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.
|Physical Static Reduction||-||-||-|
* Can easily be doubled ** Passives can be taken to allow this to apply to some portion of spells
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 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....
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)
- 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)
This statement on the page may be incorrect:
"Keywords that are based on damage types are dynamic based on the damage types that a hit consists of. For example, supporting Incinerate with Added Chaos Damage Support effectively causes all hits dealt by that skill to have the Chaos damage keyword."
based on this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/6xt6do/does_herald_of_ash_make_all_affected_attacks/
- Yeah, it's all wrong, the whole page. That's why there is a cleanup badge at the top. Firstly the term 'keywords' is very broad and includes all names of mechanics, generally everything that is capitalized in the game (except proper names obviously). Secondly these are not keywords, they are called 'gem tags', and a bit separate concept from keywords (at least as I understand it). There is a huge misconception in the community on interactions between gem tags, supports and mods; Mark has explained it many times already but it's going to take some time to find his explanations.
- gem tags are only for mods such as +X to Level of Socketed Fire Gems ('Fire' is a gem tag here)
- if a support gem has any effects on stats of an active skill, it will support it regardless of its gem tags
- support gems do not add gem tags to active skills, there is no such thing in the game at all
- Hope it helps a bit. — thefrz — 16:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- The editor probably had increased Chaos Damage in mind when writing that statement and example. Gem tags should not be used to explain how certain stats affects skills. Feel free to improve the page, it's been on the Path of Exile Wiki:To-do list/3.0.0 for a while. --Illviljan (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)