Questions on Ruin

[Greenspawn]

Here are my questions:

1. Does ruin affect condition damage (i.e. does ruin make bleed and burn deal more damage, or do those conditions deal consistent damage)?

2. Does ruin affect damage caused by spells? (such as Bladewind, Dismission Aura, Brimstone, Sin of Wrath, Sunder, etc.)

3. Do the items that reduces ruin's duration and the one that increases it's duration (Heart of Rendabi I think) affect Sozen's self-ruining? (Does Heart of Rendabi increase the duration on Sozen and do the reducing items reduce that duration?)

4. Does the condition removal potion / whitewater purge remove Sozen's self-ruining?

[Pigger]

1. As far as I know, no.
2. No, only physical
3. Yes
4. Yes

[Scarlet]

As to the second question - Ruin DOES affect some spells, but only those that do physical damage (i.e. Atrius' Sandstorm and Bladewind from Janise) and conversely those spells have their damage reduced by higher armor values.

Dusk has said before that more spells will deal physical damage in 1.09, so you can look forward to insane damage with the right characters and some teamwork.

[Rising_Dusk]

It changes a bit in 1.09, but your example for #2 is a bit convoluted anyways. Ruin boosts Bladewind's damage because it is a physical spell, but it does not boost Dismission Aura because it's a magickal spell. You might not know that because the tooltips in 1.08b suck, but in 1.09 they're very self-explanatory.
EDIT: Scarlet beat me to the punch.

Also, boosting items will not increase self-inflicted conditions come 1.09, but still reduce them.

[Greenspawn]

Yay for answers! And for better tooltips!

Just confirming what Pigger said, condition damage is NOT enhanced by ruin? What about by armor bonuses?

[Scarlet]

Nope, bleed and burn are both magic damage, so they don't take armor values into account at all.

[Flameboy]

Are they reduced by the normal hero spell reduction, or theres just none in DoE?

[Scarlet]

Yeah, they are, if I recall correctly.

[andriejj]

Physical and magical. Sounds like LoE. That's a good (and logical) change But shouldn't be some spells half-magical and half-physical? For example, Glyphe's axes hurt physically, but the electricity on them feels more magical.

[Rising_Dusk]

Physical and magical. Sounds like LoE.

Physical and magickal has been in AotZ and DoE since the dawn of their existence (Even the 1.XX series of AotZ), I've just never listed them in the tooltips until DoE 1.09.

And I wouldn't make a spell deal both since that would just confuse people. I mean, 75 physical and 75 magickal damage is just weird and would make the tooltips look funny. It's far more intuitive to just have it one way and let the imagination go at it. Logically, everything would have to be a mix of physical/magickal, but it just can't be mechanically.

[Rectifier]

"Physical" and "Magical" ability types have been in existence from the beginning of wc3, it just depends on what you base the abilities damage on.

I see no reason why some abilities should not use both damage types, however, it would just be a waste of time for the coders to add a very small (mostly aesthetic) difference in damage.

[UnholySouls]

Shouldn't some conditions be physical?

Most bleeds could/should be in terms of "game physics", and some burns too.

[trendkill]

I see no reason abilites could use both damage types, however, it would just be a waste of time for the coders to add a very small (mostly aesthetic) difference in damage.

1st bold: ... what?

2nd bold: More like not aesthetic at all? How is damage "aesthetic"? The graphics and animations associated with an ability are aesthetic. The damage has absolutely nothing to do with aesthetics. A skill or spell that did both magic and normal damage would be good, because it could hit ethereal targets, and do extra damage to non armored targets. It is a difference in damage and utility of the ability.

To clarify you could make a spell that drops a huge rock on someone and does magic damage. Aesthetically it should be physical, but the damage itself is magical (magical boulder maybe), but the aesthetics do not change based on the damage type.

Or you make a spell that throws a flaming longsword at someone. Anyone who is hit by the longsword takes 250 physical damage, and 150 fire damage. This would allow someone to still deal 150 fire damage to someone who was ethereal, and would deal a significant amount more damage to someone who was toting around enough boots to put them at -10 armor. (Not that this map needs anything like that, but you get my drift..)

[Phox]

Um, your first question can be answered by putting a 'not' in Dusk's sentence. People mistype.
And I think he means by aesthetic is that the only reason he would do something like that would be because it makes more sense given the aesthetics of the spell. And you got the drift, so there's no reason to pick over word choice.

[trendkill]

Um, your first question can be answered by putting a 'not' in Dusk's sentence. People mistype.
And I think he means by aesthetic is that the only reason he would do something like that would be because it makes more sense given the aesthetics of the spell. And you got the drift, so there's no reason to pick over word choice.

Actually no, he said there was no reason and it was a waste of coding time. I disagree and think that it would offer versatility to an ability if it did both magic and physical damage. So I was refuting the "aesthetic" comment proving that it isn't a "very small" and only "aesthetic" thing.

The first thing it sounded like he was saying it was not possible, which is just not true. It also was not "Dusk" who said that, so before you shake a finger at me, read a little bit.