New Legendary Gems and Pricing Changes


If you read the developer interview we posted yesterday you may have seen one of the last questions addressed the simple socketing system in Diablo 3, asking if there were plans to build on it; will it evolve into something more complex and tactical.

John Hight

We don’t have any short term plans at the moment, but we all agree that the socketing game is not super deep and we’ve said so before. We are talking seriously about some legendary gem ideas that will offer new tactical options to players. Stay tuned as we do hope that this design gathers steam.

I reported on the DiabloWiki Gem page update yesterday and even though you know what gems are available the tables there illustrate how basic the whole system is right now. There is definitely plenty of room to expand on socketing.

The Diablo 2 players amongst you will remember back to Runewords, Jewels and Gems which, when socketed, gave your items all manner of properties. Add to that Charms which did not socket but when stored in your backpack allowed even more customisation. Lots to consider. Lots to toy around with.

legendary gemsWhat John said above doesn’t sound as broad as that and they probably don’t need to add so many different ways to alter your builds. Expanding and perfecting the gem system alone would probably be enough and “legendary gem ideas” sounds like just that. Hopefully they won’t just double the stats. There is no reason they can’t have gems with more varied properties. The system in Path of Exile where all your skills are determined by what type of gems you have socketed in your gear is unlikely but perhaps these new “legendary gems” could imbue your gear with some of the bonuses we see on current legendary items now for example.

The second piece of information new for socketing comes from Grimiku:

Grimiku
I have some information to share with you about an upcoming change we’re planning to make. We intend to reduce the gold cost to unsocket top tier gems in a future patch. The goal of this change is to help balance unsocketing costs with other resource sinks and make the act of unsocketing a top tier gem feel less punitive. These value below are not final and of course subject to change, but here’s what we’re currently looking at:

  • Flawless Imperial from 150k to 125k
  • Royal from 250k to 150k
  • Flawless Royal from 500k to 175k

We don’t have a time frame to share on when to expect these changes right now, but it is in the works. We’ll be sure to share additional news as soon as we can, and we hope this heads up helps!

Not exactly knock-down prices and I’d rather they addressed the gem upgrade costs but that’s because I’m always skint from upgrading them but that’s the purpose of a ‘gold sink’ after all.

Comments

You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
  1. I respectfully disagree with the author here, I think we do need a meaty, fully fleshed out (magic,rare,legendary), “small item” system. Hopefully consisting of Jewels, Charms and Runes.

    This game desperately needs to evolve from the “clang” sound effects, and beams of light coming from the ground. We need some separation in our itemization here, more lateral movement so to speak. Other items to search for as well.

    I think players do enjoy “customizing”, do want to “consider”, and also, “toy around” with items. A fully fleshed out small item system allows this to happen outside of paragon points you might not have, or the drops you are not getting.

    More gems are not good enough, its too much like the streamlined “band aid” features from the past. Bring forth something meaty or don’t get off the porch.

    • I think you can get all you want from a better implementation of gems and perhaps add precious metals too for extra name variety and reduce the need for umpteen levels of gems.

      It’s not about all the different items you can have but the different ways in which they come into play.

      The ‘thing’ is just a means to apply changes to your gear so it doesn’t matter if it’s a charm, rune, gem or bagel.

      If there were 10 types of gems and 5 precious metals, for example, that on their own did things but combined did other things you could have a massive amount of customisation. You could even have the Mystic enchant some gems/metal you have combined to try to alter it further. Endless possibilities to get more customisation into the gear.

      So even though you present a good case I still think they just need to do the gems right, expand the idea and give us the mechanism to toy with them far beyond what we can now.

      • Quality not quantity, I say. I’d rather have 5 truly interesting options than 50 meh-ish ones and D2’s Gems, Jewels, Charms and Runes were 98% meh or worse. (Not saying D3 is doing much better; stupid mainstat takes away a lot of the potential from D3’s gems….)

      • I definitely want a little more to the gem system, but not too much more. I also don’t think the developers truly plan to make over the current system to some complex monstrosity where players spend 30 minutes Hack&Slash and 90 minutes tinkering with their armor. I want something that feels like Diablo, not WoW or EverQuest. I’m not even sure that Diablo 2’s RuneWord system felt very “Diablo”.

  2. Charms were the single worst implemented idea in D2, and runewords weren’t far behind. Charms were just gems that forced you to go back to town more often. There wasn’t anything truly interesting about them, you just grinded up a full inventory of whatever basic stat you needed. There was no tradeoff, aside from being more frustrated while trying to carry more than a single item. No, never again.

    Runewords would single-handedly devalue gems and add piles of unnecessary inventory clutter. I’m already punished enough for playing more than one class, thanks.

    Jewels would be interesting if done well, again provided the inventory clutter is kept to a minimum. I wouldn’t be THAT opposed to either of the first two ideas either, as long as they didn’t interfere with systems already in place, like the old Talisman system used to be, or paragon points in item form.

    • The thing with charms is people really strove to min-max them to the n-th degree.

      You could get bigger individual numbers on the 2 and 3-slot charms, but the 1-slot charms could roll better stats when used en-masse. Then because charms had prefixes and suffixes, there was even more variation in what was possible. Finally not all affixes were available on all charm sizes, I believe you had to get a 3-slot charm in order to get the +skill tree affix.

      Charms were essentially a spreadsheet-lover’s nirvana.

  3. I think it would be fun to have a new npc called the alchemist. He mixes potions. he uses essence bottles and essences that drop from breakable items.
    eg. break a bone pile and there is a chance to get bone or marrow dust. Break a wooden box etc and get some form of sawdust, this could be fleshed out a lot. he could start at lvl 1 with just healing potions and get additional potions on level up and you could have special recipes drop all the way to lvl 12. it would be cool at top lvl to have a potion that adds a legendary weapon or shrine effect for say 2 minutes.
    to combat the “full stash” problem all the essences could be auto pickup like gold and appear automatically in the alchemists available essence list.
    What do you guys think?

    • This is not a bad idea for enriching the game. Though, then you still need inventory space for keeping all those potion bottles and the headache of trying to drink/activate the right potion in the middle of the fight etc.

  4. Its easy to say what you would like to change without taking into account how it will affect things such as inventory storage. If gems had varied properties then they’d be different to each other and couldn’t be stacked like they are now. Bring in another socketable and they will compete with gems as well. Best just improve on what there is currently.

    Simple fix, give gems more than 1 property (but the same property as it works now but just more props), or give them an extra random property when socketed which they lose when unsocketted ($$$). A bit like the mystic now changing affixes. Could probably recycle some of the code too.

Comments are closed.