Thinking Outside the Box: What if we had Rare Gems instead of sockets?
|
Here's the issue, Scrotie: You've just made optimization even harder.
Let's take an absurdly low number of possible support affixes on a gem--twenty-five. If we assume you want a specific five-support combination for your build, things start out okay; getting one is a 5/25 chance, getting two is a 20/625 chance, and getting three is a 60/15625 chance, which is about 1/260. Getting what is essentially a five-link, though, is 120/390625, which amounts to about 1/3255--already more than twice as hard as getting a six-link in the current socket system. The six-link you're going for is 120/9765625, or about 1/81380. |
|
|
Actually, you make a good point about bad vs good RNG. More sockets/links is strictly better than less. But what if it weren't so? How about this:
Support gems have more power if there are fewer links. So, for example: A 2-linked item gives the support gem 100% effectiveness. A 3-linked item gives the two support gems 80% effectiveness. etc... Then more links is no longer structly better than less links, depending on which skills you combine. More sockets would remain strictly better than less sockets, but I can live with that, as adding sockets is way less expensive than adding links. Just my 2 alts May your maps be bountiful, exile
|
|
"RTFT :) "So let's say, on the high side, 15 prefixes and 25 suffixes. The possible combos would still be 78.4% less than your allegedly low-end estimate, and not all that much worse than what people currently go through trying to get a decent rare dagger. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Mar 31, 2015, 6:21:33 AM
|
|
