People can't help but complain about nice new things.
I agree with the design philosophy of keeping them limited to jewelry. It makes sense. Seems some people just can't give anything up unless it's negligible (like a chest socket)
Thing is that Rings and amulets are the 2 most diverse slots in the game ATM. and making those slot have a must have mandatory affix slot is just stupid and Main stat is already semi mandotory. that only leaves 2 slots and in the current stat weights it will always be CC and CHD. (but one can always hope they do something about that ) making Min-max D + AS% or CRC + AS% or CDR + AD% be viable as option. and hopefully the new legendary gems is going to make CDR, AS, Min-Max, AD% and CRC more attractive. Going away from the CC/CHD plague that have plaguedthe game for more then 2 years.
But as my previous post id rather see legendary gems in weapons and Off-hands rather then Jewelery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
People can't help but complain about nice new things.
I agree with the design philosophy of keeping them limited to jewelry. It makes sense. Seems some people just can't give anything up unless it's negligible (like a chest socket)
Thing is that Rings and amulets are the 2 most diverse slots in the game ATM. and making those slot have a must have mandatory affix slot is just stupid and Main stat is already semi mandotory. that only leaves 2 slots and in the current stat weights it will always be CC and CHD. (but one can always hope they do something about that ) making Min-max D + AS% or CRC + AS% or CDR + AD% be viable as option. and hopefully the new legendary gems is going to make CDR, AS, Min-Max, AD% and CRC more attractive. Going away from the CC/CHD plague that have plaguedthe game for more then 2 years.
But as my previous post id rather see legendary gems in weapons and Off-hands rather then Jewelery.
I don't know how jewelry is diverse. Here is what I MUST have on a ring or jewelry - CC, CHD, Main stat. Then I can choose between Ele damage, attack speed, or DMG. There is 0 diversity, those stats are: Damage, damage, damage + surv, damage, damage.
A find the helm and shoulders to be more diverse than rings/gloves/bracers/etc.. because your standard choice isn't "some form of Damage+surv, damage, damage, damage".
It would be nice to see the Blacksmith to be able to turn a secondary bonus into a socket for a certain fee... No idea on what that fee would be but still lol. Yes Im crying a little because I dont wanna lose my Tal Rasha Ammy because of some little socket =X. Only time will tell if these gems will fully be worth it or not.
Oh boy, this thread's discussion is so heated... and I don't even know why. Some of the questions raised here can be answered easily:
1) "Why not legendary gems in weapons; they said they would do something about the 'normal gems' such as emeralds being the only choice for weapons":
Replacing a "must-have", "no choice" emerald in weapon with a "no choice" legendary gem doesn't solve the problem at all. Instead of 4 useless gems for that slot we'd have 5 useless gems, the situation would remain the same. Furthermore, it would make everyone's gear setup completely messed up; I'm all in for nerfing CHD/CC, but if barbs/monks were to lose 260% CHD from weapons it would screw over itemization. Furthermore, the few people who prefer to run 2h weapons (it's a minority, I'm aware of that) would be totally screwed over because they could only have one instead of two those legendary gems. (Note that more people than you think are using 2 handed weapons: e.g., statistics for barbs and monks). Putting those gems in weapons was not an option.
The emerald @weapons issue is a different one and will be addressed differently, not just by replacing one evil with another.
2) "Legendary rings in rings/amulets make a socket mandatory":
Well, do we know that? Sure, for 90% of players the four desired affixes are CHD, CC, main stat, elemental damage. But there are exceptions. What if you really need CDR for your build? Which stat do you scrap? Some choose elemental damage, some choose main stat. What if you really absolutely need high APS for your build? It's not as clear-cut as it seems, at least not for everyone. Yes, in the end there will be four dominating stats in endgame, as there always have been, but we don't know what the legendary gems add. It could be some fancy effect that screws up our existing mechanics of CHD/CC. Who knows? Furthermore, keep in mind that the legendary gem is upgradeable. If you have a perfect amulet right now, chances are you're not going to use a Tier 1 legendary gem, but definitely a Tier 100 legendary gem. At which point does the legendary gem surpass your existing affixes and become "better" or even "mandatory"? It's way too early too tell.
My hope is that the legendary gems in rings even screw up the fact that right now we're locked in to SoJ and RoRG; for example, a Tier 12 gem could yield the RoRG effect for any amulet (non-stackable), which opens up at least one ring slot. Not sure what they can do about the SoJ, but Blizzard was never happy about items being the "only choice" for one slot and the past few months have shown that they upgrade and change things more frequently as well as more drastically. Blizzard has gone from "we'll deal with it... next year" to "we'll change everything... in 1-2 months". Take, for example, the monk who'll be turned upside down with 2.1, invalidating most of my gear. And you know what: I like it. Stop being afraid of changes.
3) "These "legendary gems" Are most likely going to be damage and ability boosters, cause' we all know that is all the d3 dev team seems to care about...":
Really, enty, I'm shocked to read this from you. Please read the 2.1 blog again. All they talk about is defensive changes: removing dodge, re-inforcing armor for monks, changing defensive passives, making healing almost mandatory for higher greater rift levels. The blog post is all about defense and healing changes, nowhere do they say that you need to go all glass canon and breeze through Greater Rifts.
Legendary gems will not be *just* damage boosters. And if they are, they'll only be damage boosters to compensate for the loss of offense stats on other pieces of gear that you want to replace with the new healing stats. Claiming that Blizzard is only interested about "damage" makes me really angry. It's the playerbase that has always searched for ways (and unfortunately found them) to dismiss survivability and go full damage. It's Blizzard who have constantly trying to shift attention back to defense. And I have no doubt that whatever the gems will add - defense, offense, utility - will ultimately be useful in order to ensure more survivability (directly or indirectly) in order to deal with the increased difficulty of Greater Rifts.
4) "Honestly it makes no sense to use a legendary amulet anymore, just get the 6 affix rare and craft the shit out of it till you get the perfect rolls."
Again, enty, not sure where you're taking this from... rare amulets roll 10% CC/100% CHD, but they roll 5% less elemental damage, 100 (afaik) less main stat, and none of those amazing secondary affixes. And 2 of the 6 affixes are always secondary, so there's absolutely zero incentive to switch to a rare amulet.
The point is Shaggy, and I'll keep repeating that untill you understand:
As long as the legendary gem is stronger than the alternative rolls on an item, there is no sacrifice included in the choise. You keep repeating "You'll have to choose", and "you will have to sacrifice". THERE IS NO CHOISE. THERE IS NO SACRIFICE.
Just like there is no choise between getting elemental damage or not on your bracers, or sockets or not in your chest, there will be no choise in jewellery.
If legendary gems become as powerfull as actual legendary affixes and enables stronger builds, then sockets in jewellery becomes mandatory. Where's the fun in that? Say that a ring provides you with a 10% dmg boost due to crit chance on it. Let's say a legendary gem provides a 15% boost. There is no choise, no risk, and no reward associated with picking the legendary gem. It's always going to either be a stronger choise (no sacrifice, boring) or a weaker choise (nothing changes, boring). It doesn't matter which item you pick. I just personally think it's a wasted chance to look at some of the pieces that's usually seen as more "Boring" because they don't bring any major stats to the picture (boots, shoulders, legs, chest).
Gonna try and TL;DR this aswell to try and make sure I get the point across:
1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.
As for your whole "they'd just replace normal gems" - so what? nothing more boring than normal gems, really. Pick up a ton, spend 9M on one, never ever lose it, and just chug all mainstat in your gear. How is chugging legendary gems in there any less fun? I really don't get it. As if it's any better to go "ILL JUST ROLL SOCKETS ON ALL MY JEWELLERY AND THROW GEMS IN THERE HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN".
Personally, I'd much, MUCH rather that they tied legendary gems to the paragon system. Allow one legendary gem to be slotted on your character anywhere you'd like per 100 paragon levels (an actual bonus rather than those derpy portraits). Progressively making the players characters stronger and unlocking builds ("well, if you want to play Derpmode V3 Turrethunter, you'll need atleast 300 paragon and these 3 legendary gems for their bonuses").
Your attacking a point Shaggy is not making. To me, Shaggy is aware that the best stats to have on an amulet will just switch to the new criteria and his argument is not an attempt to try to refute this.
What his argument is about is the fact that sockets on different equipment have different value. 3 sockets on a chest armor is one primary stat, while on a ring or amulet it is only 1 socket for 1 primary stat. Also, amulets primary stats are more valuable than chest armors because chest armor cannot roll elemental damage, 100% CD, and 10% CC. This is what his argument is about, and it is strictly arguing against putting these legendary gems into anything but jewelry.
The "sacrifice" and "choice" he is talking about is not that you have to sacrifice a great stat on an amulet to instead put this gem in (which will become the new BiS for everyone). The sacrifice is that you can't just stick it into a piece of chest armor instead and only lose 1/3rd of a primary stat, which isn't even that detrimental on a piece of chest armor as opposed to an amulet to begin with.
It's amazing how he keeps going on and on about how there will still be a "best roll." Yes, we know this. That's how min/maxing works. It doesn't change anything that I've said, though.
Draco, the bottom line is they clearly don't want people using legendary gems to replace normal gems. And it makes sense for numerous reasons if you just stop ranting and raving about how there still will be a "BiS" amulet. That's not the point, at all. The point is that legendary gems are going to be more powerful than regular gems which means those sockets on rings/amulets which are MORE VALUABLE than the sockets on chests/legs are a great place to use them.
We're not using sockets on rings/amulets currently because they are too valuable to throw 280 primary stat in. But if they give us more powerful gems that justify the tradeoff we make to have a socket in jewelery............ then maybe that works for some specs. Maybe it works for all specs. It doesn't matter. What matters is that because of the stats we're taking off the jewelery are much more potent than the stats we're taking off our chests/legs the stuff we socket into the jewelery has to be much more potent than the stuff we socket into our chests/legs.
It's not very difficult to understand. If you'd stop trying to put words into my mouth and stop trying to have an argument that no one other than you is having, maybe you'd grasp what I'm saying.
I would like to specifically address this, though:
Quote from Draco_Draco 1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.
If a legendary gem gives you 15% crit and you can put that into your chest armor you don't see ANY difference between that and being forced to put it in your amulet?
Your example of a 15% crit legendary gem shows EXACTLY why it must be limited to jewelery. Yet, somehow, by providing such an obvious example of why legendary gems can't be put in chests, legs, etc. you've failed to understand it yourself.
In fact, if given the choice between socketing a 15% crit chance gem into an amulet or ring, which one do you socket it in? The ring, right? Why? Exactly. The sacrifice for putting it in the ring is LESS than the sacrifice for putting it in the amulet. Just like the sacrifice for putting it in the chest is way less than either the ring or the amulet. It's very simple logic here, bud. Why you're purposely missing the point is beyond me.
We're not using sockets on rings/amulets currently because they are too valuable to throw 280 primary stat in. But if they give us more powerful gems that justify the tradeoff we make to have a socket in jewelery............ then maybe that works for some specs. Maybe it works for all specs. It doesn't matter. What matters is that because of the stats we're taking off the jewelery are much more potent than the stats we're taking off our chests/legs the stuff we socket into the jewelery has to be much more potent than the stuff we socket into our chests/legs.
And in reality, that socket/mainslot on a ring or amulet would be more valuable than a socket on a chest/legs, even if you could only roll one socket on them. The alternative stats just aren't as in demand. Nobody would flinch to give up 100 ResAll for a totally sick legendary gem. However, losing 10% crit or 100% CHD or 20% ele damage or 750 STR might make you think about it.
the problem is that the gem system is boring and simplistic. There will always be a best gem for each spot.
Yea... if there weren't legendary gems coming out that will likely add uniqueness and build modification... This whole thread is about an improvement to the gem system. WTF is your point except for "I'm a Negative Nancy that doesn't think about things"?
I have to disagree, sure they buffed healing and dex, but that's because they HAD TO! Look at healing... All your healing bonus is from a random chance that a health globe drops and that you reach that health globe in time. So they're just switching that focus, and making life on hit and life regen more prevalent by upping their values. same with DEx, it isn't really useful at all as of now, res all and armor are way more useful, so they're switching how it works so that you can actually stack dex + your desired stats, instead of requiring life armor and all res. And bagstone please come on. You seriously mean to tell me that this dev team isn't power hungry. Look at more than half of the affixes that are on legendary items. Theyt're retardedly damage heavy. SoH? BoP? TF? TMF? RoRG? They all lead to straight up damage boosts. That isn't to say there won't be nice build changers, like SS and Magistr8, but they're not exactly abundant, and they are far outclassed by the damage boosting ones, which makes them near useless and completely inferior. Which in turns degrades how i preform on higher difficulties. I Know these "Legendary gems" will for the most part be okay and the rest are going to be op power gems that just boost your damage insanely, whether its you can proc mortar shots for 500% damage, or you throw hammers of justice at nearby enemies, the point is they increase your damage output considerably and I am losing faith in the dev team that they can understand how to change mechanics and not just add damage to the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I have to disagree, sure they buffed healing and dex, but that's because they HAD TO! Look at healing... All your healing bonus is from a random chance that a health globe drops and that you reach that health globe in time. So they're just switching that focus, and making life on hit and life regen more prevalent by upping their values. same with DEx, it isn't really useful at all as of now, res all and armor are way more useful, so they're switching how it works so that you can actually stack dex + your desired stats, instead of requiring life armor and all res. And bagstone please come on. You seriously mean to tell me that this dev team isn't power hungry. Look at more than half of the affixes that are on legendary items. Theyt're retardedly damage heavy. SoH? BoP? TF? TMF? RoRG? They all lead to straight up damage boosts. That isn't to say there won't be nice build changers, like SS and Magistr8, but they're not exactly abundant, and they are far outclassed by the damage boosting ones, which makes them near useless and completely inferior. Which in turns degrades how i preform on higher difficulties. I Know these "Legendary gems" will for the most part be okay and the rest are going to be op power gems that just boost your damage insanely, whether its you can proc mortar shots for 500% damage, or you throw hammers of justice at nearby enemies, the point is they increase your damage output considerably and I am losing faith in the dev team that they can understand how to change mechanics and not just add damage to the game.
RoRG is a straight damage boost? That's ridonkulous.
My RoRG gives me the following:
20% life from Asheara's (3),15% DMG and DEFENSE from elites from Aughild's (3),COTH lasts until they die from Immortal King's (3) - Which really translates to 50% reduced damage and a decent chunk of damage, but the defense FAR outvalues the damage for me.
So in all, from the RoRG bonus I'm getting 20% life, 15% defense vs elites, and 50% damage from everything as defense. I'm getting 15% damage to elites, and some moderate pet damage as offense.
I'm sure some people lean more towards damage bonuses from sets but there's not all that much straight damage from set bonuses out there.
A few people here have really hit the nail on the head. The legendary gems have a chance to shine and for reasons highlighted, opting to mandate that the gems be in jewellery they just might shine. They do still have chances to fail but I dont think that locking them to jewellery will be a part of that....
Yes the negative nancy can quickly pipe up, the problem is that gems are boring and simplistic.
Then the passionate forum vets can quickly pipe up with "they are trying...."
Then maybe someone comes along and says "well woulda been fucking awesome of they tried all those years ago rathern than shitting out 5 colored gems and calling it a day" its just a constant back and forth echo....
But restricting legendary gems to a particular slot will not hold the gems back. I would not give much credit to the consensus "These new gems suck because: I can only put them in jewellery" I just hope they are not just more insta-brims....we have had far far far to many insta-brims...
I Know these "Legendary gems" will for the most part be okay and the rest are going to be op power gems that just boost your damage insanely, whether its you can proc mortar shots for 500% damage, or you throw hammers of justice at nearby enemies, the point is they increase your damage output considerably
This bit of cynicism is silly.
Starmetal Kukiri "just increases your damage" but it's still a really well-designed item.
Thunderfury "just increases your damage" but everyone still loves it, same with Shard of Hate.
Jade Harvester's 6pc "just increases your damage" but it's what enables a whole playstyle.
Light of Grace "just increases your damage" but it surely makes Ray of Frost a lot more interesting to use.
Wand of Woh and Mirrorball "just increase your damage" but don't they do it in a manner that makes you look at skills differently, that open up various builds, etc.?
If you're going to look at everything as "just increases your damage" then you're missing out on why some of these things are fun. Wand of Woh is surely just a damage increase, but it not only makes you feel really powerful, but it's pretty fun to use Explosive Blast with it. Isn't that what we want from legendaries?
See I think something like WoW is much better than TF, in terms of powerful but mechanic changing. I prefer the gems to be more like WoW, or SS, or Magistr8, or MB. They add something to a skill that in turn makes it more powerful, but not necessarily. I still prefer pure mechanic changers, as i've posted here previously, but a WoW or SS type gem would be fine with me. TF on the other hand doesn't change mechanics, it doesn't change skills, it just makes you deal lightning damage in huge chunks and that in turn slows them down and reduce attack speed by a pretty big margin enabling you to get some defense from the offense. It's too much. There no reason that lightning people Don't use it unless you rely on a different legendary mechanic in your weapon slot. There are certainly things they've done right, and there are certainly things I like to think they've done wrong. Here's to hoping they do this right and don't make everything so over powered that its a bad decision if you don't use this gem or that gem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Right. WoW and MB clearly are BETTER (conceptually) than TF....
But that doesn't mean TF is bad. It's not. Its design is fine. It's a generic item that has broad application like the Cord of the Sherma, Cindercoat, or Ice Climbers. Items like that have just as much of a place in the game as anything else. The game needs a healthy mix of items that are skill-specific and items that aren't.
It's amazing how he keeps going on and on about how there will still be a "best roll." Yes, we know this. That's how min/maxing works. It doesn't change anything that I've said, though.
Draco, the bottom line is they clearly don't want people using legendary gems to replace normal gems. And it makes sense for numerous reasons if you just stop ranting and raving about how there still will be a "BiS" amulet. That's not the point, at all. The point is that legendary gems are going to be more powerful than regular gems which means those sockets on rings/amulets which are MORE VALUABLE than the sockets on chests/legs are a great place to use them.
We're not using sockets on rings/amulets currently because they are too valuable to throw 280 primary stat in. But if they give us more powerful gems that justify the tradeoff we make to have a socket in jewelery............ then maybe that works for some specs. Maybe it works for all specs. It doesn't matter. What matters is that because of the stats we're taking off the jewelery are much more potent than the stats we're taking off our chests/legs the stuff we socket into the jewelery has to be much more potent than the stuff we socket into our chests/legs.
It's not very difficult to understand. If you'd stop trying to put words into my mouth and stop trying to have an argument that no one other than you is having, maybe you'd grasp what I'm saying.
I would like to specifically address this, though:
Quote from Draco_Draco 1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.
If a legendary gem gives you 15% crit and you can put that into your chest armor you don't see ANY difference between that and being forced to put it in your amulet?
Your example of a 15% crit legendary gem shows EXACTLY why it must be limited to jewelery. Yet, somehow, by providing such an obvious example of why legendary gems can't be put in chests, legs, etc. you've failed to understand it yourself.
In fact, if given the choice between socketing a 15% crit chance gem into an amulet or ring, which one do you socket it in? The ring, right? Why? Exactly. The sacrifice for putting it in the ring is LESS than the sacrifice for putting it in the amulet. Just like the sacrifice for putting it in the chest is way less than either the ring or the amulet. It's very simple logic here, bud. Why you're purposely missing the point is beyond me.
First off, my example wasn't a 15% crit legendary gem. It was a 15% dps boost. Sorry if I didn't specify that. I highly doubt any legendary gems will come with "Boring" bonuses, such as +crit dmg, +IAS or +Crit chance (what would make them legendary, then?). No point was missed here, but reading it a second time, I can see why you'd think I said "you get 10% crit from the affix and 15% from the gem", rather than "the crit increases your damage by 10% and the gem by 15%). Apologies for that one.
That said, what your entire argument boils down to then, if I read it correct is:
If they allow us to socket legendary gems in chests/legs, where we have the sockets anyway, we will become too powerfull because you "only" lose 280 mainstat per legendary gem.
If they force us to put it in rings/necks where we have much more valueable stat we have to give up, the benefit of the gem will be smaller, as we give up something stronger, and maybe, just maybe we'll have to make a choise (hah, not really, as they said they wanted us to constantly be able to improve the legendary gems, probably making them similiar to the PoE gems you level up as you kill stuff).
Is that roughly correct?
If it is, then all I have to say is: That's just fucking bullshit. It still doesn't open up for any "fun" decisions. Either the gem will be stronger (and you need to find a ring with a socket), or the gem won't (and you'll need to find a ring with crit). It's still not a choise, but necks/rings are actually already in a situation where some specs has to decide between CDR and crit (Perma-archon, for example). The issue is that most builds are forced to take 2 of 3 rings:
SoJ - RoRG - Unity
As those are just miles beyond anything else due to their bonuses. Bonuses that are so much stronger than crit that we are already deciding to give it up (SoJ has that). Why enforce a socket onto this jewellery to make it more boring than it is?
If the fear is that our characters will become too strong if we can socket tons of legendary gems into our armor rather than our jewellery, then there's two very easy solutions:
Either make the gems weaker, or just flat out limit them to X amount. Or make them only socketable in your chest, or legs, or whatever you want.
In the end, I think it's still pure, unnessecary bullshit that they take the two slots that actually works well in terms of potential rolls (Viable alternatives that still make for extremely strong items that you can use, despite not finding perfect ones - EG, I use a neck with crit, crit dmg, int and +dmg on my Wizard as I've yet to find a fire dmg one). If I get a RoRG, I can choose between vitality (for toughness), IAS, CDR or +dmg, and they'll all end up benefitting me roughly the same, making choises (SoJ is locked down due to the 2x mainstat guaranteed affixes being extremely strong, sadly, and Unity's +elite dmg affix is uncombatted aswell). Locking it down so you throw away every single neck/ring that can't potentially have a socket is just dumb, and promotes LESS fun/decision making than before.
I still think that the gems shouldn't be "standard" gems, but rather be able to be equipped to your character depending on your paragon level, as mentioned earlier, to further the feeling of character progression and reward of paragon. Unlocking a new legendary ability every 100 levels would seriously improve the feel of your character actually becomming stronger as time passes.
If it is, then all I have to say is: That's just fucking bullshit. It still doesn't open up for any "fun" decisions.
I would love for you to enlighten me as to how allowing legendary gems in all slots would make for more "fun decisions" instead of the aforementiond "HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR STICK LEGENDARY GEMS IN EVERY SOCKETZZZZZ SO KEWL."
If anything, that's more counterproductive to making decisions than anything. If you want "fun decisions" then your idea is actually worse than Blizzard's idea.
Quote from Draco_Draco In the end, I think it's still pure, unnessecary bullshit that they take the two slots that actually works well in terms of potential rolls (Viable alternatives that still make for extremely strong items that you can use, despite not finding perfect ones - EG, I use a neck with crit, crit dmg, int and +dmg on my Wizard as I've yet to find a fire dmg one).
To me it sounds more like you don't want to have to make the choice to give up an awesome neck roll for a legendary gem and want to just give up a shitty chest roll. And it's fine to have that opinion, but to continue to make the asinine arguments about "choice" is disingenuous since you clearly are against making tough choices.
God forbid you have to consider giving up the crit chance on that amulet, right? That's not "fun." It'd be much more "fun" just to unsocket a 280 primary stat from your chest and stick a new, superpowered legendary gem right in there and then be done with it while chanting "herp derp" the whole way.
I would love for you to enlighten me as to how allowing legendary gems in all slots would make for more "fun decisions" instead of the aforementiond "HURRRRRRRRRRRRRR STICK LEGENDARY GEMS IN EVERY SOCKETZZZZZ SO KEWL."
If anything, that's more counterproductive to making decisions than anything. If you want "fun decisions" then your idea is actually worse than Blizzard's idea.
It'd make the decisions more fun as we get to keep deciding on jewellery between potent stats like CDR, Crit, IAS etc, rather than always having "socket" be the number one priority.
Legendayr gems in themselves sound solid - they can be upgraded to become more potent, chances are they will be unique (so you can't just stack 3 of the same gem), and they have to be farmed before you can equip them. Forcing them to compete with slots on pieces that already has interesting stats is a minus.
You ask how allowing gems in other sockets would make for more fun decisions, and my answer would be: Because Rings/Necks are already the two best pieces (along with helm and weapons, probably) in terms of decision-making. They have a ton of potent stats, and forcing you to throw anything away without a socket is just sad, and not at all "fun". Allowing us to socket them in a chest or leg piece would still keep the general idea of legendary gems (Unique so you have to choose which, have to farm them, have to upgrade them), but it doesn't have any drawbacks for chests/legs in terms of "fun", as they already wanted sockets.
To me it sounds more like you don't want to have to make the choice to give up an awesome neck roll for a legendary gem and want to just give up a shitty chest roll. And it's fine to have that opinion, but to continue to make the asinine arguments about "choice" is disingenuous since you clearly are against making tough choices.
God forbid you have to consider giving up the crit chance on that amulet, right? That's not "fun." It'd be much more "fun" just to unsocket a 280 primary stat from your chest and stick a new, superpowered legendary gem right in there and then be done with it while chanting "herp derp" the whole way.
I'm sorry, but you were the one who constantly keeps bringing up "tough choises" and such. NOT me. There are no tough choises. The thing here is that the legendary gems LIMITS our "fun" choises. A ring/neck will no longer have four affixes, where the fourth is usually a choise between CDR/Vit/Dmg/Ele dmg/IAS (mostly ele dmg in the case of necks, but still). They will have sockets as a mandatory affix. And THAT is what I don't find fun. Jewellery is already booming with viable affixes (that might not neccessarely be the "best", but is still a viable alternative - do you pick a neck with 78% crit dmg, 8.5% crit and 19% elemental dmg + mainstat, or one with 10% crit, 98% crit dmg, +dmg and mainstat? Both will be extremely close due to the relative strength of affixes).
But please do tell me, how exactly is it more fun to you to pick from the pool of great affixes on a neck or ring to reroll, than just throwing them in already available sockets and letting the gems be choises in themselves?
Or in words you might understand:
"HURP DURP FIND RING, REROLL SOCKET, LOOK AT MAH LEGENDZ GEM, SO FUN".
do you pick a neck with 78% crit dmg, 8.5% crit and 19% elemental dmg + mainstat, or one with 10% crit, 98% crit dmg, +dmg and mainstat?
Yeah, jewelery has so many viable affixes that your two hypothetical amulets both have 3 out of 4 properties in common. And, would, after enchanting, have all four properties in common since most people would choose to roll the +dmg into elemental damage on the second amulet.
Such "fun" choices there, bro. It's so overwhelmingly fun that I might need to put on an adult diaper in case it causes me to piss my pants.
Seriously, what world do you live in where you think we're making "fun choices" with jewelery at the moment?
Like I said, you sound like someone who is deathly afraid they'll have to give up the 10% CHC on their amulet as opposed to someone who actually understands the discussion at hand.
To your last point, no they aren't worthless at all. You're looking at it the wrong way! Come on people THINK! If you find a WoW, do you say fuck it, or do you say hey maybe i might be interested in using Explosive Blast.
If you found a gem, that is unique equipped( only 1 allowed) and it could only be used in a WoW/ or maybe in depth diggers, and it's affix was Spectral blades is now cast 30 yards further away from you, would you maybe think about using Spectral Blade? Maybe you'd start using spectral blade over electrocute, or magic missile because now you have a new ranged skill to work with, or maybe you don't because Spectral Blade doesn't appeal to you, or maybe the 280 int you could get on that Depth Diggers is more valuable to you, both defensively and offensively. The gem doesn't overpower anything, all it does is change how the skill works, which gets you to think about using it. There should be a gem as simple as this FOR EVERY SKILL! it doesn't take much to change a skill and redo what it does . It would open up some options, and it's an actual choice, you aren't forced to do it. You can CHOOSE TO DO IT. If the legendary powers are as op as some of the current ones, it's not a choice, its an illusory choice. You don't really have an option you are forced because its the best and if you don't do it you can forget farming T6... This to me isn't fun. If we could move away from damage affixes and focus on mechanic changing affixes I would be much happier overall with this game. There's other things that still need to be done to make it a perfect game but i feel like they wasted an opportunity here, and i'm worried they might just make more overpowered slots on rings and ammies. we will see though, I reserve my judgement until then, but I'm definitely voicing some concern here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But as my previous post id rather see legendary gems in weapons and Off-hands rather then Jewelery.
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
A find the helm and shoulders to be more diverse than rings/gloves/bracers/etc.. because your standard choice isn't "some form of Damage+surv, damage, damage, damage".
http://www.diabloprogress.com/player/ambient-1624
Oh boy, this thread's discussion is so heated... and I don't even know why. Some of the questions raised here can be answered easily:
1) "Why not legendary gems in weapons; they said they would do something about the 'normal gems' such as emeralds being the only choice for weapons":
Replacing a "must-have", "no choice" emerald in weapon with a "no choice" legendary gem doesn't solve the problem at all. Instead of 4 useless gems for that slot we'd have 5 useless gems, the situation would remain the same. Furthermore, it would make everyone's gear setup completely messed up; I'm all in for nerfing CHD/CC, but if barbs/monks were to lose 260% CHD from weapons it would screw over itemization. Furthermore, the few people who prefer to run 2h weapons (it's a minority, I'm aware of that) would be totally screwed over because they could only have one instead of two those legendary gems. (Note that more people than you think are using 2 handed weapons: e.g., statistics for barbs and monks). Putting those gems in weapons was not an option.
The emerald @weapons issue is a different one and will be addressed differently, not just by replacing one evil with another.
2) "Legendary rings in rings/amulets make a socket mandatory":
Well, do we know that? Sure, for 90% of players the four desired affixes are CHD, CC, main stat, elemental damage. But there are exceptions. What if you really need CDR for your build? Which stat do you scrap? Some choose elemental damage, some choose main stat. What if you really absolutely need high APS for your build? It's not as clear-cut as it seems, at least not for everyone. Yes, in the end there will be four dominating stats in endgame, as there always have been, but we don't know what the legendary gems add. It could be some fancy effect that screws up our existing mechanics of CHD/CC. Who knows? Furthermore, keep in mind that the legendary gem is upgradeable. If you have a perfect amulet right now, chances are you're not going to use a Tier 1 legendary gem, but definitely a Tier 100 legendary gem. At which point does the legendary gem surpass your existing affixes and become "better" or even "mandatory"? It's way too early too tell.
My hope is that the legendary gems in rings even screw up the fact that right now we're locked in to SoJ and RoRG; for example, a Tier 12 gem could yield the RoRG effect for any amulet (non-stackable), which opens up at least one ring slot. Not sure what they can do about the SoJ, but Blizzard was never happy about items being the "only choice" for one slot and the past few months have shown that they upgrade and change things more frequently as well as more drastically. Blizzard has gone from "we'll deal with it... next year" to "we'll change everything... in 1-2 months". Take, for example, the monk who'll be turned upside down with 2.1, invalidating most of my gear. And you know what: I like it. Stop being afraid of changes.
3) "These "legendary gems" Are most likely going to be damage and ability boosters, cause' we all know that is all the d3 dev team seems to care about...":
Really, enty, I'm shocked to read this from you. Please read the 2.1 blog again. All they talk about is defensive changes: removing dodge, re-inforcing armor for monks, changing defensive passives, making healing almost mandatory for higher greater rift levels. The blog post is all about defense and healing changes, nowhere do they say that you need to go all glass canon and breeze through Greater Rifts.
Legendary gems will not be *just* damage boosters. And if they are, they'll only be damage boosters to compensate for the loss of offense stats on other pieces of gear that you want to replace with the new healing stats. Claiming that Blizzard is only interested about "damage" makes me really angry. It's the playerbase that has always searched for ways (and unfortunately found them) to dismiss survivability and go full damage. It's Blizzard who have constantly trying to shift attention back to defense. And I have no doubt that whatever the gems will add - defense, offense, utility - will ultimately be useful in order to ensure more survivability (directly or indirectly) in order to deal with the increased difficulty of Greater Rifts.
4) "Honestly it makes no sense to use a legendary amulet anymore, just get the 6 affix rare and craft the shit out of it till you get the perfect rolls."
Again, enty, not sure where you're taking this from... rare amulets roll 10% CC/100% CHD, but they roll 5% less elemental damage, 100 (afaik) less main stat, and none of those amazing secondary affixes. And 2 of the 6 affixes are always secondary, so there's absolutely zero incentive to switch to a rare amulet.
What his argument is about is the fact that sockets on different equipment have different value. 3 sockets on a chest armor is one primary stat, while on a ring or amulet it is only 1 socket for 1 primary stat. Also, amulets primary stats are more valuable than chest armors because chest armor cannot roll elemental damage, 100% CD, and 10% CC. This is what his argument is about, and it is strictly arguing against putting these legendary gems into anything but jewelry.
The "sacrifice" and "choice" he is talking about is not that you have to sacrifice a great stat on an amulet to instead put this gem in (which will become the new BiS for everyone). The sacrifice is that you can't just stick it into a piece of chest armor instead and only lose 1/3rd of a primary stat, which isn't even that detrimental on a piece of chest armor as opposed to an amulet to begin with.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
It's amazing how he keeps going on and on about how there will still be a "best roll." Yes, we know this. That's how min/maxing works. It doesn't change anything that I've said, though.
Draco, the bottom line is they clearly don't want people using legendary gems to replace normal gems. And it makes sense for numerous reasons if you just stop ranting and raving about how there still will be a "BiS" amulet. That's not the point, at all. The point is that legendary gems are going to be more powerful than regular gems which means those sockets on rings/amulets which are MORE VALUABLE than the sockets on chests/legs are a great place to use them.
We're not using sockets on rings/amulets currently because they are too valuable to throw 280 primary stat in. But if they give us more powerful gems that justify the tradeoff we make to have a socket in jewelery............ then maybe that works for some specs. Maybe it works for all specs. It doesn't matter. What matters is that because of the stats we're taking off the jewelery are much more potent than the stats we're taking off our chests/legs the stuff we socket into the jewelery has to be much more potent than the stuff we socket into our chests/legs.
It's not very difficult to understand. If you'd stop trying to put words into my mouth and stop trying to have an argument that no one other than you is having, maybe you'd grasp what I'm saying.
I would like to specifically address this, though:
If a legendary gem gives you 15% crit and you can put that into your chest armor you don't see ANY difference between that and being forced to put it in your amulet?
Your example of a 15% crit legendary gem shows EXACTLY why it must be limited to jewelery. Yet, somehow, by providing such an obvious example of why legendary gems can't be put in chests, legs, etc. you've failed to understand it yourself.
In fact, if given the choice between socketing a 15% crit chance gem into an amulet or ring, which one do you socket it in? The ring, right? Why? Exactly. The sacrifice for putting it in the ring is LESS than the sacrifice for putting it in the amulet. Just like the sacrifice for putting it in the chest is way less than either the ring or the amulet. It's very simple logic here, bud. Why you're purposely missing the point is beyond me.
My RoRG gives me the following:
20% life from Asheara's (3),15% DMG and DEFENSE from elites from Aughild's (3),COTH lasts until they die from Immortal King's (3) - Which really translates to 50% reduced damage and a decent chunk of damage, but the defense FAR outvalues the damage for me.
So in all, from the RoRG bonus I'm getting 20% life, 15% defense vs elites, and 50% damage from everything as defense. I'm getting 15% damage to elites, and some moderate pet damage as offense.
I'm sure some people lean more towards damage bonuses from sets but there's not all that much straight damage from set bonuses out there.
Yes the negative nancy can quickly pipe up, the problem is that gems are boring and simplistic.
Then the passionate forum vets can quickly pipe up with "they are trying...."
Then maybe someone comes along and says "well woulda been fucking awesome of they tried all those years ago rathern than shitting out 5 colored gems and calling it a day" its just a constant back and forth echo....
But restricting legendary gems to a particular slot will not hold the gems back. I would not give much credit to the consensus "These new gems suck because: I can only put them in jewellery" I just hope they are not just more insta-brims....we have had far far far to many insta-brims...
Starmetal Kukiri "just increases your damage" but it's still a really well-designed item.
Thunderfury "just increases your damage" but everyone still loves it, same with Shard of Hate.
Jade Harvester's 6pc "just increases your damage" but it's what enables a whole playstyle.
Light of Grace "just increases your damage" but it surely makes Ray of Frost a lot more interesting to use.
Wand of Woh and Mirrorball "just increase your damage" but don't they do it in a manner that makes you look at skills differently, that open up various builds, etc.?
If you're going to look at everything as "just increases your damage" then you're missing out on why some of these things are fun. Wand of Woh is surely just a damage increase, but it not only makes you feel really powerful, but it's pretty fun to use Explosive Blast with it. Isn't that what we want from legendaries?
But that doesn't mean TF is bad. It's not. Its design is fine. It's a generic item that has broad application like the Cord of the Sherma, Cindercoat, or Ice Climbers. Items like that have just as much of a place in the game as anything else. The game needs a healthy mix of items that are skill-specific and items that aren't.
First off, my example wasn't a 15% crit legendary gem. It was a 15% dps boost. Sorry if I didn't specify that. I highly doubt any legendary gems will come with "Boring" bonuses, such as +crit dmg, +IAS or +Crit chance (what would make them legendary, then?). No point was missed here, but reading it a second time, I can see why you'd think I said "you get 10% crit from the affix and 15% from the gem", rather than "the crit increases your damage by 10% and the gem by 15%). Apologies for that one.
That said, what your entire argument boils down to then, if I read it correct is:
If they allow us to socket legendary gems in chests/legs, where we have the sockets anyway, we will become too powerfull because you "only" lose 280 mainstat per legendary gem.
If they force us to put it in rings/necks where we have much more valueable stat we have to give up, the benefit of the gem will be smaller, as we give up something stronger, and maybe, just maybe we'll have to make a choise (hah, not really, as they said they wanted us to constantly be able to improve the legendary gems, probably making them similiar to the PoE gems you level up as you kill stuff).
Is that roughly correct?
If it is, then all I have to say is: That's just fucking bullshit. It still doesn't open up for any "fun" decisions. Either the gem will be stronger (and you need to find a ring with a socket), or the gem won't (and you'll need to find a ring with crit). It's still not a choise, but necks/rings are actually already in a situation where some specs has to decide between CDR and crit (Perma-archon, for example). The issue is that most builds are forced to take 2 of 3 rings:
SoJ - RoRG - Unity
As those are just miles beyond anything else due to their bonuses. Bonuses that are so much stronger than crit that we are already deciding to give it up (SoJ has that). Why enforce a socket onto this jewellery to make it more boring than it is?
If the fear is that our characters will become too strong if we can socket tons of legendary gems into our armor rather than our jewellery, then there's two very easy solutions:
Either make the gems weaker, or just flat out limit them to X amount. Or make them only socketable in your chest, or legs, or whatever you want.
In the end, I think it's still pure, unnessecary bullshit that they take the two slots that actually works well in terms of potential rolls (Viable alternatives that still make for extremely strong items that you can use, despite not finding perfect ones - EG, I use a neck with crit, crit dmg, int and +dmg on my Wizard as I've yet to find a fire dmg one). If I get a RoRG, I can choose between vitality (for toughness), IAS, CDR or +dmg, and they'll all end up benefitting me roughly the same, making choises (SoJ is locked down due to the 2x mainstat guaranteed affixes being extremely strong, sadly, and Unity's +elite dmg affix is uncombatted aswell). Locking it down so you throw away every single neck/ring that can't potentially have a socket is just dumb, and promotes LESS fun/decision making than before.
I still think that the gems shouldn't be "standard" gems, but rather be able to be equipped to your character depending on your paragon level, as mentioned earlier, to further the feeling of character progression and reward of paragon. Unlocking a new legendary ability every 100 levels would seriously improve the feel of your character actually becomming stronger as time passes.
If anything, that's more counterproductive to making decisions than anything. If you want "fun decisions" then your idea is actually worse than Blizzard's idea.
To me it sounds more like you don't want to have to make the choice to give up an awesome neck roll for a legendary gem and want to just give up a shitty chest roll. And it's fine to have that opinion, but to continue to make the asinine arguments about "choice" is disingenuous since you clearly are against making tough choices.
God forbid you have to consider giving up the crit chance on that amulet, right? That's not "fun." It'd be much more "fun" just to unsocket a 280 primary stat from your chest and stick a new, superpowered legendary gem right in there and then be done with it while chanting "herp derp" the whole way.
Legendayr gems in themselves sound solid - they can be upgraded to become more potent, chances are they will be unique (so you can't just stack 3 of the same gem), and they have to be farmed before you can equip them. Forcing them to compete with slots on pieces that already has interesting stats is a minus.
You ask how allowing gems in other sockets would make for more fun decisions, and my answer would be: Because Rings/Necks are already the two best pieces (along with helm and weapons, probably) in terms of decision-making. They have a ton of potent stats, and forcing you to throw anything away without a socket is just sad, and not at all "fun". Allowing us to socket them in a chest or leg piece would still keep the general idea of legendary gems (Unique so you have to choose which, have to farm them, have to upgrade them), but it doesn't have any drawbacks for chests/legs in terms of "fun", as they already wanted sockets.
I'm sorry, but you were the one who constantly keeps bringing up "tough choises" and such. NOT me. There are no tough choises. The thing here is that the legendary gems LIMITS our "fun" choises. A ring/neck will no longer have four affixes, where the fourth is usually a choise between CDR/Vit/Dmg/Ele dmg/IAS (mostly ele dmg in the case of necks, but still). They will have sockets as a mandatory affix. And THAT is what I don't find fun. Jewellery is already booming with viable affixes (that might not neccessarely be the "best", but is still a viable alternative - do you pick a neck with 78% crit dmg, 8.5% crit and 19% elemental dmg + mainstat, or one with 10% crit, 98% crit dmg, +dmg and mainstat? Both will be extremely close due to the relative strength of affixes).
But please do tell me, how exactly is it more fun to you to pick from the pool of great affixes on a neck or ring to reroll, than just throwing them in already available sockets and letting the gems be choises in themselves?
Or in words you might understand:
"HURP DURP FIND RING, REROLL SOCKET, LOOK AT MAH LEGENDZ GEM, SO FUN".
Yeah, jewelery has so many viable affixes that your two hypothetical amulets both have 3 out of 4 properties in common. And, would, after enchanting, have all four properties in common since most people would choose to roll the +dmg into elemental damage on the second amulet.
Such "fun" choices there, bro. It's so overwhelmingly fun that I might need to put on an adult diaper in case it causes me to piss my pants.
Seriously, what world do you live in where you think we're making "fun choices" with jewelery at the moment?
Like I said, you sound like someone who is deathly afraid they'll have to give up the 10% CHC on their amulet as opposed to someone who actually understands the discussion at hand.
If you found a gem, that is unique equipped( only 1 allowed) and it could only be used in a WoW/ or maybe in depth diggers, and it's affix was Spectral blades is now cast 30 yards further away from you, would you maybe think about using Spectral Blade? Maybe you'd start using spectral blade over electrocute, or magic missile because now you have a new ranged skill to work with, or maybe you don't because Spectral Blade doesn't appeal to you, or maybe the 280 int you could get on that Depth Diggers is more valuable to you, both defensively and offensively. The gem doesn't overpower anything, all it does is change how the skill works, which gets you to think about using it. There should be a gem as simple as this FOR EVERY SKILL! it doesn't take much to change a skill and redo what it does . It would open up some options, and it's an actual choice, you aren't forced to do it. You can CHOOSE TO DO IT. If the legendary powers are as op as some of the current ones, it's not a choice, its an illusory choice. You don't really have an option you are forced because its the best and if you don't do it you can forget farming T6... This to me isn't fun. If we could move away from damage affixes and focus on mechanic changing affixes I would be much happier overall with this game. There's other things that still need to be done to make it a perfect game but i feel like they wasted an opportunity here, and i'm worried they might just make more overpowered slots on rings and ammies. we will see though, I reserve my judgement until then, but I'm definitely voicing some concern here.