We all know how D2 had gems that ranged from
chipped -> flawed -> normal -> flawless -> perfect
and assuming only the weakest gems were found, upgrading them to ever higher levels took exponentially more of those weak chipped gems.
Flawless were the best that could be found from a drop, so if you were in need of the perfect gem, you were forced to upgrade your 3 flawless.
How about having the same system to upgrade gems (3 of the weaker type merges to 1 being a level stronger) but have it continue indefinitely? There would be no limit to the highest level gem, no definite perfect but instead levels of perfection.
Again, the best gem strength to be dropped would be a flawless (or correspondingly in D3) so increasing gem perfection wouldn't grow out of control, the highest levels would be hindered by the amount of flawless that drop.
This could possibly create another set of goals for players to strive for. Getting the highest level gem for e.g.
However, gems are of course ultimately used to be socketed. Would implementing this system cause players to stop socketing altogether because they would hold onto their best gems to wait till they can upgrade it further? After all, you wouldn't want to socket the best unique sword or w/e with a gem that hasn't been levelled to its feasible maximum.
But just remember, there will be economic limits on how far you would go about levelling these gems. While it takes 3x of each gem to get it higher again, the benefits the new gem actually brings wouldn't be 3x better, so there will be some point where it just won't be worth the cost (except for those collectors that only work on increasing their gems' levels).
I'm not a fan of any "unlimited" concept. This can rbing lots of flaws and exploits. Like:
- Unlimited stuff are simply imossible to balance. For exemple, a skull that give to much lifesteal and mana steal could make one certain build unbeatable.
- Imagine it with a duping. In D2 the duppers limit are a runeword. With a system like that they will simply have no limit, they would be able to creat a gem with +10.000.000 HP.
Add a large variety of gems and make some very difficult to find do the same effect of your suggestion but don't have those 2 terrible risks.
With the unlimited concept you'll always feel that you could have got a better gem if you just waited a little longer.
One thing that has just come to my mind is: be able to mix 2 different gems of the same level:
-Chipped amethyst+Chipped topaz=Chipped more rare gem with mixed stats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
I'm not a fan of any "unlimited" concept. This can rbing lots of flaws and exploits. Like:
- Unlimited stuff are simply imossible to balance. For exemple, a skull that give to much lifesteal and mana steal could make one certain build unbeatable.
At the rate the life+mana steal for skulls would be increasing compared to the cost of increasing the levels, I don't think it could go as far as calling it an unbeatable build. And wouldn't it be easy enough to balance this problem by taking the top levels into consideration (and by top I mean what levels would be worth reaching economically) and making the stats at those levels balanced?
Quote from "italofoca" »
- Imagine it with a duping. In D2 the duppers limit are a runeword. With a system like that they will simply have no limit, they would be able to creat a gem with +10.000.000 HP.
I don't know about the programmers, but I know I wouldn't be making the game with the idea that there will be dupes to exploit it. But I can see your point. The soj's just went out of control and screwed the economy over pretty badly. The effect of duping with these gems would just be outright ridiculous and the economy would be completely screwed.
Quote from "italofoca" »
Add a large variety of gems and make some very difficult to find do the same effect of your suggestion but don't have those 2 terrible risks.
Sry =/ didn't like it.
No sorry, adding a large variety of gems to avoid duping isn't such a great idea. The concept of the gems automatically becomes like the runes (except for the levelling aspect of course). It would be better if they concentrate on fixing the bugs in the game to keep dupes out altogether and keep the number of gems to a minimum - no more than in D2.
Also, don't think of this as a limitless concept, because even though it might seem like it, it really isn't.
Lets say for e.g. a gem makes it to level 10 and this took a week to level. The gem is a skull and the lowest level has stats +1 life and mana steal, with each level up increasing its stats by +1. Now, your level 10 skull has +10 life and mana steal. Are you willing to spend another 2 weeks of gathering this gem (assuming the same drops) to increase the gem to level 11 which will add +1 more? Whatever the answer is, its pretty obvious there will be some point where it just isn't worth it anymore. Thus, not limitless.
Quote from "Bartrex" »
With the unlimited concept you'll always feel that you could have got a better gem if you just waited a little longer.
A little longer at first, but then the next will be (a little longer) x 3
Quote from "Bartrex" »
One thing that has just come to my mind is: be able to mix 2 different gems of the same level:
-Chipped amethyst+Chipped topaz=Chipped more rare gem with mixed stats.
But usually each socketable item will have more than 1 slot which allows for mixed stats of each gem you insert.
But usually each socketable item will have more than 1 slot which allows for mixed stats of each gem you insert.
What I ment was a better gem rarer with mixed stats that only uses one slot so you can use the other for other gems normal or as rare as the one you made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
At the rate the life+mana steal for skulls would be increasing compared to the cost of increasing the levels, I don't think it could go as far as calling it an unbeatable build. And wouldn't it be easy enough to balance this problem by taking the top levels into consideration (and by top I mean what levels would be worth reaching economically) and making the stats at those levels balanced?
Well that's an axtremely arbitrary point. How will the developers know where the top level is?
And you're forgetting one important aspect, and that's trading. Sure, it may take one player a week to get that gem, but when you have a few million players, you can very quickly get gems that spiral out of control.
Example: Everyone will be collecting these gems, because they can upgrade them indefinately, so there's no loss in keeping them. Sooner or later the gem is going to be so kick-ass that someone will want it.
Ergo, everyone will stock up. However you may play a wizard, and perhaps don't need all those srength-boosting amethysts (or whatever we're getting). Thus you trade them away to all barbarians you meet, while they give you gems they don't need. Pretty soon you'll have way too powerful gems. Or you make them useless without trade, which runs the risk of them depreciating in value, meaning no one collects them, meaning the hassle of getting one will be too large for the potential reward.
Quote from "Puttah" »
No sorry, adding a large variety of gems to avoid duping isn't such a great idea. The concept of the gems automatically becomes like the runes (except for the levelling aspect of course). It would be better if they concentrate on fixing the bugs in the game to keep dupes out altogether and keep the number of gems to a minimum - no more than in D2.
Perhaps not as simple as this, but combining your gems in different forms could work out. Or alternatively you could add more socketables, it's all just a matter or how many different kinds of items you acn insert into your equipment. Whether that comes from merged gems, runes, regular gems, jewels or whatever means close to nothing, it's just different names for the same function.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I am 100% against this idea. It adds nothing to the game, nothing to the economy, and doesn't even have a real purpose. Its totally pointless. Not saying this to be rude - its not like I wouldn't like to make some ever-better gems.
And there is also quite a few examples based on D2's systems, which is just weird. Life Leech is not making it in the game, Blizzard said (well, they didn't say its impossible, but it probably won't).
Also, duping. Duping will not be in this game. There are already online games without any form of duping, yet people assume since Diablo 2 had duping (a 9 years old game) had it, so D3 might have it!! SO WATCH OUT!!
..seriously? There won't be duping. And if there is it won't be at any level we have seen in D2. So people REALLY NEED to STOP thinking about "what effect duping could possibly have over X features".
I can't say I like the idea of them being limitless either(unless we're going to make the max level, number of skill points, etc. some unfeasible number).
However, I would like to see gems be better than they were in much of Diablo 2's life span. Even perfect gems were pretty useless in equipment in nightmare considering you could get much better stats in uniques and runewords. Being able to add specific qualities to your equipment via gems is a fun idea, I would just like to see it be a bit more practical in D3. I guess adding a several more levels of quality may achieve this goal, but there needs to be some limit that reflects the limitations on non-equipment character growth.
As a side note, making the max level something unachievably high like 1,000 or something would be fine by me if there were some optional boss and non-boss monsters to still resist being one hit killed by such a character. But I assume most would prefer to keep the standard lvl 99 cap.
I am 100% against this idea. It adds nothing to the game, nothing to the economy, and doesn't even have a real purpose. Its totally pointless. Not saying this to be rude - its not like I wouldn't like to make some ever-better gems.
And there is also quite a few examples based on D2's systems, which is just weird. Life Leech is not making it in the game, Blizzard said (well, they didn't say its impossible, but it probably won't).
Also, duping. Duping will not be in this game. There are already online games without any form of duping, yet people assume since Diablo 2 had duping (a 9 years old game) had it, so D3 might have it!! SO WATCH OUT!!
..seriously? There won't be duping. And if there is it won't be at any level we have seen in D2. So people REALLY NEED to STOP thinking about "what effect duping could possibly have over X features".
It was just a exemple and the life leach is a meanless part of it. Take out life leech and put + damage and the argument remains.
And noone can say it will not have dupes. The chances can be low, but it's not impossible. And theres other forms of explointing it. We can all expect millions of chinese farmers selling stuff in the net. So nothing stops me of buying a zillion of those gems with dolars and creat some insane item that is just impossible to be created by playing the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
chipped -> flawed -> normal -> flawless -> perfect
and assuming only the weakest gems were found, upgrading them to ever higher levels took exponentially more of those weak chipped gems.
Flawless were the best that could be found from a drop, so if you were in need of the perfect gem, you were forced to upgrade your 3 flawless.
How about having the same system to upgrade gems (3 of the weaker type merges to 1 being a level stronger) but have it continue indefinitely? There would be no limit to the highest level gem, no definite perfect but instead levels of perfection.
Again, the best gem strength to be dropped would be a flawless (or correspondingly in D3) so increasing gem perfection wouldn't grow out of control, the highest levels would be hindered by the amount of flawless that drop.
This could possibly create another set of goals for players to strive for. Getting the highest level gem for e.g.
However, gems are of course ultimately used to be socketed. Would implementing this system cause players to stop socketing altogether because they would hold onto their best gems to wait till they can upgrade it further? After all, you wouldn't want to socket the best unique sword or w/e with a gem that hasn't been levelled to its feasible maximum.
But just remember, there will be economic limits on how far you would go about levelling these gems. While it takes 3x of each gem to get it higher again, the benefits the new gem actually brings wouldn't be 3x better, so there will be some point where it just won't be worth the cost (except for those collectors that only work on increasing their gems' levels).
What do you think?
- Unlimited stuff are simply imossible to balance. For exemple, a skull that give to much lifesteal and mana steal could make one certain build unbeatable.
- Imagine it with a duping. In D2 the duppers limit are a runeword. With a system like that they will simply have no limit, they would be able to creat a gem with +10.000.000 HP.
Add a large variety of gems and make some very difficult to find do the same effect of your suggestion but don't have those 2 terrible risks.
Sry =/ didn't like it.
One thing that has just come to my mind is: be able to mix 2 different gems of the same level:
-Chipped amethyst+Chipped topaz=Chipped more rare gem with mixed stats.
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
I don't know about the programmers, but I know I wouldn't be making the game with the idea that there will be dupes to exploit it. But I can see your point. The soj's just went out of control and screwed the economy over pretty badly. The effect of duping with these gems would just be outright ridiculous and the economy would be completely screwed.
No sorry, adding a large variety of gems to avoid duping isn't such a great idea. The concept of the gems automatically becomes like the runes (except for the levelling aspect of course). It would be better if they concentrate on fixing the bugs in the game to keep dupes out altogether and keep the number of gems to a minimum - no more than in D2.
Also, don't think of this as a limitless concept, because even though it might seem like it, it really isn't.
Lets say for e.g. a gem makes it to level 10 and this took a week to level. The gem is a skull and the lowest level has stats +1 life and mana steal, with each level up increasing its stats by +1. Now, your level 10 skull has +10 life and mana steal. Are you willing to spend another 2 weeks of gathering this gem (assuming the same drops) to increase the gem to level 11 which will add +1 more? Whatever the answer is, its pretty obvious there will be some point where it just isn't worth it anymore. Thus, not limitless.
A little longer at first, but then the next will be (a little longer) x 3
But usually each socketable item will have more than 1 slot which allows for mixed stats of each gem you insert.
What I ment was a better gem rarer with mixed stats that only uses one slot so you can use the other for other gems normal or as rare as the one you made.
"Eternal suffering would be too brief for you, Diablo!"
And you're forgetting one important aspect, and that's trading. Sure, it may take one player a week to get that gem, but when you have a few million players, you can very quickly get gems that spiral out of control.
Example: Everyone will be collecting these gems, because they can upgrade them indefinately, so there's no loss in keeping them. Sooner or later the gem is going to be so kick-ass that someone will want it.
Ergo, everyone will stock up. However you may play a wizard, and perhaps don't need all those srength-boosting amethysts (or whatever we're getting). Thus you trade them away to all barbarians you meet, while they give you gems they don't need. Pretty soon you'll have way too powerful gems. Or you make them useless without trade, which runs the risk of them depreciating in value, meaning no one collects them, meaning the hassle of getting one will be too large for the potential reward.
Perhaps not as simple as this, but combining your gems in different forms could work out. Or alternatively you could add more socketables, it's all just a matter or how many different kinds of items you acn insert into your equipment. Whether that comes from merged gems, runes, regular gems, jewels or whatever means close to nothing, it's just different names for the same function.
And there is also quite a few examples based on D2's systems, which is just weird. Life Leech is not making it in the game, Blizzard said (well, they didn't say its impossible, but it probably won't).
Also, duping. Duping will not be in this game. There are already online games without any form of duping, yet people assume since Diablo 2 had duping (a 9 years old game) had it, so D3 might have it!! SO WATCH OUT!!
..seriously? There won't be duping. And if there is it won't be at any level we have seen in D2. So people REALLY NEED to STOP thinking about "what effect duping could possibly have over X features".
However, I would like to see gems be better than they were in much of Diablo 2's life span. Even perfect gems were pretty useless in equipment in nightmare considering you could get much better stats in uniques and runewords. Being able to add specific qualities to your equipment via gems is a fun idea, I would just like to see it be a bit more practical in D3. I guess adding a several more levels of quality may achieve this goal, but there needs to be some limit that reflects the limitations on non-equipment character growth.
As a side note, making the max level something unachievably high like 1,000 or something would be fine by me if there were some optional boss and non-boss monsters to still resist being one hit killed by such a character. But I assume most would prefer to keep the standard lvl 99 cap.
Signature and avatar courtesy of Indestructible.
If the cap is 99, I will hate Blizzard forever.
100 please, thank you.
It was just a exemple and the life leach is a meanless part of it. Take out life leech and put + damage and the argument remains.
And noone can say it will not have dupes. The chances can be low, but it's not impossible. And theres other forms of explointing it. We can all expect millions of chinese farmers selling stuff in the net. So nothing stops me of buying a zillion of those gems with dolars and creat some insane item that is just impossible to be created by playing the game.