User talk:Savio/Damage

1. I agree that the generalization of the term attack is a bad idea. That's one part of the old article that I never finished cleaning up.

2. DScale vs DAttack. The current situations where this factor pops up there is always enough context (being a mod of the weapon, or saying "in combat" in skill description) to understand them to apply to actual combat attack only. Thus to keep things flexible for furture possibility, I'd like to stay away from manually wording it too specifically. Campaign 3 might come out with a hex that says "Your spells deal 20% less damage", and if the stacking rules and order of operations with other modifiers are all teh same, I'd prefer to avoid modifying the article.

3. I do not see the necessity or advantage of separating attack skills from non-attack skills when doing base-damage. I see it as a demerit to unnessarily increase the complexity.

3a. Complex skill attack. It just contains a Base Damage component and a DShift component, pure and simple.

3b. Simple skill attack. It's just a Base Damage in some cases, and DShift in other cases, depending on the condition specified in the skill description, pure and simple. -PanSola 05:17, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I couldn't resist jumping into the fray with User:Stabber/Damage, which borrows much from Savio's proposal above. Let us all create our own individualized damage articles! :) &mdash; Stabber (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I remain opposed to tying the name of DSscale to weapon attacks on the grounds of being not necessary and reduction of flexibility. -PanSola 12:47, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, so that's what /Damage does. I shall move the equation and comments sometime today. All I really know how to do is "move post," "delete post," and "ban user," and anything beyond that like a wiki is far too complicated for me. -Savio 12:51, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Moved and edited a bit, especially for the Armor Effect part. Realized that I haven't done enough testing with all the various sources of armor, so I'm not going to comment on it until I do. I'm not entirely sure if the current description of the Armor Effect is correct or not. -Savio 16:46, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * You can browse the archives of Talk:Damage to see what was tested, what was inferred from other test results, and when things were tested (in case Anet secretely chaged stuff). -PanSola 18:24, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

"However, that doesn't mean I can't write a more accurate equation myself."
The equation you have currently is identical to the Damage article... ^^" what differs is description and explanation of the article.  Sorry, just picking bones d-: -PanSola 18:13, 18 April 2006 (CDT)