STO Gamepedia 20170426 notice.jpg

Congratulations to Damixon, SFC3 and PiralDorrm, STOWiki's newest administrators.

Talk:Damage type (space)

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Antiproton bonus[edit source]

I noticed the bonus was updated to include shield penetration. Is this confirmed or available to be seen in game? As Antiproton weaponry for ground and space gameplay doesn't show such a bonus on their tooltips. --Flibby 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Page[edit source]

awesome page, I really like this. --Lem (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Lem :) Took a while to do, and a bunch of Energy Credits. --Flibby 00:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Plasma[edit source]

Plasma beams are cyan or turqoise, not emerald. Emeralds are green, like Disruptor beams. --- Mister Mistoffelees 10:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Plasma Damage Over Time[edit source]

I think it might be worth elaborating upon how plasma damage over time actually works, perhaps in the notes. Specifically, the effect is non-stacking, but if a target is already suffering an effect, will subsequent ones extend or replace the existing effect, or are they ignored? What if an effect is stronger than the existing one, for example the effect from a torpedo or a critical hit? I don't know how these work and I expect others don't either, so it might be nice to see it elaborated upon. -- Haravikk 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kinetic Damage Reduction Against Shields[edit source]

No where in the wiki is it stated how much kinetic damage is reduced against shields. I looked everywhere and the general speculation seems to be 80%, a guy named virusdancer in July 2013 did some compelling experimentation and posted it on the forums (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=804871) which shows 75% reduction but a +50% critical severity. I think that it should be posted, as to what the damage actually is. I would personally support virusdancer's analysis but if anyone else wants to experiment, I am down for that, too. The only thing is, this is the wiki. It should say.

Toxic - Borg Assimilation Nanites?[edit source]

The Assimilation Nanites that Borg occasionally use in ground combat seem to use Toxic damage to calculate their effects. On a character (Romulan Alien) with high Toxic Damage Resistance rating (+43.3 through Peak Health and Natural Immunities Personal Traits), there seemed to be no effect from the Assimilation Nanites; no DoT, no Movement Speed reduction. Should they be added as an example of Toxic Damage or does someone need to do further testing? --Turbomagnus (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Physical Damage? (a separate type or a type of exotic damage)[edit source]

I'm confused. The beginning of the article describes there are four types of damage and says that exotic damage is everything except physical, kinetic and energy. But then, later, physical damage is described within the 'Exotic Damage' category. --PiralDorrm (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well..Exotic damage does include physical (EPG boosted Physical)..There is also Exotic Kinetic and Exotic Proton. So We could created a space for Standard Physical damage like the Fluidic AP proc and Entropic Rider .Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

STO has a lot of different separate but overlapping categories of damage. For example there's Weapon damage and Exotic damage, which depends on the source. Weapon damage is then divided into Energy and Projectile; Energy into Beams and Cannons; Projectile into Torpedoes and Mines. And there's plenty of "other" damage in all those categories, such as Energy damage that isn't Beam or Cannon, like Point Defense System (energy damage boosted by weapon training and Phaser consoles, but not generic beam or cannon consoles) and so forth.
Then, a separate categorization is basically the "element" like Antiproton. Antiproton can be Energy Beam damage, or Projectile damage (Crystalline Energy Torpedo Launcher is boosted by Projectile Weapon training and Antiproton consoles), or exotic damage, all depending on its source. Physical is the same: it can be Exotic ( Anti-Time Entanglement Singularity), Mine (Nukara Web Mine Launcher), Energy Beam (Resonant Disruptor Beam Array), and so forth. So the Anti-Time Entanglement Singularity would be boosted by Exotic Particle Generators, but not the others. So I'll overhaul the opening of the article now that there's more sources of physical damage than ground melee.
In addition to all of that there are separate categories for direct damage, DoTs, attached abilities, and hazards. It's just a whole lot of overlapping stuff; I've been working on a Venn diagram that I plan to add to the wiki at some point, but whoo boy is it a lot of overlap. DanPMK (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Article split[edit source]

Should this article be split into separate ground and space pages? Since there are too many parser calls on it now, and space has a lot more things affecting damage than ground combat. DanPMK (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yea...its starting to look like it..But include a backwards link to space on the ground page and vis versa.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You could make a disambiguation pointing to Damage Type (Ground) and Damage Type (Space). And I am afraid the navigation templates alone are complicated enough to trigger the parser calls warning. --Dukedom (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I'd make it a disambig. And, as long as the errors are happening in the templates and not the page, that is acceptable to me. If we do decide to split them, I volunteer to do it myself. DanPMK (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I started Damage type (ground) (I assume we're using sentence case for article titles? like Wikipedia does). From Physical onward the page is done, but the Kinetic section is still quite barren and I need to prune the Energy section to be exclusively about ground combat. How does it look so far? DanPMK (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: I've finished the overall layout of the ground page, only really needs some updates and a little more cleanup. If it's good, I'll proceed to do the space page. DanPMK (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

So..I can do the pics for the specific energy types (the ones currently showing thips fireing stated energy type) if ya want.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For the ground types? That would be great, if it's not too much trouble. DanPMK (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pics! DanPMK (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the space article be Damage type and link to Damage type (ground), or should we move Damage type to Damage type (space) and make a brand new Damage type to be a disambiguation pointing to Damage type (ground) and Damage type (space)? DanPMK (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well...THere is a link to the ground stuff in the space page..and visa versa..But if you feel it needs a new page..dooo it.. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm for Damage type as disambiguation page, pointing to Damage type (space) and Damage type (ground). --Damixon (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All set! DanPMK (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So...I think the space page has alot of Icons..Icons are great quick refence tools...But The Exotic Damage Section probably needs its onw page.Damage type (Exotic)..But mostly just space stuff as its not as big in the ground page. WHatcha think?

I want to avoid this for as long as possible. I switched some of the equips with Template:icon2 for now. DanPMK (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You know it just occurred to me this morning that if something is boosted by EPG, it'll be on the Exotic Particle Generator page. So if it comes down to it, maybe we can just make sure the EPG page specifies the type of damage each ability does and we can just have it point users there. DanPMK (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think most of it is..But its not split into radiation or anything...Just a list of abilities modified by EPG.. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)