Void Gaze from Eber's Unification not working when equipped by mercenary

As in the title - Void Gaze from Eber's Unification is not working (not being triggered) when mercenary uses a skill.

I have it equipped on my Infamous Cruel Mistress (found this item could be a nice addition for a chaos caster using energy shield items), but I didn't observe the distinct animation of Void Gaze even once, when my mercenary uses her skills.

You cannot give Mercenaries additional skills, triggered or otherwise.

"

Sarno#0493 wrote:

You cannot give Mercenaries additional skills, triggered or otherwise.

And how it's not a bug? It's a standalone triggered skill, and I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't work the same way on both players, and mercenaries. Void Gaze is whole point of equipping this item.

Intentional balance decisions, regardless of how you may feel about them, are not bugs.

"

Sarno#0493 wrote:

Intentional balance decisions, regardless of how you may feel about them, are not bugs.

How do you know it's an intentional balance decision? And what would be justification of it, for sake...? Like Void Gaze is good enough to be used by players, but too powerful to be used by a merc? Does it break some game mechanic, does this skill make mercs super-powerful? It's not even close to most meta uniques used by majority of the players, so what kind of balance is that, nerfing this item?

You may see it differently, but for me it doesn't look like considerate balance decision, but more like unforseen item-breaking consequence of some hasty decision making (like "we don't know what we're doing, so let's disable all triggered skills"). That kind of issues are pretty close to the definition of a bug in my dictionary.

"

TsunamiFM#3025 wrote:

You may see it differently, but for me it doesn't look like considerate balance decision, but more like unforseen item-breaking consequence of some hasty decision making (like "we don't know what we're doing, so let's disable all triggered skills"). That kind of issues are pretty close to the definition of a bug in my dictionary.

If GGG decides to disable all triggered skills for Mercenaries - a triggered skill not being usable for a Mercenary is not a bug.

You speak of dictionaries; the definition of a word is not a subjective matter of opinion - the foundational principle of language is, in fact, that the meaning of words is objective and consistent. A bug in the game is an example of it not functioning as expected by GGG. Therefore, the game functioning in line with their decisions cannot possibly be construed as being a bug.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3788501

"Can Mercenaries use items with influenced trigger skills (like Shaper weapons with Cast on Crit)?
Short answer - No.

Longer answer - Mercenary Skills are not socketed into gear in the way that player skills are. They are inherent to the Mercenary rather than being the result of a socketed gem, so in the case of something like a Cast on Crit weapon, it would be hard to determine what skill should even be triggered - or indeed, do the triggering."

"

Sarno#0493 wrote:

"

TsunamiFM#3025 wrote:

You may see it differently, but for me it doesn't look like considerate balance decision, but more like unforseen item-breaking consequence of some hasty decision making (like "we don't know what we're doing, so let's disable all triggered skills"). That kind of issues are pretty close to the definition of a bug in my dictionary.

If GGG decides to disable all triggered skills for Mercenaries - a triggered skill not being usable for a Mercenary is not a bug.

You speak of dictionaries; the definition of a word is not a subjective matter of opinion - the foundational principle of language is, in fact, that the meaning of words is objective and consistent. A bug in the game is an example of it not functioning as expected by GGG. Therefore, the game functioning in line with their decisions cannot possibly be construed as being a bug.

I know the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" philosophy, yet I think that good product / game designers should also consider what end-users expect from the product. And if it's not working as expected for most of the users, then it probably should be given a thought if given "feature" might be a bug, after all.

Imagine a situation where "Send" button doesn't send anything, and designer states "that was my decision, so it's not a bug". Vast majority of the users would expect "Send" button to work as described and send something, yet the button wouldn't do that. You wouldn't consider this as a bug?

It's about the same with Void Gaze for me: when item description clearly states that Void Gaze will be triggered, and we have a "feature" it doesn't work as described - that's a bug for me.

OFF-TOPIC: about words having only one universal definition - if it would be that obvious, then we wouldn't have dictionaries. And some of them have different definitions for the same word. Those definitions change over time, as well (many words 300 years ago meant different things - at least in Polish, I am not sure about English). Also words like "fun" can mean completely different things for 2 different people. We are different as people, and often understand words differently - through our own experiences, context, and so on. But as a principle, yes - to be able to communicate, we need to understand words in a similar way :).

"

seaman#4993 wrote:

Another "it doesn't work the way I want" thread...

Did I ask for making items shoot flowers, or something? Or maybe expecting items to work as described is wrong, and players should rather dig into forum every time they want to know if and how given item might work?

Silently accepting bugs (or naming them "features") won't make this game any better. I supported GGG for a long time, so I just hope some folks there still care about quality and user experience, and will take that feedback into consideration.