Talk:Aura

5% reduced Mana reserved nodes?

How do these work?

Would one node reduce 40% reservations to 35%? Or does it reduce 40% by 5% of 40%, result being 38%. -AnnanFay (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like is reads, it takes the amount reserved and reduces it by the percentage indicated. If an aura reserves 100 mana, a 5% Reduced Mana Reservation node would make that aura reserve 95 mana instead. So the direct answer to your question is the later; 38%. —Vinifera7 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange Wording

Note that "Reduced Mana Reservation" is multiplicative for both % and flat mana auras and the bonus is multiplicative with the Reduced Mana Support Gem, the latter occuring first.

This wording seems strange and unclear to me. What is actually indicated by the term "multiplicative" here? The way I understand it, the "Reduced Mana Reservation" bonuses are not applied multiplicatively. It is in fact a multiplier to mana reserved, but it is applied additively. The bonuses are added up, then applied as a whole. For example, if you have two 5% Reduced Mana Reservation passives and are using an aura that normally reserves 100 mana, the resulting amount is: 100 * (1 - .05 - .05) = 90. It is not 100 * (1 - .05) * (1 - .05) = 90.25. —Vinifera7 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what it means but I agree it could be worded better.

"Reduced Mana Reservation" is multiplicative for both % and flat mana auras

This means that the passives are multiplied with the reservation cost rather that multiplied.

* Additive: 40% + (-5%-5%) = 30%

* Multiplicative: 40% * (-5%-5%) = 36%

It's confusing because you first add together all the reduction nodes then multiple. Also it's weird talking of it being additive when they are subtracting. I think an example would be the best solution.

and the bonus is multiplicative with the Reduced Mana Support Gem, the latter occuring first.

This just means you go BaseCost * PassiveMod * SGMod rather than adding the passive reduction to the gem mod first. It doesn't matter which happens first though.

-AnnanFay (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Running 10 Auras

This section seems like useless trivia, and it's rambling and poorly written. There's no practical purpose in running all the auras other than to run all the auras. Furthermore this section will be prone to becoming outdated as new aura gems are added. Danny (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It was less rambling when I wrote it. Then someone doubled it's size! Hmm, I agree. I'll move it to the discussion section. -AnnanFay (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)