Starkonja's Head wording
|
You're talking about increased damage from a piece of armour, Mark. Of course we're going to assume it means increased damage dealt -- armour is meant to reduce damage taken, not increase it.
But when you use the opposite wording, 'reduced damage', on armour...I'm sorry, I'm just not going to think that the same rule is in play and that this automatically means my damage is reduced. I think it terribly unfair to use two relatively obscure uniques as precedents for wording here. I'd like to say that it's just me and my weird logic and interpretation, but this thread's existence proves otherwise. It could also be the 'when on low life' clause. People see that and perhaps immediately assume it'll be a buff, not a detriment. Either way, I admit to reading this case as damage taken, not damage dealt. If I like a game, it'll either be amazing later or awful forever. There's no in-between.
I am Path of Exile's biggest whale. Period. |
|
|
I read it as reduced damage dealt, but only because I'm extremely familiar with playing with Redbeaks and the nomenclature of the game in general. I also saw the thematic reason for it: you get low on life, you do less damage and get very evasive (presumably to escape).
|
|
" I can dig that. :) If I like a game, it'll either be amazing later or awful forever. There's no in-between.
I am Path of Exile's biggest whale. Period. |
|
|
I usually take the time to read the stats on uniques carefully, because sometimes the benefit of a unique isn't immediately apparent until you carefully read all its modifiers and try to envision when/how those modifiers would be useful.
Despite carefully reading the modifiers on Starkonja's Head, I too misunderstood it as "50% reduced damage taken when on low life" even though it's not actually worded that way. For some reason it's just automatically what comes to mind when you read it. |
|
" I agree with the sentiment that reducing damage aligns with being on an armor piece. The exact same wording on a weapon would make it obvious what the effects are. |
|
" I understand your reasoning. First I have to thank you for committing so much to explaining game mechanisms. Many developers never go this far. The problem is, in my opinion, that new players often won't read the mechanics forum thread, so they will have to resort to guesswork, trial-and-error and explanations of other players. I would prefer clearer terms, which are obvious at first read instead of it being a bit shorter, but I understand a balance is had to be had. I suggest you could also put in short lined but clearer explanations of mechanisms and/or exact numbers into the loading screen tips. Probably ramped up in frequency as the player higher in level. I'm thinking along things like "Burning deals an additional 4/3 of the original damage over 4 seconds". But that's just my opinion. It's hard to phrase these things short, clear and throughout. |
|
"Then we're getting somewhere - it's not the fact that it's a damage modifier on armour, it's the fact that it's a negative damage modifier on armour. We're closer to an understanding of the problem. "I was using them not as precedent but as a counterargument to the 'it's on an armour, therefore affects damage taken' argument, which clearly wasn't the whole story. This prompting has gotten us to the point where it's revealed that the fact it's a negative modifier is important to why some people interpret this wrong. I don't see how it's 'unfair' for me to put forward and example in order to understand why some people interpret this case differently from the other, equivalent cases. For the record, nothing will ever be intuitive to everyone. People will interpret things differently. It's clear we've got more people interpreting this wrong, and it being a negative modifier on an amrour piece seems to be part of that. It may be that the fact it's a generic "damage" modifier, not a specific one like physical damage also plays a apart for some people, I don't know yet. It's also true that several people have interpreted it correctly. It's not universally confusing. Changing only this case to explicitly specify 'dealt' will cause a lot of confusion, as pointed out in my previous post. Every time something like this happens, that confusion is caused, and we try to avoid it where possible. But sometimes the extra specification in some cases is worth it - such as Serpent Stance specifying 'global critical strike chance' when 'global' is out-of-place with regard to how such things are usually described, but was added since otherwise people might not notice it was crit change while holding staves, not crit change with staves. It's to early to say yet whether this is such a case. Adding 'dealt' to every damage modifier in the game I can almost guarantee will not happen. Adding another word to every instance of one of the most common modifiers in the game, some of which already have long lines, will basically never make it past Chris and Erik. | |
|
On the topic at hand, I Found the tool tip pretty clear.
I'm curious as to whether the increased global evasion works with Iron Reflexes. Anyone test that out yet? IGN listIess Last edited by listIess#3096 on Mar 13, 2013, 11:00:52 PM
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't endorse changing just one instance.
It's not as though this would be the first time precise, to-the-letter wording has confused players. Increased isn't the same as More? Whaaaat? But we all learn soon enough. I am sure that'll be the case with this item as well. If only because people will make threads about it. If I like a game, it'll either be amazing later or awful forever. There's no in-between.
I am Path of Exile's biggest whale. Period. |
|
"It should. If it doesn't. I'm gonna be in trouble. EDIT: It's definitely in the calculation for converted evasion, so in theory it applies, barring some odd bug in the maths/logic that applies it. Last edited by Mark_GGG#0000 on Mar 13, 2013, 11:17:07 PM
|
