Youve Given Us "Double Corruption"... Now Give Us THIS:

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

I have no idea what this assumption is based on.

So if when you enchant, it gives you two outcomes instead of one, the "rare"/desirable outcomes will be twice as plentiful.

So supply should increase x2. And price should fall, since demand hasn't moved anywhere.

*Shrug.*

"

bwam wrote:

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

I have no idea what this assumption is based on.

So if when you enchant, it gives you two outcomes instead of one, the "rare"/desirable outcomes will be twice as plentiful.

So supply should increase x2. And price should fall, since demand hasn't moved anywhere.

*Shrug.*

Wait... so your logic is that because double-corruption items exist, all lab enchants should come two at a time? I gotta admit, that idea is so bad that it didn't even occur to me that this could be the thing you were seriously suggesting.

It takes some serious lack of basic game comprehension to even consider an uber lab helm enchantment remotely equivalent in time/resource investment to a Modern Day Temple with a lvl 3 Corruption Chamber. And that's before we even get into things like "Every item can only be Corrupted ONCE, and the double corrupt is an UNLIKELY outcome of that single attempt, and the item itself is often destroyed."

Wow. Just... WOW.

My support, RealLife. And good spot with the comparison Watcher's eye - double enchant. It really clears it.

Aside from answering the "what happens if I enchant again an item with 2 enchantment" (not really a question, they could go like they do with High Templar and make the older enchant be swapped - nothing new to implement), I'd like to give a counter-proposal:

Instead of 2 different enchantment on the same item, how about limiting the pool of enchantment that can roll on your helmet on things that support Skills you have socketed in your equipment and/or second weapon set?
Apart from the fact they will never do something like that since: 1) GGG does not like deterministic crafting and 2) you can manipulate the outcome by unequip all of your Skills except the one from which you want the enchantment. Same goes if you increase the pool by taking gems in your equipment as eligible for the Enchantment - just drop them all and hope you don't DC in that moment

Good idea, I think it would be implemented in some future league.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

I have no idea what this assumption is based on.

So if when you enchant, it gives you two outcomes instead of one, the "rare"/desirable outcomes will be twice as plentiful.

So supply should increase x2. And price should fall, since demand hasn't moved anywhere.

*Shrug.*

Wait... so your logic is that because double-corruption items exist, all lab enchants should come two at a time? I gotta admit, that idea is so bad that it didn't even occur to me that this could be the thing you were seriously suggesting.

It takes some serious lack of basic game comprehension to even consider an uber lab helm enchantment remotely equivalent in time/resource investment to a Modern Day Temple with a lvl 3 Corruption Chamber. And that's before we even get into things like "Every item can only be Corrupted ONCE, and the double corrupt is an UNLIKELY outcome of that single attempt, and the item itself is often destroyed."

Wow. Just... WOW.

No, I guess just people who know how to actually play the game and run the best Lab.

So my bad, the newbs out there with no talent who love say say "WOW" about how hard the game is just won't do it.

"

bwam wrote:

All y'all are just immediate naysayers who don't think things through.

Do you know how hard it would be to get two of the same Lab enchant on a helmet? Yeah, GL. It would be super chase.

Buncha "oh no, not powercreep" fan boys.

The irony of OP being the one to say this, combined with their immediate knee-jerk rejection of well-reasoned criticism of their awful idea, actually made me laugh.

God I love this subforum sometimes.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

All y'all are just immediate naysayers who don't think things through.

Do you know how hard it would be to get two of the same Lab enchant on a helmet? Yeah, GL. It would be super chase.

Buncha "oh no, not powercreep" fan boys.

The irony of OP being the one to say this, combined with their immediate knee-jerk rejection of well-reasoned criticism of their awful idea, actually made me laugh.

God I love this subforum sometimes.

Look at you going back to earlier posts 'cause you can't respond properly. And just sprouting off nonsense.

You're always the same on these forums: a bona fide troll.

Doors are the better walls. Doors !

"

bwam wrote:

Look at you going back to earlier posts 'cause you can't respond properly. And just sprouting off nonsense.

You're always the same on these forums: a bona fide troll.

I don't know what you even want anyone to say, dude. Your idea is not good, clearly has not been thought out, and when people put more thought into their explanations of why your bad idea won't work than you put into explaining it in the first place, you immediately say "Y'all just naysayers who don't think about things." No, WE have thought about things plenty, and it would be nice if you were willing to at least pretend to do the same.

There's nothing in your idea to even directly respond to, because the idea has no substance. Your entire point is "I think all enchanted items should be double enchanted items because double corruption exists within the game." This logic absolutely doesn't follow. SOMEHOW, even though it's very, very obvious to everyone else, you aren't getting that there are very fundamental differences between helm enchants and implicit item corruption which make the false equivalency that your entire post is based upon laughably obvious to anyone willing and capable of coherent rational thought:

1 - You get ONE attempt per item at a corrupted implicit, whereas you can enchant the same item again and again and again, forever, until you get the perfect match.
2 - Going for an implicit corruption requires you gambling the item itself; there is zero risk involved in a helmet enchant because the item itself cannot be destroyed
3 - Going for a double-corruption requires, at a minimum, 4 Alva atlas missions and 4 maps. There is no way to directly buy Alva missions, as even using the prophecy isn't a guaranteed spawn, so this is a thing you will quickly run out of if you're trying to chain temples. An uberlab attempt requires only an Offering, which are so common they might as well be free (currently you can buy 6 for 1c in Heist), but simply the fact that they can be mass-purchased guarantees that you cannot run out of them in a trade league.
4 - Every single lab attempt yields 1 guaranteed enchant opportunity, 2 if you're target farming enchants with the prophecy. As I mentioned already, you need 4 Alvas minimum if you get lucky; realistically you should expect to average 10-15 Alva missions per T3 Corruption Chamber.
5 - It takes FAR less time to run the uberlab than to run 4 maps worth of Alvas plus the modern day temple. Even in the best-possible-ultra-lucky-case where Alva gives you exactly what you want, you aren't going to run 4 maps in the 8-10 minutes an uberlab run takes any decent build these days if you're also stopping to talk to Alva, see which architect to kill, figure out which doors to open, etc.

I had thought all of this was so obvious to everyone that it was implied by my earlier comment, when I said:

"

It takes some serious lack of basic game comprehension to even consider an uber lab helm enchantment remotely equivalent in time/resource investment to a Modern Day Temple with a lvl 3 Corruption Chamber.

But somehow you still aren't getting this, because you aren't willing to think for 10 seconds about any information which conflicts with the baseless conclusions you've already drawn. People who know more than you are trying to help you, but it seems that you'd rather put your hands over your ears and run away shouting "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" like a little kid than actually apply some critical thinking to your own ideas for a change. Yet, somehow, I'm the one here who is trolling?

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

I don't know what you even want anyone to say, dude. Your idea is not good, clearly has not been thought out, and when people put more thought into their explanations of why your bad idea won't work than you put into explaining it in the first place, you immediately say "Y'all just naysayers who don't think about things." No, WE have thought about things plenty, and it would be nice if you were willing to at least pretend to do the same.

You dont like the idea; that doesnt mean it lacks substance or is bad. Just bc my suggestion is succinct doesn't mean it lacks merit, and there are good reasons for wanting to include it in the game.

Just bc I didnt write a wall of txt or some dissertation as to why the idea is good doesnt mean it isnt. Readers can see for themselves why an idea might be appealing -- and I even included a sweet example, in a response, of what might be desirabe: +2 Dash in conjunction with a Primary Skill.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

There's nothing in your idea to even directly respond to, because the idea has no substance.

Just responded to that.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

Your entire point is "I think all enchanted items should be double enchanted items because double corruption exists within the game."

No, that was a hook to say, "Hey, if you liked 'double corruption,' then check this out!'" More of an attention-grabber than a premise for the legitimacy of a (perfectly fine, ty) suggestion.

"

ARealLifeCaribbeanPirate wrote:

This logic absolutely doesn't follow. SOMEHOW, even though it's very, very obvious to everyone else, you aren't getting that there are very fundamental differences between helm enchants and implicit item corruption which make the false equivalency that your entire post is based upon laughably obvious to anyone willing and capable of coherent rational thought:

And you're launching off on a tangential mini-rant bc you think my suggestion has to be predicated on another in-game feature.

Even if you dont think it's a good suggestion yourself doesnt meean it's devoid of merit, and your entire tone is condescending and -- frankly -- pathetic. Especially bc you're so wrong.



Your equivocating between double-corruption and my idea isnt necessary, and it isnt an argument against enabling double-enchantment.