Thinking Outside the Box: What if we had Rare Gems instead of sockets?

The previous article in this series, regarding an alternative currency system, can be found here.

1. Bad RNG vs good RNG

Let's face it: socketing and linking items sucks.

Why? Well, it has something to do with RNG. I'm not going to say it's "too much" RNG, because as an agent of RNG I consider such talk heretical. But there is something wrong, and it has to do with the type of RNG involved, not how much there is.

Here's the classic example of "bad" RNG. Choose 3 radomly from the following list, then add them all together: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. As you can see, every list entry can be put on a number line to establish strictly superior relationships.

In contrast, here's what "good" RNG looks like. Choose 3 radomly from the following list, then add them all together: pepperoni, sausage, chicken, bacon, ham, pineapple, onions, peppers, cheddar cheese, mushrooms. Notice how there are not strict superiority relationships between the various items (although a case can be made for bacon), and it is the synergies between potential items, as well as an expression of the recipient's individuality, which determines which . outcomes are optimal.

Now I'm not saying "bad" RNG is never to be used. Sometimes it's the right tool for a job. But using it exclusively doesn't promote exploring unconventional options, and doesn't allow players to express themselves in how they evaluate outcomes.

And socketing and linking in Path of Exile are both 100% pure, unmitigated "bad" RNG. Unlike every other currency in the game, using Jeweler's and Fusings puts players in situations where they are either strictly improved, strictly worse off, or exactly the same. There is no creativity or individuality win to be had.

So why do we take this bullshit? Because it is the backbone of the support gem system, and giving skills a variety of different effects is cool.

Indeed it is. But is there more than one way to skin the skill customization cat?

2. Supports as affixes

What if, instead of having 1 to 5 sockets for support gems, gems could have 1-6 affixes which, essentially, did the same things?

Well, first of all, we wouldn't need sockets anymore. Well, in a way we might - the active gem would still need to go somewhere. But let's say you can just drag them from your inventory directly to your skill bar to equip them, and right-click on a skill icon to remove it.

We also wouldn't need the socket-related currency. No more Chromes, no more Jewelers, no more Fusings. The gems would use the more normal currencies instead.

The drop rate of active skill gems could be increased. After all, it's not likely that the first gem you use would be your last. Having the gems drop with some levels (without always needing a Gemcutter's) would make leveling a newly found gem less tedious.

Instead of leveling support gems, different itemlevels could offer different numbers. Getting a high itemlevel version of a gem would be key to having the best affixes, allowing the game to give gems early as quest rewards without ruining the gem economy for that skill.

But most importantly, the skill system would have a lot more "good" RNG. Say you're tossing an Exalt on a Spark gem, the rough equivalent of trying for a 6L. The good news is: you'll get a new "support." Every time. 100%. The bad news: it might not be what you were hoping for. Perhaps instead of lightning resistance penetration you get added cold damage. Not perfect, but is that better than the Spark you had before? Maybe, maybe not.

Join a party under such a system, and even among people using the same skills, you will see variations. Not everyone will be using the same things, because it's hard to roll the exact same affixes. Playing the game would mean learning how to use the "supports" the game happens to give you.

In any case, I think it's far too late to incorporate a system like this into the current game. But let's put it this way: if I ever find myself playing a sequel to Path of Exile, and I'm still playing around with Fusings trying to 6L my gear, I'm not going to be a happy camper.

Oh god no.

I don't disagree about fusings/jewellers being bad

But this sounds terrible

I assumed it was going to be like 'this is a rare double strike gem, with +4 supports' and the gem itself says how many supports can be linked. Links appear on the item when you put the gem into it.


But instead this is a "I want multitrike with my 'insert almost any melee skill'"

so->
Double strike, alt+alt+alt+alt+alt+alt oh god damn it and this is only for a 2 support link.

4l standard/5l slightly better almost called standard, chaos->chaos->chaos "oh yay, blind + chance to flee + chance to ignite. This is what I wanted on my poison arrow trapper"


This is a bad idea

Your system is basically EVEN MORE RNG compared to what we have right now.

Instead of :
-number of slots
-number of links
-colors of slots,

we have :
-type of support no1
-level of support no1
-quality of support no1
-type of support no2
-level of support no2
-quality of support no2
-type of support no3
-level of support no3
-quality of support no3
-type of support no4
-level of support no4
-quality of support no4
-type of support no5
-level of support no5
-quality of support no5.

Basically to even make your system work we would need to :
-remove quality on support gems
-remove level of supports
-tie level of skill gems to level of character (because yes, finding a lvl1 awesome gem at lvl90 would mean releveling it)
-make all crafting currency far more available than right now (from basic transmute to eternal).

And even then it would still give 5 variables instead of the 3 we have now.



The current system (which works quite good, at least if you don't aim for 6L/improbable colors on gear and use Voricci) allows you to see your progression. Your system is TOTAL RNG everywhere. And not "good" RNG like you explained, but really a case of "bad" RNG.

Face it, we are totally tied to the way the gem system works, we build a character around what gems we want to use, not around what gear we want to use (and even uniques are not that build defining).

"

sucrecandie wrote:

Your system is basically EVEN MORE RNG compared to what we have right now.

Never said otherwise.

"

sucrecandie wrote:

And not "good" RNG like you explained, but really a case of "bad" RNG.

Now this, this kind of offends me. I think my suggestion removes a lot of bad RNG and adds (even more) good RNG.

"

sucrecandie wrote:

Basically to even make your system work we would need to :
-tie level of skill gems to level of character (because yes, finding a lvl1 awesome gem at lvl90 would mean releveling it)
-make all crafting currency far more available than right now (from basic transmute to eternal).

These are probably both things which should happen anyway.

I'm not saying you shouldn't find any level 1 gems running maps, but you should be finding some level 17s as well. It's silly that "dropped gems have experience" is a Gemcutter's exclusive.

Obviously, if Alchs and Chaos and Exalts were functionally replacing Jeweler's and Fusings and Chromes, the current droprate of Alchs and such would need to be increased. I imagine, however, that the total "chaos per hour" of farming would remain about the same; you'd get zero Fusings in that time, obviously, but other currencies would fill the vacuum.

My claim is the current system doesn't " work quite good" at all.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Join a party under such a system, and even among people using the same skills, you will see variations. Not everyone will be using the same things, because it's hard to roll the exact same affixes. Playing the game would mean learning how to use the "supports" the game happens to give you.

You mean you'd go shopping for the gem with the right affixes that someone else exalted.

How would you level these gems, if at all?

In any case, socketing & linking got "fixed" by Vorici, so that's that for GGG.

+1 for thinking outside the box. Always.

But I really think this would make the skill system much, much more chaotic. Rather than being able to find a skill and level it, 20% it, etc. skills with good support mods would just become another high-end, nearly inaccessible form of gear. This new system would basically replace a time investment with a wealth investment in terms of getting the best skill gems, further segregating rich and poor players... A whole new list of expensive crap to have to buy in order to outfit new characters.

As to the socketing/linking system, it definitely does suck right now. I don't have a solution at the ready, though.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

sucrecandie wrote:

Your system is basically EVEN MORE RNG compared to what we have right now.

Never said otherwise.

"

sucrecandie wrote:

And not "good" RNG like you explained, but really a case of "bad" RNG.

Now this, this kind of offends me. I think my suggestion removes a lot of bad RNG and adds (even more) good RNG.

"

sucrecandie wrote:

Basically to even make your system work we would need to :
-tie level of skill gems to level of character (because yes, finding a lvl1 awesome gem at lvl90 would mean releveling it)
-make all crafting currency far more available than right now (from basic transmute to eternal).

These are probably both things which should happen anyway.

I'm not saying you shouldn't find any level 1 gems running maps, but you should be finding some level 17s as well. It's silly that "dropped gems have experience" is a Gemcutter's exclusive.

Obviously, if Alchs and Chaos and Exalts were functionally replacing Jeweler's and Fusings and Chromes, the current droprate of Alchs and such would need to be increased. I imagine, however, that the total "chaos per hour" of farming would remain about the same; you'd get zero Fusings in that time, obviously, but other currencies would fill the vacuum.

My claim is the current system doesn't " work quite good" at all.

I didn't meant to offend you (i kinda like reading your posts), sorry if I did, but I stand to my point : it's bad RNG.

The masters expansion made it so that slot/links/colors are far less subjects to RNG than before, and it a good thing. Remember that a good part of character progression is linked to the gem system, making this system subject to wild RNG pretty much means that your character progression will be completely random too.

Not saying that the current system is fine,if it was me I would have tied links availability to character level and be done with it. But giving even more RNG to the game is not the way to go.

And the upped droprate of crafting orbs would itself bring more problems because these orbs are also used to craft gear. It's already easy to trade for gear (not even mirror grade) that allow you to completely faceroll the game. Upping droprate of orbs take every challenge out of the game, except if you play self found (and even then...).

Your system also means that the number of skills available to players at one time will have to be capped. Or players will have 6+ 6 links at once in endgame. A nightmare to balance, and it will shaft skill intensive builds (summoners, auramances for example) if you cap it at a low number.

Also, last point : races. Finding a skill gem with the a few supports at low level would mean that you essentially win the race. No one could compete with that. It's already the case with gear (if you got lucky enough to drop some uniques), it will be worse if you add gems on top of it.

I'm not, you know, 100% happy with the current state of 5/6 linking. But I think player choice in support gems, along with the passive tree, provides an important balance that keeps the game becoming too focused on random drops, so for me this is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I always enjoy reading your "thinking outside the box" threads, Scrotie.
I missed them tbh.
but I completely disagree here.

as a follower of Lord RNG, you must think of me as a heretic with all those risk/reward posts of mine - but the truth is I have no intention to get rid of RNG.
RNG should definitely be in this game, and any modern aRPG. and is.
it can be biased though. have weighted rolls, and/or a dynamic subset of outcomes which is itself determined by a dynamic set of rules according to whatever interpretation you take of the risk/reward guideline.
there are more than enough ideas which should - in theory - make both of us happy with the result. with RNG and its role in the game.
all within the box. some extremely creative (look at Courageous' threads from Beta, as one example).

your idea, if I read it correctly, boils down to "let's check the outcome after rolling the dice 5 times, instead of the previous 3".
that's not solving a problem.
that's making it worse.