Aura Change Feedback and Suggestion

0.5% per quality.

10% reduced reservation cost is significant enough to be meaningful, while not universally necessary (to those who don't need to optimize everything).

It is nonetheless universally achievable, even for those less inclined to min/max.

Even with Disfavor (because that quality bonus can still be put to great use for some skills), 1 - (an additional 40 quality * 0.5% rmr) * 125% mcm = 1. At best the cost breaks even, wasting a slot.

This, I feel, is of the utmost importance concerning auras, being one of the player resources most prone towards being imbalanced. In no way should +1 aura be possible at the mere cost of a socket only for those few who can afford a corrupt lv 4 "E" gem. Auras become more imbalanced the higher the ceiling is raised, and steepening the climb towards that ceiling risks rendering auras less beneficial for everybody else (when subsequent rebalance inevitably aims to numerically remedy the top).

Note: additional auras made available from gear and passives--totally okay. Besides potential price tag, they are (or can be) otherwise balanced via opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of an "E" gem is price alone, as the socket pressure to reduce reservation costs has proven to be a no brainier (which isn't really pressure then, is other?)

Should auras receive reduced reservation from support gems, it should come from a standard 1-20 gem.

My $0.02.

Edit: I am still against all gems gaining RMR from quality though--it too would affect the greater balance and be deemed (relatively) necessary, although at least it is something anybody can set their sights on and is guaranteed to achieve (I.e., not gated behind effort * RNG).

Far better would be a quality bonus not immediately necessary, such as 7% increased ES recovery on a 20% Discipline.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Current 60% aura, being 47% instead with a 0.5% per quality is the sweet spot.

The closest example (which you quoted) is current 60% aura, being 50% instead with a 0.5% per quality.

I'm using current, live, as the reference sample, not beta which can change.

Right but based off of the beta calculation and .5 per quality:

50% aura now reserves 44% Yes the beta version can change, but the live version isn't really a good baseline either considering its already changed in beta.

Which is actually a good number and you did the math to prove its not effective to use enhance to cheapen the cost further.

I then made a point that this would be perfect because of the reduced mana reserved jewels in beta and would give a nice niche place to 20\23 gems depending on the build.


It all really depends on the true goal of GGG's change from reduced mana.

Is it to:

remove the necessity of 1 or more reduced mana gems per character required?
Increase the investment into running more auras?
Give purpose to enlighten? Although with the change in leveling gems might actually be more useful.

Maybe its to:

Get people salty
Brick mirrored gear
Other?

In the end I just want whats best for the game and more fair for all players, which I believe my idea is. Even if GGG decides not to go with my idea, please look at aura quality, currently almost no one takes it, plus you already force us to take aura aoe in the tree for most builds anyway.

"

PrimordialDarkness wrote:

So let me get this straight.

6 pages of thread here, 24 on my thread, and god knows how many elsewhere... and only ScrotieMcB, who has mostly been actually DEFENDING GGG as of late, is the one who understands that the correct solution is to have multiple support gems for auras that contend for a socket, with re-adjusted numbers so that reduced mana reservation is not absolutely required anymore and people can choose if they need it or not for their build, while paying an opportunity cost to get it?

If that's the case, then the beta feedback must be 100% full of shit, and there is absolutely ZERO chance that we will see a good implementation in the core game, since the GGG "balance team" monkeys will take even longer than the average forum poster to figure out what they should be doing.

I resent being labeled as "average forum poster." By your earlier logic, I'm kind of exceptional. By which I mean awesome.

To goetz: I think we should make every single quality bonus for spells into increased cast speed so everything is homogenous and boring. It would fit right in with both your aura suggestion and the way auras work now. It is not like we'd want cool things like increased fireball rate on Firestorm or reduced Accuracy of Enfeebled enemies. No, we want to go from same and boring, to same, boring and useful. Vote goetz 2016.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

PrimordialDarkness wrote:

So let me get this straight.

6 pages of thread here, 24 on my thread, and god knows how many elsewhere... and only ScrotieMcB, who has mostly been actually DEFENDING GGG as of late, is the one who understands that the correct solution is to have multiple support gems for auras that contend for a socket, with re-adjusted numbers so that reduced mana reservation is not absolutely required anymore and people can choose if they need it or not for their build, while paying an opportunity cost to get it?

If that's the case, then the beta feedback must be 100% full of shit, and there is absolutely ZERO chance that we will see a good implementation in the core game, since the GGG "balance team" monkeys will take even longer than the average forum poster to figure out what they should be doing.

I resent being labeled as "average forum poster." By your earlier logic, I'm kind of exceptional. By which I mean awesome.

Yes now please enlighten us (no pun intended) on what the last 2 pages of this topic has done to persuade you what is or isnt the best way to address this.

I do like your idea of having other aura support gems, but that doesn't solve the issue I am trying to address in this thread.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

PrimordialDarkness wrote:

So let me get this straight.

6 pages of thread here, 24 on my thread, and god knows how many elsewhere... and only ScrotieMcB, who has mostly been actually DEFENDING GGG as of late, is the one who understands that the correct solution is to have multiple support gems for auras that contend for a socket, with re-adjusted numbers so that reduced mana reservation is not absolutely required anymore and people can choose if they need it or not for their build, while paying an opportunity cost to get it?

If that's the case, then the beta feedback must be 100% full of shit, and there is absolutely ZERO chance that we will see a good implementation in the core game, since the GGG "balance team" monkeys will take even longer than the average forum poster to figure out what they should be doing.

I resent being labeled as "average forum poster." By your earlier logic, I'm kind of exceptional. By which I mean awesome.

To goetz: I think we should make every single quality bonus for spells into increased cast speed so everything is homogenous and boring. It would fit right in with both your aura suggestion and the way auras work now. It is not like we'd want cool things like increased fireball rate on Firestorm or reduced Accuracy of Enfeebled enemies. No, we want to go from same and boring, to same, boring and useful. Vote goetz 2016.

So I asked for your feedback and the first time I get an actual true response from you is for you to be a condescending ass?

The currently quality for auras is all the same, I am simply suggesting a better quality and a solution to a problem we both know exists with the removal of reduced mana gem from auras.

Yes they could do more interesting things with quality auras like % mana regen from clarity or flat life regen from vitality, the whole point of my post is a solution for quality auras that are shit now and the reduced mana.

Really no need for the condescending tone you've put out there...

See edit.

To elaborate...

• Determination quality bonus: 0.5% chance to avoid Stun. This would make Unwavering Stance a bit less of an autoinclude by recognizing AR's need for Stun prevention.
• Discipline quality bonus: 1% faster start of ES recharge. This would be great for "core" ES builds but less useful with ZO or GR.
• Purity of Cold quality bonus: 1% chance to avoid Frozen. Generally speaking Cold is the weakest Purity, but it would now arguably have the strongest quality bonus (avoiding Ignite and Shocked is generally less important).
• Anger quality bonus: 0.5% chance to Ignite. This would clearly be a big deal for Ignite builds, but much less important for builds which deal small, fast hits, aka the type which normally get the most from Anger.

You should get the idea from that.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

See edit.

To elaborate...

• Determination quality bonus: 0.5% chance to avoid Stun. This would make Unwavering Stance a bit less of an autoinclude by recognizing AR's need for Stun prevention.
• Discipline quality bonus: 1% faster start of ES recharge. This would be great for "core" ES builds but less useful with ZO or GR.
• Purity of Cold quality bonus: 1% chance to avoid Frozen. Generally speaking Cold is the weakest Purity, but it would now arguably have the strongest quality bonus (avoiding Ignite and Shocked is generally less important).
• Anger quality bonus: 0.5% chance to Ignite. This would clearly be a big deal for Ignite builds, but much less important for builds which deal small, fast hits, aka the type which normally get the most from Anger.

You should get the idea from that.

TBH I think these are all great ideas, but they don't offer a solution to the problem that is the removal of reduced mana gem, if you can solve that problem without putting it gated behind bullshit enlighten being corrupted I'd jump on board (more then likely)

In addition someones made a post about it here before that Chris stated they didn't want quality auras to make them more powerful, of course that was at a time when anger, wrath and grace were all flat (scaling) mana cost and people would be able to bloodmagic multiple of them.

My suggestion doesn't truly unlock some power in quality auras, but enable people to run the same amount as before after the purposed change.

I usually play as a Aurabot/Summoner at the start of a league (we do a LAN-Party) and I found it Ok to get 2-3 Reduced Mana Gems, plus the Uniques to be able to go LLBM with it and survive.


Should the changes with Enlighten stay as they are - well:
We usually play 3-4 Days. No chance of even seeing a lvl 1 Enlighten up for trade.
My chances of getting 2 lvl 4 Enlighten (that would bring me to the old performance) --> zero.

On the other side: If Q on Auras would give 0.5% red:
Yeah, I could see myself trading a few medium quality Auras to at least squeeze one more in and maybe later have all Auras at Q20 and squeeze one more in.
These small increment upgrades if I spend a GCP on an Aura would give me milestones on getting that character done, instead of having an Enlighten sitting there, doing nothing for the first week and then maybe after playing like 3 other charakters to 80 finally having 1 Aura more on an Aurabot I dont play anymore, cause all my Friends allready stopped playing for that league and there is no one left to play with.

To be totally honest, I do not think there is a better solution than the Enlighten gem for the specific purpose of replacing the Reduced Mana gem.

I feel the highest priority should be establishing support gems which could potentially compete with some form of Reduced Mana gem. You cannot have a competition with only one competitor, so ANY change to RM in this competitorless state would just feel like an itemization shuffle. Your suggestion may be less drastic in that regard, but it still would be (corrupted 21/0 gems, GCPs go up in value, etc).

For the immediate, the right-now, I feel the two best options to deal with RM balance are:
1. Do nothing for now. I mean, RM is OP as shit, but patience is a virtue; if you don't have a good fix at the moment, wait.
2. Just remove RM completely, no replacement, 60% auras to 45%, 40% auras to 30%. Very ineligant but virtually no itemization shift.

If I had to pick between the Enlighten plan and your suggestion, I would still go Enlighten. Both options suck, but if RM is to exist as an aura support gem in some form, it should exist as a one with less than 20 gemlevels to allow finer tuning. Also, since I have a dream for the potential of aura quality bonuses, your suggestion seems to be a barrier to that, because why would they change the quality bonus after already changing it? (Two changes in quick succession would lead to even greater itemization shift.)

In any case, I firmly believe in option 1: do nothing for now. Until alternate supports are added for auras, there is no point.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

To be totally honest, I do not think there is a better solution than the Enlighten gem for the specific purpose of replacing the Reduced Mana gem.

I feel the highest priority should be establishing support gems which could potentially compete with some form of Reduced Mana gem. You cannot have a competition with only one competitor, so ANY change to RM in this competitorless state would just feel like an itemization shuffle. Your suggestion may be less drastic in that regard, but it still would be (corrupted 21/0 gems, GCPs go up in value, etc).

For the immediate, the right-now, I feel the two best options to deal with RM balance are:
1. Do nothing for now. I mean, RM is OP as shit, but patience is a virtue; if you don't have a good fix at the moment, wait.
2. Just remove RM completely, no replacement, 60% auras to 45%, 40% auras to 30%. Very ineligant but virtually no itemization shift.

If I had to pick between the Enlighten plan and your suggestion, I would still go Enlighten. Both options suck, but if RM is to exist as an aura support gem in some form, it should exist as a one with less than 20 gemlevels to allow finer tuning. Also, since I have a dream for the potential of aura quality bonuses, your suggestion seems to be a barrier to that, because why would they change the quality bonus after already changing it? (Two changes in quick succession would lead to even greater itemization shift.)

In any case, I firmly believe in option 1: do nothing for now. Until alternate supports are added for auras, there is no point.

So your suggestion is to screw people out of the same amount of auras as they currently are now in the name of eventually getting quality aura bonuses that don't reduced mana but are unique and interesting, even though they've said in the past they don't want quality auras to increase the raw power of them.

I guess I can't agree with it, but I can respect the position.