Introduce Normal Gems (in addition to Skill gems)

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Buchsbaum wrote:

Players would be asking themselfs "what Skill can I drop to get more passive stats?"

As opposed to asking "what skill can I drop to stack another aura?"

The game already has this "problem."

Just because the game has a small problem (limited number of auras that are valuable, limited mana to use them), dosen't mean we should make it 100x worse.

While I like the idea in principle, it is too difficult to implement, has too many issue with how it interacts with existing mechanics, and in general I feel would be detrimental to the game

You're assuming a lot.

First off, obviously "normal gems" and auras would have to be balanced against each other. It shouldn't be an obvious call; in general, auras should be stronger, but since they also have a mana reservation cost they would not necessarily be preferable to the solo-minded player (while group players would likely stick with auras as the preferred socket-filler of choice). Certain builds -- especially Blood Magic keystone users -- would also naturally be more inclined to use "normal gems" than auras, and thus "normal gems" should be balanced with them specifically in mind.

Second off, with the exception of determining the actual numbers of the buffs, I don't think this would be very difficult to implement. Come up with some sprites for normal gems (if you're going the affix route like I suggested, the number of sprites might be very low), code the oil & water socketing requirement (also easy), and ka-pow. GGG could actually save a lot on development costs if they pushed these out rather quickly, anticipating a rush of OP/underpowered feedback, then adjusted values accordingly in a later patch.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're assuming a lot.

First off, obviously "normal gems" and auras would have to be balanced against each other. It shouldn't be an obvious call; in general, auras should be stronger, but since they also have a mana reservation cost they would not necessarily be preferable to the solo-minded player (while group players would likely stick with auras as the preferred socket-filler of choice). Certain builds -- especially Blood Magic keystone users -- would also naturally be more inclined to use "normal gems" than auras, and thus "normal gems" should be balanced with them specifically in mind.

Second off, with the exception of determining the actual numbers of the buffs, I don't think this would be very difficult to implement. Come up with some sprites for normal gems (if you're going the affix route like I suggested, the number of sprites might be very low), code the oil & water socketing requirement (also easy), and ka-pow. GGG could actually save a lot on development costs if they pushed these out rather quickly, anticipating a rush of OP/underpowered feedback, then adjusted values accordingly in a later patch.

Finding drop rate balance, improving on the power of the higher socket options, and creating a balance nightmare between the passives and teh passive gems, how they combine, effect each other, and effect your main, then add to taht that everyone will have to run the overpowered ones untilt hey are nerfed, its a lot of work on the balance end.

Never said it was hard to code. Its the balance that matters. And the perfect balance would be almost impossible to obtain. it either becomes very powerful to the point not running them is a bad idea, or its too weak, to the point you might as well use it for skills unless you have a spare skill slot

This was suggested in a very indepth post by a previous user (to a much greater degree of background, potential balance, and discussion), and the outcome of that was that it was a cool idea, but almost impossible to implement

I like he idea. The new gems should be passive and weaker then auras. You could even make them so they do different things depending on what piece of gear they were placed in. Feet = +run speed: Head = Int: Chest = Life, etc

It doesn't matter if it has been discussed already since GGG changes their mind on occasion, take the loot options for example.

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

Finding drop rate balance, improving on the power of the higher socket options, and creating a balance nightmare between the passives and teh passive gems, how they combine, effect each other, and effect your main, then add to taht that everyone will have to run the overpowered ones untilt hey are nerfed, its a lot of work on the balance end.

As a balancer and mechanics designer myself, I have a phrase for this: Deal with it.

"It's difficult to balance" is not a valid excuse. Also, a true balancer would enjoy the challenge. Tweaking things and experimentation is what a lot of us thrive on. Otherwise, we wouldn't choose to be balancers.

The first big thing that would need to be done is to ditch the idea of local mods on gems, and stick with purely global mods.

------------------------


To people who claim that it would make people stack normal gems with one skill: How in the fuck could you possibly know this? What if every gem gave +1 life? Would people drop two curses for it then?

No. You have no numbers, so making this claim is blatant false information in an attempt to shut down another person's idea.

Passive bonuses help define a character but I'm really not sure about adding simple gems on top of the current passive node system. The 2 would have to interact for things to be interesting.

A lot of people here are assuming that if passive gems existed, they'd be easy to get and would act as filler for for empty sockets. But what if they were in fact hard to get ahold of and had their own requirements and downsides like support gems do?


Say each gem was a passive node, so you could sometimes have a 4% aoe radius drop, sometimes an additional 2% dual wield block. Gems would have colours and attribute requirements depending on where they are on the tree, so a 4% aoe radius could either require pure intelligence if it's from the witch area, int/str if it's a templar one or int/str/dex if it's from the middle of the tree. Gems of nodes require more attributes the closer the node is to a characters starting area, so a 40% mana regen would require a ton of int if it's from the witch area, a lot of int/str if it's the templar one.

Then, limit it so that you can't equip a gem of a node if you already have it allocated as a passive. Noteable nodes could then be much rarer, with downsides that remove attributes opposite to what it requires to equip. As in Fitness wouldn't have the same downside as Weight Lifting, it would remove a large amount of strength while Weight Lifting would remove a lot of dexterity. To make it fair, if an attribute were brought below 0 by a gem it would be impossible to equip.


So, passive gems would be like passive nodes. Except you'd be able to save on passive points by equipping them and, even better, stack them. Though this would have to be a linked-only feature, you could only get 6 Divine Toughnesses if you have a shitload of dexterity to lose and a 6-link. I suppose quality could lower requirements or losses.

This would in the end mean that getting off-class attributes to equip passives you don't have access to would be more useful, while stacking lots of one attribute would mean you could save on passive points by equipping passives into your gears sockets. It would always be cheapest and easiest to take the passives you do have access to, however.

Would also have the amazing capability of making the reduced attribute requirement mod useful. Imagine that!

Honestly, i remember chris saying that they were considering something like charms, but didn't like the idea of just filling your entire inventory with them.

This is the solution.

"

Xendran wrote:

Honestly, i remember chris saying that they were considering something like charms, but didn't like the idea of just filling your entire inventory with them.

This is the solution.

Yep. Plus people would complain a lot less about Kaom's.

So a Citrine gem would add Strength and Dexterity, also some wierd and wonderful things like bear teeth adding thorns and bug chitin adding armour, sort of similar to those relics in Titan Quest.

Another good idea that would make the game deeper but not ruin RNG like adding a prefix/suffix.

Could do things like
+0.5 range for melee weapon
+1% run speed in chest piece
+10% implicit of property added
+1 to maximum cold or fire or light res
And have sets maybe, like 4 linked of a certain group of gems add a bonus 10% to mana regen on top of the other bonuses.

Maybe have them like sets but not requiring links, so if you have 6 of a certain gem on you, you get 10 chaos resistance.

Could have gems that have a cost associated with it, eg a gem that can only go in a melee weapons and makes it so that the weapon does 20% less base damage but gets +1000 accuracy. Or a gem or gem set that increases global damage by 10% but increases mana cost by 20%

Maybe have unique gems that roll a random passive node, you can 'wear' a passive. Maybe this would be OP and could make them insanely valuable. So maybe have some kind of limit like only 1 per character, or require some 'dead' gems linked to it for it to work. Or only have certain keystones available?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Xendran wrote:

Honestly, i remember chris saying that they were considering something like charms, but didn't like the idea of just filling your entire inventory with them.

This is the solution.

Yep. Plus people would complain a lot less about Kaom's.

This too. More sources of HP/ES outside the passive tree = more passive tree diversity.