So we will lose our 6-links with 4.0? :'(

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Given the difficulties associated with inventory space, it's extremely likely they won't implement an auto-conversion algorithm on every character.

More likely is something like a disabled ("cannot be worn") flag placed on all existing armors which will behave as if you do not have enough stats. They could even do a quick-and-dirty 10k str requirement to get the same effect.

So the conversion would happen upon vendoring the item, presumably with gems still inside it. This would return the converted armor and the gems, with active gems presumably already six-linked (like someone in this thread already suggested as a solution).

What's to keep players from gaming the system and stuffing a six-link with six active gems? Well, that could be handled at the recipe algorithm level, and they could impose whatever limitation they feel is appropriate.

If someone comes up with a better idea than this which gains traction in the community, GGG will likely go with that instead. I'm sure they've instructed the mods (or whoever it is that reads the forums and filters out the very few posts worth reading by higher-ups) to keep an eye on community ideas for solutions.

"

zarlox wrote:

"

shishkabob wrote:

I wonder if they'll make 6 socketing gems more difficult than it is to currently 6 socket an item. 6 socketing isn't anywhere near as bad as 6 linking, so with links going away I could see them making it more difficult to 6 socket a gem.

Oh! it can't be as easy as 6 socketing... its gonna have to stay at the level of 6L diffidculty.

Already, 6 socketing a gem will allow to use any hard to find unique without having to link them anymore so at the very least a 6S gem needs to be hard to roll.

"

Bleu42 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Given the difficulties associated with inventory space, it's extremely likely they won't implement an auto-conversion algorithm on every character.

More likely is something like a disabled ("cannot be worn") flag placed on all existing armors which will behave as if you do not have enough stats. They could even do a quick-and-dirty 10k str requirement to get the same effect.

So the conversion would happen upon vendoring the item, presumably with gems still inside it. This would return the converted armor and the gems, with active gems presumably already six-linked (like someone in this thread already suggested as a solution).

What's to keep players from gaming the system and stuffing a six-link with six active gems? Well, that could be handled at the recipe algorithm level, and they could impose whatever limitation they feel is appropriate.

If someone comes up with a better idea than this which gains traction in the community, GGG will likely go with that instead. I'm sure they've instructed the mods (or whoever it is that reads the forums and filters out the very few posts worth reading by higher-ups) to keep an eye on community ideas for solutions.

Suddenly making a chest unable to be worn would be extremely confusing for any player that's not keeping up with the game, because I can tell you my first instinct would NOT be to just vendor it because it out of nowhere has a 10k stat requirement.

However the downtime will likely be hours, giving them plenty of time to just auto convert, and all the gems go into new remove only tabs.

"

gandhar0 wrote:

Jonathan explained that you now have to find 6L skill gems instead of armours.

"

kobrakhan wrote:

for standard players, this is a heavy strike. and r.i.p. tabula

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Bleu42 wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Given the difficulties associated with inventory space, it's extremely likely they won't implement an auto-conversion algorithm on every character.

More likely is something like a disabled ("cannot be worn") flag placed on all existing armors which will behave as if you do not have enough stats. They could even do a quick-and-dirty 10k str requirement to get the same effect.

So the conversion would happen upon vendoring the item, presumably with gems still inside it. This would return the converted armor and the gems, with active gems presumably already six-linked (like someone in this thread already suggested as a solution).

What's to keep players from gaming the system and stuffing a six-link with six active gems? Well, that could be handled at the recipe algorithm level, and they could impose whatever limitation they feel is appropriate.

If someone comes up with a better idea than this which gains traction in the community, GGG will likely go with that instead. I'm sure they've instructed the mods (or whoever it is that reads the forums and filters out the very few posts worth reading by higher-ups) to keep an eye on community ideas for solutions.

Suddenly making a chest unable to be worn would be extremely confusing for any player that's not keeping up with the game, because I can tell you my first instinct would NOT be to just vendor it because it out of nowhere has a 10k stat requirement.

However the downtime will likely be hours, giving them plenty of time to just auto convert, and all the gems go into new remove only tabs.

Giving rise to all the complaints that are posted in this thread about removing the value of 6-links (did you read it?). That is a horrible idea, which will invite a great deal of backlash. Even warning players ahead of time (so they can socket things in advance) would not solve the problem; they will have to give players some degree of agency in when and how the conversion takes place if they don't want a PR nightmare on their hands.

Your point about confusing returning players is well made, but as I said literally 5 lines above in the very post you quoted, any idea they do use almost certainly will have already been well vetted by the community.

GGG may be many things, but complete and utter fools regarding the business ramifications of their actions is not one of them.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Given the difficulties associated with inventory space, it's extremely likely they won't implement an auto-conversion algorithm on every character.

More likely is something like a disabled ("cannot be worn") flag placed on all existing armors which will behave as if you do not have enough stats. They could even do a quick-and-dirty 10k str requirement to get the same effect.

So the conversion would happen upon vendoring the item, presumably with gems still inside it. This would return the converted armor and the gems, with active gems presumably already six-linked (like someone in this thread already suggested as a solution).

What's to keep players from gaming the system and stuffing a six-link with six active gems? Well, that could be handled at the recipe algorithm level, and they could impose whatever limitation they feel is appropriate.

If someone comes up with a better idea than this which gains traction in the community, GGG will likely go with that instead. I'm sure they've instructed the mods (or whoever it is that reads the forums and filters out the very few posts worth reading by higher-ups) to keep an eye on community ideas for solutions.