Well said. Don’t let some armchair developers here convince you otherwise. This is exactly what will happen or else why do you think people seeking the guidance of the best and strong build from those content creators on youtube for every game?
If people can put 3 Diamonds in D3 helmets or 9 emeralds in their body chests, they will put it for sure. If people care so much about “customization” you would have seen people running with 1 Ruby, 1 Diamond, 1 Amethyst for their Barbarian’s body chest in D3 by now.
Even in the game that I am current playing where you can socket 5 gems into almost every gear, people are literally socketing the same 5 “best in slot” gems for every gear available for their character.
I think 2 sockets max is fine for what they are going for.
Having sockets roll as an affix I think works out well. If you have them separate from the affix pool you only end up in a situation where you always want items with the max amount of affixes. Ex - Rare items roll up to 5, so you always want a 5 affix rare.
With that said, having a way to make you wanna potentially choose between an item with no sockets or only one socket is something that should exist. The right answer shouldn’t always be to have max sockets on all items that can roll sockets.
This could be something like having the effect of gems boosted in items with only one socket maybe.
Some Ideas!
Having more socket items would be good to make actual choices with.
As of now Gems and Runes?
I think the legendary essence system should be a socket item that can be placed in Blues and Yellows. It consumes a socket and after you put it in an item you can only overwrite the legendary power with another one. You also cannot place a power in the socket of a Legendary item and you cannot have more than one on an item.
This could make you consider a Runeword over a Power in a Blue or Yellow, or consider keeping the original Legendary with 2 sockets for the Runeword instead. So that you can use the next item under this in the Blue or Yellow.
Another Semi-Permanent Socket item could be like a type of seal (not the animal kind) that goes into the socket “Sealing” it. The Seal can be destroyed/removed with a “Scroll of Unsealing” or something like that. These would have effects based off the item.
Example - An item has 300 strength and a Seal grants you a .1% chance to stun on hit per point of Strength on the item. (not character)
These items could also grant effects based on the amount of affixes currently on the item allowing these items to benefit differently from different item tiers. This could be something like “Gain 5% movement speed for each affix on the socketed item.” (not counting the sockets themselves, Rares would have potentially 4.) Another possibility would be different amounts of affixes would grant a different effect. ( 1 affix = 10% fire res, 2 affixes = 10% frost res, 3 affixes = 10% lightning res, etc.) Meaning these types could benefit from all item tiers.
Just like with item tiers these could roll differently based on the tier.
Magic Seals would roll the highest vaule but only have one effect.
Rare Seals would roll 2 effects but at lower values to Magic ones.
Legendary Seals could potentially exist with more generic effects like adding extra projectiles to attacks or causing poison to spread to an additional target. (I would also like to stress that these shouldn’t add direct power buffs. No %damage increases, crit chance/dmg, etc. Plenty of this is bound to already exist no reason to add more to it. while the effects I listed are pretty generic the idea behind this would be to create another way to customize your build.)
Overall these items could potentially benefit differently based on the item type. Since Blue items roll the highest values (hopefully still the case) they would benefit more from seals that require a specific affix like an Attribute or some other affix. while Yellows benefit more for having a higher number of affixes on the item.
End Thoughts
I couldn’t really come up with any interesting ideas to make items with a single socket useful or items without a socket. That doesn’t involve some generic power up. like single sockets get boosted gem effects. or for no sockets having a buff of some kind. Meh. But it doesn’t really seem like they are going for that anyways. I’d assume any item that can have sockets on them you will want sockets on no matter what and the max amount. Anyways maybe someone gets some ideas out of all this, just my take on it. Last second thought* - Rings and Ammy could have innate effects to boost the power of gems socketed into them or something. idk. have a universal legendary item that boosts the power of all socketed gems by 50-100%.
i think thats not really his point
customization=/=creativity
the fact that everyone is doing the same is due to the balance the developers gave you in a game
if doing that wasn’t always the best option to do in the game people also wouldn’t always do it
customization is the option to do whatever you want. not the motivation. the motivation should be proper balancing.
My point is that D4 is also not even in Alpha and that can change.
Maybe the Occultist will also add Affixes to a Rare Item, similar to what I have shown in concept art a few post earlier, you know, Normal Affixes rather than Legendary Affixes.
Or you can have semi-legendary affixes, like “Can not be Frozen” and you then can choose if you rather want to have 1 semi-legendary affix on your rare,or 3 normal ones.
Maybe they all can be found as Essences. Legendary Essences, as well as “Normal Affix Essences”.
It all has the potential to change.
These affixes are cool, but sound too elaborate to be ordinary affixes. They sound more like a special affix on a legendary or a unique item that would trigger these effects, even from runewords that are socketed into other items.
And you also have to keep in mind that this would strongly incentivice using runes over gems.
But I really like the idea of such an affix, but it feels / sounds more like a special affix from a legendary or unique item.
Not everyone is a spike player.
And also what do you think people will do after they already have achieved “the top of their game”? They will start playing less efficient builds that suit their own preferred playstyle more. That is called “the post game”.
From the original post:
If necessary, only one gem or rune of the same type (or maybe two) can be sockets into an item, both for balance reason and to encourage customizing the item.
Even if Sockets are part of the ordinary Affix Pool, you still would want the maximum number of affixes anyway, because the sockets themself count as affixes.
If an item can have 5 affixes in total, then the best is still gonna have 5 affixes, or 4 affixes + the 1 affix that is 2 sockets.
Why?
To me this just sounds like “less customization for no good reason”.
Well sure, but the point is that the occultist is currently a planned implementation, as such it can’t be ignored. Now if the next update (or one in the future), Blizzard does get rid of the occultist. Then sure. However as of now, the occultist is here, as well as their ability to upgrade rare items into legendary.
That said:
It’d probably be simpler to have it where once you enhance and/or upgrade a magic or rare item, they can’t be transformed into a legendary.
Fair point. However I’d like to say that we haven’t seen what gems can do (and/or jewels if they’re in the game).
But it can be repurposed, just like the Mystic in D3.
The Mystic in D3 originally added affixes instead of rerolling them, so the Occultist also could do the things I suggested with Rare and Magic Items in one way or another (or anything else for that matter), so you don’t need to get rid of it.
In the example I gave you use a Cube Recipe for Magic Items and a Consumable for Rares, but that easily could be transferred over to the Occultist.
Yeah, I agree. I also do not like the idea to turn Rare Items into Legendaries.
That should definitely be the case.
Two major item upgrades; Add 2 additional affixes to a rare, or add a legendary affix.
Bad games are bad. Doesn’t mean all games have to be like that.
Yep. Having sockets vs. not having sockets should not be a choice in the game.
Make runes/gems a central gameplay system, on par with skills, skill upgrades, attributes, items, and paragon. We dont choose to use one instead of another of those either.
Well changing up how the occultist work is definitely an option. But my main point is that so long as the ability to upgrade rare items into legendary items exist (be it via occultist and/or any other method), there would need to be some limitation or choice to be made in pertaining to upgrading magic and rare items (such as not being able to transforming upgraded magic and rare gear into legendary items), otherwise we have the situation where viable endgame builds consist mostly between upgraded legendaries and/or unique items, while dropped magic, rare, and/or legendary items offer little in comparison.
Find an item that’s better than what you’re wearing.
Craft until you get max sockets.
Go to artisan to take off the gems in your old item.
Socket the gems in the new item.
Repeat each time you find a potential upgrade…
All uninteresting yes mandatory busywork since that’s just free additional power. No choice involved, you just have to do it every time.
The only way to offer a real choice is to make 1 socket = 1 affix (not the D3 system of 1-3 sockets per affix) and have gem/rune progression match affix progression. It’s definitely not easy to balance, and I know many people doesn’t like it, but that’s the way to go.
In one of the previous iterations of Legendary Items you could only transfer a Legendary Affix from one Legendary to another, but not put it onto Rare Items.
So maybe all you need is a Token Legendary Item that so to speak has a “Legendary Affix Slot” in which you can put a Legendary Power.
That way you would not need to put a legendary affix on a rare.
But not letting Upgraded Rare Items be turned into Legendaries might also work.
I did not try to suggest that the amount on sockets an item can have should be random, but rather that it should either always spawn with the max amount of sockets or that you simply go to an artisan that add sockets, but not a random number of sockets, but rather of your choice up to the maximum (aka +1, +2, +3, +4, no randomness involved).
In 4 socket items:
1 socket: Costs basically nothing
2 sockets: Costs enough to make it a bit expensive during lvling. You might only manage that on a few items during lvling
3 sockets: Too expensive to get during lvling, will be one of your earlier goals in endgame. Later on it will be reasonably affordable, but still not something you can do all the time
4 sockets: Immensely expensive endgame goal. Something you only add to items you intend to keep for the long term.
Removing gems and runes from items could also be pretty expensive, so you would usually have to find new ones rather than reuse the old ones. While having the option to take out the most rare runes.
There shouldn’t be a choice tbh. Both items and sockets should always be available, like all other major game systems.
But there is choice involved. A much more interesting choice than socket vs. no socket; Which runes to use.
Heck, even which gems to use might change with new items. Enchants in Grim Dawn certainly change around when you get new items.
i guess we just dont agree on this one but i dont really mind it a lot as long as they can keep balance
and right now it would potentially be a band-aid fix for the messed up balance in itemization
Then that is just bad. You are always going to seek out items with max affixes. Any item with less will just be junk. Though I did suggest a new type of socket item. One version of that item would give a different effect based on the amount of affixes on the item (if it rolled with that effect on it).
I also now agree to keep the sockets as a separate thing from affixes. As it fits the previous mentioned item better. Since Magic could roll 1-2 and Rare 3-5. The item would have a different effect for the number of affixes on the item when socketed into it.
Obviously a very basic example of possible effects. But you can probably see the creative possibilities with that. Balance it correctly and you may not want a 5 affix rare for the right one of these. If Sockets are also something you add to items for a cost. You might find one of these and an item with like 3 affixes and decide to invest into some sockets into that item.
Yeah I agree now, after going over my ideas again. I see the reason to just be able to reach max sockets on any item that can have sockets. As the alternative is honestly just difficult to make correctly.
4 Sockets should only exist if Runewords are limited 1 per item (assuming they still exist in the way we know them when they were announced) and more items besides gems and runes exist. Which I have ideas for. (I mostly bring this up since a barbarian can already have 2 two-handed items, giving them access to 8 and 2 more on each one-handed item. On top of whatever armor pieces could have 2+. Given though they would still have more sockets regardless.) But I might just be not looking at the whole picture on that front. Personal Opinion - I’d like to see the Legendary power transfer via an essence, be a socket item that can be placed on any item tier. It would also consume a socket permanently, making it a much deeper choice. Sacrifice 1 of 4 sockets or use some other combo of socket items. This would also make actual legendary items more than just something to be harvested for their power. As you would have to sacrifice a socket to move the power to another item or choose to invest in more expensive sockets on the legendary item itself.
I agree with having a cost to put a socket into an item, that varies for the tier and amount of sockets already in the item.
That’s what I described, more or less. The point being that, in the end, it doesn’t add anything to the game.
Honestly I don’t understand what having sockets separated from affixes is supposed to achieve, except “more”.
PoE did that, and failed. In the end everybody have 6 socket armour, despite its huge cost.
As a result they’re making PoE2 without sockets on items to correct this issue.
First time I hear that from you I think ! ^^ Less choice is better ?
Not only that but it’s also another variable for increased number.
So you mean everybody should use runewords ?
And how is that more interesting to choose only which kind of RWs to use instead of choosing between RWs AND affixes ?
The problem in PoE is that it is random (well, unless something has changed). You can’t pay to get 6 sockets, only pay for a very low chance to get 6 sockets. And them removing sockets as a random affix in PoE 2.0 is the right way to go, and exactly what I am arguing for here as well. The sockets should still be on the items, in a UI sense. But not as an affix.
As for everyone getting 6 sockets in the end in PoE. That is not a problem in what I described. Everyone should also get 4 sockets in the item slots that allows for 4 socket. It should just be something you work toward throughout the game. Opening up more and more runeword combinations as you increase your number of sockets. Early on your runewords will be simple (max 2 sockets), later on more complex (max 4 sockets), offering a progression within the runeword system.
Less choice can definitely be better. If it leads to more choice.
Lets say there is 100 choices to be made in the Skill tree system. And 100 choices to be made in the item system (what exactly 100 means is irrelevant).
If I can access both skills and items that gives me 200 choices.
If I have to choose whether I want to use the Skill tree, or equip items, sure, that offers me one huge choice. But then only 100 more choices afterward. 200>101 choices.
Having only access to the skill tree OR items, as much as it would represent a meaningful and hard choice, would not make the game more interesting imo. Very much the opposite.
Same with choosing between runewords and items.
If sockets were just a way to customize affixes (as they kinda are with the bland gems in D3, if we ignore legendary gems for a second) then of course, sockets are affixes.
But when sockets is a way to access its own complex gameplay system; such as D4 runewords (or heck, even legendary gems, and obviously PoE skills), then there should not be a choice between systems. Both should be accessible, always.
Now, could Blizzard take the runewords out of items entirely (the PoE 2.0 solution as far as I understand it), and return sockets to just be affix customization with bland gems? Yeah. I guess I’d be okay with that. But as long as it isn’t, then sockets should not compete with item affixes.
Definitely. Just like everyone use skills, paragon etc. It should be a gameplay system on par with those.
As for the second part see above.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people putting the same 3 gems into an item. There is something wrong with balancing and build design, if there is no reason for anyone to ever use anything but those same 3 gems.
The moment the gems you want to use depend on which items you have equipped for example, we have already gone a long way to ensure that you wont always use the same gems.
It’s possible with the “new” (around 2017) crafting system, getting 6 sockets costs 1500 orbs or something.
I agree the 100% random thing was even worse, but it’s not good now either.
What’s happening with PoE2 is that sockets will depend on active gems now instead of items. It’s completely disconnected now, which is the right way to go as it’s never really been part of itemisation even in PoE1, but another system added on top of it.
And that’s going to be the same problem if sockets in D4 are just an addition to the rest of the itemisation. The player will always want at least the same number of sockets, especially if runewords are mandatory for a build. She will be forced to craft the item, then take off all X gems/runes (at least in PoE it’s free and you can do it yourself) to socket into the new item. Or just trash the new item even if it has better stats, which is just frustrating.
The obvious solution is to do the same as PoE2, a whole separated system with its own UI, just like skilltree and paragon. Then I would be on board with what you describe, at least for runewords (I still think the whole point of gems is to be a flexible alternative to an affix).
Customization (right, for Spike Players there is only one right choice, but not everyone is a Spike Player or some just prefer to e.g. be more defensive)
Personal Preference.
More toys to play around with.
It makes Gems, Runes and also Jewels (if implemented) much more important and interesting.
It does not “make you feel” bad / feel as if you are missing out on something if you don’t have sockets on an item as an affix.
It allows for D4-style runewords to be put in any item (though I personally prefer D2-style runewords)
it makes items feel “beefier” to not having to sacrifice affixes for sockets (but I agree that items can get to bloated with affixes at a certain point)
think about how D3 would be with sockets being separated from normal affixes and always could get (either by default or with help from the jeweler) the max amount of sockets - also imagine that gems in D3 would be more “interesting”, e.g in the two links below)
In Median XL for example Jewelcrafting is very important and a large part of the endgame.
It would take a bit long to describe how it works, but if you are interested, I’ll leave a link here: https://docs.median-xl.com/doc/items/cube#idx6
There also is Shrine Crafting, which is somewhat related, but the ideas can also be applied to Jewel Crafting:
https://docs.median-xl.com/doc/items/cube#idx5
Wasn’t the issue with PoE’s sockets that they were random? The amounts and kinds of sockets that dropped were random and crafting to change the sockets also involved RNG.
Also, in PoE Sockets have a tremendous effect on the power of your skills. They are magnitudes more important than even in D3.
It depends on the kinds of choices.
E.g. imo the choice in D2 between either more inventory space and charms is a bad one, however if charms had their own inventory, then the choice is purely “which charms to take”.
It is somewhat similar with sockets. I know, both are systems of power, but one does allow you to customize your items and has also the benefits that I listed above in this post.
It will not 100% “solve” the “problem”, but definitely mitigate it.
And it shouldn’t even be “solved” a 100%.
This kind of restriction however, does still make it more interesting, maybe not for all players, but for a decent amount of them.
Yeah. Though it sounds like you can now pay to skip the randomness. Which is an improvement at least.
Yeah. But even taking it out of items, I assume PoE2 sockets still have progression to them. Surely you wont start out with 6 sockets at lvl 1?
So I dont see that much difference to what I described, other than not having to change gems/runes when changing items (something that would imo be fine, adding a little cost to changing items all the time, cost/benefit to optimizing gear against enemies all the time, while small enough to not stop you when you genuinely find an upgrade), and not having to pay for crafting sockets into new items when you do switch.
The latter is definitely a benefit, and I’d probably be fine with the socket crafting being a general thing you did at a blacksmith, for all current and future items in that item slot; like you add 1 socket to weapons, now your character will always have 1 socket available in weapons they find, and so on. Adding that 4th socket should still be really expensive then, more so even, to work as an endgame goal though. Also, the currency used for this upgrading should be per character, so you still couldn’t start out with 4 slots at lvl 1 on alts.
