Why Sockets should be separated from other Affixes in D4

General Discussion
61

Then there’s no reason for sockets to be tied to items. Let’s them have an independent UI so the player doesn’t have to re-socket everytime when changing item.

I understand you want more customisation options, I’m just more concerned with redundant tasks and power creep.

Yes, so was the design originally suggested by Shadout, if I’m not mistaken.

You’re right, but for D4 we’re talking of runewords which are quite powerful and may often be necessary for a build.

Indeed, you’ll have to find a better version of the active gem as you progress in the game. Which is completely different from having to change items that serve another purpose, I don’t really see your point ?

Why obstruct the player from equiping an upgrade ? That’s just frustrating for no good, and it’s still a pointless task to change gems/runes everytime.
I agree it’s tedious when we change 15 times every single item slot just from leveling, but that’s specific to D3’s meaningless affixes and power creep.

I guess that would work, though kind of contrived. I’d still prefer a talisman-like system you can craft/expand in different ways.

62

This is a cool take on it. Upgrade the actual item slot and not just apply it to a single weapon. One cost to add a socket. But could make it a tad more expensive or costly since it would be permanent for the item slot.
Thinking on this idea, I’d like to take it further and add in being able to upgrade item slots not with just sockets but new effects attached to the slot itself. Something like being able to improve effects of gems in a specific weapon slot or boost runeword power. But it could add another level of depth for itemization.

63

Spike Players would just put the BiS gem for pushing in everything.

Not everyone is a Spike Player, and many people do also like to adjust for their own playstyle, e.g. they may prefer faster attack speed, even if e.g. increased Weapon Damage is better, or maybe they like to have more toughness or Life per Second/Attack.

And in PoE2 sockets will also be their own system and always be at 6 sockets.
That is gonna improve it even more.

I’ll definitely check out PoE again when v2 comes out, but for now it will only be a game I play occasionally .

Well, in general many gems / runes are tied to the affixes of a weapon / armor, like when you have a gem that does e.g. “Increase the Base Armor of this Item by xx%”, or “Increase Base Weapon Damage / Base Weapon Attack Speed by xx%”.

These are different than e.g. “+xxx Armor” or “+xx to Attribute XYZ” since they are directly tied to the stats on the item itself in which they are socketed into.

iirc I mentioned what I did in regards to PoE because you spoke out against sockets being a separate system from normal affixes and used PoE as an example for why separating affixes and sockets are not a good idea…

… and I wanted to clarify why that is not a good comparison since sockets and gems work very different role in PoE than in D2, D3 and eventually in D4 as well.

[quote=“Firyadan-2852, post:61, topic:49254”]

Their power will depend on the balance.
Furthermore, it is not even sure yet if runewords in D4 will not be reverted to D2-style runewords.

64

not in D3
D3 is so boring and uncreative when it comes to sockets, you are just putting in your main stat gem

65

I dont mean the skill gems you put in. But the sockets themselves. They presumably have to be unlocked throughout the game?

It shouldn’t really stop them from equipping an upgrade, more limiting gear juggling, like equipping more fire resistance against enemy A, then more cold resistance against enemy B 5 seconds later, or stuff like Nemesis Bracers, and so on.

Presumably it can be many hours between upgrades in endgame, so it is not like you would spend much time moving gems around.

I still have a hard time to believe it will always be 6 sockets? Have GGG really said that? That would seem like bad progression.

But yeah, PoE2 sounds like a huge upgrade for the skill gem system. PoE1 sockets are horribly designed.

To be fair, even in a separate UI, the sockets could still be tied to the item slots.
And yeah, they definitely still should be tied to item slots, even if moved out of the item interface.
I’d still prefer to keep it as part of item UI, just seems much more readable for players. Even when the socket creation is separated.

Yeah. There is no reason that would be true in other systems though. Even something as simple as different gems giving different resistances for example, in certain slots, easily ensures you wont just mindlessly use the same gem always. There is no BiS resistance. And so on.

1 Like
66

yea no i was just saying this because clueso said “imagine if D3 had…” welp, no xD

67

I rewatched the part of the Gameplay Announcement Trailer again, and it seems they do not all have 6 sockets, but rather it seems they always have their maximum amount of sockets (if I am not mistaken):

I agree.

It is one of several reasons for why I don’t like PoE 1 (and PoE in general) not so much as I would like to.

This here is the initial post that of mine that you initially responded to, where I also mention that gems and rune should be more interesting and give a few examples:

68

Then simply have a gem do only one thing and more different gems as a whole.
Though I think gems should still work into items, with sockets being affixes. Runewords are a more complex subject, I don’t see them working at all, at least in their 2019 form.

My point was that RW in current form would be vital for characters. Not as much as PoE’s skillgems of course, since you can’t do anything at all without them, but much more than D3’s gems (not legendaries though).

BTW I like your gem examples. :wink:

Sorry, I wasn’t clear, by “better version of the gem” I meant “a gem with more sockets”.
For e.g. basic active gems may have +1 socket, then you’d find a better one with +2 etc. up to +5 for the best.
It will still be possible to reroll the number of sockets with orbs and socket color will still be random and craftable.
https://pathofexile.fandom.com/wiki/Path_of_Exile_2#Skill_gems_.26_sockets

I understand the concern, though I don’t see that happening in D4. If it does, it’s because of core itemisation/combat problems that will have to be adressed directly.

1 Like
69

Oh, so they are keeping the RNG for finding more sockets. The RNG is just on the active gem instead of the item. It is still a big improvement (not having to throw out gear due to having the wrong sockets), but much less than I thought. Not a fan of our ability to choose skills being so heavily RNG dependent. Still feels like the entire skill system has turned into random items.

70

It might be the best solution overall.
Make runes a completely separate thing, that you dont put into sockets. A talisman as you mentioned. And then have sockets + gems on items.
Probably easier to balance and present for players.

Personally, I’d still like if it is tied more directly to the item slots though.
Maybe have the sockets to the side of the item slots in the equipment UI

O |~~~~~|
O |     |
O |_____|

O being the sockets, and the box being the item slot. Changing the item would keep the socketed runes in place.

1 Like
71

I don’t know what you mean by that.
Mind elaborating?

My comment was a response to you saying that that they should get a separate UI instead of being socketed into items.

To me this would make them feel too disconnected, and also there is a difference if you have a gem that does “+xxx Armor” and “x% increased Armor of the Item you socket this gem into”.

One just gives your overall character more armor, while the other one increases the Armor of a specific type of Armor you wear by an amount based based on the items armor itself… if that makes sense.

If you disconnect Gems from the Item, it would imo make the latter affix nonsensical, since it would feel more as if your gem would be socketed into your character instead of the equipment.

But I understand your point of re-equipping gems and runes might be annoying, though I personally never had this issue in D2 or D3, and since leveling in D4 will hopefully take much longer than in D3, you will not find upgrades that frequently.

I have to admit that this is just not an issue that I can relate to.

I may have missed that, but 1) that is even more of an argument for having sockets as a separate system, and 2) having them always on their max possible amount of sockets regardless of Item Rarity Class, and 3) what does that exactly has to do with sockets being in a separate UI or not.

Or did we all just went off-track somehow?
Not an attack or critique, I just wanna understand the context of what we are discussing here.

Ah, thank you! :smiley:
I like that you like them.

I still might need to update them a bit.

72

I don’t think the problem was RNG itself (though I agree it was too much) but the combination with item affixes. If the RNG is just on gems, and if it’s not too hard to get the 6 sockets, then it should be OK.

Gems have the same effect on any item slot. So 1 gem to “+Armor” and another for “+Attack Speed”. Not based on item stats obviously, that increases item imbalance.

I prefer gems to work on items too, but as a flexible option and not a mandatory bonus.

Not in D2 obviously since the gem is irremediably tied to the item once socketed (which has issues of its own), but in D3 we have to take out gems just to compare items which IS tedious, only in end game fortunately as we don’t care much for items while leveling.
Also, since you’re proposing more sockets than in D3 (+5) the problem will be greater.

On the other end, if 1 socket = 1 affix, it gets easy to compare and make a decision.

Well, of course since in your proposed system you always have these sockets to fill ! ^^ So it would be stupid not to use them to create RW…

Note that I don’t think RW can work even if socket = affix, because of the imbalance nature of the effects. I’m more inclined to mix the system with the D2 RW, where you can still choose what condition/effect runes you want but as recipes with adjusted numbers and consuming the runes/base item.

I don’t know, what does the fact that sockets support different systems in PoE, D3 and D4 change in the first place, since it means de-socketing and re-socketing them anyway ? I was talking about the mandatory task of keeping the bonus of gems/runes, no matter how big or small it is.

Now I understand you don’t mind repeating the operation so maybe we’ve come to a stalemate ? ^^

73

I am curious, do you also want a Mythic-like feature of being able to reroll an affix in D4. That would fill much of the same role as affix = socket, allowing you to place whatever affix you want into the “affix slot”.

Personally not complettely against having a 1 socket = 1 affix system (as long as Runes then have its own separate “socket” system), if these sockets are solely meant to offer the ability to “create your own item” in a sense, by adding affixes to the item through gems. Although it might make finding items a bit too easy, if getting an Rare with 3 sockets and 3 other affixes meant you could choose whatever you wanted for half of the items affixes. Reduces item RNG too much?
Now, if the gems are weaker than normal affixes, then the flexibility comes with a trade-off, which might work. Although it might mostly work by making you annoyed each time you get a socket on an item.

Also, very much hoping we wont see the “affix reroll” Mythic feature again. The affixes that spawn on the item when it drops should be what we get. No do-overs. Then we can enhance/add stuff to the item afterward. Instead of replacing/remaking.
(well, except if the rare => legendary recipe survives, then we of course need to replace 2 affixes on the Rare item, but that should be random anyway, and thus not really allow us to design our own item).

74

Good question ! ^^ I did like the possibility of changing one bad/not great affix with the mystic in D3.
On the other end it ended up being another mandatory task every time we changed an item, especially when we just wanted the 3 sockets on the chest piece…

So yes, I’d like that option in D4 but not as the D3 no-brainer, where it’s always a buff to enchant an item, even the already good ones. Maybe an item can use only one sort of crafting recipe, so we’d have to choose between enchanting, Essence implementation or whatnot.

Not if gems provide different bonuses than regular affixes, or they will just be boring/imba anyway.

Not necessarily since you would still need to find a Rare with at least 2 sockets (if you can enchant one of the other affixes to get a third socket).
Of course gems need to be in par with regular affixes. Which means level restrictions need to come back to gems, so we can’t use a rank 10 diamond at level 6 like in D3.

75

Is that how gem work in the D4 the last time they have shown them?

The last time I remember they have been mentioned was when in one of the dev blogs it was stated that gem from now on can only be put in rings and amulets. But I have to double check that.

In D2 and D3 gems always had different effects depending on where you socketed them.

For me this is a bit like Passive Skills and Active Skills. It was a very good decision to separate Active and Passive Skills and to give each of them their own Systems and their own Skill Points.

Similar with Gems and Affixes. If you have them merged together, then it is like Passive Skills and Active Skills competing for the same Skill Points.

It must be tedious if you don’t know that, but there is an option that allows you to compare items in their “black state” (aka without gems and without augments) by pressing a button so you can compare them better.

I don’t know what the default button is for that, but iirc the default button is either ALT or CTRL.

I was suggesting 4 at max on Chest Armor and 2handed Weapons (2h weapons would also have a 50% increased Effectiveness of Gems and Runes Bonus by default) and 3 for 1handed weapons and off-hand.

Just press ALT or CTRL, and you can compare the items in their default state with each other.

One gem or rune could also have 1/3, or 1/2 or 2/3 of the power of a normal affix, but that is beside the point, because it is about two system competing with each other, like Active Skills and Passive Skills competing for the same Points.

Or put gems into them.

And maybe they’ll also revert to D2 style runes.

It certainly isn’t my intent, but the discussion may have become a bit convoluted by mixing several topics and points of views on these issues together.

I you want to, sure. I never saw this as a battle anyway because everyone of us simply has different personal preferences.

76

No we still know almost nothing about them yet, why this question ?
The only thing I heard about gems is David Kim saying they would just add secondary boosts like GF or MF, but that was back in 2019.

I think that’s a good analogy, especially since skill points now improve both Skill and Passive once again. ^^

I’m not saying it’s always better to link systems under the same “currency” but it promotes more hard choices which is never a bad thing. Also, having too much separated systems increases the risk of power creep.

It could be 1/100, it wouldn’t change anything as long as it’s free additional power. Though I don’t advocate for making gems/runes insignificant, every system has to feel useful.

Oh, I didn’t know that actually, thanks ! :smiley:

Yeah it’s possible, sometimes I have to go way back to remember what was the original point. ^^

1 Like
77

Yeah, it is kinda weird, we have heard nearly nothing about runes, and yet, even less about gems. I sure wonder what the status is. Scrapped, or maybe some wild concepts that changes everything :partying_face: :heart_eyes_cat:

Where was that said?

It sure can be.
An A-RPG asking us to choose between Gear and Skills would be an automatically failed A-RPG imo.

Having many separate systems, with those systems having a lot of depth => Best outcome
Few systems with lots of depth => decent
Lots of shallow systems => bad
Few and shallow systems => worst

Runewords easily seems like a system that could stand on its own, on par with skills, items, paragon etc. Basic gems do not.

1 Like
78

isnt it currently still the skill tree we saw last time where getting active skills unlocks passive points?

79

I would not say that in this case it is a good idea to merge Active and Passive Skill Systems / let them compete for the same points, because look what happened in D2 when they introduced synergies. It all became about your one main active skill and then put all your remaining available points into its synergies (aside from some other buff skills like Holy Shield, Battle Orders, Shout, etc) or other passives like Fire Mastery, etc and some one point wonders.

I don’t think that this is by default an issue. It depends on how much power it is and how well it is balanced.

By that same logic you could say that D4’s Paragon Board is bad because it is additional power (I don’t like D4’s Paragon Board for various reasons, but that it adds more power is not one of them).

You are welcome!

It was in the Quarterly Update that showed the Skill Tree, where it was an actual tree. iirc.

1 Like
80

You’re right about the D2 synergies, those were a short-sighted answer to the bigger problem of point hoarding. Of course, if it’s possible to invest most of our skill points to vertically improve a single skill, that would be a problem. Let’s hope D4 doesn’t go this way. Other games like Grim Dawn do it quite well.

Of course I’m not saying EVERY systems should be linked. ^^ It’s not all or none. But when it’s suitable, it should be done.

Indeed ! ^^ I’ve been advocating for separating RW from items so I agree it’s not always a good idea. In other cases it can make sense, like having to choose between Passives, Skill ranks and Modifiers.

As Clueso just pointed out, it was in the September 2020 blog.

You mean the September 2020 skill tree ? Yes, that’s the last time we heard or saw anything about Passives.
There is also the heading picture from the last blog, which seems to be a newer version of the skill tree (not a tree anymore…) but it’s hard to draw much clue from it.