Why didn't GGG make Conc Effect work with auras, instead of increasing all costs?

You are aware that running all the auras at maximum efficiency requires using practically all your gem slots, right? If you did this change, you'd be weakening aura-mancers by making it literally take ALL our gem slots to do the same thing we did before. In addition, Concentrated effect is very non-party friendly; and would have negative effects on aura use in the parties.

I'd like additional options for my support gems with auras, but that isn't it I feel. It would just be come another required gem.

"

Epicly_Curious escreveu:

You are aware that running all the auras at maximum efficiency requires using practically all your gem slots, right? If you did this change, you'd be weakening aura-mancers by making it literally take ALL our gem slots to do the same thing we did before. In addition, Concentrated effect is very non-party friendly; and would have negative effects on aura use in the parties.

I'd like additional options for my support gems with auras, but that isn't it I feel. It would just be come another required gem.

Firstly, a 20/20 Conc Aura has +30% increased radius, compared to +40% increased radius on a non-Conc 20/0 Aura. The reduced radius on Conc wouldn't so much make auras party unfriendly so much as it would further encourage quality on aura gems.

In terms of dedicated auramancers, two points:
1) Max level Conc auras would end at about 12.6% stronger than before. That's plus one eighth.
2) Although I agree that it would take up more gem sockets, I believe this would open up build diversity by making two-handed weapons a much more viable choice for a dedicated auramancer. Having two six-links, one for primary spam and one for Reduced+Conc+4xAura, would be appealing indeed. And in all fairness, any introduction of viable support gems for Auras would have this effect, because a dedicated auramancer would be interested in supporting their auras as much as possible.

Regarding Purity of Fire, etc. with this suggestion:

Each would be a 30% aura, and the formula for max resistance increase would be INT((glvl+1)/8); this would mean a max of +3% at gem level 23, which could then get Conc'd to 5% (but would then reserve 48% mana instead of 30%). With another 60% Increased Effect of Auras you cast, the maximum bonus to maximum resists would be 8%.

"

ScrotieMcB escreveu:

And in all fairness, any introduction of viable support gems for Auras would have this effect, because a dedicated auramancer would be interested in supporting their auras as much as possible.

In all fairness, this suggestion includes nerf to the state of auras currently; which would result in them being directly weaker unless you used the gem, making it feel much more forced than if more options simply were available.

"

Epicly_Curious escreveu:

In all fairness, this suggestion includes nerf to the state of auras currently; which would result in them being directly weaker unless you used the gem, making it feel much more forced than if more options simply were available.

Reducing both effect and cost is not a pure nerf. In terms of benefit per % mana reserved, this suggestion keeps the balance exactly where it is currently:
60% Grace giving 2016 Evasion = 33.6 Evasion per % reserved
40% Grace giving 1344 Evasion = 33.6 Evasion per % reserved

Here's the only real trade-off here:
Pro: You get more control over what auras you have; either 3 weak or 2 strong.
Con: You probably need to devote a 4L instead of a 3L (or don't, and run 2 weak, which is still stronger than 1 strong).

While that makes auras more accessible for those that are having difficulty running those quantities of auras, it is still, even if it is the exact same ratio a significant nerf to the initial potential of the gem. Having to use an additional support to get a gem back to the same state it used to be at (the 2000+) is a nerf to those that already heavily invested into getting auras set up on their build.

Just for example, despite the cost of Discipline having been multiplied ten-fold when its mana cost became 60%, rather than 205, I consider discipline to be significantly more usable with the additional energy shield it now grants than I feel it was in it's beta-state. Even if point for point it's the same value, it will heavily impact builds based around it.

Just for example, it would be like reducing the damage and mana costs of fire-spells by 35%, just because you've released a support gem that increases that damage by 50%, for marginally higher mana costs than the original value; Even if firespells has a point for point ratio that is identical, its lower initial sum will make the new support gem synergy not feel like a buff at all; but rather a forced addition.

Buffs accompanied by nerfs often don't feel like buffs at all; and while I'm open for Auras gaining options for supporting them, I honestly think this would be the worst possible way.

"

Epicly_Curious escreveu:

Having to use an additional support to get a gem back to the same state it used to be at (the 2000+) is a nerf to those that already heavily invested into getting auras set up on their build.

It's not the same state, it's an improved state. 2/3*1.69=1.126666. That's a 12.6% boost (of the "more" variety).

Since a character in a group can only have one Grace aura, giving that kind of "more" bonus is significant.

Will you be addressing my other statements? I sort of address how despite the marginal buff; it would feel like anything but one.

Let's take your opinion seriously, without discounting mine. Let's try balancing around both power per % reserved, and by power per socket used.

So let's say x*1.69=1.33. Then x = 1.33/1.69 = 0.787. That's balancing by sockets used, not % reserved.

With % reserved, for 60%->40%, x = 64/60/1.69, x=0.631. For 40%->30%, x=48/40/1.69, x=0.71.

The geometric mean of those two numbers is 0.705 for 60%->40%, and 0.748 for 40%->30%. This gives a kind of average between the two methods of balance, factoring both methods into consideration.

Under this kind of compromise, a level 20 Grace without Conc would provide 1423 Evasion base, which means a Conc Grace would provide 2404 Evasion. That's 37.56 Evasion per % reserved, versus the old 33.6 per % reserved, for a net 11.8% increase in terms of balance per % reserved. In terms of balance per socket, let's just pretend you could run two Grace auras for a second (in essence, assuming that the other aura ran is equally as good as Grace), which means you'd get 4806 Evasion for 4 sockets where you used to get 4032 Evasion for 3 sockets. That's 1344 Evasion per socket before, 1201.5 Evasion per socket after, which means new->old would be an net 11.8% increase.

After this adjustment, I believe that even from your perspective, things would be fair. You'd essentially be trading away 11.8% more power per socket for 11.8% more power per % reserved.

Note: Grace example in OP edited to reflect the ideas in this post.

+1 from me.
More choices and options.

On the subject of the significant nerf to the initial potential of the gem: I think the pros (40% mana reserved) outweigth the cons (less potency).

An alternative (that would be a straight buff) is to keep the same potency with 40% mana reserved and conc effect would boost you beyond what you have now.