vendor recipe for lowering any gem level
|
is there a reason to only allow skill gems to have their level lowered? it would be very convenient if you could lower the level of any gem. it also seems like it should cost less to do.
Last bumped on Mar 27, 2016, 11:29:22 PM
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
|
|
|
What other sort of gem is there that needs to have its level lowered?
Also if you want to reset to a gem to level 1, use a regret instead of a scour, it's cheaper that way. |
|
" a vaal grace gem many gems don't even cost a regret or a scour to buy so the vendor recipe is only ever helpful for quality or rare gems i had to buy another vaal grace for 5c which is a lot of currency for a poor player |
|
|
Vaal gems are corrupted.
That's why it can't have currency used on it (which is what this recipe effectively is). Casually casual.
|
|
" why shouldn't vaal gems be able to have their level lowered? |
|
" You totally answered with the question I answered :/ But to explain further. It's what the corruption affix does, to any corrupted item. You literally couldn't alter any corrupted items at first. But then GGG saw a way they could use them as a huge currency sink and economy stimulant by adding the ability to change certain things with Vorici at the cost of equal amount of vaal orbs to regular orbs. A 1,500 vaal orb sink (6 link a corrupted item with 6 socs) was too much for them to hold on to design and lore and the economy focus won through. Casually casual. Last edited by TheAnuhart#4741 on Mar 27, 2016, 3:46:36 AM
|
|
" lowering a gem's level should be an exception |
|
|
Just go buy some graces from vendor and vaal them.
It's alright saying x should be an exception. Someone else thinks y should be an exception, someone else z. The only reason there is an exception at all is because economy > everything to GGG so they made exceptions. In your case, it is more of a currency sink that you need to buy and vaal more graces, or, economy stimulant that you need to buy another gem from a player. We could say 'corruption shouldn't disallow changing/currency use' but it does, it's a downside, it's WAI, only GGG will go against their design for reasons they see fit enough to contradict themselves. Your case doesn't come close to that. Casually casual.
|
|
" No, vendor recipe and applying currency are 2 different things. You can use 7 iron rings with a corrupted paua ring to make the amulet, for instance. I would assume you can do the same with 5 corrupted rares to reroll a 6th. It's worth noting the vendor item loses the corrupted property, though. Either way, it's inconsistent between gems and items. One prohibits the recipe, the other allows the recipe but loses corruption. They should both work the same way. |
|
" I used specific words for a reason. You can't use a precedent and take a single factor from it to validate changing the rulings to another, if you do, then the domino effect happens. Shit, you'd even find yourself in a loop. Are we really debating that mechanics should change to allow a fucking corrupted gem to be de-levelled? Like, really? Casually casual. Last edited by TheAnuhart#4741 on Mar 27, 2016, 9:56:11 AM
|
|
