Is there a reason why gems give a max amount of 58 to stats when placed in "other" kind of item piece?.
I mean, shouldnt the best gem give something closer to 250-300 stat gain?
Enlight me, I dont see the reason of this, if there is one at all.
Erm, with at least 7 potential gem slots for the "other" stat (3 chest, 2 legs, 1 off-hand, 1 boots [sets and legendary]), you want gems to account for 60%-75% of your total stats?
No. The reason gems exist are to supplement your gear, and to offer a way to customize it to a degree (that degree being anywhere from 10% to sometimes 30% of a gear's stat potential).
Gem values are based on their contribution to your stat pool as a whole; given most gear puts you in the 1200-2,000 range for a primary stat, a supplemental item (that isn't even guaranteed to be available for your gear) certainly should not account for that same amount.
Even if gems were worth 300 to a stat, it would simply mean all other stats are increased by 5x to keep gems at a similar level of proximate value.
tl;dr - gems are a supplemental item, so they have a supplemental value.
I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with gem statistics the way they are now, but I will say the value we receive from gems in the weapon / helm sockets vastly outweighs the value of the gems put in other pieces of gear. IMO there's a little too much weight being put on gems at the moment. The fact that it's almost a requirement for a helm or weapon to have a socket for it to be considered a "great roll" / valuable is pretty annoying, even if it's got optimal stats on it.
Is there a reason why gems give a max amount of 58 to stats when placed in "other" kind of item piece?.
I mean, shouldnt the best gem give something closer to 250-300 stat gain?
Enlight me, I dont see the reason of this, if there is one at all.
Erm, with at least 7 potential gem slots for the "other" stat (3 chest, 2 legs, 1 off-hand, 1 boots [sets and legendary]), you want gems to account for 60%-75% of your total stats?
No. The reason gems exist are to supplement your gear, and to offer a way to customize it to a degree (that degree being anywhere from 10% to sometimes 30% of a gear's stat potential).
Gem values are based on their contribution to your stat pool as a whole; given most gear puts you in the 1200-2,000 range for a primary stat, a supplemental item (that isn't even guaranteed to be available for your gear) certainly should not account for that same amount.
Even if gems were worth 300 to a stat, it would simply mean all other stats are increased by 5x to keep gems at a similar level of proximate value.
tl;dr - gems are a supplemental item, so they have a supplemental value.
^ this
They fit their purpose of a long term goal that gives decent bonuses. Do you have radiant star gems on every gear slot? I'm not even close to that...
Gems giving 250-300 stat wouldn't add to customization, it would just diminish item's stats value. Plus, we have enough scalability as of now, we don't need more (and 300 stat gems would blow things waaaaay out of proportion),
Maybe I thought it in a simple way, I look at the items stats, and I read +250 to some stat, then I look at what it costs to obtain the best gem out there and what its the outcome, +58 to a certain stat.
So, I understand that gems only complement items but.. isnt it too low compared to how hard it is to find/buy the best gem to what it gives when you place it in, for example, a chest?.
The big thing with gems is that they are "in addition to" your normal roll. What I mean is that your chest (for example) can absolutely jackpot a stat roll... but if you have sockets you can go beyond the theoretical "best roll possible". The other part of this is that you can always resocket gems if need be. I know I've swapped out to Amethysts a time or two in the past, which you can't just do on non-socketed gear.
I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the point I got from the OP was that if an item can roll with, say, 200+ dexterity, why should gem slots, which take up an affix, max out at 58?
To answer, I'd ask which you prefer: 200+ of another stat you won't get any real use out of, or a socket? 58 dex is more important to me than an int or strength roll... or, you know, life on kill or health orb bonuses.
I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the point I got from the OP was that if an item can roll with, say, 200+ dexterity, why should gem slots, which take up an affix, max out at 58?
To answer, I'd ask which you prefer: 200+ of another stat you won't get any real use out of, or a socket? 58 dex is more important to me than an int or strength roll... or, you know, life on kill or health orb bonuses.
This, in addition to the fact that on chests and legs, both have the capability of obtaining an additional 174 and 116 of any stat, respectively, just through sockets.
If the argument is simply one of cost to gain ratio, I can understand it a little bit, but still disagree (gems are intended to be a gold sink on the far end, and even then in the long run are incredibly cheap since you only have to create so many per character as they never go away).
Gems, other than perhaps needing a little more variety (not a big priority if you ask me), are in a good place.
Is there a reason why gems give a max amount of 58 to stats when placed in "other" kind of item piece?.
I mean, shouldnt the best gem give something closer to 250-300 stat gain?
Enlight me, I dont see the reason of this, if there is one at all.
58 is little? Are you high?
Compared to the amount of stats that an item can roll directly, yes, 58 is little.
Granted, it's already been explained that sockets are, in a well-rolled item, meant to replace a less desireable stat (ex: instead of getting a useless 200+ strength for your DH, you can get 58 dex), but it shouldn't be hard to see where the OP was coming from.
Jay Wilson explained it at some time:
Sockets should (and are) beyond what you could get otherwise for the same amount of itemlvl spent. Gems and Sockets are there for one reason and one reason only: to allow you to stack one specific stat so you can make your gear lean even more towards a specific stat (for example intelligence).
I understand what you are all saying, and yes, Im just simply comparing the stats that well rolled items give you versus what the best gem out there can give you in terms of stats.
Maybe Im wrong, but, I'd double the max capacity of +stats gems, let say, that the best gem can give you ~110.
Even at 110 per gem a magical item with 3 sockets and a single stat can now have higher potential than a perfectly rolled rare with no sockets.
Again, gems are intended to be supplemental in stat allocation. If they become anything more, the entire system would need to be reworked. You're talking about fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
Is there a reason why gems give a max amount of 58 to stats when placed in "other" kind of item piece?.
I mean, shouldnt the best gem give something closer to 250-300 stat gain?
Enlight me, I dont see the reason of this, if there is one at all.
58 is little? Are you high?
Compared to the amount of stats that an item can roll directly, yes, 58 is little.
Granted, it's already been explained that sockets are, in a well-rolled item, meant to replace a less desireable stat (ex: instead of getting a useless 200+ strength for your DH, you can get 58 dex), but it shouldn't be hard to see where the OP was coming from.
No, 58 is not little, not even close to little. 58 is fucking huge. Like seriously, it's ginormous. Except for 2 handed weapons, 58 points is like 25%ish of the stat roll capability on most items. If anything 58 is too much.
If there's any problem, it's that the gems are extremely expensive, possibly even more so than they intended. The reason I say this is the drop off of players was likely not anticipated, so they originally thought there would be a lot more people playing/farming and a lot more gems in circulation. Current cost for a Radiant Star emerald is 19-20mil, so often times these gems are as much or more than the gear you are putting them in. Kind of silly
the stats on items are fine, 58 is not to big and not to small. and it has lots of room for potential upgrades, however i think that ruby in a weapon 20-40 (20-20 in reality) is way to little in a high end weapon, sure it has its uses on low level, but its not that its needed there really. instead it should just be increase weapon damage by a % number.
also topaz in weapon is kinda meh also, (outside of levling again, and its only really good at the 3 last levels) dunno hwo this should be reworked, maybe attack speed, up to a maximum of 14% (1% per rank)
for head, emerald and star should be merged to gold find and magic find in the same gem, and topaz should give something like % armor and resist instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
If there's any problem, it's that the gems are extremely expensive, possibly even more so than they intended. The reason I say this is the drop off of players was likely not anticipated, so they originally thought there would be a lot more people playing/farming and a lot more gems in circulation. Current cost for a Radiant Star emerald is 19-20mil, so often times these gems are as much or more than the gear you are putting them in. Kind of silly
You do realize the base price for crafting a radiant star gem (without buying any of the materials) is 15,400,000 gold, right? Selling for 19 million nets you a return of 16,150,000 (a 550,000 profit). If you actually buy the materials? That's generally a net loss.
Again, these gems are intended to be a huge gold sink. You keep them forever (barring selling them or hardcore), meaning you only shell out that cost a handful of times generally. It's not meant to be a gem you get for every piece of gear. In fact, most of your slots will probably not see these gems for a long, long time (because as you said yourself, the cost is almost more than the piece is, so until it's a near perfect item you won't replace for a very long time, the extra 2 to 4 stats simply isn't worth it.
If there's any problem, it's that the gems are extremely expensive, possibly even more so than they intended. The reason I say this is the drop off of players was likely not anticipated, so they originally thought there would be a lot more people playing/farming and a lot more gems in circulation. Current cost for a Radiant Star emerald is 19-20mil, so often times these gems are as much or more than the gear you are putting them in. Kind of silly
The cost of gems has nothing to do with the amount of players. The cost of gems is defined by the cost to craft a gem (+ or - a little).
I'd love to have gems add 300 to my primary stat. It would mean that I could sleep while I facerolled Act 4. Nothing like having an 80% dodge chance and 200k dps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, shouldnt the best gem give something closer to 250-300 stat gain?
Enlight me, I dont see the reason of this, if there is one at all.
Erm, with at least 7 potential gem slots for the "other" stat (3 chest, 2 legs, 1 off-hand, 1 boots [sets and legendary]), you want gems to account for 60%-75% of your total stats?
No. The reason gems exist are to supplement your gear, and to offer a way to customize it to a degree (that degree being anywhere from 10% to sometimes 30% of a gear's stat potential).
Gem values are based on their contribution to your stat pool as a whole; given most gear puts you in the 1200-2,000 range for a primary stat, a supplemental item (that isn't even guaranteed to be available for your gear) certainly should not account for that same amount.
Even if gems were worth 300 to a stat, it would simply mean all other stats are increased by 5x to keep gems at a similar level of proximate value.
tl;dr - gems are a supplemental item, so they have a supplemental value.
They fit their purpose of a long term goal that gives decent bonuses. Do you have radiant star gems on every gear slot? I'm not even close to that...
Gems giving 250-300 stat wouldn't add to customization, it would just diminish item's stats value. Plus, we have enough scalability as of now, we don't need more (and 300 stat gems would blow things waaaaay out of proportion),
So, I understand that gems only complement items but.. isnt it too low compared to how hard it is to find/buy the best gem to what it gives when you place it in, for example, a chest?.
Just my simple thoughts.
To answer, I'd ask which you prefer: 200+ of another stat you won't get any real use out of, or a socket? 58 dex is more important to me than an int or strength roll... or, you know, life on kill or health orb bonuses.
58 is little? Are you high?
This, in addition to the fact that on chests and legs, both have the capability of obtaining an additional 174 and 116 of any stat, respectively, just through sockets.
If the argument is simply one of cost to gain ratio, I can understand it a little bit, but still disagree (gems are intended to be a gold sink on the far end, and even then in the long run are incredibly cheap since you only have to create so many per character as they never go away).
Gems, other than perhaps needing a little more variety (not a big priority if you ask me), are in a good place.
Granted, it's already been explained that sockets are, in a well-rolled item, meant to replace a less desireable stat (ex: instead of getting a useless 200+ strength for your DH, you can get 58 dex), but it shouldn't be hard to see where the OP was coming from.
Sockets should (and are) beyond what you could get otherwise for the same amount of itemlvl spent. Gems and Sockets are there for one reason and one reason only: to allow you to stack one specific stat so you can make your gear lean even more towards a specific stat (for example intelligence).
Maybe Im wrong, but, I'd double the max capacity of +stats gems, let say, that the best gem can give you ~110.
Again, gems are intended to be supplemental in stat allocation. If they become anything more, the entire system would need to be reworked. You're talking about fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
No, 58 is not little, not even close to little. 58 is fucking huge. Like seriously, it's ginormous. Except for 2 handed weapons, 58 points is like 25%ish of the stat roll capability on most items. If anything 58 is too much.
also topaz in weapon is kinda meh also, (outside of levling again, and its only really good at the 3 last levels) dunno hwo this should be reworked, maybe attack speed, up to a maximum of 14% (1% per rank)
for head, emerald and star should be merged to gold find and magic find in the same gem, and topaz should give something like % armor and resist instead.
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
You do realize the base price for crafting a radiant star gem (without buying any of the materials) is 15,400,000 gold, right? Selling for 19 million nets you a return of 16,150,000 (a 550,000 profit). If you actually buy the materials? That's generally a net loss.
Again, these gems are intended to be a huge gold sink. You keep them forever (barring selling them or hardcore), meaning you only shell out that cost a handful of times generally. It's not meant to be a gem you get for every piece of gear. In fact, most of your slots will probably not see these gems for a long, long time (because as you said yourself, the cost is almost more than the piece is, so until it's a near perfect item you won't replace for a very long time, the extra 2 to 4 stats simply isn't worth it.
Again, there's no problem with the cost.
The cost of gems has nothing to do with the amount of players. The cost of gems is defined by the cost to craft a gem (+ or - a little).
I'd love to have gems add 300 to my primary stat. It would mean that I could sleep while I facerolled Act 4. Nothing like having an 80% dodge chance and 200k dps.