Chromatic orbs are bullshit.

"

KalHirol wrote:

Well the limitation of off sockets on gear really kills build diversity.

Lets go full melee ES with CI and aim for many red sockets on your ES chest armor = not going to happen.

You are forced into hybrid, gg GGG.

This sucks.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Wazz72 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

Returning to this thread after several months...
[nested quotes]
I'm not confident that is a very good suggestion, because I'm worried it might be overpowered.

I disagree slightly on the nature of the problem, as well. I don't feel a lack of incremental progress is the problem. I feel a lack of viable alternative rolls is the problem. For example, if you are planning GGRRRB as your "ideal" sockets for a bow, and instead you get GGBBBR, chances are very high that you can't salvage the blue sockets in some way to make something which is playable, even if understandably not ideal. It's almost always a case of "get your colors or bust," and the problem there isn't getting your colors, the problem is busting.

Every well-designed orb in this game allows you to stop at a point short of ideal and still have something workable. You can throw Chaos at a chest piece and get something otherwise very good (say, high tri-res) but it only has +62 Life, and you wear it for a while. You don't just chuck orbs at it until it's perfect in some regard, you accept the imperfect, because you can accept it and still be viable. Chromatics (and Jewelers and Fusings) simply do not work this way, or work in a much more crude manner (ex: only stopping point before 6L is 5L).

I think the best advice would be making it a design goal to give every skill viable supports in every gem color. This means more support gems in general, as well as changing some supports so every color has viable supports for each skill. With a deep enough pool of support gems to choose from, you could make it so a well-prepared character, who has been leveling multiple support options in off-hand weapons over time (or looting some Faceted strongboxes), has support configurations available for multiple different Chromatic outcomes, severely softening the blow of getting a less-than-ideal roll.

(For example, Weapon Elemental Damage should almost undoubtedly be a blue support, as Intelligence and elemental damage are closely linked, and thematically Strength is about physical damage, which is an antithesis of elemental; perhaps it could have a secondary Strength requirement instead of requiring massive Intelligence, as a nod to the Templar.)

In this way, even with Chromes acting much as they do now, you would get something which feels a bit like incremental progress (pseudo-incremental progress, if you will). Sure, it would be random, but it would be the type of random where you get something workable often enough where you don't feel like you have junk until you can wrangle up more Chromes, but instead can run with the non-ideal.

That would only be a partial solution, good for people who trade, not for SF players, forcing them to find the support gems of the right colors to match the roll, or to keep rolling...

Very few gems have major availability issues, even for self-found players. It would mostly be a preparation issue (leveling various gems beforehand). The idea that my suggestion is only for traders is ridiculous.

"

Poutsos wrote:

2K chroms on chest,220 chroms on boots.I ve done it before with as many chroms on another chest,so i consider myself lucky.However i do agree that this off colour thing hurts build diversity.

"

Wazz72 wrote:

iirc ratios are 8:1:1 for pure and 6:6:1 for hybrid

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Wazz72 wrote:

iirc ratios are 8:1:1 for pure and 6:6:1 for hybrid

I don't think there's ever been official GGG comment, and that those ratios are purely the speculation of players. Granted, it might be speculation based on experimentation... but I wouldn't call it conclusive. Most likely, no one but GGG knows exactly what the ratios are.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

dyneol wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Gosh this thread again t_t ....

Because still valid.

Have you read the whole thing ?
I doubt it, because I don't think that there is much more to discuss, that has not been discussed yet ( or maybe you have something new to bring here ? )

"

Wazz72 wrote:

Right, and thinking about it, ratios probably aren't even that simple, given the likehood that attribute requirements are somehow involved - the higher the requirement, the more biased toward that color the piece is.