|
Seen multiple reports of players using multiple quad tabs of Lucent fossils on Shaper chests and seeing one but not both mods spawning together.
No chests with both mods have appeared on poe.trade in any league.
This definitely seems like a bug. While same mods obviously block each other out, I've never seen a prefix blocking out a suffix before
Also look at Dense fossil crafted chests. the fossil mod %ES (suffix) definitely looks like it should conflict with the usual %ES (prefix) or %ES hybrid (prefix) mods but they still spawn; hence the 900ES chests that are possible
Last bumped on Jan 15, 2019, 11:32:59 PM
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 10, 2019, 11:05:55 PM
|
|
bump
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 11, 2019, 7:02:57 AM
|
|
bump
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 12, 2019, 5:35:57 AM
|
|
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 13, 2019, 7:11:32 AM
|
|
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 13, 2019, 9:52:13 PM
|
"
H4xolotl wrote:
Seen multiple reports of players using multiple quad tabs of Lucent fossils on Shaper chests and seeing one but not both mods spawning together.
No chests with both mods have appeared on poe.trade in any league.
This definitely seems like a bug. While same mods obviously block each other out, I've never seen a prefix blocking out a suffix before
Also look at Dense fossil crafted chests. the fossil mod %ES (suffix) definitely looks like it should conflict with the usual %ES (prefix) or %ES hybrid (prefix) mods but they still spawn; hence the 900ES chests that are possible
Thanks for the report, it's intended that these 2 mods cannot roll together.
|
Posted byJatin_GGGon Jan 13, 2019, 10:09:18 PMGrinding Gear Games
|
"
Jatin_GGG wrote:
"
H4xolotl wrote:
Seen multiple reports of players using multiple quad tabs of Lucent fossils on Shaper chests and seeing one but not both mods spawning together.
No chests with both mods have appeared on poe.trade in any league.
This definitely seems like a bug. While same mods obviously block each other out, I've never seen a prefix blocking out a suffix before
Also look at Dense fossil crafted chests. the fossil mod %ES (suffix) definitely looks like it should conflict with the usual %ES (prefix) or %ES hybrid (prefix) mods but they still spawn; hence the 900ES chests that are possible
Thanks for the report, it's intended that these 2 mods cannot roll together.
Oh, I see. Are there any other prefix mods in the game that lock out suffix mods, and vice versa?
|
Posted byH4xolotl#7857on Jan 14, 2019, 11:44:02 PM
|
"
Jatin_GGG wrote:
"
H4xolotl wrote:
Seen multiple reports of players using multiple quad tabs of Lucent fossils on Shaper chests and seeing one but not both mods spawning together.
No chests with both mods have appeared on poe.trade in any league.
This definitely seems like a bug. While same mods obviously block each other out, I've never seen a prefix blocking out a suffix before
Also look at Dense fossil crafted chests. the fossil mod %ES (suffix) definitely looks like it should conflict with the usual %ES (prefix) or %ES hybrid (prefix) mods but they still spawn; hence the 900ES chests that are possible
Thanks for the report, it's intended that these 2 mods cannot roll together.
well this is definitly against the tradition of the game right ? and how are we supposed to know now which mods block which mods. This is madness. Total mess.
IGN : Sir_Big
|
Posted byAchilion#0497on Jan 14, 2019, 11:48:12 PM
|
"
Achilion wrote:
and how are we supposed to know now which mods block which mods.
You're supposed to learn it trough trial and error. Or be given explicit confirmation.
|
|
"
lolPLSiGOTthis wrote:
"
Achilion wrote:
and how are we supposed to know now which mods block which mods.
You're supposed to learn it trough trial and error. Or be given explicit confirmation.
That's a Devil's Proof fallacy. You can't prove that something doesn't work through trial and error, because at any given point where you might think 'okay, this is enough trial and error to say that it can't happen', you will be wrong, because 'who knows maybe it procs next time' thinking would be effective.
So this could only be disproved via explicit confirmation and players had no way of knowing this without GGG stating it.
|
Posted byLaplaceNoMa#3989on Jan 15, 2019, 4:55:41 AM
|
