Difference between revisions of "Talk:Damage"
From SpiralKnights
StuffMaker (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::I replaced the collapsable tables with showhide boxes, that use different js code and avoid the jumping to the top. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) | ::I replaced the collapsable tables with showhide boxes, that use different js code and avoid the jumping to the top. --[[User:Alfwyn|Alfwyn]] 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | ==Damage Types== | |
| + | Currently the damage tables seem to downplay the role of normal damage - almost suggesting that if you were to have armor that covers piercing, elemental, and shadow with no normal you would be covered against all attacks. When it seems in actuallity without explicit normal defense a normal attack would go right through to your health. I suggest updating the table to show all monster types as being neutral to normal damage (as well as their particular type) and show Gremlins, Constructs, and Jellies as doing Normal damage along with their type. | ||
== Can we be more quantitative? == | == Can we be more quantitative? == | ||
Revision as of 02:57, 13 August 2011
Can we change the Healing "Attacks" Section to just Healing? The "Attacks" seems sarcastic and unnecessary. Also, does anyone know how to make the "Sources of each damage" tables not reset your browser back to the top of the page whenever you open or close them? --Softspoken 02:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no harm in changing it to simply "healing" or "healing abilities". As for the collapsible tables, that seems to be an issue with MediaWiki: same problem and a solution here. An administrator would have to step in to fix it. Maget 04:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I replaced the collapsable tables with showhide boxes, that use different js code and avoid the jumping to the top. --Alfwyn 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Damage Types
Currently the damage tables seem to downplay the role of normal damage - almost suggesting that if you were to have armor that covers piercing, elemental, and shadow with no normal you would be covered against all attacks. When it seems in actuallity without explicit normal defense a normal attack would go right through to your health. I suggest updating the table to show all monster types as being neutral to normal damage (as well as their particular type) and show Gremlins, Constructs, and Jellies as doing Normal damage along with their type.
Can we be more quantitative?
In looking at the page today, I noticed that there are no solid numbers explaining what "resistant to" or "weak against" really means in terms of damage. Likewise, there's no numbers for "low/medium/high" bonus damage. If we could quantify these things, it would go a long way towards helping people decide what weapons to use, or what unique variants are worthwhile. --Pauling 02:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to spearhead the effort. Just make sure the comparison numbers are at the exact same depth. --Equinox 12:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Sources
Would it be worthwhile to maintain a list of player sources of each damage type? If I see that Beasts are vulnerable to piercing, clicking that brings me here. It'd be neat to see a list of weapons that do piercing. --FlashbackJon 17:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Description
"Piercing damage originates from attacks designed to bypass armor." Is this explicitly canon? That it deals reduced damage to mechanical (i.e. armor) and bonus to beast and fiend (i.e. flesh), it seems rather suspect. Considering the Flourish items, it seems much more likely that "piercing" refers more to "stabbing" than "penetration".
