I could have sworn that Blizzard said the main reason they were looking into Leg Gems was because Emeralds were the only viable choice for weapons. So whats the deal with having the Leg Gems only work in rings and ammys? Did they totally forget what their original goal was?
I severely dislike that rings/amulets are the only sockets you can use a legendary gem in - it's basicly just going to change a perfect neck from ele dmg/crit/critdmg/mainstat, to 3 of the aforementioned plus a socket instead of whatever of the stats benefit you the least. Same for rings (and with ones like SoJ being basicly BiS for everything, it only gets one "random" affix to start with you can play with).
Not sure what the alternative would be (a legendary viable extra-slot on each ring/neck, that can't be used for anything else, making legendary gems basicly another gear-step?). But still, that's the reality - bloating item slots that already has extremely generous affixex available doesn't make anything more enjoyable.
Key word LIMITING. They don't want everyone with 8 legendary gems on their characters, obviously. Probably goes to balance, which developers are suppsoed to try to achieve.
So yes, I guess you might see it that way.
I see complaining about something not even received yet that is still unknown at this point in time.
Its a new feature, which is cool. These games need constant content updates to stay fresh. Not first addressing aspects of the game that suck, such has emeralds being the only choice for weapon sockets, or sockets being mandatory on any decent weapon, not cool.
Stop crying this is fine. Right now NO ONE uses socket in ring or amulet you want the crit and AS rolls and that is it. Now there will be another choice to make and that is good as this game hand holds you and is to easy as it is.
Regardless of what will they be, I see the limiting Legendary Gems to jewelry as a massive loss of potential.
If they allowed legendary gems in every item then that would, almost certainly, completely invalidate every other existing gem available. And even if they did revamp "normal gems" there's no way they'd be competitive since the implication is that legendary gems are going to be powerful.
Stop crying this is fine. Right now NO ONE uses socket in ring or amulet you want the crit and AS rolls and that is it. Now there will be another choice to make and that is good as this game hand holds you and is to easy as it is.
No one uses a chest without 3 sockets either because it's the strongest stat you can get on it (840 main stat).
No one uses a weapon without a socket either. Heck, no one uses bracers without CC, ele dmg, dex and vit. And no one in their right mind would use gloves without Crit dmg + Crit chance.
The entire point also flew completly over your head:
Making sockets mandatory on necklases/rings is no different from making crit mandatory on bracers, or sockets mandatory on legs/chests. If you think otherwise, you're foolish. All it'll do is sacrifice stats (50% crit dmg or 6% crit chance in most cases on rings) for a socket with a legendary gem. It'd be the same if you added a legendary slot on the shoulder - it would substitute the lowest of the four stats your build/class chooses, and then become mandatory.
My point however, was that rings/necklases actually have some pretty entertaining stats to choose from. Forcing us to give one affix up to get a legendary gem is BS. No matter what, you'll end up with four mandatory stats on every piece of gear, but I'd much rather have the choise between sacrifising toughness for legendary gems, than DPS for legendary gems.
My PERSONAL beef with legendary gems fitting into only jewelry is... I totally suggested that like a year ago in one of my threads! Zomg gettin ripped off here QQ
Also, the should call them jewels instead of legendary gems. Jewels --> Jewelry.. get it?!
I do agree that taking the 2 most diverse item slots amulets and rings and making em have a "mandatory" Affix is just wrong. (sure some say CHD% and CC% is mandatory also but that's just because CHD% is broken. not because they are needed )
Instead i would like to see the gems in Weapons and Off-hands instead.
So what they should do is to have all Legendary Weapons, Shields, Off-hands always roll with a socket.
Have the legendary gems socketable in Weapons, Shields, And OHs will give 1-2 Legendary gems per character.
However: the gems should come in 4 flavors. 1H, 2H , 2H/1h and OH (shield, mojo, source, quiver )
Off-Hand Gems, will be focused on Defense and Support.
1H: Focus on 1H effects that aint to powerfull if Dual Wielding.
2H: Powerfull gems That will make 2H more viable for more classes but the down side is that you will loose your Defensive / support gem from OH
1H / 2H: Gems that Fits in booth a 1H weapon and a 2H weapon. But not so powerfull it will break the game if Dual Wielded.
Now the exsiting Gems for weapons can stay intact as a stepping stone.
Sorry for my mindless ramblings....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
I see no reason why the current gems shouldn't be removed completely because lets face it... they give no depth into the socketing mechanism.
99% of weapons have green gems inside. Helms have either cdr or %life and pants/chest have main stat gems.
Because legendary gems give you great power with a sacrifice. You can no longer have a "perfect" ring or amulet. You have to sacrifice something.
Legendary gems wouldn't work in chests, or legs, in particular, where Sockets (3) or Sockets (2) are already better than everything else. It's a pretty obvious concept. Amulets and rings have a higher opportunity cost on their sockets, therefore you can put more powerful things in them. More risk more reward.
Imagine if they releases a legendary gem like the ones that were suggested here (Removal of crit). Emerald ain't going to be the top weapon gem any more. Least not for that build.
I see no reason why the current gems shouldn't be removed completely because lets face it... they give no depth into the socketing mechanism.
99% of weapons have green gems inside. Helms have either cdr or %life and pants/chest have main stat gems.
Because legendary gems give you great power with a sacrifice. You can no longer have a "perfect" ring or amulet. You have to sacrifice something.
Legendary gems wouldn't work in chests, or legs, in particular, where Sockets (3) or Sockets (2) are already better than everything else. It's a pretty obvious concept. Amulets and rings have a higher opportunity cost on their sockets, therefore you can put more powerful things in them. More risk more reward.
Here's the issue with your logic -
You're assuming the gems as a bonus to how powerfull we currently are. After just a few weeks, that won't be the case - the gems will instead be the "norm". Consider a piece where it has already happened once - Necklases.
In Vanilla, a neck with trifecter+main stat was considered the ultimate neckpiece. They added a stronger affix (elemental damage), and suddenly? No one gives a shit about the weakest of the three trifecter stats (attack speed). It doesn't make it a "higher risk, higher reward"-kind of thing. It just shifts what the best stat on the item becomes. In the future, instead of scoffing at necks with IAS, we will scoff at necks that has a main stat (sadly, Main stat will become the weakest of the four current affixes - 10% crit, 100% crit dmg and 20% pure dmg is simply too powerfull to keep up with), and keep searching for one with socket/Crit/critdmg/ele dmg.
There is no "risk vs reward" in this form of gameplay - there is simply a change in what the best item combination will be. Risk indicates that you would be sacrifising something (which you won't if the stat you sacrifise is weaker than the one you gain).
As mentioned by me and others, putting things that will be mandatory on rings/necks, when they already have a wide and strong range of affixes, just takes the piss. Take a look at boots or shoulders, those are pitiful as-is.
Quote fromChristonya
Imagine if they releases a legendary gem like the ones that were suggested here (Removal of crit). Emerald ain't going to be the top weapon gem any more. Least not for that build.
Sadly it wouldn't be an even remotely viable build unless the dmg of it was buffed significantly (if I remember correct, the gem suggested was 100% more dmg for zero crit/CHD? If so, considering most high end chars hoover around 500% crit dmg and 60% crit, even if it gave you 200% more dmg crit would be ahead. Not like you can gain anything but survivability affixes instead of crit/Critdmg on the "important" slots).
There is an inherent difference, currently, between Socket (3) in the chest and Socket (1) in jewelery. Namely that (most) chests (and legs) have very little to compete, at all, with that offensively. So you just ram your 280 x3 gems in there and that's that.
Even if a socket becomes "BiS" in an amulet, or ring, you are still sacrificing something much more meaningful than you EVER will sacrifice on a chest or leg slot. You have to pick to sacrifice 15% elemental damage, 10% crit chance, or 100% CHD. Whereas on a chest, what do you sacrifice? 100 resist all? It's not even close to a comparison and that's why Socket (3) is already mandatory on chests.
If you just let people ram 3 legendary gems in their chests then that almost defeats the purpose of legendary gems. Unless we suddenly have 8+ mandatory legendary gems then no one will use them in jewelery anyway because we are all already running around with 6 armor and 1 weapon socket as it stands. So, instead of actually customizing our gear, the thought process would be "legendary gem > regular gem... unsocket regular gem, insert legendary gem... ooh look at my new Cindercoat, amazing... AMAZINGLY BORING."
The point of legendary gems is clearly to make sockets on jewelery enticing (if not mandatory, I suppose) and to provide some reason to partially break up CHC, CHD, elemental damage on every slot. If we could just stick legendary gems in our chests, legs, helms, and weapons, that wouldn't really help out jewelery and it wouldn't create any sort of compelling choice since legendary gems, by design, are going to be far better, and possibly even build-enabling as compared with 280 int.
I still see no problem, you all see Legendary gems as dmg and ability boosts
No, I don't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
What I *see* is each socket requiring another stat be left off the item. Let's use a stat that can roll on all armor: resist all.
THREE chest sockets comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
TWO leg sockets comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
ONE amulet socket comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
So, regardless of what the bonuses are, if the legendary gems were available for every slot, players would simply fill up the existing sockets with them and only ever use jewelery sockets if they run out because they can get triple the mileage out of a chest socket roll than they can out of an amulet socket roll. You haven't created an incentive to use jewelery sockets, you've created the exact same situation we have now, just with bigger, more badass, bonuses.
Whereas if they're limited to jewelery, people actually have to choose. They have to choose which stat (usually primary, crit chance, crit damage, or elemental damage... all of which are much more "valuable" than 100 resist all) to leave off their jewelery to obtain a socket. They have to choose which three legendary gems they will use since there will surely be more than three. Hell, they have to choose if the bonus is worth losing the better stats available on an amulet/ring as compared to a chest/leg.
Making choices > "I'LL JUST THROW 12 LEGENDARY GEMS IN ALL MY SOCKETS HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN!"
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").
Shaggy I have to disagree with you here, I think limiting them to Rings and Ammy's is a horrible Idea. Draco is right, These "legendary gems" Are most likely going to be damage and ability boosters, cause' we all know that is all the d3 dev team seems to care about... that means that it won't be a choice anymore, you're going to let one of those standard amy, or ring affixes go. IT doesn't matter which you'll have to decide which is better for you to let go but one of them will go. You won't care for all of them anymore. You'd only concern yourself with a socket + whatever else you want. I think it's the wrong move on Blizzard's part, they seriously missed an opportunity to create some serious endgame content with this addition.
Legendary gems first and foremost should only be usable on a legendary item. Honestly it makes no sense to use a legendary amulet anymore, just get the 6 affix rare and craft the shit out of it till you get the perfect rolls. Rings are slightly different, because almost everyone needs specific legendary rings, RoRG/ Soj / TMF and such. Second they should be specific to legendary items, i.e vy'rs stone only usable in vyr's items, innas stone only usable in inna's items stuff like that. On top of all of this they should not in anyway increase your damage output by any percentage or number by any means AT ALL! God damn it. Why does everything have to be gives 50% more damage, or gives 50% more crit damage. Fuck it CHANGE THE MECHANICS! that gives CHOICE, damage boosters DO NOT GIVE CHOICE, THEY JUST PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NEW BEST WAY! at least with mechanic changers you can opt in or out without a shred of damage being taken away or given to you. It would actually make you think about which style you want to play.
Something like this -> "Affix: Spectral blades is now cast 30 yards further away from you." is better than something like this -> "Affix: 30% increased damage against elites." the first one actually makes spectral blades useful in long range builds, and could possibly make you switch from something like magic missile, or charged bolt or electrocute to spectral blades, or maybe it changes the the rune of spectral blades you're using from thrown blades to siphoning blades, or maybe it doesn't appeal to you because you don't like being ranged, or you'd rather stick with magic missile over that spectral blades. It took me roughly 30 seconds to think of something as simple as this that can provide a lot more freedom of choice and expression of your character than the D3 dev team will probably come up with in the countless hours they spent making their legendary gems idea come to fruition. It honestly saddens me too, because this was such a wasted opportunity. They could've had legendary gems droppable from ubers too to give them some meaning, and they could've made it a quest to find these cool valuable items that may or may not influence the way you play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I severely dislike that rings/amulets are the only sockets you can use a legendary gem in - it's basicly just going to change a perfect neck from ele dmg/crit/critdmg/mainstat, to 3 of the aforementioned plus a socket instead of whatever of the stats benefit you the least. Same for rings (and with ones like SoJ being basicly BiS for everything, it only gets one "random" affix to start with you can play with).
One would hope the point of this change is to move away from trifecta rings/amulets by adding one more desirable affix. Unless legendary gems are massively overpowered, this could work. For that matter, a trifecta ring with socket might become more appealing than a SoJ (hello main stat/cc/chd/socket ring).
People can't help but complain about nice new things.
I agree with the design philosophy of keeping them limited to jewelry. It makes sense. Seems some people just can't give anything up unless it's negligible (like a chest socket)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Perhaps the new gems will lessen the need for emeralds in weapons?
WD Season 8 https://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/Kildare/84509816
Monk season 7 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/MojoJoJo/42225505
DH season 6 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/DeadShot/75655606
Angry Chicken http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/WhoDoVooDoo/68187610
What? Me worry?
Not sure what the alternative would be (a legendary viable extra-slot on each ring/neck, that can't be used for anything else, making legendary gems basicly another gear-step?). But still, that's the reality - bloating item slots that already has extremely generous affixex available doesn't make anything more enjoyable.
WD Season 8 https://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/Kildare/84509816
Monk season 7 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/MojoJoJo/42225505
DH season 6 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/DeadShot/75655606
Angry Chicken http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/WhoDoVooDoo/68187610
What? Me worry?
So yes, I guess you might see it that way.
I see complaining about something not even received yet that is still unknown at this point in time.
WD Season 8 https://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/Kildare/84509816
Monk season 7 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/MojoJoJo/42225505
DH season 6 http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/DeadShot/75655606
Angry Chicken http://www.diabloprogress.com/hero/finiar-1655/WhoDoVooDoo/68187610
What? Me worry?
No one uses a weapon without a socket either. Heck, no one uses bracers without CC, ele dmg, dex and vit. And no one in their right mind would use gloves without Crit dmg + Crit chance.
The entire point also flew completly over your head:
Making sockets mandatory on necklases/rings is no different from making crit mandatory on bracers, or sockets mandatory on legs/chests. If you think otherwise, you're foolish. All it'll do is sacrifice stats (50% crit dmg or 6% crit chance in most cases on rings) for a socket with a legendary gem. It'd be the same if you added a legendary slot on the shoulder - it would substitute the lowest of the four stats your build/class chooses, and then become mandatory.
My point however, was that rings/necklases actually have some pretty entertaining stats to choose from. Forcing us to give one affix up to get a legendary gem is BS. No matter what, you'll end up with four mandatory stats on every piece of gear, but I'd much rather have the choise between sacrifising toughness for legendary gems, than DPS for legendary gems.
Also, the should call them jewels instead of legendary gems. Jewels --> Jewelry.. get it?!
Instead i would like to see the gems in Weapons and Off-hands instead.
So what they should do is to have all Legendary Weapons, Shields, Off-hands always roll with a socket.
Have the legendary gems socketable in Weapons, Shields, And OHs will give 1-2 Legendary gems per character.
However: the gems should come in 4 flavors. 1H, 2H , 2H/1h and OH (shield, mojo, source, quiver )
Off-Hand Gems, will be focused on Defense and Support.
1H: Focus on 1H effects that aint to powerfull if Dual Wielding.
2H: Powerfull gems That will make 2H more viable for more classes but the down side is that you will loose your Defensive / support gem from OH
1H / 2H: Gems that Fits in booth a 1H weapon and a 2H weapon. But not so powerfull it will break the game if Dual Wielded.
Now the exsiting Gems for weapons can stay intact as a stepping stone.
Sorry for my mindless ramblings....
EU Season Achievement Ladder: Season 1 : #773, 7150/7880 | S2 : #742, 5970/8280 | S3 : #1000+, 810/980 | S4 #? 0/? |
Legendary gems wouldn't work in chests, or legs, in particular, where Sockets (3) or Sockets (2) are already better than everything else. It's a pretty obvious concept. Amulets and rings have a higher opportunity cost on their sockets, therefore you can put more powerful things in them. More risk more reward.
You're assuming the gems as a bonus to how powerfull we currently are. After just a few weeks, that won't be the case - the gems will instead be the "norm". Consider a piece where it has already happened once - Necklases.
In Vanilla, a neck with trifecter+main stat was considered the ultimate neckpiece. They added a stronger affix (elemental damage), and suddenly? No one gives a shit about the weakest of the three trifecter stats (attack speed). It doesn't make it a "higher risk, higher reward"-kind of thing. It just shifts what the best stat on the item becomes. In the future, instead of scoffing at necks with IAS, we will scoff at necks that has a main stat (sadly, Main stat will become the weakest of the four current affixes - 10% crit, 100% crit dmg and 20% pure dmg is simply too powerfull to keep up with), and keep searching for one with socket/Crit/critdmg/ele dmg.
There is no "risk vs reward" in this form of gameplay - there is simply a change in what the best item combination will be. Risk indicates that you would be sacrifising something (which you won't if the stat you sacrifise is weaker than the one you gain).
As mentioned by me and others, putting things that will be mandatory on rings/necks, when they already have a wide and strong range of affixes, just takes the piss. Take a look at boots or shoulders, those are pitiful as-is.
Sadly it wouldn't be an even remotely viable build unless the dmg of it was buffed significantly (if I remember correct, the gem suggested was 100% more dmg for zero crit/CHD? If so, considering most high end chars hoover around 500% crit dmg and 60% crit, even if it gave you 200% more dmg crit would be ahead. Not like you can gain anything but survivability affixes instead of crit/Critdmg on the "important" slots).
There is an inherent difference, currently, between Socket (3) in the chest and Socket (1) in jewelery. Namely that (most) chests (and legs) have very little to compete, at all, with that offensively. So you just ram your 280 x3 gems in there and that's that.
Even if a socket becomes "BiS" in an amulet, or ring, you are still sacrificing something much more meaningful than you EVER will sacrifice on a chest or leg slot. You have to pick to sacrifice 15% elemental damage, 10% crit chance, or 100% CHD. Whereas on a chest, what do you sacrifice? 100 resist all? It's not even close to a comparison and that's why Socket (3) is already mandatory on chests.
If you just let people ram 3 legendary gems in their chests then that almost defeats the purpose of legendary gems. Unless we suddenly have 8+ mandatory legendary gems then no one will use them in jewelery anyway because we are all already running around with 6 armor and 1 weapon socket as it stands. So, instead of actually customizing our gear, the thought process would be "legendary gem > regular gem... unsocket regular gem, insert legendary gem... ooh look at my new Cindercoat, amazing... AMAZINGLY BORING."
The point of legendary gems is clearly to make sockets on jewelery enticing (if not mandatory, I suppose) and to provide some reason to partially break up CHC, CHD, elemental damage on every slot. If we could just stick legendary gems in our chests, legs, helms, and weapons, that wouldn't really help out jewelery and it wouldn't create any sort of compelling choice since legendary gems, by design, are going to be far better, and possibly even build-enabling as compared with 280 int.
What I *see* is each socket requiring another stat be left off the item. Let's use a stat that can roll on all armor: resist all.
THREE chest sockets comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
TWO leg sockets comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
ONE amulet socket comes at the "cost" of 100 resist all.
So, regardless of what the bonuses are, if the legendary gems were available for every slot, players would simply fill up the existing sockets with them and only ever use jewelery sockets if they run out because they can get triple the mileage out of a chest socket roll than they can out of an amulet socket roll. You haven't created an incentive to use jewelery sockets, you've created the exact same situation we have now, just with bigger, more badass, bonuses.
Whereas if they're limited to jewelery, people actually have to choose. They have to choose which stat (usually primary, crit chance, crit damage, or elemental damage... all of which are much more "valuable" than 100 resist all) to leave off their jewelery to obtain a socket. They have to choose which three legendary gems they will use since there will surely be more than three. Hell, they have to choose if the bonus is worth losing the better stats available on an amulet/ring as compared to a chest/leg.
Making choices > "I'LL JUST THROW 12 LEGENDARY GEMS IN ALL MY SOCKETS HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN!"
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").
Legendary gems first and foremost should only be usable on a legendary item. Honestly it makes no sense to use a legendary amulet anymore, just get the 6 affix rare and craft the shit out of it till you get the perfect rolls. Rings are slightly different, because almost everyone needs specific legendary rings, RoRG/ Soj / TMF and such. Second they should be specific to legendary items, i.e vy'rs stone only usable in vyr's items, innas stone only usable in inna's items stuff like that. On top of all of this they should not in anyway increase your damage output by any percentage or number by any means AT ALL! God damn it. Why does everything have to be gives 50% more damage, or gives 50% more crit damage. Fuck it CHANGE THE MECHANICS! that gives CHOICE, damage boosters DO NOT GIVE CHOICE, THEY JUST PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NEW BEST WAY! at least with mechanic changers you can opt in or out without a shred of damage being taken away or given to you. It would actually make you think about which style you want to play.
Something like this -> "Affix: Spectral blades is now cast 30 yards further away from you." is better than something like this -> "Affix: 30% increased damage against elites." the first one actually makes spectral blades useful in long range builds, and could possibly make you switch from something like magic missile, or charged bolt or electrocute to spectral blades, or maybe it changes the the rune of spectral blades you're using from thrown blades to siphoning blades, or maybe it doesn't appeal to you because you don't like being ranged, or you'd rather stick with magic missile over that spectral blades. It took me roughly 30 seconds to think of something as simple as this that can provide a lot more freedom of choice and expression of your character than the D3 dev team will probably come up with in the countless hours they spent making their legendary gems idea come to fruition. It honestly saddens me too, because this was such a wasted opportunity. They could've had legendary gems droppable from ubers too to give them some meaning, and they could've made it a quest to find these cool valuable items that may or may not influence the way you play.
http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/profile/Taliesyn-2517/hero/66020932
I agree with the design philosophy of keeping them limited to jewelry. It makes sense. Seems some people just can't give anything up unless it's negligible (like a chest socket)