do you pick a neck with 78% crit dmg, 8.5% crit and 19% elemental dmg + mainstat, or one with 10% crit, 98% crit dmg, +dmg and mainstat?
Yeah, jewelery has so many viable affixes that your two hypothetical amulets both have 3 out of 4 properties in common. And, would, after enchanting, have all four properties in common since most people would choose to roll the +dmg into elemental damage on the second amulet.
Such "fun" choices there, bro. It's so overwhelmingly fun that I might need to put on an adult diaper in case it causes me to piss my pants.
Seriously, what world do you live in where you think we're making "fun choices" with jewelery at the moment?
Like I said, you sound like someone who is deathly afraid they'll have to give up the 10% CHC on their amulet as opposed to someone who actually understands the discussion at hand.
I play Diablo 3. What do you play?
Jewellery has these affixes that all are viable for use:
Crit
Crit dmg
IAS
Mainstat
CDR
Ele dmg
+dmg
Rings doesn't get ele dmg. Of course the two necks would have similiar stats, because all classes VALUE crit and crit dmg, so I picked those two, main stat, and then two others - the stronger (elemental dmg) and the weaker (+dmg), but with less crit on the +dmg one to demonstrate what I ment that both affixes can work just fine, and are "viable".
Also, of course you'd roll the neck into +elemental dmg as that'd make for a "Perfect" neck, but the examples I gave was of two specific things with those stats - not what you could reroll them in to (AKA, assumed they were already rolled).
In any case, I'll ask you again like you asked me, and then refused to answer yourself:
What "fun" is there in making sockets mandatory on your ring/neck? It's a fucking nobrainer "HURP DURP REROLL SOCKET LURLS LEGENDARY GEM" scenario. To quote you directly: "Such "fun" choices there, bro. It's so overwhelmingly fun that I might need to put on an adult diaper in case it causes me to piss my pants."
It adds NOTHING to gameplay. It makes every single neck that can't get a socket useless. Beforehand, a int/ele dmg/IAS/life regen neck was still quite usefull. Or a dmg/crit/int/vit neck. Or a CDR/int/ele dmg/vit neck. It limits our choises, and THAT is not fun.
In the end, you can keep telling me that it sounds like I'm afraid of giving up stats. It just makes you sound immature and stupid. You can go ahead and answer the question I've asked you (what makes making sockets on jewellery mandatory more fun than allowing them socketed anywhere), or you can back out gracefully when all you can come up with is petty insults. Let me break it to you here: I'm not going to give a single flying fuck about 10% CHC on my necklase if the thing I get in return is worth more damage-output wise. I just think it's a bad design to make two of the four slots where you have some level of choise in what roll and can still do well with, into another "XX or GTFO" item.
No one will run it. Why? Most setups are with Stone of Jordan for more damage or Royal Ring of Grandeur for more set bonuses. Most other rings consist of Crit Chance, Crit Damage, Main stat, and Cdr/toughness stat.
It adds NOTHING to gameplay. It makes every single neck that can't get a socket useless. Beforehand, a int/ele dmg/IAS/life regen neck was still quite usefull. Or a dmg/crit/int/vit neck. Or a CDR/int/ele dmg/vit neck. It limits our choises, and THAT is not fun.
You whine that a socket would be "mandatory" and then go on to give two examples of necks which are clearly subpar in numerous ways and tout them as "useful."
If you think a neck with life regen is "useful" then your definition of "useful" has to be broad enough to include "neck without a socket." If it doesn't then you're just being a blatant hypocrite.
Quote from Draco_Draco What "fun" is there in making sockets mandatory on your ring/neck?
How would a socket be mandatory when you've never even seen the gems? Aside from being an obvious Chicken Little argument, that's like saying "CDR is mandatory on a neck." It might be for some specs, but there are plenty of specs that don't use CDR and would never, ever, consider CDR "mandatory" on a neck.
You have done nothing but successfully build a big old strawman. You have no information, at all, to suggest that a socket would be any more "mandatory" on a neck than any of the existing stats. You seem to have no issue with the fact that the vast majority of builds want only four stats on their necks: primary, CHC, CHD, elemental damage and that +dmg, IAS, and CDR are not really mainstream stats.
If you're OK with most builds gravitating strongly towards only four stats on a neck, how is that any different from a "mandatory" socket? For my build it already feels "mandatory" that I get an int/CHC/CHD/physical neck.
What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)? Why is it OK for necks to boil down to four stats for most players, but it's not OK for gems to worm their way in especially when you have no idea the actual power of these gems?
If you don't know what the gems are going to be then you have no place at all calling the socket "mandatory." That's just common sense. So, as long as you continue to refer to a socket in a ring/amulet as "mandatory" I'm going to accuse you of talking out your ass. Because if you can't be bothered to argue factual things (in all honesty very few specs gear for IAS, so it's not really a desired neck stat) then there's no point in talking to you.
EDIT
Just an addendum. Every spec has a THEORETICAL BiS amulet. For that spec all other stats are inferior. I don't see what the problem is if a socket is included, or if a socket is discluded. Why does it matter if primary, CHC, CHD, CDR is "mandatory" for a spec or if it's primary, CHC, CHD, and a socket? What does it matter?
There are specs out there which use CDR on their necks. They ultimately give up one of the other four "main" neck stats. How is that any different than some spec wanting a socket and giving up a stat? What is the big goddamned deal?
It adds NOTHING to gameplay. It makes every single neck that can't get a socket useless. Beforehand, a int/ele dmg/IAS/life regen neck was still quite usefull. Or a dmg/crit/int/vit neck. Or a CDR/int/ele dmg/vit neck. It limits our choises, and THAT is not fun.
You whine that a socket would be "mandatory" and then go on to give two examples of necks which are clearly subpar in numerous ways and tout them as "useful."
If you think a neck with life regen is "useful" then your definition of "useful" has to be broad enough to include "neck without a socket." If it doesn't then you're just being a blatant hypocrite.
Quote from Draco_Draco What "fun" is there in making sockets mandatory on your ring/neck?
How would a socket be mandatory when you've never even seen the gems? Aside from being an obvious Chicken Little argument, that's like saying "CDR is mandatory on a neck." It might be for some specs, but there are plenty of specs that don't use CDR and would never, ever, consider CDR "mandatory" on a neck.
You have done nothing but successfully build a big old strawman. You have no information, at all, to suggest that a socket would be any more "mandatory" on a neck than any of the existing stats. You seem to have no issue with the fact that the vast majority of builds want only four stats on their necks: primary, CHC, CHD, elemental damage and that +dmg, IAS, and CDR are not really mainstream stats.
If you're OK with most builds gravitating strongly towards only four stats on a neck, how is that any different from a "mandatory" socket? For my build it already feels "mandatory" that I get an int/CHC/CHD/physical neck.
What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)? Why is it OK for necks to boil down to four stats for most players, but it's not OK for gems to worm their way in especially when you have no idea the actual power of these gems?
If you don't know what the gems are going to be then you have no place at all calling the socket "mandatory." That's just common sense.
Now your entire argument has switched to "we don't know how powerfull the gems will be, maybe they won't be so strong that you can't play without them!"
I am working off of the assumption that an infinitely upgradeded (Quote from the newspost: "The gist is that these gems are infinitely upgradeable") gem WILL be a mandatory addition to a gear. Of course, they could be shit just like the hellfire ring has been and not worth using at all, but I'm assuming they make them powerfull enough that everyone will want to get their gems and upgrade them.
You're right that if they're less powerfull than a necklase-affix, then we obviously won't use them there. Your point?
(Also, the life regen neck is "usefull" because the life regen can be rerolled into an usefull stat, giving it three of the main four you want for a perfect neck, while the fourth affix is still something remotely usefull. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but the point should have gone through either way - a "perfect" necklase with low rolls of ele dmg, crit, crit chance and mainstat can still be worse than a much better rolled neck with crit chance, dmg, mainstat and crit dmg all rolled high. In the new scenarios, both necks would be utterly fucking useless without the socket, and if they are missing say, crit dmg and a socket, the two most important stats on a necklase, they'd be trash).
As for the second part of your post -
Of course I don't know if the gems will be stronger. Just by process of me not knowing if the gems will be stronger or not, you can try to brush aside every single argument I make by calling it a "strawman". You're working off of the assumption that I'm *WRONG* in what I expect to see from the gems (Read: Strong enough to be mandatory).
Quote blocks in this forum is an absolute joke and not working when I try to add them (seriously, can we get a normal fucking code for that shit instead of a graphical block? THANKS), so for ease:
"If you're OK with most builds gravitating strongly towards only four stats on a neck, how is that any different from a "mandatory" socket? For my build it already feels "mandatory" that I get an int/CHC/CHD/physical neck.
What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)? Why is it OK for necks to boil down to four stats for most players, but it's not OK for gems to worm their way in especially when you have no idea the actual power of these gems?"
I'm fine with A/B/C/D being something different. That's how the game works. I just think it's balls out retarded that they have to do it on the two pieces of gear where the affixes are already strong enough that they make or break a character - with a ton of affixes you already have to pick and choose wisely dependant on spec and relative strength of the different, wide range affixes -, rather than unimportant shit like legs, chests, boots, and shoulders where you can slap any random ones on and be largely none the worse off, as long as they've got mainstat and vitality.
You can't seem to grasp what I am saying - Jewellery HAS enough fun stats that you have to pick between them and "Make choises" already. Adding another to the mix isn't fun, it's just frustrating, and further skews the power those items has, compared to others. Put it this way:
What's so bad about letting the gems into your chest piece only? That you spent 30M crafting the gems that you won't be using anymore?
If you don't know what the gems are going to be then you have no place at all calling the socket "mandatory." That's just common sense.
THEY ARE INFINITELLY UPGRADEABLE. I'm sure that most people from that fact alone assume that they WILL be mandatory, because their potential is INFINITE. THAT is where my place is to call the socket mandatory.
Besides - what information do you have that they WON'T be mandatory? They're legendary gems after all. You have no place at all trying to reassure us they won't be "mandatory". That's just common sense. (See how it works both ways? You're assuming one thing, I'm assuming another. Neither of us are neccessarely correct, but neither of us can tell the other that they are incorrect, either - which I have not done. I am arguing my point from what I believe will be the case with the information we have currently been given. You are arguing your point with what you believe will be the case, and the issue is, they don't match up).
My opinion is obviously based around the gems assuming that they will be stronger. If not, well, then I guess I'll have a shitton of legendary gems rotting in my bank. No biggie, and then I won't use them. If they are? All my concerns are completly valid. Which is why I choose to assume the worst (that they will indeed be mandatory).
But again - you are spinning in fucking circles and refusing to answer your own damn question:
In a mocking tone that you keep using and might comprehend:
"HURRR DURRR WHY SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN JEWELLERY FUN BUT SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN PANTIES NOT?"
And a bit more serious:
What fun is there in making a socket the new "strongest stat" on an item that already has 7 different extremely strong affixes, instead of letting items that already has sockets as their strongest stat use them? What does it matter to *you*? Why is it a better design choise than letting us throw them in our pants instead of forcing us out of other strong affixes?
Are you afraid we'll be "too powerfull?", and it will make the game less fun for you by proxy? I'm sorry, we're already clearing T6 rifts in 5 minutes. That ship has sailed a looong time ago. I personally like power. I like getting stronger. I like playing to increase my strength in a game. Which is why I, as mentioned twice before, would prefer the gems to be a different resource than something we have to equip in our gear, tied to character progression. That said, great rolled necklases and rings are already the rarest thing you can get in this game. Making them even more rare by limiting the little leeway you might have further just makes it worse.
"HURRR DURRR WHY SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN JEWELLERY FUN BUT SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN PANTIES NOT?"
You are railing so fucking hard against "mandatory" sockets in amulets and rings....
And you manage to go back and somehow insinuate that gemming legs and chests is "fun" despite those sockets being 100% completely mandatory for every single spec out there without question.
So, apparently, you don't have nearly as big of a deal with "mandatory sockets" as you'd like us to believe. Either that or you're being a goddamned argumentative liar.
So, which is it, bub. Is gemming your legs fun and mandatory sockets aren't so bad, or are mandatory sockets bad, and therefore gemming your chest/legs/weapon is a horrible experience? It can't go both ways. It's amazing just how overtly hypocritical your arguments are.
GEMMING MY PANTS IS SO FUN...
GEMMING MY AMULET WOULD RUIN MY LIFE /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS
EDIT
By putting legendary gems in chests/pants you just further reinforce that those sockets are absolutely 100% mandatory. And based on how you're whining like a little girl about "mandatory sockets" in amulets I'd think you'd then understand exactly why allowing them in chests and legs is even worse. Those sockets are already 100% mandatory. Putting such powerful gems in them would only worsen that situation, not alleviate it. And since you're against mandatory sockets I can't imagine you'd want to do that, now would you?
So the real question is why are you totally OK with mandatory sockets in chests and legs, but you're absolutely against mandatory sockets in rings and amulets?
You are railing so fucking hard against "mandatory" sockets in amulets and rings....
And you manage to go back and somehow insinuate that gemming legs and chests is "fun" despite those sockets being 100% completely mandatory for every single spec out there without question.
I'm not saying sockets in legs/chests would be "fun". I'm asking you why it's more fun that they're in jewellery. Two different things I'm afraid.
[FUCKQUOTEBOX]So, apparently, you don't have nearly as big of a deal with "mandatory sockets" as you'd like us to believe. Either that or you're being a goddamned argumentative liar.[/QUOTEBOXENDYOUBASTARDS]
Every single item will have a "mandatory" set of four affixes. There's no getting around that. I'm sure we can both agree on that, and I don't particularly mind it (that's how min-maxing is).
Can we also agree that the strength in the affixes for jewellery is far more important than they are in legs/chests, or even shoulders/boots? That you will be far worse off with shitty neck than a shitty pair of legs?
I'll assume yes.
So, which is it, bub. Is gemming your legs fun and mandatory sockets aren't so bad, or are mandatory sockets bad, and therefore gemming your chest/legs/weapon is a horrible experience? It can't go both ways. It's amazing just how overtly hypocritical your arguments are.
Offtopic, but: You're not wolverine. Saying "bub" just made you sound ten times more retarded than you had to. No one but He Who Has An Adamantium Skeleton can pull that one off. Stick to "ZOINKS!".
But I'm only "hypocritical" in your eyes because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm going to say it very, very slowly, and in as few words as I can:
Legs. Has. Very. Few. Good. Affixes. To. Choose. Between.
Jewellery. Has. Many. STRONG. Affixes. To. Choose. Between.
Adding. ANOTHER. Strong. Affix. To. Jewellery. = Meh.
Making. Legs. Stronger = yay.
As long as necks and rings have choises, and such wide ranges on their strong affixes (51-100 crit dmg, 15-20% elemental dmg etc) that can make one seemingly worse rolled neck (ele dmg vs no ele dmg) be a better choise, adding a static, mandatory affix to them is just making it more dull and boring.
[HEYGUESSWHATDIDN'TWORKAGAIN?]
GEMMING MY PANTS IS SO FUN...
GEMMING MY AMULET WOULD RUIN MY LIFE /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS
[/THATSRIGHTITSQUOTEBOXES]
You're the one who brought up the concept of "fun", just for your information. I haven't claimed either was more "fun" than the other. You have however claimed that it was boring if we'd be able to put them in pants, but fun to make the choise to put them in our jewellery (in post #23 of this topic).
I do think that it's stupid to make strong itemslots even stronger, rather than bringing subpar item slots up to the same level of importance, though.
EDIT
By putting legendary gems in chests/pants you just further reinforce that those sockets are absolutely 100% mandatory. And based on how you're whining like a little girl about "mandatory sockets" in amulets I'd think you'd then understand exactly why allowing them in chests and legs is even worse. Those sockets are already 100% mandatory. Putting such powerful gems in them would only worsen that situation, not alleviate it. And since you're against mandatory sockets I can't imagine you'd want to do that, now would you?
So the real question is why are you totally OK with mandatory sockets in chests and legs, but you're absolutely against mandatory sockets in rings and amulets?
You keep stating that I'm against "mandatory sockets". I'm not. If they'd made a stat called "IWIN" that boosts your dps and toughness by 25% you could get on your neck/ring, then I'd be against that aswell, as neck/ring slots already have a ton of usefull stats. Rather put it on shoulders/boots that hasn't got it, to make those pieces more important.
That should explain the second part of your question - I'm okay with mandatory (read: A strongest set of stats on an item) stats being on everything. That's how the game functions, and there's absolutely no way of changing it, and if you go back to the first page, you can read me stating the same there.
That includes sockets being "mandatory" on chests/legs because they have very few interesting affixes. They can't have crit, CDR, IAS, elemental damage, or +dmg. They can have skill damage, sockets, and defensives. There's not a lot of entertaining affixes to choose between. And most of those affixes have a very low range difference, making them all pretty similiar to each other.
Necks and Rings are by far the most diverse items in the game. Sure, their best set of stats will always be the same, but if legendary gems become as powerfull as I fear they might be, a socket will trumph everything. That's when something is truly "Mandatory". Just like the Hellfire necklase will be a "Mandatory" item because it'll give you an extra passive (well, that or an immunity neck I guess). It's simply too big to give up.
Answer me honestly - do you get more excited picking up a legendary amulet or a legendary set of pants, hoping it can be something wickedly powerful/usefull? I can tell you that for me it's the amulet. I'd like other pieces to be the same.
So in the end, I think that the issue with the last question you ask is the wording -
I'm not against mandatory sockets in jewellery. I'm against boring affixes on everything else, and jewellery getting more powerfull affixes while everything else remains boring.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer the question I have asked you the past three times I've posted, that you keep dodging by yelling "OMG YOURE SUCH A HYPOCRITE!!! STRAWMAN!!!!" and the likes at me:
What, to you, makes mandatory legendary sockets in necks/rings more entertaining and a better "choise", than mandatory legendary sockets in chests/legs? And as this is me repeating myself, here's the rest:
Is it because you fear us becomming "too powerfull" because it'll be a bigger boost in pants/chests than it will in jewellery, because you have to give up a big stat for an even bigger stat in jewellery, versus a small stat for a big stat in pants/chests?
You're not adding ANY CHOICES to legs/chests though since sockets are ALREADY DESIRED in 100% of the cases. With or without legendary gems we still want sockets in those slots. This is not adding a choice, it's simply making the old gems completely obsolete.
You *are* adding choices to amulets because, currently, sockets are completely unwanted. With legendary gems we MAY want sockets. Without legendary gems we clearly do not want sockets. This is adding a choice.
If we allowed legendary gems in chests and legs, all chests and legs would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of 280 primary stat in every socket they'd have some legendary effects. How you picked your actual chest/leg items wouldn't change, though. You'd still desire the exact same stats, you'd just have different gems to use.
That is not "adding choices" by any stretch of the imagination. How in the world can you not comprehend that? It is so unbelievably simple that I'm having trouble believing that anyone could have trouble grasping it.
EDIT
I mean what you're arguing makes about as much sense as the following:
1) Emeralds in weapons are too powerful compared to the other statistics; therefore, weapon sockets are mandatory
2) We should solve this by allowing people to put 130% crit damage gems in every socket
It makes NO FUCKING SENSE. The entire community agrees that emeralds in weapons are a problem because they are TOO GOOD. No one would agree that the solution would be to allow us to socket 130% crit damage in our chests, though. That's completely illogical and stupid. It solves nothing. At all. It doesn't even come close to solving anything.
A reasonable, rational, person would suggest other solutions. Only a truly out-of-touch person would suggest that allowing us to socket 130% crit damage in every socket would solve anything.
Still, if they augment a single skill, people will probably farm until they find the one they want. If you don't enjoy using a skill, then don't use it. Some people need to get off their high-horse of 'I will play as efficiently as possible even if I hate the way I need to play it'. You need to play a spec you enjoy, even if this means you take a bit of a difficulty hit. I can't play T6. I'm not sad. I can very much enjoy the game still. I won't be burned out quickly, since I feel the game is still fun for me, in stead of playing a spec I loathe. Stop feeling forced to do something you're not forced to do.
1) I'm not saying you have to. I never said I had to, or you had to or anyone else has to. What's wrong with some choice? Are you against the freedom to choose whatever you like?
2) I'm confused... This is EXACTLY WHAT i'M AGAINST. You're not making much sense here. I'm completely against playing a way I hate to play. Which is what I'm saying. Why not just change up skills to make them appealing, but if you don't like them it doesn't do anything to you. Understand? So with my example for SB, there's 0 help if you use it or if you don't. It just depends on your personal preference. You can use SB, you can not use SB, you can use SB and forgo the gem which is also fine and doesn't do anything to you. Which is why I want it that way, it's overall better and provides actual choice of what you want to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
You're not adding ANY CHOICES to legs/chests though since sockets are ALREADY DESIRED in 100% of the cases. With or without legendary gems we still want sockets in those slots. This is not adding a choice, it's simply making the old gems completely obsolete.
You *are* adding choices to amulets because, currently, sockets are completely unwanted. With legendary gems we MAY want sockets. Without legendary gems we clearly do not want sockets. This is adding a choice.
If we allowed legendary gems in chests and legs, all chests and legs would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of 280 primary stat in every socket they'd have some legendary effects. How you picked your actual chest/leg items wouldn't change, though. You'd still desire the exact same stats, you'd just have different gems to use.
That is not "adding choices" by any stretch of the imagination. How in the world can you not comprehend that? It is so unbelievably simply that I'm having trouble believing that anyone could have trouble grasping it.
It's adding choises to item slots that already has more than enough choises. To quote you: "It is so unbelievably simply that I'm having trouble believing that anyone could have trouble grasping it." We don't need more choise in our jewellery, and all this risks is overtuning the INFINITELLY UPGRADEABLE GEM WITH INFINITE POTENTIAL STRENGTH to be strong enough that it makes every jewellery piece a "can it have my 3 stats and a socket? No? Fuck it, throw it away"-kind of deal, while currently, it's actually worth holding on to items that aren't "perfect" because of the (as mentioned) large affix rolls.
Forcing sockets with INFINITELY POWERFUL GEMS takes away from your choises. It doesn't add them.
You're correct that it wouldn't change how we want our legs. ON the other hand, it wouldn't take away from the choises we make WITH the legs, as we already want sockets. But it would also make our legs a stronger item than it currently is, instead of making strong slots even stronger. The added "choise" from legendary gems should come from choosing which gems to use, not removing the choise of one affix on your neck/rings and making it a socket.
As you say yourself:
[Quotebox.Nope]If we allowed legendary gems in chests and legs, all chests and legs would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of 280 primary stat in every socket they'd have some legendary effects. How you picked your actual chest/leg items wouldn't change, though. You'd still desire the exact same stats, you'd just have different gems to use.[Derpderp;]
I can say the same for jewellery:
If we allowed legendary gems in amulets and rings, all amulets and rings would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of <Insert weakest current affix here> they would have a socket with a legendary effect.
The issue is that amulets and rings are so strong and has such strong affixes with (and I know I keep repeating it, but it's pretty important that you understand that part) wide ranges, that makes different combinations of affixes acceptable and stronger than the others. A necklase with 10% crit, 750 int, and a rolled 100% crit dmg with maybe... All ress or vitality? as the fourth stat, will still be far superior to a "perfect" 15% ele dmg, 60% crit dmg, 8.5% crit, 665 int amulet damage wise for me, and add nice survivability to boot. In the future, you won't be having any of that on necks anymore if they don't have a socket. This goes doubly for rings whose affixes are a lot weaker than amulets. Socket or GTFO, no middle ground, no compromise. No choise.
Also, could you please stop dodging the question I keep repeating? You're pretty fucking good at ignoring stuff you don't want to answer, while I try to get around to everything you write:
"What, to you, makes mandatory legendary sockets in necks/rings more entertaining and a better "choise", than mandatory legendary sockets in chests/legs? And as this is me repeating myself, here's the rest:
Is it because you fear us becomming "too powerfull" because it'll be a bigger boost in pants/chests than it will in jewellery, because you have to give up a big stat for an even bigger stat in jewellery, versus a small stat for a big stat in pants/chests?"
"What, to you, makes mandatory legendary sockets in necks/rings more entertaining and a better "choise", than mandatory legendary sockets in chests/legs?
I think I answered that PAGES ago... but go on talking to me about "ignoring" things...
Legendary gems are clearly going to be more powerful than regular gems. That's a given. So, to me, it makes sense that we'd be asked to sacrifice more powerful stats (such as the ones on a ring or amulet) to get them as compared with the relatively weak stats we sacrifice on chests and legs in particular. Giving players "something for nothing" is not compelling, it just creates a culture of entitlement that already plagues this community. Allowing people to socket three "infinitely powerful gems" (your words, not mine) at the cost of 100 resist all makes no sense at all. It's too good of a tradeoff to pass up because passing up on it sacrifices far too much power.
Making sockets a viable (or "mandatory") choice (not CHOISE, unless this is the 17th century, in which case I apologize) also helps to break up the "trifecta" effect we see, in particular on necks, rings, and gloves. Moving away from Crit Chance, Crit Damage, and Elemental Damage wherever possible is a GOOD thing. Less flat damage increases replaced by more "legendary effects" like the ones we see on the good legendary items is what most of the playerbase wants. I'll gladly trade 10% CHC on my amulet for more bonuses that enable builds. Why would anyone not want that?
Lastly, limiting legendary gems to three (one neck, two rings) seems like a good way to force us to choose wisely between the available gems just like limiting passives to four is a good way to force us to choose wisely between them. If we could suddenly pick 12 passives that wouldn't really create compelling "choices" because 90%+ of builds would have 5+ passives in common. You'd see this exact same effect with legendary gems if they were suddenly available in every socket.
Like I said, your argument amounts to trying to solve the emerald problem in weapons by letting us socket 130% crit gems in every socket. It simply doesn't make a goddamned bit of sense to anyone with a functional brain. It's completely imbecilic and doesn't even pass the smell test. If you fear that a gem is "overpowered' it doesn't solve anything to just let people put it in every socket. In fact, that's the worst possible solution. It only serves to exacerbate the problem at hand.
So if you are worrying that legendary gems will be too powerful (your words, not mine) then you have to be in favor of limiting their use somehow. And, yes, power creep does matter. It's untenable to let characters continue to get more and more powerful while the monsters stay the same difficulty. The current monsters weren't designed with legendary gems in mind, therefore the legendary gems must fit the mold of the current game otherwise they break the game. That's probably one of the reasons they're using jewelery.... it automatically limits you to three gems thereby mitigating some of the concerns about their ultimate power. If you could suddenly socket 11 legendary gems then that would just make that problem even worse.
I think I answered that PAGES ago... but go on talking to me about "ignoring" things...
Feel free to point me to it. I've missed it / can't find it.
Legendary gems are clearly going to be more powerful than regular gems. That's a given. So, to me, it makes sense that we'd be asked to sacrifice more powerful stats (such as the ones on a ring or amulet) to get them as compared with the relatively weak stats we sacrifice on chests and legs in particular.
Why? What fun does that make? It's still a power increase to our character. Why subtract from the possible optional affixes and add a mandatory one, instead of just making the effects weaker (so sacrifising 280 main stat is comparable to sacrifising say, 6% crit)? Also, something that's barely been touched, it'd mean rings would be far more beneficial for sockets than amulets, due to half the stat budget.
Making sockets a viable (or "mandatory") choice (not CHOISE for fuck's sake) also helps to break up the "trifecta" effect we see, in particular on necks, rings, and gloves. Moving away from Crit Chance, Crit Damage, and Elemental Damage wherever possible is a GOOD thing. Less flat damage increases replaced by more "legendary effects" like the ones we see on the good legendary items is what most of the playerbase wants. I'll gladly trade 10% CHC on my amulet for more bonuses that enable builds. Why would anyone not want that?
Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. English isn't my first language, and I can point out a fair few spelling errors from you as well, but I don't, because I'm not nearly as big a douche as you seem to be.
And now I am the one who gets to call you a hypocrite - earlier, you were arguing this: "What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)?"
What does it matter to you that the BiS stats for a neck is A/B/C/D? Why do you think the best stats being A/B/C/E is so much better? Because E can be a legendary effect instead of a flat 20% elemental damage? It's still always going to be bringing <Insert legendary effect here>. It doesn't actually change anything, except your overall damage numbers looks smaller while the legendary effect does something else.
"Lastly, limiting legendary gems to three (one neck, two rings) seems like a good way to force us to choose wisely between the available gems just like limiting passives to four is a good way to force us to choose wisely between them. If we could suddenly pick 12 passives that wouldn't really create compelling "choices" because 90%+ of builds would have 5+ passives in common. You'd see this exact same effect with legendary gems if they were suddenly available in every socket."
So... Limit the legendary gems to our chests only, or just allow us to only socket three max at a time. Same effect. Not sure I see why it has to be limited by our amount of jewellery items in order to put a hindrance on how many we can use.
Like I said, your argument amounts to trying to solve the emerald problem in weapons by letting us socket 130% crit gems in every socket. It simply doesn't make a goddamned bit of sense to anyone with a functional brain. It's completely imbecilic and doesn't even pass the smell test. If you fear that a gem is "overpowered' it doesn't solve anything to just let people put it in every socket. In fact, that's the worst possible solution. It does nothing but exacerbates the problem at hand.
I haven't seen that part, so you must have editted one of your posts while I was answering you. Please just add a new post next time, I'll probably not see something if you go back and edit it 15 minutes later.
1) Emeralds in weapons are too powerful compared to the other statistics; therefore, weapon sockets are mandatory
2) We should solve this by allowing people to put 130% crit damage gems in every socket
It makes NO FUCKING SENSE. The entire community agrees that emeralds in weapons are a problem because they are TOO GOOD. No one would agree that the solution would be to allow us to socket 130% crit damage in our chests, though. That's completely illogical and stupid. It solves nothing. At all. It doesn't even come close to solving anything.
A reasonable, rational, person would suggest other solutions. Only a truly out-of-touch person would suggest that allowing us to socket 130% crit damage in every socket would solve anything.
Allright, there's the thing you added earlier. What a load of horseshit. That's not even close to what I'm saying (although I guess you could be mistakenly believing that if you haven't actually figured out that I'm not saying "lets put legendary gems in EVERY FUCKING SLOT", but "LETS NOT PUT LEGENDARY GEMS IN THESE SLOTS THAT ALREADY HAVE TONS OF OTHER GREAT OPTIONS". I'm all for making the gems themselves be the choice that defines how you play - limiting them to say, 3, is a fine idea. There's a shitton of ways to do this that are fairly simple. I don't believe forcing them on slots that already have tons of good choices is the correct way to do it, when the same could be achived by limiting to the chest slot that has zero choises. If you go back and read, I even advocate making the gems scale in amount with your paragon level, so you unlock abilities and become stronger as you level, opening up for more diverse powers as you play the game. I've never advocated just mindlessly getting to throw 10 gems in random sockets and be done with it.
I'm not "lobbying" for overpowered gems everywhere. I'm lobbying for overpowered gems in slots where they won't harm the current few items that has a lot of potential choices, and can roll into great items due to those despite not having "perfect" stats.
"So if you are worrying that legendary gems will be too powerful (your words, not mine) then you have to be in favor of limiting their use somehow. And, yes, power creep does matter. It's untenable to let characters continue to get more and more powerful while the monsters stay the same difficulty. The current monsters weren't designed with legendary gems in mind, therefore the legendary gems must fit the mold of the current game otherwise they break the game. That's probably one of the reasons they're using jewelery.... it automatically limits you to three gems thereby mitigating some of the concerns about their ultimate power. If you could suddenly socket 11 legendary gems then that would just make that problem even worse."
As mentioned in the paragraph above, I am all for limiting the gems to a low amount. And as mentioned above, there's absolutely no reason that can't be done with other stuff than jewellery.
As for power creep mattering - why? We're already stomping through T6. Becomming more powerfull at this point just makes stuff fun. When witch doctors can zerg elite packs with hordes of pets in seconds, we've already hit the ceiling and gone beyond a long time ago. Besides - character development and power growing as we play is *fun*. Making an artificial ceiling and saying "nope, you can't go beyond this, you'd be too powerfull. You're done growing in strength" is not. They can't keep rolling out updates untill next expansion and expect us to stay at this level of "power" untill then. Frankly, that'd just be stupid. What would the point of a game, whose entire existance is based on taking a character and gearing/levelling it to make it as powerfull as possible, be if you could no longer become more powerfull?
A much easier solution is - add T7. It's not like it's something that requires a ton of work for them to do - copy the templates from the other torment levels, and add the scaling for another torment level. Boom, done. Quite frankly, we're already powerfull enough that they should be concidering doing that with 2.1, seeing how fast we can clear T6 rifts (they were designed for 10-15 minutes per if memory serves me right when they announced them. We're seeing 3-5 minute clears in groups, and 5-8 minute clears solo).
Unless the legendary gem states that you can only have 1 of same type legendary gem, i think you could have a totally different way of stack damage. The one they release as an idea states that you gain 100% damage but you no longer benefit from critical hits. If you stack 3 of those you now have about 300% damage. You can substitute the emerald for Ruby for 260 weapon damage. You can choose between now adding avg damage and more attack speed instead of having to roll for those realling annoying 10% chc and 100% chd or 50% damage that just sometimes takes millions of gold to roll for. Also not force to endlessly grind till you hit that sweet spot in paragon levels where you get that extra 50% chd and 5% chc.
Guessing that these Legendary gems WILL be uniques, so one per?
Also, and I openly admit i've skipped ALOT of the preceding 2 pages, it seems like there's a faction that's essentially saying more choices is bad? I mean, one of those choices is don't use the dang things.
I sincerely hope they do add some interesting things that CHANGE the mechanics of some stuff. I liek that they get stronger as you go, I also hope with everything in me, they don't get stronger just sitting in your stash. Also hope the improvement is steady and predictable, otherwise when you level up that gem that was doing great things for you is now unrecognizable and doesn't fit your build anymore ( highly unlikely BUT...).
Also, have they come out and said that they aren't adding a slot for the socket? I mean, probably won't but maybe they will, and all that choice/decision/sacrifice/hand wringing will be wasted....
Wouldn't it be cool if all the jewelry out there gained a socket and lost nothing.( cept what about all the stuff already WITH a socket).
What if Legendary Gems didn't require a socket at all, they just simply are added to the jewelry? You know, a little pixelated glue here and done).
My biggest thing is it's all a big WHAT IF at this point. Why so worked up over essentially pixelated nothingness right now?
Fear of the unknown? Fear of change? Both very viable forces in humanity.Both quite negative and stressful I might add.
Relax, it'll all work out, it'll all become clear, and if it stinks it all up, they can patch it. It's a game. Have fun.
Im for the Rings and Ammys only thing. I understand where everyone is coming from here. Read just about every post and I have came to a suggestion but blizzard wont do it. Though maybe the leg gems could be put into armor BUT one 1 gem per armor. Like for Chests. They have 3 socs. 2 for normal gems and 1 for leg gem. Pants the same way but honestly, im debating on if pants would be a good idea. Kinda leaning towards just leave pants at 2 socs and for normal gems. Thing everyone has to remember too is that we do not know what all these leg gems will even do yet. Nothing has been released so of course its hard to speculate anything at this point. Also have to remember that these gems are going to be infinitely up-gradable.
Also, and I openly admit i've skipped ALOT of the preceding 2 pages, it seems like there's a faction that's essentially saying more choices is bad? I mean, one of those choices is don't use the dang things.
Nah, it's one guy saying we have "too many" choices in our neck slots and that having "mandatory sockets" in our necks is the end of the world... but he's totally OK with mandatory sockets in our weapons, chests, and legs because, apparently gemming those is really fun for him.
At the end of the day the jewelery thing is great because the community has been asking Blizzard to break up "trifecta" stats and rings, amulets, and gloves are, by far, the biggest offenders in that department. Since gloves don't have sockets, they're kinda left out. But for rings and amulets, if legendary gems are anything like the legendary properties we see, there will be the ability to sacrifice sheet DPS for "build changing" properties. Nothing wrong with that.
It's the same general concept as every other legendary that people have enjoyed so far. Wand of Woh might do less damage than a Thunderfury... but if you're using Explosive Blast it will do way more damage. People have been asking to move away from sheet DPS, away from "stat sticks" and towards the successful legendary items that actually do influence your build. So, it would seem to me, that they target some of the slots which really are nothing more than offensive stats with something like these legendary gems. Give people the opportunity to sacrifice some stats for the ability to create new synergies and, therefore, better builds.
But, apparently, we can't have that, because we already have "too many choices" on our necks and rings (the concept of having too much choice in slots that clearly lack choice baffles me, too).... even though rings, in particular, are some of the least-diverse items in the game in that it's either SoJ, Unity, RoRG, or it's junk and amulets for most builds boil down to primary, CHC, CHD, elemental damage, with CDR being used in some builds. Tons of diversity there! We wouldn't want to ruin that, right? It's clearly a great situation... if all you like is sheet DPS. But for those of us who really want "build-changing" legendaries there's absolutely no doubt that the jewelery slots have been some of the biggest let-downs of the expansion and that's probably why they're doing this. It gives us the ability to "customize" our jewelery and make them "build-changing" in a most intriguing manner. As opposed to just hunting for the same four stats that jack up our sheet DPS.
How someone could be against that is beyond me. It's like yelling for Blizzard to remove all the Wands of Woh in the game and replace them with Shards of Hate. Why would anyone want to lose items that enable builds over items that are just pure damage increases? The former tend to be way more interesting and way more enjoyable long-term. Damage is boring. 7-digit hits are already the status quo. It's not really fun to see big crits now because of just how inflated our damage has become. But it is fun to see your electro-stun wizard build come together and flourish. It is fun to find that Starmetal Kukiri and see your Zuni's pet build come into its own.
You stated it created an iilusory choice. This to me means you don't think it's a choice and you HAVE to use it, even if it means you don't like it. There's my exact point. You still don't have to use it, even if it means you're less efficient. THAT is the choice people will need to make for themselves. Are you going to be efficient and use something you dislike? Or are you going to chose the spec and gearing you enjoy and be less efficient but enjoy the time you spend?
Still, it seems we both want choice, so I'm no longer completely sure what we're discussing . In any way, I hope they make the gems the same way they make the build changing legendaries: If they do something you dislike, you can chose to ignore it until you find one you DO like.
Well it does create an illusory choice, the point is you think you have a choice in how to farm efficiently at T6 but in reality you don't. you either play the way thats super op or you don't farm T6. I don't know why it's like this, I don't see why all skills can't be viable endgame skills. I mean I'd love to use my pretty well rounded build on T5-T6, but I doubt it. So hopefully they correct some of that with these gems, so we can choose which skills we want and still be pretty viable endgame. Of course there's restricitons on what should be viable... 1 generator and 5 armors doesn't make a good viable endgame build. But something along the lines of Generator/spender/situational/defense/buff or generator/spender/defense/defense/buff, some slight variations can occur, should be viable in endgame no matter what class or skills you are using, granted you spec with right elements and add elemental damage and whatnot to your build.
Jewellery has these affixes that all are viable for use:
Crit
Crit dmg
IAS
Mainstat
CDR
Ele dmg
+dmg
Rings doesn't get ele dmg. Of course the two necks would have similiar stats, because all classes VALUE crit and crit dmg, so I picked those two, main stat, and then two others - the stronger (elemental dmg) and the weaker (+dmg), but with less crit on the +dmg one to demonstrate what I ment that both affixes can work just fine, and are "viable".
Also, of course you'd roll the neck into +elemental dmg as that'd make for a "Perfect" neck, but the examples I gave was of two specific things with those stats - not what you could reroll them in to (AKA, assumed they were already rolled).
In any case, I'll ask you again like you asked me, and then refused to answer yourself:
What "fun" is there in making sockets mandatory on your ring/neck? It's a fucking nobrainer "HURP DURP REROLL SOCKET LURLS LEGENDARY GEM" scenario. To quote you directly: "Such "fun" choices there, bro. It's so overwhelmingly fun that I might need to put on an adult diaper in case it causes me to piss my pants."
It adds NOTHING to gameplay. It makes every single neck that can't get a socket useless. Beforehand, a int/ele dmg/IAS/life regen neck was still quite usefull. Or a dmg/crit/int/vit neck. Or a CDR/int/ele dmg/vit neck. It limits our choises, and THAT is not fun.
In the end, you can keep telling me that it sounds like I'm afraid of giving up stats. It just makes you sound immature and stupid. You can go ahead and answer the question I've asked you (what makes making sockets on jewellery mandatory more fun than allowing them socketed anywhere), or you can back out gracefully when all you can come up with is petty insults. Let me break it to you here: I'm not going to give a single flying fuck about 10% CHC on my necklase if the thing I get in return is worth more damage-output wise. I just think it's a bad design to make two of the four slots where you have some level of choise in what roll and can still do well with, into another "XX or GTFO" item.
If you think a neck with life regen is "useful" then your definition of "useful" has to be broad enough to include "neck without a socket." If it doesn't then you're just being a blatant hypocrite.
How would a socket be mandatory when you've never even seen the gems? Aside from being an obvious Chicken Little argument, that's like saying "CDR is mandatory on a neck." It might be for some specs, but there are plenty of specs that don't use CDR and would never, ever, consider CDR "mandatory" on a neck.
You have done nothing but successfully build a big old strawman. You have no information, at all, to suggest that a socket would be any more "mandatory" on a neck than any of the existing stats. You seem to have no issue with the fact that the vast majority of builds want only four stats on their necks: primary, CHC, CHD, elemental damage and that +dmg, IAS, and CDR are not really mainstream stats.
If you're OK with most builds gravitating strongly towards only four stats on a neck, how is that any different from a "mandatory" socket? For my build it already feels "mandatory" that I get an int/CHC/CHD/physical neck.
What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)? Why is it OK for necks to boil down to four stats for most players, but it's not OK for gems to worm their way in especially when you have no idea the actual power of these gems?
If you don't know what the gems are going to be then you have no place at all calling the socket "mandatory." That's just common sense. So, as long as you continue to refer to a socket in a ring/amulet as "mandatory" I'm going to accuse you of talking out your ass. Because if you can't be bothered to argue factual things (in all honesty very few specs gear for IAS, so it's not really a desired neck stat) then there's no point in talking to you.
EDIT
Just an addendum. Every spec has a THEORETICAL BiS amulet. For that spec all other stats are inferior. I don't see what the problem is if a socket is included, or if a socket is discluded. Why does it matter if primary, CHC, CHD, CDR is "mandatory" for a spec or if it's primary, CHC, CHD, and a socket? What does it matter?
There are specs out there which use CDR on their necks. They ultimately give up one of the other four "main" neck stats. How is that any different than some spec wanting a socket and giving up a stat? What is the big goddamned deal?
Now your entire argument has switched to "we don't know how powerfull the gems will be, maybe they won't be so strong that you can't play without them!"
I am working off of the assumption that an infinitely upgradeded (Quote from the newspost: "The gist is that these gems are infinitely upgradeable") gem WILL be a mandatory addition to a gear. Of course, they could be shit just like the hellfire ring has been and not worth using at all, but I'm assuming they make them powerfull enough that everyone will want to get their gems and upgrade them.
You're right that if they're less powerfull than a necklase-affix, then we obviously won't use them there. Your point?
(Also, the life regen neck is "usefull" because the life regen can be rerolled into an usefull stat, giving it three of the main four you want for a perfect neck, while the fourth affix is still something remotely usefull. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but the point should have gone through either way - a "perfect" necklase with low rolls of ele dmg, crit, crit chance and mainstat can still be worse than a much better rolled neck with crit chance, dmg, mainstat and crit dmg all rolled high. In the new scenarios, both necks would be utterly fucking useless without the socket, and if they are missing say, crit dmg and a socket, the two most important stats on a necklase, they'd be trash).
As for the second part of your post -
Of course I don't know if the gems will be stronger. Just by process of me not knowing if the gems will be stronger or not, you can try to brush aside every single argument I make by calling it a "strawman". You're working off of the assumption that I'm *WRONG* in what I expect to see from the gems (Read: Strong enough to be mandatory).
Quote blocks in this forum is an absolute joke and not working when I try to add them (seriously, can we get a normal fucking code for that shit instead of a graphical block? THANKS), so for ease:
"If you're OK with most builds gravitating strongly towards only four stats on a neck, how is that any different from a "mandatory" socket? For my build it already feels "mandatory" that I get an int/CHC/CHD/physical neck.
What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)? Why is it OK for necks to boil down to four stats for most players, but it's not OK for gems to worm their way in especially when you have no idea the actual power of these gems?"
I'm fine with A/B/C/D being something different. That's how the game works. I just think it's balls out retarded that they have to do it on the two pieces of gear where the affixes are already strong enough that they make or break a character - with a ton of affixes you already have to pick and choose wisely dependant on spec and relative strength of the different, wide range affixes -, rather than unimportant shit like legs, chests, boots, and shoulders where you can slap any random ones on and be largely none the worse off, as long as they've got mainstat and vitality.
You can't seem to grasp what I am saying - Jewellery HAS enough fun stats that you have to pick between them and "Make choises" already. Adding another to the mix isn't fun, it's just frustrating, and further skews the power those items has, compared to others. Put it this way:
What's so bad about letting the gems into your chest piece only? That you spent 30M crafting the gems that you won't be using anymore?
THEY ARE INFINITELLY UPGRADEABLE. I'm sure that most people from that fact alone assume that they WILL be mandatory, because their potential is INFINITE. THAT is where my place is to call the socket mandatory.
Besides - what information do you have that they WON'T be mandatory? They're legendary gems after all. You have no place at all trying to reassure us they won't be "mandatory". That's just common sense. (See how it works both ways? You're assuming one thing, I'm assuming another. Neither of us are neccessarely correct, but neither of us can tell the other that they are incorrect, either - which I have not done. I am arguing my point from what I believe will be the case with the information we have currently been given. You are arguing your point with what you believe will be the case, and the issue is, they don't match up).
My opinion is obviously based around the gems assuming that they will be stronger. If not, well, then I guess I'll have a shitton of legendary gems rotting in my bank. No biggie, and then I won't use them. If they are? All my concerns are completly valid. Which is why I choose to assume the worst (that they will indeed be mandatory).
But again - you are spinning in fucking circles and refusing to answer your own damn question:
In a mocking tone that you keep using and might comprehend:
"HURRR DURRR WHY SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN JEWELLERY FUN BUT SOCKET LEGENDARY GEM IN PANTIES NOT?"
And a bit more serious:
What fun is there in making a socket the new "strongest stat" on an item that already has 7 different extremely strong affixes, instead of letting items that already has sockets as their strongest stat use them? What does it matter to *you*? Why is it a better design choise than letting us throw them in our pants instead of forcing us out of other strong affixes?
Are you afraid we'll be "too powerfull?", and it will make the game less fun for you by proxy? I'm sorry, we're already clearing T6 rifts in 5 minutes. That ship has sailed a looong time ago. I personally like power. I like getting stronger. I like playing to increase my strength in a game. Which is why I, as mentioned twice before, would prefer the gems to be a different resource than something we have to equip in our gear, tied to character progression. That said, great rolled necklases and rings are already the rarest thing you can get in this game. Making them even more rare by limiting the little leeway you might have further just makes it worse.
And you manage to go back and somehow insinuate that gemming legs and chests is "fun" despite those sockets being 100% completely mandatory for every single spec out there without question.
So, apparently, you don't have nearly as big of a deal with "mandatory sockets" as you'd like us to believe. Either that or you're being a goddamned argumentative liar.
So, which is it, bub. Is gemming your legs fun and mandatory sockets aren't so bad, or are mandatory sockets bad, and therefore gemming your chest/legs/weapon is a horrible experience? It can't go both ways. It's amazing just how overtly hypocritical your arguments are.
GEMMING MY PANTS IS SO FUN...
GEMMING MY AMULET WOULD RUIN MY LIFE /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS
EDIT
By putting legendary gems in chests/pants you just further reinforce that those sockets are absolutely 100% mandatory. And based on how you're whining like a little girl about "mandatory sockets" in amulets I'd think you'd then understand exactly why allowing them in chests and legs is even worse. Those sockets are already 100% mandatory. Putting such powerful gems in them would only worsen that situation, not alleviate it. And since you're against mandatory sockets I can't imagine you'd want to do that, now would you?
So the real question is why are you totally OK with mandatory sockets in chests and legs, but you're absolutely against mandatory sockets in rings and amulets?
[FUCKQUOTEBOX]So, apparently, you don't have nearly as big of a deal with "mandatory sockets" as you'd like us to believe. Either that or you're being a goddamned argumentative liar.[/QUOTEBOXENDYOUBASTARDS]
Every single item will have a "mandatory" set of four affixes. There's no getting around that. I'm sure we can both agree on that, and I don't particularly mind it (that's how min-maxing is).
Can we also agree that the strength in the affixes for jewellery is far more important than they are in legs/chests, or even shoulders/boots? That you will be far worse off with shitty neck than a shitty pair of legs?
I'll assume yes.
Offtopic, but: You're not wolverine. Saying "bub" just made you sound ten times more retarded than you had to. No one but He Who Has An Adamantium Skeleton can pull that one off. Stick to "ZOINKS!".
But I'm only "hypocritical" in your eyes because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm going to say it very, very slowly, and in as few words as I can:
Legs. Has. Very. Few. Good. Affixes. To. Choose. Between.
Jewellery. Has. Many. STRONG. Affixes. To. Choose. Between.
Adding. ANOTHER. Strong. Affix. To. Jewellery. = Meh.
Making. Legs. Stronger = yay.
As long as necks and rings have choises, and such wide ranges on their strong affixes (51-100 crit dmg, 15-20% elemental dmg etc) that can make one seemingly worse rolled neck (ele dmg vs no ele dmg) be a better choise, adding a static, mandatory affix to them is just making it more dull and boring.
[HEYGUESSWHATDIDN'TWORKAGAIN?]
GEMMING MY PANTS IS SO FUN...
GEMMING MY AMULET WOULD RUIN MY LIFE /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS /WRISTS
[/THATSRIGHTITSQUOTEBOXES]
You're the one who brought up the concept of "fun", just for your information. I haven't claimed either was more "fun" than the other. You have however claimed that it was boring if we'd be able to put them in pants, but fun to make the choise to put them in our jewellery (in post #23 of this topic).
I do think that it's stupid to make strong itemslots even stronger, rather than bringing subpar item slots up to the same level of importance, though.
You keep stating that I'm against "mandatory sockets". I'm not. If they'd made a stat called "IWIN" that boosts your dps and toughness by 25% you could get on your neck/ring, then I'd be against that aswell, as neck/ring slots already have a ton of usefull stats. Rather put it on shoulders/boots that hasn't got it, to make those pieces more important.
That should explain the second part of your question - I'm okay with mandatory (read: A strongest set of stats on an item) stats being on everything. That's how the game functions, and there's absolutely no way of changing it, and if you go back to the first page, you can read me stating the same there.
That includes sockets being "mandatory" on chests/legs because they have very few interesting affixes. They can't have crit, CDR, IAS, elemental damage, or +dmg. They can have skill damage, sockets, and defensives. There's not a lot of entertaining affixes to choose between. And most of those affixes have a very low range difference, making them all pretty similiar to each other.
Necks and Rings are by far the most diverse items in the game. Sure, their best set of stats will always be the same, but if legendary gems become as powerfull as I fear they might be, a socket will trumph everything. That's when something is truly "Mandatory". Just like the Hellfire necklase will be a "Mandatory" item because it'll give you an extra passive (well, that or an immunity neck I guess). It's simply too big to give up.
Answer me honestly - do you get more excited picking up a legendary amulet or a legendary set of pants, hoping it can be something wickedly powerful/usefull? I can tell you that for me it's the amulet. I'd like other pieces to be the same.
So in the end, I think that the issue with the last question you ask is the wording -
I'm not against mandatory sockets in jewellery. I'm against boring affixes on everything else, and jewellery getting more powerfull affixes while everything else remains boring.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you took the time to answer the question I have asked you the past three times I've posted, that you keep dodging by yelling "OMG YOURE SUCH A HYPOCRITE!!! STRAWMAN!!!!" and the likes at me:
What, to you, makes mandatory legendary sockets in necks/rings more entertaining and a better "choise", than mandatory legendary sockets in chests/legs? And as this is me repeating myself, here's the rest:
Is it because you fear us becomming "too powerfull" because it'll be a bigger boost in pants/chests than it will in jewellery, because you have to give up a big stat for an even bigger stat in jewellery, versus a small stat for a big stat in pants/chests?
You *are* adding choices to amulets because, currently, sockets are completely unwanted. With legendary gems we MAY want sockets. Without legendary gems we clearly do not want sockets. This is adding a choice.
If we allowed legendary gems in chests and legs, all chests and legs would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of 280 primary stat in every socket they'd have some legendary effects. How you picked your actual chest/leg items wouldn't change, though. You'd still desire the exact same stats, you'd just have different gems to use.
That is not "adding choices" by any stretch of the imagination. How in the world can you not comprehend that? It is so unbelievably simple that I'm having trouble believing that anyone could have trouble grasping it.
EDIT
I mean what you're arguing makes about as much sense as the following:
1) Emeralds in weapons are too powerful compared to the other statistics; therefore, weapon sockets are mandatory
2) We should solve this by allowing people to put 130% crit damage gems in every socket
It makes NO FUCKING SENSE. The entire community agrees that emeralds in weapons are a problem because they are TOO GOOD. No one would agree that the solution would be to allow us to socket 130% crit damage in our chests, though. That's completely illogical and stupid. It solves nothing. At all. It doesn't even come close to solving anything.
A reasonable, rational, person would suggest other solutions. Only a truly out-of-touch person would suggest that allowing us to socket 130% crit damage in every socket would solve anything.
2) I'm confused... This is EXACTLY WHAT i'M AGAINST. You're not making much sense here. I'm completely against playing a way I hate to play. Which is what I'm saying. Why not just change up skills to make them appealing, but if you don't like them it doesn't do anything to you. Understand? So with my example for SB, there's 0 help if you use it or if you don't. It just depends on your personal preference. You can use SB, you can not use SB, you can use SB and forgo the gem which is also fine and doesn't do anything to you. Which is why I want it that way, it's overall better and provides actual choice of what you want to do.
It's adding choises to item slots that already has more than enough choises. To quote you: "It is so unbelievably simply that I'm having trouble believing that anyone could have trouble grasping it." We don't need more choise in our jewellery, and all this risks is overtuning the INFINITELLY UPGRADEABLE GEM WITH INFINITE POTENTIAL STRENGTH to be strong enough that it makes every jewellery piece a "can it have my 3 stats and a socket? No? Fuck it, throw it away"-kind of deal, while currently, it's actually worth holding on to items that aren't "perfect" because of the (as mentioned) large affix rolls.
Forcing sockets with INFINITELY POWERFUL GEMS takes away from your choises. It doesn't add them.
You're correct that it wouldn't change how we want our legs. ON the other hand, it wouldn't take away from the choises we make WITH the legs, as we already want sockets. But it would also make our legs a stronger item than it currently is, instead of making strong slots even stronger. The added "choise" from legendary gems should come from choosing which gems to use, not removing the choise of one affix on your neck/rings and making it a socket.
As you say yourself:
[Quotebox.Nope]If we allowed legendary gems in chests and legs, all chests and legs would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of 280 primary stat in every socket they'd have some legendary effects. How you picked your actual chest/leg items wouldn't change, though. You'd still desire the exact same stats, you'd just have different gems to use.[Derpderp;]
I can say the same for jewellery:
If we allowed legendary gems in amulets and rings, all amulets and rings would look EXACTLY THE SAME except instead of <Insert weakest current affix here> they would have a socket with a legendary effect.
The issue is that amulets and rings are so strong and has such strong affixes with (and I know I keep repeating it, but it's pretty important that you understand that part) wide ranges, that makes different combinations of affixes acceptable and stronger than the others. A necklase with 10% crit, 750 int, and a rolled 100% crit dmg with maybe... All ress or vitality? as the fourth stat, will still be far superior to a "perfect" 15% ele dmg, 60% crit dmg, 8.5% crit, 665 int amulet damage wise for me, and add nice survivability to boot. In the future, you won't be having any of that on necks anymore if they don't have a socket. This goes doubly for rings whose affixes are a lot weaker than amulets. Socket or GTFO, no middle ground, no compromise. No choise.
Also, could you please stop dodging the question I keep repeating? You're pretty fucking good at ignoring stuff you don't want to answer, while I try to get around to everything you write:
"What, to you, makes mandatory legendary sockets in necks/rings more entertaining and a better "choise", than mandatory legendary sockets in chests/legs? And as this is me repeating myself, here's the rest:
Is it because you fear us becomming "too powerfull" because it'll be a bigger boost in pants/chests than it will in jewellery, because you have to give up a big stat for an even bigger stat in jewellery, versus a small stat for a big stat in pants/chests?"
Legendary gems are clearly going to be more powerful than regular gems. That's a given. So, to me, it makes sense that we'd be asked to sacrifice more powerful stats (such as the ones on a ring or amulet) to get them as compared with the relatively weak stats we sacrifice on chests and legs in particular. Giving players "something for nothing" is not compelling, it just creates a culture of entitlement that already plagues this community. Allowing people to socket three "infinitely powerful gems" (your words, not mine) at the cost of 100 resist all makes no sense at all. It's too good of a tradeoff to pass up because passing up on it sacrifices far too much power.
Making sockets a viable (or "mandatory") choice (not CHOISE, unless this is the 17th century, in which case I apologize) also helps to break up the "trifecta" effect we see, in particular on necks, rings, and gloves. Moving away from Crit Chance, Crit Damage, and Elemental Damage wherever possible is a GOOD thing. Less flat damage increases replaced by more "legendary effects" like the ones we see on the good legendary items is what most of the playerbase wants. I'll gladly trade 10% CHC on my amulet for more bonuses that enable builds. Why would anyone not want that?
Lastly, limiting legendary gems to three (one neck, two rings) seems like a good way to force us to choose wisely between the available gems just like limiting passives to four is a good way to force us to choose wisely between them. If we could suddenly pick 12 passives that wouldn't really create compelling "choices" because 90%+ of builds would have 5+ passives in common. You'd see this exact same effect with legendary gems if they were suddenly available in every socket.
Like I said, your argument amounts to trying to solve the emerald problem in weapons by letting us socket 130% crit gems in every socket. It simply doesn't make a goddamned bit of sense to anyone with a functional brain. It's completely imbecilic and doesn't even pass the smell test. If you fear that a gem is "overpowered' it doesn't solve anything to just let people put it in every socket. In fact, that's the worst possible solution. It only serves to exacerbate the problem at hand.
So if you are worrying that legendary gems will be too powerful (your words, not mine) then you have to be in favor of limiting their use somehow. And, yes, power creep does matter. It's untenable to let characters continue to get more and more powerful while the monsters stay the same difficulty. The current monsters weren't designed with legendary gems in mind, therefore the legendary gems must fit the mold of the current game otherwise they break the game. That's probably one of the reasons they're using jewelery.... it automatically limits you to three gems thereby mitigating some of the concerns about their ultimate power. If you could suddenly socket 11 legendary gems then that would just make that problem even worse.
Why? What fun does that make? It's still a power increase to our character. Why subtract from the possible optional affixes and add a mandatory one, instead of just making the effects weaker (so sacrifising 280 main stat is comparable to sacrifising say, 6% crit)? Also, something that's barely been touched, it'd mean rings would be far more beneficial for sockets than amulets, due to half the stat budget.
Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. English isn't my first language, and I can point out a fair few spelling errors from you as well, but I don't, because I'm not nearly as big a douche as you seem to be.
And now I am the one who gets to call you a hypocrite - earlier, you were arguing this:
"What is the ultimate difference between a build feeling that an A/B/C/D neck is BiS versus an A/B/C/E neck? What does it matter if D is a socket or E is a socket or F is a socket (and neither want it)?"
What does it matter to you that the BiS stats for a neck is A/B/C/D? Why do you think the best stats being A/B/C/E is so much better? Because E can be a legendary effect instead of a flat 20% elemental damage? It's still always going to be bringing <Insert legendary effect here>. It doesn't actually change anything, except your overall damage numbers looks smaller while the legendary effect does something else.
"Lastly, limiting legendary gems to three (one neck, two rings) seems like a good way to force us to choose wisely between the available gems just like limiting passives to four is a good way to force us to choose wisely between them. If we could suddenly pick 12 passives that wouldn't really create compelling "choices" because 90%+ of builds would have 5+ passives in common. You'd see this exact same effect with legendary gems if they were suddenly available in every socket."
So... Limit the legendary gems to our chests only, or just allow us to only socket three max at a time. Same effect. Not sure I see why it has to be limited by our amount of jewellery items in order to put a hindrance on how many we can use.
I haven't seen that part, so you must have editted one of your posts while I was answering you. Please just add a new post next time, I'll probably not see something if you go back and edit it 15 minutes later.
Allright, there's the thing you added earlier. What a load of horseshit. That's not even close to what I'm saying (although I guess you could be mistakenly believing that if you haven't actually figured out that I'm not saying "lets put legendary gems in EVERY FUCKING SLOT", but "LETS NOT PUT LEGENDARY GEMS IN THESE SLOTS THAT ALREADY HAVE TONS OF OTHER GREAT OPTIONS". I'm all for making the gems themselves be the choice that defines how you play - limiting them to say, 3, is a fine idea. There's a shitton of ways to do this that are fairly simple. I don't believe forcing them on slots that already have tons of good choices is the correct way to do it, when the same could be achived by limiting to the chest slot that has zero choises. If you go back and read, I even advocate making the gems scale in amount with your paragon level, so you unlock abilities and become stronger as you level, opening up for more diverse powers as you play the game. I've never advocated just mindlessly getting to throw 10 gems in random sockets and be done with it.
I'm not "lobbying" for overpowered gems everywhere. I'm lobbying for overpowered gems in slots where they won't harm the current few items that has a lot of potential choices, and can roll into great items due to those despite not having "perfect" stats.
"So if you are worrying that legendary gems will be too powerful (your words, not mine) then you have to be in favor of limiting their use somehow. And, yes, power creep does matter. It's untenable to let characters continue to get more and more powerful while the monsters stay the same difficulty. The current monsters weren't designed with legendary gems in mind, therefore the legendary gems must fit the mold of the current game otherwise they break the game. That's probably one of the reasons they're using jewelery.... it automatically limits you to three gems thereby mitigating some of the concerns about their ultimate power. If you could suddenly socket 11 legendary gems then that would just make that problem even worse."
As mentioned in the paragraph above, I am all for limiting the gems to a low amount. And as mentioned above, there's absolutely no reason that can't be done with other stuff than jewellery.
As for power creep mattering - why? We're already stomping through T6. Becomming more powerfull at this point just makes stuff fun. When witch doctors can zerg elite packs with hordes of pets in seconds, we've already hit the ceiling and gone beyond a long time ago. Besides - character development and power growing as we play is *fun*. Making an artificial ceiling and saying "nope, you can't go beyond this, you'd be too powerfull. You're done growing in strength" is not. They can't keep rolling out updates untill next expansion and expect us to stay at this level of "power" untill then. Frankly, that'd just be stupid. What would the point of a game, whose entire existance is based on taking a character and gearing/levelling it to make it as powerfull as possible, be if you could no longer become more powerfull?
A much easier solution is - add T7. It's not like it's something that requires a ton of work for them to do - copy the templates from the other torment levels, and add the scaling for another torment level. Boom, done. Quite frankly, we're already powerfull enough that they should be concidering doing that with 2.1, seeing how fast we can clear T6 rifts (they were designed for 10-15 minutes per if memory serves me right when they announced them. We're seeing 3-5 minute clears in groups, and 5-8 minute clears solo).
Also, and I openly admit i've skipped ALOT of the preceding 2 pages, it seems like there's a faction that's essentially saying more choices is bad? I mean, one of those choices is don't use the dang things.
I sincerely hope they do add some interesting things that CHANGE the mechanics of some stuff. I liek that they get stronger as you go, I also hope with everything in me, they don't get stronger just sitting in your stash. Also hope the improvement is steady and predictable, otherwise when you level up that gem that was doing great things for you is now unrecognizable and doesn't fit your build anymore ( highly unlikely BUT...).
Also, have they come out and said that they aren't adding a slot for the socket? I mean, probably won't but maybe they will, and all that choice/decision/sacrifice/hand wringing will be wasted....
Wouldn't it be cool if all the jewelry out there gained a socket and lost nothing.( cept what about all the stuff already WITH a socket).
What if Legendary Gems didn't require a socket at all, they just simply are added to the jewelry? You know, a little pixelated glue here and done).
My biggest thing is it's all a big WHAT IF at this point. Why so worked up over essentially pixelated nothingness right now?
Fear of the unknown? Fear of change? Both very viable forces in humanity.Both quite negative and stressful I might add.
Relax, it'll all work out, it'll all become clear, and if it stinks it all up, they can patch it. It's a game. Have fun.
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?
http://www.diabloprogress.com/player/ambient-1624
At the end of the day the jewelery thing is great because the community has been asking Blizzard to break up "trifecta" stats and rings, amulets, and gloves are, by far, the biggest offenders in that department. Since gloves don't have sockets, they're kinda left out. But for rings and amulets, if legendary gems are anything like the legendary properties we see, there will be the ability to sacrifice sheet DPS for "build changing" properties. Nothing wrong with that.
It's the same general concept as every other legendary that people have enjoyed so far. Wand of Woh might do less damage than a Thunderfury... but if you're using Explosive Blast it will do way more damage. People have been asking to move away from sheet DPS, away from "stat sticks" and towards the successful legendary items that actually do influence your build. So, it would seem to me, that they target some of the slots which really are nothing more than offensive stats with something like these legendary gems. Give people the opportunity to sacrifice some stats for the ability to create new synergies and, therefore, better builds.
But, apparently, we can't have that, because we already have "too many choices" on our necks and rings (the concept of having too much choice in slots that clearly lack choice baffles me, too).... even though rings, in particular, are some of the least-diverse items in the game in that it's either SoJ, Unity, RoRG, or it's junk and amulets for most builds boil down to primary, CHC, CHD, elemental damage, with CDR being used in some builds. Tons of diversity there! We wouldn't want to ruin that, right? It's clearly a great situation... if all you like is sheet DPS. But for those of us who really want "build-changing" legendaries there's absolutely no doubt that the jewelery slots have been some of the biggest let-downs of the expansion and that's probably why they're doing this. It gives us the ability to "customize" our jewelery and make them "build-changing" in a most intriguing manner. As opposed to just hunting for the same four stats that jack up our sheet DPS.
How someone could be against that is beyond me. It's like yelling for Blizzard to remove all the Wands of Woh in the game and replace them with Shards of Hate. Why would anyone want to lose items that enable builds over items that are just pure damage increases? The former tend to be way more interesting and way more enjoyable long-term. Damage is boring. 7-digit hits are already the status quo. It's not really fun to see big crits now because of just how inflated our damage has become. But it is fun to see your electro-stun wizard build come together and flourish. It is fun to find that Starmetal Kukiri and see your Zuni's pet build come into its own.
Things of this nature COULD change builds somerwhat.
Imagine a gem that builds life per hit indefinately. Or even life per second.
A single aspect that you can build, albeit slowly, but indefinately.
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?