Spell Damage + CoE + HoA interaction

No.
Just... no.


You overkill for X Damage. Herald uses that as its Base Damage over Time, and multiplies it with any applicable modifier (Increased Fire/Elemental/DoT/Burning, plus whatever subtypes carry over from the killing blow). All Damage modifiers are applied in a single step - that is why all sources of Increased and Reduced Damage are additive.

Burning Damage cannot ever benefit directly from Spell Damage, because Burning Damage is Damage over Time, and thus cannot ever be Spell Damage in any shape or form. There is no point in twisting Mark's words to make it a bizarre theoretical possibility, because we already know it doesn't apply.
"
Vipermagi wrote:

The wiki is flatout wrong when it says Spell Damage multiplies Ignite. It's an unofficial source, and tbh it's wrong with fair frequency. This is one such case.
EDIT: and no longer.


"

(cur | prev) 09:02, 6 September 2014‎ InsomniacViper (Talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,101 bytes) (-36)‎ . . (Damage over Time is never Spell Damage. You can even find that info in the cited thread)


While I appreciate people trying to keep Wikis up to date, actively modifying quoted sources in an ongoing argument isn't really proper form.

"
Vipermagi wrote:

You overkill for X Damage. Herald uses that as its Base Damage over Time, and multiplies it with any applicable modifier (Increased Fire/Elemental/DoT/Burning, plus whatever subtypes carry over from the killing blow). All Damage modifiers are applied in a single step - that is why all sources of Increased and Reduced Damage are additive.

Burning Damage cannot ever benefit directly from Spell Damage, because Burning Damage is Damage over Time, and thus cannot ever be Spell Damage in any shape or form.


Yes, this is what you have been saying. I understand this perfectly. What I'm lacking is either an explicit source or a line of reasoning that starts out from, and is consistent with, all quotes that have been posted.

"
Vipermagi wrote:

There is no point in twisting Mark's words to make it a bizarre theoretical possibility


If you're referring to my earlier changing of "Minion" to "Spell", this was intended as argument by analogy. If you mean the hypothesized explanation in my previous post, it was intended as proposing an explanation that makes statements by Mark and the Wiki logically consistent. This is typically done when one's current explanation doesn't seem to fit all observed data, being in this case the aforementioned quotes.

"
Vipermagi wrote:

because we already know it doesn't apply.


Begging the question much?


.
.
.

Sorry, I notice I'm starting to get pedantic :/ I'll try to get some attention from GGG staff to see if they're able to clarify this in this thread, not sure if this discussion is going anywhere otherwise.
what is your point?

do you want us to explain to you how it works?
we already did it several times

do you want to make us believe your theory?
not gonna happen cause we know for sure how it works

edit: or do you want Mark_GGG to waste his time confirming what we have said?
IGN: Eric_Lindros
CET: Timezone
Last edited by Ludvator on Sep 6, 2014, 6:04:26 AM
"
Ludvator wrote:
what is your point?

My point is that your arguments aren't consistent with all the information that is available.

"
Ludvator wrote:

do you want us to explain to you how it works?
we already did it several times

Well, you explained how you believe it works. Since unofficial sources, like the Wiki, are apparently not a valid source of information, the same could equally be said about everything you posted.

"
Ludvator wrote:

do you want to make us believe your theory?
not gonna happen cause we know for sure how it works

No, I really don't care what you believe. That doesn't mean I don't care for the reason you have for believing what you do. If that reason is compelling, it should convince me.

"
Ludvator wrote:

edit: or do you want Mark_GGG to waste his time confirming what we have said?

Seriously? Trying to shame me into not trying to find a better source? I.. what?
"
acme_myst wrote:
"
Ludvator wrote:
what is your point?

My point is that your arguments aren't consistent with all the information that is available.

Mark literally said that Spell/Attack Damage cannot apply to Damage over Time. He never said anything otherwise, either. I don't see why you still refuse to believe this.

"
acme_myst wrote:
If you're referring to my earlier changing of "Minion" to "Spell", this was intended as argument by analogy

And it's a completely pointless and moot argument because Minion Damage and Spell Damage are not interchangable.


Both of these points are covered in just a single quote:
"4) Damage over time. Not affected by spell or attack modifiers (because it's a separate class of damage), but anything that cares about the type of damage (fire, elemental, chaos, etc), or what deals it (trap, minion) will apply."

Spell Damage does not apply, Minion Damage can. He mentions both modifiers in different contexts because they are non-interchangable. Done. There is nothing more to it.
Last edited by Vipermagi on Sep 6, 2014, 6:44:19 AM
and this is not some tricky or advanced or complicated mechanics

four base damage types (attack, spell, DoT, secondary) cant support each other. It is a basic simple rule, period. CoE is the only exception
IGN: Eric_Lindros
CET: Timezone
Spell Damage is a method of dealing damage. There are, as has already been pointed out, four of these: Spell Damage, Attack Damage, Damage Over Time and Secondary Damage. All damage dealt is in one (and only one) of these categories.

From the 1.0.2 Patch Notes (I've bolded the important parts):
"
Qarl wrote:
  • Generic modifiers to damage dealt will now apply to damage over time that your character causes. Damage over time is not spell damage, nor attack damage, so modifiers specific to those types will not apply. Non-specific "increased damage" modifiers will apply to damage over time.


Minion Damage is not a method of dealing damage. It's a generic modifier ("increased damage" with no specifiers), that is applied to your minions.
A spell is something you're doing that might cause damage. A minion is a separate entity in the world that does it's own things that might do damage (and may or may not be spells). These two are NOT interchangeable in the way you're trying to do - the entity which has dealt the damage (minion/you) and the way that entity dealt the damage (any/spell) are different concepts.

The confusion, I believe, stems from the fact that in English, if you cast a spell on me and it hurts me, it would be equally valid for me to say "You damaged me with that spell" or "your spell damaged me" - and thus in general conversation we commonly talk about damage being dealt "by" the spell when in fact it was dealt by the player, using the spell as a means to deal it.
I'm going to try to be more exact in this post, but this inherent ambiguity means that any other quote you read on the forums may well be referring to the spell as "dealing" damage, simply because that's more understandable than referring to the player dealing damage with the spell, and in the original context, there was little or no room for misunderstnading. Taking those quotes out of context and comparing them to others which refer to the entity which actually dealt the damage and not how they did it could lead to confusion, as I believe it has here.

So to go back to your edit of my quote:
"
acme_myst wrote:
The ignite is fire damage over time dealt by a minion(spell). That's a subset of damage dealt by a minion(spell), and thus minion(spell) damage applies.
This is wrong. Here's the correct expansion - the underlined bits are, like in your example, what you'd swap in for the spell case; the bold bits were added to give them something to swap for, as the relevant parts were irrelevant in the context of the original quote and thus skipped.
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
The ignite is fire damage over time(which is not spell damage) dealt by a minion. That's (not) a subset of damage dealt in any way(spell) by a minion, and thus minion non-specific/generic(spell) damage applies (does not apply).

In case that was confusing, I've provided the two versions separately in the spoiler
Spoiler
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
The ignite is fire damage over time dealt by a minion. That's a subset of damage dealt (in any way) by a minion, and thus minion (non-specific/generic) damage applies.


"
Mark_GGG wrote:
The ignite is fire damage over time - which is not spell damage - dealt by a minion. That's not a subset of spell damage dealt by a minion, and thus minion spell damage does not apply.

The equivalent of "minion damage" is not "spell damage", it's "player damage" or "your damage" which in game is just referred to as "damage" - which is not specific to spells (or attacks or any of the other categories) so applies to any damage you deal, including damage over time, just like "minion damage" is a modifier to all damage the minion deals with it's spells/attacks/etc.
If you gave a minion "increased spell damage" (which can be done easily with Necromantic aegis). It would only apply to spell damage the minion deals, and thus not to any ignites caused by it, since they're damage over time.

Spell damage is a modifier to one way you can deal damage, and explicitly not to other ways you can deal damage. Minion damage is not - it's a modifier to any damage, regardless of how it's dealt, dealt by a separate entity (the minion).

For the record, In my experience, if Vipermagi says something different to the wiki, The wiki is more likely to be in error. Vipermagi is certainly not infallible, but tends to be more up to date and more able to understand in new knowledge from patch notes in light of previously known knowledge than the wiki.
Last edited by Mark_GGG on Sep 6, 2014, 11:21:27 PM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info