It is described as “You have a chance to bleed”, but in reality the player does not get a chance to bleed in the usual sense, which is different from the usual when calculating damage and type conversion.
I think there are the following problems.
the description is more misleading, it is difficult for players to realize that this bleed chance is not consistent with the usual
The bleed chance from Laceration node cannot be converted to other ailment chances (specifically for the ignite conversion from Maehlin gloves), which makes ignite builds frustrating
Why do you say that? Does it work as described (if you had a target that is affected by Spirit Plague & you have no other sources of bleed chance, does the target gain bleed stacks)? It’s functionally different to every other normal source of bleed chance, even the bleed node in Bone Curse, since Spirit Plague wouldn’t normally be able to apply bleeds (Bone Curse would since the bleed is applied by the damage proc) hence the wording, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable, it’s just different & requires a particular build to make use of it.
IMO I’d like to see that node & the ward gain on hit changed to apply to/be able to be proc’d by allies as well, though likely with reduced effect (on the ward gain node at least).
I didn’t say it didn’t work as described. What I said was that its description is easily misleading/confusing to players and not easy to understand (as distinguished from the common global bleed chance).
And the part that is misleading/confusing players are the “differences” you are talking about.
Some more specific examples of how to avoid these problems.
Make the wording of the source subject that apply these special bleed more specific. For example, " Spirit Plague apply/cause the bleed " instead of " You apply/cause the bleed ", which I think would make the node description more “local”, and " You " should be used for a more “global” description
An existing example
Bone curse’s Cloven Flesh node, which is described as
" Bone Curse has a chance to cause enemies to bleed. "
The subject of the bleed source in this description is " Bone Curse ", not " You " as in Spirit Plague
Use the description " stack " instead of " chance " to distinguish that the special bleed is not an ailment " chance " (which can be converted the type)
Another node description issue example
Exsanguination node can be changed to
" You have 500% chance to bleed yourself " (from " You are now also inflicted with x stakcs bleed")
where the emphasis is on the source subject is " You ", and it is an ailment " chance ")
so it can be converted into an ignite " chance " by some other effects.
Add the note description, emphasizing that " stack " is not " chance ", it can not be converted as a " chance "
This is the result of a different perspective on the issue. I saw this skill and node when I was making an ignite build, and it looked like it would work well with the ignite build, but it didn’t, which frustrated me, so I thought “it is not reasonable” or “it could be better”.
Anyway, it is just a suggestion for the part about adding synergy with the Ignite builds
The problem with that is that there’s no difference between “skill applies 1 stack” & “skill has 100% chance to …”. The wording is different but they mean the same thing.
That’s just one example. You can replace " stack " with any other word that is used to distinguish the description of some few special ailment effects from the common ailment chance.
The purpose is so that the player will see the word and immediately know that it is a special source of ailment that is different from chance.
I’m not sure if this example is appropriate, but it should work for explaining what I mean:
more / increased / addition
All three of these words can mean “increase, improve”, but in LE " more " and " inc " are strictly separated to express different bounes.
The consistency between the description and the actual effect is so good that when we see the word " more " we know that it is something that is multiplied with other bounes.
How a skill works/is intended to work aside, I like this suggestion for general wording consistency across all skills where procs like this happen. Local vs Global - “Skillname” vs “You”
