[3.05] Gyrd Heawanes Stenes, Dominate effect not working.

[FalloutPrime]

Hello,

My problem is thus.

I'm playing a druid, using Gyrd Haewanes Stenes.

I've been able to level the weapon to the point where I have to dominate 15 times. I've been using it for a long time now, and it just doesn't ever proc dominate.

I'm including dropbox link to a zip containing my save, dxdiag specs, screenshots and output log. As requested.

I've read a thread here about the v3.03 beta having this bug in it, and that it would be patched... either it never got patched or another update broke it again. Idk.

Hopefully, this issues will get fixed soon. I'm not going to keep playing this save until it is, which is sad, because I'm loving playing a druid, and really liked the idea of a soulbound weapon. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gvz3h1n9fdqtobi/gyrd_haewanes_stenes_not_working.zip?dl=0

[Achilles]

 Works fine for me. Keep in mind that it's 10% chance on hit or crit...and wizards have crappy non-spell accuracy. 

[FalloutPrime]

 Works fine for me. Keep in mind that it's 10% chance on hit or crit...and wizards have crappy non-spell accuracy. 

Really? I've been playing with it for the whole game up until this point. I've hit so many enemies, so many times... statistically speaking, it's basically impossible for it not to have proced at this point. Idk why it's working for you... ill verify my game files just in case. Try using my save from the dropbox file i uploaded and let me know if that one works for you too.

[Achilles]

Let's try this another way: there's a 90% chance that it *won't* proc when you do hit. It's not going to be a common occurrence. 

[FalloutPrime]

Let's try this another way: there's a 90% chance that it *won't* proc when you do hit. It's not going to be a common occurrence. 

 

With all due respect to your venerable number of posts, and likely, your knowledge of the game, and hours played, etc etc. I mean that. No sarcasm or disrespect intended whatsoever in this entire post. I say that only because context, tone, etc are lost with text. i don't want to come off as a jerk.

 

The short of it (TL;DR as the kids these day say).

Unless you have tested the save and gotten the weapon to proc, and you can post screens of the weapon's sheet showing 1 or more out of 15, you don't know with 100% certainty that I'm wrong. Really, you can't even say that it's likely to be the case, educated or not, it's a guess, and to state the obvious, guessing isn't helpful. Testing is.

 

The long of it:

 

I think that you're trying to point out to me that I should be more patient, and/or play more before I come here and post about something that isn't a problem, taking up Obsidian's time and resources.. etc etc.. Is that it? I could easily have mistaken you, but that's how it came across to me. Otherwise, I'm honestly not sure why pointing out the 90% that is inherently there when someone says 10%, is helpful. I mean, thanks for the info I knew already, I'm sure you mean well. But it doesn't change the fact that I don't think it's working.

Beyond that, implying(or saying) that because it works for you, that it's likely working for me too, doesn't actually mean much from a programming or bug squashing standpoint. It could be a lot of things. It could be just my save, it could be only when bound to a druid, it could be the item itself is bugged in just my save and nowhere else in the world. It could be my hardware. Who knows? That's why Obsidian wants all the files they want when you make a post to the support forum with a potential bug. All of the reasons I just stated aren't as simple as the percent chance it has to happen(or not), and a comparison of your experience to mine. Additionally, if there is a problem, wouldn't you rather have it reported and then tested by as many people as possible to sort it out? In the end, the only way to know is to observe, report, and test. It's called a bottom up, scientific approach.

 

If you did test it, and know that I'm wrong, by all means, post a screen and say so. I will listen, congratulate you on a job well done, and walk away from this post knowing that I should just keep playing. That would actually save Obsidian time and resources, contribute to the forums in a meaningful way, and allow my OCD rear end to continue on with my game. Prove me wrong, please. I want to play my game!

 

[Achilles]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph.

 

How does one prove something doesn't work? (Hint: You do know it's impossible to prove a negative, right?)

[FalloutPrime]

I stopped reading after the second paragraph.

 

How does one prove something doesn't work? (Hint: You do know it's impossible to prove a negative, right?)

Incorrect. First, I can easily prove something doesn't work by testing it, and if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. This should be self evident.

 

I suggest you google the phrase "you can't prove a negative". You will get plenty of proof from professionals telling you why that phrase is philosophically a fallacy. I studied the evidence of this in college. But you will likely need to prove to yourself that the understanding you think you have, isn't there, by testing to see if you have the information that proves that it isn't there.

Carl Sagan famously once said, "The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."

 

Anyway what I have proposed with this thread, in philosophical debate parlance, is called a contrapositive.

 

An example of a contrapositive is; "If an object does not have color, then it is not red."

 

Need more?

 

I always suspect my cat of peeing where he shouldn't. So I always check his pee spots by smelling near them, and feeling for moisture. If I find neither, there is no cat pee there.

Works the same way for pregnancy tests; Lady pees on stick, stick doesn't turn blue, therefore not pregnant. Presto! She has proven that something isn't there.

 

In the case of this post; I suspect that my weapon isn't procing. So I go get into many, many fights to produce a large pool of data I can analyse because we are talking about something that has a low chance of happening (low chance isn't no chance). The larger the pool of data, the more apparent the 10% (or lack thereof) will become. Then if over the course of data collection, no evidence of a proc is found, then logically, it is not procing.  Hence the need for more, and independant testing.

 

All the evidence that it is, or is not working (as I suspect) is in my save file, and nowhere else. You can't even argue with me about this until you have tested it yourself. Otherwise, you are arguing ad ignoratium, and literally have no standing in the argument whatsoever.

 

Which again, begs the question, why even post in this thread in the first place? Not only do you have no standing until you have contributed to the body of data that already exists in *a documentable way*, (i.e not just your word) using the same testing conditions I have used (i.e. my save file), You literally had nothing to say that was in ANY WAY helpful.

 

 

 

[Achilles]

Wow, you waited a whole month just so you could try to sneak in the last word. That's dedication.

 

Since you're a fan of Sagan, then I'm sure you know about the dragon in his garage? 

 

You suspect that your weapon isn't procing, but lack of procing isn't evidence of there being a bug. As I've pointed out earlier, your build does not lend itself to procing. If you really want to test the weapon, go to an inn, purchase a wizard, reassign the weapon to that character (making sure to take Blast and boost INT for AoE and DEX for accuracy), then do what you're describing above. Waste of time? So is asking me to wade into hours of testing with a build that is almost statistically guaranteed not to proc (Druids don't get blast and come out the box will crappy accuracy). Especially since I've maxed out that weapon numerous times with both Aloth and wizard PCs. In other words, I know it works. 

 

Yeah, maybe it doesn't work in your game, but you've yet to do everything you can to rule that out. You build the Wizard I recommended above and you still can't get it to proc, then I will be happy to test that save for you (and admit that I was wrong if I can't get it to proc either). But if it does, then you come back here and apologize for attempting to waste my time. Sound like a fair deal?

[Kunikos]

You know, you could just load his save game instead of being snippy

[Achilles]

I’m sure he appreciates you getting his back...a year later.