Why did you break alt-weapon set auras?

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Darkheart wrote:

Let me tell you about two MMOs that lost a huge number of players for "fixing" bugs that the majority of people playing thought added to the experience:

Great, now perhaps you'd care to name all the games that didn't lose vast numbers of players after fixing bugs.

You haven't actually presented an argument for this feature, you've just threatened doom for the developers if they keep it out.

Uhm? You want me to play Devil's Advocate? Why don't you name all the games that shanked shit people didn't want shanked that retained all those players... Because that is your argument not mine.

Also I did present an actual argument, but I'm sure you conveniently ignored it so you keep peeing:

"

Darkheart wrote:

Sometimes unintended effects are a benefit and provide a value the makers themselves didn't/couldn't forsee.

Some more anecdotal evidence of displeased players already leaving:

Between .9.11 and .9.12 I was seeing an average of ~700 online at peak times. Open Beta weekends I saw that double to around ~1400.

After .9.12 and the subsequent patches I'm seeing ~500 at peak. From my perspective we're already seeing a loss. Perhaps some Devs can post actual numbers somewhere, because as I say this is purely anecdotal based on my /online observations over a 4 week period.

Granted that's not purely Aura-shank related, but PoE is trending down from what I've noted.

-DH

"

Darkheart wrote:

Uhm? You want me to play Devil's Advocate? Why don't you name all the games that shanked shit people didn't want shanked that retained all those players... Because that is your argument not mine.

No, I don't want you to play devil's advocate. I want you to realise that "two games lost players after stupid patches" is not an argument against anything. Well, I mean it's an argument against stupid patches, but for that to be relevant you'd have to demonstrate this was a stupid patch.

And "there's a benefit in this that the developers didn't see" is not that argument. You needed to have actually described the benefit. At the point I replied, all you'd done was said that you want this feature and implied that the game would lose huge amounts of players without it.

Anyway, sorry for asking for actual reasoning peeing everywhere. I can't address your actual concerns in the context of high level play (but thanks for posting them so other people can!) because I've never been interested enough in making it past Cruel. But I would say that there are plenty of other ways to make your preferred build more viable without this particular mechanic existing. If the consensus ends up being that the skills you need cost too much mana, GGG can (wait for it) lower the mana cost. They can make mana passives more powerful or more attainable. They can lower monster health or boost your damage so you need less attacks to kill them. They can boost your defences so you can afford to spend more gear/passives on attack power or mana or whatever. Etc etc etc: there are countless interrelated tweaks that could be made if it's determined that what you're saying is of real concern, and if you'd phrased your thread as feedback about the viability of your Shadow, you'd probably have seen that in the responses. This problem needn't be just about your off-hand auras.

You were told in game that the reason so many people left is 3 fold. 1) GW2 was released. 2). Kripp plays GW2 therefore many of his fanbois left. 3). TL2 was just released.

Grow up. Quit making bad arguments that have nothing to do with anything. You were using skills that were not currently attached to your toon. Sorry.

The problem with auras on the switch weapon was because it was a benefit without a cost for most everyone. There was no choice there. You basically just got an extra 6 sockets to play with and stick every aura in.

This throws off balance because your sockets are intended to be a major limitation. You should be making hard choices about what skillgems are most important to you. Aura on swap weapon removed a lot of those choices.

Lastly, I'd be extremely surprised if your character is unfixably affected by this change. Taking up one of your armor slots to run three auras with reduced cost is not going to kill your build.

Most gem setups look like this:
-5 link (6 for the rich folk): Main AoE attack
-4 link (or 5-6link for 2handers): Main single target attack
-4link armor with a totem, or 1-2 primary utility gems with supports like faster cast or duration
-4 link armor with auras and reduced cost.
-Depending on whether you have a 2h, you have a 4link armor or a couple 3link weapons left for a bunch of utility singles. If you use more than 3 auras, you've got plenty of space for them here.

Because I used that in the last race and my stuff gets nerfed each race :p

I should play a mara this time maybe that finally fixes them.

This is what happens when testers (not players) decide to "abuse" a bug just because there hasn't been a fix introduced yet.

"

Hilbert,
remember not to use GS/life leech, perfect gear/skill setups and spec 70% of your points outside of the marauder's part of tree, and you can talk about nerfing marauder

I will go 2h Groundslam high liferegen walking towards the duelist tree using grace and iron reflexes hit as many evade, defense and lifenodes possible while maxing out mace stuff.
And don't forget blood mana.

Should get a fix as intended like reduced Trolls Blood to 1.0% life regen to 0,2% ;D


It was just pratical to switch now it just takes 10 seconds more to get all auras active and get back to combat stuff.
Not really a big deal.

I can still use the same amount of skills and auras as before now I just need to manualy activate auras use them and swap again for other skills. Also need to get more free slots on my armors, now that i cant use swaped weapons as slot ones, so this didnt change much