[gem]ethereal knives - [s-gem]Life Gain on Hit

This is the weirdest thread I have ever read.

The daggers are not "big bits of metal that you create out of magic". They are etherial.

"Ask anyone, I'm right" is one of the most heinous fallacies of logic around. Ask anyone.

Even if it was true that 90% of players agree with you, 90% of people being stupid isn't a reason to change a name of a spell that is entirely appropriate; particularly when that spell is further labelled to outline the type of support gems that can support it.

"

Freezerg написал:

No, they are not.
Spells are created from nothing. Your character actually throws the daggers.
This is logical enough for me and 90% of players.

Why not 89.99%?

"

Chameleon написал:

"

Mark_GGG написал:

Ethereal knives is not an attack, it's a spell.

lol that makes no sense to me.

I really do not understand half of what terms mean in this game. GGG need to do a complete overhaul and explain how things work much much better before this leaves Open Beta. We also need a sticky.

It makes sense to me.

And if they did a complete overhaul of the terms, they would have the same problem. I feel the best solution to this problem is for you to learn the terms.

Also, at the top of the skill gem it clearly says "spell". The passive you are referring to effects spells. I don't see the issue.

You have other gems that say "attack", this gem does not say "attack", therefore it is not an "attack" and gems that affect "attacks" won't work. I don't think these things are terribly confusing. Their are much simpler games that are much harder to figure out because of their inconsistent terminoligy. For a game as complex as POE, they have done a tremendous job with their terminoligy.

Maybe they (or a community member) could put together a list of terms.....but they are really not hard to figure out. Also, there is an extensive mechanics thread that explains all this stuff. Some people are just too lazy to read it, than get mad things don't work the way they percieve it. 100 people will percieve things 100 different ways, the important things is the data is consistent, so it can be learned and understood by those 100 people once the terms are learned. That is exactly what GGG has done. You are the 101st guy that just refuses to learn the terms.

"

Pathological написал:

This is the weirdest thread I have ever read.

The daggers are not "big bits of metal that you create out of magic". They are etherial.

"Ask anyone, I'm right" is one of the most heinous fallacies of logic around. Ask anyone.

Even if it was true that 90% of players agree with you, 90% of people being stupid isn't a reason to change a name of a spell that is entirely appropriate; particularly when that spell is further labelled to outline the type of support gems that can support it.

MAJORITY is stupid? You sound like unloved emo child. I hope you do not apply this rule to everything around you. That would be sad life.

POINT ONE: NAME

Ethereal Knives. Ethereal means, generally, otherworldly or intangible. They could name it Magic Knives without the meaning changing very much. Why then use ethereal instead of magic? Sometimes having a diverse vocabulary is it's own reward


POINT TWO: VISUALS

Maybe it's just me, but when I cast EK I don't see throwing knives, I see pointy streaks of green light. Yeah there's a sort of throwing animation, but that could just as easily be a casting motion as anything else, neh? Spellcasting does have animations too.


POINT THREE: MECHANICS

You can 'fire' EK without a dagger equipped. You can do it without a weapon equipped at all. The various attacks all require some weapon criteria be met, to my knowledge. Ranged attacks may not need a quiver, but they at least need a bow.


POINT FOUR: MECHANICS

It's requirements are dex/int, with a fair amount of int. That's somewhat indicative of magical things, though admittedly not necessarily decisive on its own.


POINT FIVE: MECHANICS

If you open up the character panel and look at the EK info page, as it might behoove one to do from time to time, it quite clearly says spell damage and so on. That's not very ambiguous.


CONCLUSION

If I were to make any suggestions about EK, it'd be to change 'fires' in its description to 'conjures'. Changing it into an attack would require a lot more rework than that for no obvious benefit.

Still, it makes the game without any ranged skill that do not require a bow.
I am all hand on making EK into attack.

Let me also comment on your points.
1. To your personal information, i have diverse vocabulary, and you implying otherwise just makes you, not me, stupid. Ethereal do not prove that it is a spell. Even 'magic' do not. Because you could, surprisingly, throw magically enhanced physical knives.
Also, from the mechanical point of view, we do not need thrown dagger as one of possible weapons. And skill could fill that role.

2. Raise your details to high.

3. Mentioned that in 1.

4. This is one of many things to change if we decide to make it an attack. You just try to prove it is a spell, and I have no idea why, because IT IS a spell. Not by accident we're in SUGGESTIONS section. Change requirements from dex/int to dex or str/dex.

5. Again, we know it. We all know it.

6. Your 'benefit' would be visible after the change. I would finally see non-bow Rangers or Duelists PvE.

This thread initially delt with confusion about EK being a spell and not an attack. You started by arguing that EK should be an attack because it doesn't make sense as a spell. Excuse me for misinterpreting your position, but I hope it's clear how I could do so.

As for diversity, well, I guess my dual wielding sword ranger and my friend's sword shadow just don't exist? GGG have repeatedly said that new AOE skills are coming for dual wielders and knife users, I don't see why we have to butcher an existing skill to plug that gap instead.

Additionally,

"

Freezerg написал:

2. Raise your details to high.

Am I missing something here?

Lock this thread....eatthepath nailed it...incredibly simple and concise explanation.