Damage 'types'? (Not really sure if this has been touched on by anyone else, but oh well!)

[Wilson.2486]

****I'm sure some of you other people have noticed that on the Forged weapons, next to the weapon strength, in parenthesis it says (Fire). Automatically I assume that means the weapon does...some form of Fire damage. Not exactly sure how that...affects combat at all. Anyway, my hopeful self has started hoping that maybe, for some reason, sometime in the future damage types such as fire, ice, etc...might be added to the game! Was just curious on other people's thoughts and opinions on the matter!

[Hitlit.7630]

That doesn't actually affect combat itself. If a weapon has a damage type it effects the death animation for enemies you kill. Fire, for example, makes them burst into flames upon death. And iirc, ice makes their corpse turn a pale blue as though they're frozen. Not sure why it's show on the items other than to be useful for the players, but it's simply a cosmetic system

[Wilson.2486]

Oh. Well okay! Guess that's what it's for. I will still hold onto my dream of damage types in the future!

[Oglaf.1074]

The damage types are in the game already.

 

As mentioned, it is just that they alter nothing but death animaton.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Wilson.2486" said:

> Oh. Well okay! Guess that's what it's for. I will still hold onto my dream of damage types in the future!

 

It's an interesting proposition. I doubt it'll happen in this game but it seems to me more games are adopting generic damage numbers and using other effects (cosmetic, damage application methods, secondary effects) to simulate different types of damage. Like I remember FFXI had damage types (lightning, earth, fire, water, ice, wind, light and dark along with piercing, slashing and smashing physical damage...and typeless damage I suppose is another) and you had classes that focused on exploiting or creating exploits in enemy weaknesses but FFXIV has changed to only have, I think, magic, piercing, slashing and smashing.

 

A favorite of mine was City of Heroes who had, I believe, slashing, smashing, fire, ice, energy, negative energy, psionic and toxic and they combined these typings to create various powers (like ice beams would cause cold damage but flinging a mound of ice at someone would do cold and smashing damage; energy blasts (DBZ style) would be concussive explosions of energy that would knock people around so did energy and smashing damage while something like a ray-gun attack set with deadly radiation lasers did energy and toxic DoT). People would speculate and suggest unique sets of powers to introduce in the game by combining damage typings, visuals and secondary effects (which of course would also be applicable for defensive powers as well...I believe Fire Armor could maximize resistance to fire type damage, making any kind of fire damage toward a fire armored character so ineffective, you might as well not use attacks at all).

 

I think the reason typing is becoming less and less prevalent in newer MMOs is because most players no longer use concepts like these to visualize perceived effects but rather let the game simulate the effects for them and focus on action combat. It's no longer about if you bring the right damage to the fight but how you handle yourself in the fight. In a real situation though, it would be *both* and not one or the other. Like in FFXI, if you were a warrior with a great axe and a pair of skeletons came attacking you, you might be in trouble but if you were a monk, you'd smash them to dust. In games like this, it's seen as "better" to make both situations equal. Maybe it has to do with creating a meta or whatever, to average-joe players like me, it's just variety.

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

GW1 had different damage types that did have combat effects - undead took doubled Holy damage; skeletons had higher armor against Piercing damage and lower against Bashing damage; Earth elementals had a lot higher armor against Earth damage etc. Players also had this - Warriors had extra armor against Physical while Ranger had extra against Elemental; there were upgrade components and skills that increased resistance to certain types or caused your weapon to deal a specific type.

 

I sometimes miss that here, but on the whole, given the gearing system here I think I prefer it as a purely cosmetic system.

[Khisanth.2948]

It was an interesting detail but never really found it relevant when making a build. It very occasionally came into play for very specific situations. There was also a water magic debuff that could get removed if you hit the enemy with fire damage and one of the monk henchmen's autoattack deals fire damage ...

[joneirikb.7506]

The problem with Elemental damage systems is that they create a lot of rock/scissor/paper style, which honestly isn't very interesting, especially not in an action combat system.

 

I think the current system with using conditions to emulate those elements is a better idea. A fire weapon just applies fire condition, ice weapon gives chill, etc. It creates clear ideas what each element does, and what to watch out for, each also affects gameplay more than just "fire damage", "cold damage" listed in the damage log, with some minor +5% resistance to fire damage, -1% from cold passives on the character screen. It also lets you use condition clearing as a way to actively combat it.

 

All in all, I find the existing system more engaging and interesting.

 

Didn't know about the death animations though, thanks for that!

[Hibiskus.8294]

i wonder if these effects are just for that weapon, or if they are also shown when you use that weapon as skin....and not the weapon itself...?

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

> @"Hibiskus.8294" said:

> i wonder if these effects are just for that weapon, or if they are also shown when you use that weapon as skin....and not the weapon itself...?

 

The damage type is *usually* connected to the skin, not the item itself. There are exceptions - most later weapons apparently have item-locked damage types. See more on https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage_type

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:

> > @"Hibiskus.8294" said:

> > i wonder if these effects are just for that weapon, or if they are also shown when you use that weapon as skin....and not the weapon itself...?

>

> The damage type is *usually* connected to the skin, not the item itself. There are exceptions - most later weapons apparently have item-locked damage types. See more on https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Damage_type

 

Those seem more like bugs.

[Mea.5491]

Oh please no, I hated that bs in Ragnarok Online. I needed different weapons for different mob types, it was such a pain in the Charr tail! For example a fire wepon dealt less damage against a fire enemy. It was horrible, I don't want that in GW2. No, no, no, please no!

[BrokenGlass.9356]

This would be extremely cool if there were no penalties.

 

For example, if using a fire sword on a destroyer reduced your damage.... Then that would suck.

 

But if it just counts as a regular sword in that case... Cool.

 

But the same fire sword should do extra damage against an ice elemental.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Mea.5491" said:

> Oh please no, I hated that bs in Ragnarok Online. I needed different weapons for different mob types, it was such a pain in the Charr tail! For example a fire wepon dealt less damage against a fire enemy. It was horrible, I don't want that in GW2. No, no, no, please no!

 

To be fair ... RO's system was also a mess. It only gets worst at higher tiers unless you are an archer or one of its branches.

 

As a counter example to the fire weapon dealing less damage to fire enemy, ghost damage is best against ghost type monsters. You are going to have a pretty bad time with a Holy 4 enemy unless you have access to neutral or shadow damage. :(

[Leo G.4501]

> @"BrokenGlass.9356" said:

> This would be extremely cool if there were no penalties.

>

> For example, if using a fire sword on a destroyer reduced your damage.... Then that would suck.

>

> But if it just counts as a regular sword in that case... Cool.

>

> But the same fire sword should do extra damage against an ice elemental.

 

But that's kind of the same thing. Not doing more damage is less. Homogenizing the damage is your only solution because people will never look at the scenarios they are advantaged, only at the situations they are disadvantaged and make their argument from there.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"BrokenGlass.9356" said:

> > This would be extremely cool if there were no penalties.

> >

> > For example, if using a fire sword on a destroyer reduced your damage.... Then that would suck.

> >

> > But if it just counts as a regular sword in that case... Cool.

> >

> > But the same fire sword should do extra damage against an ice elemental.

>

> But that's kind of the same thing. Not doing more damage is less. Homogenizing the damage is your only solution because people will never look at the scenarios they are advantaged, only at the situations they are disadvantaged and make their argument from there.

 

It doesn't really add much to the game and it just makes things more annoying. Having to carry 7 of each weapon would really suck. Alternatively you can have some finely tuned content to mitigate that but ANet doesn't have the attention to detail to get that done.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Wilson.2486" said:

> Oh. Well okay! Guess that's what it's for. I will still hold onto my dream of damage types in the future!

 

There are damage types in this game.. often classified as Conditions: IE: Burn, Chill, Poison, Bleed. Etc.

 

There are also some mobs that are immune to those damage types IE: Destroyrs Can't be burned, so you try to use a Burn condition on them it will say Immune.

 

I don't see that system getting expanded upon any time soon, as it seems that current mobs (forged) that should be immune to burn.. are not.

 

[Randulf.7614]

Weapon damage types in an mmo rarely work well. Usually they over complicate combat and development. It potentially could work in a game like GW2 where there is no gear treadmill, but in reality we have conditions tied to the skills of a weapon which work in its place.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"BrokenGlass.9356" said:

> This would be extremely cool if there were no penalties.

>

> For example, if using a fire sword on a destroyer reduced your damage.... Then that would suck.

>

> But if it just counts as a regular sword in that case... Cool.

>

> But the same fire sword should do extra damage against an ice elemental.

 

If you are looking to play an MMO that does this.

 

[Dungeons and Dragons Online](https://www.ddo.com/en "Dungeons and Dragons Online") does this extensively, and its a very involved system to say the least. It goes far beyond the whole basic idea of fire does not hurt fire based creatures and Ice does extra damage to them. It starts to build off other fantasy restrictions, like, you need silver to hurt werewolves, fire heals Iron Golems.

 

If you want to get into that.. DDO a great game for being 11 years old, and its' combat intense, you will be shocked that it's as old as it is with how dynamic the combat (if they had not gone and screwed with raid gear, I'd still be playing it) but, be warned, it's not care bear at all, no red circles, no easy face rolls, mobs are going to beat you, stab you, shoot you and burn you and screw you up in ways that will either make you want to fight more, or run back here for a safe spot.. and they won't give you any warning.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"BrokenGlass.9356" said:

> > > This would be extremely cool if there were no penalties.

> > >

> > > For example, if using a fire sword on a destroyer reduced your damage.... Then that would suck.

> > >

> > > But if it just counts as a regular sword in that case... Cool.

> > >

> > > But the same fire sword should do extra damage against an ice elemental.

> >

> > But that's kind of the same thing. Not doing more damage is less. Homogenizing the damage is your only solution because people will never look at the scenarios they are advantaged, only at the situations they are disadvantaged and make their argument from there.

>

> It doesn't really add much to the game and it just makes things more annoying. Having to carry 7 of each weapon would really suck. Alternatively you can have some finely tuned content to mitigate that but ANet doesn't have the attention to detail to get that done.

 

It depends what you're looking to add. Like people request adding more weapon types to the game but at the end of the day, what do those add? It's the exact same delivery system that can do whatever you want it do deliver...but at the same time every current weapon can do the exact same thing (deliver whatever purpose you might want) without needing to model and animate a new type of weapon to wield. The same goes for specializations.

 

Consider the other extreme, where GW2 only has 1 type of damage (not power vs condi, just "damage"), it might be easier to balance and DoTs and secondary effects would just be children of specific skills, how many unique flavors of character and build can you create with an extremely homogenized system like that?

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Wilson.2486" said:

> > Oh. Well okay! Guess that's what it's for. I will still hold onto my dream of damage types in the future!

>

> There are damage types in this game.. often classified as Conditions: IE: Burn, Chill, Poison, Bleed. Etc.

>

> There are also some mobs that are immune to those damage types IE: Destroyrs Can't be burned, so you try to use a Burn condition on them it will say Immune.

>

> I don't see that system getting expanded upon any time soon, as it seems that current mobs (forged) that should be immune to burn.. are not.

>

 

The destroyer thing seems more like left over cruft from GW1 the devs forgot to fix. It made sense in GW1 since the tradeoff of that immunity is vulnerability to cold damage.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> The problem with Elemental damage systems is that they create a lot of rock/scissor/paper style, which honestly isn't very interesting, especially not in an action combat system.

They also cause issues where entire weapon/skill types are severely hindered by the sort of foes you're facing, if not actively useless. This was a huge pain in GW1, especially when it came to non-fleshy enemies, and you can still see remnants of it in GW2 with the handful of enemies that are immune to various conditions (destroyers, dredge, hylek, etc).

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > The problem with Elemental damage systems is that they create a lot of rock/scissor/paper style, which honestly isn't very interesting, especially not in an action combat system.

> They also cause issues where entire weapon/skill types are severely hindered by the sort of foes you're facing, if not actively useless. This was a huge pain in GW1, especially when it came to non-fleshy enemies, and you can still see remnants of it in GW2 with the handful of enemies that are immune to various conditions (destroyers, dredge, hylek, etc).

 

And what about those situations with fleshy enemies or where you could otherwise have an advantage?

[Oglaf.1074]

As much as I like the complexity (old school DnD nerd here), I feel GW2 is better off without it.

 

More streamlined.

 

Also, speaking of DnD: imagine of GW2 had enemies immune to "normal" weapons like DnD has. Like, you could only harm them with an Ascended or better weapon equipped. Hehe...

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> As much as I like the complexity (old school DnD nerd here), I feel GW2 is better off without it.

>

> More streamlined.

>

> Also, speaking of DnD: imagine of GW2 had enemies immune to "normal" weapons like DnD has. Like, you could only harm them with an Ascended or better weapon equipped. Hehe...

 

That kind of already exists, except it's more like "This foe cannot be harmed unless you perform some extra task to temporarily make the foe vulnerable".