[Suggestion] "Void Bridge - Cobalt Jewel" // A unique jewel idea!

My problem with this jewel is that it would require hefty penalties to be balanced.

And with balanced i don't necessarily mean vs the content, but vs the future.

With a bridge like this (which is essentially how it operates) future balance actions are extremely prohibited.

What i would do is give them a "large" radius if ever implemented. And you can only allocate passives within that large radius provided at the other side of the bridge.

In essence, it allows any class to go for a big key-stone, but at the same time limits it to most likely only one within a large radius. I would also limit it to 1. (this ensures the penalty is always travel cost to jewel and away from jewel)

I imagine it would work like :

You place a void bridge in 1 jewel slot, all other "non-occupied" jewel slots become a transparent void bridge. If you click one with a passive point open, it get's allocated and that is your "drop off" point for the bridge. This "drop off" point would have the "large" area with a limitation of "can only allocate passives within radius".

This allows GGG more control over it and enables them to reduce or increase the radius in the future if desired.(or required)

So i would cautiously give it a +1 if

1) it has a limit of 1
2) drop off point has a radius limit
3) no hiding it behind t1 rarity.(its suppose to be a theory-crafters toy)

Peace,

-Boem-

The issue with this jewel concept is that it completely trivializes the cost of tree traversal as a balance mechanic.

The connections on the tree and the number of nodes themselves between passives/notables/keystones are important. For example Intuitive Leap became balanced by adjusting its influence radius, and all future skill trees have to now be designed around that jewel and its influence radius. Physical placement of notables+keystones in particular.

A jewel that could bridge to any other socket on the tree circumvents all the current balance mechanics of the passive tree - it has many potential ways to be abused and creates a lot of future 'balance baggage' with it.
For a scion build that starts and paths to nodes on the right side of the tree, a bridge jewel allowing a jump to the opposite side of the tree saves 17 points. There might as well not be a tree any more.

One of the things you have to do as a game designer is develop ideas that have proper tradeoffs.
Most player developed ideas for games (mechanics, items) are subconciously motivated by wanting more power. A game designer has to ask themselves if they are falling into this trap when designing.

RNG+wealth gating (making this a T1 drop for example) is not a useful balance mechanic, especially for a game where things get dumped to permanent leagues.

*Another question you have to be able to answer is 'when would someone *not* want to use this item(s)?

*You need to be able to show examples of builds that are stronger *not* using this new item/mechanic.

*And then you need to be honest and exhaustive with build crafting using this item/mechanic and prove that it isn't unbalanced.

Game design as a job is really hard, most people think its easy and its just being an idea guy that can worry about consequences of ideas later, but its a lot of work (and a helluva lot of math)

"

For example Intuitive Leap became balanced by adjusting its influence radius.

That jewel needs different balance because it lets you skip downside nodes to get to the super powerful ones. It initially was going to let you get say Mortal Conviction without getting Blood Magic. Because it was too powerful they nerfed the radius and made it pretty impotent. Not many builds use it. This proposal would not allow you to bypass downside nodes, just travel nodes. Which would enable a lot of new build varieties.

"

For a scion build that starts and paths to nodes on the right side of the tree, a bridge jewel allowing a jump to the opposite side of the tree saves 17 points. There might as well not be a tree any more.

If the price was not being able to use any other jewels, this removes the main reason people currently start with Scion. The access to 9 or more jewel sockets is what gives the scion so much power.

Obviously there are balance considerations. But I don't think balancing this is that hard. Especially if you make a penalty such as no other jewels.

or the jewel itself has a very large radius so you can still jump but not from far left to far right f.e.

I would LOVE to see this, but i doubt we will.

Balancing around this would be hell for GGG, it almost literally doubles balancing complexity, where now passive location and placement are very operable balancing parameters this would negate that completely.

Also it would be very easy to abuse with the coming ascendancy classes; you choose which ascendancy class fits best and then jump to that part of the tree you want for your passives negating the starting point drawback of the maybe sub-optimal class you chose.

Still +1 for the excellent idea

I agree with what's been said.

I love the idea.
I'm hesitant for implementation.

It seems like someone will make the most broken build out of it, even though I can't think of it right now.

If I ask myself how I could most abuse this jewel, I would say CI unwavering, My Aurabot getting blood magic much easier, or my crit sword ranger finally being able to get Disemboweling. I can't see anything wrong with any of these, but you need a lot of people throwing out their best ideas to see if this is actually going to break the game.

As things stand, a CI character would still have to spend *at least* 7 points to get Unwavering, and sacrifice 1/2/all jewels, hardly a broken price (as opposed to just using a boot or amulet gear slot).
melee builds would have the best time of it, but it still wouldn't really change much, since there are no shortages of melee wheels on any southern part of the tree. Basically, it's only better access to crit nodes that *I* could see unbalancing it, but then again, each jewel can basically give 30% crit anyway, plus you still have to travel.

Love the idea, and give it +1
(but more people need to throw out there most broken suggestions. Also, Ascendancy might throw this to shit, since it would really allow any subclass to do any build.)

"

Kroughfire wrote:

Love the idea, and give it +1
(but more people need to throw out there most broken suggestions. Also, Ascendancy might throw this to shit, since it would really allow any subclass to do any build.)

That's partly why it's a good idea. Because now classes will be even more specialized besides starting point, you'll have builds that would be really awesome, but their subclass is on the wrong class for it.