Add the (Good) Magic Suffixes to the Reroll Pool

I note Suffixes particularly because I don’t think there’s really any good Magic Prefixes for any item except in extremely niche cases.

But for Suffixes, we have:

  • of Alacrity
  • Celerity
  • Attack
  • Readiness
  • Fortitude
  • Prowess
  • Psyche
  • Boar
  • Fox
  • Wolf
  • Eagle
  • Vitality

These outclass many Rare Suffixes and are often highly preferable build-to-build.

If I’ve neglected something for this list, please mention it in the comments below.

7 Likes

Seems a bit heavy handed to just include ‘the list of magic affixes that are currently good’ into the global rare pool.

I do agree that it’s easy to brick an item if you don’t particularly care about double rares but not sure if that’s the proper way to solve that.

I’m confused. This means that those suffices couldn’t be rerolled?
It doesn’t affect me because I am farming for a fortitude belt precisely because I cannot hope to reroll magic suffixes more than a couple of times before they get upgraded. But I didn’t expect some affixes to be missing from the pool. Does this also happen on rares?

EDIT: Nevermind! I see what you are asking. For them to be added to the rares pool. Duh! My bad.

These were always good. And they are better than most rare ones. I would rarely take a double rare over one of these magic ones.

They should not get upgraded. Problem solved.

1 Like

A Rare affix cannot “downgrade” to a Magic affix in the current system.

But the aforementioned Magic affixes are usually considered more desirable than most Rare affixes.

1 Like

That’s my ask too. But I’d be happy with Ceno’s too. Whatever allows us to reroll these.

wouldn’t it be better to separate rare/magic rerolls then
otherwise you might just push the roll requirement for those wanting double rares, while people wanting magicks “bricking” their items when it rolls into a rare :thinking:

1 Like

Sure, but that’s more UI work.

Currently it is easy when reroling under altar bonuses to get desirable double rare MI. As Rekt showed on his stream. It is OK. If there are no upgrades from magic to rares. Otherwise it is very hard to get those magic affixes that you need.

so was moving the stash tabs to the left, hasn’t stopped us before :stuck_out_tongue:

No upgrade solves this.

1 Like

Only one solution: remove the reroll feature.

Or add those suffixes to the rare pool.
Or don’t upgrade magic affixes. For some reason, this behavior always reminds me of enshitification.

or maybe we should ask to have the rare suffixes improved instead?

also by putting them in you get less chance for the good rare ones, for example readiness is a downgrade from ‘of the dranghoul’ and alacrity of ‘rapid reflexes’

1 Like

dranghoul result in less total OA/DA
rapid reflexes less speed iirc - which might be a consideration now with the crazy max speed builds available/potential :thinking:

1 Like

well sacrificing a few % is worth it if you need the stun resist and you also get 50 cunning, so I all combined still better deal

Could have a checkbox that allows you to prevent upgrading magic affixes? That seems like the best of both worlds based on the comments in the thread thus far - extra UI development notwithstanding.

Personally, I’ve got a few MIs I’ve been hoarding since re-rolling was announced that just need a different magic affix so ideally I’d like a way to lock re-rolls to magic only, but being able to roll the good yellow ones reliably would be a good improvement if locking it is too much work.

I think some of the 3-7% stat boost yellow prefixes probably have some utility, but that’s definitely getting into niche minmaxing territory. However, it definitely seems a bit odd that there are magic suffixes that are strictly better than rare ones in a lot of cases, and it’s probably a bit confusing for new players too.

1 Like

^This /10 chars

was this changed in recent patch?
because Zantai said earlier rerolls was not affected by altar bias :thinking: - like, less than a week ago earlier :sweat_smile:

No.

/10chars

1 Like

Rekt´s stream suggest strongly otherwise.