As for the issue at hand, remember that Nightsmoke and all the vulpine items only work on melee damage.

I think it would be a very fair treatment to split the concept into EHP vs Melee and EHP vs Magic. The former would use the Energy Shield percentage and take into account Nightsmoke; the latter would apply all damage directly to mana (ES does that, right?) and skip Vulpine. You could factor in Damage Reduced and Magic Damage Reduced items to these formulas, and even resistances.

---
-Erik on the old Lurker forum, now T-hawk (dash not underscore, this forum is dumb)
Co-op Clan DoH, http://disciples.clanpages.com

Did you play D1? Did you consider it a loophole to stand behind cover of corners and obstacles to shoot at targets who could not hit you back from that angle, thanks to the game mechanics? Or did you walk into open air in an effort to "be fair to the opponents"? Did you consider it a loophole when the monsters were under such cover and could hit you, but you couldn't hit them back?

What's good for the monsters is good for players, too. Your example undid your own argument:

Let's turn the tables. It's irritating enough when you can't hit a fleeing storm caster or corpulent because they keep moving out of your swing space. Imagine if the monsters could do that intentionally like you can

Hello? That IS intentional. Take away the game mechanic that allows monsters to tempt you, then you have an argument. There is such a thing as weapon speed involved. You opt for slow speed, you're easier to tempt. So it goes with the monsters. Some have very speedy attack animations and cannot be tempted easily or reliably. Others have slow attack animations. This too is intentional on Blizzard's part, even if it didn't occur to them that players could do it back to monsters, the way so many monsters were specifically designed to do it to players.

Speed is built in to D2. In fact, D2 is designed entirely around speed of various kinds. The walk and run options, speed from boots and skills, speed penalties from encumbrance, casting and swinging speeds, skills that circumvent the need for speed in other ways, on and on it goes.

You can't escape tempting fate, you can only choose to avoid using it intentionally. And how can you do that? Only two ways: engage to the death, or maintain large chunks of distance between yourself and all targets. ANY time you come into close proximity to opponents and continue to move around, you are tempting de facto.

Sirian's Diablo II Page

>Did you play D1? Did you
>consider it a loophole to
>stand behind cover of corners
>and obstacles to shoot at
>targets who could not hit
>you back from that angle,
>thanks to the game mechanics?

I did, and avoided using that when possible. I would use it on rare emergency item-retrieval occasions if I had no other way to kill any monsters and make progress, but I never liked having to resort to what I consider a cheap game-engine tactical exploit.

>Let's turn the tables. It's irritating
>enough when you can't hit
>a fleeing storm caster or
>corpulent because they keep moving
>out of your swing space.
>Imagine if the monsters could
>do that intentionally like you
>can
>
>Hello? That IS intentional. Take away
>the game mechanic that allows
>monsters to tempt you, then
>you have an argument.

IMHO, it isn't an intentional game mechanic, it's a side effect of the AI routines that involve monsters fleeing. Certainly no monster ever moves out of your swing-target location for the sole purpose of avoiding the attack, which is what you're doing to the monsters.

> There
>is such a thing as
>weapon speed involved. You opt
>for slow speed, you're easier
>to tempt.

Hm, I did overlook that angle, and the weapon reach factor that goes with it. Still, though, no monster ever makes a tactical decision that takes into account your weapon speed/reach, right?

I could also bring in real-world physics and point out that taking one step back is not going to cause someone swinging a sword to automatically miss you, but attempts to apply real world physics to D2 usually fall rather flat anyway

You also have the very presence of the ES bug you mentioned (of which I must admit I had no idea until you just posted about it.) To me, that looks like reasonable evidence that a swing, once begun, is supposed to make a to-hit and damage roll.

>Speed is built in to D2. In fact, D2 is designed entirely around >speed of various kinds. The walk and run options, speed from
>boots and skills, speed penalties from encumbrance, casting and
>swinging speeds, skills that circumvent the need for speed in
>other ways, on and on it goes.

You see D2 that way (which is a perfectly valid philosophy.) I prefer to treat speed as a luxury to be acquired after my characters' other needs such as resists (see other thread on boots) and defense (shield blocking and armor DR) are met. I'd rather have my characters' combat abilities based more on their skills and stats than my arcade-reflexes micromanagement in combat. If I wanted to micromanage, I'd go play Starcraft. You may certainly differ, and it's a tribute to how well designed this game is that it can be played in so many different ways.

I also think that skills that circumvent the need for speed come more from careless programming and working with the animations than from design plans. Double Swing is the prime example; there's definitely no reason why holding a weapon in your left hand lets you swing in your right hand any weapon from a cutlass to a battle hammer at the same speed. It just ignores speed to make the animations much easier. Same deal with your favorite spell , (Chain) Lightning - it's unaffected by casting rate to accommodate the animation. (To be fair, ignoring weapon speed is certainly logical for some skills, like Impale and Charge, and Teleport is obviously designed to let the sorceress get around foot speed limitations.)

>You can't escape tempting fate, you
>can only choose to avoid
>using it intentionally. And how
>can you do that? Only
>two ways: engage to the
>death, or maintain large chunks
>of distance between yourself and
>all targets. ANY time you
>come into close proximity to
>opponents and continue to move
>around, you are tempting de
>facto.

That is true, although I won't move solely to avoid a swing-in-progress. I will move for tactical reasons such as simply attacking a more dangerous monster, or to avoid getting surrounded, or to get a good Piercing line. De facto tempting does happen unintentionally, and I won't curtail my maneuvering because it might happen, but neither will I intentionally invoke it.

(I treat the same way the loophole where LBOD misses targets in melee range in Hell. There's no way I can see that being an intentional design. When meleeing Diablo, I can't help but be in the LBOD-safe zone, but I'll never take a shorter range weapon on purpose to stay in the safe zone.)

BTW, I do really like your ability to debate intellectually without flaming, and hope you think the same of me

edit - silly thing thought the square brackets around (Chain) was a tag or something, changed to parens

---
-Erik on the old Lurker forum, now T-hawk (dash not underscore, this forum is dumb)
Co-op Clan DoH, http://disciples.clanpages.com

Would you consider forking a tactical exploit? Pinning? Discovered check? (I trust you know to what I refer).

Once the rules of a game are laid out, you play it. If some unexpected or unintended option turns up, how do you decide what to do with it? The very term "exploit" defines unsporting play, the action of working around the rules of a game instead of within them. That's a strong word. Are you sure it's the one you want to be using?

I consider duping and twinking to be exploits, but there is no comparable activity going on with the opposition. Monsters do not have items, do not level up, blah blah blah. So that does not compare to Tempting Fate. Monsters DO tempt players, all the time, and intended or not, I don't see how you could call this an exploit. If the opponents do it to you, that's fair game for you to turn the tables and do it back to them. Are you now going to call the monsters cheap and exploitative? Or does the fact they are mindless excuse them yet somehow lay a burden on us? Do you realize that you'd break this game if you gave priority to weapon swings, the way it was done in D1?

You mention physics, but I don't see the application even in concept. In D1, until you arrived at the next tile, you were "in" the current tile, even if you were moving away. As such, there was true stunlock: even a single monster, whose attack was faster than your tile movement rate, could lock you in place and prevent you from doing anything at all, much less moving away. How was that realistic? Then add in D1 blocking, which, AFTER you were yanked back to the center of the tile, you miraculously (and without fail, with high enough Dex) managed to block this magnetic attack? Yeah, that's physically sound.

It's either that, or this. You give priority to the attack, or to the dodge. More complex solutions can be theorized, but this game's code does not rise past that level. So, with those two options, do you prefer the current one, or the D1 version? I can give you my answer: if they took out Tempting Fate and gave priority to attack swings, it would become very easy to pin fleeing monsters, but they would have a very easy time pinning you like you cannot imagine. Just think "D1, no armor, autohit, blocklock with fallible block (or none), no escape" and picture Hephasto on the business end of the attack. Yeah, people would love that. Blizzard would get so much adoring praise and fanmail for clearing up that cheap tactical exploitation, they would be swimming in a physically manfested aura of adoration.

Cheap is in the eye of the beholder.

There is honor and fair play, then there is false chivalry, the laying out of some arbitrary heirarchy of politically correct options. Roland put forth a similar position, arguing that trapping the butcher in the stairs was tantamount to cheating. Ridiculous. The game is adversarial. If you wish to forsake tactical advantages to increase the challenge and enjoyment, that's fine. But the way I see it, you have a brain, you ought to use it. Once you lay out the word "cheap" and start crossing out potential tactics, you venture down a slippery slope that can only end in ruination if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

The game is limited. "Artificial Intelligence" is a dreadful oxymoron. "Projected Situation-Specific Stimulus Response" is closer to the mark. There is no intelligence in a computer program, there is only the illusion of intelligence, and only within very specified parameters. Several times you refer to the concept of "if monsters intended" -- monsters have no intent, they are mindless opponents. That's no basis for reasoning. They have no sense of fair play, no intent for good or evil. It is only a game, offering you opponents of limited ability.

If you don't understand "Slippery Slope", I'll try to be more clear. If you take the same reasoning you apply to this tactic and apply it to other similar parts of the game, removing all options that fit your logical criteria of "cheap", there won't be a game left. Thus, your reasoning is misapplied.

By your line of thought, calling this "cheap", if you were consistent, you would similarly believe that stunlocking enemies in D1 was a tactical exploit. After all, it was only a side effect of the tile based system, not specifically intended to be there. It certainly wasn't sound physics. You hit a fleeing monster and they get yanked back into place? Ridiculous. Can't exploit that! It's not fair. (Doesn't matter that they do it to you). The only fair thing of all, in both games, would be if anything that tried to flee got away but still took the hit. Now that would be some sound physics, finally. But until that day comes, we should work to refrain from using tactical exploits.

Is using resistance "cheap"? Yes. Not all monsters have resistance. Why should you? Is standing behind cover and using guided arrows, hydras or bone spirits "cheap"? You bet it is. Just imagine (using your line of thought) if monsters used such tactical exploits on you INTENTIONALLY! Oh no! Very cheap indeed. Is using a bottleneck a tactical exploit? HAS to be! Why, the monsters are completely pathetic compared to your character! It's only "fair" to them if you stand out in the open and let them gang up on you, to use their numbers to balance out your singular might. We can't have people using tactical exploits such as bottlenecks, that is just too cheap. And then of course, the granddaddy of them all: retreat. That is the cheapest, most cowardly, manipulative tactic of all. No true knight of chivalry would ever retreat. The game has monsters that retreat, but they don't INTEND to retreat, they are just programmed like that, so it's OK. The bulk of the monsters, they chase you hard, perhaps with some variation in their movement patterns and speed. Retreating from them is the most vile form of tactical exploit imaginable. Choosing your own ground for a fight, setting the conditions, turning the enemy's strengths against him, and exploiting his weakness to earn a cheap victory... well, that isn't worth anybody's time, is it?

How far down this slope would you like to go?

Sirian's Diablo II Page

I'm glad you agree on the twinking issue there

But personally I feel that T_Hawk is right - I feel that exploiting inbuilt bugs is cheating - it's borders too close to some more serious bug exploits cough*duping*cough.

You went on to describe, what would happen if the bug was reversed - yet you did not say about other ways to solve this problem. Knowing Blizzard, I am quite sure that there is a better solution, but due to any number of reasons it was not made.

I understand that this is your opinion, and even though I might disagree with it, I respect it.

Just my 2 uneducated cents.

---------------------------------
Why, the monsters are completely pathetic compared to your character! It's only "fair" to them if you stand out in the open and let them gang up on you, to use their numbers to balance out your singular might. We can't have people using tactical exploits such as bottlenecks, that is just too cheap. And then of course, the granddaddy of them all: retreat. That is the cheapest, most cowardly, manipulative tactic of all. No true knight of chivalry would ever retreat. The game has monsters that retreat, but they don't INTEND to retreat, they are just programmed like that, so it's OK. The bulk of the monsters, they chase you hard, perhaps with some variation in their movement patterns and speed. Retreating from them is the most vile form of tactical exploit imaginable.
---------------------------------

And now, OT from this OT:
I think that charged strike does not work as you described if you are using a spear-class weapon. My spear amazon on realms used charged strike quite a lot on the way to getting lightning strike (I was looking for an underpowered variant... and yes, I found one with LS. Eeek.) and every time I used it, the bolts would fan out behind the monster. I never saw all multiple bolts hitting the target I was actually attacking. I don't know if this is an artifact of realms play as such, since I haven't tried doing it in single player. Have you tried using CS and a 2-handed spear with your character just for testing purposes? In any case, your discovery is good news for aspiring melee 1-handed spear amazons. I don't think they have a catchy shortened name for those yet so I'll avoid making your head explode by inventing one.

I call them "Amazonians" since the use of all different weapons styles is required for that variant.

Ciao
Occhi

"Dadburn Revenooers!"

Not at all, as they're intended features of the 'game engine'. But can you move your rook while a bishop is en route during its move to capture it?

>Once the rules of a game
>are laid out, you play
>it. If some unexpected or
>unintended option turns up, how
>do you decide what to
>do with it? The very
>term "exploit" defines unsporting play,
>the action of working around
>the rules of a game
>instead of within them. That's
>a strong word. Are you
>sure it's the one you
>want to be using?

Yes. In my opinion, being able to tempt is not an intentional part of the game, and only happens because of how the engine was coded. Can you name any pen-and-paper RPG system where the player can dodge any melee attack he chooses to by simply saying "I dodge"?

The game already has plenty of systems for your character to avoid getting hit: Defense Rating, the level difference component of the to-hit formula, shield blocking, and the Dodge and Avoid skills. Why would all that even be in the game, when you can simply step away from a monster to not get hit?

>Monsters DO tempt players, all the time,

Only as a side effect of the AI "run away" state. They never move solely to dodge a blow. They do it as an unintended consequence of the AI routines, and that's what I will do to them as well.

>Do you
>realize that you'd break this
>game if you gave priority
>to weapon swings, the way
>it was done in D1?

It sure didn't break D1, why would it D2?

>You mention physics, but I don't
>see the application even in
>concept. In D1, until you
>arrived at the next tile,
>you were "in" the current
>tile, even if you were
>moving away. As such, there
>was true stunlock: even a
>single monster, whose attack was
>faster than your tile movement
>rate, could lock you in
>place and prevent you from
>doing anything at all, much
>less moving away. How was
>that realistic?

It's more realistic IMO than the swinger of a sword being unable to advance one foot during the swing to make the blow connect. Ever watch a fencing match? Does anyone keep his feet rooted in place during every single attack? Footwork is an important part of swordplay. The Diablo (1 and 2) animation system has to leave it out. If you think of invisible footwork occurring as it would realistically, the D1 system makes quite a bit of sense (the snapback being the best they could do in the tile-based system) and D2's doesn't.

>So, with those two options,
>do you prefer the current
>one, or the D1 version?
>I can give you my
>answer: if they took out
>Tempting Fate and gave priority
>to attack swings, it would
>become very easy to pin
>fleeing monsters, but they would
>have a very easy time
>pinning you like you cannot
>imagine.

Exactly. And if the monsters have the statistical ability to pin you (enough monsters, hit percentage, and damage to keep you in stunlock), why should moving back one step be enough to stop them from doing it? In D1 a character had to be strong enough to stand up to the monsters.

Take Ember as an example. She had no shield, paper armor, and no defensive skills, as you mentioned several times in the writeup. Yet she could activate the equivalent of 80% or so shield blocking (depending on your reflexes) anytime she wished. With ZERO investment into defensive equipment and skills. That's not right IMO.

>Just think "D1, no
>armor, autohit, blocklock with fallible
>block (or none), no escape"
>and picture Hephasto on the
>business end of the attack.
>Yeah, people would love that.
>Blizzard would get so much
>adoring praise and fanmail for
>clearing up that cheap tactical
>exploitation, they would be swimming
>in a physically manfested aura
>of adoration.

Hey, I'd thank them Seriously, though, what about the autohit-when-running and 4xAR kludges? The former is obviously a hack to counter tempting to the extent that they could, and both are to counter players getting hit less often than they should for game balance. Take out those along with tempting, and I think it would come out fairly well balanced, with proper adjustments to Shout/Iron Skin/Defiance/cold armors.

>The only fair thing of
>all, in both games, would
>be if anything that tried
>to flee got away but
>still took the hit. Now
>that would be some sound
>physics, finally.

Duh. But Blizzard isn't near that intelligent.

>Is using resistance "cheap"? Yes. Not
>all monsters have resistance. Why
>should you? Is standing behind
>cover and using guided arrows,
>hydras or bone spirits "cheap"?

They're in the spirit of the game mechanics, while tempting is not, IMO. 'Cheap' was a bad word, yes. What I meant was unintentional side effect of the game engine, so I would still call it an exploit.

>How far down this slope would
>you like to go?

Exactly as far as what I think is not an intentional part of the game. Your opinion may differ, of course.

To Vormaerin: I generally don't do intentional dodging of missiles. What happens accidentally while moving around will happen, same as the monsters do, but I don't intentionally sidestep missiles. The exception is the LBOD if I'm using a character where it's dodge or instant death. I will use as an absolute last resort exploits like the D1 can't-hit-around-corner thing, tempting (really doesn't come to this in practice) and missile dodging, but I don't like having to do it, and will certainly never base a character around it like Ember to some extent was.

---
-Erik on the old Lurker forum, now T-hawk (dash not underscore, this forum is dumb)
Co-op Clan DoH, http://disciples.clanpages.com

Why do you consider Tempting Fate to be different from dodging missiles? I assume you do maneuver to avoid ranged attacks, right? Monsters don't. No more than they get out of Firewalls or change tactics when hit by IM curses.

Btw, retreating *IS* a valid means of avoiding blows in hand to hand. Real people do it all the time. Maybe its too easy (against some foes) in D2, but its hardly unrealistic.

Aloha
Vormaerin

A fireball that misses you by 2 yards will hit you if you have ES up.

When tempting fate, the monster is still doing an attack. I wouldn't be surprised if ES registered the monster's swing (which didn't hit you, but is still being done close to you) as damage, and caused you to take damage.

If that's the case, it's not because 'the tohit/dam calculation is being made', it's because ES is a crappy skill that's more dangerous than useful, and very poorly designed.

I didn't know Energy Shield had that problem. My PD nec ran into this very often with Bone Armor. It was rather annoying to lose his Bone Armor for no reason other than it was hit though *he* was technically out of range. This also translates to losing mana for nothing as it often requires a re-casting of Bone Armor.

[o: *LEMMING*

Given that you have played several Sorcs without ES and my experience above, I think I'll spend the "ES points & Req" elsewhere in the next Sorc, such as a good Offensive skill. I'm pretty sure (now) that the mana lost in ES would be better spent in more spellcasting and that using Vulpine items costs more in lost options (i.e. I never have enough mana, Lenymo makes a difference, as does a double pskull helm). Making full rejuvs is trivial, plenty of mana on Outer Steppes and plenty of gems in the Cow Level (I usually pop in to help a first timer and collect all the gems). Happy Feet forever

BTW. Thanks for the website, I have learned a lot from reading your reports. It paid off in many grins while Blazing an Extra Fast boss, while a BH paly was constantly being overrun, for example.

About the ES and getting hit: When I am getting hit, I usually drink healing potions, which keep me high on life. The problem is that I can't drink also mana potions at the same rate, because I cannot replenish my supply of them at the shop.

People may say that I should evade hits, but I find it hard to dodge lightning rays of a dozen burning souls or several bone spirits sent after me by a pack of oblivion knights. Survival from these attacks does not require Fastest Hit Recovery items, just life - and mana if you are using ES. In any case, if you wouldn't get hit in any occasion, there would be no dead characters. Some hits just land on you. And when they do, I like that my characters do well in such situations. Perhaps it is just my playing style to get hit now and then, and Nightsmoke seems to support it well.

As another poster noted, there is ONE occassion in which the normal EHP concept is useful. It is when Duriel charges at you and hits you, when you enter his chamber. However, I think that this is a situation which should have never happened in the first place. Making character design decisions on the basis of such a rare event is not very recommendable. It is like designing a character that beats Duriel with a double chance but that has double trouble with every other creature in the game.

Using Nightsmoke with a barbarian sounds like a good idea.

Regards,

Tommi

Indeed there are two different cases, which people are preparing with ES:

1) One hit kills (Duriel, Hephasto)
2) Normal combat (Hell Act IV)

Not to start a useless argue, we have to note that you are worried about the case one, while I am worried about the case two. Xin's concept PERFECTLY fits in the first case. But I wouldn't be writing this, if it worked as well in the second case too. There just isn't enough mana to go around.

In my view, the problem is that Energy Shield takes twice as much mana as it absorbs damage. That is, it wastes twice as much valuable resources (life/mana) than it would be the case without ES. The result of a high level ES is most likely that the mana of a sorc depletes too fast, if she is taking damage.

Therefore, I think that to prevent the an unnecessary high waste of resources, it would wiser to leave ES at a reasonable level (e.g. 35% or 40%). This claim is solely based on my experience and is naturally affected by my playing style: I like to cast SFs and FOs even while I'm taking some hits from ranged attackers.

Drinking mana potions is a good habit, but it is not a sustainable basis for a sorc, because mana potions cannot be bought at shops. Personally, I dislike having a inventory full of potions. I like to reserve room for valuable items I pick up.

It has been enlightening to read what other people think about ES. I hope that this thread converged to novel ideas about using Energy Shield.

Best regards,

Tommi

However... this is not the only way to play a sorceress, and not everyone shares your goals. For example, your response to Whybish. "Cast more static and less orb"? You're obviously unaware of what Whybish is doing with his character and why. Understandable, in your circumstance. Whybish isn't following your guide or advice, though. He's playing a variant. And the concept of EHP almost certainly means something very different to his build than it does to yours.

I urge you to keep two points in mind with this thread:

1) No one here is criticizing the EHP concept in the specific context in which you intended it.

2) There are other builds out there, and Energy Shield may function very differently for them. The divide does NOT fall strictly along HC/SC lines, either. IE, it is not true that every HC sorcie should be constructed as you have laid out. There's more than one way to skin a Prime Evil, and there are those not motivated toward unending long-term survival, who add specific levels of increased risk or decreased offense for a different flavor of challenge.

"Cast more static and less orb" only makes sense if you have those skills. On the other hand, if your Hardcore sorcie is fire tree only, with no static, no orb, no teleport, and no energy shield, you're going to have to fight opponents at full speed, and they WILL get much closer to you in the process. If you are playing lightning tree only, you would have static and teleport, but you would still be fighting everything at full speed, with ineffective finishers, and that COMPLETELY changes the balance of power between you and the monsters. In that situation, you're going to end up tempting -- if not by choice or design, then automatically as a function of retreat -- and you're going to be in that situation often. The costs of running energy shield there rise considerably, as near misses sap your energy shield over and over and over, crippling you when you most need mana at your disposal. The risks can exceed the rewards.

I understand that you'd never play a one-tree sorcie. Doesn't fit your goals or style. However, there is something to be said for those who opt out of the safer path and then somehow manage to survive anyway. Whybish may or may not 3dot his char, but he's having fun pursuing his own challenges.

Thus, people are examining your EHP concept as it may apply to other builds and situations. You've bent everything to surviving those occasional catastrophic moments, which pose the greatest threat to long term HC survival when played conservatively, as you laid out in your guide. It's a testament to your idea that people are looking at it in other contexts.

As for the "best sorcs", that's the same bone I had to pick with you when you first published your guide. There are no best characters or players. There is no way to compare in Diablo 2 that applies across the board. This is not chess.

Sirian's Diablo II Page

A HP-only variant sounds interesting, I'll be keen to see how such a variant can handle the low mana problem in the lower levels.

I accept that my EHP concept is meant to apply to characters who aim for maximal survivalbility, but for those who wish to sacrifice a little defense for more offense, feel free to alter the formulas as you wish to suit your own needs, such as the half-mana calculations

>As for the "best sorcs", that's the same bone I had to pick with you
>when you first published your guide. There are no best characters or
>players. There is no way to compare in Diablo 2 that applies across
>the board. This is not chess.

Hey I still have an archived copy of your "What game are you playing?" editorial on my webpage (link from a main page news item). Kinda surprised LL took it off after a week. I find it quite relevant to prevent all these HC vs SC arguments etc. :p

Xinhuan (Xinhuan_M)
USWest, Channel "D2 Singapore"

Xinhuan's Hardcore Sorceress Guide
Http://home2.pacific.net.sg/~xinhuan/hcsorc/index.html

Coming Soon: Xinhuan's Hardcore Necromancer Guide