With the ZG enchantments coming out, we noticed that a few of those enchantments suffered from a similar bug to the one preventing Devilsaur Armor from granting +2% hit (which we fixed in September). In particular, the Zandalar Signet of Might wasn’t granting its +30 attack power when applied to the Highlander’s Leather Shoulders, which also have +30 attack power. We have a fix ready to deploy with next week’s maintenance to make these enchantments provide the value they were intended to, even when applied to items with the same effect built in.
We also noticed that our first round of enchantment fixes to prevent enchantments from consuming buff slots missed some of the enchantments that could be flagged to avoid consuming buff slots. The powerful ZG enchants, and “Arcanum” enchants are among these, and we also have a hotfix to keep these from consuming buff slots, which will also be out by next week’s maintenance.
There may be some enchantments whose effects are complex enough that they can’t be marked passive, but we’ll do our best to mark any passive that can be, so they won’t consume a helpful buff slot.
We hope this helps players who stack buffs and recently discovered that their ZG enchant was pushing off a buff. We’ve seen that some players enjoy buff stacking, and we don’t want the ZG enchants to be a power-loss trap that you can’t fix without replacing the gear.
If you do make TBC classic, can you just forgo the buff and debuff limitations? They don’t really add anything to the gameplay in the first place, and end up having consistent problems anyway. Also, no need to include extra strength batching and leeway.
Quoting from the blue post mentioning Arcanums from before:
There are still some enchantments occupying helpful slots – notably, the Arcanum enchants that will come from Dire Maul and other enchantments that are applied via item rather than via the enchanting profession. This was the case in our 1.12 reference.
That bluepost and now this one suggest 2 different behaviors from the same 1.12 reference client. Could you please explain what happened and why you are now hotfixing it? You claim that you “missed” it as if you forgot to check it against the reference, but it was clearly mentioned before.
Dude, obvious expansion things aside, doing TBC is going to be extremely similar to having done classic.
A lot of things they had to find solutions to will probably be directly useful
going forward.
It is not supposed to be a big development project.
If nothing else, the investors would probably have a big push back on that
I doubt that they have any super thrilling feelings about classic, or tbc
They knew the arcanums were not working properly, but their first round of fixes didn’t actually fix the arcanums.
I mean, it’s an astounding level of incompetence to have gone this long without noticing the fix they came up with did not fix the thing they specifically mentioned, but it’s not exactly inconsistent with what they’ve said, per se.