Guild Wars 2

The thing only lists displaying the cooldown icon with Flamethrower, but considering the absolute lack of dev testing, I wouldn’t be surprised if it only looks like it’s working in the code, but is actually being overwritten by something else.

New patch still nothing.

arena net pls..

holy crap, scope does’t work?

well, good thing I haven’t been running my sniper build for awhile

AsmallChicken.9634:

New patch still nothing.

I’m starting to believe they’re just trolling us with the continued broken state that is the Scope perk.

Scope may work, just not how you think. Read earlier posts in this thread.

Eviator.9746:

Scope may work, just not how you think. Read earlier posts in this thread.

Don’t do that, multiple people have tested, it does not give a single percent even at 98/99 percent. So do not even try to defend arenanet for this.

Did that 10,000 shot test ever get finished, or did it get abandoned due to holy kitten so much time expenditure why are we the ones doing this shouldn’t Anet test their own kitten godkitten ?

I imagine it was abandoned Anymras, simply because a conclusive methodology (thus proving if it gives even 1% crit chance or not) was produced, rather than one requiring a prominent sample size for accuracy. It would effectively be wasted effort at this point in time.

Figured. Be nice if we didn’t have to test the kitten things to show that they exist.

It seems that Anet always references their debugger, but never actual in-game play tests. I wonder if all they do is debug it with their software tools but never actually play-test this stuff. They’ve sworn a couple times that various bugs were not present, only to be shown in-game proof that they are. Only then do they mention that their debugger didn’t pick up on this and they’ll look into it.

That’s probably what happens – they’re too busy trying to get it out to playtest it, so they just hope the debugger catches whatever goes wrong.

Anymras.5729:

Did that 10,000 shot test ever get finished, or did it get abandoned due to holy kitten so much time expenditure why are we the ones doing this shouldn’t Anet test their own kitten godkitten ?

I didn’t finish that test. When I started it I started with the assumption that it wasn’t working because 4% base plus 10% scope should be 14% crit chance. However someone else came up with a different theory: scope is 10% multiplicative with non-buffed crit chance, not additive. If that is true, my initial 10,000 shot test would not be able to prove or disprove that.

So I did a high-crit 2000-hit test instead. My results verified “someone else’s” theory. That is to say, with 70% crit chance + 20% from fury + (10% * 70% = 7%) scope, I was getting 97% crit chance. Since my initial intention was to prove to ANet that scope didn’t work at all, having verified scope is actually working in this alternate way, I decided it wasn’t worth my time to pursue a 10,000-hit high-crit test.

Some people doubt the results believing it’s within the margin of error. They say that others have performed tests with 91% crit rate before scope, and still got non-crits. I haven’t seen any of those tests, so I do not believe them without evidence. But I didn’t feel like starting a fight, so I let it go.

Easy to test that it isnt working, but lucky enough I kept my gear from last time i tested it. Very simple to test but you need a large sample size. Although with 90%+ critical chance the non crits will proc very rarely.

I will have to record a video for the record. What most people forget is the most you can take is 14 pts in firearms or u will target the weak and get 100% crit rate. Best way to test is with precision major stat gear so u dont need the points into firearms.

NickDollahZ.5348:

Easy to test that it isnt working, but lucky enough I kept my gear from last time i tested it. Very simple to test but you need a large sample size. Although with 90%+ critical chance the non crits will proc very rarely.

I will have to record a video for the record. What most people forget is the most you can take is 14 pts in firearms or u will target the weak and get 100% crit rate. Best way to test is with precision major stat gear so u dont need the points into firearms.

I really want to see others’ methodology and results. I felt my experiment was pretty definitive and demonstrates scope does indeed work, so I’d like to see evidence to the contrary.

Eviator.9746:

I really want to see others’ methodology and results. I felt my experiment was pretty definitive and demonstrates scope does indeed work, so I’d like to see evidence to the contrary.

I’m on a different computer now, so screenshots are absent, and I’ve heavily screwed around with my PvP gear, but I’ll just detail the definitive method (99% crit pre-scope in mists):

Same deal as before, except now you’re angling for 78/79% crit rate pre-fury. Eagle runes on all your gear, and at least 15 points into Firearms, I think I had somewhere around 18-19. The point is pretty obvious – I ended up testing it with 0/15-20/0/30/20 so that fury would last longer. Once the mob is below 50%, keep an eye out for if a non-crit marker goes off. Rather easy and fast to test with a flamethrower. 99% crit rate pre-scope pretty much guarantees proof of Scope working or not – unless you wanna argue it gives < 1% crit rate or somesuch.

EDIT: I should say 69% pre-fury, pre-Target-the-weak. Might have to take some clothes / Eagle Runes off, but you can easily approach that value.

Well I’m going to have to retract what I said above and admit I was mistaken. I just did a test with 75% crit from gear and traits (Ranger runes, Rampager’s Amulet, Accuracy sigil, 30 in firearms). With fury that’s 95% crit before Scope and before Target the Weak.

In my tests I booned fury with elixir B, donned the flamethrower, and attacked the golem while standing still for three flame bursts (the golem dropped below 50% health mid-way through the fourth flame burst triggering Target the Weak). In those first 3 flame bursts, if scope was additive I should have had 105% crit. If scope was multiplicative to the base crit, I should have had a little over 102% crit. If scope didn’t work as advertised, I’d have 95% crit.

The results were clear: there were some non-crits. Now I’m back on the “Scope doesn’t work” bandwagon.

And I made a video just for you….I spent 10g and everything…I had to expose my dull voice to the interwebs.

Oh well here it goes:

darkace.8925:

AsmallChicken.9634:

New patch still nothing.

I’m starting to believe they’re just trolling us with the continued broken state that is the Scope perk.

It will stay broken so that it can be used as an Easter egg in GW3.

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

Hope that scope also brings an animation change when equipped ;D

Edit: An animation change would also make people happy for those that don’t like hip shooting, while keeping the hip shot animation for those that do like it. Two birds with one stone.

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like “proposed change” means that Scope will work somewhat differently than how it currently is intended to. Regardless, yay for dev responses!

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

ok, whatever it takes I guess.

I was getting a bit overly sarcastic in my reply on the mine field bug, but I realise you’re working on it.

It’s still a bit unlucky to see that glue bomb gets fixed overnight, while other bugs are being worked on or are even still being tested when they been around this long.
But as I said: I don’t doubt you do what you can.

Thanks for replying, that at least is a big issue for most of us.
And despite the sneers you keep getting, we do appreciate that much at least.

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!

Thank you for posting in this forum to show that you’re listening to this forum and the Eng players who care enough to post here.

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

Wow dev on Engineer forum:-)

What?
Dev actually replied in Engi bug thread?
Party tonight at my place. Drinks on me.

JubeiTM.5763:

What?
Dev actually replied in Engi bug thread?
Party tonight at my place. Drinks on me.

I’d rather have mine in a glass, can that be arranged?

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

A “proposed” change in 4 weeks? (Possibly longer if the proposed does not work.) I’m probably expecting too much, but it certainly seems other professions get faster updates/fixes then us engineers. =\
I’ll still take the fix defiantly! However, I’m just more curious how developers split their times between profession balancing for each time of play (PvE, PvP, WvW).

Considering that they only seem to have realized that there actually was a problem 245 days after release, despite several threads about it, probably innumerable tickets submitted…4 weeks isn’t that much longer to wait.

Who wants to bet on what the fix/change breaks?

Hebee.8460:

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

A “proposed” change in 4 weeks? (Possibly longer if the proposed does not work.) I’m probably expecting too much, but it certainly seems other professions get faster updates/fixes then us engineers. =\
I’ll still take the fix defiantly! However, I’m just more curious how developers split their times between profession balancing for each time of play (PvE, PvP, WvW).

stop complaining, we just got a fix that only took them one single day!

JonPeters.5630:

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone. As for mine vs bomb one was brought to our attention first and it was tight to even get the bomb fix in that quick. Mine is fixed locally now and hoping to arrive in the next hotfix if it passes testing.

Jon

it’s a fresh breeze being updated like this. It might even shut some of the sour kittens up a bit, including myself.

You do what you have to do. At least we’re getting some updates and that’s always nice.

It’s obvious that very little attention is turned towards the Engineer since the bugs and requests pages will soon surpass the Bible. However It was good to see a confirmation that we are not completely forgotten. Thank you!

JonPeters.5630:

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

Jon – could you please shed some light on why this trait has been broken for so long? There have been numerous threads on this topic that have had devs involved, including the Stickied Engineer Bugs Compilation thread since September 16, 2012!

It is very disappointing that a clearly broken (not simply bugged) trait has been completely ignored for so long.

Akaji.1296:

JonPeters.5630:

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

Jon – could you please shed some light on why this trait has been broken for so long? There have been numerous threads on this topic that have had devs involved, including the Stickied Engineer Bugs Compilation thread since September 16, 2012!

It is very disappointing that a clearly broken (not simply bugged) trait has been completely ignored for so long.

Going by the response in the sPvP board thread about it…they simply didn’t know. Somehow. And then, when somebody actually seemed to take notice, they claimed that it was working, just underwhelming, until confronted with tests showing the contrary.

Could someone clarify this for me ?

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

I don’t understand how a change like for scope would require text. Is not text only for tooltips ?
About the 4 weeks for translation, translation of what ? Of the tooltip again ? How could a single translation require 4 weeks ?
I want to clarify that this is not a criticism/taunt/ putting into question the work done, I just want to understand.

They’re changing the Scope trait, not just making it functional, is what I’m getting.

If they were just making it work, then they probably could have it done in the next patch (since apparently they’ve deigned to recall that we’re here), but as the one who told us they didn’t even know it was a problem said, they were intending to make it better.

I’m curious how its going to change. Maybe a thought would be standing still stacks a % every second, capping at 10%?

…Considering that the last dev I saw talk about Scope (the guy who thought it was functional) thought that people just didn’t notice when it was working because it was underwhelming, I’m pretty sure they’re not going to nerf it.

Devinchi.2756:

JonPeters.5630:

I vote fix. We have a proposed change that should be coming in about 4 weeks. Wish it could be sooner but we need translation time and testing time.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like “proposed change” means that Scope will work somewhat differently than how it currently is intended to. Regardless, yay for dev responses!

I’m completely expecting breakage just like what happened to the kit refinement. Mark my words. It’s really gotten that bad for some of us. We still don’t have any reason to effectively choose gadgets or turrets over kits in our builds and even elixirs are lackluster at the moment. I’ll believe it when i see it.

My guess they will just make it grant Fury for 5 seconds with an ICD of 10 seconds when you stand still.

Although, I’m hoping for something really cool. Only time will tell!

They can’t break scope.
It never worked…

Nothing they come up with, can be worse than having zero effect at all.

KratosAngel.7289:

Could someone clarify this for me ?

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

I don’t understand how a change like for scope would require text. Is not text only for tooltips ?
About the 4 weeks for translation, translation of what ? Of the tooltip again ? How could a single translation require 4 weeks ?
I want to clarify that this is not a criticism/taunt/ putting into question the work done, I just want to understand.

I’ve just recently gone through a localization experience with one of our apps (I work for a small development shop), and a four week turnaround for even a single translation is pretty quick, actually. You have to get the text to a translator for each of the different languages (a quick look at the top of the page here shows four languages for these forums alone). Remember that ANet has stated that they hope to support Asian languages, so it would be fair to state that changes now will include translations for those keys so they don’t have to have it done later.

Once the translators have the final text, they do their thing, then the ANet dev team has to integrate those keys into the build. Finally, assuming they are following Best Practices™, the build is delivered back to the translation team for review/verification IN CONTEXT. We found this to be a crucial step in our app – the text alone doesn’t always provide enough detail for an accurate, idomatic translation. The review may result in translation changes, which need to be integrated and reviewed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Hope this helps!

pflashan.9463:

Once the translators have the final text, they do their thing, then the ANet dev team has to integrate those keys into the build. Finally, assuming they are following Best Practices™, the build is delivered back to the translation team for review/verification IN CONTEXT. We found this to be a crucial step in our app – the text alone doesn’t always provide enough detail for an accurate, idomatic translation. The review may result in translation changes, which need to be integrated and reviewed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ah yes, seen what a no-context translation can do when checking out various subtitled movies. The translators for those rarely have more than a transcript, perhaps a audio of the dialog at best.

Akaji.1296:

JonPeters.5630:

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

Jon – could you please shed some light on why this trait has been broken for so long? There have been numerous threads on this topic that have had devs involved, including the Stickied Engineer Bugs Compilation thread since September 16, 2012!

It is very disappointing that a clearly broken (not simply bugged) trait has been completely ignored for so long.

As mentioned, they either didn’t know, or it was noted and simply got buried for whatever reason. The latter is probably more likely.

In software development, you basically pile up every item of work into a gaping hole known as the “backlog”, and then it’s a matter of survival of the fittest for the individual items. Some items will survive and rise to the top, and will subsequently be addressed in a timely manner. Other items will be consumed by the bottomless pit that is the backlog, being lost and forgotten in a sea of many other lost and forgotten things. Every now and again, someone adventurous soul delves deep into the bowels of the backlog, risking their sanity to uncover these lost and forgotten artifacts. Either that, or a janitor (AKA intern) gets hired to sift through it. In any case, some of the items are sometimes given another chance at survival, although some are still doomed to be consumed once more by the backlog.

I think one of the devs said they looked at the script and thought it looked ok, so they maybe weren’t as thorough as their testing as they needed to be. Whatever the case though, it is good news to hear that a fix is definitely on its way.

It kind of sounds like they may be changing how the trait functions rather than just letting it take the effect it is supposed to change. The translation concerns for this change imply the tooltip will be different, so maybe the actual trait effect will also be different. I guess we’ll have to see though.

I’ve also never had to deal with localization and translation issues, but I’m pretty sure it would be a hair loss inducing beast if I did.

Very cool to see some quasi-real time updates on the status of these issues though. I wish there could be more.

digiowl.9620:

pflashan.9463:

Once the translators have the final text, they do their thing, then the ANet dev team has to integrate those keys into the build. Finally, assuming they are following Best Practices™, the build is delivered back to the translation team for review/verification IN CONTEXT. We found this to be a crucial step in our app – the text alone doesn’t always provide enough detail for an accurate, idomatic translation. The review may result in translation changes, which need to be integrated and reviewed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ah yes, seen what a no-context translation can do when checking out various subtitled movies. The translators for those rarely have more than a transcript, perhaps a audio of the dialog at best.

Somebody set up us the bomb.

pflashan.9463:

KratosAngel.7289:

Could someone clarify this for me ?

To she’d some light, once a change requires text, the minimum turnaround is 4 weeks on translation alone.

I don’t understand how a change like for scope would require text. Is not text only for tooltips ?
About the 4 weeks for translation, translation of what ? Of the tooltip again ? How could a single translation require 4 weeks ?
I want to clarify that this is not a criticism/taunt/ putting into question the work done, I just want to understand.

I’ve just recently gone through a localization experience with one of our apps (I work for a small development shop), and a four week turnaround for even a single translation is pretty quick, actually. You have to get the text to a translator for each of the different languages (a quick look at the top of the page here shows four languages for these forums alone). Remember that ANet has stated that they hope to support Asian languages, so it would be fair to state that changes now will include translations for those keys so they don’t have to have it done later.

Once the translators have the final text, they do their thing, then the ANet dev team has to integrate those keys into the build. Finally, assuming they are following Best Practices™, the build is delivered back to the translation team for review/verification IN CONTEXT. We found this to be a crucial step in our app – the text alone doesn’t always provide enough detail for an accurate, idomatic translation. The review may result in translation changes, which need to be integrated and reviewed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Hope this helps!

Thanks a lot for your answer, yes it helps a lot

Even if scope would work correctly it would still be the most useless trait ever.
So all your drama posts drew 3 minutes of 5 minutes attention per month we get from this 5signet warrior devs. Good job, its not like there are more urgent bugs like rune of lyssa or something.

Scope’s not going to end up the Scope we’ve seen, gone “Hah, kitten that kittenty noise,” and proceeded to not use, even before it was common knowledge that it’s less functional than a breastplate stretcher is factual. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need translators. It’s impossible to tell (unless somebody who’d know tells us) whether the trait that will result from the change is going to be ‘the most useless trait ever.’

Also, considering that the issue with the Runes of Lyssa comes up rarely enough that I had to wiki it to see what-all issues there were (and it’s not an Engineer-specific set of bugs, as it apparently has issues with all transformations, as well as Supply Crate), while I’ve seen several Scope threads…I’m not sure I’d consider the Runes of Lyssa to be more urgent than Scope, especially for the Engineer.

Could we have some info on the proposed changes on scope? So that we can give a feedback, at least.