[BUG?] Powerful Assault

Grumble_and_Grunt

Hey guys,

Is it intended for Powerful Assault to behave this way? (see image below)

Currently, within raid setttings we are having the issue that the set seems to prioritise the same users and even classes (specifically Necros, Sorcs and Wardens).

When allowing the buff to fully expire before refreshing it will still apply to the same users and even when trying to outrange the group and then refresh the buff the result is the same (a proposed work around)





Does anyone know a way to circumvent this issue?

If not, would it be possible as a solution to have Powerful Assault function similar to Roaring Opportunist as that set seems to have a more favourable smart target function, whereby it applies the buff on refresh to those who do not currently already have the buff.

It's great to be able to have sets that offer unique buffs to the group and it can be a little frustrating for some when they are unable to receive any as noted by the meme below by another member of our raid after viewing logs xD



Meme credit to: @Fircelle

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Gaggin

This is prevailant, templars and dks seem to never get the buff regardless of position.
I cycle through various theories and my current one is that for some reason it prioritizes classes with pets. DK's and Templars are the only ones who don't have pets.

Qbiken

Another issue is that the user (in this case me in the picture who uses it on my templar) don´t even get the buff. Even the description of Powerful Assault states that YOU and 5 other members. But for some reason the user doesn´t seem to get the buff all the times.

FThisIWantALongerNam

In the interest of clarifying further, we've noticed this issue while trying to optimize our buff uptimes on Yolnahkriin HM over the last month or so now.

In that period, we've had certain days with slightly different group compositions (an extra necro one week for example)

Across dozens of parses per week, and multiple weeks, it always seems to prioritise giving the buff to:

Necros/Sorcs > Wardens > Blades/Plars/DKs (it may break down further than this, just not sure of the exact order of preference)

Having 3 Necros, 2 Sorcs and 1 Warden in the group, all these players received really good uptimes, while the Plar/DK/blade, who were often closer to the PA user, received near zero uptime.

On the one week where we had an extra Necro in the group, this seemed to bump the warden down this "priority list" and they received practically zero PA uptime that week.

On the left of this image, is the week we had an extra necro, destroying the warden's PA uptime. On the right is the regular group comp without that extra necro.


Definitely seems to be a preference for certain classes over others.

Arwen72

The same prioritisation seems to apply to caster. Our healer (templar) never gets it on casting himself, while warden tank always gets it.
No work around found yet.

Karm1cOne

Does it not apply to templars and dks if they are the only ones in group? Does order of joining group affect the buff?

Kurat

Necros are behind paywall, so ofcourse they are prioritized. Working as intended

renne

Karm1cOne wrote: »

Does it not apply to templars and dks if they are the only ones in group? Does order of joining group affect the buff?

That would be an interesting test.

WrathOfInnos

It does seem to prioritize some over others, and is not smart about giving it to those that don’t have it already. I think PA used to go to whoever had the most stamina, but that was changed a while back. I’m not sure what it uses to prioritize targets now, definitely not distance. I wonder if it could be something obscure like stamina recovery (which Necro, Sorc and Warden all have passives for).

Sangwyne

Kurat wrote: »

Necros are behind paywall, so ofcourse they are prioritized. Working as intended

I wonder how many other hidden mechanics that prioritize Necro or Warden exist that we simply haven't heard of yet. Not particularly surprised to see that DK or Templar were left in the dumpster yet again, they seem to be little more than an afterthought at this point.

Princess_Ciri

It would be nice if Powerful Assault could be changed into a smart buff set that is applied to those who do not have the buff or did not receive it last time.

It's pretty silly playing a Templar DPS in raids and discovering you are missing a buff and the only way to receive it is to banish the other DPS to the opposite end of the room.....

Fennwitty

The pets might be counted as possible targets in play before it settles on which get buffs? So the necros and sorcs and wardens have the odds weighted in their favor?

Arwen72

If not changing it to a smart buff (which would be op) , it would at least be nice to know by which attribute it selects the target, be it class, max stam, stam recovery....

UtopianWarrior88

Yes, please make this a smart set - it's nearly impossible to proc this on a group without 2 stacks, and then it's even iffy at best.

FantasticFreddie

Yeah PA is broken, and a pita to run because of it. Two stacks only works if you can keep enough distance between them to outrage PA procs, which you rarely can, and then you have your OT or healer running across the room every ten seconds

Grumble_and_Grunt

@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_JessicaFolsom

CrustyCroco

Not sure if it's connected or not, but i noticed kinda similar targetting preferences by testing, who gets hit by the necro's graveyard debuff, if more than 6 enemies are standing inside of it. While caltrops' debuff was hitting the 6 targets closest to the impact area of the targetted aoe and swapped targets constantly, the graveyard debuff didn't care about the distance.
It always preferred 6 "chosen" targets, if more than 6 were standing inside of it.
Only when one of those targets moved out of the area, a different target got hit, which seems to be similar to the presented Powerful Assault issue.

This opens up some theories/ assumptions that had to be tested.
1. It's pure alphabetical based on some @name, character name, classname, faction etc etc (most of these don't seem to be the case when looking at the screenshots)
2. Highest/Lowest offensive stats or otherwise statbased
3. In esologs every character and skills are translated into IDs. It could as well just be "alphabetical" regarding which ID the character has. Also not sure, how the IDs are allocated to the characters and if it plays any role at all ingame.
4. Something else we didn't consider yet or just aren't able to see with the limited tools we have.

Thor199389

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Not sure if it's connected or not, but i noticed kinda similar targetting preferences by testing, who gets hit by the necro's graveyard debuff, if more than 6 enemies are standing inside of it. While caltrops' debuff was hitting the 6 targets closest to the impact area of the targetted aoe and swapped targets constantly, the graveyard debuff didn't care about the distance.
It always preferred 6 "chosen" targets, if more than 6 were standing inside of it.
Only when one of those targets moved out of the area, a different target got hit, which seems to be similar to the presented Powerful Assault issue.

This opens up some theories/ assumptions that had to be tested.
1. It's pure alphabetical based on some @name, character name, classname, faction etc etc (most of these don't seem to be the case when looking at the screenshots)
2. Highest/Lowest offensive stats or otherwise statbased
3. In esologs every character and skills are translated into IDs. It could as well just be "alphabetical" regarding which ID the character has. Also not sure, how the IDs are allocated to the characters and if it plays any role at all ingame.
4. Something else we didn't consider yet or just aren't able to see with the limited tools we have.

From what Ive seen it is not connected to the ID nor the name, so 1 and 3 is out imo.
2 is also kinda out from my perspective since Ive seen a similar preference for supporter if they shared the same class.
Ive seen a chart of priority for PA that mentioned classes, race and gender.
That could misslead to your assumption 2 since most of the time DDs are race x and healers y while tanks are z.

I dont know why, but it feels like it is the same reason why it feels like its always the DK DD that gets aggro if an add is not taunted. I would really like to see ZoS adressing this as an real issue and not dump it like "nobody cares"...

vgabor

Check the procs against the actual joining order of members in the group (ie: the list on the group page)

Thor199389

vgabor wrote: »

Check the procs against the actual joining order of members in the group (ie: the list on the group page)

group page is alphabetic by char name also i highly doubt that the templar is always joing last xD

CrustyCroco

Thor199389 wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Not sure if it's connected or not, but i noticed kinda similar targetting preferences by testing, who gets hit by the necro's graveyard debuff, if more than 6 enemies are standing inside of it. While caltrops' debuff was hitting the 6 targets closest to the impact area of the targetted aoe and swapped targets constantly, the graveyard debuff didn't care about the distance.
It always preferred 6 "chosen" targets, if more than 6 were standing inside of it.
Only when one of those targets moved out of the area, a different target got hit, which seems to be similar to the presented Powerful Assault issue.

This opens up some theories/ assumptions that had to be tested.
1. It's pure alphabetical based on some @name, character name, classname, faction etc etc (most of these don't seem to be the case when looking at the screenshots)
2. Highest/Lowest offensive stats or otherwise statbased
3. In esologs every character and skills are translated into IDs. It could as well just be "alphabetical" regarding which ID the character has. Also not sure, how the IDs are allocated to the characters and if it plays any role at all ingame.
4. Something else we didn't consider yet or just aren't able to see with the limited tools we have.

From what Ive seen it is not connected to the ID nor the name, so 1 and 3 is out imo.
2 is also kinda out from my perspective since Ive seen a similar preference for supporter if they shared the same class.
Ive seen a chart of priority for PA that mentioned classes, race and gender.
That could misslead to your assumption 2 since most of the time DDs are race x and healers y while tanks are z.

I dont know why, but it feels like it is the same reason why it feels like its always the DK DD that gets aggro if an add is not taunted. I would really like to see ZoS adressing this as an real issue and not dump it like "nobody cares"...

Yea, wasn't really convinced by most of those possibilities, but since something has to be causing the targetting, might as well check everything.
Just to doublecheck, how did you test that the buff doesn't pick a certain ID (#3 in my list) like they are shown in the raw encounterlog files? I'm not talking about the account @ name ID. It would be something like for example 24252963 (that's an enemy npc in skyreach). If you already did that and compared those IDs with the ingame names and uptimes that would save a lot of work.
It could still be tho, that the game allocates IDs to the players, that we don't know about and the buffs get applied accordingly.
An ID like that could include numbers for things that you mentioned too, like race (for example 1=Altmer, 2=Bosmer etc), class (1=Sorc, 2=Warden etc), gender etc and then have an order accordingly which gets used by the game itself to be a preferred target for PA.

Thor199389

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Thor199389 wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Not sure if it's connected or not, but i noticed kinda similar targetting preferences by testing, who gets hit by the necro's graveyard debuff, if more than 6 enemies are standing inside of it. While caltrops' debuff was hitting the 6 targets closest to the impact area of the targetted aoe and swapped targets constantly, the graveyard debuff didn't care about the distance.
It always preferred 6 "chosen" targets, if more than 6 were standing inside of it.
Only when one of those targets moved out of the area, a different target got hit, which seems to be similar to the presented Powerful Assault issue.

This opens up some theories/ assumptions that had to be tested.
1. It's pure alphabetical based on some @name, character name, classname, faction etc etc (most of these don't seem to be the case when looking at the screenshots)
2. Highest/Lowest offensive stats or otherwise statbased
3. In esologs every character and skills are translated into IDs. It could as well just be "alphabetical" regarding which ID the character has. Also not sure, how the IDs are allocated to the characters and if it plays any role at all ingame.
4. Something else we didn't consider yet or just aren't able to see with the limited tools we have.

From what Ive seen it is not connected to the ID nor the name, so 1 and 3 is out imo.
2 is also kinda out from my perspective since Ive seen a similar preference for supporter if they shared the same class.
Ive seen a chart of priority for PA that mentioned classes, race and gender.
That could misslead to your assumption 2 since most of the time DDs are race x and healers y while tanks are z.

I dont know why, but it feels like it is the same reason why it feels like its always the DK DD that gets aggro if an add is not taunted. I would really like to see ZoS adressing this as an real issue and not dump it like "nobody cares"...

Yea, wasn't really convinced by most of those possibilities, but since something has to be causing the targetting, might as well check everything.
Just to doublecheck, how did you test that the buff doesn't pick a certain ID (#3 in my list) like they are shown in the raw encounterlog files? I'm not talking about the account @ name ID. It would be something like for example 24252963 (that's an enemy npc in skyreach). If you already did that and compared those IDs with the ingame names and uptimes that would save a lot of work.
It could still be tho, that the game allocates IDs to the players, that we don't know about and the buffs get applied accordingly.
An ID like that could include numbers for things that you mentioned too, like race (for example 1=Altmer, 2=Bosmer etc), class (1=Sorc, 2=Warden etc), gender etc and then have an order accordingly which gets used by the game itself to be a preferred target for PA.

Ah I see what you ment there - no I did not check that but you could easily check that by looking at a bunch of diffrent groups, if the numbers somehow include race and class, there will be a pattern that you can easily see.

Grumble_and_Grunt

Last night raid, this time two groups, tried setting the PA user in the furthest group to the Necros and Sorcs to try outrange and reapply the buff once expired, but did not change much.

User is still also not receiving the buff themselves.

Thor199389

https://www.esologs.com/reports/caXtRPAD71QTNBLC/#fight=9&type=auras&ability=61771

Jaimeh

Could you please let us know if you are aware of this issue and potentially looking through it @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BillE?

laksikus

Interessting.

I vaguely remember something similar when i testet a purge bot with meriterious in pvp, years ago


If i remember correct: From 4 targets i used to reapply the buff two two fixed and 2 random group members. I dropped the set soon after and never bothered to investigate or associated it with classes (note that was before warden and necro came out)


Interessted if anyone finds out the reason. Or if its just typically bad code

Miss_MakeItRain

2 groups, Yoln HM. Rip my healer parses

Grumble_and_Grunt

#3Qbiken

Sandman929

I have a sorc that wore powerful assault several months ago, and to this day when I cast an assault ability I see the buff icon on my bar. I don't get the benefit, but even not wearing the set the icon shows up. Just speaking of Powerful Assault bugs.

Arwen72

Imagine having one PA proc in three fights, so Logs prove you exist. Condolences to all Dks, Templars an Nightblades out there.
Please fix Powerful Assault!

Princess_Ciri

That single PA proc was the happiest moment in all those fights, sadly it ran out almost as soon as we started the fight