File talk:DamageTypeTree.png

Nice tree
Too bad some information is wrong. Holy damage isn't always armor-ignoring, consider Judge's Insight (though that is believed to be anomalous). Chaos damage definitely isn't armor ignoring. There just isn't an armor with extra armor against it, but a warrior with Gladiator's Armor would still have 80 AL against it. If Chaos damage was armor ignoring, every Mesmer Cane available would ignore armor. &mdash; Galil  13:41, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Added; also, I don't believe Heart of Holy Flame is armor ignoring. Only the initial damage. &mdash; Galil  13:43, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * um, not quite as good as the last. ESP since it is currently believed no damage type is armor ignoring, holy/light and dark/shadow are believed to be the same type with different names, and life stealing is not damage at all. good effort thou. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:47, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While I agree that the game probably did not code the mechanics as "Check damage type -> determine if it ignores armor", I do believe that whether damage ignores armor is supposed to correspond with the damage type (but just have to be coded in for each skill). And no one has ever come up with a good reason of why holy/light and dark/shadow get different names.  The religious reason cited simply makes no sense, at least for the version I have heard. - 14:40, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Besides, it matches the way the article currently works... - 14:43, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Per GW:IMAGE, I believe that this should be loaded in .jpg format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:54, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i'm a bit more concerned about the content. i'll upload mine and you can compare.
 * [[Image:Damage-sarah.jpg]]
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

still wrong
this image is still wrong and is still linked by Damage type. what to do? --Honorable Sarah 17:40, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I personally consider it as a visual aid to the text. The text is sufficiently correct that I do not mind the inaccuracies of the graphical simplfication. - 05:32, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That's a pretty poor reason not to change it to a more accurate and true version. It has been said that images say more than 1,000 words, which also means if people see an image describing the information they want, they skip the text since, who wants to read 1,000 words when looking at an image is enough? That's why IKEA doesn't even have text in their construction manuals (that and the fact they sell the same furniture globally) since the images are enough. That's also one of the first thing you learn when studying marketing or media communications.
 * With that said, I vote for an accurate one. &mdash; Galil  19:07, 23 August 2006 (CDT)