Excuse me, I believe you mean +.5, it's not actually a real 50% unless you have no modifiers, which is almost never the case.
50% is just what it says on the box, it's a 1.5 multiplicative reduction to recovery time, I linked the
table earlier. I believe it used to be wholly additive when you did your testing in beta, was changed in 2.0 or sth.
It is "pretty stupid gameplay wise" according to what standard? There's no rule in game design that states immunity effects = bad. In fact, they are frequently used by highly successful game systems to heighten situational awareness and to force adaptation. Many strategy games make extensive use of them in order to maintain tactical diversity.
Just to use an example from another game that everyone knows - consider Starcraft. In Starcraft, you either have detection, or you get fucked in the ass by stealth units. You either have units that shoot air, or you just straight up lose to air units. You either have siege tanks as Terran, or you just straight up lose to Protoss armies. Those are all HARD counters. Yet in combination with soft counters, they laid the foundations for one of the most competitive and in-depth real time strategy games ever made.
None of the arguments against hard counters ever made much sense to me. Sure, rock paper scissors is simplistic, but it's still one of the most loved childhood games, and no one is saying that every mechanic in your game should be rock paper scissors. Used intelligently, immunity effects & hard counters in general can be one of the most effective ways to encourage situational awareness, preparation, and adaptation. In fact, it's a much bigger problem for a game to not have them, as said game will have to work that much harder to achieve the same effect.
I don't get what you're trying to argue, I agree with you completely. My point was precise, about permanent inherit immunity to lower weapon enchantment levels - that's not rock paper scissors, it's binary pass or fail, and that I can understand why
Obsidian decided against it. They went for weapon type immunites, but didn't insist upon them like BG2's golems, so they feel irrelevant.
The Starcraft comparison isn't very good though, because it predominantly hinges on soft counters that vary dramatically with the player skill involved, ie. vulture kiting micro vs zealots, dragoon/zealot demining, splitting air units vs irradiate, cloning BC Yamato vs Carriers, etc. You as a player have much more agency, because you can scout and even the success of early cheeses hinges upon minor execution from both sides.
The example you mentioned, having
no anti-air vs e.g. zerg muta switch, is almost impossible.
For instance as toss, you certainly have some templars for ground, so it's you still wipe his muta stacks if he slips up, but you'd certainly be more favored with corsairs, which you would have if you scouted the spire, player skill (difference) plays a crucial role in interactions, that's something you can't have(to such an extent) in a IE PRPG. The hardest counters ones iirc are DT/cloaked wraith vs no obs toss, but that has interaction in the form of main army gas deficit and scouting. The level of personal responsibilty/failure in sc is much higher.
Éder is not racist, btw.
I just wrote a couple of pages ago that they're rewriting the character with SJW concepts and it was expected because the writers are tumblerinas butthurt that Trump won and will be their president for the next 8 years.
I didn't even think fucking Durance was racist, he just seemed to have a chip on his shoulder against everyone.
