The only way that adding a socket wouldn't be a choice is if there was any fun benefit to adding sockets. Right now we'd just toss in the mainstat gem. That's boring as hell. If there were reasons to add different gems for different purposes then it'd be fun.
Making mainstat gems was a huge mistake on their part because it's boring. They'd have to start offering new gems that added different things beyond static stats, maybe adding procs and effects. I would be fine with having to add sockets if that meant I could add CtC different spells (especially ones not of my class), or life leech, or things besides main stats; if they were good enough then there would be less inclination to ONLY gem main stats. Socketables is a great idea and it's pretty sad they did NOT include things like them; I remember their justification for not adding runes was "it makes the game too complicated."
Designers really need to stop treating their players like moronic children.
Isn't that the whole point of the sentence that I've quoted earlier? Choice, and lots of it.
I think his point was that the current gems need to be redesigned (away from primary stats, and the like) before we simply go about adding more.
If you're a Wiz/WD there is no point to ever socketing a ruby/emerald in your non-helm armor.
If you're a DH/Monk there is no point to ever socketing a ruby/topaz in your non-helm armor.
If you're a Barb there is no point to ever socketing a topaz/emerald in your non-helm armor.
Regardless of class there is almost zero point to socketing a topaz/amethyst in your weapon.
Regardless of class there is almost zero point to socketing a topaz/amethyst/ruby in your helm once you're max pLvl, and when you're under pLvl 100 the only real choice is a ruby.
Can't we fix those major issues with the current gems before we start lobbying for throwing more spaghetti at the wall? The current gems leave a LOT of room to be desired. That needs to be fixed before we start expanding on a system that just isn't living up to expectations.
You're asking for quantity over quality. Bagstone is asking for quality over quantity. I can't really support quantity over quality in this particular situation. We don't need 40000000 gem options. We need a handful of INTERESTING options.
Of course "shaggy" current gems should be improved as well but say that takes 6 months (soon) how long is it going to take to get onto the jucy stuff we all want?
Who's to say an add socket feature won't come with the revamp of most gems?
I believe gems have to be used. I just want the devs to give us the means to do so.
That is exactly my point. First you need to come up with a good reason to add the feature at all. They never said they don't want to add it at all. They just need the right idea to help create a new incentive for gems and socketing in general.
Can't we fix those major issues with the current gems before we start lobbying for throwing more spaghetti at the wall? The current gems leave a LOT of room to be desired. That needs to be fixed before we start expanding on a system that just isn't living up to expectations.
I kind of considered that to be a given.
They would obviously have to rework the system/gems if they are ever to add new socketable affixes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the small death that brings total obliteration."
IMO they should start by adding more slot-specific bonuses to existing gems. How boring is +primary stat? Each slot should have its own unique gem perks. Obviously the helm and weapon gems that never get used need to be buffed as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Making mainstat gems was a huge mistake on their part because it's boring. They'd have to start offering new gems that added different things beyond static stats, maybe adding procs and effects. I would be fine with having to add sockets if that meant I could add CtC different spells (especially ones not of my class), or life leech, or things besides main stats; if they were good enough then there would be less inclination to ONLY gem main stats. Socketables is a great idea and it's pretty sad they did NOT include things like them; I remember their justification for not adding runes was "it makes the game too complicated."
Designers really need to stop treating their players like moronic children.
I think his point was that the current gems need to be redesigned (away from primary stats, and the like) before we simply go about adding more.
If you're a Wiz/WD there is no point to ever socketing a ruby/emerald in your non-helm armor.
If you're a DH/Monk there is no point to ever socketing a ruby/topaz in your non-helm armor.
If you're a Barb there is no point to ever socketing a topaz/emerald in your non-helm armor.
Regardless of class there is almost zero point to socketing a topaz/amethyst in your weapon.
Regardless of class there is almost zero point to socketing a topaz/amethyst/ruby in your helm once you're max pLvl, and when you're under pLvl 100 the only real choice is a ruby.
Can't we fix those major issues with the current gems before we start lobbying for throwing more spaghetti at the wall? The current gems leave a LOT of room to be desired. That needs to be fixed before we start expanding on a system that just isn't living up to expectations.
You're asking for quantity over quality. Bagstone is asking for quality over quantity. I can't really support quantity over quality in this particular situation. We don't need 40000000 gem options. We need a handful of INTERESTING options.
Who's to say an add socket feature won't come with the revamp of most gems?
Ha. Bagstone.
That is exactly my point. First you need to come up with a good reason to add the feature at all. They never said they don't want to add it at all. They just need the right idea to help create a new incentive for gems and socketing in general.
Ha. Bagstone.
Sorry guys, we know you want her, but the higher ups want her in the paid expansion.
we're still in the first month of 1.0.7
.
are you expecting major patches every week or something?
have some patience man
I kind of considered that to be a given.
They would obviously have to rework the system/gems if they are ever to add new socketable affixes.