2 sockets on belts

"

TikoXi wrote:

"

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.

errr.... think you need to reread what I said.

"

TikoXi wrote:

Every build.

yes, hence why I made a topic suggesting 2 sockets for belts, you know, this thread we are posting in?

"

TikoXi wrote:

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.

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.

wait... wut? You have melee builds that are going to sacrifice 24% physical damage on a rustic sash? dont be silly man, caster builds are not going to sacrifice 30% elemental damage and 1% elemental leech from the doryanis belts either. Belt implicits are weak? 24% physical for attack builds? 35 life as opposed to 30 life on a coral ring? Rustic and Leather belts implicits are better than any ring implicit and doryanis are flat out bis belts for casters.

If it was implicit it would be a niche thing for summoners, implicit is a terrible idea, all belts should be able to have 2 linked sockets so that all builds get the benefit, youd have to be soft in the head for an offensive caster or attack build to give up the existing belt bases for sockets.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

...
If it was implicit it would be a niche thing for summoners, implicit is a terrible idea, all belts should be able to have 2 linked sockets so that all builds get the benefit...

I do get your point of view, but I don't think GGG should (and could) add up to 2 possible sockets to ALL existing belt types; hence my suggestion of a new belt with this possibility as implicit.
I'm not a really experienced player, but imho this would be competitive with other belt types - leather,rustic,chain- without being too niche (nor too op).

why shouldnt they and why couldnt they?

Ok, but can "fancy belts" have 8 linked sockets?

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

wait... wut? You have melee builds that are going to sacrifice 24% physical damage on a rustic sash? dont be silly man, caster builds are not going to sacrifice 30% elemental damage and 1% elemental leech from the doryanis belts either. Belt implicits are weak? 24% physical for attack builds? 35 life as opposed to 30 life on a coral ring? Rustic and Leather belts implicits are better than any ring implicit and doryanis are flat out bis belts for casters.

If it was implicit it would be a niche thing for summoners, implicit is a terrible idea, all belts should be able to have 2 linked sockets so that all builds get the benefit, youd have to be soft in the head for an offensive caster or attack build to give up the existing belt bases for sockets.

Yes.

24% phys damage is pretty pitiful for your average melee build. Most run the health belt because it's more useful to have more defenses, Or they run meginords for that sexy flat phys. Most melee skills deal adequate damage as is. (Can chop through palace dom in 20 seconds with a RT Static Strike build, assuming I can live that long)

And yes, because every caster is going to have a mutli-exalt, atziri only belt just laying around.

Yes, 24% is weak. It's additive. It doesn't scale well. 40 (yes, it goes to 40) life is good, but the belt can roll up to 99 on it's own, so it's a little outclassed.
And then let's look at the other belts - let's not forget them. Yes - we have to compare them all to be fair.

9-20 Energy Sheild.
Ain't Nobody going to be jizzing themselves over this one unless you're a ES Righteous Fire build or CI. And who goes CI anymore aside from PVPers?

25-35 Strength.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Maybe if you're a shadow melee and need the strength? But then you're already doing it wrong...

20-30% inc stun duration.
Is permastun Groundslam still a thing? Cause outside of that build, this is utterly worthless.

15-25% Inc stun recovery.
Ahhahahahahahaahahahaa....ahh...F*ck off.



The thing about ring implicits is you can wear 2 of them. LE GASPE!

And no, not really. I can think of at least 3 builds I had last league that would have considered wearing an 'unset belt' Because I valued the implicit so poorly. Hell, I had a 2 handed melee dude running around with a cloth belt because it rolled 98 life, 400+ armor and 114% total resistance on it. 2 slots I could use. Stun recovery on an US char, I can't.