Question on Known Issue/Bug Reporting

[zorander6]

Or Turbine considers those spells WAI. Problem is we don't know that since we don't know if it's considered a bug or not....

[Folonius]

Or Turbine considers those spells WAI. Problem is we don't know that since we don't know if it's considered a bug or not....

Hi Welcome

Maybe the intent was for it to work the way it is? But if we're getting bug reports from people who are confused, it gives the quest folks leverage to change it. Not always, but it's added ammunition.

[Tolero]

Adding entries to the Known Issues list is something probably any dev could handle, regardless of specialization.

Oh you'd think that, but you'd be surprised at the shape some fixes come in before we get to word-smith them into something a player can understand sometimes because coders are not language artists, but sometimes because devs have a bad habit of talking in all dev speak. It is most definitely not a simple process to update the list in a way that makes sense to the end user and doesn't just confuse them further.

This is the strangest thread ever..
1) the sheer number of responses from turbine crew...the entire first page of dev tracker is mostly this thread.
2) 10 points to tolero for derailing the thread on the second post for bringing up ladders and making it a multi thread where one is totally about ladders...

To be fair.... I was told there would be ice cream.

[Kelavam]

To be fair.... I was told there would be ice cream.

Wait.. What? There is not? That is why *I* came too. Someone owes me..

[rdasca]

Oh you'd think that, but you'd be surprised at the shape some fixes come in before we get to word-smith them into something a player can understand sometimes because coders are not language artists, but sometimes because devs have a bad habit of talking in all dev speak. It is most definitely not a simple process to update the list in a way that makes sense to the end user and doesn't just confuse them further.



To be fair.... I was told there would be ice cream.

Tolero, first I do thank you for coming on here and getting beat up ... and I do appreciate the work that you and the rest of the Turbine staff do on this game (except the GMs, but that is a whole other thread).

But really, it is not that hard to say something like "Spell such and such is not working as intended right now" or something along those lines, that is all people here really want is a list of things that you and the rest of Turbine already know about, that way we know if something is being fixed or at least is known about. Personally I have stopped submitting bug reports because frankly none of the ones I ever see end up on the known list, so it seems to me from my perspective that they are simply ignored, now this may not be the case, yet that is my perception as well as quite a few others evidenced by the very nature of this thread.


BTY, just for you

[Khurse]

Oh you'd think that, but you'd be surprised at the shape some fixes come in before we get to word-smith them into something a player can understand sometimes because coders are not language artists, but sometimes because devs have a bad habit of talking in all dev speak. It is most definitely not a simple process to update the list in a way that makes sense to the end user and doesn't just confuse them further.

This is the strangest thread ever..


1) the sheer number of responses from turbine crew...the entire first page of dev tracker is mostly this thread.

2) 10 points to tolero for derailing the thread on the second post for bringing up ladders and making it a multi thread where one is totally about ladders.

To be fair.... I was told there would be ice cream.

I'm pretty sure it's part of the Dev's conspiracy of silence and misdirection in order to ensure that I never get to loot Sulo's chest on Hard of Elite.
Must be where the Greensteel Handwraps have been hiding...

[Angelus_dead]

Oh you'd think that, but you'd be surprised at the shape some fixes come in before we get to word-smith them into something a player can understand
...
It is most definitely not a simple process to update the list in a way that makes sense to the end user and doesn't just confuse them further.

It's not unmanageably hard. Imperfect list entries are better than nothing.

Here, I'll give you three sample Known Issues that could be added:

• The Rage spell only affects a single target. It will be restored to an AOE buff in the future.
• The Master Of Archery capstone enhancement for Rangers gives a speed benefit of less than the listed 25%. This is as intended, and the text will be corrected in the future.
• Clicky spell amplification effects such as Inferno and Ardor (but not Efficacy) grant a higher bonus than stated, such as 75% for Superior instead of 50%. This is intentional and the text will be updated in the future.

How much time does it really take for this kind of writing?

[TiranBlade]

I think aside from the Rare ladder loop I have from time to time, the only other ladder issue I have is with garl's tomb in 3bc, you have to jump on the sail in order to climb the ladder, you can't climd directly out of the water and up the ladder, the sail is actually a physical peice and blocks the ladder ascension.

[MrCow]

How much time does it really take for this kind of writing?

That depends how much of an expert you are on the system and the specific issues. You proved the one of the problems of making these lists when you aren't knowledgeable of the entirety of the issues with your theoretical Master of Archery bullet (where the issue is that the reload animation only partly benefits from attack speed bonuses).

[KillEveryone]

[*]Clicky spell amplification effects such as Inferno and Ardor (but not Efficacy) grant a higher bonus than stated, such as 75% for Superior instead of 50%. This is intentional and the text will be updated in the future.[/list]
How much time does it really take for this kind of writing?

Now I didn't know about these. Are these real or just examples?

If they are real then I would have liked to know about them.

[Angelus_dead]

You proved the one of the problems of making these lists when you aren't knowledgeable of the entirety of the issues with your theoretical Master of Archery bullet (where the issue is that the reload animation only partly benefits from attack speed bonuses).

No, the sample entry is adequate, and a major upgrade from not listing it at all.

It correctly informs players that the Master of Archery capstone will not provide them with the 25% increase to ranged attack speed it says it does. The details of what specific implementation problems caused that situation are beside the point. The important part is warning the customers that the results will not be as advertised.

[Angelus_dead]

Now I didn't know about these. Are these real or just examples?

Yes, they're real. Some of them have been publicly acknowledged by Turbine developers in release notes or other venues. But until such time as the in-game descriptions match up with the actual effect, that's something that deserves to be listed as a "known issue".

[MrCow]

No, the sample entry is entirely adequate.

It correctly informs players that the Master of Archery capstone will not provide them with the 25% increase to ranged attack speed it says it does. The details of what specific implementation problems caused that situation are beside the point.

But to state that it is not intended to be 25% when it very well may be intended to be 25% because of misinterpreting the issue? That is a dangerous thing to say to the public.

[Angelus_dead]

But to state that it is not intended to be 25% when it very well may be intended to be 25% because of misinterpreting the issue?

Oh, I guess there is the possibility that they intend it to be 25%. If that's the case, then yes it would be undesirable to misinform the public, although not "dangerous".

In the event that the person writing the notes does not have access to whoever makes the decision about class features then it's easy enough to omit statements about what might be intended and just report the facts as they exist currently.

I hope I'm not being too optimistic in assuming that the devs noticed what a bad idea it is to give an Arcane Archer Ranger a 25% DPS increase just for advancing from level 19 to 20.

[Rumbaar]

For such a serious issue, I too wish we would get off ladders and address the major concern of lack of information made available to us via a 'true' known issues resource.

[AyumiAmakusa]

For such a serious issue, I too wish we would get off ladders and address the major concern of lack of information made available to us via a 'true' known issues resource.

In the mean time make do with this http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...63#post3165363

[dragonruler]

Hey Keeper, did you by chance get my ladder bug I reported for on the guild airship back when U5 was still on Lamannia? It should be dated the day of the big dev party on the guild airship. I told Tolero and she was like bug report it so Keeper can take a gander at it.

(Don't think she actually said gander but it sounds like something she'd say. )

I wanna say it was the back left ladder on the Stormglory? Whatever the nonstore bought medium sized ship is.

[MrWizard]

in all honesty, the amrath unique sets are really bugged and except for one dev post in one thread stating it was a database issue there has been no known issue addition and I hardly think they want us to keep reporting it...

?

punch and pie too

[iamsamoth0]

I think aside from the Rare ladder loop I have from time to time, the only other ladder issue I have is with garl's tomb in 3bc, you have to jump on the sail in order to climb the ladder, you can't climd directly out of the water and up the ladder, the sail is actually a physical peice and blocks the ladder ascension.

That was one I got the other day, it was completely frustrating. I confess I did not bug it though. And eventually it simply slipped my mind. It was incredibly aggravating. Thank you for getting that one out!, if not again....It wont allow you to climb out of the water either, unless this is WAI players have to swim all the way around to the other chamber to get up, and then run all the way back around.

[Auran82]

That depends how much of an expert you are on the system and the specific issues. You proved the one of the problems of making these lists when you aren't knowledgeable of the entirety of the issues with your theoretical Master of Archery bullet (where the issue is that the reload animation only partly benefits from attack speed bonuses).

Whether his examples are completely correct or not isn't really important, the people responsible for updating a 'known issues' list, should be able to translate 'dev speak' into common for that purpose, if the issue is too complex to describe easily, just put in the best description that you can. The main thing is, that non-exploit related bugs should be listed somewhere so we know they exist, if they still need more info then say that in the bug listing so people can submit more detailed bug reports if they come across it.

Hell, apparently there is a whole server with dev chosen players who are supposed to be doing testing and submitting detailed bug reports, what are they doing exactly.

I mean seriously, how is 'Rage and <insert other spells affected> are currently only effecting one person' not on the official known issues list, do you really need more detailed reports on that? Do I need to log onto my bard, run a heap of quests, a file a bug report each time I cast the spell, detailing the quest I was in, who was in my group, and the /loc of where I was standing at the time to help you troubleshoot? Was this not picked up in QA before release? Or were they just hoping no-one would notice until they could fix it.