Maintenance for the week of September 8:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784
PTS Error Compilation
Erasure
✭✭✭
Hello testers, I'd like your help with a project. Cliffnotes are at the bottom.
The unintentional set interactions introduced in 2.5 to the Live server, and Zenimax's response to players using them, have left a worrying gap in approved player behaviors. PTS Templates do not grant access to all possible set combinations, nor even to all updated combinations, nor is it reasonably possible to test all updated NPC's for unintended AI behavior in the presence of new items or skill morphs. There are simply too many combinations.
ToS states:
This section is very clear, even speaking on these forums about any unintended game behavior is an infringing action. Warning other players about bugs, exploits, or unclear game mechanics to avoid cannot be attempted under any means, and bears no distinction from purposefully instructing players to exploit them. The only seemingly correct behavior upon encountering a bug is to immediately report it in-game, ignore any requests to find reproduction steps, and go about your day, even if that bug were an easy method to grant emperorship buffs.
Of course, that's just the indemnifying language of the ToS, in reality there have been frequent episodes of Zenimax asking for, and appreciating, reproduction steps sent to them through their own channels, despite how the agreement reads.
However, Zenimax has taken a hard-line policy recently towards players who display infringing, trackable behavior. Permanent suspensions have been handed out to first time offenders, and so players must be exceedingly cautious when interacting with new content. Tooltips given in this game for abilities and set effects have historically lacked important details, and sometimes have even been misleading. A recent example of a misleading (and detrimental) effect tip is the Minor Slayer effect, which has been found to not grant its stated 5% damage under execute conditions. This was not brought to public attention for months after its introduction in April to Live servers. Under Section 5.2, every player who has worn a set that grants the Minor Slayer effect may have encountered a bugged game behavior, which did not grant them an unfair advantage, and may have their account actioned as a result.
That would be ridiculous, of course, and Zenimax isn't about to ban their entire PvE community over a loss of DPS. It illustrates the point however, that unintentional mechanics can be prevalent without the knowledge or consent of the players who find themselves affected by them.
Only the most devoted ESO players make their way to the official forums, and of that fraction an even smaller slice follow PTS updates and subforums. Most rely on streamers, Youtube channels, and other content creators to translate the information into a useful form. There is a real chance of a bugged behavior from PTS making its way into a new character build on Live servers, without many of the players who might try it being clearly aware of the danger to their accounts. Look at the 2.6.0 Tri-Focus passive rework for lightning staves; to my knowledge, there was no announcement of it being changed to apply once per tick, and there has also been no announcement of it being reverted to its previous, barely-effective state. Was it an experiment by ZoS? Was it intentional, but deemed too powerful? Was it a bug, and if so are staff wielders in danger of being banned for exploiting it? The only way to keep it from happening is to not wear a lightning staff, or to not have points in Tri-Focus, the very first passive a mage would unlock in the tree. Many, MANY players would be detected for performing this behavior before they even had 50 hours in the game, or knew the history of the passive. What about when the Cruel Flurry enchantment was modifying skill strength directly for the DoT duration, allowing players to keep the DoT at its empowered strength for as long as they were able to keep the timer from running out, without re-casting Flurry? How were players to know that wasn't the desired behavior, until Zenimax changed it to require a new Flurry cast on each empowerment? The Elegance set currently empowers Sorceror Overload damage, despite it being an ultimate and not a true light or heavy weapon attack. Are top-tier magicka Sorcerers going to wake up to find themselves banned due to exceedingly quick Maelstrom clears?
The answer to that question is Probably Not. But the problem remains: Metagaming culture strives to find advantageous combinations, using edge cases and unforeseen synergies to gain advantage over less focused players. Inevitably, some of these behaviors will be unintended by the game developers. No modern videogame is bug-free, and if you don't believe that, I suggest perusing some GDQ footage.
For the safekeeping of our accounts, and those of our friends and guildmates, then, I propose a list. Any behavior modified, introduced, or found on PTS 2.6.x which is operating outside its expected or stated conditions should be recorded here, so that players on the Live server may know what NOT to do. Refrain from purposefully naming any Live server conditions which were not changed in 2.6.0 or later, as this is not intended to be an exhaustive bug list, nor an exploit tutorial. The goal is to have clarity, both for our own benefit and hopefully from Zenimax as well, as to whether what we see on PTS is what was meant to happen. If any behaviors from this thread make it to the Live server, it should hopefully serve as a guide and reference for those who wish to remain in good account standing.
Please note, this topic is not intended for, and should not be used for, the discussion of cheating, ban policies, exploiting in general, or other related conversations, as Zenimax has already provided the appropriate forum for them.
Summary: Zenimax's strict bug interaction policy endangers uninformed players, when PTS content makes it to Live. As testers, the best aid we can render is exposure, so that everyone who cares about their account knows what to avoid. Please post anything you notice on PTS which changed from Live, and is not working as it should be. Don't post Live bugs!
The unintentional set interactions introduced in 2.5 to the Live server, and Zenimax's response to players using them, have left a worrying gap in approved player behaviors. PTS Templates do not grant access to all possible set combinations, nor even to all updated combinations, nor is it reasonably possible to test all updated NPC's for unintended AI behavior in the presence of new items or skill morphs. There are simply too many combinations.
ToS states:
5.2 Users will not exploit any bug, or abuse any game system (such as the scoring or award systems) in a ZeniMax Game, Service, forum, or other games or services provided by ZeniMax. Users will not intentionally use or share any bug found within any ZeniMax Game, real or fictitious, regardless of whether or not it grants an unfair advantage. You will not directly or indirectly communicate the existence of any such bug to any other user of the ZeniMax Service (in game or on a ZeniMax service).
This section is very clear, even speaking on these forums about any unintended game behavior is an infringing action. Warning other players about bugs, exploits, or unclear game mechanics to avoid cannot be attempted under any means, and bears no distinction from purposefully instructing players to exploit them. The only seemingly correct behavior upon encountering a bug is to immediately report it in-game, ignore any requests to find reproduction steps, and go about your day, even if that bug were an easy method to grant emperorship buffs.
Of course, that's just the indemnifying language of the ToS, in reality there have been frequent episodes of Zenimax asking for, and appreciating, reproduction steps sent to them through their own channels, despite how the agreement reads.
However, Zenimax has taken a hard-line policy recently towards players who display infringing, trackable behavior. Permanent suspensions have been handed out to first time offenders, and so players must be exceedingly cautious when interacting with new content. Tooltips given in this game for abilities and set effects have historically lacked important details, and sometimes have even been misleading. A recent example of a misleading (and detrimental) effect tip is the Minor Slayer effect, which has been found to not grant its stated 5% damage under execute conditions. This was not brought to public attention for months after its introduction in April to Live servers. Under Section 5.2, every player who has worn a set that grants the Minor Slayer effect may have encountered a bugged game behavior, which did not grant them an unfair advantage, and may have their account actioned as a result.
That would be ridiculous, of course, and Zenimax isn't about to ban their entire PvE community over a loss of DPS. It illustrates the point however, that unintentional mechanics can be prevalent without the knowledge or consent of the players who find themselves affected by them.
Only the most devoted ESO players make their way to the official forums, and of that fraction an even smaller slice follow PTS updates and subforums. Most rely on streamers, Youtube channels, and other content creators to translate the information into a useful form. There is a real chance of a bugged behavior from PTS making its way into a new character build on Live servers, without many of the players who might try it being clearly aware of the danger to their accounts. Look at the 2.6.0 Tri-Focus passive rework for lightning staves; to my knowledge, there was no announcement of it being changed to apply once per tick, and there has also been no announcement of it being reverted to its previous, barely-effective state. Was it an experiment by ZoS? Was it intentional, but deemed too powerful? Was it a bug, and if so are staff wielders in danger of being banned for exploiting it? The only way to keep it from happening is to not wear a lightning staff, or to not have points in Tri-Focus, the very first passive a mage would unlock in the tree. Many, MANY players would be detected for performing this behavior before they even had 50 hours in the game, or knew the history of the passive. What about when the Cruel Flurry enchantment was modifying skill strength directly for the DoT duration, allowing players to keep the DoT at its empowered strength for as long as they were able to keep the timer from running out, without re-casting Flurry? How were players to know that wasn't the desired behavior, until Zenimax changed it to require a new Flurry cast on each empowerment? The Elegance set currently empowers Sorceror Overload damage, despite it being an ultimate and not a true light or heavy weapon attack. Are top-tier magicka Sorcerers going to wake up to find themselves banned due to exceedingly quick Maelstrom clears?
The answer to that question is Probably Not. But the problem remains: Metagaming culture strives to find advantageous combinations, using edge cases and unforeseen synergies to gain advantage over less focused players. Inevitably, some of these behaviors will be unintended by the game developers. No modern videogame is bug-free, and if you don't believe that, I suggest perusing some GDQ footage.
For the safekeeping of our accounts, and those of our friends and guildmates, then, I propose a list. Any behavior modified, introduced, or found on PTS 2.6.x which is operating outside its expected or stated conditions should be recorded here, so that players on the Live server may know what NOT to do. Refrain from purposefully naming any Live server conditions which were not changed in 2.6.0 or later, as this is not intended to be an exhaustive bug list, nor an exploit tutorial. The goal is to have clarity, both for our own benefit and hopefully from Zenimax as well, as to whether what we see on PTS is what was meant to happen. If any behaviors from this thread make it to the Live server, it should hopefully serve as a guide and reference for those who wish to remain in good account standing.
Please note, this topic is not intended for, and should not be used for, the discussion of cheating, ban policies, exploiting in general, or other related conversations, as Zenimax has already provided the appropriate forum for them.
Summary: Zenimax's strict bug interaction policy endangers uninformed players, when PTS content makes it to Live. As testers, the best aid we can render is exposure, so that everyone who cares about their account knows what to avoid. Please post anything you notice on PTS which changed from Live, and is not working as it should be. Don't post Live bugs!
3
-
Erasure✭✭✭@SirMewser has already gotten a bit of a start with this over at the Ninja Nerfing thread.
In addition to those changes, so far I've also noticed that the Infernal Guardian set proc rate seems much, much higher than 50% in AoE situations. It still fails at times, but I'm wondering if it isn't checking 50% chance to spawn bombs per target in radius? I will try to collect data, but it may take time, as trying to get a large sample of a 6-second proc can be lengthy.Edited by Erasure on September 5, 2016 2:25PM2 -
CylindricalBox✭✭✭The Hatchling's Shell set's five-piece tool tip indicates a fifteen second cooldown on the damage shield. However, upon losing and regaining the fifth bonus, the damage shield can be refreshed in spite of this timer.
To reproduce this, equip four armor pieces of Hatchling's Shell and equip a Hatchling's Shell weapon on one bar but not the other, such that the five-piece bonus is only available on one bar.
Is this an intended mechanic of the set?
Edited by CylindricalBox on September 12, 2016 1:28PMBox a.k.a. Ferdowsi (PC NA)0 -
CylindricalBox✭✭✭The Swarm Mother set does not grant CC immunity immediately upon pulling the target. Therefore, it is possible to inflict the target with multiple CCs before the pull is complete.
Is this an intended mechanic of the set?
Box a.k.a. Ferdowsi (PC NA)1 -
Lumbermill_Emperor✭✭✭✭1) cp160 mobs in cyrodiil still provide exp like they are cp140, intended or bug?
2) mobs in delves around Tamriel provide same cp140 exp like mobs in Cyro, intended or bug?
CP300 template character with exp scroll - overland regular mob - 2380-2484 exp, Cyrodiil overland+delve/Tamriel delve regular mob - 1780-2100 exp
3) all overland sets in Wrothgar still bound, intended or bug?
4) old IC sets for Tel-Var like Black Rose, Shieldbreaker and others, should come with all parts, but they didnt on PTS, intended or bug?
I spent a few million tel var on the black rose and random reward boxes. No weapons, jewelry, shields, or sturdy.
5) what about Coldharbour, there is no Dark Anchors, so the only way to get jewerly from overland sets - treasure maps?
6) 3-part rare sets from dungeons will be removed completely? example what im talking about - https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/289617/3-part-sets-from-dungeons-will-be-removed
7) 6 months after thieves guild and the known "unintended" reduction of movement speed what happened to the fix? Didnt see anything in the patch notes and its not fixed on PTS either.
8) Dragonstar Arena loot drop becomes BoP? (not specified in patch notes, and i cant test this solo)
9) Your previous patch notes mentions a change to the Apprentice's Garb set, but that set is not found on the list of drop locations. Can we confirm where this set drops?
10) Para Bellum set is also missing from the Maelstrom Arena line. Does it still drop there?
11) how we can get gold jewerly of overland sets? The price for gold ring "Silk of the Sun" - 1+ million of gold on live servers because of this
12) i opened advanced chests in Imperial City Sewers, but didnt get any set pieces - intended or bug? same about Imperial City Districts0 -
CylindricalBox✭✭✭The Resistant CP on the PTS is granting greater values of Critical Resistance for each point invested than on live. There was no note on the PTS patch notes regarding any change to Critical Resistance.
On live, Resistant grants 68 (1 point), 42 (2), 37 (3) ... up to 1699 Critical Resistance at 100 points.
On the PTS, Resistant grants 100 (1 point), 62 (2), 54 (3) ... up to 2499 Critical Resistance at 100 points.
The tool tip for the passive remains unchanged. Does this mean the formula for Critical Resistance has changed, and that 68 Critical Resistance no longer reduces the enemy critical modifier by 1%?
EDIT: This change suggests that the Impenetrable trait on the PTS is about 30% less effective in reducing the enemy's critical damage modifier than the Impenetrable trait on live.
On live, 68 Critical Resistance = 1% critical mitigation, meaning that one piece of gold CP160 Impenetrable armor grants 258 Critical Resistance ≈ 3.8% critical mitigation.
On the PTS, 100 Critical Resistance = 1% critical mitigation, meaning one piece of gold CP160 Impenetrable armor grants 258 Critical Resistance ≈ 2.6% critical mitigation.
Was this change to Critical Resistance intentional? Of course, this could be another case of broken tool tips. I have yet to compare mitigation equal values of Critical Resistance provide on live and the PTS.Edited by CylindricalBox on September 12, 2016 2:44PMBox a.k.a. Ferdowsi (PC NA)0 -
Erasure✭✭✭Thanks for contributing y'all, this is useful information so far.CylindricalBox wrote: »EDIT: This change suggests that the Impenetrable trait on the PTS is about 30% less effective in reducing the enemy's critical damage modifier than the Impenetrable trait on live.
Woah, that one's pretty relevant to PvP gearing. Has anyone done detailed crit mitigation gear testing on PTS yet? I'll get my buddies to help with it this evening if not! Clarification is needed for whether the tooltip % on Resistant is what is inaccurate, or whether the math per point did change.Edited by Erasure on September 12, 2016 11:15PM0 -
CylindricalBox✭✭✭After testing with a friend, we've determined that the formula for Critical Resistance has not changed, and that the following statement holds for both live and PTS:
Furthermore, the following statement also holds true, suggesting that the Resistant CP passive received a silent buff:CylindricalBox wrote: »68 Critical Resistance = 1% critical mitigation ... one piece of gold CP160 Impenetrable armor grants 258 Critical Resistance ≈ 3.8% critical mitigation.
In other words, even though the tool tip specifies 1% Critical Resistance (1 point), 1.6% (2), 2.2% (3), and 25% (100), the passive is actually granting 1.4% (1 point), 2.3% (2), 3% (3), and 37% (100). The tool tip matches the mitigation the passive provides on live; however, according to our tests, the passive is granting more Critical Resistance than indicated on the PTS.CylindricalBox wrote: »On live, Resistant grants 68 (1 point), 42 (2), 37 (3) ... up to 1699 Critical Resistance at 100 points.
On the PTS, Resistant grants 100 (1 point), 62 (2), 54 (3) ... up to 2499 Critical Resistance at 100 points.
Was this an intended change to the Resistant passive? If so, the tool tip should be adjusted to reflect the additional critical mitigation it provides. Otherwise, the passive should be reverted to grant the same values as live.Box a.k.a. Ferdowsi (PC NA)3 -
Sounomi✭✭✭Not to be nitpicky or anything, but 66 crit resist has usually been what's considered a 1% reduction (Resistance / (50 + 160 / 10)). Since its a hard stat to really test, this is being based off of how the other resistance stats work. Of course this would imply that the in-game description is off but considering the bug here, that's not too surprising. The other CPs that boost resistances against specific types of damage don't actually increase their respective stats that are hidden from the normal stat window, so we can't necessarily compare this to those (though at the same time, you have to wonder if they're bugged too).0 -
Erasure✭✭✭Not to be nitpicky or anything, but 66 crit resist has usually been what's considered a 1% reduction (Resistance / (50 + 160 / 10)). Since its a hard stat to really test, this is being based off of how the other resistance stats work. Of course this would imply that the in-game description is off but considering the bug here, that's not too surprising. The other CPs that boost resistances against specific types of damage don't actually increase their respective stats that are hidden from the normal stat window, so we can't necessarily compare this to those (though at the same time, you have to wonder if they're bugged too).
True enough, but the takeaway is that the "25% crit damage reduction" star is demonstrating 37% cdm reduction.
Encountered a duelling error last night:- Apply Stalwart Guard to a party member
- Proceed to duel them
- Minor Force remains active during the duel, though the damage sharing does not.
1 -
CylindricalBox✭✭✭The Poisonous Serpent set's five piece bonus appears to be dealing direct melee damage. While this makes the damage dodgeable, it also means the set can trigger any number of sets that activate on melee damage, including Viper and Selene.
I really advise the set not to go live in this state, as it would mean Viper activating in series with Poisonous Serpent from Bow light and heavy attacks.
Box a.k.a. Ferdowsi (PC NA)0