06-03-2012, 10:49 PM
Just killed Diablo on hardcore hell difficulty and thought I should update this. I used the same build for all of Act 3 and Act 4. Both of which I did both in groups and solo. I like to make sure I can solo an area before I move on to soloing something later. Just to be on the safe side since I am playing hardcore. Don't want to get in over my head. So all content was soloed at some point and I was actually the first of our group that I am aware of to kill Diablo in Hell and I did that solo as well. This is all with never having touched the AH as well if people are curious about that.
The build I used was Firebomb, Leeching Beasts, Bruiser, Healing Journey, Legion of Daggers, and Paranoia with the passives Spirit Vessel, Fierce Loyalty, and Jungle Fortitude.
Act 3 I've always generally found to be easy to solo with a build like this. I'd say that it was tougher when grouped than it was solo. This is actually a trend I've noticed though. Solo is easier 80% of the time, 10% of the time a group will speed things up due to me not having to run around as much, then the last 10% a group will change a pack of champs from something I'd have to run from/reset to get past to something we can kill. We've yet to run into anything we can't kill as a group. So grouping is a bit of a trade off for me. On average it is tougher, but the values put into that average are less spiky and thus safer.
Act 4 tends to be rougher for this build, but still doable. There are a lot of mob types there that just chew through pets. I still found that I preferred having the pets than not having them even with them being more situational in their use. They tended to buy me just enough time. Though there would occasionally be a champ pack that just straight destroyed them as well.
That brings me to another thought I've had. The game is built so that melee have trouble with some types and ranged have trouble with other types. This is a generalization of course, but it is basically true. So one reason that people often find pet builds bad is that it is giving their class a vulnerability it wouldn't have otherwise. A pure ranged build should have a decently easy time with the types built to kill melee. Whereas a pet build makes it so that those types kill their pets and then the Caster Hero is left to kill them with less abilities than the pure ranged has. This builds in a bias such that when somebody changes out of a pet build into a pure caster build they feel like they are stronger because they now have less trouble with those anti-melee types.
The counter to this is that the pets should make anti-ranged types easier. So by using a pet build you open yourself up to being more vulnerable to anti-melee, but in exchange become less vulnerable to anti-ranged. The trick is making it an even trade which I don't think people are finding it right now. It needs to be such that what you give up against anti-melee you gain back in like proportion against anti=ranged. Thus a pure build becomes a spiky style of play where some packs you destroy and some packs you have trouble with whereas a pet build becomes a more consistent build where every pack is tougher than the easy for ranged ones, but easier than the hard for ranged ones.
This may all be obvious to people, but it is a slightly more abstract way of looking at things that I thought was interesting and so decided to share. I'd say that right now the proportions aren't right, but that with a ton of work you can get things good enough such that pets are viable in Hell if you prefer that play style and so have a bias toward it to make up for the lack.
The build I used was Firebomb, Leeching Beasts, Bruiser, Healing Journey, Legion of Daggers, and Paranoia with the passives Spirit Vessel, Fierce Loyalty, and Jungle Fortitude.
Act 3 I've always generally found to be easy to solo with a build like this. I'd say that it was tougher when grouped than it was solo. This is actually a trend I've noticed though. Solo is easier 80% of the time, 10% of the time a group will speed things up due to me not having to run around as much, then the last 10% a group will change a pack of champs from something I'd have to run from/reset to get past to something we can kill. We've yet to run into anything we can't kill as a group. So grouping is a bit of a trade off for me. On average it is tougher, but the values put into that average are less spiky and thus safer.
Act 4 tends to be rougher for this build, but still doable. There are a lot of mob types there that just chew through pets. I still found that I preferred having the pets than not having them even with them being more situational in their use. They tended to buy me just enough time. Though there would occasionally be a champ pack that just straight destroyed them as well.
That brings me to another thought I've had. The game is built so that melee have trouble with some types and ranged have trouble with other types. This is a generalization of course, but it is basically true. So one reason that people often find pet builds bad is that it is giving their class a vulnerability it wouldn't have otherwise. A pure ranged build should have a decently easy time with the types built to kill melee. Whereas a pet build makes it so that those types kill their pets and then the Caster Hero is left to kill them with less abilities than the pure ranged has. This builds in a bias such that when somebody changes out of a pet build into a pure caster build they feel like they are stronger because they now have less trouble with those anti-melee types.
The counter to this is that the pets should make anti-ranged types easier. So by using a pet build you open yourself up to being more vulnerable to anti-melee, but in exchange become less vulnerable to anti-ranged. The trick is making it an even trade which I don't think people are finding it right now. It needs to be such that what you give up against anti-melee you gain back in like proportion against anti=ranged. Thus a pure build becomes a spiky style of play where some packs you destroy and some packs you have trouble with whereas a pet build becomes a more consistent build where every pack is tougher than the easy for ranged ones, but easier than the hard for ranged ones.
This may all be obvious to people, but it is a slightly more abstract way of looking at things that I thought was interesting and so decided to share. I'd say that right now the proportions aren't right, but that with a ton of work you can get things good enough such that pets are viable in Hell if you prefer that play style and so have a bias toward it to make up for the lack.