Firestorm - Life on hit bug

Well i finaly got to use my Life on hit gem and linked it to my firestorm gem.
I decided to test if it worked and guess what.
it didnt, so i asked players ingame and they didnt have any ideas etc..

What it is suppose to do is give me life on each hit wich it didn't...
Not sure if its a bug or something else but i figured out (Or was told in chat to do it) to post it here..

I link my wand wich the gem's are put in here:
Nicht verfügbar
Einige Gegenstände in diesem Beitrag sind zur Zeit nicht verfügbar.
When I tried it out, the support gem didn't seem to work with *any* of my spells. Which kinda sucks, since I got the gem to use it with spells. Hopefully the gem coding is just bugged and can be fixed.


If it is not meant to work for spells, I think it should SAY something to the effect that it's life gain on *physical* damage hit. Otherwise there will be a lot of sad puppies who get this gem, realize it doesn't work, and then say "FFFUUUUU....."
Invited to Beta 2012-03-18 / Supporter since 2012-04-08
Spells are not "Attacks".
Life gain on hit reads "X life gained for each enemy hit by your Attacks".
Physical damage isn't quite right either, as avatar of fire means you only do elemental damage.
"
pneuma schrieb:
Spells are not "Attacks".
Life gain on hit reads "X life gained for each enemy hit by your Attacks".
Physical damage isn't quite right either, as avatar of fire means you only do elemental damage.



A spell certainly *is* an attack. It's what spellcasters use to, well, attack their enemies. They cause damage, the enemy dies. There's got to be a way to understand from the description that it isn't meant for spell damage.
Invited to Beta 2012-03-18 / Supporter since 2012-04-08
Zuletzt bearbeitet von VideoGeemer um 07.04.2012, 21:47:32
"
VideoGeemer schrieb:

A spell certainly *is* an attack. It's what spellcasters use to, well, attack their enemies. They cause damage, the enemy dies. There's got to be a way to understand from the description that it isn't meant for spell damage.
No.

By every definition of every/most game(s) I've played, attacks and spells are always exclusive (in this game some skill are both attacks and spells though, but then specific attributes only apply to those specific parts)

Only by general use of the term is casting an offensive spell considered to be an attack.


How else would one distinguish spells from attacks? what word would you use instead of 'attack'? Realize that saying physical damage is completely invalid, because attacks can deal non-physical damage, and spells can deal physical damage.
Fresh cakes for all occasions.
Delivery in 30 eons or less
Call 1-800-DOMINUS
Remember - 'Dominus Delivers'
Zuletzt bearbeitet von Xapti um 08.04.2012, 00:58:10
"Weapon attack"

In context it might read "... for each enemy hit by your weapons' Attacks"

How's that? Should work with AoF and all, since you're still using a weapon's attack.

My games do have more clear terms, maybe they're not the ones you play. Regardless, whether most games you're familiar with call weapon attacks and spell attacks something different or not, without that background, simply saying "attack" is ambiguous for a support gem, and obviously leads to some confusion.

Especially when we have skill trees with crit chance with 2-handed weapons, crit chance for maces, crit chance for spells, and simply "critical strike chance" which covers any and all forms of critical strike. "Attack" implies all, unless as you said, you have some foreknowledge that it is not supposed to be interpreted that way. He and I were not the only ones playing on Legacy at the time who did not know this was not the intended interpretation.

Hopefully "weapon attacks" (or maybe weapons' attacks depending on the context used) will be an acceptable way of phrasing it so that it is clear to everyone (or at least as clear as possible to as many people as possible). There was a similar confusion over shield benefits going to minions, over what kinds of shields (energy shield maybe?) were included in this. It was changed to say "equipped shield" so that we should all be able to figure out what it meant. :)
Invited to Beta 2012-03-18 / Supporter since 2012-04-08
Zuletzt bearbeitet von VideoGeemer um 08.04.2012, 06:00:36
Also, several of us have had the same confusion over the Wrath gem. It's blue for a witch, offered as a quest reward, yet only works for physical (edit: okay, weapon) attacks. If you KNOW that "attack" is supposed to be separate from spells, this might not be so confusing. But in context of this game, and without prior knowledge of things like that, it definitely is. So now, we have to ask about every gem if it works for magic or not, hehe.

In the case of Wrath, I also think that should be changed to weapon attacks, as opposed to just "attacks." Many of us (and not just n00bs on Default, hehe) are being confused by this.


Edit: Apparently Ice Bite (?) says "increased cold damage with weapons." Maybe a further case to say weapon attacks?
Invited to Beta 2012-03-18 / Supporter since 2012-04-08
Zuletzt bearbeitet von VideoGeemer um 09.04.2012, 02:06:26
Is there any further discussion on this topic? Hehe
Invited to Beta 2012-03-18 / Supporter since 2012-04-08
Back when I started PoE, played my cold witch for 30ish levels with Wrath on before realizing it doesn't do anything to my spells except hog mana.

I support the suggestion to rephrase the tooltips that only apply to weapon attacks.

Beitrag melden

Konto melden:

Meldegrund

Weitere Informationen: