As I said elsewhere, I’m reserving final judgement on the economy angle until after the patch.
Though we have been burned by this in the past, this time it is clearly stated “gems” will be the same and not “gem value”. My expectation is, then, is by the end of a month or two, I should be showing a clear trend toward upward of (an extremely lowball) 200 raw gems per week average (especially being able to sample from four accounts), and not have tasks that hand out souls/gold/chaos shards/traitstones/(ingots/orbs/diamonds/jewels/whatever filler they can put in)/ or even keys that can be bought directly with gems be attributed to this as “gem value”.
I would also hope, even though it hasn’t clearly been stated, that collection building resources available from these tasks remain somewhat constant as well (gem keys, glory keys, event keys, raw glory, even if they may be shifted around) and that souls and gold are significantly buffed (these are so terrible in the current system that they have a greater opportunity cost than any potential rewards for nearly all of them, at nearly all levels of play, which makes the tasks both useless and annoying to even exist), and that any new things are just potential extras (not really all that hype for chaos shards otherwise, as they have significantly less value than any other key or collection building resource on any account that has already set up a single farming delve, and the task previewed that gave them as rewards seems to be aimed at midgame/endgamers who have long since passed this point).
I really hope available task data is mineable when it goes live so I can extrapolate some kind of model before the system is months old, though. Based on what I’ve seen, at least the first few days, maybe even weeks, are going to be rough with complaints of people crying nerf no matter what (wheres my gems, I didn’t get any gem tasks, put my gems back, etc.), and I just want information to know if those complaints are justified or not as quickly as possible and at least attempt to lend a credible voice to either side the issue, if necessary. We all know that any RNG based system invites a lot of people believing something is broken even when it isn’t, but we also know just how possible it is for them to roll out a system that doesn’t quite work as intended, and it tends to take a while to implement fixes for things that don’t work as intended, let alone feedback for things that could be improved, particularly if we have to prove it doesn’t work as intended first, which is, of course, really hard for RNG based systems.