Path Of Exile Gem Recipes

My expectation when I started poe was that I'd be able to mix crazy things and get crazy reactions, like mixing a fire ball with an ice spear and getting.. only Piety knows what.
But my suggestion is to utilize the current gems and skills, and add a system so that if feels like you can do just that..
Imagine if you could take 3 spark gems and an orb of alteration, and produce an Arc gem. Imagine if you could take 1 firestorm, 1 fire ball, and 1 call lightning and an orb of alteration and create a meteor strike skill gem, or similiarly 3 'Fire bolts' might make a Fire Ball.
Now, I'm not talking really about new skills right now, even though I just did name 2..
Right now I'm more talking about using the current skill gems and mapping them to other current skill gems, as a base for such a future where we feel like we are in power, doing a sort of magic and science to craft these special things.
I'm suggesting that making an Arc yourself would be more interesting than being given one as a quest reward; and be an alternative to say buying one from a vendor for say 1 chaos orbs. See, you may or may not be, but you at least feel smart now.

Posted by
DragonsProphecy
on Apr 27, 2015, 5:09:50 PM

+1, under the provision that this only creates a new skill gem that is used with other supports.

Posted by
Natharias
on Apr 27, 2015, 8:20:10 PM

I don't see the point. Gems are cheap and easy to get (even 'rare' drop-only gems). Forcing you to vendor recipe to get gems you can't get any other way isn't pleasant, and not having any recipe-only gems simply means that nobody will use it. At most, it could be a backdoor buff to drop rates on 'rare' gems by letting you make them from common gems.. but in that case, why not just buff the rate directly?
While the original idea is admirable (allowing you to fuse different skill gems together to get a new one that has characteristics from both), this would be functionally impossible to implement, let alone balance.

IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson

Posted by
tsftd
on Apr 28, 2015, 11:57:28 AM

'

I don't see the point. Gems are cheap and easy to get (even 'rare' drop-only gems). Forcing you to vendor recipe to get gems you can't get any other way isn't pleasant, and not having any recipe-only gems simply means that nobody will use it. At most, it could be a backdoor buff to drop rates on 'rare' gems by letting you make them from common gems.. but in that case, why not just buff the rate directly?
While the original idea is admirable (allowing you to fuse different skill gems together to get a new one that has characteristics from both), this would be functionally impossible to implement, let alone balance.

That second part is absolute bull.
Right now the only gems I pick up are either gems with quality or gems I don't have yet. So once the Awakening releases fully, I'll pick up a few of the new gems and then that's it.
What we need are gems that can only be obtained by combining gems that make either better gems or gems that only have the 'cannot drop' property.
For instance, changing Arc to a recipe only gem would make Spark valuable, as you need to vendor three of them to get it. It isn't broken or 'impossible to implement' as we already have recipes that do the same thing. Flasks, RGB links, six sockets, quality, and so on. You put stuff in, and get stuff back.
And let's assume that recipe only gems are the most powerful in the game. Say the recipe is:
Fireball
Firestorm
Orb of Fusing
And it yields Firespray, a spell that fires multiple Fireball spells as per a Firestorm but is channeled. Every 0.5 seconds releases a regular Fireball, and cast speed decreases the time between fireballs. This spell would become superior to both regular spells vendored in most cases.
How is that not broken? It is still just as easy to access as both other spells to everyone in the game. All it takes is you having one of each of those things and the willingness to vendor them. Viola.
The only way it could be broken is the power of the spell you receive. The 'Firespray' spell I listed would be broken by all get out, as the Fireball damage with a cast time of 0.5 is far superior to the regular 0.85 cast time, a difference of 0.35 seconds already.
So the point to argue isn't whether we should have gem recipes to get new and better or unique gems, but rather would the gems we can get from them be worth the effort to implement such a system?
I'd argue yes. Not only can you make a generic gem sink by allowing someone to vendor ten gems of any color to get one of another (or 100 or something for less common gems), it leaves open the option to do recipe only gems. It places value on gems that are currently valueless.

Posted by
Natharias
on Apr 28, 2015, 9:44:17 PM

I think I like the idea, but GGG would have to drink some serious Kool-Aid first

Posted by
BearCares
on Apr 28, 2015, 11:13:38 PM

I like this idea, but for it to truly matter many mission rewards would need to change so that the more interesting/rare gems should only be available through recipes and drops.
So some of the current mission rewards would no longer be available from missions.

To all the hypocrites in all the forums:
Step 1 - Why are you creating a thread about this subject again? Use the Search function!
Step 2 - Why are you necroing this thread? Back to Step 1

Posted by
Nurvus
on Apr 29, 2015, 3:45:48 AM

'

I like this idea, but for it to truly matter many mission rewards would need to change so that the more interesting/rare gems should only be available through recipes and drops.
So some of the current mission rewards would no longer be available from missions.

Agreed. This would leave room for more items to be gained from quests instead of gems.

Posted by
Natharias
on Apr 29, 2015, 4:28:42 AM

'

That second part is absolute bull.
Right now the only gems I pick up are either gems with quality or gems I don't have yet. So once the Awakening releases fully, I'll pick up a few of the new gems and then that's it.
What we need are gems that can only be obtained by combining gems that make either better gems or gems that only have the 'cannot drop' property.
For instance, changing Arc to a recipe only gem would make Spark valuable, as you need to vendor three of them to get it. It isn't broken or 'impossible to implement' as we already have recipes that do the same thing. Flasks, RGB links, six sockets, quality, and so on. You put stuff in, and get stuff back.
And let's assume that recipe only gems are the most powerful in the game. Say the recipe is:
Fireball
Firestorm
Orb of Fusing
And it yields Firespray, a spell that fires multiple Fireball spells as per a Firestorm but is channeled. Every 0.5 seconds releases a regular Fireball, and cast speed decreases the time between fireballs. This spell would become superior to both regular spells vendored in most cases.
How is that not broken? It is still just as easy to access as both other spells to everyone in the game. All it takes is you having one of each of those things and the willingness to vendor them. Viola.
The only way it could be broken is the power of the spell you receive. The 'Firespray' spell I listed would be broken by all get out, as the Fireball damage with a cast time of 0.5 is far superior to the regular 0.85 cast time, a difference of 0.35 seconds already.
So the point to argue isn't whether we should have gem recipes to get new and better or unique gems, but rather would the gems we can get from them be worth the effort to implement such a system?
I'd argue yes. Not only can you make a generic gem sink by allowing someone to vendor ten gems of any color to get one of another (or 100 or something for less common gems), it leaves open the option to do recipe only gems. It places value on gems that are currently valueless.

You appear to have misread my post, or perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was (at least intending) to make two separate points/arguments. They are:
Point 1:
A) For non-new players, gems are cheap and easy to get (even 'rare' drop-only gems). Therefore, this isn't needed to get access to gems that are otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain.
B) Forcing you to vendor recipe to get gems you can't get any other way isn't pleasant. It's a ham-fisted method of rebalancing gem rarity. If you want to make rare gems more easier to obtain, just make them drop more often. Don't make us jump through a bunch of hoops involving recipes using more common gems, when the end result is the same.
Point 2:
A) The original idea (allowing you to fuse different skill gems together to dynamically produce new gems that have characteristics from both) is admirable.
B) Unfortunately, it would be functionally impossible to implement a system of fusing different skill gems together to dynamically produce new gems with mechanics based upon their fused parents.
What these two points, taken together mean, is that:
A) Using a gem vendor recipe system to obtain GGG-designed skills (whether or not said skills were changed to recipe-only) would simply be a hassle at best.
B) Using said recipe system to dynamically generate gems is infeasible.
Regarding your post,

'

For instance, changing Arc to a recipe only gem would make Spark valuable, as you need to vendor three of them to get it.

-- Why would we want this. You're simply making it more difficult and/or more of a hassle to obtain gems.

'

And let's assume that recipe only gems are the most powerful in the game.

-- This would simply lead everyone to use the 'most powerful' recipe-produced gems, and ignore standard drop/reward gems.
I agree that it'd be nice to have some use for non-q random gems that drop, but let's be honest, most people ignore Portal Scrolls despite the fact that there is a recipe for them. Most people ignore white items (with the rare exception of high-level mappers who pick up certain high-ilvl high-tier base whites for crafting). Heck, most people ignore blue items as well.
That doesn't mean that we need to introduce new sinks or recipes for them. It's simply the side-effect of a game where 95% of the stuff that drops is absolutely ignored, and 95% of the stuff that isn't ignored is vendored for miniscule value.

IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson

Posted by
tsftd
on Apr 29, 2015, 4:51:20 AM

'

A) For non-new players, gems are cheap and easy to get (even 'rare' drop-only gems). Therefore, this isn't needed to get access to gems that are otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain.

Not really. It takes time to get all of the gems you need and want for a single build, especially when playing a single character for the first time. I hear it from the same noobs that go to Gameplay Help and ask for help all the time.

'

tsftd wrote:

B) Forcing you to vendor recipe to get gems you can't get any other way isn't pleasant.

So it's not pleasant to do any vendor recipes for you. Good to know.
That doesn't mean it applies to anyone else.

'

tsftd wrote:

It's a ham-fisted method of rebalancing gem rarity. If you want to make rare gems more easier to obtain, just make them drop more often. Don't make us jump through a bunch of hoops involving recipes using more common gems, when the end result is the same.

Well read my post, first off. I mentioned that some would be combinations of the gems you vendor with currency and are only obtainable because you are fusing those gems.
Secondly, gems in and of themselves have no value. I'll repeat this: NO VALUE. I never pick up gems unless they have quality. I keep saying this in many threads.
If there is a vendor recipe, it will at least prolong the duration that players will pick up gems, either specific gems or gems in general (if blue gems yield any blue gem).

'

tsftd wrote:

B) Unfortunately, it would be functionally impossible to implement a system of fusing different skill gems together to dynamically produce new gems with mechanics based upon their fused parents.

Again, read my post. It is not impossible to do so.
You vendor a RGB item and get a Chromatic.
You vendor 40% of gem quality and get a GCP.
It's not even slightly difficult since the system is already there. You take Firestorm and Fireball, sell it, and it gives you back Firespray. Again, example.
All that needs be done is put in the formula (or whatever is used for the system), and the addition of the gems, which can be done as they are thought up.

'

tsftd wrote:

-- Why would we want this. You're simply making it more difficult and/or more of a hassle to obtain gems.

In that case, yes. But since Arc is generally better than Spark and both gems have the same drop chance.
But assume Arc was recipe only and you kept getting Sparks. You can easily obtain it without any real effort, unless shifting through your tabs strains you.

'

tsftd wrote:

-- This would simply lead everyone to use the 'most powerful' recipe-produced gems, and ignore standard drop/reward gems.

Once they had enough of their recipe gems, yes. But they would have to use that recipe to get the gems, right? And if not the recipe then they would have to trade, and that is something GGG likes so very much.
But that's no different than it is now. Nobody picks up gems unless they either need them, are planning on leveling them, or if the gem has quality. No exceptions, unless the 2.0 update changes something.

'

tsftd wrote:

That doesn't mean that we need to introduce new sinks or recipes for them. It's simply the side-effect of a game where 95% of the stuff that drops is absolutely ignored, and 95% of the stuff that isn't ignored is vendored for miniscule value.

But white and blue items aren't gems, are they?
White and blue items are common and guaranteed. But it takes a while for a gem to finally drop. I'd say the drop rate ratio of gems to currency in general is about 1:100, and no better. I'd argue it's closer to 1:250, but I haven't played while keeping this in mind. No, this is not with Perandus Signet.
There's really no reason to implement sinks for gems, most currency, white, or blue items. But it would make the game more interesting and it could add a lot to the game.
Ball Lightning + Spark yields a lightning ball that shoots out sparks instead of jolting nearby enemies. Same damage, same interval, just different flavor.
Firestorm + Fireball yields Firespray, where you instead channel fireballs from your hand. Of course damage is based more like Firestorm.
Arc + Spark yields a lightning spell that causes each target hit by Arc to send out sparks, but the damage of each hit is drastically lowered.
Do those sound even the least bit interesting to you?

Posted by
Natharias
on Apr 29, 2015, 7:08:29 AM

'

'

A) For non-new players, gems are cheap and easy to get (even 'rare' drop-only gems). Therefore, this isn't needed to get access to gems that are otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain.

Not really. It takes time to get all of the gems you need and want for a single build, especially when playing a single character for the first time. I hear it from the same noobs that go to Gameplay Help and ask for help all the time.

Me: 'For non-new players, gems are cheap and easy to get'
You: 'It takes time to get all of the gems you need and want for a single build, especially when playing a single character for the first time.'
Yes. It takes time for new players to get stuff in an ARPG. Ignoring the idea that this is probably intended, do you really think that introducing vendor recipes (which aren't referenced in-game, and only discoverable via trial-and-error or the wiki, etc) which themselves require specific combinations of gems is going to change this? The vast majority of gems are available for an alch pretty much instantly by shouting into the trade channel. I don't think that any non-quality, non-leveled gems are going for more than a chaos other than Empower or Enhance.

'

'

B) Forcing you to vendor recipe to get gems you can't get any other way isn't pleasant.

So it's not pleasant to do any vendor recipes for you. Good to know.

This isn't in any way, shape, or form what I said. I use vendor recipes every day. However, as I said, forcing people to vendor to get gems isn't pleasant. Currently, there are only 4 things in the game solely obtainable by vendor recipe:
1) The Taming
2) The Goddess Scorned
3) Bandits quest reward change
4) Block chance Reduction (skill gem intended for PvP)
None of those are necessary, required, or even desirable for most builds. The Taming is the only one that likely ever sees use outside of PvP. Everything else in-game is available primarily through drops, and secondarily through vendor recipes. You're suggesting adding an entire section of Skill Gems, which are specifically more powerful than the other skill gems (already something that is generally frowned upon), and which are only available through vendoring. This is what I consider unpleasant, not 'any vendor recipes'.

'

'

It's a ham-fisted method of rebalancing gem rarity. If you want to make rare gems more easier to obtain, just make them drop more often. Don't make us jump through a bunch of hoops involving recipes using more common gems, when the end result is the same.

Well read my post, first off. I mentioned that some would be combinations of the gems you vendor with currency and are only obtainable because you are fusing those gems.

Clearly, I read your post. Unfortunately, you appear to yet again have misunderstood mine. The section you are quoting is specifically talking about the idea of allowing existing gems to be vendored because you claim that they are too rare. I cover the idea of having gems unique to vendoring in the second section. They are clearly marked, 'Point 1' and 'Point 2'.

'

Secondly, gems in and of themselves have no value. I'll repeat this: NO VALUE. I never pick up gems unless they have quality. I keep saying this in many threads.
If there is a vendor recipe, it will at least prolong the duration that players will pick up gems, either specific gems or gems in general (if blue gems yield any blue gem).

So, to be clear, your argument is that we need vendor recipes to make it easier for new players to obtain existing gems -- because they're too hard to obtain. But then we also need crafting-only gems to make it more difficult to obtain the 'good' gems by forcing people to pick up all of the existing gems because they have no value -- presumably because the supply outstrips the demand?

'

Natharias wrote:

'

B) Unfortunately, it would be functionally impossible to implement a system of fusing different skill gems together to dynamically produce new gems with mechanics based upon their fused parents.

Again, read my post. It is not impossible to do so.
You vendor a RGB item and get a Chromatic.
You vendor 40% of gem quality and get a GCP.
It's not even slightly difficult since the system is already there. You take Firestorm and Fireball, sell it, and it gives you back Firespray. Again, example.
All that needs be done is put in the formula (or whatever is used for the system), and the addition of the gems, which can be done as they are thought up.

'Dynamic', at least in this context, means 'procedurally generated' or 'created on-the-fly'. It is referring to being able to put any two skill gems into the vendor, and receiving a new skill gem that uses a formula to derive a new skill gem that takes characteristics from both. This is what is meant by 'a system of fusing different skill gems together to dynamically produce new gems with mechanics based upon their fused parents'. It is not referring to GGG designing a new gem and mapping it to a recipe. That is not dynamic. It is static.
The formula to dynamically produce gems is what is functionally impossible to implement. It takes GGG (a team of professional game designers with years of experience on this very game) months (sometimes years) of handcrafting, testing, and tuning (as well as creating animations and art assets) before releasing a new skill gem. The idea that you could realistically develop a formula to automatically generate them on the fly and not completely break the game is, I'm sorry, laughable.

'

'

-- Why would we want this. You're simply making it more difficult and/or more of a hassle to obtain gems.

In that case, yes. But since Arc is generally better than Spark and both gems have the same drop chance.

First of all, you continuously make the assertion that certain gems are 'more powerful' or 'better' than others. While it's true that (inevitably) at any given specific point in time, one gem may generally be more effective (or at least see more use), not only is this not supposed to be the case, but it changes over time. The very example you use -- Arc vs Spark, was the exact opposite not 1.5 years ago. For months on end, Spork was one of, if not the most popular build in the entire game. Nobody used Arc.
So now GGG has to continually change the recipes to account for what gems happen to be the FotM or got buffed/nerfed in the latest patch.
Oh, and by the way, Spark and Arc in fact do not have the same drop chance. I do know this for a fact, because I collect sets of 22-24 of each skill gem in the game. This takes a VERY LONG TIME and provides me with an enormous sample size. I can definitively say that, unless GGG secretly changed it in one of the last few patches, Arc has a significantly lower droprate than Spark. Beyond that, Spark is available as the quest reward for literally the second quest in the game for both the witch and templar, and is thus nearly as easy to obtain as fireball by non-drop means.

'

But assume Arc was recipe only and you kept getting Sparks. You can easily obtain it without any real effort, unless shifting through your tabs strains you.

This is a non-argument. Assume that Orb of Alteration, Jeweler's Orb, and Orb of Fusing were recipe-only, and you kept getting Orbs of Augmentation. You could easily obtain it without any real effort, unless shifting through your tabs strains you. Is this a reason to change Alts, Jewelers, and Fuses to recipe-only? Heck, they already have recipes! Less work for GGG!

'

Natharias wrote:

'

-- This would simply lead everyone to use the 'most powerful' recipe-produced gems, and ignore standard drop/reward gems.

Once they had enough of their recipe gems, yes. But they would have to use that recipe to get the gems, right? And if not the recipe then they would have to trade, and that is something GGG likes so very much.
But that's no different than it is now. Nobody picks up gems unless they either need them, are planning on leveling them, or if the gem has quality. No exceptions, unless the 2.0 update changes something.

Maybe you don't. Plenty of people keep a spare or two on hand, at least of the most commonly used gems.

'

'

That doesn't mean that we need to introduce new sinks or recipes for them. It's simply the side-effect of a game where 95% of the stuff that drops is absolutely ignored, and 95% of the stuff that isn't ignored is vendored for miniscule value.

But white and blue items aren't gems, are they?
White and blue items are common and guaranteed. But it takes a while for a gem to finally drop. I'd say the drop rate ratio of gems to currency in general is about 1:100, and no better. I'd argue it's closer to 1:250, but I haven't played while keeping this in mind. No, this is not with Perandus Signet.
There's really no reason to implement sinks for gems, most currency, white, or blue items. But it would make the game more interesting and it could add a lot to the game.
Ball Lightning + Spark yields a lightning ball that shoots out sparks instead of jolting nearby enemies. Same damage, same interval, just different flavor.
Firestorm + Fireball yields Firespray, where you instead channel fireballs from your hand. Of course damage is based more like Firestorm.
Arc + Spark yields a lightning spell that causes each target hit by Arc to send out sparks, but the damage of each hit is drastically lowered.
Do those sound even the least bit interesting to you?

Sure, I'd love a good and viable skill gem sink. But 'sink the gems by forcing the players to vendor them to get the skill gems they really want' isn't it. As for your ideas, sure, of course they sound interesting. However, as covered above, there is simply no way to dynamically/procedurally/on-the-fly generate them. And frankly, if GGG's going to spend time developing a skill gem, I'd rather see something entirely new and unique, than a mashup of two existing gems.

IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson

Posted by
tsftd
on Apr 29, 2015, 11:20:28 AM