http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_KO67wCvUc

Notice how the fighter had fire enchanted weapons, while fighting a fire creature?

I know in older MMOs elemental damage mattered depending on what you were fighting. Cold was best against fire and visa versa.

So, I ask you, should it matter in ESO? Do you care if you can use fire against fire creatures?

Should a Fireball be able to kill a fire elemental creature?

What are your thoughts?

I should not be able to use a fireball spell on a pack of normal daedra and do the same amount of damage as I do on a frost atronach or a nord. Even Fantasy games need to have a suspension of disbelief.

Would be cool if this was implemented.

Well pretty sure the physical damage from the axes themselves is what was doing most of the damage. Enchants at least from Skyrim was just a small percentage of the damage you do.

Anyways yes it does make sense that a full elemental based attack should have its damage effected by why it hits.

Im old school in my ways i suppose in thinking Fire against fire will heal instead of do any dmg or none at all but for the sake of this poll i put none.

If I have a flame enchanted Axe it should be affected if I hit a flame creature. It shouldn't be completely immune to the hit, but it should take very significant amount of damage.

Plus, I think, Pang has it right, most of the damage will come from the weapons base damage and the enchants will just add more damage on top of it.

I voted for +50% damage vs the opposite element, and -50% damage vs same element. To me, they shouldn't be immune, that can create balance issues for certain classes that rely on one or two elements for damage. But you should have to consider that shooting a fireball at a flaming elemental daedra might not be a grand idea, and adjust your skills before battle.

Your comment reminded me of the first Final Fantasy games.

Anyone remember that it was impossible to be a fire mage back in MC and BWL because all the mobs in those raids were completely immune to fire damage? God, that was not fun at all. I think full immunity is not fun at all, but taking 50%-75% less damage does the job well enough.

I mean, players can never become fully resisted to one element, they usually cap you off around 60% or so. So, if players can't become fully immune, mobs shouldn't either.

Personally I only find the heal on like only makes sense when dealing with a pure elemental creature.

Keep in mind if any game was set up for this it's ESO. The range of weapons, spells, enchants.... all good to go.

Element to element comparisons don't work out for a lot of critters in TES.

Shock actually did more damage to Fire Atronachs than Frosr did for example. Shock damage is the most effective against most Daedra, excepting the Storm Atronach for obvious reasons.

I doubt this convention will hold in ESO however.

Id like to add a twist to this train of thought:

Casting firebased damage on a fire creature should actually heal him. It really makes you think about what you are doing.

Not exactly a new twist in this thread but I'll add to it. Before I do that I will address one issue I have with the heal thing. Trolls. Someone could just spam fire damage at the fire creature and artificially sustain its life in a fight. This allows trolling in PVE doesn't it? The same can be applies to idiots and AoE attacks. You get your particularly tough monster down to low health and are about to finish it off when your ally uses a powerful AoE attack that damages several enemies but heals your own for a significant amount if health because healing won't go through resistances.

Simple enough but add a wide range of vulnerablities to certain elements for certain creatures.

Maybe some creatures take 200% damage from elemental damage of all kinds, but take only 25% damage from normal weapons and vice versa.

Some creatures could be completely immune to a certain element as well.

That could make encounters very different dependings on what you are fighting.

Good point. An alternative to "healing" would be casting a firebased damage to a fire creature will reflect said damage back to yourself instead of diminshing the creature's health.

That could work. I guess the logic behind it is they can control the element that touches them. It certainly would make people think before just tossing out AoE abilities.

It's traditional to have some of this type of damage modifier in TES games, and I think it provides a nice bit of flavour. However, total immunity to a damage type can make for poor gameplay (unless everyone has easy access to destruction spells of multiple elemental types).

As a side note, I had a funny thought*. If a flame atronach resists fire, why don't steam centurions resist Dwemer weapons? If glass armor doesn't grant resistance to glass weapons, why should the icy skin of a storm atronach protect it from frost damage?

(Just an amusing notion. Not to be taken as a serious inquiry.)

Oddly enough. A fireball exploding would put out a bonfire. Mostly the force of the impact involved just blowing it away. Hence the term fighting fire with fire.

If you fired a ball of ice at a wall lf ice at a significant velocity it would shatter it.

Cross currents of electricity can have a canceling out effect as well.