Two Ideas for Path of Exile 2

Note that these ideas are such radical mechanics changes that I cannot realistically suggest them for the current game. Although I believe they fix major problems with Path of Exile, implementation at this point would be problematic, potentially causing more problems than they fix. Implementation would be far less problematic if integrated into the game from the very start.

1. Particulate currency: Variable crafting cost by itemlevel

One of the most common complaints with PoE is that most players are heavily disincentivized from actually using orbs on gear. Players tend to blame economics for this, which isn't a wholly fair assessment of the system. Even in a theoretical trading-disabled system, the fact of the matter is that an orb used on a lower-level item gives less value than an orb used on a higher-level item; thus, the longer you hold out for a better opportunity to use your orbs, the more your orbs gain value. This encourages extreme stockpiling behavior even in solo situations.

The only effective solution to this is to change the costs of orb use to make lower-level items cheaper to use orbs on. This means that if a single socket-color reroll costs X Chromatic Orbs on an itemlevel 50 item, then it should cost more than X Chromatic Orbs on an itemlevel 70 item. The current orb consumption system cannot sustain this model at all, since the cost per reroll is always 1.

A much better system would use a far more variable currency. For example, imagine if an itemlevel 63 item had a "orb cost" of 2016, meaning it would take 2016 Chromes to reroll socket color, or 2016 Exalts to add a rare affix to it. An itemlevel 77 item, in contrast, might have an orb cost of 3003. This would mean that you'd be burning orbs about 50% faster trying to modify the high-maps drop rather than the Merci Docks drop. Orb costs for all items would be displayed on mouse hover.

Of course, currency drop rate would be drastically increased to make this work, to include the possibility of piles of more than 1 quantity dropping at once (for example, a pile of 100 Exalted Orbs might drop at once). You might be able to store up to 10,000 of a particular currency in a single square of stash space. It also might be a good idea to increase currency drops as arealevel increases, since the lower itemlevel items would require less currency to modify.

This would give players at least one reason not to stockpile orbs and to use them sooner, since there would be at least one disadvantage to using them on higher itemlevel future prospects.

2. Socket shape: Adding non-linear RNG to socketing

One of the most common complaints with PoE is that using Jewelers and Fusings on items is extremely dissatisfying when one fails to achieve the desired upgrade. Players tend to blame "standard deviation" of RNG for this, which isn't a wholly fair assessment of the system. The problem with these orbs is not how difficult it is to attain a 6L (which, given its power, should be difficult to achieve), but instead how, in many cases, the only possible good result is to attain a 6L. This differs from other orbs, such as Exalts, where a roll which the players hopes will be a resistance turns out to be a high Strength roll, and thus still useful if not perfect. Even with Chromatic Orbs, there is a chance that running a different gem combination than originally intended could prove surprisingly effective and persuade the player into keeping the current color configuration. With Jewelers and Fusings, pure quantity is the only factor and pleasant surprises are impossible.

The only effective solution to this is to change the socket system in such a way that pure quantity considerations, such as number of sockets and number of links, are no longer a factor.

A much better system would use socket shape as a deciding factor. For example, imagine that Fusings and links didn't exist at all, and each item automatically had the maximum number of sockets permitted its itemlevel. What would Jeweler's Orbs do in such a system? They would randomize the shapes of the sockets within an item, with each socket assuming one of three possible shapes:

• Diamond (with the major points in the top left and bottom right corners). This is the distinctive shape of active gems; only active gems could fit in such sockets.
• Circle. This is the distinctive shape of support gems; only support gems could fit in such sockets. These would automatically support active gems in the same item (no link system required).
• Triangle (with major points in the top right, center left, and center bottom). This would be the distinctive shape of a new type of gem: the passive gem. Only passive gems could fit in such sockets.

Passive gems would share a lot of characteristics with other gems. They'd gain levels, they'd have colors, and they'd have attribute and level requirements in order to use. The only difference is that they'd continuously provide their benefit; as such, purely offensive stats would never be passive gems (ex: attack speed is already covered by the Faster Attacks support). For example, a level 21, quality 20 Added Strength (red) passive gem might grant +60 Strength. Another (green) passive gem might grant cold resistance.

Under a system like this, one particular shape pattern is not strictly superior to another. Some players might want to use the Added Strength passive gem to partially simulate the effect of Kaom's Heart, and want entirely passive sockets on their chest. Even among players with no interest in the passive gems, you couldn't assume a pattern of 1 active socket and 5 support sockets; for example, consider Cast on Critical builds.

Sidenote added 6/25: In terms of ratios, I believe 4:3:2 active:passive:support would be best. Preserving a 2:1 active:support ratio means that (ignoring passive sockets for a moment) 2Ls would be 4/9 active-active, 4/9 active-support, and 1/9 support-support, the last of which is very weird to pick up. Multiple passive sockets aren't as weird to pick up, but the primary focus of the game should be on active skills, so passive sockets should have a chance of occurrence between actives and passives. With a 4:3:2 ratio, a one-active five-support configuration would be about 1 in 692 (around current 6L odds, perhaps a little better), and a six-passive configuration would be about 1 in 729.

This would give players options for different types of upgrades while trying to achieve a "6L," options which they don't have now.

Then you should have also stopped clicking and stopped typing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

1. Particulate currency: Variable crafting cost by itemlevel

One of the most common complaints with PoE is that most players are heavily disincentivized from actually using orbs on gear. Players tend to blame economics for this, which isn't a wholly fair assessment of the system. Even in a theoretical trading-disabled system, the fact of the matter is that an orb used on a lower-level item gives less value than an orb used on a higher-level item; thus, the longer you hold out for a better opportunity to use your orbs, the more your orbs gain value. This encourages extreme stockpiling behavior even in solo situations.

The only effective solution to this is to change the costs of orb use to make lower-level items cheaper to use orbs on. This means that if a single socket-color reroll costs X Chromatic Orbs on an itemlevel 50 item, then it should cost more than X Chromatic Orbs on an itemlevel 70 item. The current orb consumption system cannot sustain this model at all, since the cost per reroll is always 1.

A much better system would use a far more variable currency. For example, imagine if an itemlevel 63 item had a "orb cost" of 2016, meaning it would take 2016 Chromes to reroll socket color, or 2016 Exalts to add a rare affix to it. An itemlevel 77 item, in contrast, might have an orb cost of 3003. This would mean that you'd be burning orbs about 50% faster trying to modify the high-maps drop rather than the Merci Docks drop. Orb costs for all items would be displayed on mouse hover.

Of course, currency drop rate would be drastically increased to make this work, to include the possibility of piles of more than 1 quantity dropping at once (for example, a pile of 100 Exalted Orbs might drop at once). You might be able to store up to 10,000 of a particular currency in a single square of stash space. It also might be a good idea to increase currency drops as arealevel increases, since the lower itemlevel items would require less currency to modify.

This would give players at least one reason not to stockpile orbs and to use them sooner, since there would be at least one disadvantage to using them on higher itemlevel future prospects.

Scrotie, I think you are misinformed on this. People don't stockpile orbs because it is harder to roll low level and mid level gear, we stockpile to roll the harder end game gear.

Low level gear is already far easier to roll and then exponentially moves up in difficulty to "craft" or get a desired result as you level.

Good example is your Chromatic example.

http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/Socket#Sockets

Summary: Color chances are based off of attribute values required to equip it. 10 STR will be far easier to get 4 Blue than a 160 STR.

For other orbs on the way to endgame. Links are limited to ilevel requiring less RNG to roll desired links. However players normally make 4L from drops and vendors even through merciless to save for a 5L or fantasize over a 6L.

The mod pool is also much smaller low to mid level giving you better odds at a desired result than at endgame where they have the entire pool.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

2. Socket shape: Adding non-linear RNG to socketing

One of the most common complaints with PoE is that using Jewelers and Fusings on items is extremely dissatisfying when one fails to achieve the desired upgrade. Players tend to blame "standard deviation" of RNG for this, which isn't a wholly fair assessment of the system. The problem with these orbs is not how difficult it is to attain a 6L (which, given its power, should be difficult to achieve), but instead how, in many cases, the only possible good result is to attain a 6L. This differs from other orbs, such as Exalts, where a roll which the players hopes will be a resistance turns out to be a high Strength roll, and thus still useful if not perfect. Even with Chromatic Orbs, there is a chance that running a different gem combination than originally intended could prove surprisingly effective and persuade the player into keeping the current color configuration. With Jewelers and Fusings, pure quantity is the only factor and pleasant surprises are impossible.

The only effective solution to this is to change the socket system in such a way that pure quantity considerations, such as number of sockets and number of links, are no longer a factor.

A much better system would use socket shape as a deciding factor. For example, imagine that Fusings and links didn't exist at all, and each item automatically had the maximum number of sockets permitted its itemlevel. What would Jeweler's Orbs do in such a system? They would randomize the shapes of the sockets within an item, with each socket assuming one of three possible shapes:

• Diamond (with the major points in the top left and bottom right corners). This is the distinctive shape of active gems; only active gems could fit in such sockets.
• Circle. This is the distinctive shape of support gems; only support gems could fit in such sockets. These would automatically support active gems in the same item (no link system required).
• Triangle (with major points in the top right, center left, and center bottom). This would be the distinctive shape of a new type of gem: the passive gem. Only passive gems could fit in such sockets.

Passive gems would share a lot of characteristics with other gems. They'd gain levels, they'd have colors, and they'd have attribute and level requirements in order to use. The only difference is that they'd continuously provide their benefit; as such, purely offensive stats would never be passive gems (ex: attack speed is already covered by the Faster Attacks support). For example, a level 21, quality 20 Added Strength (red) passive gem might grant +60 Strength. Another (green) passive gem might grant cold resistance.

Under a system like this, one particular shape pattern is not strictly superior to another. Some players might want to use the Added Strength passive gem to partially simulate the effect of Kaom's Heart, and want entirely passive sockets on their chest. Even among players with no interest in the passive gems, you couldn't assume a pattern of 1 active socket and 5 support sockets; for example, consider Cast on Critical builds.

This would give players options for different types of upgrades while trying to achieve a "6L," options which they don't have now.

As you know, I am 100% fine with the high risk/high reward that fusing orbs currently hold. They add more currency options and add arguably one of the best sinks in the game. They are flawed in the sense that there is no progression when you fail and you could even be set back, to me that is a risk you take by rolling that specific piece of gear, but as you said some of us that are wise to this gamble roll on a separate piece of gear than what we are using. Maybe this needs to be more known to alleviate frustrations?

On the other end, I see peoples view when they buy a 2ex item like Daressos Defiance or Cloak of Defiance (slightly costly uniques), and then they keep rolling on past a 5L or 4L and are left with a "broken" item or set back. In this situation, we sell the 5L we just made, buy another one and continue on the quest to a 6L. Some people lack the patience to sell it, or are too stubborn. I don't believe this is the systems fault.

With almost everything in this game I believe if I put in the time and effort I will see results, the hangup every time for me is getting a 6L which sometimes doesn't happen because I do use the fusing gamble.

My suggestion is to remove the destruction of links and add entropy to the RNG of fusing with there never being a guarantee, but overall increased odds of obtaining one so you feel like you are putting those fusings at least into a savings account for the item and not breaking the little headway you made. It helps alleviate the step backwards frustration, increases 5L values since people won't be selling them off to roll a 6L on a different piece and gives a feeling of faith in the system knowing each fusing is doing something good for the future of the item, even if not "right now".

tl;dr #1 already exists in damn near the exact way you propose. #2 might be a pipe dream for path of exile 2, but we can agree something should happen, I just don't think we even know what it should be.

1. The problem isn't that you might get more on an item with a higher item level, it's that players so quickly out-level their current gear.

A character makes a level twenty item when they get to twenty, and it will last them for about ten levels, depending on the rolls on the item. It could be junk and it's a total waste.

However, crafting a tri-res perfect rare at level sixty or higher, it will be used for quite some time.

The problem is leveling, not currency, item level, or anything else.

2. Nice idea, but it would add yet another thing for players to worry about to obtain good gear.

Imagine being brand new to the game, spending hours on the forums deciding what build you want to play and getting advice on how to play, and then getting your hopes crushed by not only the deathly low currency drops, but the complex system of either having or not having enough active/support gem slots.

It would also end up causing a lot of trouble for many people and many builds that cannot get the correct gem sockets.

Colored sockets would be easier to deal with than shaped sockets that fit any color of gem.

"

A much better system would use socket shape as a deciding factor. For example, imagine that Fusings and links didn't exist at all, and each item automatically had the maximum number of sockets permitted its itemlevel.

From this I assume that all items automatically have full sockets and full links, at least in comparison. This breaks the value of six-links as they are desired so badly because they are so rare.

"

Natharias wrote:

1.

The problem isn't that you might get more on an item with a higher item level, it's that players so quickly out-level their current gear.

A character makes a level twenty item when they get to twenty, and it will last them for about ten levels, depending on the rolls on the item. It could be junk and it's a total waste.

However, crafting a tri-res perfect rare at level sixty or higher, it will be used for quite some time.

The problem is leveling, not currency, item level, or anything else.

If what you were saying was true, players would start using orbs as soon as they found a decent Corsair Sword, starting as early as Act 1 Merciless. That's not at all the case, because they need to hold out for the possibility of affixes like Flaring and Tyrannical.

However, even if you were somehow right... isn't what I'm proposing still the ideal solution?

"

Natharias wrote:

2.

Nice idea, but it would add yet another thing for players to worry about to obtain good gear.

Imagine being brand new to the game, spending hours on the forums deciding what build you want to play and getting advice on how to play, and then getting your hopes crushed by not only the deathly low currency drops, but the complex system of either having or not having enough active/support gem slots.

It would also end up causing a lot of trouble for many people and many builds that cannot get the correct gem sockets.

Colored sockets would be easier to deal with than shaped sockets that fit any color of gem.

"

A much better system would use socket shape as a deciding factor. For example, imagine that Fusings and links didn't exist at all, and each item automatically had the maximum number of sockets permitted its itemlevel.

From this I assume that all items automatically have full sockets and full links, at least in comparison. This breaks the value of six-links as they are desired so badly because they are so rare.

Um, for most players, a 5x support, 1x active configuration would be the equivalent to a six-link in terms of both power and rarity. This wouldn't be totally uniform — as mentioned earlier, CoC builds would might find a 4x support, 2x active ideal — but it's not like I'm totally destroying the 6L concept here.

Every other disadvantage you listed is one which is also shared by the current system.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Natharias wrote:

1.

The problem isn't that you might get more on an item with a higher item level, it's that players so quickly out-level their current gear.

A character makes a level twenty item when they get to twenty, and it will last them for about ten levels, depending on the rolls on the item. It could be junk and it's a total waste.

However, crafting a tri-res perfect rare at level sixty or higher, it will be used for quite some time.

The problem is leveling, not currency, item level, or anything else.

If what you were saying was true, players would start using orbs as soon as they found a decent Corsair Sword, starting as early as Act 1 Merciless. That's not at all the case, because they need to hold out for the possibility of affixes like Flaring and Tyrannical.

However, even if you were somehow right... isn't what I'm proposing still the ideal solution?

"

Natharias wrote:

2.

Nice idea, but it would add yet another thing for players to worry about to obtain good gear.

Imagine being brand new to the game, spending hours on the forums deciding what build you want to play and getting advice on how to play, and then getting your hopes crushed by not only the deathly low currency drops, but the complex system of either having or not having enough active/support gem slots.

It would also end up causing a lot of trouble for many people and many builds that cannot get the correct gem sockets.

Colored sockets would be easier to deal with than shaped sockets that fit any color of gem.

"

A much better system would use socket shape as a deciding factor. For example, imagine that Fusings and links didn't exist at all, and each item automatically had the maximum number of sockets permitted its itemlevel.

From this I assume that all items automatically have full sockets and full links, at least in comparison. This breaks the value of six-links as they are desired so badly because they are so rare.

Um, for most players, a 5x support, 1x active configuration would be the equivalent to a six-link in terms of both power and rarity. This wouldn't be totally uniform — as mentioned earlier, CoC builds would might find a 4x support, 2x active ideal — but it's not like I'm totally destroying the 6L concept here.

Every other disadvantage you listed is one which is also shared by the current system.

1. What I put applies to a Corsair Sword in A1M, because only the highest mods appear on higher itemlevel items. So why bring it up?

If only your change is added, I see more people rushing to A3M and farming Catacombs for much better drops that they can then use on the highest itemlevel items and in the end...

...everyone just has more currency, more items to use the currency on, and higher prices for me to pay to get the items I can't RNG. (Yes I mean RNG and not craft)

2. Exactly, because it wouldn't change much. The sockets still must be rolled. The only real difference is that color allows active or support gems, while your idea allows for any color of either active gems or support gems.

If anything, a non-color basis would allow everyone a much easier time. Instead of having to reroll colors, they could fully switch out a BRRGGG combo for a BBRRRGG combo instead, without having to change the item. As we have it currently, they have to make the decision to keep their combo or risk losing any combo in order to get a combo they want.

TL;DR: Colored sockets are harder to use than shaped sockets, which once acquired in a desirable way, won't require change.