Corruption and patched items

"

LargeHairyMan#4219 wrote:

It's basically like someone who drove to the grocery store on a Friday night to get some toothpaste and got in a car wreck because of a drunk driver.

No that is not an equivalent scenario. The OP never lost control of his items. GGG didn't randomly Vaal his gear. OP chose to Vaal with full knowledge that its always the final, permanent step.

The belt scenario is unfortunate. At the very least, one would think Divining an old belt would provide some type of targetted Whittling effect to compensate for the old affix being converted into an implicit. I haven't tried it, but I doubt it works like that.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

"

LargeHairyMan#4219 wrote:

It's basically like someone who drove to the grocery store on a Friday night to get some toothpaste and got in a car wreck because of a drunk driver.

No that is not an equivalent scenario. The OP never lost control of his items. GGG didn't randomly Vaal his gear. OP chose to Vaal with full knowledge that its always the final, permanent step.

The belt scenario is unfortunate. At the very least, one would think Divining an old belt would provide some type of targetted Whittling effect to compensate for the old affix being converted into an implicit. I haven't tried it, but I doubt it works like that.

I view it as a much more similar scenario than you seem to. We always get behind the wheel of a vehicle with full knowledge we could get in a terrible accident. Similarly, we always use a vaal orb on an item with full knowledge that they are unalterable thereafter. There's always a risk involved. We can never know when some drunk idiot might t-bone us, similarly we never know when an item we corrupted might be changed in the future. However, the solution isn't just to never drive if you can't afford to replace your car, or similarly, to never corrupt an item if you can't afford to replace it. Both scenarios are part of the landscapes that we navigate through our life and this video game, respectively.

Your scenario presumes an external locus of control. By doing so you attempt to absolve OP of their agency. I reject this. This wound was entirely self-inflicted.

In both scenarios, there is an element of control and lack thereof.

So let's follow your train of thought, you're emphasizing that we have control over whether or not we vaal items, right? Do you think we have control over whether or not we drive a vehicle? No one's forcing us to do either. There are plenty of people who don't use cars and only rely on other forms of transportation.

Although we do make a choice to vaal orb items, we have no control over when items will be changed, not to mention which items. Similarly, while we do make a choice to drive a vehicle, we have no control over how others drive or when they will be intoxicated on the road.

I think the connection is rather clear. Of course they're not equivalent scenarios, there's much more at stake in the driving situation. But the inherent decision to do something that you know in the future could end up being the wrong choice due to factors beyond your control, it's nearly identical.

I'd argue that many are, in fact compelled to drive or use public transportation/walk/etc for the purposes of supporting one's IRL livelihood(not to mention that of their family members). Automobile accidents also aren't restricted just to those choosing to drive. For anyone not living on a remote island, complete and total avoidance of automobile accidents is outside of one's control.

OP's complaint is that the item they knowingly made unalterable with a a vaal is unalterable. This was completely within their control. The only feasible concession I'd give would be if someone hacked their account and started vaaling their gear.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

OP's complaint is that the item they knowingly made unalterable with a a vaal is unalterable. This was completely within their control.

I think herein lies the disconnect with our perspectives. No one, including the OP ever claimed that using the vaal orb on their item wasn't their own conscious decision or within their control. To tell them "well you shouldn't have vaal'd an item that you can't replace" is not only redundant, because we all know how corruption works, but it's not even applicable to the OP's situation because they never even complained about not being able to replace it. I'd estimate they can replace it 50 times over if they wanted to. Kaom's Heart isn't some crazy valuable chase item.

I checked the OP's profile, they've been playing the game for 12 years, I think it's safe to say they know how vaal orbs work. They were just expressing that it would be nice if their vaal'd item would be adjusted to the newer version of the item, along with all the others. I don't think that's too unreasonable.
You know that corrupted items can and have been modified by the devs during updates, right?

So my point was that your original post had no intent behind it other than to antagonize the OP. It's pretty clear, especially considering how the exchange turned out.

"

LargeHairyMan#4219 wrote:

they never even complained about not being able to replace it.

I'm aware. They are complaining that their item is unalterable. My point has consistently been don't make something unalterable with a vaal unless the worst-case outcome is acceptable.

"

LargeHairyMan#4219 wrote:

So my point was that your original post had no intent behind it other than to antagonize the OP. It's pretty clear, especially considering how the exchange turned out.

Considering your choice of words, it more likely that you're projecting.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

I'm aware. They are complaining that their item is unalterable. My point has consistently been don't make something unalterable with a vaal unless the worst-case outcome is acceptable.

That's not what you stated in your very first response to the thread. You clearly said:

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

don't vaal what you can't replace

When the OP never complained about not being able to replace it.

Do you not think the OP knows how vaal orbs work? Your point is completely bypassing the original intent of the thread. You wanted to antagonize, and clearly it worked.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

Considering your choice of words, it more likely that you're projecting.

This is comical at this point. But I'm all for it.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

You seem far too invested in this. If you've already gone past the point of hurling insults to strangers on a forum, perhaps it is You that needs to chill.

Also you:

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

The idea is that you willfully misrepresented what you did in order to garner sympathy for having to face the consequences of your own actions.

I apologize. I didn't realize this comment was intended to be polite.

If you need help bringing your English fluency up to par, I can recommend some resources.