Jump to content

So, what _actually_ causes respecs to fail?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, thunderforce said:

Well, it's been a while, but today I tried "in a busy area" - ie, Excelsior, next to Ms Liberty, in the evening on Saturday. Four respecs in a row all succeeded. Hence, I suspect "busy area" is as much of a red herring as "untrained levels".

What if the problem is untrained levels combined with a specific IO slotted?   Or some other obscure combination?  We know there are occasional respec failures, and we know that the three solutions are 99% effective in solving the problem.  I've never had a failed respec, but I also can't recall a time when I did a respec with untrained levels.  The one example in this thread with a confirmed failed respec involved untrained levels.  I wouldn't call that a red herring. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have no clue what may cause respec failure I've done them in Atlas City Hall, an abandoned corner of a zone and, most often, in my SG base.  Offhand I only recall one failure ever, and simply doing it again the same way worked.

 

I just put it down to random connectivity glitches.

Guardian Survivor, occasional tanker and player of most AT's.

Guides: Invulnerability Tankers, The first 20 levels.  Invulnerability Tankers Soft Cap defense

Spoiler

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 8:22 AM, Ignatz the Insane said:

What if the problem is untrained levels combined with a specific IO slotted?   Or some other obscure combination?  We know there are occasional respec failures, and we know that the three solutions are 99% effective in solving the problem.

We don't know that at all, both because "99%" is a number pulled out of nowhere and because, as detailed upthread, everything we see is consistent with the idea that respecs almost always work and so stopping whatever you were doing the first time will seem to be effective.

On 3/21/2021 at 8:22 AM, Ignatz the Insane said:

The one example in this thread with a confirmed failed respec involved untrained levels.

Again, as detailed upthread, it's no surprise that when respecs fail, we tend to find things which you'd expect to be true anyway - being in a busy area is the obvious example. Most players are in busy areas; that what makes them busy areas.

18 hours ago, Call Me Awesome said:

While I have no clue what may cause respec failure I've done them in Atlas City Hall, an abandoned corner of a zone and, most often, in my SG base.  Offhand I only recall one failure ever, and simply doing it again the same way worked.

I just put it down to random connectivity glitches.

That seems as likely a scenario as any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 6:49 PM, SuperPlyx said:

Altho I am guilty of repeating the "Don't be in SG base" multiple times. I always respec in the base and respec a fair amount. I did a respec this morning to move one slot on my farmer.

I have never had a respec fail.

Now I assume it was a "busy" base or something of the sort. I have a very simple base that only I use. 

 

Yeah... i've probably done 50 respecs in my base in the last 2-3 months.  I have never had a fail.  I didn't even know failing respecs was a thing.  My base is very small, if that matters.

 

The untrained levels thing catches my attention.  I know I always train before respec'ing because if I don't, I may not be able to put the slots in the place I want.  For example, if I'm going to 6-slot the power I just took. 

 

I wonder if there's something goofy about trying to respec before/after leveling without zoning first (because you know how zoning fixes stuff).

 

Active on Excelsior:

Lode Monkey - Fire Blast / Energy Manipulation Blaster (Blapper), Flaming Doom Monkey - Shield / Martial Arts Tank, Xero-Ranger Monkey - Energy Melee / Energy Aura Stalker

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

Yeah... i've probably done 50 respecs in my base in the last 2-3 months.  I have never had a fail.  I didn't even know failing respecs was a thing.  My base is very small, if that matters.

Well, again, most respecs work. Does a large and busy base matter, or is it just that if a player is in a base and has a respec fail, they are more likely to be in a large and busy one because more players are in busy bases than empty ones?

We don't know.

22 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

The untrained levels thing catches my attention.  I know I always train before respec'ing because if I don't, I may not be able to put the slots in the place I want.  For example, if I'm going to 6-slot the power I just took. 

I had to think about this, but I see what you mean. No bad habit to be in if you like slotting patterns that would have been impossible on live.

22 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

I wonder if there's something goofy about trying to respec before/after leveling without zoning first (because you know how zoning fixes stuff).

I mean, that doesn't seem implausible. (We could just as well be in the situation where everyone tells people to zone on a respec failure because we "know" that works, and I'm asking if _that_ is pure coincidence). If anything it seems more plausible, since zoning does fix a lot of things and Soldiers of Arachnos aren't all forced to respec without zoning at level 24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've now reached the state where a GM can say on Discord it "always" fails with untrained levels, even though that is absolutely unequivocally known not to be true, and I can't point out that it isn't true. I despair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a lot of respecs and have never received a message that it failed.  What I did have one time here on HC a few months back was a respec that completed but I had placed several (expensive) I/O's into the enhancement tray instead of slotting them (as they no longer fit into the new build).  When I closed the respec window and checked my enhancement tray there was nothing!  I thought they had been deleted as though they were left in the ready to respec window even though they weren't.  I created a ticket and was informed very quickly that I had triggered a display issue by respec'ing while having a pending level-up (super kudos to HC support!).  I was informed a log-out/log-in would correct it and sure enough, relogging fixed it.  They were there all along, just invisible I guess.

 

Having been a QA for a few years I remember as part of my job having to try to think of ways the customer might use the software that the devs might not have thought about.  This hiccup reminded me of exactly one of those scenarios.  Made me chuckle to realize I'm the customer this time. 😁

 

So, I don't know what causes a fail, however I do know one glitch that can be triggered that can give you a scare but the fix is a simple relog.

  • Haha 1

Want to see my current list of characters?  Want to know more about me than you ever wanted to know?

Wish Granted!   Check out the 'About Me' in my profile:   KauaiJim - Homecoming (homecomingservers.com)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thunderforce said:

We've now reached the state where a GM can say on Discord it "always" fails with untrained levels, even though that is absolutely unequivocally known not to be true, and I can't point out that it isn't true. I despair.

What do you mean you can't point it out? You pointed it out in the OP. No one's had any quibbles with that point, including the GMs who responded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Mr. Vee said:

What do you mean you can't point it out? You pointed it out in the OP. No one's had any quibbles with that point, including the GMs who responded. 

I mean that yesterday a GM said on Discord that it quote always unquote fails, I pointed out that wasn't true, and my remarks were removed from Discord while the untrue statement from a GM was left. Furthermore, said GM absolutely did "quibble" with that point.

Quote

For some reason if you try in a base (occasionally) or while you have levels outstanding (always) the server throws a wobbly that resolves itself when you go away and come back

This ("always") just isn't true. Ideally, "GMs shouldn't say things that are known to be untrue" shouldn't be controversial. I've not quoted the quibble since I'm kind of torn between this apparently being a forbidden topic and the sheer absurdity of the situation.

Edited by thunderforce
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so your problems are with something that happened in discord and the reaction in discord, fine. But as far as this thread we accepted your point.

 

It seems what we have are several things that are sometimes sufficient conditions for failed respecs, the most common being not having fully trained up. That's all the GMs need because they have various suggestions they can make in the event of a failed respec. As far as we non-GMs know, there haven't been any cases where none of the suggestions worked and the person was forced to either live with their original build, switch to a second build, or ragequit in despair that they're forever stuck with the full presence pool taunting them on one of their characters' builds.

 

So not having been trained up isn't a necessary condition for failed respecs. Nor is it always a sufficient condition as you rightly have pointed out. Sure it'd be great if there were a necessary and sufficient condition for respec failure that could be found and fixed. But given the range and general wonkiness of the things known to sometimes affect it, coupled with the far-famed spaghetti code, it might be too much work to expect from a volunteer crew to go diving for what may turn out not to exist, especially since they already have a list of things to suggest to fix the problem when it arises.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mr. Vee said:

So not having been trained up isn't a necessary condition for failed respecs. Nor is it always a sufficient condition as you rightly have pointed out. Sure it'd be great if there were a necessary and sufficient condition for respec failure that could be found and fixed. But given the range and general wonkiness of the things known to sometimes affect it, coupled with the far-famed spaghetti code, it might be too much work to expect from a volunteer crew to go diving for what may turn out not to exist, especially since they already have a list of things to suggest to fix the problem when it arises.

That seems a bit besides what I'm saying right now, which is that ideally that volunteer crew wouldn't tell players things that are definitely not true. (And not harmless; of course, it's pretty confusing for the VEAT player...)

Edited by thunderforce
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tidge said:

I can see that this topic has become somebody's white whale.

Guilty as charged, but honestly when I swore I'd take that whale in tow, I anticipated a considerably shorter conversation along the lines of "it doesn't always fail, it probably doesn't often fail" "oh, we'd better not tell people it always fails".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think dev time is better spent on other things than fixing something that seems to have an easy solution. Train up before doing a respec. Perhaps it should be written into several different places so more people are aware of this prior to doing a respec. Like a pop-up window that says "Be sure you're leveled up before you're trained". 

I couldn't say for sure, but it would seem (to me) that would be easier than testing, testing and retesting to determine a root cause and implement an eloquent solution. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thunderforce said:

Guilty as charged, but honestly when I swore I'd take that whale in tow, I anticipated a considerably shorter conversation along the lines of "it doesn't always fail, it probably doesn't often fail" "oh, we'd better not tell people it always fails".

 

 

I'd prefer if the GM team tells players to try things they know may then make sure the next attempt at a respec doesn't fail.

 

"Try these steps and see if they work" sounds reasonable enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ukase said:

I think dev time is better spent on other things than fixing something that seems to have an easy solution. Train up before doing a respec. Perhaps it should be written into several different places so more people are aware of this prior to doing a respec. Like a pop-up window that says "Be sure you're leveled up before you're trained". 

I couldn't say for sure, but it would seem (to me) that would be easier than testing, testing and retesting to determine a root cause and implement an eloquent solution. 

 

Pretty much this. Especially since it's not a problem that happens all the time. Not worth wasting the dev time.

 

Now if the respec failed AND BROKE A CHARACTER so you couldn't log into it ever again, that would be a different story and THEN worthy of the Dev/QA time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Pretty much this. Especially since it's not a problem that happens all the time. Not worth wasting the dev time.

 

I don't think it is even worth the devs' time to change the script of responses, which is now what the complaint appears to be about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thunderforce said:

Guilty as charged, but honestly when I swore I'd take that whale in tow, I anticipated a considerably shorter conversation along the lines of "it doesn't always fail, it probably doesn't often fail" "oh, we'd better not tell people it always fails".

Pride goeth before the fall...

 

Pyrrhic victory...

 

Nose to spite the face..

 

What, exactly, is the point of the continuance of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ukase said:

I think dev time is better spent on other things than fixing something that seems to have an easy solution. Train up before doing a respec. Perhaps it should be written into several different places so more people are aware of this prior to doing a respec. Like a pop-up window that says "Be sure you're leveled up before you're trained".

I don't think I've asked that the devs do _anything_ (although now I think about it, it does seem like a bit of logging would very rapidly shed light on what the causes are, if it's anything but bad luck).

 

Your proposal is obviously bad since it will only increase the confusion for VEATs.

17 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

I'd prefer if the GM team tells players to try things they know may then make sure the next attempt at a respec doesn't fail.

"Try these steps and see if they work" sounds reasonable enough.

But that's not the same thing as telling players something which is known not to be true, is it?

 

If the current guesswork is wrong, telling people to train is useless but harmless (other than confusing VEATs). But doing that doesn't have to involve saying it "always fails".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thunderforce said:

I don't think I've asked that the devs do _anything_ (although now I think about it, it does seem like a bit of logging would very rapidly shed light on what the causes are, if it's anything but bad luck).

 

Your proposal is obviously bad since it will only increase the confusion for VEATs.

But that's not the same thing as telling players something which is known not to be true, is it?

 

If the current guesswork is wrong, telling people to train is useless but harmless (other than confusing VEATs). But doing that doesn't have to involve saying it "always fails".

 

/shurg.

 

I'm not seeing this as a major issue since most respecs don't fail. I don't think I've ever had one fail in all my time (including 5+ years on live) in COH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

I'm not seeing this as a major issue since most respecs don't fail. I don't think I've ever had one fail in all my time (including 5+ years on live) in COH.

"Most respecs don't fail" is... kind of what I've been saying all along; it seems to explain the observed facts (go away and change something and, hey presto, it works).

 

But also "GMs shouldn't tell players things which are known not to be true" is not a major request. When I started, I would not have expected that anyone would disagree with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...