I know this has come up many times but please make every legendary item retroactive when a patch updates a legendary and not just set pieces. given how extremely rare primals are
1 Like
Sets can be upgraded retroactively because the items themselves remain untouched. The set bonuses are not tied to specific individual items.
When a legendary gets buffed, its legendary power actually gets completely replaced. When prior patching it had power A, after the patch it has power B.
The main point here is that if the changes to legendaries were to made retroactive, it would require digging through the entire player database, finding every item needing the modification and then modifying them individually. I’m not saying it’s impossible but it’s a huge hassle and in the end not worth it.
7 Likes
Just need an upgrade recipe in cube
3 Likes
Yes why not actually, like this each player could do the upgrade individually, only on items which really deserve it…
1 Like
that makes sense, I never thought of it that way
Imagine hating hunting for new loot in a game based on loot hunting…
6 Likes
So how come it’s retroactive when they nerf an item?
2 Likes
I think it must be related to the maximum value of the ability of the legendary item.
If you have an item that can do + 200% damage, lowering them all to 150% should be easy (idk). But if that item gets its bonus increased from 200% to 400%, that item I think should be obtained again, unless it is a primal item.
I also like the idea of a Cube recipe to apply new patch buffs on legendaries. One thing to consider though then is, what % damage boost to give if it falls within a range.
Then people getting the new item will cry foul that other players have the better legacy item and have no chance at getting the legacy item any longer. That in turn would make the nerf pointless.
1 Like
Blizzard has historically retroactively nerfed items when deemed to be considered either bugged or operating in a way unintended. (interaction issues with other items or skills, sets, etc)
They could retroactively buff them if they wanted to. But they don’t. Why?
Easy way to keep a carrot going.
Set items typically don’t have specific key powers on an individual item, but rather a set of powers depending on what parts you wear or how many parts. Those are easier to change, its true.
Now.
Think about some older items you may have kept. Like for example that vanilla goblin ring that actually spawned treasure goblins occasionally.
Would you want that retroactively patched?
That was an item who’s power completely changed.
There are several items like this. I still have a few of those. True, most are near useless with current build metas for each hero, but if Blizzard blanket nerfed a unique item like those, there would be some upset folks around here.
So.
I think that they adopted the current method. Nerf only those old normal legendaries that needed to be nerfed. Those that get better changes leave alone, let the player find the new version. Good point though, if you were to try to cube an older version of an item and don’t already have it cubed, and its a version you could cube, you would get the newer power added. That’s nice at least.
Should they retroactively update ALL items? Maybe those items that are level 70 versions? That would exclude those older vanilla level 60 versions for sure. But it would remove a few items that cannot be obtained anymore completely from the game.
So its a mixed bag.
Personally I’m fine with how it is. Gives me a reason to find that item again.
Game on.
They have no problem retroactively NERFING legs…
How many times did you juggle that in your head before you posted it? Because it makes zero sense.
1 Like
Actually, it does make sense. A good example is Magefist gloves. The fire damage originally rolled as a Primary property. It was changed to a Legendary property much later.
Those who have legacy versions can equip the new version in the cube AND wear the Legacy version on their character. It’s a nice buff that frees up amulet property roles. Or it can just pile on more fire damage if they chose to while disregarding the diminishing elemental damage returns.
If the gloves were converted to the new version during whatever patch that was it wouldn’t be possible to do that.
Maybe not the best constructed sentence, since I overload with detail all in one sentence quite often, but the main idea is still there. Legacy item being a legendary item pre nerf patch. If nerfs weren’t retroactive, then newer players, or players that skipped a bunch of seasons, would complain about an unfair advantage for those that still have the legacy item post nerf patch.
Great points everyone, I’ve only gotten one primal holy point shot since they introduced primal items, time for more reforging lol
So, when they retro-nerf an item, they have no problem going through this process. If they can do it when they nerf, they can do it to buff.
Players should re-farm the same item because they want to re-farm them (i.e. play seasons) not because items are intentionally broken to force re-farming.
I hate loot hunting. I play D3 for the RPG elements. I like being a Wizard or a Monk, or a whatever…
On that same note, I don’t like PoE because it’s more about the loot than about role individuality.
So… your sarcastic point is stupid.
Could you remind me of a case of a retroactive nerf happening on live servers?
Shield of Fury is the most recent retroactive nerf
The thing is, the item itself remains unmodified. Only the mechanics separate from the item were changed. The item does not contain the the amount of stacks that can be applied.
It’s the same deal with Bone Ringer stacks and the nerf to them.
Likewise the change to the Ring of Emptiness was effectively a buff but again the item itself was unchanged. Only the the conditions when the power is applied were changed and the item does not store this data.
1 Like
I understand your point, and I’m with you. I know why it works that way, but the idea remains, they do nerf retroactively more often than they’d buff retroactively.
I’ve just learn to live with it. It’s too much work and they can’t afford doing it.
It’s still annoying, though.