How curse resistance should work

GGG went out of their way to make sure that there were not damage immunities throughout the normal gameplay (aside from "puzzle" immunities, like Bearers of the Guardian's Guardian being immune until you kill all the Bearers).

Why they changed their mind here is a bit puzzling.

Huge +1 for letting enemies have reduced curse effectiveness (with "Hexproof" upping that to or above 100% and requiring heavy curse investment to break) and another +1 for letting white/yellow/red maps roll 40/60/80% less curse effectiveness.

The idea is sound, kind of.

I think a curse should never be less than 20% effective. Just like a monster can never be more than 75% resistant, even if they have a million fire resistance, there should be a non-0 reasonable bottom for curses.

The "less" amount could be 40/50/60. The reduction for the monster affix could be 40, leading to 60/80 reduction (or even +30 for 50/70). Whatever. That's just tweaking numbers.

Sure, just as long as immunity is gone (especially as a tier 1 map mod!?!?)

The funny thing is curse reduction as a stat is already in place, in the Whakahawhatver map.

Pretty sure D3 does something like this and it obviously works well enough there. Only little problem I'd have with it is this would effectively be a nerf compared to mobs that aren't curse immune.

This probably falls under GGG's individual preference category, would work either way.

I'm okay with curse immune being a red-tier map affix. They're supposed to be chaos sinks and the investment is supposed to be getting a good IIQ without hitting any build-countering affixes (like Blood Magic, no leech, no elemental status effects, etc).

It's a little silly that it's a white-tier map affix though.

I agree that mob resistance should play a larger part like the OP suggests, with one caveat:

Implement a cap on numeric values to curses at something like 50, and add a LOT more increased curse effectiveness on the tree. Mathematically, going from 100% effectiveness to 20% effectiveness is a HUGE reduction that basically makes the curse useless. Going from 160% effectiveness to 80% effectiveness is considerably less of a reduction. I'm okay with mobs getting higher curse resistance values only really if we as players can also increase our curse effectiveness values. If there's a hard-cap to curse values, then the only thing these higher effectiveness values would do is help beat curse resistance.

For example:
Say Temp Chains has a hard cap of 50% slow. If I'm really invested into curse effect, and have 80% increased curse effectiveness, then even though my 20/20 Temp Chains should slow by 72%, it only slows by 50%. If I run into a really insane curse-resist situation (say a cures resist map mod on a map boss), and a mob has 120% curse resistance, because of my heavy, heavy investment into curses, the mob is still slowed by 43%. The level of investment I'm thinking of here is of the same degree that one would invest in, say life leech to get it to the point where it can carry you as a defensive ability. So 10+ passives on the tree and maybe some special gear too.

Factoid: the maximum possible increased curse effectiveness is 73%. 40 tree, 11 23q CoH/Blasphemy support, 4 Conqueror's Potency jewel, 18 Dying Breath staff. 55% can be expected from any build invested in curses but not running the staff.

I feel the only reason an outright curse immunity might seem okay as a redmap mod is because many of those mods are outright unfair. But leech immunity, etc is also bullshit.

"

Taganov wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

I think the mechanic is perfect, there are some monster who are immune to freeze, stun, shock, burning etc. It's all good


Lol I remember playing Diablo 2 and fighting monster boss: Immune to Physical, Ice and Fire.

Yeah, that wasn't the best idea then and the concept hasn't aged gracefully in the decade+ since. Scrotie's idea of curse effectiveness is so egregiously sensible it's offensive it hasn't already been implemented.

List of builds I have never made, nor ever will make include:

• Anything which will run into an immunity affix

So, in the court of Build Diversity are they a positive mechanic for the game?
Verdict: Nu-uh

Plainly and simply, they're a trap. RF is currently in a similar position, it runs into far too many map affixes for its own good. Avoid at all costs...... or pay them ;) and lose.

Immunities are flat out bad. If existing immunity map affixes were changed to roll in the 80-100% range it would be a vast improvement because then there would be a choice of possibly divining certain maps for a less punitive roll. This is far better, more fun, actively engaging than instead having the game print one little line of FUCK YOU immunity.