The first thing i modded out of my D2 was immunity.
1 Like
Immunities are terrible. Resistances are great.
Still, I dont think immunities should be patched out. Then it would no longer be D2.
The problem with Synergies in D2 is not immunities though. If anything, at least immunities serves as a counter balance to the synergies. If you removed that, synergies would be even worse.
1 Like
Yeah, itās the little quirks that made D2 the game it is. Immunities have always been there and are the center of the strategy of Hell, like it or not, if you patch that out itās no longer the same game. If the purpose of the remaster is preservation, at least. If I designed an ARPG today, I wouldnāt put immunities in it, and I donāt think anyone else does.
Not generally immunity, no, but like 90+% resistance.
Personally, I like immunity. It means you have to strategize differently. It also means you can add in more options that can lower or limit immunity. D2s āproblemā with it, in my experience, was that monsters could have multiple immunities and basically become nigh-unkillable.
Plus, immunity is definitely a carryover from tabletop RPGs which these digital ones, knowing it or not, get their origin.
Yeah but the thing about action RPG is that you are removing a lot of the RPGs mechanics (some that are pretty good) in exchange of constant action. Now, I donāt think immunities are that awful in D2, never stopped me from beating the game at least once with every ranged character (Iām not a fan of melee ones) but there are cases where itās just not worth it engaging certain enemies, and I think avoiding combat is something that goes against ARPGās core game design.
On this, we are in agreement. There is also, however, a strategy component to knowing which mobs to skip, which can showcase skill (in a GR environment) I think thatās a good thing.
Thatās WAY too high, unless you introducing ways to lower resistance as well, which becomes a gearing factor, which is okay, as long as there are a few ways to do it.
90% resistance seems fine.
Since there are likely at least 5 resistances.
Having a fire sorceress, where 1/5 enemies have 90% resistance, is not that much of a setback.
If you make it 50% it would not be noticeable anymore.
To make multi-dmg type builds competitive with single-dmg type builds, I doubt you can go much lower than a max of 85-90% monster resistances. With no ways to circumvent the resistances (and if there are any ways, they need to be incredibly costly, to the point where they would only really be worth it for very specialized situations, imo).
Like I said, Iād be okay with 90% if there were ways to lower it. 20% norm/40% NM/60% hell or something seems fine, otherwise.
Ways to lower it could be good gearing decisions. In a theoretical space, jewels/rings that lower enemy elemental resistance by 7% or something would be good, because jewels suck for casters anyway.
Monsters should be much better at punishing you, if you try to skip them tbh.
Having to deal 2,5X dmg to every fifth enemy is not going to matter much as I see it. Single-dmg builds would still be far ahead then.
90% resistance, with the ability to lower it to 75-80% at a fairly significant cost? Could maybe work.
You have to think of all elements of game design. What about single player? you have to have a way for builds to deal with stuff thatās immune that HAS to be killed. Cold could have pierce mastery (like it does), Fire could have frostfire (or whatever), rings/jewelry could have minus resistance (as I mentioned), could be runewords, could be mercenary/pets.
But you canāt just put up an iron wall like 90% resistance and not give players a way to deal with it. Thatās bad design; very frustrating for the player.
Itās like designing a boss that canāt be killed. Just no bueno.
I prefer the way Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal handle this, where you are incentivated to be in constant combat and engaging enemies (even if itās a big horde of big demons), because you need those glory kills to stay alive, so it actually punishes you for avoiding combat or being too defensive. I think having to make a choice to skip an enemy is interesting in some games, but not in action-focused ones.
Having to make up a strategy to beat a monster with 90% resistances sounds great.
Anyway, I have no problem with immunities in D2 and I definitely want them to stay, itās a core principle of the game. Itās just not something I would enjoy seeing in new games
I am pretty much only thinking about singleplayer. Group balance would need something to offer challenge too. Like maybe multiple resistances per enemy. Or heck, even immunities.
But, for the most part, I discuss Diablo from a 100% solo perspective.
90% is hardly unkillable. Just takes 10x the time. Which, considering how fast most enemies die, is not that dramatic.
And if a single dmg build can achieve, lets say 50%-100% higher DPS than a multi-dmg build, due to the clear synergies you get from focusing your build (in affixes, skill points/passives etc.), dealing more dmg to all enemies, in exchange for killing 20% of the enemies slower, will become most efficient really fast.
While I think it would be bad if the game tries to make you stay in combat all the time (especially as it would indicate to me, that the enemy density is way way too high), the idea of encouraging combat was what created Health Orbs in D3. I dont exactly want them to return in their D3 iteration, but the idea of making it a danger on its own, to not fight, that should be a focus point. Instead of rewarding people for going back to buy more healing potions :S
D3 actually does it pretty well with some builds. I remember the roland crusader you couldnāt stay too long outside of battle because if you lost your stacks your resist would drop to the ground and you could get instakilled. I like that. I think itās less that I want to stay in combat all the time, and more that I think the time between engaging a pack of monsters should be very short and that you should be incentivated to engage enemies on sight rather than avoiding them
This makes me question if you ever played high level rifts. Generally, juggernauts are skipped with 50% more HP. 10x more HP is just not feasible. Then again, Iām not sure if weāre discussing D2, D3, or in general.
but 10x HP is just not (or, at least, shouldn't) ever happen. Even D2, for all it's faults, recognized immunities should have counter-play with Lower Resist and Infinity.-type things.
Definitely not D3.
As for skipping juggernauts, these kinds of enemies should penalize you for trying to skip them. Skipping/running should become the desperate choice of last resort.
90% enemy resistances do have counterplay. The counter of doing more dmg than a multi-dmg type build will. Even against the enemies that are resistant to your attacks, you wouldnāt be spending 10X the time, since your base dmg would be higher.
I guess an alternative could be to have monsters react to your dmg types. Like if you keep attacking with fire, an enemy would gain more fire resistance (casting defensive buffs etc.). If more than the average 1/5 of enemies had fire resistance, it would not need to be as high as 85-90%
I disagree.
Hmm. Could casting a ācoldā spell to reset a mobās Fire resistance feel fun? Would it be better than a mob generally builds resistance to your spells if you spam them with the same element too often? It would have to be capped.
Could you make that fun? Solid idea, though.
I dont agree with you.
Diablo3 is in the list of most unbalanced and bad combate system ever.
Despite the lack of self sustain and toughness for almost all char, these problems are realy notable after you start doing 130+++ solo Gr.
I donāt agree with you, respectfuly.
Peace.
I think he did post here because he didnāt pre ordered game yet. But that āwhere to postā dosent matter.
To correct you. Diablo2 is alive, not because of āmodsā. Game is amazing not for 1 reason or 2 or 3ā¦
Most of time, this cultural shock about diablo2 and why It is Far better than diablo3 is a big huge list of reasons, i played both games, (i played for real). And i feel better playing diablo2. Why?? The list is huge.
Diablo2 is like a girl love.
You love her and you canāt explain why.
Hiā¦
All what they need and should do is to improve graphics. Nothing Else.
I really dont know, How many time that each person repleyed your post, played diablo2. Or If they play It at all.
I have to admit, iam Very worry about diablo2, time in time, am looking for any information about D2R.
From what i saw for more than a decade from blizzard, is Justā¦
I think before any thing, without making any expectations, wait It to launch. But do not expect good thing.
We must wait, i pray they donāt destroy It like warcraft3. My godā¦
My hope has disappeared regarding D2R.
I think they messed up for many reasons, and it will be
like W3R, disaster.