The Gem Disparity

[Enterradora]

U sir are probably someone with many twink para item waiting for outrages prices. All new players need a chance to earn this stuff to stop being so selfish with prices and gold.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

U didnt understand anything.

First of all i only have 2 items whit para gem, a bow and a gun, and enough in my opinion.

If that gems come back in normal content or un-socketed, ppl who atm is OP whit the abuse of multiple gems, will have the easy work (paying few millions) when new stuff (mythics 46) hit the game.

And then u will see the first weeks that nothing will change, who are rich will still be OP(and now whit mythics 46 para-gemmed/eye) and the rest gonna still need to farm the stuff.

[Farminer's]

U didnt understand anything.

First of all i only have 2 items whit para gem, a bow and a gun, and enough in my opinion.

If that gems come back in normal content or un-socketed, ppl who atm is OP whit the abuse of multiple gems, will have the easy work (paying few millions) when new stuff (mythics 46) hit the game.

And then u will see the first weeks that nothing will change, who are rich will still be OP(and now whit mythics 46 para-gemmed/eye) and the rest gonna still need to farm the stuff.

The rich have to farm to how you think some got rich? They farmed! Not everyone has the luxury to spend thousands on a game that will most likely go under.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[raw]

Okay...


1. Making mythic sets untradeable
There's several things that do not make this logic work. A player could still stack para gems in weapon or ring. Additionally, for the sake of preventing the top 1% of stacking these gems, players want to shoot themselves in the foot? Who in their right mind will pay 30-40m for mythic sets if they are going to be untradeable?

There's already arcane pets for that & planar recipe. I highly doubt players will purchase sets if it means they will never get their money back. Additionally, due to that, the top 1% is still going to buy the mythic gear because they can afford it being non-tradable. The common players will not. So, where does that leave us? Again with a gear gap. As a result, I don't think people should try the futile effort of attempting to stop the top 1%. Money talks and it always will.

2. Investments
Investments go bad all the time. That is a risk that you as an investor are willing to take. Due to STGs notorious habit of releasing investments, I would personally never hold on to an investment for too long. That's a good way to lose money. And, I do not think we should conform opinion due to the remaining few players that do have the investments.

3. Cannot Gem L42-46
I honestly think this is the best case scenario and should be implemented if we truly want a chance at fairness. This switch can be flipped off come the return of Halloween/ursoth.

1. A player who has hoarded para gems on their own account for the past 6 months should be allowed to stack para gems since that's the way they were designed. I never agreed with STG when they designed them this way, but that's the way it is, so no point changing that. I'm not sure where you're getting this 30-40m for mythic sets, but even if that was the case, then only very few players would be able to even afford that without selling majority of their items. The solution to this gear gap is complicated, but first and foremost the new mythic set should be un-tradeable, and farmable - with the option to pay 30-40m if you have the money to spend and no patience to farm/grind. In terms of gems, like Madnex said, the first gem should benefit the player, and the rest should not to avoid stacking.

2. True investments do go bad quite often in this game, and what I've noticed it is threads just like this one that cause STG to do things they shouldnt (i.e. nerf/buff). Eye gems and para gems were limited time event rewards. However, even if they were to come back before the events, what good would that do? Would it really make a difference? Players would just stack even more gems, gem prices would crash (upsetting numerous players), and the top percentage of players who can afford eye/para gems will become even stronger. There is clearly a gem gap between players, but the bigger issue is the pet/gear gap. Gems only separate the top 5% from the top 1%, and the rest of the players are still worrying about how to pay for their pet food, and how to actually make a profit in this game.

3. I disagree. As much as I dislike gems in the first place, this is the way the game is. Having level 42-26 items with no gems will significantly reduce their stats, reducing their desirability.

The issue is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and the solution is simple: release gems during future events as assumed, and make the gems useless beyond the first one so players don't stack them.

All in all, I'm confused as to why you brought this up in the first place since, as you've stated in your previous posts, "you are OP, and you can afford 10 para gems for the expansion."

Best,

Raw

[Iinorex]

1. those who are rich without spending money are probably playing this game from start when stuff like malison sold for millions because many old player complain how hard it is to make money money now.

2. when someone says para's should me made resocketable they probably have in mind that they will remove their paragem from previuos wep n add it to their new weapon. try thinking how it effect the market n everyone else.

3. gems should come back when it is time.

[Dex Scene]

I don't think removing gem is a good idea!!!
It will benefit riches more!!
Para items will cost super high!! People will buy all para items and then remove the para!! Oh god, terrible idea!!

Its best the way it is now, They should come only in their events!!
The possible solution would be reduce the damage of para gems which stack!!

[Iinorex]

1. A player who has hoarded para gems on their own account for the past 6 months should be allowed to stack para gems since that's the way they were designed. I never agreed with STG when they designed them this way, but that's the way it is, so no point changing that. I'm not sure where you're getting this 30-40m for mythic sets, but even if that was the case, then only very few players would be able to even afford that without selling majority of their items. The solution to this gear gap is complicated, but first and foremost the new mythic set should be un-tradeable, and farmable - with the option to pay 30-40m if you have the money to spend and no patience to farm/grind. In terms of gems, like Madnex said, the first gem should benefit the player, and the rest should not to avoid stacking.

2. True investments do go bad quite often in this game, and what I've noticed it is threads just like this one that cause STG to do things they shouldnt (i.e. nerf/buff). Eye gems and para gems were limited time event rewards. However, even if they were to come back before the events, what good would that do? Would it really make a difference? Players would just stack even more gems, gem prices would crash (upsetting numerous players), and the top percentage of players who can afford eye/para gems will become even stronger. There is clearly a gem gap between players, but the bigger issue is the pet/gear gap. Gems only separate the top 5% from the top 1%, and the rest of the players are still worrying about how to pay for their pet food, and how to actually make a profit in this game.

3. I disagree. As much as I dislike gems in the first place, this is the way the game is. Having level 42-26 items with no gems will significantly reduce their stats, reducing their desirability.

All in all, I'm confused as to why you brought this up in the first place. The issue is insignificant and the solution is simple: release gems during future events as assumed, and only allow the first to benefit the account.

Best,

Raw

1. untradeable mythic is bad idea...how will farmers make money..ofourse they have the legendary to farm but u see what happened to the prices of the previous legendary items?secondly suppose u had 30-40mil and u dont like to farm/grind then how are you supposed to get it if they are untradeable?

2. from you first statement gear/pet gap is not a issue...because the best gear cane be farmed and people who are too lazy to farm/grind buy it with 30-40mil gold...its not exactly a gear gap...its that we are "too lazy to farm/grind and we dont have 30-40mil"....for imbued sets i will say that players will get imbued if they open the planar chests not if they sell it in auction

3. who said there are no gems to put on the new items? there are many gems but there are no para gems

[Zeus]

1. A player who has hoarded para gems on their own account for the past 6 months should be allowed to stack para gems since that's the way they were designed. I never agreed with STG when they designed them this way, but that's the way it is, so no point changing that. I'm not sure where you're getting this 30-40m for mythic sets, but even if that was the case, then only very few players would be able to even afford that without selling majority of their items. The solution to this gear gap is complicated, but first and foremost the new mythic set should be un-tradeable, and farmable - with the option to pay 30-40m if you have the money to spend and no patience to farm/grind. In terms of gems, like Madnex said, the first gem should benefit the player, and the rest should not to avoid stacking.

2. True investments do go bad quite often in this game, and what I've noticed it is threads just like this one that cause STG to do things they shouldnt (i.e. nerf/buff). Eye gems and para gems were limited time event rewards. However, even if they were to come back before the events, what good would that do? Would it really make a difference? Players would just stack even more gems, gem prices would crash (upsetting numerous players), and the top percentage of players who can afford eye/para gems will become even stronger. There is clearly a gem gap between players, but the bigger issue is the pet/gear gap. Gems only separate the top 5% from the top 1%, and the rest of the players are still worrying about how to pay for their pet food, and how to actually make a profit in this game.

3. I disagree. As much as I dislike gems in the first place, this is the way the game is. Having level 42-26 items with no gems will significantly reduce their stats, reducing their desirability.

The issue is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and the solution is simple: release gems during future events as assumed, and make the gems useless beyond the first one so players don't stack them.

All in all, I'm confused as to why you brought this up in the first place since, as you've stated in your previous posts, "you are OP, and you can afford 10 para gems for the expansion."

Best,

Raw

1. If you think new mythic sets will run cheap, then that is a very optimistic approach. Take a look at planar recipe, multiply it by 4. That's how I got to this cost. To make the set non-tradeable would only be shooting many players in the foot. 8m x 4 = 32M

Of course, this price is after months of planar recipe being out. Let's not even talk about recipe price when it was new...

2. Yes, it's something a player should always be prepared for. Investments shouldn't dictate what is healthy for the game and what is not. I've learned this over time. I have quite a number of eye gems invested but if they're re-released, I'm willing to accept that. It's the rule of investments. If one cannot accept this risk, then they shouldn't gamble with their money.

3. What I meant to say is that one cannot use para gems in L42-46 items. I think eye gems are okay because eyes really only become OP w/ the addition of para gems. However, I wouldn't say no to eyes being included in Ravager's suggestion as well.

4. My point, as I stated before, is the time to do any change about paras is now while gear is being outdated. Paras in old gear will become useless anyways and instead of asking for STG to solve this issue later on when players have already gemmed 40M worth of para gems, it would be best to implement now.

[Iinorex]

para's were not even made to get stacked i think in the first place...thats y theu were made untradeable...goblin event is coming...who knows sts might make a new gem too..its like the story of grasshopper n ant...grasshoppers had fun the whole summer n they didnt have anything to eat in winter whereas ants had fun but also save for winter..except in this case there are no ant..everyone is a grasshopper..people spent 40mil on stuff that was not meant to be sold even after knowing they cannot be removed and new items will come in future but they still did

[Spell]

para's were not even made to get stacked i think in the first place...thats y theu were made untradeable...goblin event is coming...who knows sts might make a new gem too..its like the story of grasshopper n ant...grasshoppers had fun the whole summer n they didnt have anything to eat in winter whereas ants had fun but also save for winter..except in this case there are no ant..everyone is a grasshopper..people spent 40mil on stuff that was not meant to be sold even after knowing they cannot be removed and new items will come in future but they still did

Lol well put

[Maunyabastian]

So, after the pet influence in AL over time; and mythics and crafting based on time spent not luck - we talk about the gem disparity.

I'm here, sitting on a chair with a cup of tea, smiling and trying to remember those good old days of AL, where the community was so healthy and very addicting. Now it's just a place for gambling.
They surely need to refresh this game as soon as the new expansion released.

[Wutzgood]

If para or eyes return before their events there is no reason for sns to not be in locked crates.

[Starkinea]

Hard to find more selfish thread...
I would say no to the idea of degemming (with recipe or without),
It would be nice if para and eye gems would come back in future events like tarloks

Peace

[Kyle Holmes]

I've always thought they should include drops to have some gems already attached so you gain a bit of profit from farming. Not paragems, just plain. Also quite rare to drop aswell.

sent from fritters beak

[Kingofninjas]

1. If you think new mythic sets will run cheap, then that is a very optimistic approach. Take a look at planar recipe, multiply it by 4. That's how I got to this cost. To make the set non-tradeable would only be shooting many players in the foot. 8m x 4 = 32M

Of course, this price is after months of planar recipe being out. Let's not even talk about recipe price when it was new...

2. Yes, it's something a player should always be prepared for. Investments shouldn't dictate what is healthy for the game and what is not. I've learned this over time. I have quite a number of eye gems invested but if they're re-released, I'm willing to accept that. It's the rule of investments. If one cannot accept this risk, then they shouldn't gamble with their money.

3. What I meant to say is that one cannot use para gems in L42-46 items. I think eye gems are okay because eyes really only become OP w/ the addition of para gems. However, I wouldn't say no to eyes being included in Ravager's suggestion as well.

4. My point, as I stated before, is the time to do any change about paras is now while gear is being outdated. Paras in old gear will become useless anyways and instead of asking for STG to solve this issue later on when players have already gemmed 40M worth of para gems, it would be best to implement now.

I think the price tag of 30-40m on a mythic set is unrealistic. Yes, the helm and armor my be worth as much as 10m each, but I sincerely hope sts has learnt from their mistake with the recipe, and the new set will be available through pure farming. Also, we cannot make any conclusions as to whether they will be tradable or not, which will be a deciding factor in setting a price.

Additionally, even with the set bonus, the new mythic ring is unlikely to dethrone the current arcane one, thereby reducing its cost significantly. If the mythic jewelry is class specific, it may not even beat blood ruby and almost surely not planar pendant. I am still not sure that the new amulet will beat planar pendant, even with set bonus.

[Kingofninjas]

To all those saying that this is a selfish thread, Zeus already stated he has 10 para gems reserved. If he could indeed be one of the few with a maxed para lvl 46 set, why would he even bring this up? Obviously it is not for his own benefit. Additionally, he is open to the idea of not allowing para or eye gems on lvl 42 or higher items, which further clears doubts as to whether the purpose of this thread is self gain or balance.

[Iinorex]

To all those saying that this is a selfish thread, Zeus already stated he has 10 para gems reserved. If he could indeed be one of the few with a maxed para lvl 46 set, why would he even bring this up? Obviously it is not for his own benefit. Additionally, he is open to the idea of not allowing para or eye gems on lvl 42 or higher items, which further clears doubts as to whether the purpose of this thread is self gain or balance.

he also stated in a thread the he is not able to cross the 835 damage mark because he lacks a para gem in his planar pendant and he cant give anyone to gem it because planar pendants are untradeable...makes me wonder does he really have 10 para gems or did he just say that so that we think the purpose of this thread is not self gain

[Kingofninjas]

he also stated in a thread the he is not able to cross the 835 damage mark because he lacks a para gem in his planar pendant and he cant give anyone to gem it because planar pendants are untradeable...makes me wonder does he really have 10 para gems or did he just say that so that we think the purpose of this thread is not self gain

Your point is? He can definitely afford at least one para, and its that single para that makes all the difference. Additional ones are not as useful. Once the 46 cap comes para gems prices will skyrocket as only a handful are left and he is one of the few who can obviously afford one.

[Iinorex]

Your point is? He can definitely afford at least one para, and its that single para that makes all the difference. Additional ones are not as useful. Once the 46 cap comes para gems prices will skyrocket as only a handful are left and he is one of the few who can obviously afford one.

1. my points is that zeus may not have 10 extra paras for him based on what he said in a different thread which ultimately questions the reason for him saying "i have 10 paras for myself what about others?"
2. zeus also said one needs a "stockpile" of paragems in order to benefit from them in his main thread description

[Haligali]

In new season, the current neglected gems - reinforced fire, glacial, tarlok wisdom, wind - will be more needed, I dont think it's a bad thing. We will see. =)

[Dex Scene]

para's were not even made to get stacked i think in the first place...thats y theu were made untradeable...

Exactly my point! Thats why, they can increase the first para damage bonus and decrease the damage bonus which stacks!