Endless Hunger "Life Leech effects are not removed at Full Life" doesn't work with Ghost Reaver / ES

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Ghost Reaver makes life leech apply to ES instead. This inherently means that those leech effects are already not removed at full life (otherwise CI couldn't use GR). They're removed at full ES.

Endless Hunger only says it stops them being removed at full life (and with GR, they already aren't) it doesn't say anything about preventing them being removed at full ES.

Was this an intentional decision?

The fact that prior to this mechanic all modifications for life leech referring to life simply replaced the word life with ES for the modifier (e.g #% of maximum Life per second to maximum Life Leech rate). It did not decide that for GR/CI t max life was 1, round down to 0 and make no change - it worked as expected, shaming t word life for ES by increasing ES leech in proportion to maximum ES.


This does not make sense in this context:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:
Ghost Reaver makes life leech apply to ES instead. This inherently means that those leech effects are already not removed at full life (otherwise CI couldn't use GR). They're removed at full ES.

Endless Hunger only says it stops them being removed at full life (and with GR, they already aren't) it doesn't say anything about preventing them being removed at full ES.

"

dudiobugtron wrote:

"

SeedReaper wrote:

Just as Vaal pact's downside isn't negated by taking Zealot's oath.

I think you got your argument backwards here. You have ES regen from Zealot's Oath (not life regen), but it still counts as life regen for the purposes of Vaal Pact. This is an argument for why Endless Hunger *should* apply to Life leech when using Ghost Reaver.

You and I are arguing the same point. You are right of course.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Ghost Reaver makes life leech apply to ES instead. This inherently means that those leech effects are already not removed at full life (otherwise CI couldn't use GR). They're removed at full ES.

Endless Hunger only says it stops them being removed at full life (and with GR, they already aren't) it doesn't say anything about preventing them being removed at full ES.

Lazy, Mark.... lazy.

Y'all just don't want to do the work to fix it. I get that.

But don't use such a lame excuse to justify it. It's transparent and insulting to your audience's intelligence.

Because the players can't see the actual list of what Ghost reaver does in the code, we are left trying to guess what it does based on the short description on the keystone.

The keystone description used to be adequate. Now, with endless hunger, it is obvious to the Devs (who can see what Ghost Reaver actually does) that endless Hunger shouldn't apply. But it is no longer obvious to the players. The description is therefore lacking.

Perhaps it should be updated to better reflect what it really does?

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

joachimbond wrote:

Y'all just don't want to do the work to fix it. I get that.

The only reason I don't want to fix it is that it isn't broken. This is the correct and intended behaviour.

I'd like to hear more about the reasoning to not allow Energy Shield focused Slayers, this modifier is after all one of central selling points of Slayer. What made these so much stronger than the usual Vaal Pact version? This must have been up for debate since it is intended behaviour.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

joachimbond wrote:

Y'all just don't want to do the work to fix it. I get that.

The only reason I don't want to fix it is that it isn't broken. This is the correct and intended behaviour.

yeahhhh yeahhh...

sell it to chris. he'll buy it.

"

Illviljan wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

joachimbond wrote:

Y'all just don't want to do the work to fix it. I get that.

The only reason I don't want to fix it is that it isn't broken. This is the correct and intended behaviour.

I'd like to hear more about the reasoning to not allow Energy Shield focused Slayers, this modifier is after all one of central selling points of Slayer. What made these so much stronger than the usual Vaal Pact version? This must have been up for debate since it is intended behaviour.

Nowhere is it said that ES-based slayers are not allowed. I would speculate that the reason was to prevent permanent stun/bleed immunity on CI-slayers for balance purposes...

While what Mark says makes sense, it's always difficult to interpret what the code will be, even when the description is clear. Sometimes it doesn't work the way you think it would, even if you take the description into account.

A good example is Headhunter and Herald of Ice.

When using something like traps or mines, if they shatter an enemy, the enemies do not explode with herald of ice's explosion. You could say this makes sense, as the description reads:

"

If you shatter an enemy, they explode and deal AoE cold damage to enemies near them.

You are not the one shattering the enemy, a mine or trap is. This is a separate entity/actor in the game space than you. So, it not triggering makes sense, as lame as it may be.

But then we have effects like Headhunter:

"

When you Kill a Rare monster, you gain its mods for 20 seconds

Even though *I* am not the one killing the monster (my traps or mines are) I still receive the benefits. This also works with minions. You could say this is bugged, but it actually broke and wasn't doing this recently, and then was bug fixed to restore it to the way it is now.

In my opinion, this alone is a clear case of sometimes the wording working one way, and sometimes working the other way. As much as I would like to believe that I can trust the wording down to the fine print (as Mark demonstrates quite often), there are still exceptions here and there that don't make sense to me.

There are more examples, but this is the first one that comes to mind (the last character I was playing was a mine user).