**Game mode:Online private
**Type of issue:Bug
**Server type:PvP
**Region: NA
It seems the bug that was fixed by a patch in Jan has re-surfed, at least I am able to reproduce it fairly consistently. Where as thralls will stop eating to heal even if they have stacks of food. There is no one event that seems to trigger it except it happens with semi-consistency telling them to wait and re-follow. However also time seems to be a factor, if they follow you long enough the thrall/pet will simply stop eating. Again is not 100% consistent. Seems only a server reboot fixes it or logging off for some time when the thrall/pets get in this mode fixes the issue.
If your thrall/pet gains the 25% damage boost buf, they wonât heal anymore until server restart or until they lose the 25% damage buf (in aproximately 1 hour i think). Avoid giving your fighter thrall pork and you wonât run into this issue.
For sabretooth cats itâs the exquisite meat that gives them 25% damage boost and cancels their healing completely.
Thank you for this info! Also I was told after I posted this apparently giving thralls shields may trigger this bug? I have not tested it yet so unsure as to its accuracy.
Do you know if this bug is on their radar to be fixed?
Regarding the 25% food preventing them eating - this isnât a bug, the previous situation where they could be buffed +25% and then an extra +10% and then heal at max rates was the bug. This is the correct situation. If you look at their health after you have fed them their 25% food you will see that it does regenerate slowly. Given that the 25% food is supposed to heal them 1hp/sec it is giving them exactly the correct amount of healing. They cannot eat anything else for the duration of the buff, because that would give them the extra 10% and the extra healing. They can, and do, continue eating the +25% food if you leave them a stack of it in their inventory.
How do you know itâs not a bug? I have see no information about this from Funcom. Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I canât find anything where they documented the change or even came close to communicating that this is intended behavior. Feel free to link me if I missed it. As far as buff stacking goes I am sure that is an intended change, however the not eating seems to be a symptom of the fix not an intended outcome.
They will eat if you give them pork and they will heal for 1 hp/s. However, you canât have 25% damage buff from pork and heal 10 hp/s from a feast at the same time. I believe this is the result of the removal of âthrall porkingâ. I may be wrong in that but I donât use pork on my thralls and they eat and heal just fine.
To me it seems intended but it wonât hurt passing it to the devs to check.
Fair point - no official word - but are you really suggesting they intended the enormous buffs and full powered healing? You were one of the main people frequently pointing out how over-powered this was, and stated several times that you expected it to get fixed at some point. (Of course not, you say as much yourself.) As for the ânot eatingâ aspect - @Harlequin already corrected me on that - meaning that they are talking about a bug, where I thought that they were talking about the change in the way the buffs worked.
As for it not being in patch notes - thatâs true for a heck of a lot of things - Funcom never mentioned that they had altered horse behaviour so that they now get out of the way while you are fighting on foot - that is clearly not a bug, but an intended change, despite not being explained anywhere.
Yup, thatâs the point I was making. Perhaps I should have been clearer that this is opinion, not an official statement from Funcom. But since I donât work for Funcom, I kinda figured that was implied. Nothing you state in your videos (without direct backup of Funcom statements or experimental data) is any more than that, it doesnât stop them being full of useful information. Likewise, nothing that anyone who isnât a Funcom employee states on the forums is âofficialâ - all we ever have is our own opinions.
Funcom needs to add a disclaimer on the top of the forum, do not report bugs on the weekends, we are not working and you will get no help or any answer on any subject, we are a 9-5 weekday company.
Hey sorry didnât mean to offend you if I did. I really just wasnât sure if I missed something. My issue is that this stuff happens and itâs a pretty decent change to core mechanics of feeding thralls but itâs not communicated.
Players donât have any clue that itâs changed and do what they are used to, then their thrall dies because they didnât know it changed. I know itâs not the end of the world to have a thrall die but itâs totally avoidable if they knew not to buff with pork then give them gruel to heal.
I have grown my channel on things like this, missed information or information that just isnât totally clear. I suppose if they were better with patch notes maybe there would be no need for my channel.
All good dude, I shouldâve been clearer on the separation between opinion and official word.
(And yeah, tons of stuff doesnât get communicated - although, as someone pointed out at some point - the Siptah update contained like nearly 5000 different changes - that wouldâve been a dang long set of patch notes )
And yeah, I know about the ânot having necessary infoâ bit - walked into the Black Keep with a pork buffed thrall just after the update and only just got us both out alive when I realised he wasnât healing (lucky he was a t3 bearer or heâd never have had the HP to get away with it). My initial thought was that food was broken and thralls werenât eating, which is why I jumped on this post when I thought that was what Harlequin was experiencing. Once Iâd looked at it a bunch more, tried different stuff with different followers and realised food was working, just the buff stacking wasnât (and the high buff food was preventing access to the higher healing foods till the buff was gone - an obvious solution to stacking) - I came to the conclusion that I expressed in my original reply. But thatâs not the precise issue that Harlequinâs apparently experiencing (though probably still all tied into the same change somewhere).
)