Concentrated Effect Support's strange behaviour
" Because the check marks purpose is just to answer the simple question of whether or not the gems link together or not and anything beyond that needs actual explanations of how that specifig combo interacts or its just useless. Sheck mark denoting that skill and support "work together partially" would be pretty much useless as player would still have to figure out how exactly that combination works by themself just like they do now. Your whole argument comes from not understanding the purpose of the check mark system. "An it harm none, do what you will"
|
|
" Thanks. I'd rather reach an understanding by reasoning rather than shouting, usually. Takes more energy, though. " As proved before, I am a 5-year player and never expected Lightnings from HoT to be Secondary Damage - mostly because of Secondary Damage's nature. I have a genuine confusion on how - or even if - Controlled Destruction can support Herald of Thunder. Then again, if I wanted to make a Herald build I would most probably searched online for that knowledge, or asked the forum. There are so many builds around there that we cannot expect GGG to even cover everything on game guides - even less on a check " A software is meant to follow an algorhytm, as in a set of criteria that can reach a specific, clear solution, by using a common base in them. True enough, one can cover some very specific exceptions (like Ball Lightning) manually. However, think about this: > Every 3 months, new skill gems and support gems are added to the game. Some of them are completely reworked in how they work (Like Reduced Mana -> Inspiration, or Arctic Breath -> Creeping Frost). This means, every 3 months, to re-check all the 200 and rising Active and Support gems in order to keep everything correct. Judging by the quality of recent expansion, I'd rather have GGG folks work for avoiding a Day1 patch than keep checks... in check. > There are (very rare) posts in which the very Mark_GGG, one of the highest source on how mechanics work, was mistaken on some of the most recent mechanics. While it is human to make errors, it is also proof that the whole skill and mechanics interaction system is so big, or rather bloated, not even their creators have full control over them > Add complexity on a software which should just say if a support can be applied to a gem takes GGG money and hours. Looking on it on wikia is free and takes about 10 minute. Asking an annoyed user on Reddit or Forum for further proof 5. Efficiency is the key In short, I agree with DER_PSYCHOPATH's point of view. Recently, Video games, expecially ARPG, have such a degree of complexity I cannot think about one of them that does not have a Wikia support Last edited by Maxtrux#0762 on Jul 25, 2020, 4:09:56 AM
|
|
" It can, as it links to any skill that does damage, but by default it doesn't do anything as HoT doesn't have a crit chance and doesn't deal spell damage. "An it harm none, do what you will"
|
|
" "Most of the experienced players know almost every support gem and understand what active gems they can support and in what way. They do not need the check marks. On the other hand, a new player definitely does. And if that new player is overwhelmed with too much information of what a support gem does or does not do for his build and under what conditions and in what way, the system will not help them at all" Yes, information should be given on demand. I can't prove it but i already did such user interface when was a programmer I talked about embedded UI that means that when i aim the cursor at the support gem i get a window when all folders are closed and you can see only simple information. Then if you get experince and lose newbie status then you can open the first folder and see advanced information and the same way: super andvanced info, uber super advanced info and so on. The main idea of this embedded UI is: all professinal information is hidden whereas exists in the folders ready to be read-ed This will prevent newbies from clogging their heads with a lot of visual and textual information. Last edited by Staglaitor_#3917 on Jul 25, 2020, 4:32:54 PM
|
|
" This is another way to look at the problem, one that I can agree most certainly. It does indeed not cram everything on a single symbol, but rather give an explanation, based on tier of knowledge, about a gem, and the user gets to say how much knowledge wants to be shown. I believe this is what they have tried to do when they introduced the concept of Advanced Description, a feature actually quite recent, further developed with the new "tag" system that was needed since Delve but only Harvest made such a widespread problem to be address by GGG. I don't know how legal, by GGG's rules, this UI would be, but it would be quite a nice addiction, either designed by a community or by GGG itself. Considering what I've said before about such software's issues for developing, I would not be so shocked to see only a Community version, though... |
|
