Allow us to instill corrupted amulets
|
more stuff like tainted currencies in poe1 would be nice, just make them expensive and rare I think
|
|
" yes it is a double risk in trading for later, so don't corrupt your amulet lol. and what are you talking about socketing after corruption? You cannot socket after corruption. This is not my logic this is what corrupting items is |
|
" you can't give an item a socket, but you can socket something into the item. his logic is that instilling is much like that. it is a seperate mod you add on top of an item that you can re-allocate at will, and so it is not to be treated like regular affixes. I think being able to instill corrupted amulets would be fine, I just think they should make the currency to do it rare. I would rather not see a bunch of common tainted currencies and corrupting be kinda pseudo, but adding stuff like this and making it rare is good. it's another liquid to find, and it makes amulets suddenly a lot better to sink vaal orbs into. both of these things are good because sinks inherently make currency more valuable and people running alternate content need valuable drops to find. Zuletzt bearbeitet von AverBeg7#1689 um 20.09.2025, 01:50:40
|
|
" Socketing runes and instilling is the same thing with other words. I don't get it why instilling should treated like something special that can't be redo the procedure after corrupting the item! Let's say I want to corrupt an amulet. Instilling will prevent me from doing that. So I'll have to first instill something that I'll never change if I want to corrupt the item, and eventually if I don't need it it will be almost impossible to sell because the buyer will think twice about whether the item is suitable for their build. Zuletzt bearbeitet von a09368652#0684 um 20.09.2025, 08:40:49
|
|
|
It's clear that for these reasons, corrupted Amulets should be instillable.
1. It ruins the trading balance between other corrupted items in wich socketing is still allowed and are suitable for more builds and being apparently more buyable. 2. It's double risk instilling and corrupting an amulet for further use. 3. If by corrupting an item whole modifier plan changes, then instilling plan can save the item for some other builds and so not being destroyed. |
|
" I had n Amulet that destroyed completely for my build when i corrupted it but my friend want it to use because was suitable for his build. Dissapointment come when he realised that couldn't change the instill. It's obviously a false decision by GGG. |
|
|
everyone here seems to have messed up their build in someway through corruption or has bought a corrupted amulet without thinking. I see what people are saying with comparing instilling to runes, but instilling is not runes, just like runes are not quality or sockets.
I always thought the risk of corrupting your amulet actually added a layer of depth to this game, the game people are currently saying is too easy. |
|
|
I never bothered in Amulet corruption and the reason was the instilling risk + is difficult to find buyers if item get useless for my build.
I didn't see either selling corrupted Amulets unless it is something very rare that cost a fortune... GGG should change it in next patch, it's not good to copy paste from Poe1 all the time. We need innovative ideas plus more crafting options. |
|
" I will prove to you why instilling is more like socketing runes. Assuming that you want to corrupt an Amulet that has instill. If can't re-instilling amulet after corruption then the instill should be something different from socketing runes. But then Amulet should get two corruption. One in item and one in instill. That is not happening either, so instilling eventually follows socketing rules without applying. GGG should pick one of the two mentioned above. |
|
" Well explained but doesn't seem GGG understand this... |
|
