Mon'tregul's Grasp: change "reduced" to "less"

So here is what a current Mon'tregul's Grasp looks like:

15% increased elemental damage
50% reduced number of zombies allowed
+2000 to zombie maximum life
(25 to 30)% increased zombie resists
25% increased zombie size
zombies deal (80 to 100)% increased physical damage
enemies killed by zombies explode dealing fire damage

And I suggest GGG should change it to:

15% increased elemental damage
50% less number of zombies allowed (or: number of zombies halved)
+2000 to zombie maximum life
(25 to 30)% increased zombie resists
25% increased zombie size
zombies deal (80 to 100)% increased physical damage
enemies killed by zombies explode dealing fire damage

=> No difference you say? For any build currently using it: no, no difference at all.
EXCEPT that with this minor change it would now be possible to dual wield Mon'tregul's Grasp!

50% reduced + 50% reduced = 100% reduced: no zombies

50% less + 50 less = 75% less zombies: which basically means having 2 instead of 8. Two zombies with the combined buff of Mon'tregul's Grasp:

+4000 to zombie life
(50 to 60)% increased zombie resists
50% increased zombie size
zombies deal (160 to 200)% increased physical damage
explode cannot be doubled, it's still explode

1) Wouldn't this be OP?

=> Not at all. Going from 8 zombies to only 2 is largely not worth the double boost. People will probably reply to me: "why would you want to dual wield them, it's not worth it". Don't forget we're also giving up our shield slot by taking two of them.
In fact, when snapshot was removed they buffed Mon'tregul as it became highly unpopular. I still do think it's a great design: less but more powerfull summons. And what I want is to be able to push that to the limits.

2) Would this affect builds already using Mon'tregul's Grasp now?

=> Not at all. If equipping just 1, "reduced" and "less" give exactly the same result.

3) So why then should this be implemented?

=> Ultimate gimmick build! People who adore to have bad-ass summons can now opt for this at a serious quantity loss summon-wise. Not all of us are clear-speed addicts. I like a character that is unique and fun, even at the cost of efficiency.

=> 50% increased zombie size... do I need to say more?

=> A groce rotting arm in EACH hand... do I really need to say more?

=> The more options the better, even if few will choose to go for this.

=> PVP! Summoners don't exist in high level PVP currently (and SRS is not a summon to me, just a strange timed seeking firebolt). If we only have to summon 2 zombies at least we can try. Not that this will make summoners powerfull in PVP, but it's better then nothing.

=> Golems: now that these guys are added we can perfectly go for the few badass summons approach as an alternative to the popular immense army approach.

=> This is VERY easy to program for the developpers. Takes them a few minutes of work. And nobody can possibly be against this. Indifferent at most... .

Please leave many comments to attract the attention of GGG! A +1 is already just fine.

Even if you're not intending to play dual Mon'tregul, at least support the cause for the sake of build diversity: gimmick builds have the right to exist (played a polar bear in Diablo 2: unefficient as hell, but sooo cool)!!

IIRC, multiple "More" and "Less" sources are additive with each other, not multiplicative. I could be wrong.

"

TiamatRoar wrote:

IIRC, multiple "More" and "Less" sources are additive with each other, not multiplicative. I could be wrong.

You could be right, pal. Maths are hard for me though, cause I'm a programmer. I'm lucky if I can even feed myself.

I'm still stuck on this one:

"If a triangle is thrown from a moving car, and upon it is exerted wind resistance, which is a thing; then how many Cupcakes can Pedro buy with a human soul?" (ifunny)


www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

"

TiamatRoar wrote:

IIRC, multiple "More" and "Less" sources are additive with each other, not multiplicative. I could be wrong.

You are indeed wrong. That's the whole purpose of having More/Less be separate from Increased/Decreased. Each More or Less is its own multiplier.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

TiamatRoar wrote:

IIRC, multiple "More" and "Less" sources are additive with each other, not multiplicative. I could be wrong.

You are indeed wrong. That's the whole purpose of having More/Less be separate from Increased/Decreased. Each More or Less is its own multiplier.

It would seem cheap and easy to total more/less multipliers of the same type, before multiplying them in; but having them run as separate multiplications would be a more interesting solution, so I'd applaud GGG for that. Taking the more impressive path over the easy one.

I'd also support what Mark said, it's not always clear and obvious that which can be done with little effort, and that which cannot, when programming. Users almost never know what the correlation to required work is going to be, and are almost always surprised (both positively and negatively) by reality.

"

which you don't actually know anything about, and is in fact completely wrong. This isn't easy. It's not even possible without doing it through an ugly hack that might bite us in the ass in future.

I'm sorry to have upset you. And as my programming skills are überbasic I trust what you say is true. I was thinking of "learning" Mon'tregul something like this:

If max zombies = 3 and no other mon'tregul = 1 zombie
If max zombies = 3 and other mon'tregul equipped = 0 zombies
If max zombies = 4 and no other mon'tregul = 2 zombies
If max zombies = 4 and other mon'tregul equipped = 1 zombie
...

So I didn't see any hack in it at all. When it comes to the increased zombie stats the game just counts them up automatically I assumed.

I'm not asking what the hack would be about and why it cannot be avoided because you don't have the time to reply all that and it would be too complicated anyway for me to follow. I just want you to know why it seemed easy to me.

So apologies!

"

That's the whole purpose of having More/Less be separate from Increased/Decreased. Each More or Less is its own multiplier.

Exact.

Reduced: -0.5 -0.5 = -1
Less: 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.75 less

EPILOGUE:

As changing Mon'tregul seems to be impossible, I have another idea that would still allow you to dual wield them, namely adding a unique (non-weapon, non-shield ofcourse) with this statistic:

"25% increased number of zombies allowed"

As that opens the door too much to 6 single-Mon'tregulled zombies, the drawback of the item should punish wearing only 1 Mon'tregul. I don't see many options for that however. Ideas are welcome!
"Cannot summon skeletons" should be mandatory too on such an item. The idea is that you choose flesh over bone.

Ah, about the new unique I thought a bit more and came up with this helmet:

50% increased number of zombies allowed
cannot summon skeletons
has no sockets

=> Very drastic item:

If you wear it without Mon'tregul: 12 zombies with passives
If you wear it with 1 Mon'tregul: 8 buffed zombies with passives
If you wear it with 2 Mon'treguls: 4 double buffed zombies with passives

Seems reasonable. Option 1 and 2 still seem a better choice but gimmick option becomes possible.

The drawbacks are heavy enough to justify the zombie gain:

no skellies => no huge army
no sockets => one of the biggest drawbacks for socket-starved summoners. The helmet slot is also a very important one to summoners as it can feature +2 minion skills. Choices have to be made when equipping this item!

What do you think?

2 things:

1) GGG has already said that it would be difficult to implement, and that it goes against the point of the item's design even if it were.

2) Removing skellies in no conceivable way balances removing mont's only drawback. not even close. and losing 4 sockets doesn't either (if nothing else, the skellies probably would have been using it). Granted, losing the helmet slot is a hit to summoners. They lose either Alpha's or Skullhead. That being said, it still doesn't nearly balance allowing double the monts. Heck, it may not even balance allowing 4 extra normal zombies, though that's more of a gray area.

They don't want to break the concept of Montregul's Grasp. What you're trying to do breaks the idea.