ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone, thanks for letting us know. The intention was to make these items unowned so they wouldn't be consider stolen, not prevent you from looting all together. This will be addressed in a future patch.
Oh weird. I didn't know there was anything in Cyrodiil that could be considered owned.
I'm new, and I'm not a developer. So clue me in here --- at my job as a systems/network engineer, when we have a ticket with a problem we must resolve, we implement the resolution and then test the results before we close the ticket.
Am I correct in understanding that a variable was changed on some loot containers to change them to unowned, and then the results were not tested? Only for this change to go live and then the intent found to have not been achieved?
How is this missed on such a benign change that is so easy to test? We aren't talking about an earth shattering change. A variable change on some items and fire up the internal test server to confirm? One wonders how change control tickets get marked as completed/resolved without testing.
Calls into question the disciplinary action that takes place when such low hanging fruit is screwed up. When there is no consequence, what difference does it make when one doesn't test but claims they did when it gives them 15 extra minutes to browse facebook on their phone while lying on the time sheet that they tested it...
at my job as a systems/network engineer, when we have a ticket with a problem we must resolve, we implement the resolution and then test the results before we close the ticket.
Am I correct in understanding that a variable was changed on some loot containers to change them to unowned, and then the results were not tested? Only for this change to go live and then the intent found to have not been achieved?
How is this missed on such a benign change that is so easy to test? We aren't talking about an earth shattering change. A variable change on some items and fire up the internal test server to confirm? One wonders how change control tickets get marked as completed/resolved without testing.
Calls into question the disciplinary action that takes place when such low hanging fruit is screwed up.
I'm new, and I'm not a developer. So clue me in here --- at my job as a systems/network engineer, when we have a ticket with a problem we must resolve, we implement the resolution and then test the results before we close the ticket.
Am I correct in understanding that a variable was changed on some loot containers to change them to unowned, and then the results were not tested? Only for this change to go live and then the intent found to have not been achieved?
How is this missed on such a benign change that is so easy to test? We aren't talking about an earth shattering change. A variable change on some items and fire up the internal test server to confirm? One wonders how change control tickets get marked as completed/resolved without testing.
Calls into question the disciplinary action that takes place when such low hanging fruit is screwed up. When there is no consequence, what difference does it make when one doesn't test but claims they did when it gives them 15 extra minutes to browse facebook on their phone while lying on the time sheet that they tested it...
Shadowmaster wrote: »clear there is no unit testing in place either
I'm new, and I'm not a developer. So clue me in here --- at my job as a systems/network engineer, when we have a ticket with a problem we must resolve, we implement the resolution and then test the results before we close the ticket.
Am I correct in understanding that a variable was changed on some loot containers to change them to unowned, and then the results were not tested? Only for this change to go live and then the intent found to have not been achieved?
How is this missed on such a benign change that is so easy to test? We aren't talking about an earth shattering change. A variable change on some items and fire up the internal test server to confirm? One wonders how change control tickets get marked as completed/resolved without testing.
Calls into question the disciplinary action that takes place when such low hanging fruit is screwed up. When there is no consequence, what difference does it make when one doesn't test but claims they did when it gives them 15 extra minutes to browse facebook on their phone while lying on the time sheet that they tested it...
JamieAubrey wrote: »Sheezabeast wrote: »It includes these other 2 smaller containers too...
So this is what the EP base looks like
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »Hi everyone, thanks for letting us know. The intention was to make these items unowned so they wouldn't be consider stolen, not prevent you from looting all together. This will be addressed in a future patch.
