2 sockets on belts

hey, so title says it basically, I think you should add in 2 sockets on belts for the Act4 expansion. We got so many trigger gems now, more war cries coming, heralds where you got 2 auras in place of 1... I feel like we need the extra 2 sockets, not as a new belt like the unset ring, just on all belts 2 sockets that can link.

i feel like too often builds could make use of multiple active skills and are sort of forced into 1 main spam alone because you just cant free up that other 4th link, more so now than ever, theres no room for the self cast enduring cry, for the self cast curse, to use a trigger, to fit in a vaal skill etc. I feel like builds would be more interesting with more sockets to work with, more dynamic.

Hell I see no harm in adding 3 sockets. Sockets should probably take up either a pre-fix, affix or suffix. Like:

- Has 1-3 sockets.

So I agree with Snorkle only I would differ on the small point that I wouldn't mind if it was like unset ring and it had it's own type as a pre-fix with item level 50 or something.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

hey, so title says it basically, I think you should add in 2 sockets on belts for the Act4 expansion. We got so many trigger gems now, more war cries coming, heralds where you got 2 auras in place of 1... I feel like we need the extra 2 sockets, not as a new belt like the unset ring, just on all belts 2 sockets that can link.

i feel like too often builds could make use of multiple active skills and are sort of forced into 1 main spam alone because you just cant free up that other 4th link, more so now than ever, theres no room for the self cast enduring cry, for the self cast curse, to use a trigger, to fit in a vaal skill etc. I feel like builds would be more interesting with more sockets to work with, more dynamic.

Since when does one socket become harder to fit than two sockets? Self-cast curses are a lot easier to fit in than non-self-cast curses.

And the problem isn't that we don't have room for that four-link, it's that the four-link would do better being socketed with auras, curses, proc setups, and other things that augment the entire character. The six-link is all the damage you need.

The only build that is hurting for socket space is the summoner. Others would be happier with more sockets, but they aren't hurting.

But yes, I do agree we need more sockets and more action bar space.

virtually every build i have is hurting for sockets. Its not harder to socket a self cast curse, you just dont because u have a trigger curse instead, or a vaal skill, or a retaliation, or soon a warcry, i keeps stacking up. If we had 1 6link for all our gems it would be terrible, if we had 6 6links it would be op, so theres a sweet spot for meaningful choices, imo with the amount of stuff in the game right now we could do with another 4link, that would be my opinion the sweet spot.

Now theres reason I didnt say 4 link belt, a reason i didnt say 3 link belt, because a belt is 2 sockets large, thats the space on it, would be simple to add and would work without ui changes or belt size changes etc that would be anightmare when people have 100 belts in their stash already taking up 2 squares each.

If it was a mod on a belt you wouldnt use it because casters are all about doryanis and attackers are all about rustics. My builds are all screaming for sockets, how many use unset rings? Dont be daft man youd have to be a summoner to give up a stat for a socket, even on a ring. 24% phys damage? If it wasa prefix again, youre eating wed, armour, life, movespeed now, ud invalidate a lot of existing belts etc. Nah, just allow belts to have 2 sockets so we can have more active stuff to be tactical with imo.

I like this suggestion, but I'd like this to be a new type belt with the implicit "has 2 sockets", just like the recently added unset ring. So if your build badly needs it, you use it sacrificing an implicit; otherwise you'll keep using the old belt types.

Just my 2c

"

Wazz72 wrote:

I like this suggestion, but I'd like this to be a new type belt with the implicit "has 2 sockets", just like the recently added unset ring. So if your build badly needs it, you use it sacrificing an implicit; otherwise you'll keep using the old belt types.

Just my 2c

I agree. Maybe allow a master to add a number of sockets (whatever that would be) at the cost of the implicit.

I really like this idea.

"

Wazz72 wrote:

I like this suggestion, but I'd like this to be a new type belt with the implicit "has 2 sockets", just like the recently added unset ring. So if your build badly needs it, you use it sacrificing an implicit; otherwise you'll keep using the old belt types.

Just my 2c

but then virtually no one would use it and that means that it wouldnt do what I think it should do which is give everyone 2 more sockets to play with. Virtually no one uses unsets, its basically just summoners in any meaningful quantity. If they add it as an implicit on a new base type its basically rip idea, no good done to anyone but summons.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

Wazz72 wrote:

I like this suggestion, but I'd like this to be a new type belt with the implicit "has 2 sockets", just like the recently added unset ring. So if your build badly needs it, you use it sacrificing an implicit; otherwise you'll keep using the old belt types.

Just my 2c

but then virtually no one would use it and that means that it wouldnt do what I think it should do which is give everyone 2 more sockets to play with. Virtually no one uses unsets, its basically just summoners in any meaningful quantity. If they add it as an implicit on a new base type its basically rip idea, no good done to anyone but summons.

I beg to fucking differ.

Summoners would absolutely KILL for 2 more sockets. I have a couple melee builds that would love it as well. 2 free slots for AT LEAST a herald + RMgem would benefit any build. Every build.

Think a little before you blather any naysaying.

3 slot belts might be OP, but an 2-slot unset belt, while a little lacking in flavour, would be awesome. Only downside is belt implicits are quite weaksauce compared to rings, so 2 slots replacing 1 weak implicit, verses 1 slot replacing one good implicit, is a hard sell to make from a balance perspective.

That said - this isn't the same PoE it was 2 years ago. A lot more shizz we need to worry about nowadays. Maybe the balance posts do need moving a little...

2 rockets on belts.
So we could use "(rocket)jump" ability without spending precious gem slots for LW, LS or whatever.