DiabloFans

Quote from Catalept

IMO, they should have scrapped 'main stat' gems altogether, and turned sockets into a secondary affix, limited them to one per item, and changed the gems to be exclusively things like runspeed, pickup radius, etc... no more CHD or mainstats.

Frustratingly enough, they didn't... so any solution to the socket problem has to be compatible with things as they currently stand

This is very true, and people should keep that in mind. Any changes to the socket implementation would have to jive with the system as a whole. Which is why I suggested simply rendering a socket as either a secondary affix or just simply make sockets a bonus component.



Regarding Bashiok; "Players would feel compelled to run back to town everytime......." Didn't he defend the 'ol individual identification process we used to have, saying some dumb bullshit just like that?

People already are running back to town everytime they upgrade. Durr?

So let's ignore that fact and continue to fuddle through this obviously errant socketing system that's in place? Just as it was with the errant ID'ing system, you cannot have faulty in-game systems like this for the sole purpose of constraining the players. Bashiok....Let me worry about whether or not I should go back to town and dick with my new gears. I'll handle that end of it.

The sockets robs your item of power for the purpose of adding a "mandatory" affix via a gem. Moving the socket out of it's primary status would create far more dynamic itemization, far more than I think many people realize until you really give it thought. This would be a huge, impactful itemization maneuver.


Maybe then they can figure out what to do with the gems we're actually putting into these sockets.

Quote from Keile

Optional: Bring back gems changing a weapons color!

I always thought that was a nice touch. I remember slappin' a diamond into my helm and it would have that silver aura. Nice touch.

Quote from daisychopper

Quote from ruksak

The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.

I think it's fine as a primary affix if it is able to compete fairly with other primary affixes. Currently, as shaggy said above, emeralds completely blow everything else out of the water. That's what needs to change.

If you just add a mechanism for adding a socket, you may as well just bake 135% CD into the characters' baseline because that's all anyone is going to do.

I'm suggesting they do both. Change the status of sockets from primary to either secondary or just an external component AND tweak this issue with CHD. The two seem inexorably tied together, but it need not be that way with further tweaking. A hard cap on CHD and some other source for such a large % of it in one slot. Whatever....

If they keep sockets as a primary, the socket will continue to narrow the variety of choices in several slots. With socs as a primary, the difference from item to item will have little fluxuation in variety.

Quote from HarleyM

Why are you only looking at sockets that way? Why not look at primary stat the same way?

Sockets ARE primary stats, that is what I see as the problem. This takes away from the power they should have. This is why, as Shaggy mentioned, you pray not to get one on jewelry and you pray to get them on weapons, helmets, chests and pants. Good news! You can add one now if you wish! But wait, you have to take something away from that item in order to do it.

You want main on everything you can jam it in. That's the difference. Sockets should be pure addition for them to work properly.

The issue with weapons is tricky. Most likely, you're gonna stick the biggest Emerald you can find in it. You'd rather add LoH, but you can't sacrifice that much damage, the game has you by the short and curlys. What if, instead of having to replace the sweet 1k Loh that your weapon rolled with to give it a soc that it must have, you get to keep the LoH Primary and also add the soc?

Now the drain that stacking CHD puts on us doesn't feel such a burden.

The status of a socket as a primary is flawed. no coincidence that this mechanic went off flawlessly in D2 when it wasn't tied to affixes like that.

Quote from BigEd781

So, I agree with you ruk, but what's the solution? I'm not sure I understand what your implementation would look like. Regardless of whether or not sockets are counted as an affix, they will still be mandatory. The result is just a huge buff. I don't like that weapons *must* have a socket to even be considered, but the only solution I see is to tone down emeralds. Of course, that just means a nerf for everyone, which I'm not a huge fan of either.

I feel the other issues affecting the actual socket's use can and will be tweaked out. CHD breakpoints/caps etc

The issue which concerns me is WHAT a socket is. Should it be a primary affix? I think not.

Either make it a socket that adds an affix (as the socket functioned in D2) or make it a secondary affix so that it does not present such limitations.

Quote from HarleyM

Bonus or substitution you will make the same decision either way. Personally, I use them for AR at the moment, because you get a better return on investment (1 ar for 2 primary instead of the 1 ar for 4 primary trade that you typically would make on gear... though of course at the end you hope to make neither trade).

As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.

As said in the OP; This is addition through subtraction. You have to subtract a potentially powerful primary affix in order to add an affix, nevermind the design flaws which create tendencies for "mandatory" gemming (weapons most often).

D3 devs took much from D2 and planted it in D3, as much flak as they receive for the things they didn't port. One of those things they took from D2 was the ideology of the socket. However, they implemented it differently than it was in D2, causing nothing but shit ever since.

In D2, when you added a socket, well.....you added a socket hence you added an affix. Your build gained power without loss.

In D3, you lose either way. Whether the item spawns with a socket or you have to add one, your build loses strength from one area in order to add to another. Which is fine in many other respects, this creates balance and tough decisions. However, in the case of the socket, the dynamic they have in place isn't working.

A socket should be considered an item component, not an imbued affix. When it was this way, the socket was revered and seen as nothing but a good thing. There was no feeling of compromise with the socket in it's previous iteration. Now it feels like a burden as well as a blessing.

Since day 1 that D3 vanilla launched, sockets have been a problem. A luxury. A mandatory presence in gearing for every slot in which a socket is available.

For nearly 2 years we wanted a way to add sockets. Now we have that ability. Awesome. Right?

Let's examine the socket. What it is. What it does and how it affects character building in a critical manner.

Critical Hit Damage is still too strong and predominant. Mandatory on weapons in most cases. This means that 1 of your very limited primary affixes MUST be a socket on your weapon.

Why is a socket an affix? Well, you can customize it with a variety of affixes garnered from gems, "adding" an affix to an item. The word "adding" is often used here, and the whole premise of sockets is sold to us via the impression that we're "adding" an affix. We are not adding an affix, however. When we socket an item, we're removing an affix and replacing it with another.

Addition through subtraction, we're getting too much of this for the sake of balance. Balance is necessary, but we're constricting itemization terribly, suffocating it by making yet another affix mandatory. We have enough of that already.

I submit that the developers are using sockets incorrectly. That sockets should NOT be an affix.Sockets should be exclusive to affixes, making it so that when we do add a socket we're actually adding an affix as opposed to replacing one, as we are now.

I cannot see a solution beyond the one I'm proposing that would actually make sockets not problematic yet mandatory, aside from jst removing them altogether. My solution doesn't relieve the socket of it's typical "mandatory" impression. However, my suggestion does make sockets non-problematic. Nothing need be taken away, eliminating addition through subtraction in this case.

Another possibility would be reckoning the socket affix as secondary.

Thoughts?