EPTOn April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote:
Did this get changed with the patch?
Did this get changed with the patch?
Not sure if the patch is up yet, but if someone could check the mpq once it is, that would be sweet
Planetary Fortress damage bugged? - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
Not sure if the patch is up yet, but if someone could check the mpq once it is, that would be sweet | ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote: Did this get changed with the patch? no | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote: Nope, I've checked the files. Neither PF, HSM or Archon was changed in the slightest.Did this get changed with the patch? Not sure how they can be so slow to fix this, since it's just a couple of numbers that are incorrectly entered. Sure there may be some balance concerns but they could change it so the outcome is similar to how it is now, just working correctly instead. So either they are extremely slow or their bug reporting forum doesn't work at all. I mean some random crashes etcetra may be difficult to pinpoint but this is so obvious that anyone here could fix it within a minute. | ||
|
NeoLearner
Belgium1847 Posts
On April 08 2010 20:42 Paladia wrote: Not sure how they can be so slow to fix this, since it's just a couple of numbers that are incorrectly entered. Sure there may be some balance concerns but they could change it so the outcome is similar to how it is now, just working correctly instead. So either they are extremely slow or their bug reporting forum doesn't work at all. I mean some random crashes etcetra may be difficult to pinpoint but this is so obvious that anyone here could fix it within a minute. I was thinking the same thing, I would've at least expected a reply in the Bug Forum. I've seen 3 posts in EU and 1 in NA discussing either the fortress or HSM, but no official Blue reply yet. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On April 08 2010 20:42 Paladia wrote: Nope, I've checked the files. Neither PF, HSM or Archon was changed in the slightest. Not sure how they can be so slow to fix this, since it's just a couple of numbers that are incorrectly entered. Sure there may be some balance concerns but they could change it so the outcome is similar to how it is now, just working correctly instead. So either they are extremely slow or their bug reporting forum doesn't work at all. I mean some random crashes etcetra may be difficult to pinpoint but this is so obvious that anyone here could fix it within a minute. If they were sure they knew how they wanted to fix it, it'd be a simple fix. However, they might still be discussing what they want to do with these- do they just fix the AoE damage and radius values, nerf the PF and HSM and call it a day? If they fix the PF and change the AoE damage values to the supposedly intended ones (0.5, 0.25, 0.125), does that mean PF main target damage has to go up from 40 to 120 to keep the AoE damage the same? That would be a big buff against, say, Ultralisks. Should they buff the HSM in some other way in exchange for reducing the full damage radius? | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On April 08 2010 21:01 Zato-1 wrote: Well, they could just set the main damage to 50 and the splash to 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25. That way it would be more or less similar to how it is now in terms of efficiency, just more consistent.If they were sure they knew how they wanted to fix it, it'd be a simple fix. However, they might still be discussing what they want to do with these- do they just fix the AoE damage and radius values, nerf the PF and HSM and call it a day? If they fix the PF and change the AoE damage values to the supposedly intended ones (0.5, 0.25, 0.125), does that mean PF main target damage has to go up from 40 to 120 to keep the AoE damage the same? That would be a big buff against, say, Ultralisks. Should they buff the HSM in some other way in exchange for reducing the full damage radius? | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On April 08 2010 21:19 spinesheath wrote: They could just set the splashes to 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25, and ramp the damage up to 60. That's probably a buff yes, but I doubt it will really change anything as it only affects one single target at a very slow rate of fire. It's definitely not something they have to test in detail. Maybe they originally intended the PF to have a main damage of 40 and have splash damage values of 0.5 / 0.25 / 0.125, as the data suggests. They might be debating whether they should apply those PF stats after all, which would be a huge nerf (reducing AoE damage to a third). The PF damage right now is way out of line compared to other static defenses- do they want to tone that down, and just make it a 'significantly stronger' turret instead of an incomparably stronger turret? Or would they prefer something closer to the PF's current incarnation? Either way, they have to make a decision, and perhaps they weren't ready to make that decision just yet. | ||
|
Topazas
Lithuania86 Posts
planetory fortress is way too overpowered imo Why everyone keeps saying that, Planetary Fortress is suppose to be good becouse: 1. As far as I know, Terrans have some trouble expanding, even while they have a Planetary Fortress. 2. Planetary Fortress mean its not an Orbital Command, and that means no Mules, and that means lower recourse income. As far as I saw, Terrans prefer Orbital Command instead of Planetary Fortress most of the time. | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
then fiddle with the radius if you want to make it more compliant with rl-physics same for HSM pl0x | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
| ||
|
SilverSeraphim
United States34 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On April 06 2010 07:10 Chen wrote: i love people who post without reading the OP thus not answering the question. this isnt whether or not planetary fortress is imba, its why the fuck does it do 60 damage when it tells you that it should be doing 40. then why is the listed damage 40 if it doesnt do 40 damage to ANYTHING? doesnt make any sense imo 1. Chen makes a solid argument. The PF says it does 40 damage. It should do 40 damage, not 60. 2. As the OP stated, Blizzard has never created a unit that intentionally deals more splash damage than it's primary damage. 3. As was previously stated (I believe by Yoshi_yoshi), it is very likely that when you choose the primary splash damage amount (.5 radius), the secondary (.8) and tertiary (1.25) amounts are automatically filled in at reduced percents. I think this is enough evidence to conclude that the PF is not "working as intended". =] | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
| ||
|
milo
116 Posts
I'm guessing Blizzard didn't fix this with Patch 8 because they've been balancing the game this whole time with these errors unchecked. With its current tech level, research cost, and energy cost, would the HSM be worthwhile if it was working as intended, instead of its bugged radius? Does the PF actually need to be dealing 60 instead of 40 to be useful? I'm sure they're considering all things. | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
On April 09 2010 01:14 milo wrote: I don't understand why people are saying this isn't a bug... I'm guessing Blizzard didn't fix this with Patch 8 because they've been balancing the game this whole time with these errors unchecked. With its current tech level, research cost, and energy cost, would the HSM be worthwhile if it was working as intended, instead of its bugged radius? Does the PF actually need to be dealing 60 instead of 40 to be useful? I'm sure they're considering all things. If this Beta is being managed like the WoW beta, then the developpers are working on a build faster than the server. What I mean is that if we're in mid patch 7, the patch 8 is already prepared and they are working on patch 10. Which means any late change like this would appear in the patch after this one. Don't freak out because it's not changed yet, although, it is possible that planetary fortress is working as intended. | ||
|
Disastorm
United States922 Posts
On April 09 2010 01:25 Tdelamay wrote: If this Beta is being managed like the WoW beta, then the developpers are working on a build faster than the server. What I mean is that if we're in mid patch 7, the patch 8 is already prepared and they are working on patch 10. Which means any late change like this would appear in the patch after this one. Don't freak out because it's not changed yet, although, it is possible that planetary fortress is working as intended. Yea I think hes right (except for working as intended part). I think we'll see this patch maybe 1 or 2 patches in the future. | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:14 zomgzergrush wrote: This would be extremely rofl if it was a typo and no one caught it. It's very obvious that it's not a typo. 1.5 -> .75 -> .37.5. And to be quite honest, it's fine. Heaven forbid you have to hit an expo with more than 12 zerglings. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12252 Posts
On April 09 2010 01:25 Tdelamay wrote: If this Beta is being managed like the WoW beta, then the developpers are working on a build faster than the server. What I mean is that if we're in mid patch 7, the patch 8 is already prepared and they are working on patch 10. Which means any late change like this would appear in the patch after this one. Don't freak out because it's not changed yet, although, it is possible that planetary fortress is working as intended. We're always going to be a few builds behind QA, so you're right, patch 8 was probably already slated for deployment when this bug was discovered. I think it's a safe bet that they've fixed it by now, probably by the next patch. It's most certainly a bug and requires a fix, though. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118040 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118377 Yea let's close all my threads about imba shit and then let's see new patches nerfing these units or findings like this. maybe you should listen to me instead of calling me dumb on the bandwagon all the time. | ||
|
Cyclon
United States99 Posts
If you recall, SC1 had dozens of cases like this where unit damage didn't match the number from the tooltip. Explosive and concussion damage was completely left to be discovered by players, along with things like how much damage the muta's did with their bouncing attacks and how units with two attacks doubled the attack bonus and the armor bonus of the enemy. | ||
| ||
