Best builds for different hunting
- Thread starter Ergroilnin
- Start date
Summon necros can run efficiently all A85 areas on players 1 with good mf. Don't degrade them to one area.
I am for one not really sure what does make summoner nec so specially safe in comparison to other necro variants. That is almost kind of myth that is hard to go against because everyone talks about how he incredibly safe is. While that might be true for lesser geared necro where skeletons doing damage does matter, for good geared necro it shouldn't really be much of a difference in survivability between summoner and any other variant of necro.
Most popular other type of necro is poison necro. Is he really less safe than summoner? Let's see. He can have 1 point Revive and with skills from gear, he is able to summon like 12-15 revives who are pretty much unkillable from other monsters. + golem. So we talk about meat shield of 14-17 monsters all together. What does summoner have? 14-15 skeletons, golem and merc. Does he use revives too? If he does, he will indeed have better meat shield than ANY other necro variant. If not, well, his survivability should be pretty comparable to other nec variants. Difference is revives could also be ranged creeps which tend to scatter around you, instead of skeletons who are melee and attack on sight. But that is a minor drawback in comparison.
As for killing speed, they are comparable, depending on area of running. I favor poison nec in general.
But first and probably most important problem is that people usually don't use revives when playing poison necro. Why, I don't know. It is really great to have cheap and strong meatshield that keeps you safe, so why not use it? That kind of popular playing style does make people think that other necro variants are not as safe because summoner has, well, 15 skeletons while other guys have only golem and merc - just because they don't use revives. Truth is, every nec variant has meat shield of like 15 minions - if he wants to. Also block, MF and whatnot he needs. Difference is summoner nec is cheaper to build (well, not godly variant with Pride golem and whatnot). I'm actually not sure about that either, all you really need for great poison nec is Death's Web (Hoto works good to until), which is rare. You don't even need Infinity to play him efficiently (I for one don't use Infinity cause I don't bother to make Insight golems).
If I were playing him in HC, I'd play poison necro because by playing summoner here and there I haven't really notice he is any safer than poison necro. That's just me however. Mysterious are the ways of summoner necro I guess.
Most popular other type of necro is poison necro. Is he really less safe than summoner? Let's see. He can have 1 point Revive and with skills from gear, he is able to summon like 12-15 revives who are pretty much unkillable from other monsters. + golem. So we talk about meat shield of 14-17 monsters all together. What does summoner have? 14-15 skeletons, golem and merc. Does he use revives too? If he does, he will indeed have better meat shield than ANY other necro variant. If not, well, his survivability should be pretty comparable to other nec variants. Difference is revives could also be ranged creeps which tend to scatter around you, instead of skeletons who are melee and attack on sight. But that is a minor drawback in comparison.
As for killing speed, they are comparable, depending on area of running. I favor poison nec in general.
But first and probably most important problem is that people usually don't use revives when playing poison necro. Why, I don't know. It is really great to have cheap and strong meatshield that keeps you safe, so why not use it? That kind of popular playing style does make people think that other necro variants are not as safe because summoner has, well, 15 skeletons while other guys have only golem and merc - just because they don't use revives. Truth is, every nec variant has meat shield of like 15 minions - if he wants to. Also block, MF and whatnot he needs. Difference is summoner nec is cheaper to build (well, not godly variant with Pride golem and whatnot). I'm actually not sure about that either, all you really need for great poison nec is Death's Web (Hoto works good to until), which is rare. You don't even need Infinity to play him efficiently (I for one don't use Infinity cause I don't bother to make Insight golems).
If I were playing him in HC, I'd play poison necro because by playing summoner here and there I haven't really notice he is any safer than poison necro. That's just me however. Mysterious are the ways of summoner necro I guess.
Gripphon, u the man when it comes to SP D2 LOD + wateva. I won't argue wit dat. But when it comes down to SC vs. HC I have to make a stand. Sure, I wud luv to participate in ur MF tourneys, etc .... but when its HC, death is not an option. And so MFing becomes secondary to surviving.
One question: do u have a Guardian? (This is by no means a dig at u Gripphon)
One question: do u have a Guardian? (This is by no means a dig at u Gripphon)
I'd like to get back to the point in which I compare two necro builds stating that I don't see where is that much of a difference in survival. HC or SC, I talk about both, and am focusing at playing style where you MUSTN'T die, ergo HC. For that case I ask what is difference between summoner nec and revival poison nec, that is all. That does not mean there is no difference, I'm just saying I don't see it (their survivabilities are comparable etc) and would like someone to point it out.
I don't have a guardian, but then again, probably 30% of my SC characters haven't defeat Baal either (I simply don't care about it, I do it mostly when I need to level up doing Baal waves). As for necro builds, most of my necs didn't ever defeat hell Baal. Interesting indeed. Usually last thing I do with nec is do socket quest on hell and don't go any further (well, I didn't collect Anya quest with last two Pit necros I think cause lolresists there). I'm too lazy to check, but I think I have ancient quest still available for most necros lol. I simply get to the Pit and stay there till level 96 (well, I do quests to get skills and stats though, cannot miss that nice bonus). My nec playing is limited to Pit, CS, random AT, I do have cow level nec though, I'm also doing various testing with them.
As for HC playing, I have LK sorc, AT sorc and Travincal barb. Since I don't have CtA, I don't go further with sorcs and AT is not a cakewalk at this point either. So, from that point of view, I'm not the guy to compare HC and SC, but talking from perspective of surviability what I've seen in SC (I don't want to die, you know), I compare the builds. Biggest difference would be in HC I wouldn't play so aggressively like I do in SC where I telestomp bosses with nec and such.
Will I guardian something or not, don't know. Chances are I might build more characters in HC and never guardian them cause I do it only if I need to kill Baal for experience. More or less.
<---- dedicated "don't play diablo how it was intended to" guy
EDIT
Just counted good geared high level characters in SC who defeated and didn't defeat Baal I have and use. It is 16:9 in ratio, meaning I have 36% high level characters in SC that never defeated Baal that I actually use for various things. That rises to 50% if I count low level dueling characters, but that wouldn't be fair now would it. So, I underestimated number of SC chars that didn't defeat Baal. There are even assassins and sorcs among them lol which I didn't expect.
I don't have a guardian, but then again, probably 30% of my SC characters haven't defeat Baal either (I simply don't care about it, I do it mostly when I need to level up doing Baal waves). As for necro builds, most of my necs didn't ever defeat hell Baal. Interesting indeed. Usually last thing I do with nec is do socket quest on hell and don't go any further (well, I didn't collect Anya quest with last two Pit necros I think cause lolresists there). I'm too lazy to check, but I think I have ancient quest still available for most necros lol. I simply get to the Pit and stay there till level 96 (well, I do quests to get skills and stats though, cannot miss that nice bonus). My nec playing is limited to Pit, CS, random AT, I do have cow level nec though, I'm also doing various testing with them.
As for HC playing, I have LK sorc, AT sorc and Travincal barb. Since I don't have CtA, I don't go further with sorcs and AT is not a cakewalk at this point either. So, from that point of view, I'm not the guy to compare HC and SC, but talking from perspective of surviability what I've seen in SC (I don't want to die, you know), I compare the builds. Biggest difference would be in HC I wouldn't play so aggressively like I do in SC where I telestomp bosses with nec and such.
Will I guardian something or not, don't know. Chances are I might build more characters in HC and never guardian them cause I do it only if I need to kill Baal for experience. More or less.
<---- dedicated "don't play diablo how it was intended to" guy
EDIT
Just counted good geared high level characters in SC who defeated and didn't defeat Baal I have and use. It is 16:9 in ratio, meaning I have 36% high level characters in SC that never defeated Baal that I actually use for various things. That rises to 50% if I count low level dueling characters, but that wouldn't be fair now would it. So, I underestimated number of SC chars that didn't defeat Baal. There are even assassins and sorcs among them lol which I didn't expect.
Last edited:
maareek
Member
I'm probably going to muck up this explanation and look like an ass, but I'm quite certain of the point I'm about to make and how germane it is here, so I'm gonna give it a go anyway.
There's a common mistake of construing the way each of us individually plays Diablo 2 as the way Diablo 2 is played, instead of recognizing it as our own approach which falls within the overall much larger scope of available options. I'm fairly sure everybody has done this at some point - I know for a fact I have and I've seen others do so - but everybody being wrong doesn't make wrong not wrong. Diablo 2 is always Diablo 2. Hardcore Diablo 2 and Softcore Diablo 2 are the exact same game. Exactly the same game, in every regard. The reason people deem them different is the sole change in anything (which occurs in the manner of a character mechanic and not an explicit gameplay mechanic) is because most people adjust their play styles between them, but the underlying engine and all interactions are utterly identical.
You might rightfully point out that the last paragraph was pointless and pedantic because everyone knows what I just said, but the point I'm trying to make out is making explicit seeing the forest for the trees. If you think Hardcore play is different than Softcore play it's because you choose to think of it differently and/or play it differently. There exists no reason whatsoever for a Hardcore character to be less efficient than a Softcore character unless there also exists a delta in player skill between the specimens.
Again, plainly stated that idea seems obvious, but it serves to reinforce the following and bring the focus of the necessary mentality on this simple point: play efficiency is a nearly direct function (excepting only for outliers of lucky item acquisitions) of play skill with the corrollary of a sufficiently skilled player can have maximal efficiency (for their abilities; I don't presume any human has actual maximal efficiency) irrespective of HC/SC status.
Let us examine that idea by looking at some hardcore players. Here's a Hardcore hammerdin. It's from a few years ago and I'm sure Corrupted would tell you he could outperform that now, but it's still quite efficient CS experience running regardless though the thread gives an even more striking view of how efficient a HC player can be. Likewise this video of Gripphon's HC Travincal barb shows him averaging runtimes equal to the mean runtimes (honestly, actually slightly faster) for Softcore Travbarbs despite having a pretty poor map and worse gear than most SC barbs have. We can also look at the Hall of Records and extrapolate from there, though unfortunately very very few people actually submitted results but from additional information provided in other threads and from other videos we can, for instance, put FoE's pit running times right in line with what most non-Fabian or Gripphon Pit runners are doing in SC as well as understand that Corrupted's AT runs show that even a HC player can crush the efficiency of two of the best Sorceress players the SPF has even seen, even though Nagisa and frozzzen were playing SC. Finally Grip's HC LK runner is still faster than most people run in SC and you can feel fairly certain that's despite having worse gear and without actually knowing how the maps stack up. Lastly, as much as we tease nubphis for leaving a trail of D2 corpses across Sanctuary, it's important to point out that despite playing HC and deeding something every season change or so, he was always competitive in all of his runnings, whether with his AT runner in the MFO or with a Nihlathak runner or in 1.07 Travincal.
Diablo 2 is not a particularly difficult game. Well geared characters of either HC or SC flavor will only die to either a. player error b. bugged damage (which can tie in to a and can be considered no different for factors of efficient running) or c. unusual confluences of events (the famed Conviction/Fanaticism/Might Council and the like,) all of which can be countered by play skill, hence the ability for Hardcore players to reach Guardian with a naked character or have sub-30 second average AT runtimes or reach level 99 in a timeframe that would make most SC 99ers ashamed.
So what it all boils down to is this: the apex of efficiency is completely identical for a HC or SC character. That level of efficiency requires effort and sacrifice for anyone, and if you aren't willing or able to meet those requirements, then you have to make sacrifices along the way. Everybody makes some level of sacrifice along the way, either in terms of not being willing to put in the time, accepting their skill level just isn't there, or any other obstacle in the way. Personally, I have played between 1300 and 1400 hours of Diablo 2, my median MFO finish is second place (1,1,3,5) and I won the only RFO I entered and yet I can tell you with absolute certainty that Gripphon, Fabian, frozzzen, Nagisa and Corrupted are all significantly more efficient D2 players than I am. I am only interested and willing to get to about 80-90% efficiency in terms of playing, choosing to make decisions more aimed towards what I consider fun and picking up items I want to and things like that, which I understand and accept hurt my efficiency. I could choose to blame their superior abilities on something else: each of them being younger than me, them having more math inclined brains than me, or just that Gripphon will literally always find a Tyrael's on day one of every MFO ever for always, but doing any of that would 1. rob me of an important understanding - that I always have the option to improve by choosing to adjust my mindset in relation to approaching the problem and 2. denies them the respect they deserve for the skill they have earned, because even though I have played more D2 than I wish I had, I'm well aware that each of them has played more. This understanding is even more important because it reaches even further than this single issue, for instance it makes it clear that jiansonz's mastery of tournament play is not some wizardry that blows in from the Baltic Sea to his fingertips, but instead a process of knowledge acquisition and decisions that I can also choose to partake in if I were so inclined. In other words it's my own damn fault I've abandoned every tournament character I've started, not the universe conspiring against me.
Hopefully that makes sense, and more importantly I hope that that makes the point I'm trying to make: how efficient you are is up to you; HC or SC makes no difference.
Well, yes, HC definitely has its efficiency numbers. Most important thing is to aim for that, that's all. There are certain builds which should be very comparable in both SC and HC.
SC pit singer vs HC pit singer, difference is literally in amount of mana. SC singer goes for 3k hp max and puts rest into energy for mana, HC singer would probably put all in vitality ending with 200 less mana. In efficiency part, they should be the same. No reason to be different.
SC pit zerker vs HC pit zerker, difference HC variant will have Stormshield instead of second sword, hence 150 MF less and will lose some small amount of efficiency because of that. I really think singer is the way to go in HC because in HC zerker and singer would be pretty much similar in efficiency.
HC Travincal barb would have 3.5k or 4k HP so he cannot really die, but in terms of killing speed, he and SC variant should be 99% alike, difference being in like 100 strength for damage output.
HC AT sorc is playable just like SC is, but is probably slightly slower due to playing more carefully and probably going 1 point ES to have nice shield just in case. Otherwise, they should be 90% alike. If I'm able to play one without CtA, then I don't see a problem to play one with CtA and 50% or whatever more life and mana.
CS hammerdin in HC and SC is I believe the same. I don't know what I can possibly build differently in HC than I do in SC. Blizzard sorc is similar, I'd go max block, nice defense etcetc.
Pitnec would probably have max block instead being vita, but difference should be small overall in comparison to SC brothers.
AT windy, I mean, he is like a fortress. If someone has issues playing sorc, windy definitely does not have them.
Well, I could go on. Some builds are less viable in HC, but doable. Biggest difference I see is in vitality characters who live normally in SC and in HC they are kind of risky. Maybe. But point is, almost everything is doable in HC efficiency-wise, and difference in comparison to SC shouldn't be big. I just named popular builds that are pretty much like SC counterparts.
I know, in HC you can't die. But it will happen sooner or later no matter how safe the character. All it takes is 1 in million event to kill you, which is enough for HC. For example in CS I had ridiculous death with hammerdin who had over 3k life, max block, 14k or whatever defense, I teled next to a bosspack of skeletons with curse on, started hammering and they attacked me pretty much simultaneously, possibly all the hits passed and my 3k HP (what I had that moment) I lost immediately and died. Despite that moment, I didn't really go below 2.5k life through long running there. And event like that would happen in HC too. Well yes, that is downside of HC, you have to deal with those ridiculous moments. I just wait till I do wrong tele with LK sorc and all minions hit me at once + critical or whatever to instakill me. It will happen, question is just in what year. Agreed.
SC pit singer vs HC pit singer, difference is literally in amount of mana. SC singer goes for 3k hp max and puts rest into energy for mana, HC singer would probably put all in vitality ending with 200 less mana. In efficiency part, they should be the same. No reason to be different.
SC pit zerker vs HC pit zerker, difference HC variant will have Stormshield instead of second sword, hence 150 MF less and will lose some small amount of efficiency because of that. I really think singer is the way to go in HC because in HC zerker and singer would be pretty much similar in efficiency.
HC Travincal barb would have 3.5k or 4k HP so he cannot really die, but in terms of killing speed, he and SC variant should be 99% alike, difference being in like 100 strength for damage output.
HC AT sorc is playable just like SC is, but is probably slightly slower due to playing more carefully and probably going 1 point ES to have nice shield just in case. Otherwise, they should be 90% alike. If I'm able to play one without CtA, then I don't see a problem to play one with CtA and 50% or whatever more life and mana.
CS hammerdin in HC and SC is I believe the same. I don't know what I can possibly build differently in HC than I do in SC. Blizzard sorc is similar, I'd go max block, nice defense etcetc.
Pitnec would probably have max block instead being vita, but difference should be small overall in comparison to SC brothers.
AT windy, I mean, he is like a fortress. If someone has issues playing sorc, windy definitely does not have them.
Well, I could go on. Some builds are less viable in HC, but doable. Biggest difference I see is in vitality characters who live normally in SC and in HC they are kind of risky. Maybe. But point is, almost everything is doable in HC efficiency-wise, and difference in comparison to SC shouldn't be big. I just named popular builds that are pretty much like SC counterparts.
I know, in HC you can't die. But it will happen sooner or later no matter how safe the character. All it takes is 1 in million event to kill you, which is enough for HC. For example in CS I had ridiculous death with hammerdin who had over 3k life, max block, 14k or whatever defense, I teled next to a bosspack of skeletons with curse on, started hammering and they attacked me pretty much simultaneously, possibly all the hits passed and my 3k HP (what I had that moment) I lost immediately and died. Despite that moment, I didn't really go below 2.5k life through long running there. And event like that would happen in HC too. Well yes, that is downside of HC, you have to deal with those ridiculous moments. I just wait till I do wrong tele with LK sorc and all minions hit me at once + critical or whatever to instakill me. It will happen, question is just in what year. Agreed.