It does not show in the powers themselves, but it does (should) apply to those powers listed in the patch notes. 
 

I noticed last night that it appears to also affect powers like Sands of Mu, since I didn’t see that listed in the patch notes (maybe I missed it?) wondering if this is WAI?

[Captain Powerhouse]

2 minutes ago, Mystic_Cross said:

I noticed last night that it appears to also affect powers like Sands of Mu, since I didn’t see that listed in the patch notes (maybe I missed it?) wondering if this is WAI?

 

WAI, unless someone finds an extremely exploitable use for Sands of Mu and force my arm into nerfing it.

It should apply to almost all AoEs, regardless if they are epics, armor powers, power pools, inherents, temps, etc.

Pseudo-pet powers should not be affected.

[Mystic_Cross]

1 minute ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

WAI, unless someone finds an extremely exploitable use for Sands of Mu and force my arm into nerfing it.

It should apply to almost all AoEs, regardless if they are epics, armor powers, power pools, inherents, temps, etc.

Pseudo-pet powers should not be affected.

Thanks, that’s good to know. 

[td1ddy]

That Phantom Army update is a dream come true. So much character potential.....

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 hours ago, sacredlunatic said:

I got it up to about 87% fighting two spawns at once.

Let me ask this, if we COULD reliably get that last 10%, what would be the point of the IO?  Is this A) not working as intended and B) really a problem?  Are we not doing enough damage?

Again, I don't have that much experience with brutes.  Did Brutes USED to be able to get Fury higher than this normally?

 

I was able to reliably get and stay in the 90s against a pylon before the patch without the AT IO, so what was the point of the IO then? Same as now, a bit more fury. Problem now is I'm not reliably near the cap.

 

But as I posted earlier.. or later.. I did 5 maps of burn farm with my claws/fa brute and cleared them in 33 minutes with a normal clear time of about 30, and as I know I was off my game, that's well within the normal spread. It's probably nothing that'll matter in the long run.

[SweetTorment]

I am very concerned by that highlighted post from Jimmy. I honestly feel like he has gotten the bug completely wrong about what is going on and has no clue. It is leaving me with less than positive belief that it will actually be fixed.

 

A little testing of my own as a spines/fire brute showed me that it had absolutely nothing to do with toggles failing to apply taunt. This issue is far worse than simply a failure to taunt. Burn is actively de-aggroing everything it hits with every tick of damage but only if another active DoT exists.

 

Apply any non-Burn DoT power but never touching Burn and the enemies stayed on me practically forever.

Apply burn by itself with no other DoT powers and again the enemies more or less would stay on.

But if you apply a non-Burn DoT first and then afterward apply Burn very shortly there after enemies go running away by the dozens.

If you apply Burn DoT first and then afterward apply a non-Burn DoT second you can actually keep the enemies on you if you time the second power right.

 

Tested Burn with Quills and Blazing Aura on. Resulted in eventual de-aggro but only after more than half of the Burn was over.

Tested Burn with Spine Burst used first. Resulted in complete de-aggro after just 1 or 2 ticks.

Tested Burn with no other attack / counterattack powers used. Resulted in eventual de-aggro but only after the power almost exhausted itself.

Tested Burn with Spine Burst used second. Resulted in some de-aggro but some enemies stayed on.

Tested Quills and Blazing Aura but no active powers including Burn. Resulted in enemies staying on.

Tested Spine Burst used along with Quills and Blazing Aura but not Burn. Resulted in enemies staying on.

 

Conclusions:

A) Burn (and other powers that were changed by the same coder in this patch) is actively de-aggroing but only if another DoT exists already.

B) If you apply any other DoT right after the Burn DoT the second DoT power returns the aggro which slightly overcomes the de-aggro effect until too much de-aggro builds up to be overcome.

C) If you apply any other DoT right before the Burn DoT then the total amount of de-aggro seems to be equal to both which causes instant disengage.

D) The problem is Burn and any other power that was changed in this patch to stop causing aggro - the code almost surely fails at simply turning off extra aggro but instead adds negative aggro each tick.

 

THIS is where the bug is in personal opinion. Instead of simply not adding aggro, Burn and other changed powers actively de-aggro.

[Replacement]

8 minutes ago, SweetTorment said:

I am very concerned by that highlighted post from Jimmy. I honestly feel like he has gotten the bug completely wrong about what is going on and has no clue. It is leaving me with less than positive belief that it will actually be fixed.

 

A little testing of my own as a spines/fire brute showed me that it had absolutely nothing to do with toggles failing to apply taunt. This issue is far worse than simply a failure to taunt. Burn is actively de-aggroing everything it hits with every tick of damage but only if another active DoT exists.

 

Apply any non-Burn DoT power but never touching Burn and the enemies stayed on me practically forever.

Apply burn by itself with no other DoT powers and again the enemies more or less would stay on.

But if you apply a non-Burn DoT first and then afterward apply Burn very shortly there after enemies go running away by the dozens.

If you apply Burn DoT first and then afterward apply a non-Burn DoT second you can actually keep the enemies on you if you time the second power right.

 

Tested Burn with Quills and Blazing Aura on. Resulted in eventual de-aggro but only after more than half of the Burn was over.

Tested Burn with Spine Burst used first. Resulted in complete de-aggro after just 1 or 2 ticks.

Tested Burn with no other attack / counterattack powers used. Resulted in eventual de-aggro but only after the power almost exhausted itself.

Tested Burn with Spine Burst used second. Resulted in some de-aggro but some enemies stayed on.

Tested Quills and Blazing Aura but no active powers including Burn. Resulted in enemies staying on.

Tested Spine Burst used along with Quills and Blazing Aura but not Burn. Resulted in enemies staying on.

 

Conclusions:

A) Burn (and other powers that were changed by the same coder in this patch) is actively de-aggroing but only if another DoT exists already.

B) If you apply any other DoT right after the Burn DoT the second DoT power returns the aggro which slightly overcomes the de-aggro effect until too much de-aggro builds up to be overcome.

C) If you apply any other DoT right before the Burn DoT then the total amount of de-aggro seems to be equal to both which causes instant disengage.

D) The problem is Burn and any other power that was changed in this patch to stop causing aggro - the code almost surely fails at simply turning off extra aggro but instead adds negative aggro each tick.

 

THIS is where the bug is in personal opinion. Instead of simply not adding aggro, Burn and other changed powers actively de-aggro.

Err.  How many enemies were around you?  Lots?  Was this tested in a fire farm?

 

If you are surrounded by over 17 enemies, then the lack of an aura taunt will cause them to de-aggro, because a new enemy will take their place.

 

As CP mentioned earlier, Burn inherently creates lots of instances of opportunities for the AI to try to run.  It's only the taunts that keep them from overcoming this, normally.  I don't see anything in your test that contradicts CP's assessment (and uh, he's the one who sees the missing conditions in the code).

 

EDIT: that said, I wouldn't be surprised to find there's more than 1 bug at work, here.  The testimonies of Taunt (power) overriding fleeing enemies is very strange.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Replacement

[Replacement]

4 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

WAI, unless someone finds an extremely exploitable use for Sands of Mu and force my arm into nerfing it.

It should apply to almost all AoEs, regardless if they are epics, armor powers, power pools, inherents, temps, etc.

Pseudo-pet powers should not be affected.

Say there was... ohhh I dunno, a melee damage IO set that proc'd aoe damage.  Would that also gain the Gauntlet benefits?

 

This is not me trying to give you ideas for how to improve ST sets.  I don't know where you got that idea, but i like it!

[Kai Moon]

Possible missing patch note?

 

Pool > Leaping > Jump Kick: Chance for knockup increased from 20% to 100%?

[MIG]

Great work team!  Outstanding patch!

 

I have a Spines/Fire Brute with 1B+ influence build and I’m not losing any sleep over burn, panic, taunt, etc.  I’m playing other characters... heck, rolling illusion just for the new look!  Devs, please take the weekend off, relax, and review the bugs later... you earned it.

 

 

[Captain Powerhouse]

27 minutes ago, Rigel Kent said:

Possible missing patch note?

 

Pool > Leaping > Jump Kick: Chance for knockup increased from 20% to 100%?

 

That is a bug.

[Ukase]

On the original post it says that Brute damage cap is 700%. I think this is an error. Pretty sure it was 675%. 
It is now capped at 600%, not 700%. 

Someone else probably said something already, but I only read the notes, not the comments to follow. Sorry!

 

[Wavicle]

2 minutes ago, Ukase said:

On the original post it says that Brute damage cap is 700%. I think this is an error. Pretty sure it was 675%. 
It is now capped at 600%, not 700%. 

Someone else probably said something already, but I only read the notes, not the comments to follow. Sorry!

 

The Brute DAMAGE BONUS is capped at 600%, which, when you add it to the base, makes 700% total.

[Ukase]

Just now, sacredlunatic said:

The Brute DAMAGE BONUS is capped at 600%, which, when you add it to the base, makes 700% total.

So..when I see 600% in combat attributes, that's not reflecting the base as well? Oops! 

[General Idiot]

3 minutes ago, Ukase said:

So..when I see 600% in combat attributes, that's not reflecting the base as well? Oops! 

With how often this exact question and answer has come up over the course of all the beta patches and now, perhaps the devs should just start referring to the stat as we players can see it, not including the base 100%. It'd save a lot of confusion.

[csr]

4 hours ago, Replacement said:

Err.  How many enemies were around you?  Lots?  Was this tested in a fire farm?

 

If you are surrounded by over 17 enemies, then the lack of an aura taunt will cause them to de-aggro, because a new enemy will take their place.

 

As CP mentioned earlier, Burn inherently creates lots of instances of opportunities for the AI to try to run.  It's only the taunts that keep them from overcoming this, normally.  I don't see anything in your test that contradicts CP's assessment (and uh, he's the one who sees the missing conditions in the code).

 

EDIT: that said, I wouldn't be surprised to find there's more than 1 bug at work, here.  The testimonies of Taunt (power) overriding fleeing enemies is very strange.

 

I don't think the target cap is involved here.  I was in a Synapse TF earlier tonight with another Tanker and 2 Brutes.  I was playing a FA/SF Tanker.  If I hared off solo I could keep aggro for the most part when I used Burn, but if I was with the team and used Burn, then more often than not things took off running, despite the fact that we had 2 Tankers running taunt auras right in the middle of the critters.  The DoT explanation would account for most of that.  Though I suspect it might simply be frequency of attacks rather than actual DoT that causes the AI to run for the hills.  The real question though is why aren't they being stopped from doing so now, when they were before?  Captain Powerhouse did add a Taunt effect to the initial Burn (not the patch).  Maybe something went wrong there.  Heck, it's almost acting like he added Placate instead.

Edited January 25, 2020 by csr

[Li_Sensei]

19 hours ago, Trickshooter said:

I'm pretty sure there was a problem getting some of them to stop proc'ing on the Tanker using them.

That's what I recall, but the idea of an invuln tanker faceplanting from a terminal migraine caused by his own chance for psi damage proc always did make me smile.

 

(edited because apparently I can't spell)

Edited January 25, 2020 by Li_Sensei

[Replacement]

9 hours ago, csr said:

 

I don't think the target cap is involved here.  I was in a Synapse TF earlier tonight with another Tanker and 2 Brutes.  I was playing a FA/SF Tanker.  If I hared off solo I could keep aggro for the most part when I used Burn, but if I was with the team and used Burn, then more often than not things took off running, despite the fact that we had 2 Tankers running taunt auras right in the middle of the critters.  The DoT explanation would account for most of that.  Though I suspect it might simply be frequency of attacks rather than actual DoT that causes the AI to run for the hills.  The real question though is why aren't they being stopped from doing so now, when they were before?  Captain Powerhouse did add a Taunt effect to the initial Burn (not the patch).  Maybe something went wrong there.  Heck, it's almost acting like he added Placate instead.

Maybe. It's good to give data. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if this is more than one bug at work.  

 

But I take issue with assuming the guy who made the changes doesn't know what he's talking about. Put in the fix we know is needed while gathering data about additional problems.

[DarknessEternal]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

 

 

But I take issue with assuming the guy who made the changes doesn't know what he's talking about. 

Coh code is pretty messed up.  It’s not an insult to imply such. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by DarknessEternal

[Doc_Scorpion]

24 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Coh code is pretty messed up.  It’s not an insult to imply such. 

He didn't imply the code was messed up, he stated the developer was wrong.  These are not the same thing.  Not even close.

[Abraxus]

Are we really questioning the competence of the guy(s) who know this game from it's deepest levels (at the code base), rather than questioning our own diligence at testing all possible permutations prior to implementation?  I do hope I am misinterpreting these comments.

 

These folks are doing their best to interpret 15 year old code, that was not done in the most organized way from the start.  Just ways that made what the original developers wished to do, happen in the most expedient way possible.  Much has been stacked on top of that over the years, and now, in an effort to give us more of what we want, and make things better, the new developers are attempting to interpret all of that, and make changes to accommodate.  They allow for the possibility that there could be inadvertent issues created by any change, since pulling any thread in this delicate, and intricate tapestry could have unintended consequences.  They do this by putting those changes in a test environment, and imploring us to beat it up to expose the exact kinds of things we are seeing.  That we apparently didn't test as effectively, or vigorously as the subtleties of the issue required, is regrettable.  But, not the fault of the folks attempting to make the game better for us (for free I might add).  It is incumbent on us, as players to help them sort these kinds of things out.  We are their best source of this kind of information.  They cannot do it alone.  The same was true when the game was live, and there were times when the exact same things happened, despite the fact that there were many more players who participated in testing.  

So, before casting aspersions on these great folks that provide all of this for us, perhaps take a little more introspective look at ourselves, and admit that our dependence on others to test, rather than more of us helping out is more responsible for this, than any lack of skill on the part of the Devs.  More thorough testing might, or might not have actually caught these latest bugs.  But, it stood a greater chance than relying on the Devs to do it for us, blaming them when it had unintended side-effects, and insisting that the changes be rolled back, or fixed ASAP.  I propose that we all have more of an investment in this endeavor, and act in the role of partners in the process of development, rather than just its beneficiaries.  Things can only benefit from a situation such as that, and participation, rather than complaint is a lot more satisfying.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Abraxus