I think they tested this in the vanilla Alpha where sockets were something you would enchant onto your item. The issue as Bashiok explained it was that it felt mandatory that with each upgrade you had to go back to town and socket the item.
I think they should revisit that as that comment by Bashiok was meant more for the grind of level 1-60 gearing where you are rapidly going up the gear levels. They didn't test this heavily in the 'end game' as they admitted they barely tested inferno.. but they saw the difficulty of inferno and 'doubled it' just before launch.. just to make sure it was hard enough..
I agree with Ruksak that it should be an enchantable affix and it should be completely separate. In fact it should feel almost mandatory to socket your weapon or helm or legendary armour - but it should come at a cost... blood shards maybe...
I also think Crit hit damage% gems should be scaled down in how much they offer so that the others are a bit more competitive...
They don't even need to cap CHD if sockets were an "addition" honestly. Or even if they weren't....
Instead of making emeralds and rubies so BRUTALLY OP (compared to the alternatives) in weapons they could actually nerf them down. Imagine if a socket were an add-on but it only added say 35% CHD instead of 135%. To me that sounds much closer to where it should be than what it is and I just don't believe that 35% CHD is sufficient to break the game if "added" onto a weapon since so many weapons, via enchanting, have 130%+ CHD on them already. In fact, it'd be a straight 95% nerf to CHD for many players... 190% for some DWers. Taking that much CHD off the table is even BETTER than imposing a hard cap.
There's no need for caps, there's just much more of a need to make various stats more difficult to attain. 135% per weapon socket is, simply, far too generous. I was truly shocked they didn't nerf this sometime during beta.
Letting us specifically pick sockets on gear wouldn't do anything but increase the rate that player power grows. It also wouldn't make them feel any less important.
Not to mention we already HAVE a way to socket, it just has a good chance to take awhile and be expensive, which to me is perfect.
I think its ok as is, the only problematic slot is chest with 3 sockets blowing all other available affix's out of the water, and weapons doing the same. The problem isn't having to choose to give up a good stat to get a 3 sockets on your chest armor, its that you don't have a choice, 3 sockets is so far better then other stats that the choice is this:
for example, on chest pieces:"which stat do i want to give up to get my 3 sockets?"(this is a forced choice you are making, though it is a valid choice)
instead of this: "do I want to give up this stat for 3 sockets instead?"(this would be a real choice, if stat values that can roll in primary are all competetive for different builds, we could choose what we want to use)
I think the solution for sockets is to change what they can add. 3 sockets on a chest piece just adding X to strength, or dex is boring. Maybe the stats that sockets add should be unique that only gems can provide, not in overpowered quantities, but something that couldn't normally roll, like crit chance on a chest piece.
As others have noted, the main issue is the sockets are strictly better then any other affix since they permit rolls much higher then the item can possibly roll. In the case of weapons, CHD is a problem because it scales exponentially (IAS * Crit Chance * Crit Damage), so its effect is felt far more then any other gem.
They could make sockets a separate thing, and pick and choose how many we want, but as noted, you might as well remove sockets on armor altogether and bake the max possible bonuses into the base item rolls and call it a day. As a temp fix, either Emeralds need to be nerfed (at least halved), or the other gems need to be massively buffed as alternatives (Double diamond bonus to elite, possibly more. Quadruple Topazes, and Amethysts).
From my point of view, the main solution is to have gems not give stats period. Give anything but stats.
IMO, they should have scrapped 'main stat' gems altogether, and turned sockets into a secondary affix, limited them to one per item, and changed the gems to be exclusively things like runspeed, pickup radius, etc... no more CHD or mainstats.
Frustratingly enough, they didn't... so any solution to the socket problem has to be compatible with things as they currently stand
They should revert weapon gems to be more similar to their D2 counterparts: A flat DAMAGE boost (not a crit boost that can scale insanely well with gear), or the + elite damage (diamonds) and the + LoH (Amethysts). The other gems should add elemental damage based on color...like D2's did (let them scale with +elemental damage gear, please!). That would make one type less mandatory than the others and it would also mean that you would gem based on your gear to get the most out of it.
Optional: Bring back gems changing a weapons color!
IMO, they should have scrapped 'main stat' gems altogether, and turned sockets into a secondary affix, limited them to one per item, and changed the gems to be exclusively things like runspeed, pickup radius, etc... no more CHD or mainstats.
Frustratingly enough, they didn't... so any solution to the socket problem has to be compatible with things as they currently stand
This is very true, and people should keep that in mind. Any changes to the socket implementation would have to jive with the system as a whole. Which is why I suggested simply rendering a socket as either a secondary affix or just simply make sockets a bonus component.
Regarding Bashiok; "Players would feel compelled to run back to town everytime......." Didn't he defend the 'ol individual identification process we used to have, saying some dumb bullshit just like that?
People already are running back to town everytime they upgrade. Durr?
So let's ignore that fact and continue to fuddle through this obviously errant socketing system that's in place? Just as it was with the errant ID'ing system, you cannot have faulty in-game systems like this for the sole purpose of constraining the players. Bashiok....Let me worry about whether or not I should go back to town and dick with my new gears. I'll handle that end of it.
The sockets robs your item of power for the purpose of adding a "mandatory" affix via a gem. Moving the socket out of it's primary status would create far more dynamic itemization, far more than I think many people realize until you really give it thought. This would be a huge, impactful itemization maneuver.
Maybe then they can figure out what to do with the gems we're actually putting into these sockets.
I'm suggesting they do both. Change the status of sockets from primary to either secondary or just an external component AND tweak this issue with CHD. The two seem inexorably tied together, but it need not be that way with further tweaking. A hard cap on CHD and some other source for such a large % of it in one slot. Whatever....
If they keep sockets as a primary, the socket will continue to narrow the variety of choices in several slots. With socs as a primary, the difference from item to item will have little fluxuation in variety.
I understand; I don't think you need to do both though.
I think sockets make sense as a primary affix, and it's okay if the perfect weapon must have a socket to be perfect (conversely, it'd be okay if the perfect weapon must have some other combination of primary affixes that does not include a socket). There's always going to be some perfect combination we're shooting for.
The problem is that the difference between an item with a socket and an item without a socket is too big. If that gap were smaller, people might well consider sockets the single best affix to have on a weapon, but there's still room for items that don't have one to be useful. As it is now, once you have a socketed weapon, nothing but another socketed weapon can beat it.
That's what they need to shoot for. Personally, I'd really love to see the gems add % elemental damage, so you have a reason to switch gems sometimes. But, there are more elements than gem types.
I think they should revisit that as that comment by Bashiok was meant more for the grind of level 1-60 gearing where you are rapidly going up the gear levels. They didn't test this heavily in the 'end game' as they admitted they barely tested inferno.. but they saw the difficulty of inferno and 'doubled it' just before launch.. just to make sure it was hard enough..
I agree with Ruksak that it should be an enchantable affix and it should be completely separate. In fact it should feel almost mandatory to socket your weapon or helm or legendary armour - but it should come at a cost... blood shards maybe...
I also think Crit hit damage% gems should be scaled down in how much they offer so that the others are a bit more competitive...
Instead of making emeralds and rubies so BRUTALLY OP (compared to the alternatives) in weapons they could actually nerf them down. Imagine if a socket were an add-on but it only added say 35% CHD instead of 135%. To me that sounds much closer to where it should be than what it is and I just don't believe that 35% CHD is sufficient to break the game if "added" onto a weapon since so many weapons, via enchanting, have 130%+ CHD on them already. In fact, it'd be a straight 95% nerf to CHD for many players... 190% for some DWers. Taking that much CHD off the table is even BETTER than imposing a hard cap.
There's no need for caps, there's just much more of a need to make various stats more difficult to attain. 135% per weapon socket is, simply, far too generous. I was truly shocked they didn't nerf this sometime during beta.
Not to mention we already HAVE a way to socket, it just has a good chance to take awhile and be expensive, which to me is perfect.
I vote leave it exactly how it is.
for example, on chest pieces:"which stat do i want to give up to get my 3 sockets?"(this is a forced choice you are making, though it is a valid choice)
instead of this: "do I want to give up this stat for 3 sockets instead?"(this would be a real choice, if stat values that can roll in primary are all competetive for different builds, we could choose what we want to use)
I think the solution for sockets is to change what they can add. 3 sockets on a chest piece just adding X to strength, or dex is boring. Maybe the stats that sockets add should be unique that only gems can provide, not in overpowered quantities, but something that couldn't normally roll, like crit chance on a chest piece.
They could make sockets a separate thing, and pick and choose how many we want, but as noted, you might as well remove sockets on armor altogether and bake the max possible bonuses into the base item rolls and call it a day. As a temp fix, either Emeralds need to be nerfed (at least halved), or the other gems need to be massively buffed as alternatives (Double diamond bonus to elite, possibly more. Quadruple Topazes, and Amethysts).
From my point of view, the main solution is to have gems not give stats period. Give anything but stats.
Frustratingly enough, they didn't... so any solution to the socket problem has to be compatible with things as they currently stand
Optional: Bring back gems changing a weapons color!
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Regarding Bashiok; "Players would feel compelled to run back to town everytime......." Didn't he defend the 'ol individual identification process we used to have, saying some dumb bullshit just like that?
People already are running back to town everytime they upgrade. Durr?
So let's ignore that fact and continue to fuddle through this obviously errant socketing system that's in place? Just as it was with the errant ID'ing system, you cannot have faulty in-game systems like this for the sole purpose of constraining the players. Bashiok....Let me worry about whether or not I should go back to town and dick with my new gears. I'll handle that end of it.
The sockets robs your item of power for the purpose of adding a "mandatory" affix via a gem. Moving the socket out of it's primary status would create far more dynamic itemization, far more than I think many people realize until you really give it thought. This would be a huge, impactful itemization maneuver.
Maybe then they can figure out what to do with the gems we're actually putting into these sockets.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
I understand; I don't think you need to do both though.
I think sockets make sense as a primary affix, and it's okay if the perfect weapon must have a socket to be perfect (conversely, it'd be okay if the perfect weapon must have some other combination of primary affixes that does not include a socket). There's always going to be some perfect combination we're shooting for.
The problem is that the difference between an item with a socket and an item without a socket is too big. If that gap were smaller, people might well consider sockets the single best affix to have on a weapon, but there's still room for items that don't have one to be useful. As it is now, once you have a socketed weapon, nothing but another socketed weapon can beat it.
That's what they need to shoot for. Personally, I'd really love to see the gems add % elemental damage, so you have a reason to switch gems sometimes. But, there are more elements than gem types.