We need more legandary gem slots

General Discussion
02/26/2016 11:35 AMPosted by Nevalistis
I've seen quite a bit of feedback from folks wanting to see Stone of Jordan get some revivification. Let's explore this concept.

  • If we revised Stone of Jordan, what would you want it to do?
  • Why do you want Stone of Jordan to be more important? Is it the nostalgia factor, or do you want more competitive/varied ring options? Is there another reason?
  • Would you rather see Stone of Jordan have a new Kanai/Crafting use, be spent as currency, or feel more competitive as an item?
  • How can we revise Stone of Jordan in a way that's great for everyone and not just a single class?

These are just some conversation starter questions. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on Stone of Jordan, or what item powers you'd like to see in general.


Since you never revise the stone of jordan...

Heres an easy quick idea to open up a many different types of builds that would only be possible with such a change.

Stone Of Jordan

This ring no longer rolls stats; Instead It rolls 4 sockets.


This would turn the Stone of Jordan into a 4 diamond ring matching its unique rarity.
This idea is only good if your intention is to make the SOJ completely useless and irrelevant.
01/10/2019 04:56 PMPosted by Alexismad
This idea is only good if your intention is to make the SOJ completely useless and irrelevant.


Please explain how it would be completely useless? Youd be able to use 4 legandary gems which means more damage reduction more and utility gems. This would open up alot of builds and directly compete with COE which has become a mandatory ring for almost all builds.
3 is fine.

Even if they expanded the slots, making the extra slot come from an item is exactly the wrong way to do it - that just makes said item absolutely mandatory for everything.

Also, you'd be !@#$ing over LoN builds.
01/10/2019 05:57 PMPosted by Orrion
3 is fine.

Even if they expanded the slots, making the extra slot come from an item is exactly the wrong way to do it - that just makes said item absolutely mandatory for everything.

Also, you'd be !@#$ing over LoN builds.


That's the point; to compete against other builds. LON has its benefits of extra item slots by not having to loose 6 slots to a set and this ring would benefit sets and poop on endless walk or COE. It's competitive to all builds which would make it a great change.

If it worked with every build and wasnt competitive then it would be just like it was when focus and restraint came out (mandatory in all builds) when we didnt have endless walk. The release of endless walk competed with focus and restraint and improved the game through more builds.
01/10/2019 06:06 PMPosted by Jumpman
01/10/2019 05:57 PMPosted by Orrion
3 is fine.

Even if they expanded the slots, making the extra slot come from an item is exactly the wrong way to do it - that just makes said item absolutely mandatory for everything.

Also, you'd be !@#$ing over LoN builds.


That's the point; to compete against other builds. LON has its benefits of extra item slots by not having to loose 6 slots to a set and this ring would benefit sets and poop on endless walk or COE. It's competitive to all builds which would make it a great change.

If it worked with every build and wasnt competitive then it would be just like it was when focus and restraint came out (mandatory in all builds) when we didnt have endless walk. The release of endless walk competed with focus and restraint and improved the game through more builds.


No, it's mandatory to all builds and that's NOT a great change.

Players need more choices in the game - they don't need a change that makes 100% of people want to use SoJ.

Replacement =/= competing with.
Interesting thread.

But it's 2016 news...
Why would they change this ring if/while no other powerless legs haven't? (Are we simply asking too much at this point or wishing the impossible?)

But I'll give it a go.

+20% increased (to all) elemental damage (or more, to compete with CoE)
20% reduced cost of all ressources.

Cubeable bonus, static numbers.
01/10/2019 06:18 PMPosted by Orrion
No, it's mandatory to all builds and that's NOT a great change.

Players need more choices in the game - they don't need a change that makes 100% of people want to use SoJ.

Replacement =/= competing with.


Dont just say it would be mandatory for all builds, instead please explain why you believe its mandatory for all builds with examples. I want this thread to be constructive without arguments. Explain your reasoning with more than just a blank statement without examples.

The way I see it is like this, this change could modify certain builds to improve them, but it wouldnt make it mandatory because you'd have to choose between other rings or damage sets that compete with it. Also the loss of 6crit chance 50CD and main stat is a pretty big loss upwards of 20% of damage and some ehp from your mainstat loss.
Make it double the effect of the legendary socket. When equipped. For instance.... if you use bane of the stricken second effect at lvl 25, instead of the rift guardian taking 25% more damage. It does the effect twice. But it only does the equipped legendary gems effect.
I'd take some way to ensure that a ring or amulet has a socket without rerolling a stat (or wasting a re-roll). Where is Ramaladni for jewelry? Cube recipe (jewelry + SoJ = add socket)?
Is it that difficult to make an item with x dmg lets say 1000% and any set item equipped removes the bonus. It leaves always option to balance it and nobody would be able to use set items with this gem/item
How about increase the stage of special effect - lvl 50/75/100. Few gems with multiple utilities will make player confused and will have them dive in the game to invent the best combination out of them.
I like the idea of adding a third effect for gems....currently initial effect, then level 25....how about adding a level 100 effect to each gem...and I totally agree on either adding a gift item that sockets jewelry or making socket a default roll on every accessory.....im sorry ive rerolled rings thousands of times every season putting myself through misery for the hope of fun down the road....its not a very rewarding mechanic even when you finally get it done. The socket in jewlery is way more mandatory than weapon, which is why its a bit perplexing that they added a gift to socket weapons and not accessories.
01/10/2019 06:29 PMPosted by Jumpman
01/10/2019 06:18 PMPosted by Orrion
No, it's mandatory to all builds and that's NOT a great change.

Players need more choices in the game - they don't need a change that makes 100% of people want to use SoJ.

Replacement =/= competing with.


Dont just say it would be mandatory for all builds, instead please explain why you believe its mandatory for all builds with examples. I want this thread to be constructive without arguments. Explain your reasoning with more than just a blank statement without examples.

The way I see it is like this, this change could modify certain builds to improve them, but it wouldnt make it mandatory because you'd have to choose between other rings or damage sets that compete with it. Also the loss of 6crit chance 50CD and main stat is a pretty big loss upwards of 20% of damage and some ehp from your mainstat loss.


….. It's not like you provided examples. You're basically saying "this would compete against other stuff because I think it would." Besides, if it's NOT mandatory then you haven't exactly accomplished what your thread title says, have you? Your thread title is that we need more legendary gem slots. Well, if they did change SoJ to your suggestion and then people don't use it then they don't actually have more legendary gem slots, do they?

But it really doesn't matter because there's no way in hell that Blizzard changes SoJ to have FOUR sockets. There's only ever been an item with 2, and that item was eventually changed.

Don't try and kill 2 birds with 1 stone (heh) here. You haven't even explained why you think we need more legendary gem slots. You just went right into changing SoJ to provide them. So what's your real goal here, more legendary gem slots or making SoJ relevant again?
01/10/2019 07:41 PMPosted by XS3NIGMA
I like the idea of adding a third effect for gems....currently initial effect, then level 25....how about adding a level 100 effect to each gem...and I totally agree on either adding a gift item that sockets jewelry or making socket a default roll on every accessory.....im sorry ive rerolled rings thousands of times every season putting myself through misery for the hope of fun down the road....its not a very rewarding mechanic even when you finally get it done. The socket in jewlery is way more mandatory than weapon, which is why its a bit perplexing that they added a gift to socket weapons and not accessories.


Oh, so not cool for people who are casual players, or pure soloers that'll never upgrade a gem to 100 because they never push higher than 70 or 80. This is just another way for higher level players to blast away from the regular player in the game. Not that that would matter so much for the majority of players, the ones who don't care about having 80+ gems.
It would be sweet as a Kanai's Cube recipe. Where you could transform it together with a bunch of other mats (to not make it OP) and a Ring or Amulet to add a socket to said Ring or Amulet. So much jewelry go to waste/aren't good because you absolutely to need to roll a socket.

Rolling a socket onto a piece of Jewelry isn't a matter of "Should I?", but it is a must if said piece is to have any value because you can put a Legendary Gem in it. The thought process behind Legendary Gems and Jewelry is laughable at best. They could just have easily let us forge a piece of jewelry together with a Legendary Gem in the Cube meaning no socket would be needed and thus opening op for much more variety (apart from builds being set in stone but that is another matter).
01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
….. It's not like you provided examples. You're basically saying "this would compete against other stuff because I think it would."


Your the one who made claims about manditory i never did that and you never gave yet I did I give examples here

01/10/2019 05:53 PMPosted by Jumpman
Youd be able to use 4 legandary gems which means more damage reduction more and utility gems. This would open up alot of builds and directly compete with COE which has become a mandatory ring for almost all builds.


And here. These rings directly conflict with focus and restraint, COE, and endless walk. Those are examples because your forced to choose.

01/10/2019 06:06 PMPosted by Jumpman
That's the point; to compete against other builds. LON has its benefits of extra item slots by not having to loose 6 slots to a set and this ring would benefit sets and poop on endless walk or COE. It's competitive to all builds which would make it a great change.

If it worked with every build and wasnt competitive then it would be just like it was when focus and restraint came out (mandatory in all builds) when we didnt have endless walk. The release of endless walk competed with focus and restraint and improved the game through more builds.


01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
Besides, if it's NOT mandatory then you haven't exactly accomplished what your thread title says, have you? Your thread title is that we need more legendary gem slots. Well, if they did change SoJ to your suggestion and then people don't use it then they don't actually have more legendary gem slots, do they?


Do you not understand what a legandary gem slot is? Legendary gem slots are ring or amulet slots and no other socket slot works. This means if the SOJ was had 4 sockets you'd gain 3 additional legandary gem slots accomplishing my title and goal. Its not that hard of a concept to undertand and I didnt complicate or conflict my title with the proposed change like you think.

01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
But it really doesn't matter because there's no way in hell that Blizzard changes SoJ to have FOUR sockets. There's only ever been an item with 2, and that item was eventually changed.


That was a weapon and long before legendary gems even existed, so that doesn't mean anything.

01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
Don't try and kill 2 birds with 1 stone (heh) here. You haven't even explained why you think we need more legendary gem slots. You just went right into changing SoJ to provide them. So what's your real goal here, more legendary gem slots or making SoJ relevant again?


Again you missed the entire point of the thread. We need more legendary gem slots which allows us to use more gems. The only way to achieve that is through more sockets which means we need to modify rings to allow that. If you just added sockets to every ring then all your doing is buffing numbers for every build in the game and does nothing to increase the build veriety. The only way to do that is to add a competative ring to match other rings to accomplish this goal.

Changing the SOJ forces you to choose between rings that have direct power like F&R, COE, or Endless walk vs the SOJ which cant be cubed and would give you access to 4 gems slots with an additional loss of 4 stats costing you about 20 to 25+% dps.

I never created this thread saying give us more gem slots to buff us all to GR150, i want more gem slots to be compedative with others to force you to choose between different variety's and builds instead of buffing the ones on the top already.

01/10/2019 05:57 PMPosted by Orrion
you'd be !@#$ing over LoN builds.


Its pretty obvious the reasoning why you hate is soley because of LON this basically makes it impossible to use with long which is fine. It's call variety and competition, without those we'd all be forced to run 1 build per class like the old days.
01/11/2019 06:21 AMPosted by Jumpman
01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
….. It's not like you provided examples. You're basically saying "this would compete against other stuff because I think it would."


Your the one who made claims about manditory i never did that and you never gave yet I did I give examples here

01/10/2019 05:53 PMPosted by Jumpman
Youd be able to use 4 legandary gems which means more damage reduction more and utility gems. This would open up alot of builds and directly compete with COE which has become a mandatory ring for almost all builds.


And here. These rings directly conflict with focus and restraint, COE, and endless walk. Those are examples because your forced to choose.

01/10/2019 06:06 PMPosted by Jumpman
That's the point; to compete against other builds. LON has its benefits of extra item slots by not having to loose 6 slots to a set and this ring would benefit sets and poop on endless walk or COE. It's competitive to all builds which would make it a great change.

If it worked with every build and wasnt competitive then it would be just like it was when focus and restraint came out (mandatory in all builds) when we didnt have endless walk. The release of endless walk competed with focus and restraint and improved the game through more builds.


Saying "my idea is a ring, so it competes with the other rings" isn't really an example. It's common knowledge.

I hope you realize almost no builds use F+R anymore.

01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
Besides, if it's NOT mandatory then you haven't exactly accomplished what your thread title says, have you? Your thread title is that we need more legendary gem slots. Well, if they did change SoJ to your suggestion and then people don't use it then they don't actually have more legendary gem slots, do they?


Do you not understand what a legandary gem slot is? Legendary gem slots are ring or amulet slots and no other socket slot works. This means if the SOJ was had 4 sockets you'd gain 3 additional legandary gem slots accomplishing my title and goal. Its not that hard of a concept to undertand and I didnt complicate or conflict my title with the proposed change like you think.


Yes, I know what a legendary gem slot is, thanks.

Look, the problem is that you're adding more slots through a condition - using SoJ. Right now everyone has access to all 3 gem slots no matter what their gear setup is because any amulet or ring can be rolled to have a socket. If your SoJ was put in then the only way to get additional gem slots would be to use SoJ.

If your goal is more gem slots then you need the additional slots to be universal rather than conditional. This shouldn't be a hard concept. Anybody who chose not to use SoJ if this change happened doesn't get more slots.

01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
But it really doesn't matter because there's no way in hell that Blizzard changes SoJ to have FOUR sockets. There's only ever been an item with 2, and that item was eventually changed.


That was a weapon and long before legendary gems even existed, so that doesn't mean anything.


That's MY point - the only time an item had more than 1 socket doesn't mean anything, so what are the odds they're suddenly going to make an item that has 4?

01/10/2019 07:58 PMPosted by Orrion
Don't try and kill 2 birds with 1 stone (heh) here. You haven't even explained why you think we need more legendary gem slots. You just went right into changing SoJ to provide them. So what's your real goal here, more legendary gem slots or making SoJ relevant again?


Again you missed the entire point of the thread. We need more legendary gem slots which allows us to use more gems. The only way to achieve that is through more sockets which means we need to modify rings to allow that.


Okay, but, AGAIN, if you modify SoJ like this and someone doesn't use SoJ then they aren't getting more gems. Do you see the problem yet?

And no, the only way is not through more sockets on rings or amulets. They could allow other slots to roll sockets. They could allow existing sockets to slot legendary gems. They could change the legendary gem system entirely.

AGAIN, too, you still haven't explained why you think we need more legendary gem slots.

If you just added sockets to every ring then all your doing is buffing numbers for every build in the game and does nothing to increase the build veriety. The only way to do that is to add a competative ring to match other rings to accomplish this goal.


So now your goal is build variety? That's 3 goals - more legendary gems, changing SoJ, and build variety. Don't you think you should pick one?

Changing the SOJ forces you to choose between rings that have direct power like F&R, COE, or Endless walk vs the SOJ which cant be cubed and would give you access to 4 gems slots with an additional loss of 4 stats costing you about 20 to 25+% dps.


Okay, but, yet again, if you change SoJ and force people to choose between those things then anyone who doesn't choose SoJ is not getting additional legendary gem slots. That is a bad change since right now everyone has access to all the legendary gem slots no matter what rings or amulets they are wearing.

I never created this thread saying give us more gem slots to buff us all to GR150, i want more gem slots to be compedative with others to force you to choose between different variety's and builds instead of buffing the ones on the top already.


Well, actually, that's exactly what your title implies. "We need more legendary gem slots."

Maybe I wouldn't have this problem if you, y'know, actually explained why you think we need more legendary gem slots in the first place.

01/10/2019 05:57 PMPosted by Orrion
you'd be !@#$ing over LoN builds.


Its pretty obvious the reasoning why you hate is soley because of LON this basically makes it impossible to use with long which is fine. It's call variety and competition, without those we'd all be forced to run 1 build per class like the old days.


No, that's stupid. I've only ever played 1 LoN build since LoN was introduced.

I do, however, look at the bigger picture when I'm thinking about changes to the game. That is something you don't seem capable of doing so far.
01/10/2019 08:02 PMPosted by Traveler
01/10/2019 07:41 PMPosted by XS3NIGMA
I like the idea of adding a third effect for gems....currently initial effect, then level 25....how about adding a level 100 effect to each gem...and I totally agree on either adding a gift item that sockets jewelry or making socket a default roll on every accessory.....im sorry ive rerolled rings thousands of times every season putting myself through misery for the hope of fun down the road....its not a very rewarding mechanic even when you finally get it done. The socket in jewlery is way more mandatory than weapon, which is why its a bit perplexing that they added a gift to socket weapons and not accessories.


Oh, so not cool for people who are casual players, or pure soloers that'll never upgrade a gem to 100 because they never push higher than 70 or 80. This is just another way for higher level players to blast away from the regular player in the game. Not that that would matter so much for the majority of players, the ones who don't care about having 80+ gems.


If it was suggested prior to this upcoming patch, I would've been a no go on a level 100 requirement, too. However, with the early/mid-90's actually being feasible in the current patch with stat bumps pushing people further, those that struggle around 95 could still eventually get a level 100 gem.

Of course, the idea of tertiary effects is something I've bounced around in the past, myself, and had set the activation level at 50. The goal was also to make the gems pretty much no one ever uses now more tempting by giving them really good mods while the typical go-tos would have far more mediocre benefits. I've also wanted even more gems to be added alongside changing how we level them, but obviously none of that has come to fruition.

More relative to the OP, I don't want a multi-socket SoJ or to have it double gem effects or whatever. My stance has routinely been that it needs to be a competitor for CoE as a full-time elemental damage option for those who hate the whole rotation mechanic. It can still maintain other traits like the elite mod and resource buffs, but if it never reaches a point where people would want to wear or cube it, it's not been buffed enough. The jewelry strangehold with LoN and other things is another can of worms.
I'm not really sure what this guy is getting at.

Is he saying that only Stone of Jordan should come sockets and get 4 of them, while removing sockets from all other items, so that the only way to use Legendary gems at all would be to use Stone of Jordan?

Otherwise, like Orrion keeps saying either he's arguing for Stone of Jordan to receive 4 extra gem slots. In either case, Stone of Jordan becomes the most powerful item in the game and not equal to other rings.

A false choice is no choice at all.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum