I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.
My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable.
It's completely logical. You'd reroll the socket slot if you had a Gift on hand, or keep it if you didn't. If you think it's counter intuitive, Diable may not be the game for you.
How do you not see rolling off a socket, just to add a socket as counter-intuitive?
Yes. You can choose to just not use a gift on it at all, but it's never going to be end-game quality without five primary stats. Four primary stat items will become the new insta-soul.
Socket is hands down the worst innate affix roll you can get if you plan on that weapon being end game quality. It doesn't exclude the item from being end game quality if the other three primary stats roll fantastically, but it still is the worst you can get as it innately offers nothing, since you can just roll it away to add a fifth primary to replace it as a new socket instantly.
Right now getting an innate socket on a weapon is on par with the most desirable and useful stat you can get on a weapon. Without a socket your weapon is junk. By getting an innate socket you can enchant any other stat to whatever you want, making the likelihood of improving your weapon to grand status very favorable. A socket roll does not have a range of power (for example: damage range, damage %, or CDR % fall on a spectrum of rolls where they can roll a high value or a low value); you either have a socket or you don't, and when you do it is best in slot and that affix roll is uncontested at max potential instantaneously.
While this new item, Ramalandi's Gift, is a great step in the right direction. I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.
My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable. You will never want an innate socket on your weapon as you will just want to reroll it away and use Ramalandi's Gift to replace it for free, meaning the socket roll itself has absolutely no intrinsic value and you will wish it could have been anything but a socket so that you got more value out of that affix. You will never gain any practical use out of getting an innate socket on a weapon drop and the innate socket roll has basically been relegated to the status of completely useless.
This will only cease being a concern if weapons with innate sockets stop rolling altogether after Ramalandi's Gift is implemented (if left unchanged), which hopefully will happen. But, this will be a complete let down for anyone who already has an amazing innate socket weapon already and can't take advantage of the fifth primary they could have instead.
Please take note of the fact I am not voicing concerns of the idea of adding a socket to a weapon, I think it is a great idea, and it is better than what we already have. But if five primary stat weapons are going to be the new 'it' thing. It should at least be made so that weapons that already have an innate socket (and enchanted another stat as a natural result) can take advantage of this idea and not be left obsolete.
I'm not quite sure what a solid solution would be, but would be interested in hearing people's thoughts and/or concerns.
I used to try to stack CHC as high as I could at the expense of everything else, but I now just try to keep it at 50-55 since I know I will probably never have CHD at 500+. You want that 1:10 CHC:CHD golden ratio.
CHD: weapon 130, amulet 100, ring 50, ring 50, glove 50, base 50 = 420 critical hit damage
CHC: amulet 10, bracer 6, helm 6, ring 6, ring 6, glove 10, source 10, base 5 = 57 critical hit chance
57:420 = 1:7.3 ratio
If you include paragon:
62:470 = 1:7.58 raio (which is better but still not close).
CHC appears exclusively on a lot more items than CHD does, and when they appear together on the same item slot the 1:10 ratio is always skewed in CHC's favor. So realistically choosing CHC over CHD on any slot where you can only have one over the other I will probably pick CHD.
For instance SOJ is a common conundrum for this problem. Elemental damage, elite damage, INT, and X. I pick CHD. If you get really lucky you can get elemental damage, elite damage, CHC, and CHD, but INT also gives you resistance so I am not sure I like that option as much, but 50 CHD is still a lot.
If you do this you have 51 CHC to 420 CHD which is a ratio of 1:8.23
With paragon: 56:470 = 1:8.39
Some build play off CHC though and proc things the more CHC you have, so that would be a situation where you might ignore the ratio and go CHC instead.
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.
I for one love that they got rid of the crafting mats, but kind of think the solution they went with was lazy. I got bored out of my fucking skull hunting aughild's mats from the matriarch's bones event over and over and over. But, just making it require no mats I think was just a quick sloppy bandaid fix that leaves much to be desired.
Why not just have a different crafting mat for each equipment slot and then have them drop as bounty rewards from the reliquary? You could have each act have a higher chance to drop different mat types but they all have a chance to drop. You could make it torment difficulty reliquarys only as well. Or maybe as a reward for completing all 25 bounties in a single game you get to hand pick x amount of mats (maybe 1 for each torment difficulty). Might give some incentive for people to stop strictly farming act 1 bounties and ignoring all the other acts completely.
Just a couple off the cuff ideas. I'm sure Blizzard could think of something better.
When you're patching such a large intricate game such as the games Blizzard deals with on such a mass scale I'd imagine you'd want to patch a large number of things as infrequently as possible. All patching one minor item at a time does is slow down the entire process. Look at the big picture. You change even the most tiny thing and it can impact a lot of different systems. It's better for them to just play test and release 20 different changes all at once and release them in one big lump sum, then it is to slowly release mini patches that just fix one or two items. Every time the game client changes there is a pandora's box of problems that could go wrong, so doing that as infrequently as possible is the way to go. In the end it takes a lot less effort that can go into other things that we want changed. It sucks to have to wait, but it makes sense to me in the end.
I have 7040 achievement point (96%) and I am itching badly for them to patch the broken ones, but I understand why it's taking so long. They might already have a fix for them ready to go, but I can see why they might want to release it in 2.1 (or whatever it will be called) with a whole slew of other changes as well.
I've mostly been lurking, but I love this change. I would always put overall game balance and uniformity over "keeping what I already earned", even if it was to my own detriment. I hated [Legacy] items, just seems tacky. Same with Diablo 2 and the whole 1.08 versions of this and that unique/set. Such inelegant game design just to spare some players hurt feelings. Just force the item to reroll to the new standards and suck it up. People will whine, but if it is in the overall best interest of the game so be it. To me, Blizzard should not be in the business of keeping people's emotional state in tact. If the item is broken have the determination to own that mistake and fix it in all instances it exists.
In my opinion, killing the act boss should be the last thing you want to do before you leave the game after doing a bunch of pre-reqs to make that boss drop more goodies. They should also be extremely challenging and unpredictable in Torment.
It is so exhausting to repeatedly see the same dumb ideas rehashed over and over. "Make a skull shoot out and do damage!" Oh. My. God. I just want to smack a bitch.
Infinite strafe build looks pretty damn good. I've seen a few people running it.
I was dreaming up a build while at work, man I wish we had a calculator for RoS, or at LEAST an updated legendary item list! (hint hint dfans!!! lemme in beta and I'll make one myself =P )
I really want to try;
Strafe w/ rocket storm (strafe does 315% now, and the homing rockets do 90%), and the zero cost legendary.
Fan of Knives w/ Knives Expert (the rune removes the cooldown and adds a 30H cost, and FoK does 450% in 20 yards)
Smoke Screen w/ healing vapors (SS breaks CC and grants immunity for 1 second, the rune adds a 15% life gain per sec)
Companion w/ Wolf companion (the wolf does 150% weapon dmg now), and the 3 wolfs legendary (pretty sure it's a cloak)
Chakram w/ Shuriken Cloud (constant 200% weapon damage aoe)
Vengeance w/ Stimulants (rune heals 6% life per second, and vengeance lasts 15s and is just an insane DPS cooldown)
Passives;
Bloody Vengeance (globes grant 40H and 4D)
Hot Pursuit (grants 20% speed when you hit an enemy)
Ballistics (100% additional rocket dmg, and 20% chance to fire a homing rocket for 150% dmg)
Single Out (+20% crit chance against targets that are not within 20 yards of other targets)
The idea here is with free strafe, you move around doing constant damage with both strafe and shuriken cloud. while dumping your hatred with a ton of FoK's that have no cooldown. After watching a couple streams strafe actually hits hard enough to be viable. Hot pursuit which is changed to increase your movespeed by 20% when you hit a target hopefully works with strafe, because that would be pretty sweet to almost completely offset the decrease in speed while using strafe. Bloody vengeance ( 40 hatred and 4 disc per globe ) is there because it's just extremely helpful to get a nice chunk of your resource back.
You get some rocket synergy from your passive and strafe. Since strafe lets you move through enemies vault isn't really needed, and my big defensive skill is smoke screen to pop if I'm about to get frozen, and while 15% of your life when you pop it isn't 'huge', it's still pretty damn helpful when you use it twice or so to heal back up.
Vengeance with stimulants (which grants 6% life each second) is there for the DPS as well as another healing cooldown.
One weakness I foresee with this build? It has lower single target than other DH builds. Once you've got 1 elite / champ / boss left then obviously there's better nukes for the DH. I try to offset this however with a couple things; Companion w/ the 3 wolf legendary (450% combined damage from them per attack), rocket storm and ballistics which since they home in, should work well against 1 target, and of course the awesome Single Out passive, which grants 20% crit chance to any targets that are not within 20 yards of other enemies.
Sorry that I missed the previous thread, I will have to search for it.
The thing is if all gold is wiped then the price of all the NPC vendor abilities will probably go down. So anyone who "has collected a lot legitly" will probably still be better off because crafting and gem combining costs won't be as high to combat the huge excess of gold that is out there. I have a strange feeling that Blizzard will keep balancing the vendor costs in relation to those who have mounds of gold stockpiled, not those who barely have anything or who are playing fresh characters. In the long run, you'd be better off with a wipe if it meant lower vendor costs in ratio to how fast you can collect gold off monsters.
The only reason this kind of wipe would be entertained by me is because gold is already being drastically devalued by having it not be useable for trading it for items. It's basically just taking it a tiny step further and just completely devaluing it by removing it all together and starting clean for the fairness of balancing vendor costs to be more appropriate with the rate at which gold can be fairly collected by an individual in the state of the game at release. At least that is how I see it. Someone who has 1 billion+ gold will just laugh at vendor costs if they make them too low and someone who has hardly any gold or is starting anew will struggle to keep up if they make them too high. Both of those scenarios seem pretty unpalatable, even for me who is stockpiling to a great degree and would have a great advantage.
For me, it has nothing to do with fair or unfair as far as the player base is concerned, I'm more concerned about it from a game balancing perspective in relation to inflated vendor costs.
I hope when people are voting they are thinking beyond "do I want to keep my gold?"
It's interesting nonetheless to see the reaction.
Yes. You can choose to just not use a gift on it at all, but it's never going to be end-game quality without five primary stats. Four primary stat items will become the new insta-soul.
Socket is hands down the worst innate affix roll you can get if you plan on that weapon being end game quality. It doesn't exclude the item from being end game quality if the other three primary stats roll fantastically, but it still is the worst you can get as it innately offers nothing, since you can just roll it away to add a fifth primary to replace it as a new socket instantly.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
While this new item, Ramalandi's Gift, is a great step in the right direction. I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.
My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable. You will never want an innate socket on your weapon as you will just want to reroll it away and use Ramalandi's Gift to replace it for free, meaning the socket roll itself has absolutely no intrinsic value and you will wish it could have been anything but a socket so that you got more value out of that affix. You will never gain any practical use out of getting an innate socket on a weapon drop and the innate socket roll has basically been relegated to the status of completely useless.
This will only cease being a concern if weapons with innate sockets stop rolling altogether after Ramalandi's Gift is implemented (if left unchanged), which hopefully will happen. But, this will be a complete let down for anyone who already has an amazing innate socket weapon already and can't take advantage of the fifth primary they could have instead.
Please take note of the fact I am not voicing concerns of the idea of adding a socket to a weapon, I think it is a great idea, and it is better than what we already have. But if five primary stat weapons are going to be the new 'it' thing. It should at least be made so that weapons that already have an innate socket (and enchanted another stat as a natural result) can take advantage of this idea and not be left obsolete.
I'm not quite sure what a solid solution would be, but would be interested in hearing people's thoughts and/or concerns.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
CHD: weapon 130, amulet 100, ring 50, ring 50, glove 50, base 50 = 420 critical hit damage
CHC: amulet 10, bracer 6, helm 6, ring 6, ring 6, glove 10, source 10, base 5 = 57 critical hit chance
57:420 = 1:7.3 ratio
If you include paragon:
62:470 = 1:7.58 raio (which is better but still not close).
CHC appears exclusively on a lot more items than CHD does, and when they appear together on the same item slot the 1:10 ratio is always skewed in CHC's favor. So realistically choosing CHC over CHD on any slot where you can only have one over the other I will probably pick CHD.
For instance SOJ is a common conundrum for this problem. Elemental damage, elite damage, INT, and X. I pick CHD. If you get really lucky you can get elemental damage, elite damage, CHC, and CHD, but INT also gives you resistance so I am not sure I like that option as much, but 50 CHD is still a lot.
If you do this you have 51 CHC to 420 CHD which is a ratio of 1:8.23
With paragon: 56:470 = 1:8.39
Some build play off CHC though and proc things the more CHC you have, so that would be a situation where you might ignore the ratio and go CHC instead.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
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
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Why not just have a different crafting mat for each equipment slot and then have them drop as bounty rewards from the reliquary? You could have each act have a higher chance to drop different mat types but they all have a chance to drop. You could make it torment difficulty reliquarys only as well. Or maybe as a reward for completing all 25 bounties in a single game you get to hand pick x amount of mats (maybe 1 for each torment difficulty). Might give some incentive for people to stop strictly farming act 1 bounties and ignoring all the other acts completely.
Just a couple off the cuff ideas. I'm sure Blizzard could think of something better.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I have 7040 achievement point (96%) and I am itching badly for them to patch the broken ones, but I understand why it's taking so long. They might already have a fix for them ready to go, but I can see why they might want to release it in 2.1 (or whatever it will be called) with a whole slew of other changes as well.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Zed#1489
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
In my opinion, killing the act boss should be the last thing you want to do before you leave the game after doing a bunch of pre-reqs to make that boss drop more goodies. They should also be extremely challenging and unpredictable in Torment.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
It is so exhausting to repeatedly see the same dumb ideas rehashed over and over. "Make a skull shoot out and do damage!" Oh. My. God. I just want to smack a bitch.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
sounds awesome
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
The thing is if all gold is wiped then the price of all the NPC vendor abilities will probably go down. So anyone who "has collected a lot legitly" will probably still be better off because crafting and gem combining costs won't be as high to combat the huge excess of gold that is out there. I have a strange feeling that Blizzard will keep balancing the vendor costs in relation to those who have mounds of gold stockpiled, not those who barely have anything or who are playing fresh characters. In the long run, you'd be better off with a wipe if it meant lower vendor costs in ratio to how fast you can collect gold off monsters.
The only reason this kind of wipe would be entertained by me is because gold is already being drastically devalued by having it not be useable for trading it for items. It's basically just taking it a tiny step further and just completely devaluing it by removing it all together and starting clean for the fairness of balancing vendor costs to be more appropriate with the rate at which gold can be fairly collected by an individual in the state of the game at release. At least that is how I see it. Someone who has 1 billion+ gold will just laugh at vendor costs if they make them too low and someone who has hardly any gold or is starting anew will struggle to keep up if they make them too high. Both of those scenarios seem pretty unpalatable, even for me who is stockpiling to a great degree and would have a great advantage.
For me, it has nothing to do with fair or unfair as far as the player base is concerned, I'm more concerned about it from a game balancing perspective in relation to inflated vendor costs.
I hope when people are voting they are thinking beyond "do I want to keep my gold?"
It's interesting nonetheless to see the reaction.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s