|
I noticed recently that every single unit in the game that has an attack bonus against armored is considered armored itself.
The same goes for light units being the only ones who may have +dmg to light (only exeption being the Thors air attack).
![[image loading]](http://i42.tinypic.com/azb9so.jpg)
I think that this leads to a very limited usability of these attack boni, if you encounter armored units (e.g. Marauders) you would want to use units that have +dmg against armored units (e.g. Stalkers).
Problem is, the Marauders also have an attack bonus to kill your Stalkers, thus negating the usefulness of your Stalkers attack bonus, so your enemy can just happily keep pumping his Marauders.
My suggestion would be, that blizzard should mix up the attack boni (have light units with +dmg to armored and vice versa etc) to encourage a higher army diversity and force people to be more aware of what the enemy is doing.
This would probably lead to SC2 being more dependant on skill (more scouting and reaction to your enemy necessary) and less dependant on who can mass more and faster.
Please discuss!
Poll: Do you agree with this? (Mixed Attack Boni)Yes (197) 79% No (53) 21% 250 total votes Your vote: Do you agree with this? (Mixed Attack Boni) (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
is boni really the plural of bonus that is weird
|
not exactly sure about that...wouldnt this change lead to an even more "hard counter" system?
|
wow that picture looks really high quality if it's from actual game play
|
It took me a whole half minute to figure out what the hell this post was talking about. The proper term is "bonuses"
But once I got it, I really liked it  . Totally agree, though not specifically applied to stalkers.
|
At this point, it is completely unnecessary change. The game is balanced pretty well and fucking with that balance just because you think some other solution might be better isn't really good idea. Forcing even more hard counters without proper options to scout would end up with even worse coin flips that now.
|
Um, 101FTP not sure where you learned that "boni" is the plural of bonus but I do think we should mix it up! "Bonuses" is a common and an accurate plural form of bonus. Not quite sure about boni--never heard of it before but 101FTP do let me know why you think boni is the plural of bonus.
|
the latin plural of bonus is boni, so both terms bonuses and boni are correct, but i like boni more :>
On May 09 2010 04:42 Zaphid wrote:
At this point, it is completely unnecessary change. The game is balanced pretty well and fucking with that balance just because you think some other solution might be better isn't really good idea. Forcing even more hard counters without proper options to scout would end up with even worse coin flips that now.
the game is in beta stage, which is meant to test things out.
i really dont see a point in attack boni/bonuses if there are just a few units always countering each other
edit: and yes thats a gameplay screenshot on ultra settings
|
This setup really isn't that different from the original sc setup, except that it was "full" dmg then and "bonus" damage now.
|
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 :> Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 04:42 Zaphid wrote:
At this point, it is completely unnecessary change. The game is balanced pretty well and fucking with that balance just because you think some other solution might be better isn't really good idea. Forcing even more hard counters without proper options to scout would end up with even worse coin flips that now. the game is in beta stage, which is meant to test things out. i really dont see a point in attack boni/bonuses if there are just a few units always countering each other edit: and yes thats a gameplay screenshot on ultra settings
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.
|
I don't understand... Are you saying that some units should have bonuses against both Ligth and Armored??
|
Let's all agree to define the pluralization of Bonus as 'Boners'.
|
Yea I laughed when I read "boni" for some reason it made me think of Bono of U2 fame playing sc2.
|
the latin language differentiates between male, female and neutral plurals, boni (m), bonae (f) and bona (n).
but this is not what this thread is about, please keep it on topic
|
On May 09 2010 04:54 lolaloc wrote:
I don't understand... Are you saying that some units should have bonuses against both Ligth and Armored??
no, just that there should be (some) armored units with +light and vice versa, to help countering
edit: sorry for double posting, messed up the quoting
|
lucky you... i posted the same thing 2 months ago and got flamed to the ground with the usual "it's a different game" / "it's fine" / "i want dustin's baby" etc
gl
although outdated, blizzard still seems to think of the attributes as a successor to the old unit sizes and "big" units are supposed to deal more damage against other "big" units.
alas, i fear it's too late to mix that up now... imagine archons getting "massive" attribute, hellions being mechanical only, a little like banelings - yes, units don't have to come with either armored nor light attribute. in fact, it's the best "armor type" there is... something i'd recommend for ultralisks.
not gonna happen at this stage 8[
|
god no, games will be decided in 1 battle, because you can't switch techs fast enough unless you play zerg, this is exactly the thing no one wants in a solid rts, ultimative hard counters
|
Never realized this. Great observation, sooo true.
|
i think the boni are too big to allow your suggestion, it would make games too much about countering your opponents units all the time.
Maybe if the bonus damages get lowered it would be viable.
Age of empires 2 had the system of extreme stone paper scissor, for example hellebards that demolish knights, but those counterunits had many other disadvantages (slow, no damage against all other units, low hp, minrange....) so the game remained playable.
+ Show Spoiler +boni comes from latin, but latin does not only have different endings for male female neutrum, but also for all casi, giving you 30 possible kombinations for the ending of bonus; boni is used often because it sounds right i guess.
|
The OP is correct in his pluralization of bonus -> boni.
I agree that unit damage hard-counters are a little overboard atm, but I don't think that diversification is the solution - devolution back to simpler damage types (softening the counters) is the solution.
Diversification doesn't necessarily lead to more skill demand and less macro, although I think it's a step in the right direction. Improving unit responsiveness, fixing the lag, unit clumping and crowd pathfinding - these things will lead to stronger micro games, but units need to stand a fighting chance.
|
God damn reminds me too much of French.
/leave unsatisfied
|
While I do think more units should have some +attack bonuses, I don't think there should be any major cases. Stalkers aren't meant to directly counter marauders (in fact, the opposite is pretty much true)--just as the terran would be happily pumping out more marauders, you would have to switch to immortal.
Also, I'm not sure why the fact that the Latin plural of bonuses is even an issue. There may be relations between the two, but that doesn't justify randomly using the rules of one language in another.
|
On May 09 2010 05:45 hofodomo wrote:
Also, I'm not sure why the fact that the Latin plural of bonuses is even an issue. There may be relations between the two, but that doesn't justify randomly using the rules of one language in another.
cool... "colossuses" then?
|
|
|
Logically, I find the bonus against armored stupid, like being armored is supposed to be a bad thing, then why bother getting armor ? If I get armor, it's because I want to make my units stronger, not to give them a weakness, I don't get it. Don't know what drugs they were taking when they made this up, I know in real life there are such thins as armor piercing rounds, but this is not the way they work , there is no such thing as a projectile that wounds a man, but gets a + 4 bonus versus a tank  .
|
I loved how the infestor is of "armored" type, and comes with "0" armor... (I am sure there are other units like this, so its silly for them too) How can something be armored, yet have 0 armor? wtf?
It's kind of like in wc3. where units with "heavy" armor as opposed to light, if i remember correctly, were usually at a larger disadvantage as more units had bonuses against them, then there were bonuses against light.
|
On May 09 2010 05:52 siv00 wrote:
Boni is not correct
Everyone in this thread cares so much. Thanks siv00 for your awesome contribution on the topic. You blew my mind with your text, I need to lay down and take it all in before I get a headache from your stellar contribution.
To the OP
I'm not sure how mixing would turn out, but if it adds more originality to the game I'm all for it.
|
boni is perfectly correct you BARBARS!
|
On topic: no.
It's not only Thors that are armored and yet gain bonus vs. light air. There are also colossi (see, just like boni) who have it, although they are not light.
There is a mix of units with various armor types. If you consider a dragoon and a siege tank in SC1 - they are exactly like stalker and marauder are in SC2. Both deal full (or bonus) damage against each other. Is SC1 less skillful because of that? Also, marines vs zealots etc etc.
The systems are the same in SC1 and SC2. I also believe that SC2 presentation of damage as bonus damage is more user-friendly. It is easier for me to calculate a sum of base+bonus in SC2 than to subtract 75%/50% based on a unit type in SC1.
|
I want the graphics in the picture
and
Bonus m. (genitive Bonus or Bonusses, plural Bonusse or Boni)
Anyway, i believe it would be ok to test it out, but this would have such a huge impact on gameplay and i cant really tell what would happen
|
I disagree with this.
The reason is that as other people have mentioned before, battles would be non skill dependant, as all that mattered was counters. So when your armies clash, the outcome would usually be known in beforehand as the one army would crush the other every time.
Fakeouts and denying of scouting would be the whole extent of the metagame.
Off topic: Who cares if boni is right in latin, I thought this was a English only forum! I do not think I should post my opinion on people using latin to seem clever, as it would be quite rude.
|
In Latin, the masculine plural nominative of bonus is boni. However, in Latin bonus just means "good," not "something extra" like it does in English. So I'm not sure you can treat them as the same word.
More on topic, it seems to me that the OP is really just a complaint about Stalker/Marauder. The other units with these bonuses fill different enough roles this really isn't an issue, in my opinion.
|
On May 09 2010 04:56 Jyvblamo wrote:
Let's all agree to define the pluralization of Bonus as 'Boners'.
Or you could say that Blizzard made a boner with the boni.
|
On May 11 2010 20:58 Grend wrote:
I disagree with this.
The reason is that as other people have mentioned before, battles would be non skill dependant, as all that mattered was counters. So when your armies clash, the outcome would usually be known in beforehand as the one army would crush the other every time.
Fakeouts and denying of scouting would be the whole extent of the metagame.
Why? bonuses would never actually apply
Light army vs heavy army = both gets bonuses
Heavy army vs heavy army = none gets bonuses
light vs light = none gets bonuses
fights would be decided by micro and how well you can target the right units with its counter / micro away form your counter
|
i have a raging boni.....
|
way to fuck up an interesting thread.
|
I wonder why "Bonus" is a male thing though.
|
Boni is right but Bonuts just feels even more right
|
On May 09 2010 05:56 bubusls wrote:Logically, I find the bonus against armored stupid, like being armored is supposed to be a bad thing, then why bother getting armor ? If I get armor, it's because I want to make my units stronger, not to give them a weakness, I don't get it. Don't know what drugs they were taking when they made this up, I know in real life there are such thins as armor piercing rounds, but this is not the way they work , there is no such thing as a projectile that wounds a man, but gets a + 4 bonus versus a tank .
If you haven't noticed, marauders and marines are both humans. But wait!! Marauders have 145 hp and +1 armour and marines have only 45!!!
That means the stalker attack is more deadly to the LESS ARMOURED marine.
However stalkers are effective vs the armour of marauders and thus kill the "145 hp" quicker.
Armoured ==> more health more or less. Not actually "+armour+
And colossi sounds dump. Just use "colossus" for multiple colossus. Feels more natural.
"Those colossus are going to attack the natural of..."
|
|
|
you need marauders to fight stalkers right now for sure though...marines are absolutely terrible against stalkers.
|
I disagree.
Also, Phoenices give me a boni.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 11 2010 21:42 puckthecat wrote:
In Latin, the masculine plural nominative of bonus is boni. However, in Latin bonus just means "good," not "something extra" like it does in English. So I'm not sure you can treat them as the same word. Good point, I'm kind of curious how it got switched around with praemium in English, or why it even takes a masculine ending since most adopted words come in neutral.
|
I think mixing now damage types is not wise idea. At the moment we got some basic sense of units utility so we can focus on balancing it. I think point of +light on light units and +armoured on armoured has a purpose. Light units usually get less hp than armoured and do less dmg than armoured. If you swap the bonuses/boni (whatever) armoured units would be total bane of light due to hp amount even if light got armoured + as well. I hope it is clear enough.
It is totally off topic but I couldn't hold my self as we use some latin here. Here is a joke from a university of medical science:
+ Show Spoiler +What is the name of female anus?
Bonus.
|
I have a boni right now.. A boni for this thread.
|
What? FUCK NO
Attack Boni means Hardcounters
Hardcounters are ruining every RTS.
As everyone can see Blizzard has made an effort to cut back the Hard counters and that is a god thing.I hope they will continue with this trend so it will eventually be a much less notable thing.
|
I agree with the op and I've been saying it since the beginning of the beta.
In a "hard-counter" based RTS, units need to have more defined roles. Having 2 or more units being "effective" against each other just doesn't make sense.
|
In a "hard-counter" based RTS, units need to have more defined roles. Having 2 or more units being "effective" against each other just doesn't make sense.
Starcraft is not a "hard counter" based RTS <.<
|
I don't think this is necessary, even with no 'mixed bonuses' there are specific counters...
Example: the four types of units you get with no 'mixed bonuses'
AA.= Armored, Armor bonus dmg
Ax.=Armored, no bonus damage
LL.=Light, Light bonus dmg
Lx=Light, no bonus damage
AA beats Ax
LL beats Lx
obvious right.... but what beats AA/LL
Lx beats AA
Ax beats LL
so to beat Marauders, Immortals, Stalkers, Unsieged tanks, air Vikings, Void Rays (AA) use
Marines, Zealots, Zerglings, Sentries, Mutalisks, Hydralisks,Banshees, Dark Templars (Lx)
to beat Reapers, Ghosts, Phoenixes, Hellions (LL) use
Roaches, Sieged tanks, Colossi, Corrupters, Ultralisks, Broodlords, BCs, Carriers
Now this ignores speed, range, splash, overkill, armor, Air v. ground, etc.
but that is the baic counter system
AA beats Ax
Ax beats LL
LL beats Lx
Lx beats AA
|
i hate Dustin Browder, he's such a terrible terrible boni.
sorry for not contributing , had to post this
|
Calgary25980 Posts
I think this is a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at game design.
|
lol boni... hahahahaha fail.
anyways diversity in army comp should be promoted imo
|
Everyone stop talking about your boni's, it's not funny..
|
i got a boni from this thread
|
Don't balance the game by changing the numbers around and making random non-sensical counter mechanics, you'll end up with a system which relies on people just memorising the unit counters (Oh i didn't know ranged unit A counters ranged unit B, they're so similar) and the game will be boring as shit.
It's the unit mechanics that matter; Speed, range, splash, ect.
You're correct about this being a problem, but i don't think this solution is the way to go. Maybe we just have too god damn many ranged units?
|
My eyes read every word in the OP and I still have no idea what he said. The whole time my brain was like "wtf boni?"
|
boni is awesome.
voted yes, i agree.
|
I think this is a feature brought on from Starcraft 1
(generally all starcraft 1 feature is accepted, therefore derived feature of starcraft 1 = accepted)
+ bonus to armored(in sc2) = Explosive
+ bonus to light(in sc2) = Concussion
Armoured unit = Large, Light units = Small, Unarmoured unlight unit=medium
+0 bonus damage type(in sc2) = neutral damage type(in SC bw)
Now lets think of all that has concussion.
Vulture (medium), Firebat(small) and Ghost(small)
Think of all common that has explosive
Siege Tank(large) Missile Turret(large) Dragoon(large) and Hydralisk(medium) Scout(large) Arbiter(large) Wraith(large) Golliaths (large) Sunken colony (large) Corsair (medium)
So yea. it has been a long time accepted feature for small units not to get explosive damage, and large units not to get concussive damage in Starcraft:BW
Since its an accepted feature, therefore it is acceptable. Q.E.D
|
An interesting point. I like this idea and I think it should be considered.
|
On May 09 2010 04:32 101TFP wrote:
I think that this leads to a very limited usability of these attack boni, if you encounter armored units (e.g. Marauders) you would want to use units that have +dmg against armored units (e.g. Stalkers).
This is not only an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the game, it is also wrong. Stalkers do not magically counter every armored unit because they do extra damage to them.
The same was true in bw. Despite the fact that hydras do full damage to tanks and tanks do only 75% damage to hydras, hydra/lurk did not counter terrans pumping 2fac tank (as opposed to tanks off 1fac or sk)
Problem is, the Marauders also have an attack bonus to kill your Stalkers, thus negating the usefulness of your Stalkers attack bonus, so your enemy can just happily keep pumping his Marauders.
Well, yeah. Stalkers don't counter marauders. Build something that does and force your opponent to make something in addition to marauders.
This would probably lead to SC2 being more dependant on skill (more scouting and reaction to your enemy necessary) and less dependant on who can mass more and faster.
-_-
|
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 think that this leads to a very limited usability of these attack boni". You actually wrote "I think that this leads to a very limited usability of these attack good men". Makes perfect sense!
|
hahaha my question is: How did the OP actually expect a discussion to take place centered around +dmg bonuses with the ridiculous use of the word "boni" spread throughout his post. At first I just thought he was a confused foreigner, or maybe a time-traveling Roman.
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.
|
This is a bit too simplistic, especially because the only situation where this might be problematic is in stalker/marauder battles, but even then that's no problem because marauders own them pretty badly.
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".
|
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)
|
On May 12 2010 01:11 Clamev wrote:Show nested quote +In a "hard-counter" based RTS, units need to have more defined roles. Having 2 or more units being "effective" against each other just doesn't make sense. 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
|
well, sticking my boni into the thread got people talking about my larger hard counter.
worked just fine
|
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).
|
Light units to counter armored units with + vs armored or armored units with + vs light to counter light units.
For me it feels like it ends up the same, just reversed.
|
Poll: Plural of bonus:Bonusses (8) 57% Boni (6) 43% 14 total votes Your vote: Plural of bonus: (Vote): Boni
(Vote): Bonusses
|
Bonuses is the plural of bonus. Boni is the plural of boner.
|
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.
|
I didn't really realize this until now. OP makes a great point. +1 for you "Boni Man"
|
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.
|
That kind of system is what made me annoyed at Age of Empire 3. Melee counter arrow counter spear, mix in some calvary and defenses/siege and you got a game where memorization and perfect unit combination is the main point of the game. Not to mention the speed of attack and movement meant that other mechanics like concave/field advantage/etc were almost non-existent.
|
While i agree it would be interesting to change is so some light units would be good vs armored but bad vs other light units, the exact same system was in BW, just not as noticeable.
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.
|
The terran build tree is already crowded enough.
|
I love how half this thread is a language class and half is a Starcraft 2 debate :D
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.
|
On May 12 2010 07:39 Kraz.Del wrote:Poll: Plural of bonus:Bonusses (8) 57% Boni (6) 43% 14 total votes Your vote: Plural of bonus: (Vote): Boni
(Vote): Bonusses
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.
|
On May 09 2010 04:53 ccdnl wrote:Show nested quote +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 :> On May 09 2010 04:42 Zaphid wrote:
At this point, it is completely unnecessary change. The game is balanced pretty well and fucking with that balance just because you think some other solution might be better isn't really good idea. Forcing even more hard counters without proper options to scout would end up with even worse coin flips that now. the game is in beta stage, which is meant to test things out. i really dont see a point in attack boni/bonuses if there are just a few units always countering each other edit: and yes thats a gameplay screenshot on ultra settings 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).
|
bonus is not greek, bonuses. stop butchering my language
|
On May 12 2010 08:50 derpaderp wrote:
bonus is not greek, bonuses. stop butchering my language
bonus is from latin not greek
you fail
|
latin =/= english
"hey i think ill go to the teamliquid fora to discuss attack boni"
wtf..
|
On May 12 2010 08:52 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 08:50 derpaderp wrote:
bonus is not greek, bonuses. stop butchering my language bonus is from latin not greek you fail
i said it is not greek. greek gets the "fungi" plural.
|
hahaha what an awful thread. I am glad everyone is getting linguistic "boni" though...
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Banned enough people from this thread. Next blatant derail = ip ban
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
