Failed artifacts upgrades consumes all preservation wards slotted

flambonico · February 2022

If an artifact`s upgrade fails and You added one preservation ward in each slot to protect every component, all 3 preservation wards are consumed in the process. Which makes no sense as the game tells me that only one component was "protected" in the attempt. In short, the game is consuming 2 additional preservation wards for no apparent reason.

Steps using a rare (blue) artifact:

1-Right click on the artifact and select upgrade.
2-Protect the refinement points, glyph of potency and gold with one preservation ward each (using 3 in total).
3-Click on upgrade.
4-Select only one attempt.
5-In this case, lets just say that the upgrade fails.
6-The game picks one of the three components at random (refinement points, glyph or gold) and tries to consume it.

Results:
No component is consumed in the process as its "protected" with one preservation ward, which is used instead of the component. Also, the other two preservation wards which aren`t protecting the component, are also consumed.

Expected results:
No component is consumed in the process as its "protected" with one preservation ward, which is used instead of the component. The other two preservation wards are intact.

I made a ticket for this problem and they told me that this is in fact a bug, so they recommended me to do a post to share the issue.

Cheers.

plasticbat · February 2022

Many have reported this.

fritz · February 2022

Might be WAI and a sneaky way to make the upgrade process a little more expensive. I think Artifacts are still manageable, but Enchantments are a hellhole with the way you need Motes and / or Wards...

plasticbat · February 2022

It is not WAI based on description (and my interpretation) in dev's blog.

ttwilliams96 · February 2022

I don't think this is a bug either and it's WAI.
This was noticed on day 1 of the preview server going live with the mod 22.
I have never seen a dev post confirmation that this is a bug.
The OP's post is the first I have seen where a cryptic employee said it was a bug,
but I'm still skeptical for these reasons.

The dev blog says only 1 of 3 components will be consumed on failure or a pres ward, if it's protected.
This leads you to believe that only 1 pres ward will ever be consumed per failure,
but the blog doesn't say that exactly.

On the refinement twitch stream with Jared, a question about the amount of pres wards being consumed was brought up.
Jared never said it was a bug.
I'm going to paraphrase his words, but you can watch the stream yourself to confirm.
He said that the devs didn't expect players to protected all 3 components at once.
If your using a 1% mote and protect all 3 components each time then it will cost you a lot.
He said the players will figure out the most efficient way to navigate the new system in time.

As it's current working, players are going to use up a lot of components, pres wards and AD upgrading.
Most players will use coal motes for enchantments, but artifacts are where most player will feel this change.
If I was a dev that was looking to create an AD sink for the game, goal accomplished.

I would love to be wrong and get this changed.
If anybody has any proof of a dev calling this a bug and it will be fixed then I would like to see it.

anomalea · February 2022

No Worries said in the last twitch stream that consuming 3 pres wards is WAI and players are stupid for thinking it shouldn't. It doesn't matter that any reasonable person would interpret from the dev notes that only one would be used based on the one random element chosen to be destroyed. Disingenuous communication, as always.

powerpuff · February 2022

And if we continue complaining, then just maybe they will "fix" it!

trinity706 · July 2022

Did some more testing with upgrading and made a disappointing discovery…

Test 1 (Artifact - Rare to Epic)
1.) Protected the RP and Glyph of Potency with preservation wards while leaving the rank 4 enchanting stones (rare/blue) unprotected.
2.) Attempted to upgrade.
3.) Upgrade failed.
4.) The wards protecting the RP and GoP were consumed.
5.) The unprotected enchanting stones were left untouched…

Test 2 (Artifact - Epic to Legendary)(same artifact)
1.) Protected ALL 3 catalysts each time.
2.) Upgrade failed ALL 15 times (guaranteed upgrade after 15 fails).
3.) With each fail ALL 3 preservation wards were consumed…

Test 3 (Artifact Neck – Rare to Epic)
1.) Left ALL catalysts unprotected (RP and Enchanting stones rank 4).
2.) Upgrade failed…
3.) RP was consumed…
4.) Enchanting stones were left untouched…

It seems as if protecting all catalysts (2-3 depending on the item to be upgraded) results in ALL preservation wards being consumed in the event the upgrade fails and leaving at least one catalyst unprotected results in the system "choosing" one catalyst to try and consume... If this holds true it is a predatory, double edged sword system that cuts players BOTH ways.

With this system players are faced with;

1.) Burning 2-3x the amount of preservation wards to protect all catalysts.
2.) Burning 1-2x the amount of preservation wards AND also burning RP, GoP’s, Gold and or Enchanting stones… (if choosing to leave a catalyst(s) unprotected arguably players would sacrifice RP, Gold or both due to the costs of GoP’s and rank 5 enchanting stones).
3.) Using expensive Coalescent Motes…
4.) A combination of the above.

ttwilliams96#2847 said:
Jared never said it was a bug.
I'm going to paraphrase his words, but you can watch the stream yourself to confirm.
He said that the devs didn't expect players to protected all 3 components at once.

In the empty space where a preservation ward can be placed the tool tip reads:

"If the upgrade fails and this is chosen for loss, you'll lose the ward instead."

If the above quote of ttwilliams96’s post is true about players not being expected to protect all catalysts, then the description needs to be changed to let players know that protecting all catalysts will result in ALL preservation wards being consumed if the upgrade fails instead of having that integral part maliciously hidden from the description OR changing the overbearing system to where only one unprotected catalyst is chosen to be consumed on a failed attempt regardless if all catalysts are protected to match the description....

It’s ridiculous that players are penalized for wanting to protect all catalysts during the upgrade process. Is this the/part of the reason why refinement items drops so frequently, are they expected to be unprotected and sacrificed? Smh...

plasticbat · July 2022

No need to do any testing. They already changed the blog to say the following months ago:

https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/neverwinter/news/detail/11508143-developer-blog:-refinement-updates

powerpuff · July 2022

Quite simply - this is an AD sink that they intentionally designed. It won't change, but at least they finally clarified how it actually works.

rikitaki · July 2022

Yep, they officially confirmed that the discrepancy between the tool-tip and the actual behaviour is intentional. Move on, nothing to see here.

trinity706 · July 2022

plasticbat said:
No need to do any testing. They already changed the blog to say the following months ago:

Wasn't aware that there was an update to the blog post, though it's still not changed in-game where it really matters. Started that post a few months back and got around to posting it yesterday. Everything else still holds true about the system (overbearing, etc.). Personally asked a number of people about it and they were unaware that the system worked as it does or that there was a blog post/update to the blog post in the first place.

powerpuff#6508 said:
Quite simply - this is an AD sink that they intentionally designed. It won't change, but at least they finally clarified how it actually works.

It's wild, the system is ridiculous. Clarification, cool, still not changing the in-game description, not so much.

darthpotater · July 2022

The thing is that this is the most unintuitive feature I have seen in any game UI

micky1p00 · July 2022

Maybe It was a bug that was turned into a feature by changing the documentation (blog) rather than fixing

trinity706 · July 2022

micky1p00 said:
Maybe It was a bug that was turned into a feature by changing the documentation (blog) rather than fixing

Which makes a LOT of sense being that system works DIRECTLY in contradiction to the description which they didn't update as well... You don't simply put the word "chosen" in somewhere if you intend "all" of something...

plasticbat · July 2022

trinity706#8838 said:

micky1p00 said:
Maybe It was a bug that was turned into a feature by changing the documentation (blog) rather than fixing

Which makes a LOT of sense being that system works DIRECTLY in contradiction to the description which they didn't update as well... You don't simply put the word "chosen" in somewhere if you intend "all" of something...

The "chosen" part is kind of correct especially when you don't use any p-ward.

I look at it as 2 separated 'independent' logic (I am not saying I agree with the logic. I disagree with that logic):

A. one of the 3 will be chosen to be destroyed when it fails.
If the 'chosen' one is protected by p-ward, the 'chosen' is safe.

B. If there is a failure, all the p-ward are destroyed.
If there is a success, all the items (not including p-ward) will be taken.

trinity706 · July 2022

plasticbat said:
The "chosen" part is kind of correct especially when you don't use any p-ward.

I look at it as 2 separated 'independent' logic (I am not saying I agree with the logic. I disagree with that logic):

A. one of the 3 will be chosen to be destroyed when it fails.
If the 'chosen' one is protected by p-ward, the 'chosen' is safe.

B. If there is a failure, all the p-ward are destroyed.
If there is a success, all the items (not including p-ward) will be taken.

The two 'independant' logic working together DEPENDENTLY of each other is pretty much the issue and is in part what makes the system predatory, another part being enchantments having 150 fails before guaranteed success at EACH rarity.

Back when one preservation ward protected all catalysts and there was little to no Zen backlog, fine, though adding more preservation ward slots AND players being faced with burning more preservation wards/catalysts AND there being 3+ month Zen backlog in which this system was released WITHIN, not fine.

--+-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ General Statement +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+ +-~* *~-+--

If the system simply chose a random catalyst to try and destroy and if protected consumed ONLY that preservation ward even if all are protected, fine, though the system was intentionally designed to be overbearing and costly to the player in multiple ways. The description itself raises the question as to if only one preservation ward was supposed to be consumed even if all were protected in the first place...

Players were shoved into seeking preservation wards/Coalescent Motes in a 3+ month Zen backlog market (inflated trade house prices) and or burning expensive catalysts/RP/gold.

Let's look at the guaranteed success after "x" number of fails for different items:

Artifacts
5, Uncommon > Rare
10, Rare > Epic
15, Epic > Legendary
30, Legendary > Mythic

Artifact Neck/Belt
1, Uncommon > Rare
3, Rare > Epic
15, Epic > Legendary

Enchantments
150, Uncommon > Rare
150, Rare > Epic
150, Epic > Legendary
150, Legendary > Mythic

Enchantments have the HIGHEST amount of failed attempts before guaranteed success multiple times over the total of ALL the other upgradable items combined... and that number does NOT increase gradually as with other upgrabable items, it is 150 FOR EACH RARITY...

Even if there was a 50% success rate at each rarity (and with Neverwinter RNG, yeah that won't happen) that is around 6kk AD in preservation wards while protecting GoP's and RP each time which is almost/around 7 times the cost of a Coalescent Mote...

Creating an overbearing upgrade system to give the illusion that Coalescent Motes are simply more feasible is ridiculous especially when in actuality the system pretty much guarantees not using Coalescent Motes will cost you more.

plasticbat · July 2022

My 'independent' comment is regarding how I think they did the programming (which itself can be a bug depends on how it is viewed). As I said, I disagree with that 'logic'.

trinity706 · August 2022

plasticbat said:
My 'independent' comment is regarding how I think they did the programming (which itself can be a bug depends on how it is viewed). As I said, I disagree with that 'logic'.

No argument against your post, the response was geared towards provided information for future readers.

Failed artifacts upgrades consumes all preservation wards slotted

Comments