Primal waepons 2 sockets

General Discussion
Make all Primal weapons 2 sockets and create more weapon gems to be socketed just think of possibilities and new ways to conquer
I like the idea of new gems, so long as they are on par with what exist. 2 sockets is a bad idea, we don't need any more powercreep added to the game than has already been thrown at it.
06/13/2019 09:22 PMPosted by Lioniod
Make all Primal weapons 2 sockets and create more weapon gems to be socketed just think of possibilities and new ways to conquer


Instead that i have a new suggestion.

Allow primal off hand to be socketed by X ramaladni gift.
@OP We can never be greedy enough, can we ?
06/13/2019 09:22 PMPosted by Lioniod
Make all Primal weapons 2 sockets and create more weapon gems to be socketed just think of possibilities and new ways to conquer

So, dual-wielding heroes get 520% CHD...

06/13/2019 10:11 PMPosted by PardalBR
Allow primal off hand to be socketed by X ramaladni gift.

So, off-hands can have 10% CHC and 130% CHD...

Both of these ideas are just plain power creep.
06/14/2019 12:40 AMPosted by Meteorblade
06/13/2019 09:22 PMPosted by Lioniod
Make all Primal weapons 2 sockets and create more weapon gems to be socketed just think of possibilities and new ways to conquer

So, dual-wielding heroes get 520% CHD...

06/13/2019 10:11 PMPosted by PardalBR
Allow primal off hand to be socketed by X ramaladni gift.

So, off-hands can have 10% CHC and 130% CHD...

Both of these ideas are just plain power creep.


Never heard of "unique equipped", have ya? They simply can not allow 2 gems of the same color to be socketed in the same weapon.

And gems only add +attribute in off-hands anyway, so I think I can guess where you pulled the "off-hands can have 10% CHC and 130% CHD" out of.......

BUT "OOOOOH 130% CHD and +Damage, how exciting..."

How about new Legendary Gems/Jewels only for weapons that

- give you a new skill/spell? This way they can bring back old scrapped skills and add new ones, class-specific and global.
- or have a gem-exclusive legendary power that cannot be cubed.

Adding a little extra flavor to the same tired builds everyone's using.
It's a very bad idea. This basically mean there would be a huuuuuge gab between a player with Ancient weapon and one with Primal ancient weapon. Leaderboard will be determine by which as been lucky enough to get a primal weapon and this is a very bad idea.

I'd rather like to see a season with 1 more skill slot.
06/14/2019 12:52 AMPosted by WittyGem
Never heard of "unique equipped", have ya? They simply can not allow 2 gems of the same color to be socketed in the same weapon.

I've heard of unique equipped and non-legendary gems have never been subject to that restriction. Have you forgotten that there used to be dual-socket weapons? Back in vanilla DHs used to put two emeralds into their dual-socket Manticores.

But let's say they introduce that restriction so you can't dual-wield and have four emeralds. Okay, so you have an emerald and diamond in each weapon so that you get 260% CHD and 40% Elite Damage, or an emerald and ruby in each weapon for 260% CHD and 540 weapon damage.

This is still massive power creep for dual-wielders which main-hand + off-hand players couldn't match.
I think Sapphires should have been added to this game, maybe bring them back for 4 in some capacity, same with skulls and add like LOH for skulls again, and like ias for sapphires
Yet another prime example where someone tries to find any use his/her junk primals instead of salvaging them. Why else would anyone even suggest such a bad idea?

Learn already. Junk primals are junk. They don't become any more useful by breaking the gameplay and leaderboards.
06/14/2019 01:20 AMPosted by Meteorblade
06/14/2019 12:52 AMPosted by WittyGem
Never heard of "unique equipped", have ya? They simply can not allow 2 gems of the same color to be socketed in the same weapon.

I've heard of unique equipped and non-legendary gems have never been subject to that restriction. Have you forgotten that there used to be dual-socket weapons? Back in vanilla DHs used to put two emeralds into their dual-socket Manticores.

But let's say they introduce that restriction so you can't dual-wield and have four emeralds. Okay, so you have an emerald and diamond in each weapon so that you get 260% CHD and 40% Elite Damage, or an emerald and ruby in each weapon for 260% CHD and 540 weapon damage.

This is still massive power creep for dual-wielders which main-hand + off-hand players couldn't match.


Lol spare your same old tired spiel. Power creep this, big bada boom that.

+75,000% damage to Impale, 6 spells having their damage increased by 20,000%, "your damage is increased by 9000%", "every use of XXXXX increases your next skill's damage by 5500% - stackable"........have you seen those numbers lately, sweetie-pie?

2 sockets in a primal weapon is the least of your concerns.
06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
Lol spare your same old tired spiel. Power creep this, big bada boom that.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/search?forum=3354739&q=power%20creep&sort=time&dir=d
The last time I used the phrase was three months ago...
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/20771226941?page=4#post-66
...in a post discussing the impact of patch 2.6.4 - you know, the one where there were huge buffs to the damage multipliers on set armours, i.e. actual power creep.

06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
+75,000% damage to Impale, 6 spells having their damage increased by 20,000%, "your damage is increased by 9000%", "every use of XXXXX increases your next skill's damage by 5500% - stackable"........have you seen those numbers lately, sweetie-pie?

Yes, and all of those are multipliers of your weapon damage and a socketed ruby increases that. Let's use Impale DH as an example. Okay, so I have a primal Karlei's Point with 10% weapon damage and 7% attack speed. It currently has 3083.4 damage. The two-piece set bonus gives a 6000% bonus, and the six-piece gives 75,000% to first enemy hit. So...

3083.4 * 60 * 750 = 138,753,000

If we increase that by adding a top-end ruby into it, that increases the base weapon damage by 270 to 3,353.4 so...

3,353.4 * 60 * 750 = 150,903,000

(150,903,000 / 138,753,000) = 1.0875

So, not far from a 9% damage increase due to adding a single gem.
06/14/2019 02:32 AMPosted by Meteorblade
06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
Lol spare your same old tired spiel. Power creep this, big bada boom that.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/search?forum=3354739&q=power%20creep&sort=time&dir=d
The last time I used the phrase was three months ago...
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/20771226941?page=4#post-66
...in a post discussing the impact of patch 2.6.4 - you know, the one where there were huge buffs to the damage multipliers on set armours, i.e. actual power creep.

06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
+75,000% damage to Impale, 6 spells having their damage increased by 20,000%, "your damage is increased by 9000%", "every use of XXXXX increases your next skill's damage by 5500% - stackable"........have you seen those numbers lately, sweetie-pie?

Yes, and all of those are multipliers of your weapon damage and a socketed ruby increases that. Let's use Impale DH as an example. Okay, so I have a primal Karlei's Point with 10% weapon damage and 7% attack speed. It currently has 3083.4 damage. The two-piece set bonus gives a 6000% bonus, and the six-piece gives 75,000% to first enemy hit. So...

3083.4 * 60 * 750 = 138,753,000

If we increase that by adding a top-end ruby into it, that increases the base weapon damage by 270 to 3,353.4 so...

3,353.4 * 60 * 750 = 150,903,000

(150,903,000 / 138,753,000) = 1.0875

So, not far from a 9% damage increase due to adding a single gem.


Yeah no didn't read a word of that. Only number-crunching nerds, those with far too much time on their hands, and accountants bother with that crap.

It's a video game, it's supposed to be fun. More features = more potential fun to be had.
Having more features should not break existing ones. That's what would happen with multi socket weapons.

And adding more power creep is not expanding the set of features.
06/14/2019 12:40 AMPosted by Meteorblade
So, off-hands can have 10% CHC and 130% CHD...

Both of these ideas are just plain power creep.


Do you really play Diablo ? Try to add aFLAWLESS ROYAL EMERALD on off hand it gives 280 dexterity. Leave forum and go playing/studying diablo 3 first before to join D3 knowledge discussions.
06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
06/14/2019 01:20 AMPosted by Meteorblade
...
I've heard of unique equipped and non-legendary gems have never been subject to that restriction. Have you forgotten that there used to be dual-socket weapons? Back in vanilla DHs used to put two emeralds into their dual-socket Manticores.

But let's say they introduce that restriction so you can't dual-wield and have four emeralds. Okay, so you have an emerald and diamond in each weapon so that you get 260% CHD and 40% Elite Damage, or an emerald and ruby in each weapon for 260% CHD and 540 weapon damage.

This is still massive power creep for dual-wielders which main-hand + off-hand players couldn't match.


Lol spare your same old tired spiel. Power creep this, big bada boom that.

+75,000% damage to Impale, 6 spells having their damage increased by 20,000%, "your damage is increased by 9000%", "every use of XXXXX increases your next skill's damage by 5500% - stackable"........have you seen those numbers lately, sweetie-pie?

2 sockets in a primal weapon is the least of your concerns.


More bad doesn’t equal good, punkin.
06/14/2019 03:56 AMPosted by PardalBR
06/14/2019 12:40 AMPosted by Meteorblade
So, off-hands can have 10% CHC and 130% CHD...

Both of these ideas are just plain power creep.


Do you really play Diablo ? Try to add aFLAWLESS ROYAL EMERALD on off hand it gives 280 dexterity. Leave forum and go playing/studying diablo 3 first before to join D3 knowledge discussions.


Think before you type, doofus. DHs can dual wield hand crossbows and Barbarians can dual wield swords and Monks can duel wield fist weapons.
06/14/2019 03:34 AMPosted by WittyGem
Yeah no didn't read a word of that. Only number-crunching nerds, those with far too much time on their hands, and accountants bother with that crap.

Mmhmm, so these aren't a problem...
    06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
    +75,000%
    06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
    20,000%
    06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
    9000%
    06/14/2019 02:09 AMPosted by WittyGem
    5500%

But this is...
You just have to explain it in small sentences and easy to understand words, Meteorblade. I think you're confusing him/her with your explanation since you're using terms and maths that go beyond a grade 3 level.

I can try to explain it in simpler terms.

*ahem* More not always better. New gems not better than shiny green gem good. New gems better than green gem, bad. Options, good. Power creep, bad. More sockets bad. Options good, power creep bad. Perhaps they make gems now good like green gem, good. Options good. Better than green gem bad. power creep bad.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum