Most 2.6.0 are still not reflected in unique item's version history or legacy variants. Please help out if you can!

Unique weapons and armours are now shown with quality 20 by default; this will be reflected in their value calculations and in item lists.

Talk:Damage

From Path of Exile Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Damage Forms/Types and Possible Defences?

I throw this table together. I'm not exactly sure if it's useful though, so I'll put it here till I have some opinions.

A quick reference showing damage types and ways of mitigation.

Defence Form Type
Melee Projectile Spell Physical Elemental Chaos
Offsetting Life - - -
yes
yes
yes
Energy Shield - - -
yes
yes
no
Avoidance Evasion
yes
yes
*
no
**
- - -
Block
yes
yes
no
**
- - -
Reduction Armour - - -
yes
no
no
Elemental Resistances - - -
no
yes
no
Chaos Resistances - - -
no
no
yes
Physical Static Reduction - - -
yes
no
no

* Can easily be doubled ** Passives can be taken to allow this to apply to some portion of spells

-AnnanFay (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally tables are used to display information in a way that can be understood more easily. What you've done here is taken information that was already obvious and formatted it in a confusing way. I don't think this kind of table is needed or useful. —Vinifera7 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
lol, true. Thanks for the feedback :) - AnnanFay (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it could be useful. People do have trouble knowing which defence types apply to what. A perfect example of this is that some of the information in the table is wrong - there is no mechanic that allows you to evade spells. You're probably thinking of Dodging spells with phase acrobatics.
I would condense the Form columns into only Attack and Spell, and add Dodge to the avoidance rows. Armour & damage reduction could be condensed into a single row. Life probably doesn't need to be there, but there's no harm in having it there either.
I would also fill in all the blanks with ticks/crosses. That way someone looking at the table will know for sure that armour works against both spells and attacks, while evasion only works against attacks.
I think the way you show block on the table as not working on spells, and have a note there about the exception was the correct decision. — Malice (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Message to go with table: "For a defence to apply to a damage source both the form and type must have Yes.png marks."

Defence Form Type
Attack Spell Physical Elemental Chaos
Offsetting Life
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Energy Shield
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Avoidance Evasion
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Block
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Dodge
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Reduction Armour
yes
yes
yes
no
no
Elemental Resistances
yes
yes
no
yes
no
Chaos Resistances
yes
yes
no
no
yes

- AnnanFay (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Split into subpages

I think this page should only hold a summary, and otherwise be split into subpages Fire Damage, Cold Damage, Lightning Damage, Chaos Damage, and Physcial Damage. Elemental Damage could stay on here or get its own page, not sure. There is a lot more that could be put in each section (proper template for passive list, list of skills and monsters which do this type). which would make this page too long. Also, virtually every incoming link is referring to a specific element, or not referring to damage types at all. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. You can feel free to spearhead that if you'd like. —Vini (t|c) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Revamp?

I think this page is long overdue for a revamp. I feel that the way this page is set up poorly reflects the true nature of how damage is categorized in the game. There are two main groupings for how damage is categorized. For a lack of official term, let's call the first one...

"Damage category":

  • Attack
  • Spell
  • "Secondary"
  • Damage over time

Anything that is considered "damage" is necessarily in one, and only one, of these four categories. In a way this is the highest level of damage categorization. After one of these four is determined, the damage can fall into any and multiple slots of the second grouping, let's call it....

"Damage type"

  • Physical
  • Elemental
    • Fire
    • Cold
    • Lightning
  • Chaos

What makes this annoying is the amount of terms outside this categorization which are determined by combining things from the first grouping and specific actions together. For example the meaning of "melee damage" is exactly "attack damage dealt with the main/initial hit of a melee skill" and for example "trap damage" which means "attack or spell or secondary or damage over time dealt with a trapped skill". Not to mention "projectile damage" or "area damage".

Even though I've posted this comment, I quite honestly don't know how this should be handled in the wiki. Just thinking about the ways of how this could be organized makes my head explode. However, I maintain the opinion that the current version is insufficient and maybe even misleading in a way. -- Ezhiel (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the page could use a revamp. I'm also not sure how it should be handled, simply because there are so many combinations. For starters this article should be renamed to "Damage", rather than "Damage Types". Shall I go ahead with that? —Vini (t|c) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good. - Ezhiel (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I know the damage system well enough and have some kind of a general idea for how to revamp this thing now, which most importantly would include attempting to clear up the differences and connections between "damage sources" and "damage types". I've started sketching up some stuff, I'll make a sandbox for it later or something but it might take a while. — Ezhiel (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)