Overcharged Detonation node description: change "no pierce" to "no pass through"

On Static Orb skill, Overcharged Detonation node: the description “no pierce” doesn’t make sense. It implies the skill normally does pierce damage (it doesn’t). It would make more sense if it said “no pass through enemies”.

It makes perfect sense. The word “pierce” has a very long history in games of meaning exactly what you said - passing through enemies. Because that’s what the word “pierce” means.

There’s no such thing as “pierce damage”. How could it imply that it’s dealing a type of damage that doesn’t exist?

2 Likes

The word “pierce” has a very long history in games of meaning pierce damage, pretty much ever since dungeons and dragons. Pierce often refers to armor penetration. You make exactly my point, the skill description refers to something that doesn’t exist in this game. We shall have to agree to disagree.

In every aRPG ive ever played pierce means projectiles pierce through the target and keep moving past them. Penetration and pierce both exist in this game actually not sure what you are talking about.

1 Like

I assume its because they are making an assumption about a thing based on what it is in a different genre. Pierce damage is a thing in tabletop games and games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous. aRPGs like the Diablo franchise and Path of Exile use “pierce” to mean it pierces through enemies to hit things behind them.

Static Orb: “Casts an orb in a target direction that deals lightning damage and pulls enemies that it hits towards it as it travels. At the end of its path it discharges, dealing lightning damage to enemies around it.”

There’s no pierce of any kind in the skill description, or in how it’s animated. Static electricity doesn’t go through things, it goes around them. So neither pierce nor pass through is an accurate description. So I change my suggestion is to just say “pass” instead of “pierce”. It’s not a projectile like an arrow or an ice shard. It’s nit-picky, but it spoils the immersion to describe like projectiles, which are totally different. If I throw a bucket of water or acid at you and some of it hits the guy behind you, I don’t call it piercing. Why bother making cool animations for different skills and then describe them all the same way? If I wanted pierce, I’d get a bow or a spear. It’s just a suggestion, not a big deal.

And how does a magicly created projectile work that deals damage to something? I can’t tell because magic isn’t a thing ^^.

If Enemys are close enough the orb travels through them and pushes others back the whole skill is build arround the possibility to travel through enemys without any node investment. To me it makes total sence.
I get your point but that’s a bit to nit-picky like in “bruuuh it’s a SpellBLADE put that hammer away!”.

1 Like

No, it doesn’t. Nowhere in the skill description does it refer to “Pierce Damage”. You incorrectly assumed - apropos of nothing - that the word “damage” is implied and intended to follow the word “pierce”, which is not only nonsensical but in direct defiance of the full description of the node immediately above the words “No Pierce”, which reads:

Static Orb explodes on hit rather than piercing enemies.

Did you think that sentence meant that Static Orb stops dealing piercing damage and starts exploding on hit? Surely not, because not only would that whole concept be total nonsense but using that sentence to convey it would be insane.

Static electricity cannot be hurled from your hands in the form of an orb which then explodes at a location of your choosing. This is nothing more than pedantry.

Anything that moves through the air is generally referred to as a projectile. Because that is what the word “projectile” means. Again, you are simply being pedantic, not making an intelligent argument.

Fortunately, the fictional magic spell Static Orb does not involve pouring electricity into a bucket and throwing it at an enemy.

Why refer to the same concepts and behavior across multiple skills using common terminology? Is that a serious question? Perhaps you would benefit from reading up on the concept of “nomenclature”: Nomenclature - Wikipedia

For a myriad of reasons, you read and interpreted the shorthand completely wrong. It happens. It’s not a big deal. But that was a you problem, and the argument that the wording should be changed to spare yourself from feeling embarrassed holds no water.

It means bullets and rokets a plane is no projectile as well as a bird isn’t aproctile while still all move trhough the air :D. I think we can see each others point of view and I think there is no reason to fire it up ^^… from all sides.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.