What's new
By:
Filters

Change the odds for socketing

Should the odds be increased for successful socket of gear?

  • yes

    Votes: 159 88.8%

  • no

    Votes: 20 11.2%
  • Total voters
    179
Status
Not open for further replies.
cubansyrus said:
The 2 who voted no, have all slots filled.
Click to expand...
i voted no and i have no gems at all
it will be way better option to just remove the stupid destruction to all socketed gems on "fail" from the geming process at all. Im saying it because high price pvp gems are supposed to be end game ,or near endgame content (if u start geming gear its supposed the grade of your gear will be divine or above or high GS competitive gear in general )
If success rate in geming is increased "especially for pvp gems", than the pvp gems will need to go grade restricted similar to regrade charms .kind of like> for socketing pvp gem , the "gear grade" to be at least divine and the higher the "gem grade" the higher the" gear grade requirement" otherwise people will go celestial gem it and thats it
or i might be wrong i dont pretend to to be expert just posting opinion :)
 
prego_kamata said:
i voted no and i have no gems at all
it will be way better option to just remove the stupid destruction to all socketed gems on "fail" from the geming process at all. Im saying it because high price pvp gems are supposed to be end game ,or near endgame content (if u start geming gear its supposed the grade of your gear will be divine or above or high GS competitive gear in general )
If success rate in geming is increased "especially for pvp gems", than the pvp gems will need to go grade restricted similar to regrade charms .kind of like> for socketing pvp gem , the "gear grade" to be at least divine and the higher the "gem grade" the higher the" gear grade requirement" otherwise people will go celestial gem it and thats it
or i might be wrong i dont pretend to to be expert just posting opinion :)
Click to expand...

You dont need divine to be PvP competitive, infact you dont even need gear score. In a PvP situation, the honour gems literally carry you.

Both grade and gear score are not as important as people think, the important stuff is weapons (mainly tempering) and resilience/ toughness gems. Its the reason why people with full honour gems lord over those who dont. Just one gem over another person is a game changer.
 
Can we not let this die? I just spent 30k honor trying to gem my pants and couldn't even make it to 3 gems....The rates are bullshit.
 
american_quarter_horse.jpg
 
I dont think anyone said what change how much, like wtf increase by 1999% ?
Increase for first slots, last slots, middle ,all?

Make unbreakables ,dont, make gems more expensive dont?

Ppl should decide for once, think admins asked that already, and they gave up couse no one could agree what kind of change ppl want..
everyone wants something different and they dont make no change so rip

theres some decisions here but all still unclear https://na.archerage.to/forums/index.php?threads/honor-socketing-changes-poll.4166/page-6#post-33760
 
If they do not want to change the socket rates I would be OK with it so long as they made it so failing doesn't destroy the previously socketed gems. To me, the biggest issue isn't trying to get all the sockets filled, its having to spend all the extra honor just to get back to where you were after you failed. Nothing sucks more than blowing all that honor to end up with less gems than what you started with. If the previously socketed gems do not get destroyed it will feel like it is possible to eventually hit all sockets filled and feel like it is less RNG dependent (even though it isn't).

If players don't like this option another option could be to just make it so 3-4 gems (belts and guards should be excluded from this if possible) are not destroyed once socketed. This way you are still punished for the socket failing but its not as big a kick in the gut as it currently is.
 
Last edited:
Gonna go ahead and agree with Wings. This is a fantastic idea. The chance to socket gems is arguably abysmal, but with this change it would make things much better. Turn honor gems into something similar to refined lunagems? For example, I spent over 150k honor in the last two days on my jerkin and pants alone and I'm now down to 1 scoketed gem on both. I had 3 to begin with. I'd be fine spending all that honor to get gems (I think without something to work towards it would make the game boring), but the fact that I lose every last bit of progress is frustrating. +1 to that idea for sure.
 
Wings said:
If they do not want to change the socket rates I would be OK with it so long as they made it so failing doesn't destroy the previously socketed gems. To me, the biggest issue isn't trying to get all the sockets filled, its having to spend all the extra honor just to get back to where you where after you failed. Nothing sucks more than blowing all that honor to end up with less gems than what you started with. If the previously socketed gems do not get destroyed it will feel like it is possible to eventually hit all sockets filled and feel like it is less RNG dependent (even though it isn't).

If players don't like this option another option could be to just make it so 3-4 gems (belts and guards should be excluded from this if possible) are not destroyed once socketed. This way you are still punished for the socket failing but its not as big a kick in the gut as it currently is.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I would make it so that failure does not destroy previously socketed gems, and change the success rates to something like:
first gem: 100%
second gem: 75%
third gem: 50%
fourth game: 40%
fifth gem: 20%
sixth gem: 10%
seventh gem: 5%

In a test environment, the team could run some simulations to see statistically how much honor would be required to reach each level, and adjust the success rate and/or the honor cost of the gems to match the team's goals for how long that should take using an average honor earned / day figure. IMO it should take about a month's worth of honor for an active player to achieve 5 gems in both pants and shirt.
 
Mandres said:
Agreed! I would make it so that failure does not destroy previously socketed gems, and change the success rates to something like:
first gem: 100%
second gem: 75%
third gem: 50%
fourth game: 40%
fifth gem: 20%
sixth gem: 10%
seventh gem: 5%

In a test environment, the team could run some simulations to see statistically how much honor would be required to reach each level, and adjust the success rate and/or the honor cost of the gems to match the team's goals for how long that should take using an average honor earned / day figure. IMO it should take about a month's worth of honor for an active player to achieve 5 gems in both pants and shirt.
Click to expand...
This is way too high, there needs to be a steeper success rate failure if the previous gems do not break. Something like this would be much more suitable:

first gem: 100%
second gem: 65%
third gem: 40%
fourth game: 20%
fifth gem: 10%
sixth gem: 5%
seventh gem: 2.5%
 
XiCynx said:
This is way too high, there needs to be a steeper success rate failure if the previous gems do not break. Something like this would be much more suitable:

first gem: 100%
second gem: 65%
third gem: 40%
fourth game: 20%
fifth gem: 10%
sixth gem: 5%
seventh gem: 2.5%
Click to expand...

Maybe so? Like I said, the right way to do it is to set a goal like: "it should take the average player 1 month's worth of honor to get 5 gems in pants and 5 gems in shirt" and then run tests at different success % to see how it plays out. We would need to know what the dev's goal would be, and an accurate figure of how much honor the average player can earn in a day.
 
XiCynx said:
This is way too high, there needs to be a steeper success rate failure if the previous gems do not break. Something like this would be much more suitable:

first gem: 100%
second gem: 65%
third gem: 40%
fourth game: 20%
fifth gem: 10%
sixth gem: 5%
seventh gem: 2.5%
Click to expand...
I would be OK with success rates being lowered. It does not matter because you will eventually reach your goal and you will not get screwed for it failing. Gems are a huge deal in this game so I understand people not wanting them to socket super easily. Just the fact that you don't blow 90% of your honor trying to get your gems back to where they were originally will take a huge load off.
 
Wings said:
I would be OK with success rates being lowered. It does not matter because you will eventually reach your goal and you will not get screwed for it failing. Gems are a huge deal in this game so I understand people not wanting them to socket super easily. Just the fact that you don't blow 90% of your honor trying to get your gems back to where they were originally will take a huge load off.
Click to expand...
Above all. Costume, top an leg honour stones are above everything ........... Hell you can just run with those 3 + a weapon and dominate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top