EPTSeriously guys,
bonuses.
(if firefox doesn't recognize it, it's obviously wrong)
Attack Boni - Too Limited Usability? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
Seriously guys, bonuses. (if firefox doesn't recognize it, it's obviously wrong) | ||
|
laMeR.dat
Canada7 Posts
| ||
|
University
United States263 Posts
The problem I see with the rampant +dmg to armored is how it discourages a lot of play with heavy armored units. We see Immortals used of course because they have the hardened shield, and Collosi (latin root btw hahaha) because of their range... but a unit like the Ultralisk just get destroyed by the proliferation of heavy damage units. It seems silly to have the ultralisk act as a damage sink when everything the opponent probably has is doing bonus damage to it. I guess that isn't a widespread problem, but with Blizzard trying to fix that unit, I think they should take into account that the role of the heavy, armored, melee damage sink unit might not be viable in the game they have created. | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
Also, besides the thor, there's also the baneling which deals +damage to light units but isn't a light unit. And you don't really mention how this whole "+armored units are armored" only affects one match-up: TvP (or PvT) as it doesn't directly affect mirrors, or any match-up involving zerg. I say it doesn't affect mirrors "directly" because it's true changing it would modify the gameflow, but wouldn't ultimately change the match-up by making it more "reactive" and less "macro-oriented". | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On May 12 2010 05:03 Comeh wrote: Every time i've read the word boni in this thread, it has had the effect of needles into my brain. Seriously guys, bonuses. (if firefox doesn't recognize it, it's obviously wrong) I'm 100% sure that bonuses is an informally accepted "word" for the plural of bonus. The proper term is technically bona, because bonus means "good man." Of course, in English, the term is boni, since it refers to a neutral character. Anyway, I agree that they should mix up the bonus damages a bit; however, doing it too much will create even LARGER hard counters. Keep in mind that a radical change like this would pretty much screw everyone in the beta right now :D Entirely new strategies. Just imagine if Marauders were light ^_^ (Hellion vs Marauder? o.0) | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On May 12 2010 01:11 Clamev wrote: Starcraft is not a "hard counter" based RTS <.< Sure it was. Psionic Storm pretty much hard countered Terran bio play, for example. It was just the game evolved to the point where we never saw hard counters get used because the game was evolved enough that no one went bio vs Protoss or hydras against Bio Terran | ||
|
101TFP
420 Posts
worked just fine | ||
|
b0lt
United States790 Posts
On May 09 2010 04:50 101TFP wrote: the latin plural of bonus is boni, so both terms bonuses and boni are correct, but i like boni more :> The latin word bonus is an adjective, and the plural of colossus is collosoi (it's greek). | ||
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
For me it feels like it ends up the same, just reversed. | ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
Poll: Plural of bonus: Bonusses (8) Boni (6) 14 total votes Your vote: Plural of bonus: | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
NicksonReyes
Philippines4431 Posts
the latin plural of bonus is boni, so both terms bonuses and boni are correct, but i like boni more :> You are right! Both terms are correct. But boni is latin and stated in the TL.net 10 commandments #7 English is the Official Language. Half of the readers did not understand the title. | ||
|
sLiniss
United States849 Posts
 | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 12 2010 01:36 Chill wrote: I think this is a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at game design. Exactly. If you're only looking at damage bonuses, you're only looking at half the game. It's also foolish to think exclusively in terms of bonuses because you neglect units that do normal damage and often do just as well if not better than units that do bonus damage to a given type (such as Roaches or Hydras). Also "bonus" is such an established Anglicized word that "bonuses" is the common plural. Nowhere will you see it "boni" and to call it that serves only to confuse. | ||
|
MeruFM
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
Chen
United States6344 Posts
basically ALL large units did explosive or normal damage, thus were good against other large units, and all small units did concussive or normal damage, thus being made to fight against small units. the only exceptions were the vulture and the hydra, but they are both medium sized units so thats kinda moot. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
| ||
|
Kisra
United Kingdom466 Posts
Warcraft 3 worked with a similar system (although had way, way more damage types, especially when Frozen Throne rolled around). The problem that tended to occur was that in a lot of games it became very clear cut as to what was super-cost effective to kill certain units. You'd know how to fight X with Y because Y's armour type isn't vulnerable to X's damage, but X's armour type is vulnerable to Y's. In my most humble of humble opinions, Starcraft 2 doesn't really need encouraging in a Rock/Paper/Scissors direction any further, this is not to say that I dislike damage bonu-... types... as is, but more that making clearly defined 'counter' units isn't the way forward. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On May 12 2010 07:39 Kraz.Del wrote: Poll: Plural of bonus: Bonusses (8) Boni (6) 14 total votes Your vote: Plural of bonus: This poll fails, there is no option for the uber-sweet "bonoxen" pluralization. Back on topic: I thought you had a point. I really did. You had me fooled - but I checked facts. In point of fact, you don't have a point. My reason? SC:BW sizes/damage. Here's the table: Explosive = full damage to large, half damage to small. Concussive = full damage to small, quarter damage to large. Both E and C do reduced damage to medium. Regular = full damage. Obviously L, M, S are sizes. S at the end is for splash. Units (unit size, attack type): Arbiter: LE Archon: LRS Battlecruiser: LR Broodling: SR Cannon: LR Carrier: LR Corsair: MES Dark Templar: SR Devourer: LE Dragoon: LE Drone: SR Firebat: SC Ghost: SC Goliath air: LE Goliath ground: LR Guardian: LR Hydralisk: ME (pretty sure I play Terran, actually...) Infested Terran: SES (who?) Lurker: MRS (Lurkers: How Kerrigan keeps in touch with her female side?) Marine: SR Mutalisk: SR Probe: SR Reaver: LRS Scourge: SR Scout air: LE Scout ground: LR SCV: SR Siege Tank siege: LES Siege Tank tank: LE Spore: LR Sunken: LE Turret: LE Ultralisk: LR Vulture: MC (no wonder the drivers think they're so important) Valkyrie: LES Wraith air: LE Wraith ground: LR Zealot: SR Zergling: SR tl;dr: Except for the Corsair, Vulture, and Hydralisk (all Medium units and one per race) all SC:BW units do full damage to other units their own "size". With armor type being the SC2 equivalent to size, the OPs point is utterly not a point at all. Total number of separate attacks in the game: 39 Total number which do full damage to units their own size: 36 Total number which do full damage to everything: 21 Total number which do not do full damage to units their own size: 3 So yeah. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On May 09 2010 04:53 ccdnl wrote: Not sure where you learned Boni is the plural form of Bonus in Latin, but I have looked up that Bona is the plural form in Latin. Nonetheless I am getting sidetracked here. My condolences for bringing you off topic. Boni (with a macron over the i) is the plural of bonus in latin. Bona would be the plural of Bonum (neuter). | ||
| ||
