~ Does the Bow Damage nodes affect Puncture?

To put it simply, I think Puncture's Bleed being affected by Physical/Global Damage is just as stupid as Ignite being affected by Fire/Elemental Damage. Those very same modifiers affect the base damage, and should not apply again.

Makes no sense, makes it FAR too strong, and and makes no sense that Fire Damage >>> Spell Damage to Ignite builds. Or Physical >>> Physical with Axe.

I view both Bleed and Ignite as inherent parts of the skill that caused them, and having the skill double-dip (no matter how much you dance around it) is plain silly. Ignite should do the exact same amount of damage COMPARED TO THE BASE DAMAGE for EVERYONE, exception being Burning Damage / DoT passives (which would affect that part only).

In the end this is mostly a balance issue. People keep debating semantics, but in the end what is at stake is whether certain skills should benefit so much from certain nodes.

I can relate to what CantripN is saying, and feel roughly the same about how "physical damage" nodes are benefiting both the damage and dot part of puncture. This feels like double dipping, however you describe it. I do understand what Mark is saying about it not being the pure double dipping as we have seen in the past though.

But in the end this could easily be solved (if it were a real issue), by giving those nodes 2 modifiers instead: 10% physical damage AND 10% physical dot damage, where the physical damage does not add to the dot. Same could be done for said fire damage nodes (split them in fire damage % and ignite damage %).

Same result, but clearer wording. For every player it is directly visible that those nodes would be extremely potent for certain skills/spells. You can then debate whether those nodes are too strong or not (as some are suggesting in this topic), which is a totally different discussion.

Well he said it's fine so stop whining imo

shit he even wrote a fucking essay lol

Mark went full Charan in this one :3

Shit he shut them down lol

A simple example is much easier to understand than wall of text.
For instance,
A bow with 100-100 physical damage, hit a mob with armor with 50% mitigation, 0 res.
modifiers, 30% physical added as cold from hatred. 100% bow damage, 100% physical damage, 100% increased DOT.
so initial hit = 100 * (100 + 100 + 100) /100 * 1.3 = 390 ( correct me if i'm wrong here).
initial damage dealt = 300 * 50% + 90 = 240.

For level 1 puncture, "Bleeding targets take 10% of the Physical Damage Dealt per second".
How much DOT does this mob take?

From the text, the physical damage dealt is 150. 10% of it is 15. Plus 100% dot, it is 30 damage per second. but in this way, the 100% DOT is MORE modifier, this should be wrong.
what is the correct DOT damage?

Both parties are talking past one another here. Of course, due to the stipulation that the initial hit and a DoT are totally separate entities, each component should get the relevant scaling. This is the correct conclusion given the language and math that PoE uses. The other side is arguing that they shouldn't be considered separate entities, because this makes for a poor balance situation. The DoT changes had to happen due to the existence of originary DoTs like Searing Bond and Poison Arrow, since they were totally unscalable and thus non-viable. The problem is that hit-scaled DoTs, especially ignite, were already good, so it became clear immediately that the ignite mechanic would have to be nerfed. And now we have the situation with Puncture getting assloads of applicable modifiers, some of which apply twice.

Hit-scaled DoTs should be explicitly exempted from all attacker scaling stats since they have already been scaled once through the initial hit. You can't really argue that the current DoT situation is "intuitive" when I've seen tons of people asking questions about it because they're confused as to what modifiers apply where. I've pored over the DoT patchnotes explanation and dev responses, and still despite years of playing PoE, have come to incorrect conclusions about how the mechanics work. (The example here being that conceffect applies only to the initial hit, despite area damage supposedly being "how the damage is dealt" and applying to DoT as in the case of Poison Arrow.)

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

some serious science

Hi Mark, thanks so much for taking the time to post all of this. I have a couple of related questions that are slightly tangential to this discussion that I'm wondering if you can shed some light on.

I'm currently using Chin Sol Puncture Trap, and I'm a bit confused as to how some of the relevant modifiers influence things:

1. Chin Sol does "100% more bow damage at close range". I think it's safe to assume that the initial hit from puncture counts as "Bow damage" here, but does the dot?

2. Point blank does "50% more projectile damage at close range." Again, I think it's safe to assume that the initial hit counts as "projectile damage", but does the dot?

3. When using a trap support gem, does the resulting attack count as a bow attack and a projectile or does it lose those bonuses because it's now a trap? Does the dot count as trap damage (and therefore benefit from trap damage nodes, etc.)?

Thanks in advance!

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

I think the issue comes from you seeing the puncture hit damage and the puncture bleed damage as less separate than they actually are.

Yes, this is precisely the case. I look at the Puncture gem and see "of the Physical Damage Dealt" as the source for the bleed damage and largely assume that the only way to scale that bleed damage is through increasing physical attack damage or investing specifically in DoT nodes. I do not think that I would ever naturally consider that "increased physical damage" could actually increase Puncture's debuff separately from Puncture itself, particularly because the debuff already scales with physical attack damage.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Under your theoretical system (if I understand you correctly) ignite isn't affected by "increased fire damage" - despite clearly being fire damage, and still being affected by the enemy's fire resistance. I don't, personally, see this as better or more intuitive at all.

I will admit that I am largely ignorant in the specific mechanics territory. However, I perceive Ignite to be a state change, where something goes from not burning to burning, and I would expect that more Fire damage means a better chance to induce this state change onto enemies.

Ok, clearly Ignite is a Status Ailment and I generally confuse it with Burning. My comments on Ignite and Burn thus far assume that Ignite is just a status "change" and that Burn is the Fire Status Ailment, and both assumptions are incorrect ...

Now I have to sort out why the hell Ignite is the Status Ailment while Burning is a Fire debuff, even though when you Ignite you Burn, and Burning is more of a temporal ailment than Ignite, if one takes Ignite literally at its face value of "to cause to burn" -- ignition is the spark and the fire taking, burning is the temporal effect. Tis quite confusing to me how both Ignite and Burn are separate? "damage over time" effects :x

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

How do you propose for it to be clear to a player that "increased physical damage" with no other qualifiers doesn't apply to something that's explicitly labelled as being physical damage and treated as such in all other respects?

In the particular case of Puncture, because it is an attack, and "increased phys damage" already improves that attack, and the stronger the attack the more bleed damage dealt, it is unnecessary to apply "increased phys damage" directly to the bleed damage. If the bleed damage did not already scale with the initial hit damage of Puncture, then I don't think this interaction would matter. I could understand that a general physical degen might benefit from increased phys damage, but the bleed from Puncture is not general like the "increased phys damage" nodes. The bleed from Puncture is specific and scales with the attack damage of Puncture. Just my 2c.

Thank you Mark for taking the time to respond here so significantly!!