Socket in Rings! Why not? GGG! :)

"

Natharias wrote:

Adding more sockets means more available skills for each player. This means players can focus less on skill management and more on killing enemies.

Imagine a PvP as is, where one player uses more utility skills but another uses more active skills. The active skills can be used to kill in different ways while the utility skills make the first player's single skill far more effective, or prevent him from dying as quickly.

Now imagine a PvP where you can socket gems in your belt, rings, and amulet. Every player will have multiple active skills and multiple utility skills. It will be a dull, basic duel between each player because they all have just as many options. Sure, the options will be different but this will be no different from an MMO, where it can be very hard to kill a single, well played character.

-1.

So you say this is the only thing that will make pvp unbalanced..
Btw apart from you who said anything of sockets in amulets and belts?
+2 "tactical" skills(movement,curse, anything) makes no such problem as you described.
Ppl can choose 2 skills from a lot of tactical skills, and in pvp they will have different ones, not all of them. Also this would make only good difference to pvp i think

Socket in ring means two more sockets, I guess that could be op after all.
Maybe belt or amulet would be better for this.

"

Moeeom123 wrote:

"

Natharias wrote:

Adding more sockets means more available skills for each player. This means players can focus less on skill management and more on killing enemies.

Imagine a PvP as is, where one player uses more utility skills but another uses more active skills. The active skills can be used to kill in different ways while the utility skills make the first player's single skill far more effective, or prevent him from dying as quickly.

Now imagine a PvP where you can socket gems in your belt, rings, and amulet. Every player will have multiple active skills and multiple utility skills. It will be a dull, basic duel between each player because they all have just as many options. Sure, the options will be different but this will be no different from an MMO, where it can be very hard to kill a single, well played character.

-1.

So you say this is the only thing that will make pvp unbalanced..
Btw apart from you who said anything of sockets in amulets and belts?
+2 "tactical" skills(movement,curse, anything) makes no such problem as you described.
Ppl can choose 2 skills from a lot of tactical skills, and in pvp they will have different ones, not all of them. Also this would make only good difference to pvp i think

WoW has more than fifty options for skills, macros, and more.

Guild Wars has eight slots for skills or signets. This forced a more specific style of play and you couldn't generalize in anything. You not only had to specify your abilities and playstyle, but you had to work together with teams in a true team fashion. You didn't just get in a public party and faceroll something.

Are you really telling me that adding more sockets, or more available skills, is going to make PvP more balanced and that they won't have all of them? I said that they wouldn't have all of them, but they would only miss one, two, maybe three depending on how many supports they use.

As to the sockets in belts and amulets, if it makes sense to add sockets to rings you might as well add them to an item that is larger than the ones you're changing. Belts have even more space and you can easily add sockets to those, logically, if you add them to rings and amulets.

Edit: I think I might want to make sure my first post involved an example, which is meant to be taken as one.

Rings and amul, no. It would just be too much. But 1 socket in a belt.. Sounds appealing.
I'd say 1+ for 1 socket in the belt.

"

Appels_Zijn_Gezond wrote:

Rings and amul, no. It would just be too much. But 1 socket in a belt.. Sounds appealing.
I'd say 1+ for 1 socket in the belt.

To be honest, I don't see why GGG hasn't made rings, amulets, and belts socketable. This game is oriented around having socket based abilities and rings and amulets are the most likely spots for any gems. Belts, especially the chain one, can easily have gems put into it in real life.

WTB RUNEWORDS
it was best thing ever happened in h&s games history.
such itemization wow many words wow much runes

meh i missed d2 so much

Sockets in rings wouldn't be a good idea, but in belts it could be (in fact, I was thinking about this just yesterday).

Problem with rings is that they'd be one socket, and there's builds like mine that wouldn't be able to use one socket for anything. I run all attacks on Blood Magic gems and have 100% of my mana going to three auras through Alpha's Howl.

Now if a belt had two sockets, I could run another Blood Magic gem and then something else.

A potential way to maybe balance this between players would be to limit what the sockets could use--one support and one spell/attack gem. The idea being that the belt is there to enable one more attack, and one that's not linked to realize its highest potential.

I think the idea would be interesting, if only because the current gem allocation space is already so limited since we have to four-link everything. It'd be great to be able to use it for a free curse, an aura, or just about anything else that could diversify our builds a bit.

I hope GGG considers this, especially as they continue adding gems to the game.

Btw, we don't have enough hotkeys for skills yet to use additional sockets. In d2 I had (and even used them all for necro) 16 hotkeys. Here we have 8 only.

"

DarkTl wrote:

Btw, we don't have enough hotkeys for skills yet to use additional sockets. In d2 I had (and even used them all for necro) 16 hotkeys. Here we have 8 only.

You can setup a whole other 8 skillset if you swap weapons, never tried it myself, but you could put all auras or things you use in special cases only on the 2nd set.

i like the idea of having jewelers/artisans/mechanics rings