6 Linking

"

it directly affects the power of your skills. it just happens to be tied to item progression as well,

Skill progression is effected by more then just an extra support gem, so to say your progression is completely stopped by not having a 6th gem is probably not correct. Do you have a level 100 character, do you have BiS gear elsewhere? Do you have corrupted\leveled gems? Your progression isn't limited purely by this 6th link, you only think that.

"

dont take me for a fool , i am upset with it specifically because it is tied to both skill progression AND item progression.

Its an ARPG of course its going to be tied to item progression.

"

I want it to not be tied to item progression. the very thing you base your argument on is the very thing i want gone. of-course its based on itemization that is its inherent problem.

Except that isn't PoE, it wasn't 2 years ago and it shouldn't ever be going forward.

"

you dont see runes in diablo three being arbitrarily tied to a slot on your chest piece (in fact they removed that explicitly because they said it was a bad idea) .

Right, now D3 only has gems that are tied to jewelry slots instead. This isn't D3 so please don't try to use that game to try and force anything upon PoE.

"

you dont see critical synergies between skills based on sockets in diablo 2.

You also don't see flask system in D2, should PoE remove that because D2 didn't have it? They are different games.

"

nor do you see it in titan quest or many other arpgs with a skill system.

Great, this game isn't those other ones, glad we can point that out.

"

there is fine line between having gear affect skills in subtle ways like crit chance here a +1 level there or cast speed / spell damage. which pretty much every arpg does

and it is a completely different matter for the items to dictate core features of a skill.

I don't care what every other ARPG does, the linking system in PoE has proven to be quite successful. Because you or others have shitty RNG or refuse to spend the amount to buy a 6 link does not mean the whole game needs changed because you think other games do it better.

"

once that happens then the character loses much of its innate personality. It is not your passives that make your character , it is your items .. its basically a different path taken to get to the same damn issue diablo 3 had , your character is your gear.

Your character is your gear in D3 because no choices you made other then gear mattered. In PoE you have a skill tree that is very complex, I can't even believe you are trying to say PoE is just like D3 because you can't get a 6 link. There are 7 different classes in PoE, all with different starting stats, all with different pathing options, your point is so far off base its difficult to take you seriously.

"

and ofcourse you can argue that it is easy to get similar links on other items in the small scale ( 4l etc) , that is not the point. the point is in order to change items or progress you have roll the same links or you don't have a build period.

So because everyone wants to roll fully linked items that makes the whole quest\progression to getting so mute because the goal for everyone is fully linked?

Whats this build you have that doesn't work without a 6 link?

goetzjam, it seems you still think i am talking about 6l.... until you figure out that i am not , we have nothing to discuss.

"

Antnee wrote:

...such as?

the complete detachment of links from gear , and rather have it attached to the character,

remove the randomness of rolling sockets and links and instead have it as fixed numbers of jewelers and fusing ,


rework vorici entirely as he is doing something that should be the base line and not something special.


This way core skill mechanics are definitely based on the character. Item which are designed around links

ie tabula rasa will still have a roll in that it converts a characters implicit socket colors to white when worn. no more of this absurd level 1 6l nonsense.


This has the added benefit of making it easier to try out new items on slots that otherwise would hold critical links all the while reinforcing the investment into ones characters.


That is what should happen , but i also know very well that the ship has sailed on this issue , GGG wont change a core mechanic like sockets at this stage of the game.

In short we are stuck with it.

but that doesn't mean i have to like it.

"

goetzjam, it seems you still think i am talking about 6l.... until you figure out that i am not , we have nothing to discuss.

Now you seem to be talking about linking and sockets, doesn't seem limited to 6 links specifically anymore.

"

the complete detachment of links from gear , and rather have it attached to the character,

remove the randomness of rolling sockets and links and instead have it as fixed numbers of jewelers and fusing ,

Someone really hates RNG. Let me ask you this, would you keep the model of currently limiting players to 3 4-links, 2 6 links or 3 4-links 1 6 link and 2 3-links?

"

That is what should happen , but i also know very well that the ship has sailed on this issue , GGG wont change a core mechanic like sockets at this stage of the game.

No, this is what you think should happen because for some reason you hate PoE's linking system. This is the game GGG designed, specifically a core mechanic of having skills with support gems.

"

In short we are stuck with it.

but that doesn't mean i have to like it.

It doesn't mean you are right for wanting it changed either.

"

goetzjam wrote:

Now you seem to be talking about linking and sockets, doesn't seem limited to 6 links specifically anymore.

now you are catching on...

"

Someone really hates RNG. Let me ask you this, would you keep the model of currently limiting players to 3 4-links, 2 6 links or 3 4-links 1 6 link and 2 3-links?

yes i do , some rng is ok , hell a large amount of perfectly fine , but when it is everywhere , in everything ... there really is such a thing as too much. and this is too much

all my suggested idea would do is 2 things ,

1 remove all links and sockets from all items and move them to the gear *slots* on the characters


2 remove the rng mechanic behind fusing orbs and only have the fixed recipes with slight cost tweaks (increase or decrease i care not which it is) to compensate for the removal of the rng mechanic.

that is all; nothing more , nothing less.

"

No, this is what you think should happen because for some reason you hate PoE's linking system. This is the game GGG designed, specifically a core mechanic of having skills with support gems.

thank you for understanding what the word "opinion" means.

"

It doesn't mean you are right for wanting it changed either.

doesn't mean you are either, that is what opinions are after all.

Problem #1: Jeweller's unconditionally obsolete current socket/link state per use. To use a Jeweller's is to risk losing all socket/link progress.

Problem #2: Fusings unconditionally obsolete current link state per use. To use a Fusing is to risk losing all link progress.

Problem Summary: Socket crafting is very high risk and wasteful.

Solution: Socket/link loss prevention at a cost. Could be numerically based, as is "item's sockets/links cannot become less in number thru the next Jeweller's/Fusing use". Could be more dramatic, as in "item's sockets/links are locked in thru the next Jeweller's/Fusing use unless upgrade", where "upgrade" would mean more sockets and same or greater continuous links or just more continuous links.

Just my friendly neighborhood opniion!

"

"

Someone really hates RNG. Let me ask you this, would you keep the model of currently limiting players to 3 4-links, 2 6 links or 3 4-links 1 6 link and 2 3-links?

yes i do , some rng is ok , hell a large amount of perfectly fine , but when it is everywhere , in everything ... there really is such a thing as too much. and this is too much

Its itemization, if there isn't RNG to multiple aspects of it the itemization gets weaker.

"

all my suggested idea would do is 2 things ,

1 remove all links and sockets from all items and move them to the gear *slots* on the characters

So basically account bound linking. Not even that, character bound linking. Which means the rng factor that people pay for and trade for is removed in your system. What if I want to do another caster, but use the same chest, now I am taxed double because my 6 link is on my one character? You have to admit PoE's system is quite complex and meets the requirements of actual gear progression in every since.

"

2 remove the rng mechanic behind fusing orbs and only have the fixed recipes with slight cost tweaks (increase or decrease i care not which it is) to compensate for the removal of the rng mechanic.

that is all; nothing more , nothing less.

You make it seem like its a simple the right thing to do, its not. Its a complicated mess that is one step closer to account bound items. Even more specifically character bound in this case. Its terrible design for an online ARPG like PoE.

"

doesn't mean you are either, that is what opinions are after all.

Except your distaste for a system that is a core principle of the game is highly clouded when it comes to what should be in the game.

Ah, I think it's inevitable this will become easy to the point of trivial eventually. It's too shitty as a system and the result doesn't even sound badass enough to justify it.

"

goetzjam wrote:

..

is there any way you can stop single quoting like that , its making my life a little difficult.

1 again it depends on what you view as supposed to be itemization , in your case you believe that links and sockets for your skills fall under itemization. That is a fair view point , mine is that sockets and links should be part of character progression.

I can see why both you an ggg like this system i would admit it will promote a trade based economy.

however don't discount my own idea. all that links are in the end are a money pad on items, have a shav for 20 exa? sell a 6l for 30 - 40 exa or a 5l for 25 or a 4l for 20.

and while this does remove the fusing jeweler sink for items it adds a new sink in the form of characters. and would it really be any-worse?. think about it many players once they have one 6l basically have a 6l forever if they are trade savy, just exchange ones current 6l for another 6l , perhaps a better one. And you can do this many times , saving huge amounts of fusing orbs in the process. look no further than standard for this. its economy is broken because pretty much every item in that league has its max link counterpart and in many cases several hundred doubles of it.

at the very least tying it to characters means if a players wants a new character they need to sink more jewlers and fusings each time rather than just having a set of linked gear that plays a game of hot potatoes.

now as to which one of these sinks is better , i don't know one of them is not implemented so no data can be extracted.


2 i dont think it is, remeber poe can be considered one of the first games to have this much of their skill's power / character ... flare? tied to items. other games have leaned more on the character side of things and they were fine.

I simply dont see how this would lead to account bound items. in fact the opposite is true this would make switching out items immeasurably easier to do, just swap and done , no need to hold it in ones stash for a few hours , weeks months while you gather the amount of currency needed to jew fuse and chrome it.

make no mistake i dont like account bound items either, that is not something i want either.


3 i wont stop you from not respecting my opinion on this. you clearly feel strongly about this. but i would not call it clouded. This is not a new idea either.

"

MrTremere wrote:

In my opinion, there are some misconceptions in this thread.
+ Risk and Monopoly are not successes because they are fair or equitable (they aren't, just think about things such as starting advantage, or extreme dice luck), they are because their rules are simple, and even a kid has a reasonable chance at winning. Sure, there may be some strategy/trade involved, but there's also a big chunk of luck, and luck isn't fair. What makes a game fair is the ability to mitigate external factors with strategy and tactics (this is why trading and master-crafting do have a place in the discussion), and what makes a game equitable is the fact that all players have equivalent starting points (that's what makes the temporary leagues interesting).
+ I believe that the discussion is about two things :
- What are the end goals? There are multiple answers to this, depending on the person. Put another way, would you expect a player to quit shortly after getting his 6-link? I wouldn't expect that, so I don't believe it's an end goal. I would expect players to drop the game upon getting to level 100 on one character or one of each kind, or upon getting best in slot equipment on every slot of their character.
- How random should be end-goals, or at what point should players be getting their 6-links if it's not an end-goal? In my opinion, end-goals shouldn't be very random (I don't believe best in slot is very random, it's mitigated by multiple factors, like the large amount of mods to craft to get there). But, as I don't consider 6-link to be an end-goal, this part is fine. As for level, I believe you should be getting it between level 70 and level 90, so the current randomness isn't such an issue (you'll probably have a 6-link by level 90).

this goes back to the carrot on a stick discussion had back in either open or closed beta, basically poe character progression right now is like a carrot on a stick that some times is given to you freely and other times is no where to be seen.

even ggg agree's to this ... to an extent.. that is why vorici exists in the first place.

Your issues with linking go beyond this RNG factor. GGG has made it so much easier to link items over time and you cannot dispute this.

One of my core things is no matter what GGG gives us people always want more.

They made linking in general so easy that it is to the point where a 5 link is standard for a vast majority of people actually in endgame. That didn't use to be the case, are you suggesting that 6 links\linking should be available to everyone by XX level without any RNG factor behind it, if so I really can't get behind that idea.

You mention players don't have the ability to try out other items because of links, but I'll am going to dispute that claim for multiple reasons.

The only slot where linking is necessary to try out anything is a 5-6 link chest and or weapon. Every other piece can be tried out without worrying much about links. So you don't have a cwdt setup temporarily while you test something on docks or you don't have your curse on hit hot setup, those don't really matter if you are truly testing out gear.

In this meta unique chest rule. If caster its CoD or carcass jack, if life based (not caster) its belly or lightning coil. Some other chest can try to compete, but its quite obvious that those chest rule in this meta.

The great thing about unqiue chest is you know what you are getting from previous experience and know what to expect, what exactly are you needing to "try out" with proven chest?

You mention this is character progression, one can argue that you are removing account progression by doing character attached links as I can't take my CoD from my flameblaster and put it on my Arc caster?

Its an ARPG links should be (as they are now) attached to the items that drop. Removing it from the items and adding it to the character would be a huge mistake, the whole economy basically revolves around the ability to convert rare items that aren't useful into fuses to link items. Think about the bigger picture not this smaller vacuum in which you hate RNG.

IDK if i mentioned this, but the only item i've 6 linked was this, by accident, so I think I can say without bias that the system works, some of us are just unlucky. I'll one up that statement and say the most valueable thing I have found was the MF flask super early in rampage, sold for 8ex. Everything I have was from taking advantage of the atziri addition.