You know what I'm sure modern age developers miss?
Not everyone having access to the internet.
Despite what you may or may not want, or enjoy, the logical and irrefutable facts are thus:
1) The game belongs to Larian. This means they can alter or change any part of the game as they see fit. If you don't like it, please seek life elsewhere without complaining and moaning ad nauseam.
2) All games, whether they be multi player or single player, require balance. If you are using the false argument that due to being a single player game it doesn't require balance, try starting anew in ANY game, cheat/mod yourself to invulnerable-one-hit-kill god mode, and play the entire game from start to finish. See how far you get with no challenge or restrictions on your power curve. Balance is an integral and essential part of any game.
3) Before you complain about alterations to the game or rule-set that don't suit you for one reason or another, consider the corollary: you get fixes and alterations to the game or rule set that DO suit you. You don't stand on a soap box and complain ad nauseam then, do you? Why not? Alterations that suit you are likely to not suit another group.
In this specific instance, players can still have resistances in excess of 100%, for limited periods of time. Being mostly resistant to specific damage types the majority of the time, and outright immune to those types on demand for short periods of time, sounds reasonable, does it not?
It might restrict a single over-used and over-efficient play style, however the system change itself expands the overall tactical game play by increasing the number of decisions and sacrifices that need to be made during battle.
Instead of (easily) gearing immunity to elemental damage, you now balance gear decisions knowing that 200% fire resistance is a waste.
Instead of face-rolling elemental encounters due to immunity, you now need to make decisions as to when to immunize against what elemental damage. Timing and tactics are more involved when you have to decide on state changes, as opposed to always being in a specific state.
TLDR :
1) The changes made have expanded the game and complexity, not made it smaller and simpler.
2) Before you post, consider the overall changes to the game as a whole : Did the change actually reduce the scope, or only seem to have reduced the scope? In this specific case, the tactical game play has actually been expanded.
Last edited by vengefire; 28/08/14 11:53 AM. Reason: excised self indulgent belittling, my apologies