Life Gain on Hit

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

BRavich wrote:

A year ago this gem worked with spells. I take it that is not the case anymore?

With all due respect, it did not. The stat used by this gem has never worked on spells in beta.
Looking through the history of the code (form before my time), the life gain on hit stat was added to the game for the first time in October 2010, long before the beta started, and was restricted to attack-only less than four hours later, in the next update to that file. It has remained that way ever since.
The support gem would have been created some time after the introduction of the stat, although I can't as easily track that one down.

Here's the source of my confusion:
I've noticed that skill gems (and some support gems such as Melee Damage on Full Life) Have stated above the level of a gem the type of gem it is/supports such as Attack, Melee, spell, AoE, and so on.

This support gem does not denote that Attack skills are necessary for support to apply, it only states that it's a support gem. The only reference to attack is in the description "x life gained for each enemy hit by your attacks" This tells me that I should be able to link it to any skill gem that would be attacking and not buffing or de-buffing(such as some curses).

For an example, I'll use the MDoFL Support Gem. It states "Melee, Support". This tells me that I need to link to a Melee gem for the support to apply.

Suggestion:
Since this is for Attack Skill Gems only, could you state "Attack, Support" instead of just "Support"?

Over-Reaching Suggestion:
(this may not be the place to state this but it is related)
Maybe use the term "Physical" in place of "Attack" to avoid confusion?

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

qwertyIVXX wrote:

Suggestion:
Since this is for Attack Skill Gems only, could you state "Attack, Support" instead of just "Support"?

You're right, this should have the attack tag. I'll fix that up.

Thank you.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

qwertyIVXX wrote:

Over-Reaching Suggestion:
(this may not be the place to state this but it is related)
Maybe use the term "Physical" in place of "Attack" to avoid confusion?

This would massively increase confusion, because it's wrong. Not all attacks deal physical damage, and not all physical damage is from attacks.

I get what you're saying and agree...Physical doesn't work. Perhaps Weapon would be a better choice to counter balance "Spell" as I'm finding damage done with attack skills are done by your weapons. I understand this may not be the right thread for this so if you could point me towards a thread better suited for this discussion I would appreciate it.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Physical damage and attacks are very simple things.

And just an FYI, I greatly appreciate what you all are doing and understand that you may be under quite a bit of stress due to the massive influx in users. But what I don't appreciate is the condescending remark implying I don't understand the difference between Physical Damage and an attack.

With that said, Thank you for your time Mark.

"

qwertyIVXX wrote:

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Physical damage and attacks are very simple things.

And just an FYI, I greatly appreciate what you all are doing and understand that you may be under quite a bit of stress due to the massive influx in users. But what I don't appreciate is the condescending remark implying I don't understand the difference between Physical Damage and an attack.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

My sincere apologies. I am quite tired today (through no-one's fault but my own) and mystyped. I honestly intended to say "very different things", but between doing multiple things at once and my brain typing on autopilot I clearly used a completely different word, and failed to proof-read my post. I can see why you would take offence at that, and hope you will believe me that it was simply a mistake and no malice or condescention was indented.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

condescention was indented

lol, I think we believe you.

I can't even tell if he did that on purpose. Devious, I grant you, but well executed.

Alright, so no Life on Hit-Support gems for Spells then :)

From the previous page, Life gain on hit works with the splash dmg from Lightning arrow?

ie: if Life on hit is +10pts, and LA can hit 4 monsters (1 + 3 splash dmg), then i get +40 health?!

If i fork it, then it's +80 health?!

also, how much health do i get if i fire rain of arrows on a zoo of 5?
(assuming all 5 are within RoA's radius)

you'll only get that maximum amount if all hits manage to reach a foe. also yes the AoE of light arrow counts as hits.

life on hit triggers of every hit, not every attack. so 5 foes hit = 50 hp gain via 10 hp on hit value.

"

soul4hdwn wrote:

you'll only get that maximum amount if all hits manage to reach a foe. also yes the AoE of light arrow counts as hits.

life on hit triggers of every hit, not every attack. so 5 foes hit = 50 hp gain via 10 hp on hit value.

Please tell me then, how do people get to full health by just one salvo of split arrow / lightning arrow? Or with chain, greater/lesser multiple projectiles, fork, etc...

Game does not track how many people you hit with one attack. Life on hit applies to every hit. And this needs to change. Many ranged builds make use of this gem due to that. No one bothers life leech, Vaal Pact is useless due to this. To be honest, either this gem needs to go, or some sort of steal modifier needs to be added to all of the skills that this gem support. Chain/GMP/LMP/Fork supports should lower this steal modifier. Attacks that are able to hit multiple targets should have a lower steal modifier. As modifier goes down further, so should the life on hit/leech effect.