Where's the stat gems?
|
So, I had this idea to make more use of the unset rings. Easy, stat gems. Gems that provide raw stats, int, str and dex.
Just some ideas: Clairvoyance, gives +100 int when equipped, Relief, gives +100 str when equipped, Red bull, gives you wi.. jokiiing. But you get the idea. I'm actually surprised this isn't a feature in the game yet. All this talk about gemlings and how thaumaturgi messed people's appearance up and all we have now is some stone that lets you use cool skills, no physical effect what so ever. So, hot or not? Last edited by Maxwells on Nov 18, 2014, 11:32:27 AM
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
| |
|
I don't see it. Currently you can raise your stats with gear, thanks to crafting even leaving some room for customization, or via the passive tree. All the skill gems are either active or triggered. If you trade sockets for stats, essentially you're giving builds that need a lot of skills to function a disadvantage, where arguably it is those builds that require the most player skill and/or bring the most flavor to the game.
| |
|
If GGG ever does this, it would probably be like the Heralds: 100 int for x% reserved mana. I don't really see it done though.
What I would consider more likely to happen is a gem similar to Reduced Mana but Reduced Requirements | |
" This is basically the reason that was given when this was suggested back in OB. Also +100 [attribute] in one skill gem is fucking insane. Devolving Wilds
Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” |
|
" And the other side is that the attribute requirements for items are based on the ease of obtaining the stats. A pure STR gem is supposed to require at least some opportunity cost (in points or through item mods) to equip on a character that is otherwise specced only into INT/DEX area nodes. If you suddenly throw people a 100 STR implicit ring (and make corals obsolete) then GGG would just be pressured into making the stat requirements higher to compensate. It doesn't accomplish anything. They already had to buff requirements once since CB. | |
|
I don't see it coming anytime soon, even though I kinda like the idea...
A Reduced Req gem ( Atziri's Foible style) is a better and more fitting suggestion. With quality that could give also some reduced mana cost, why not? "Metas rotate all the time, eventually the developers will buff melee"
PoE 2013-2018 | |
|
^ (brainstorming; assuming support gem) I wonder, would it be appropriate for a reduced requirement gem to be white and with lower impact, for ease of access? Or would there be a str gem with slightly greater reduced int/dex req...etc.? Or a str/dex gem with even greater reduced int req..?
Would it be appropriate for one or more of these options to also reduce the related requirements of the item it's socketed to? Would it reduce the related requirements of other linked support gems? I'm just curious where the functionality would lie, because "reduced requirements gem" is a fairly vague concept that could manifest in a number of ways. In any case, I like it ^-^
Spoiler
I'd prefer if it had a relatively low magnitude effect, was a white gem, and reduced item requirements as well; its identity would be "ease of access" but its universally useful nature could make it somewhat difficult to acquire.
Devolving Wilds
Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” |
|
" Make it a white gem that makes the item that it is in + all gems that it is linked too reduced the requirements. If it is too booty make the +q on it add like some quality (like 20% of the gem adds 5% to the gear and other gems) or something. Last edited by RagnarokChu on Nov 19, 2014, 11:23:23 AM
|
|
" can see people on the forums crying over this since we already have people with 8+ auras on bloodmagic that can easily get more running | |
|
Good idea. Then you can equip mjölner and level 20 gems on every reroll and crush normal hailrake big time...
Yeah, maybe not. |
|
