User talk:Onderduiker

Skie

Hiya Onderduiker!

I noticed that you reverted a few of my pages that I had deleted. I had deleted them at the time due to being somewhat unwelcome in the Basin, regarding that most basiners would rather do without my help or assistance in anything. That was not actually a vandalism, but if you feel that the pages were wanted, then do please keep them. It would probably do a lot for my self-esteem if someone finds the pages useful and enjoys them. Thanks for taking the time and effort in saving the work done here ... I greatly appreciate the things you do to keep this wiki going. Skie of Marduke 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're giving me too much credit: a few months ago I went through our Wiki just adding category tags to all content pages (including yours) so that it would be clear(er) to which game they belonged, but I don't remember reverting any blanked or deleted pages. As far as I know, your only potentially controversial contributions are your CD_Rom emulation guide and A Guide to Rushing, both of which I've seen linked for as long as I can remember (although I may have moved around those links over the years: just a few days ago I moved the link to the guide to rushing from the Basic to the new Hardcore page).

Thanks for your contributions to our Wiki: you don't always get the same feedback you do from our forums, but judging by the number of views your guides must have been appreciated (certainly, no one has taken enough offence to remove internal links to them, let alone blank or delete the pages themselves). Onderduiker 07:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to the Guildwars guide pages... I had never removed the D2 guides. I do think, though, that I should convert my Diablo Clone guide to wiki markup and put it in here... but I basically stopped playing Guildwars a long while ago. I have no idea how to even check how often a page gets viewed in here, lol! Skie of Marduke 09:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see: I don't play Guild Wars so I don't visit those forums or Wiki pages (except to add category tags), so I was unaware of any controversy or friction there. However, looking at the revision history of A Guide to Bows and Modifiers and A Guide to Combat in Guild Wars, I notice that you first blanked the pages and then reverted those yourself (my recent edits were simply to add them to the Guild Wars category).

If you decide to add your Diablo Clone guide to our Wiki, you can add a link to it to the World Event and Diablo (World Event) pages (or add the information directly to those pages if you prefer: I won't get around to adding any information myself until late this year or early next year).

There's a bar at the bottom of each page which tells you when it was last modified and how many times it's been accessed/viewed (easy to overlook on long pages unless you scroll right down to the bottom).

I noticed you blanked some pages added by vandals, but this isn't necessary: I regularly check recent changes and as an administrator I can delete those pages entirely and block the users (now that I've categorised all legitimate pages, I can use Special:UncategorizedPages to double-check in case I miss any). Unfortunately the vandalism is most likely the product of bots rather than actual people, but I can deal with it quite quickly and easily as long as I don't let it build up (a minute or two a day is no problem, 15-20 minutes once a week would be tedious). Onderduiker

Martini

Just a quick thanks for the formatting help on the D3 pages. I did look at the tables you had set up before, but didn't know how to make that formatting work with the spreadsheet that I was using for the skills info. Much thanks for the formatting and standardizing help! Martini

No problem: although I don't plan to add any content to our Diablo III section, I'm likely to chip in with formatting, navigation and categorisation. Let me know if you ever need any help. Onderduiker 09:35, 9 April 2012 (PDT)

PM waiting

Hi :) I sent you a pm on D2 boards, could you check it out? --Antitrust 15:03, 29 September 2012 (PDT)

Worked

Thanks. Naturelover (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Spear Mastery and Polearm Mastery

Apparently you've found a bug in 2.4 patch notes! They say:

• Increased base attack rating bonus to 40% (from 28%)

, which was not true in LoD. The intern working there apparently copypasted other Masteries' changes... Good catch, thanks!

No problem! Not sure why Sword, Axe and Mace Mastery start at +28% Attack Rating but Polearm, Throwing and Spear Mastery start at +30%... or why it was thought necessary to increase that to +40% (+10-12% is barely anything).

Incidentally, you can sign comments on talk pages by adding ~~~ (Onderduiker (talk)), and timestamp them as well by adding ~~~~. Onderduiker (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2024 (EDT)

Maybe that dfference was originally meant to distinguish the "advanced"/"higher tier" masteries from "basic" ones? Or to promote the use of such weapons, since they have always been niche? Assuming those 2 percentage points would make any difference...
And yeah, I forgot to sign earlier. :( Trang Oul (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2024 (EDT)

Skill formulae

Hey Onderduiker!
I've seen you added formulae to Impale. Where did you find the formula? The actual formula does not have a limit, it's simply 50 - ((110 * lvl) * (30 - 0)) / (100 * (lvl + 6)). The limit exists, at lvl=∞ it is 17, but it's not explicitly defined in the formula.
The second thing, more important, is whether we want to use "original" formulae (in case of Impale as above) or simplified ("simplified" = tidied up, not less accurate; in this case (17*lvl + 300)/(lvl + 6)?
I wanted to update all skills to D2R and wrote a util to simplify that. It can be found here.

Trang Oul (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2024 (EDT)

It's been over a decade, but I have something like the following diminishing returns formula entered in a spreadsheet:

dm(a,b) = MIN (a + ROUNDDOWN( (b - a) * ROUNDDOWN( (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ) / 100) ; b)

This is accurate for Diablo II and Lord of Destruction: its results match game values up to level 60, when maximum value b is reached (remains the same up to level 99).

Are you sure about such high levels? For example, Clay Golem slow formula, dm with params 0 and 75, if we removed the min part, reaches the value of 76 at slvl 76. And even earlier, at slvl 71, if we stick to the formula from skilldesc.txt, with only one floor division by (100 * (lvl + 6) (full formula: a + ROUNDDOWN(((b - a) * (110 * slvl)) / (100 * (slvl + 6)); 0)). Trang Oul (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (EDT)

I've just used Hero Editor to give a Necromancer level 99 Clay Golem, and its skill description in the game displays Slows Enemies: 75 percent (not 77). Moreover, there are the following discrepancies between the results of the dm formula I supplied and that in skilldesc.txt:

Level(s)	Game	dm formula	skilldesc.txt
8	46	46	47
12	54	54	55
21	63	63	64
26	66	66	67
34-35	69	69	70
47-48	72	72	73
53	73	73	74

In every case, the results of the dm formula match those of the game's skill description: skilldesc.txt is not entirely accurate, which should already be clear from how the ln formula is expressed. It makes sense to me that the skill function, rounddown( (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ), is handled and truncated separately and that there's a limit at level 60, since (110 * 60) / (60 + 6) = 6600 / 66 = 100, so a + rounddown( (b - a) * 100 / 100) = a + b - a = b. The limit may apply to the skill function instead, min( rounddown( (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ) , 100), but even if that were more technically accurate I think it's better to clearly see the maximum value (b). Onderduiker (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2024 (EDT)

Thank you for thorough analysis. I'm going to use your formula for D2R skills. Trang Oul (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

Since I don't have Diablo II: Resurrected, for Impale and Throwing Mastery I entered a and b values until the results for levels 1-20 matched those from Fandom's Impale (Diablo II) and Throwing Mastery pages (I expect those values were taken from the game rather than calculated): for Impale's attack rate and movement speed, these were a = 0 and b = 75 (for Throwing Mastery, a = 0 and b = 55 for chance to pierce, and a = 0 and b = 66 for chance not to consume quantity).

I was confused by your Impale formula until I realised it was for its durability loss, which was already there. According to Skills.txt, dur loss chance = par6-dm34, where Param6 = 50, Param3 = 0 and Param4 = 30, so:

dur loss chance = 50 - dm(0,30) = 50 - MIN (0 + ROUNDDOWN( (30 - 0) * ROUNDDOWN( (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ) / 100 ) ; 30)

In our wiki I use square brackets to indicate rounding down, and thought it might be more intuitive to express it so that minimum chance (level 60 onward) was clearer:

max(50 - [30 * [ (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ] / 100] , 20)

If your formula is derived from SkillCalc.txt (dm12 = ((110*lvl) * (b-a))/(100 * (lvl+6)) + a) then you should know that file is a simplified reference for humans rather than exactly what is used by the game (for example, look at ln12 = a+lvl*b): if you check the results against actual game values, some (even most) may match but you should also see some discrepancies due to rounding errors, and there is very definitely a limit at level 60.

I'm all for making things as simple as they can be without compromising accuracy, but it may also be useful for someone to be able to recognise the parameter values when they look at a formula. Onderduiker (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (EDT)

Oh, I always thought that square brackets are just another level, not to confuse too many round brackets (as I was taught in school: {[3 × (2 + 5)] - 4} / 2). I know that square brackets are also used to denote the integer part, but it's not very common (I'd say less common that floor ⌊x⌋ and ceiling ⌈x⌉). Good to know that you've covered the fact that D2 operates on integers rather than leaving it implicitly. This is very important when converting frames to seconds: one has to round down to integers BEFORE dividing by 25; otherwise one'd get inflated values.

If you want to make parameters recognisable, maybe we should list both the original parametrized formula (with parameters as symbols, and their values separately) and a substituted one (with numbers instead of symbols, and optionally simplified)? If the formula is, say, ((110 * lvl) * 40) / (100 * (lvl + 6)) + 30, how could I know that the params are 30 and 40, and 100 and 110 are hardcoded? Oh, actually the second param is 70, not 30. I wouldn't know anything of that, hadn't I looked in the data files to see the full, unparametrized formula.

If the formulae from skillcalc.txt are just simplified, is there any source of exact formulae? Other than deriving by experimenting with values, as this is tedious and you can never be sure if such derived formula is exact or just correct for some of the values.

Trang Oul (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2024 (EDT)

If floor ⌊x⌋ and ceiling ⌈x⌉ are more common, feel free to use them instead of square brackets. So the common diminishing returns formula could be expressed as follows:

dm12 = min (a + ⌊ (b - a) * ⌊ (110 * slvl) / (slvl + 6) ⌋ / 100 ⌋ ; b)

Parameters don't need to be recognisable to everyone, just to those like us who are familiar with the formulae so it's easier to check. When you changed the Blaze formula to (109*slvl + 60)/(5*slvl + 30), I recognised it as still being a dm formula (auralencalc: dm12 in Skills.txt) but I didn't see Param1 (50) or Param2 (500) anywhere, and wondered whether this had been changed in D2R: I did see the parameters in the previous formula min( (50 + [450 * [ (110*slvl) / (slvl+6) ] / 100] ) / 25 , 20) (50, 50+450 or 20*25 = 500), although that would have been even clearer if expressed as min( (50 + [450 * [ (110*slvl) / (slvl+6) ] / 100] ) , 500) / 25.

It's been over a decade since I did most work on this wiki, on a game released over a decade earlier. I don't remember ever finding a compendium for all formulae used, but the Phrozen Keep's Knowledge Base is a good place to look (Skills.txt being the most pertinent), and there should be more detail for specific skill mechanics and calculations in our wiki's Reference section links. I don't remember the origin of my dm formula, but I do remember checking it against game values for some skills (Lower Resist, for example) up to level 60 (and at level 99 using Hero Editor) and not finding any discrepancies. Most other formulae are linear in some way, much more straightforward. Onderduiker (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

⌊x⌋ and ⌈x⌉ are more intuitive (because of their shapes), but ⌊x⌋ is not the same as int(x). It is for positive values, but not for negative ones. For example ⌊-2.3⌋ = -3, but int(-2.3) = -2. Since params and values can be negative (for example Jab damage at low levels), I'd avoid using the floor notation, unless the game actually performs such an operation.

Feel free to revert my edits if you find them making the formulae less legible. Sorry for any inconvenience. :( Trang Oul (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

I've filtered the Param columns of Skills.txt for negative values, and it doesn't look like any of them are subject to truncation (Jab dmg% = ln34). Some skills like Holy Freeze use -dm (-dm34 for velocitypercent, attackrate and other_animrate), so the calculation uses non-negative parameters (Param3 = 25 and Param4 = 60) before the outcome is turned negative.

I've rolled back your edits to the Blaze page, then edited to make some minor changes, including clarifying the duration formula and removing any mention of bit rate or bit damage (not sure where those terms came from, but it's probably better to express it as 1/256 damage (per frame) for Open Wounds and cold, fire and poison damage per second). Onderduiker (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (EDT)

Skill progression tables

Currently each skill have progression tables for levels 1-10, 11-20 and so on, up to 51-60. This means 6 separate narrow tables. Or, now actually 12 tables, for skills that have been changed in D2R (such as Impale). Moreover, these level ranges are not very useful: we either put one point in a skill or max it, never anything in between.
What do you think about making the tables more condensed, 20 levels wide? That ranges would roughly correspond to early game/bare skills (1-20), mid game with items (21-40) and the very endgame minmaxed (41-60). Trang Oul (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

I've made an experimental edit on Impale page. Please look at it and please tell what do you think about it.

On my monitor, the 20 lvls would work. And on mobile, it's a bit cramped, but still ok. So from my side it would be ok. Naturelover (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

It looks fine to me as well, but that's at 1920 x 1080. I haven't checked all skills, but some will have five-figure numbers so you may have to remove separators (for example, 10,000 becomes 10000). Onderduiker (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll use wider tables then. I assume today the resolution is not an issue; no one uses screens with LoD's resolution anymore. Trang Oul (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2024 (EDT)

Apparently 1920 x 1080 is currently the most common screen resolution for laptop and desktop, but tablet and mobile are lower. You should definitely use the whole width of the page, though, unless tables only have a few relatively narrow columns: I think I only limited table widths because the most common resolutions were lower over a decade ago (not quite as low as Diablo II (640 x 480) or Lord of Destruction (800 x 600), but still). Onderduiker (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (EDT)

Do you mean e.g. width=211? We can use relative units instead, i.e. width=20%, so the page looks good regardless of the device. Trang Oul (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (EDT)

I'd use (and mostly did so myself) the relative units. That works best for all kinds of screens. Naturelover (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2024 (EDT)

Yes, I think replacing integers with percentages is a good idea. For example, Template:Levels 1-20 could have Stats column width=20% and 1-20 columns width=4%, or use other relative units if you prefer. Onderduiker (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2024 (EDT)

It seems it won't work as expected. Percentage width means a fraction of the parent element, not the entire screen. "Levels x-y" templates use Template:Number table, which defines the table itself. So 20% wide "Stat" column means 20% of the original "Number" table, which does not have the width specified, so it is as narrow as possible with its content. I've applied vw unit as a workaround. Trang Oul (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2024 (EDT)

Colour of full sets

Is there a reason why full sets are in golden, like uniques, whereas set pieces are in green? The golden doesn't really make sense to me tbh. Naturelover (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

In the game, the names of set items are in green text but the names of sets themselves are in gold text. Onderduiker (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (EDT)

Ah yes, right. Thanks. Naturelover (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (EDT)

Damage

Thanks man! I mistook it for a normal bracket, not the floor function. (Although I'm used to mark floor or ceiling functions differently ...) Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2024 (EDT)

Follow-up q: is there a help site on this wiki which shows which symbols are used in which way? E.g. that the [] is used as a floor function? Thanks, Naturelover (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

There should be a Notation link in the top left corner of every page in the Diablo II section (see Calculation section). Onderduiker (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

Excellent, thank you. I had searched for something like that, but not found it.

I do not see this notation link though. With top left you mean this part? https://postimg.cc/9zgShdJP

Edit: I'm using Firefox, might it be different for different browsers? It's the same for MS Edge though.

Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

There's no link on the Notation page itself, only the white text on dark red background in the left corner of the top navigation bar, between Diablo II and Basic: if you click on either of those page links, once you get there you can get back by clicking on Notation, which should now be a link on those pages. I use Firefox myself. Onderduiker (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

My goodness, I missed that for almost 3 years now.

Move along, nothing to see here ...

Naturelover (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

Fire Bolt

Q: Can you explain this? "However, with full synergy bonuses and skill level >46 (>47 without Meteor), Fire Bolt can apply slightly more damage to a single target while costing much less mana than an equivalent level Fire Ball." why and what about the ">47 without Meteor"? Thanks, Naturelover (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2024 (EDT)

These are the our wiki's values for Lord of Destruction, just checked against Skills.txt:

Skill	Fire Bolt	Fire Ball
Minimum slvl > 28	(27*slvl) - 648.5	(19*slvl) - 205.5
Synergy	+16%	+14%
Synergy skills	Fire Ball and Meteor	Fire Bolt and Meteor
Minimum slvl 46 (FB + Meteor)	593.5 * (1 + (16*40/100)) ~ 4391	668.5 * (1 + (14*40/100)) ~ 4412
Minimum slvl 47 (FB + Meteor)	620.5 * (1 + (16*40/100)) ~ 4591	687.5 * (1 + (14*40/100)) ~ 4537
Minimum slvl 47 (FB only)	620.5 * (1 + (16*20/100)) ~ 2606	687.5 * (1 + (14*20/100)) ~ 2612
Minimum slvl 48 (FB only)	647.5 * (1 + (16*20/100)) ~ 2719	706.5 * (1 + (14*20/100)) ~ 2684

Fire Bolt has higher EMinLev5 (54 vs 38) , EMaxLev5 (56 vs 40) and Param8 (16 vs 14) values than Fire Ball, so mathematically its damage should become greater at some point, and that's actually achievable in Lord of Destruction. Onderduiker (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2024 (EDT)

Sorry, wasn't clear enough. My issue wasn't with the trivial school math, it was with this:

"However, with full synergy bonuses and skill level >46 (>47 without Meteor),"

First it states "with full synergy bonuses" and a few words later "without Meteor" - so that contradicts each other. Without meteor is not full synergy bonus.

I was wondering if there was some deeper stuff behind it. But I guess it was just poorly written ... Naturelover (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

Thanks for your recent work but, when adding edit summaries and to this page, bear in mind who patrols those edits, and who likely created every single page you have ever worked on (albeit over a decade ago).... and compare and contrast the likes of our Fire Bolt page to Fandom's Fire Bolt (Diablo II) (limited to levels 1-20 and 25, and the latter is flat-out wrong), or the archived Fire Bolt (Diablo II) (limited to levels 1-20). Onderduiker (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

Sorry mate.

Other pages / wikis are in a sorry state, I know. Naturelover (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

No hard feelings. Diablo II was released almost a quarter of a century ago, and most wiki work didn't begin until almost a decade later, so like most old games it isn't as well-covered as you'd hope after all that time. As far as this wiki is concerned, even if I was more than 99% accurate that still leaves a lot that needs checking and revising, and I know there are plenty of other things I could have added. With the benefit of hindsight I might have contributed to another wiki instead, but Diablo: IncGamers' DiabloWiki is now read-only, Diablo Fans has been archived by Fandom, which I don't even like viewing (let alone contributing to it) despite being the most likely candidate, and I'd be more or less starting from scratch with something obscure like StrategyWiki.

So whenever I get the urge, I'll keep contributing to this wiki, although I'll most likely stick to patrolling edits as you (and Trang Oul?) work. Onderduiker (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

I stopped playing LoD shortly after Guild Wars was released in 2005. At that time there wasn't a basin wiki - or I wasn't aware of it. Adayke et. al. were amassing a boatload of info, but it was all on the forums iirc. In the very beginning, the Lurker Lounge was the place to look for answers, but ABF soon overtook it.

There's a very egotistical reason why I started editing here: I still think this was/is (one of) the best place(s) for a lot of things, there were just a few things missing.

And hindsight is 20/20. You think things thru, you plan, you consider things. Then you implement. And bang, there is something you missed. Such is life! :D Naturelover (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (EDT)

Mana damage

Here https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/index.php/Energy_Shield it states:

100 base mana damage would normally be increased to 200 in Hell after the Resist -100% penalty.

and further down:

Mana damage from Wraiths, Willowisps and Mana Burn Unique monsters (and their minions in Nightmare and Hell) can be significant enough to make it difficult to maintain ES.

So are there other sources of mana damage than the ones mentioned in the second note? Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2024 (EDT)

As far as I know, no, mana damage is only inflicted by Wraiths, Willowisps and Mana Burn Unique monsters (and their minions in Nightmare and Hell), but Finger Mages and Baal can drain mana. Onderduiker (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2024 (EDT)

Thanks! Naturelover (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2024 (EDT)

Poison damage

Hey Onderduiker,

I had a chat with someone today and they claimed that poison damage is limited to 25% of your maximum health per tick. I skimmed over the poison damage page here but didn't find that info. Do you know of this?

Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2024 (EDT)

I've never heard or read of it, or experienced it. However, assuming Poison Damage is restricted to 25% of maximum life per frame (not current life per second), after just 4 frames (0.16 second) it should still inflict 100% and kill monsters, and players should display 1 life (or be killed if that's already the case). I definitely remember killing Fallen in Hell very quickly with an envenomed Poison Dagger, but I never measured exactly how long it took. I think it could be checked with frame-by-frame video analysis, but I won't make the effort unless there's further information (and source(s)). Onderduiker (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2024 (EDT)

Source is ONE single Energy Shield sorc player who said he makes sure not to use +life or +vit, since that increaases max life and thus max poison damage he can take. Which then makes it harder for his Cure Prayer act 2 merc to keep his life up.

That's it. One single person.

Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2024 (EDT)

Immune to Magic

Hi Onderduiker, I got 2 questions: 1) 3rd comment (No Immune to Magic monster has Damage Resist > 50%, so even if DR +50% from Stone Skin results in a Unique becoming Immune to Physical this can always be removed with Decrepify or Amplify Damage.) doesn't seem to be relevant to itm from my understanding. Or am I missing something? Should it be moved to Damage Resist?

2) 2nd comment (MR +20% is applied by the Mana Burn ...): If the boss already is magic immune even w/o MB and has a 2nd immunity, the +20% MR will still applied, even though the boss does NOT have "fewer than two immunities beforehand", correct? That's what "or increasingly so" (also) implies.

Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2024 (EDT)

1) In Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (not Resurrected), if magic immunity cannot be ignored then it cannot be removed, so it's worth knowing that if you encounter a (Super) Unique monster both Immune to Physical and Magic, then its physical immunity can always be removed by Amplify Damage (DR 100% to 80%) or Decrepify (90%) so that it can be killed with physical damage instead. This is for characters who primarily inflict magic damage, so it's put on the Immune to Magic page: you can limit yourself to physical and magic damage and still kill everything if you can use AD or Decrepify. This could be added to the Immune to Physical page, but very few characters who primarily inflict physical damage have a viable means of inflicting magic damage (although Magic Arrow and Berserk come to mind, most like Blessed Hammer tend to be primary skills), and most should already be trying to use AD or Decrepify anyway.

2) "MR +20% is applied by the Mana Burn Unique bonus. If this results in MR > 99%, it is only applied if a monster has fewer than two immunities beforehand (in which case it either becomes Immune to Magic, or increasingly so)." (emphasis added)

If a monster is Immune to Magic and gets a second immunity before Mana Burn, then its magic resistance is unaffected, and if it doesn't have a second then MR increases by 20%: MR 80% increases to MR 100% (becomes Immune to Magic), and MR 100% (already Immune to Magic) becomes MR 120% (increasingly so). However, a quick check of Monster resistance.xls suggests a monster cannot become Immune to Magic in Hell, so that comment is theoretical rather than practical. Onderduiker (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2024 (EDT)

1) Understood, thanks for the explanation.

2) If a monster is Immune to Magic and gets a second immunity before Mana Burn, then its magic resistance is unaffected Oh wow, that comes as a surprise to me. I would've expected the MR to increase. Thanks for the clarification/explanation!

If I understand it correctly now, the comment is still practical, since a ItM Boss with another immunity and MB will not receive the expected MR +20%. OTOH it's not practical insofar that sunders in d2r will break it anyway, no matter how much MR the monster has and without sunders (so both LoD and d2r) there is no way to lower MR anyway.

But from a game mechanical PoV it's still interesting. :D Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2024 (EDT)

Maximum All Resist

Howdy Onderduiker,

and it's me again ... .

I checked AS and the 2 items and one set display Maximum fire/light/cold/poison resist seperately, not as one entry. I checked my d2r Guardian Angel and it's also 4 entries there, not one. I don't have a Darkglow and my Iratha Set was given away a while ago, so I cannot check them. But I think it would be more accurate to add those 2 item and 1 set to the 4 pages "Maximum L/F/C/P resist". Before I do the work I wanted to hear your opinion.

Thanks, Naturelover (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2024 (EDT)

Maximum Resist values are listed separately, both in item descriptions and files, but when all four are added then this has been changed to Maximum All Resist for convenience (the same should be true for skills: even when the description is All Resistances, in skills.txt the four resistances are listed separately). I have no objection to them being listed separately, but they should also remain on the Maximum All Resist page. Onderduiker (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (EDT)

Damage Reduced vs. C/F/L absorb

Hello, if I don't understand things incorrectly, the DR page states that any (reduced) damage is applied before the healing form absorb takes place: "Excess DR (-50) is then applied to 30 total damage, resulting in 0 (30-50 < 0) damage before up to 20 healing from +20 LA" whereas the 3 C/F/L absorb state "Healing equivalent to total cold damage absorbed is applied." followed by "Cold damage remaining after total absorbed is applied."

Could you clarify please? Thank you, Naturelover (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2024 (EDT)

It's been over a decade and I haven't played in years, but the Absorb page should hopefully clarify. Feel free to ask for further clarification if need be, but be aware that due to technical issues I can't always log in so, even though I can still view your comments, my reply may be delayed for a few days. Onderduiker (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2024 (EDT)

Forgot

I also responded here: https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Amazon_attack_speed&curid=16017&diff=67298&oldid=67297