Since day 1 that D3 vanilla launched, sockets have been a problem. A luxury. A mandatory presence in gearing for every slot in which a socket is available.
For nearly 2 years we wanted a way to add sockets. Now we have that ability. Awesome. Right?
Let's examine the socket. What it is. What it does and how it affects character building in a critical manner.
Critical Hit Damage is still too strong and predominant. Mandatory on weapons in most cases. This means that 1 of your very limited primary affixes MUST be a socket on your weapon.
Why is a socket an affix? Well, you can customize it with a variety of affixes garnered from gems, "adding" an affix to an item. The word "adding" is often used here, and the whole premise of sockets is sold to us via the impression that we're "adding" an affix. We are not adding an affix, however. When we socket an item, we're removing an affix and replacing it with another.
Addition through subtraction, we're getting too much of this for the sake of balance. Balance is necessary, but we're constricting itemization terribly, suffocating it by making yet another affix mandatory. We have enough of that already.
I submit that the developers are using sockets incorrectly. That sockets should NOT be an affix.Sockets should be exclusive to affixes, making it so that when we do add a socket we're actually adding an affix as opposed to replacing one, as we are now.
I cannot see a solution beyond the one I'm proposing that would actually make sockets not problematic yet mandatory, aside from jst removing them altogether. My solution doesn't relieve the socket of it's typical "mandatory" impression. However, my suggestion does make sockets non-problematic. Nothing need be taken away, eliminating addition through subtraction in this case.
Another possibility would be reckoning the socket affix as secondary.
Sockets in weapons are completely imbalanced because no other roll competes with +135% CHD. I really expected them to, at the very least, nerf emeralds in weapons, but they didn't and that was a mistake.
The availability of three sockets in chests is also problematic because that represents something like 840 in primary stats, well more than the item could roll on its own. Whereas with rings/amulets, sockets are almost always a BAD roll because one socket is worth less than a primary stat roll.
So long a socket (or multiple sockets) are mathematically-better than the alternatives, then you have a problem. As it stands I pray for sockets in weapons, legs, and chests and I hope never to see them on rings/amulets.
I agree with Jay that if we could just add a socket to an item that it would feel like nothing more than a "mandatory" step in item progression, but frankly I see that as less of an evil than sockets either being outright mandatory or outright useless. At least if sockets were an ADDITION (instead of a primary stat SUBSTITUTION) I might feel more inclined not to throw primary stat in every socket out there. When a socket takes a primary stat you feel almost forced (outside of HC) to turn it directly into damage. If it were a bonus we might be a bit more able to use them for actual customization. Maybe not. It can't be any worse than it is now though.
Bonus or substitution you will make the same decision either way. Personally, I use them for AR at the moment, because you get a better return on investment (1 ar for 2 primary instead of the 1 ar for 4 primary trade that you typically would make on gear... though of course at the end you hope to make neither trade).
As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.
Bonus or substitution you will make the same decision either way. Personally, I use them for AR at the moment, because you get a better return on investment (1 ar for 2 primary instead of the 1 ar for 4 primary trade that you typically would make on gear... though of course at the end you hope to make neither trade).
As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.
As said in the OP; This is addition through subtraction. You have to subtract a potentially powerful primary affix in order to add an affix, nevermind the design flaws which create tendencies for "mandatory" gemming (weapons most often).
D3 devs took much from D2 and planted it in D3, as much flak as they receive for the things they didn't port. One of those things they took from D2 was the ideology of the socket. However, they implemented it differently than it was in D2, causing nothing but shit ever since.
In D2, when you added a socket, well.....you added a socket hence you added an affix. Your build gained power without loss.
In D3, you lose either way. Whether the item spawns with a socket or you have to add one, your build loses strength from one area in order to add to another. Which is fine in many other respects, this creates balance and tough decisions. However, in the case of the socket, the dynamic they have in place isn't working.
A socket should be considered an item component, not an imbued affix. When it was this way, the socket was revered and seen as nothing but a good thing. There was no feeling of compromise with the socket in it's previous iteration. Now it feels like a burden as well as a blessing.
So, I agree with you ruk, but what's the solution? I'm not sure I understand what your implementation would look like. Regardless of whether or not sockets are counted as an affix, they will still be mandatory. The result is just a huge buff. I don't like that weapons *must* have a socket to even be considered, but the only solution I see is to tone down emeralds. Of course, that just means a nerf for everyone, which I'm not a huge fan of either.
So, I agree with you ruk, but what's the solution? I'm not sure I understand what your implementation would look like. Regardless of whether or not sockets are counted as an affix, they will still be mandatory. The result is just a huge buff. I don't like that weapons *must* have a socket to even be considered, but the only solution I see is to tone down emeralds. Of course, that just means a nerf for everyone, which I'm not a huge fan of either.
I feel the other issues affecting the actual socket's use can and will be tweaked out. CHD breakpoints/caps etc
The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.
Either make it a socket that adds an affix (as the socket functioned in D2) or make it a secondary affix so that it does not present such limitations.
I don't have a problem with the sockets on all items but weapons.
A socket in that slot is so retardedly overpowered that it feels mandatory. A weapon without a socket is almost all times just useless.
For me, a solution for that would just remove sockets from weapons.
Why are you only looking at sockets that way? Why not look at primary stat the same way? "Man, for chest armor to be good it *has* to have str/dex/int. Those should be secondary stats so they don't feel like trade-offs." Or, "Man, for bracers to be good they *have* to have elemental skill damage. It's so much stronger than anything else. That should really be a secondary stat."
I made this argument the day the 2.0 patch hit live and I saw a helm could only have 3 primary stats with a single socket. Yea, that socket can add a lot... but it looks so plain.
Personally, I dislike the 4/2 system as well. Would be kind of nice if we could reroll a secondary stat into a primary stat or some other system.
Why are you only looking at sockets that way? Why not look at primary stat the same way?
Sockets ARE primary stats, that is what I see as the problem. This takes away from the power they should have. This is why, as Shaggy mentioned, you pray not to get one on jewelry and you pray to get them on weapons, helmets, chests and pants. Good news! You can add one now if you wish! But wait, you have to take something away from that item in order to do it.
You want main on everything you can jam it in. That's the difference. Sockets should be pure addition for them to work properly.
The issue with weapons is tricky. Most likely, you're gonna stick the biggest Emerald you can find in it. You'd rather add LoH, but you can't sacrifice that much damage, the game has you by the short and curlys. What if, instead of having to replace the sweet 1k Loh that your weapon rolled with to give it a soc that it must have, you get to keep the LoH Primary and also add the soc?
Now the drain that stacking CHD puts on us doesn't feel such a burden.
The status of a socket as a primary is flawed. no coincidence that this mechanic went off flawlessly in D2 when it wasn't tied to affixes like that.
I've got to agree that "adding" a socket felt WAY more awesome when it was just a straight up addition. Sure you paid a price but it was icing on the cake. Now it's "do I want chocolate or vanilla cake" because you can't have both.
There is not enough "THIS" in the world to summarize my agreement that weapons without sockets are useless - it is this ONE area where I think they should make a solid exception to the give and take of affix substitution:
Make it expensive, hell make it 20 FS's +20 million gold, 1 flawless royal gem of each color - I'd have to work a loooong time but at least at the end of the day I'd know that the addition without loss was worth it.
I think I remember their reason for removing the Add Socket option from the artisans being that it, like the original Mystic Enchanting, didn't make for compelling gameplay, since every time you found an upgrade you would feel like you had to go enchant it and add sockets....which is pretty much what we do now anyway, innit? (Unless you somehow lucker into a perfectly rolled legendary)
Any time something is the best, it feels mandatory. Sure, you pray not to have a socket on a ring or amulet, but you also pray not to have the wrong elemental skill or resource cost reduction (probably). For some builds, CDR or IAS.
Here's the problem, as I see it. I didn't play D2, so I don't have a problem with sockets being a trade-off. I see them as any other affix. You did play D2, so you are used to them being a pure bonus, and anything less than that makes them seem problematic. If they are mandatory now, though, as soon as they don't replace an affix they will be even more mandatory. If they can be added to gear without any trade-off, they might as well be removed. So if your goal is adding gearing options, what you really want is sockets/gems to be nerfed.
The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.
I think it's fine as a primary affix if it is able to compete fairly with other primary affixes. Currently, as shaggy said above, emeralds completely blow everything else out of the water. That's what needs to change.
If you just add a mechanism for adding a socket, you may as well just bake 135% CD into the characters' baseline because that's all anyone is going to do.
The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.
I think it's fine as a primary affix if it is able to compete fairly with other primary affixes. Currently, as shaggy said above, emeralds completely blow everything else out of the water. That's what needs to change.
If you just add a mechanism for adding a socket, you may as well just bake 135% CD into the characters' baseline because that's all anyone is going to do.
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.
was thinking about this the other day, why not just have every piece of gear ALWAYS roll the max amount of sockets. 3 chest, 2 pants 1 rings amulet head MH and OH (2handers 2 sockets). problem solved about mostly worthless gear cuz of no sockets. u still have all the nonsense other stats to worry about to get that perfect roll, just removing the almost mandatory socket or lack of sockets from the equation seems like a win.
The problem is Critical Hit Damage gem, I would replace that effect from the gem and maybe even just change the option to socket on all equipment be tied to the Mystic or to the Jeweler maybe even all three artisans have to work on the item to add the socket.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Strike and supporting Fallout 4 Mod Makers
Some fallout 4 mod makers have had their mods stolen and uploaded and downloaded on Bethesda's site for the Xbox One.
I think the issue of sockets could be simply resolved with a cap to CHD - as they were discussing during development.
If you hit max or close to it from other gear, than you are less inclined to roll out a primary affix on a weapon for a socket. The extra LoH or thorns damage would be nice, but not as attractive as primary stat/vit/weapon dmg bonus, etc.
Or if you do decide to do that, it isn't a feeling that revolves around the word mandatory - its more a play style choice.
And Ruksak is right; sockets shouldn't be considered a primary affix.
For nearly 2 years we wanted a way to add sockets. Now we have that ability. Awesome. Right?
Let's examine the socket. What it is. What it does and how it affects character building in a critical manner.
Critical Hit Damage is still too strong and predominant. Mandatory on weapons in most cases. This means that 1 of your very limited primary affixes MUST be a socket on your weapon.
Why is a socket an affix? Well, you can customize it with a variety of affixes garnered from gems, "adding" an affix to an item. The word "adding" is often used here, and the whole premise of sockets is sold to us via the impression that we're "adding" an affix. We are not adding an affix, however. When we socket an item, we're removing an affix and replacing it with another.
Addition through subtraction, we're getting too much of this for the sake of balance. Balance is necessary, but we're constricting itemization terribly, suffocating it by making yet another affix mandatory. We have enough of that already.
I submit that the developers are using sockets incorrectly. That sockets should NOT be an affix.Sockets should be exclusive to affixes, making it so that when we do add a socket we're actually adding an affix as opposed to replacing one, as we are now.
I cannot see a solution beyond the one I'm proposing that would actually make sockets not problematic yet mandatory, aside from jst removing them altogether. My solution doesn't relieve the socket of it's typical "mandatory" impression. However, my suggestion does make sockets non-problematic. Nothing need be taken away, eliminating addition through subtraction in this case.
Another possibility would be reckoning the socket affix as secondary.
Thoughts?
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
The availability of three sockets in chests is also problematic because that represents something like 840 in primary stats, well more than the item could roll on its own. Whereas with rings/amulets, sockets are almost always a BAD roll because one socket is worth less than a primary stat roll.
So long a socket (or multiple sockets) are mathematically-better than the alternatives, then you have a problem. As it stands I pray for sockets in weapons, legs, and chests and I hope never to see them on rings/amulets.
I agree with Jay that if we could just add a socket to an item that it would feel like nothing more than a "mandatory" step in item progression, but frankly I see that as less of an evil than sockets either being outright mandatory or outright useless. At least if sockets were an ADDITION (instead of a primary stat SUBSTITUTION) I might feel more inclined not to throw primary stat in every socket out there. When a socket takes a primary stat you feel almost forced (outside of HC) to turn it directly into damage. If it were a bonus we might be a bit more able to use them for actual customization. Maybe not. It can't be any worse than it is now though.
As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.
D3 devs took much from D2 and planted it in D3, as much flak as they receive for the things they didn't port. One of those things they took from D2 was the ideology of the socket. However, they implemented it differently than it was in D2, causing nothing but shit ever since.
In D2, when you added a socket, well.....you added a socket hence you added an affix. Your build gained power without loss.
In D3, you lose either way. Whether the item spawns with a socket or you have to add one, your build loses strength from one area in order to add to another. Which is fine in many other respects, this creates balance and tough decisions. However, in the case of the socket, the dynamic they have in place isn't working.
A socket should be considered an item component, not an imbued affix. When it was this way, the socket was revered and seen as nothing but a good thing. There was no feeling of compromise with the socket in it's previous iteration. Now it feels like a burden as well as a blessing.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.
Either make it a socket that adds an affix (as the socket functioned in D2) or make it a secondary affix so that it does not present such limitations.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
A socket in that slot is so retardedly overpowered that it feels mandatory. A weapon without a socket is almost all times just useless.
For me, a solution for that would just remove sockets from weapons.
Personally, I dislike the 4/2 system as well. Would be kind of nice if we could reroll a secondary stat into a primary stat or some other system.
You want main on everything you can jam it in. That's the difference. Sockets should be pure addition for them to work properly.
The issue with weapons is tricky. Most likely, you're gonna stick the biggest Emerald you can find in it. You'd rather add LoH, but you can't sacrifice that much damage, the game has you by the short and curlys. What if, instead of having to replace the sweet 1k Loh that your weapon rolled with to give it a soc that it must have, you get to keep the LoH Primary and also add the soc?
Now the drain that stacking CHD puts on us doesn't feel such a burden.
The status of a socket as a primary is flawed. no coincidence that this mechanic went off flawlessly in D2 when it wasn't tied to affixes like that.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
There is not enough "THIS" in the world to summarize my agreement that weapons without sockets are useless - it is this ONE area where I think they should make a solid exception to the give and take of affix substitution:
Make it expensive, hell make it 20 FS's +20 million gold, 1 flawless royal gem of each color - I'd have to work a loooong time but at least at the end of the day I'd know that the addition without loss was worth it.
Here's the problem, as I see it. I didn't play D2, so I don't have a problem with sockets being a trade-off. I see them as any other affix. You did play D2, so you are used to them being a pure bonus, and anything less than that makes them seem problematic. If they are mandatory now, though, as soon as they don't replace an affix they will be even more mandatory. If they can be added to gear without any trade-off, they might as well be removed. So if your goal is adding gearing options, what you really want is sockets/gems to be nerfed.
I think it's fine as a primary affix if it is able to compete fairly with other primary affixes. Currently, as shaggy said above, emeralds completely blow everything else out of the water. That's what needs to change.
If you just add a mechanism for adding a socket, you may as well just bake 135% CD into the characters' baseline because that's all anyone is going to do.
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.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
They could, just add sockets as an "bonus" that can roll, which doesn't replace an affix, can't be rerolled, just an idea.
If you hit max or close to it from other gear, than you are less inclined to roll out a primary affix on a weapon for a socket. The extra LoH or thorns damage would be nice, but not as attractive as primary stat/vit/weapon dmg bonus, etc.
Or if you do decide to do that, it isn't a feeling that revolves around the word mandatory - its more a play style choice.
And Ruksak is right; sockets shouldn't be considered a primary affix.
Monkalicious: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/OptimusPrime-12194/hero/79139477