08-08-2004, 12:48 PM
Quote:Cold-only, fire-only, lightning-only, physical-only, etc., builds can make it, though they'll use more mana and/or attacks on super-resistant monsters. Previously they would have to run past or camp such monsters to continue through the map, or start a new game and hope for better results.
That is my plan, and with a cap of 90% for every immunity for normal, non-boss monsters, the new synergies in 1.10 will finally make sense! I mean, why would anyone make a Meteor- or Blizzard-Sorc using synergies when 1/3 of all monsters on the map must be skipped later in Hell? It seems that Blizz - like so often - had an intially good idea, but didn't implement it consequent enough. Monsters in patch 1.10 got so much more power in Hell that it would have done no harm to the game belance to cap immunties at 90%. The label "Immune To XXX" under the life bar of each and every Hell monster in the original patch is actually quite silly - it's the same as if you would say to a player: "Now here's a monster that's 100% immune to XXX spells. Please use spell YYY or ZZZ now (if you have one)." Is this a GPS navigation-system for RPG-players? ;) With a 90% cap, a spell caster has now to observe the life bars of the monster packs he attacks to find out the most effective spell. Also, spell casters like Elemental Druids, who are limited to fire and cold elemental attacks (Armageddon/Hurricane), will find a 90% immunity cap very pleasing, and spells like Fire Claws will actually make sense. Poison Necros, Lightning Trap Assassins and so forth will become much better playing alternatives.
I'm currently making a Hell test with a Tri-Sorc that has a level 30 Frozen Orb, level 30 Hydra, level 30 Thunderstorm and no synergies, and it seems that a 90% cap for all normal monsters across all acts seems to be just right.
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays." -- Friedrich von Schiller