Unique item that links to other items. Is it possible?

Looks pretty cool. I think this would work as a nice little benefit for future set items; if they will ever be introduced, of course. I'm not sure if they are planning on doing that eventually, or even want to.

I would imagine the one or two upper chest sockets linking to up to 4 helmet sockets, the one or two bottom right sockets linking to up to 4 boots sockets, and the one or two bottom left sockets linking to up to 4 glove sockets, allowing for more 6-linked combos for the rare, higher-leveled set items (or uniques).

"

NightElfik wrote:

If you can see on the image, the sockets on armour are not linked together, so this unique chest would add one linked socket to helm

Currently, you can reroll the number of sockets and the links between them for any item in the game.

Even uniques.

Would this unique be any different?

It would have to be, otherwise it would become a must-have item for essentially every endgame build. You'd be considered gimped without one.

Additionally, it would need to have effectively no defensive stats (like 150 evasion or something).

"

Daemonjax wrote:

Currently, you can reroll the number of sockets and the links between them for any item in the game.

Would this unique be any different?

I'd might need to have a maximum number of sockets -- perhaps 3 or 4. Still though, you have to factor in the actual stats of this armor could be much less than other late-game armors.

There is essentially always a way to balance any concept, even if they have to give negative stats or something.

"

NightElfik wrote:

so this unique chest would add one linked socket to helm, gloves and boots allowing to have 3x 5 link instead of 3x 4 + 6...

Great description.

Absolutely amazing idea for an armor and the minimum required UI for it is pretty much what was shown in the OP.

Absolutely speechless.

The sockets we have now in items are actually physically linked together.

So... would these sockets magically bound together with no real physical link? I'd hate to be running around with my feet chained to my chest, seems like it would quite awkward and uncomfortable.

Interesting idea...but i wonder how hard this would be to implement.

"

FaceLicker wrote:

The sockets we have now in items are actually physically linked together.

So... would these sockets magically bound together with no real physical link? I'd hate to be running around with my feet chained to my chest, seems like it would quite awkward and uncomfortable.

I guess if you wanted to put some lore behind it they can be linked magically/spiritually - however you see fit.

"

TPxErebus wrote:

Interesting idea...but i wonder how hard this would be to implement.

That's what I'm wondering. I'm wondering if my idea is even possible for the devs to do.

Really cool idea, I'm wondering what sort of restrictions it might be able to have though. A "can't reroll sockets" hardcode quality could address some of the concerns, for instance. Or maybe have an attribute that affects all linked gems, just an easy example: effective gem level for the torso slot counts as X + .5 per linked full slot(maybe require that the gems be of the same color or something) with the downside that the costs are 10% more.

The gem system is one of the strongest features of this game, so anything that adds more versatility and expands(without breaking) it's role, is worth exploring. And the costs can be tweaked, but the overall impression PoE gives me(and the one I'm hoping it's trying for) is one that you can do pretty much ANYTHING, if you can find a way to deal with those costs.

I think the exact system that the OP implied is already as perfect as it can be.
A unique chest with a max of 3 slots, one for each other type of main gear, and basically giving each of those one extra linked slot withouth having any linked slot itself.
This would be a really useful piece of equipment, but at the same time, there can be other cases where it would be almost useless.

A great idea for ONE unique.

You give up a 6 link, you get 3 5 links instead of 4 links....I like it.

Having those 4 links become 5 links would be a very nice trade off, and doesn't seem game breaking at all given the lose of a 6 link.