|
I was always surprised of how quickly the Planetary fortress seemed to kill off any attacker, all while being almost invincible itself when repaired. The damage just seemed too high so I browsed through the game files in order to figure it out.
Here's what I found.
<CEffectDamage id="PlanetaryFortress" parent="DU_WEAP">
<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/>
<AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/>
<AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/>
As you can see, the Planetary Fortress does 150% of its damage in splash. If a secondary target is standing within a 0.5 radius, the first target will take 40 damage and the secondary target take 60 damage.
I highly doubt this is intentional, splash is never suppose to increase the damage on secondary targets compared to the primary. No other splash works like this. I tested it in game as well just in case and it does indeed do 60 damage in splash (within a 0.5 radius).
Targets currently affected by this are:
Zealots,
All workers,
High Templars
Dark Templars,
Marines,
Reapers,
Ghosts,
Banelings,
Hydralisks
Changeling,
Zerglings,
Update
Here is a gif of it in action, from a replay of the finals of the recent Zotac tournament.
http://www.makeagif.com/media/4-05-2010/P_sjbH.gif
First a zealot is attacked and the zealot (targeted in the replay) next to him is brought down to 91hp. Then the second planetary fortress shot brings him down to 32hp (60 damage minus one armor), which is what the gif shows.
|
This would be extremely rofl if it was a typo and no one caught it.
|
wow, good catch! probably suppose to be .5?
|
lol at this. If this is true its a giant mistake.
|
planetory fortress is way too overpowered imo
|
On April 06 2010 06:16 nTooMuch wrote:
wow, good catch! probably suppose to be .5?
It wouldn't make sense if it was .5, since units a bit further out take .75 damage.
|
Lol yeah nice catch indeed! 
Maybe the same thing applies to Roach/Marauder/Immortal 
|
On April 06 2010 06:18 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:16 nTooMuch wrote:
wow, good catch! probably suppose to be .5? It wouldn't make sense if it was .5, since units a bit further out take .75 damage.
you're right, but it doesn't make sense as 1.5 either....
unless is was a specially created terran shell than direct impacts the initial target, then spread mines .5 distance around the target and explodes for increased dmg.
|
Great catch - I never would have thought to look. Maybe it was supposed to be .85?
|
To keep planetary fortress rush viable, while remaining sneaky about it so David Kim can dominate w/ planetary fortress imba.
|
I do recall a game where a planetary fortress got 22 kills in a matter of seconds... it seemed impossible with the given stats, and now I know it was.
|
i've definitely lost a couple games because of this. ugh.
|
o dang, that's where all my zealots went...
|
Damn, that's some good beta testing
|
hm doesnt seem like a mistake
<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/>
<AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/>
<AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/>
its always the half O_O
i think they made it that way to make it stronger against light/small, melee units. so that you cant attack it with a ninja troop of linge or zealots to kick the expansion, since the planetary is the only static + very expensive defense that terran has.
|
Did anyone confirm this or are u all just nodding ur heads?
|
On April 06 2010 06:42 Entertaining wrote:
Did anyone confirm this or are u all just nodding ur heads?
Ill test it out in a custom game when I get home, but I see no reason he would be lying to us. He should send it to blizzard and say "hey guys I found a typo in the code" lol. btw how do you look at the sc2 code? the underground scene has come such a long way.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:18 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:16 nTooMuch wrote:
wow, good catch! probably suppose to be .5? It wouldn't make sense if it was .5, since units a bit further out take .75 damage.
No, it makes sense. The .75 is just wrong, too. That should be .25 and the third should be .125. That would be consistent with other units that have secondary and tertiary blast radii, such as nukes or tanks.
|
On April 06 2010 06:42 Entertaining wrote:
Did anyone confirm this or are u all just nodding ur heads?
Im nodding, dunno about the rest!
|
Now that's beta testing!
It's funny that despite this error the PF hasn't received any modifications in 7 patches. Maybe they'll correct this and then just patch over to buff the new and corrected PF?
|
Planetary Fortress costs a ton of resources to make so I don't think this is a bug. Not only does it cost 150 extra gas but also you lose so much more due to lack of Mules and you lose Scans as well. It's also Terrans only static defence that doesn't cost food so it has to be super powerful otherwise T could never FE.
|
Haha, great find! Sometimes I think blizzard likes putting ridiculous stuff in their games, just to see if anyone notices.. there's always some..
|
I think the finder really needs to submit this to blizzard so they can fix it. anyone who thinks its not a bug is just fooling themselves (yea right splash damage supposed to be more than base damage). If its not submitted, blizzard may never spot it.
|
|
|
I doubt this is an error. It seems intentional to me since PF can't lift off and is generally inferior to OC in that it can't summon MULES, scan, or drop down supply. Interesting find tho...
|
On April 06 2010 06:57 Ryuu314 wrote:
I doubt this is an error. It seems intentional to me since PF can't lift off and is generally inferior to OC in that it can't summon MULES, scan, or drop down supply. Interesting find tho...
lol yea because blizzard would obviously want to mess up the mechanics of their game and make splash damage do more than base damage as opposed to just increasing base damage and keeping the mechanics intact.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:57 Ryuu314 wrote:
I doubt this is an error. It seems intentional to me since PF can't lift off and is generally inferior to OC in that it can't summon MULES, scan, or drop down supply. Interesting find tho...
Oh it's definitely a bug. Either the tooltip needs to be updated to 60 damage if intended, or the splash values updated to 1.0/0.5/0.25/0.125 (for 40/20/10/5) if not intended. It needs to be changed either way.
|
If this isn't a mistake, then why didn't they set the base damage to 60 and fix the splash values? As it seems to be right now, the building stats you can view in the game are misleading, which should never be the case.
That's just like saying "damage: 4" in the Marine Weapon description when it actually deals 6 damage.
|
They probably used some kind of script or something to add in all the reducing splash damage and they probably put in the initial splash for Planetary Fortress as 1.5 by mistake instead of 0.5 and that would explain why the 2 splashes after that are .75 and .375.
|
<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/>
0.375 * 2 = 0.75 * 2 = 1.5
I doubt that there is an error. The multiplier (*2) seems intentional
|
On April 06 2010 06:55 Cade)Flayer wrote:
Planetary Fortress costs a ton of resources to make so I don't think this is a bug. Not only does it cost 150 extra gas but also you lose so much more due to lack of Mules and you lose Scans as well. It's also Terrans only static defence that doesn't cost food so it has to be super powerful otherwise T could never FE.
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.
On April 06 2010 07:09 ArdentZeal wrote:Show nested quote +<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/> 0.375 * 2 = 0.75 * 2 = 1.5 I doubt that there is an error. The multiplier (*2) seems intentional
then why is the listed damage 40 if it doesnt do 40 damage to ANYTHING? doesnt make any sense imo
|
I think maybe the error is that siege tank damage isn't like this...
|
working as intended.
at least i hope ^^
|
On April 06 2010 06:49 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:42 Entertaining wrote:
Did anyone confirm this or are u all just nodding ur heads? Ill test it out in a custom game when I get home, but I see no reason he would be lying to us. He should send it to blizzard and say "hey guys I found a typo in the code" lol. btw how do you look at the sc2 code? the underground scene has come such a long way.
i dont think he looked at the actual code, just the data files
if u dl WinMPQ or some other mpq program u can open the mpq in the sc2 folder and then u can extract all the xml files to ur desktop. then u can just open it with excel and u see stuff like unit costs, dmg cooldown and i bet there is splash radius somewhere too ^^
to look at the actual game code should be pretty much impossible xd
i definitely think its a bug, but since the PF has been running so smooth with this 50% extra dmg its only fair by blizzard to increase the dmg once they fix this lol
|
On April 06 2010 07:14 MorroW wrote:
to look at the actual game code should be pretty much impossible xd
Not if all you need/want is the disassembly 
To acquire the source code you will either need to hack their systems or some Blizzard guy has to leak the code, so yes it's unlikely.
|
On April 06 2010 07:09 ArdentZeal wrote:Show nested quote +<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/> 0.375 * 2 = 0.75 * 2 = 1.5 I doubt that there is an error. The multiplier (*2) seems intentional
Actually it may be more likely to be an error. They might have some script where they derive the second and third values by halving the previous one. So usually they just enter in 0.5 to get a normal 0.5/0.25/0.125 distribution. Here, there is a typo with entering 1.5, which gets the above values.
|
Here is a gif of it in action, from a replay of the finals of the recent Zotac tournament.
http://www.makeagif.com/media/4-05-2010/P_sjbH.gif
First a zealot is attacked and the zealot (targeted in the replay) next to him is brought down to 91hp. Then the second planetary fortress shot brings him down to 32hp (60 damage minus one armor), which is what the gif shows.
|
Rofl, yea I was always wondering how a planetary fortresses raped pretty much any ground units when it only dealt 40 damage.
|
United States12235 Posts
Oops or not, nevermind. Got caught up in my own number-crunching =]
|
Just tested this with a friend, seems to be working as OP stated, i.e. dealing more damage to adjacent units
|
On April 06 2010 07:10 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:55 Cade)Flayer wrote:
Planetary Fortress costs a ton of resources to make so I don't think this is a bug. Not only does it cost 150 extra gas but also you lose so much more due to lack of Mules and you lose Scans as well. It's also Terrans only static defence that doesn't cost food so it has to be super powerful otherwise T could never FE. 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. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:09 ArdentZeal wrote:<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/> 0.375 * 2 = 0.75 * 2 = 1.5 I doubt that there is an error. The multiplier (*2) seems intentional then why is the listed damage 40 if it doesnt do 40 damage to ANYTHING? doesnt make any sense imo
It does 40 damage to the actual target that it's firing at. The units within .5 range take more damage than the actual target, however.
I'm not saying this should be kept this way, but rather maybe Blizzard just wanted splash damage higher than than the per-unit attack damage?
I have no idea.
|
ughh no mules means that the planetary fortress is costing you ~300 mins for every mule you could have made for the rest of the game. also planetary fortresses die to air.
I could see players making PF's if they are under a lot of pressure but then the enemy could just contain and macro right?
|
but it's still 40 to the targeted unit, right?
(or does that one get the 0.5-radius-splash on top of it?)
€ - nvm... ryuu answered that one
anyways - great find d('' d)
reminds me to look at the archon *lick pencil*
|
|
|
On April 06 2010 07:43 ShaperofDreams wrote:
ughh no mules means that the planetary fortress is costing you ~300 mins for every mule you could have made for the rest of the game. also planetary fortresses die to air.
I could see players making PF's if they are under a lot of pressure but then the enemy could just contain and macro right?
Well, the PF can save you the expo, which will save you alot more than using mules would have. Also, remember the mules dont actually save you the money, it just means that you mine the mineral field alot faster.
|
This is hilarious. Are you sure this wasn't just added in the last patch as an April Fool's?
|
Good find. I hope they fix this. Did u send this info to blizzard yet OP?
|
So does this mean that if you are being attacked its best to bring an scv around to the enemy units and target the scv just so you can deal some massive splash damage?
|
You could just target the other units since everyone still uses one control group and blobs.
|
the people in this thread who don't think this is a bug have no idea what splash damage is lol
|
By fix do you mean make it acutally do 40 dmg? Or just change the dmg to say "60" Because its already pretty shitty in most games.
|
The planetary fortress has a double cannon, which means it hits a wide area. Which means it might be intended to hit more beside the target. In other words, the target is in fact within the splash radius, and not the actual target.
Is the PF really over-powered? It is powerful, but it requires the sacrifice of an orbital command.
|
hummm i came across another confusing entry:
<CEffectDamage id="HunterSeekerDamage">
...
<AreaArray Radius="1.6" Fraction="1"/>
<AreaArray Radius="1.2" Fraction="0.5"/>
<AreaArray Radius="2.4" Fraction="0.25"/>
has anyone used an HSM lately..?
(excerpt of build14621 patch)
|
<AreaArray Radius="1.6" Fraction="1"/>
LOL
Looks like it should be 0.6..
HSM is rather ridiculous right now..
|
Someone put this in the bug report forum right?
|
not yet... testing HSM now - gimme a sec to mass some marauders -.-
|
The only reason I can see why they input this value is if the coder was expecting that the PF would x1.5 damage against ALL units in a .5 radius - that would make a lot more sense, but if it is true that the target gets 40dmg and those around it 60, then it definitely needs to be fixed!
|
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this.....
|
On April 06 2010 08:54 Perseverance wrote:
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this.....
No kidding, no wonder a PF can solo 20 hydras...
|
undeniable proof that Blizzard has always favored Terran
...and everyone thought the WC3 scandal was bad :D
|
On April 06 2010 08:54 Perseverance wrote:
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this.....
I know! In this one game I actually built a PF, it was trying to hold off an attack but it just wasn't doing enough damage to the targets I would micro it to attack! Hopefully they'll fix the main target damage to 60 as well, then I might consider building one once in a blue moon. On an island or something. Surrounded by turrets.
Talk about jumping to conclusions, people...
|
On April 06 2010 08:56 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:54 Perseverance wrote:
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this..... No kidding, no wonder a PF can solo 20 hydras...
Solo? Do you consider 10 SCV repairing it 'solo'?
I've seen some games where the terran player forgot to send the SCV to repair the PF, and it went down fast.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 06 2010 08:46 roemy wrote:hummm i came across another confusing entry: <CEffectDamage id="HunterSeekerDamage"> ... <AreaArray Radius=" 1.6" Fraction="1"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.2" Fraction="0.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="2.4" Fraction="0.25"/> has anyone used an HSM lately..? (excerpt of build14621 patch)
That is weird. I wonder how that's interpreted by the game. My guess would be the later line takes priority, which would mean from 0-1.2 it does 50%, 1.2-1.6 100%, and 1.6-2.4 25%. Or, if the game prioritizes radii outward from the center, it would mean from 0-1.6 it would do 100%, then 1.6-2.4 25% (meaning the 1.2 line is ignored completely).
Can someone test that out? I won't be able to check it until late tonight.
|
Would be kind of funny if HSM is accidentally a lot more powerful than it is meant to be, seeing as how you still rarely see it used in high level games.
|
On April 06 2010 09:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:46 roemy wrote:hummm i came across another confusing entry: <CEffectDamage id="HunterSeekerDamage"> ... <AreaArray Radius=" 1.6" Fraction="1"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.2" Fraction="0.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="2.4" Fraction="0.25"/> has anyone used an HSM lately..? (excerpt of build14621 patch) That is weird. I wonder how that's interpreted by the game. My guess would be the later line takes priority, which would mean from 0-1.2 it does 50%, 1.2-1.6 100%, and 1.6-2.4 25%. Or, if the game prioritizes radii outward from the center, it would mean from 0-1.6 it would do 100%, then 1.6-2.4 25% (meaning the 1.2 line is ignored completely). Can someone test that out? I won't be able to check it until late tonight.
edit: testing
|
On April 06 2010 09:04 Tdelamay wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:56 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 08:54 Perseverance wrote:
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this..... No kidding, no wonder a PF can solo 20 hydras... Solo? Do you consider 10 SCV repairing it 'solo'? I've seen some games where the terran player forgot to send the SCV to repair the PF, and it went down fast.
oh yes, god forbid you actually have to remember to send scv's to repair your imbalanced fortress, what a pain.
|
Wait... so, if this is true, the hunter seeker missile does more damage than storm and it as a larger radius?
Blizzard... come on....
|
jop... hsm is overachieving atm - im not judging if it's OP - just saying that it deals 100 damage over a 1.6 radius before dropping to 25 over 2.4 radius
reported
|
![[image loading]](http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8304/screenshot004ax.jpg)
I used ghosts because they'll die to the 100 damage portion and would live to the 50% so as you can see there was no 50% damage the first outlying ghosts to live had 75 health meaning they either took 100% or 25%
|
United States12235 Posts
Nice work roemy, good find. Thanks for testing it Rael.
|
also... did not know armor was ignored but i guess its a "spell" *shrug*
|
I knew pf was a bit ridiculous. Thanks for postinng! Cheers, my fellow toss and zergs!
|
Wow. This is why they have a beta I guess. Cant imagine that the HSM is intentional, even if the Fortress is. Blizz needs to stop balancing with beers and start using red bull I guess.
|
On April 06 2010 09:31 OreoBoi wrote:
Wait... so, if this is true, the hunter seeker missile does more damage than storm and it as a larger radius?
Blizzard... come on....
HSM is hit or miss, there is no in between like storm. You have to work to cast a storm that hits nothing, while HSM can be dodged and ran away from, or isolated to one lone unit. HSM costs 125 mana from a unit that is around double the cost of a HT (which casts storm for 75 mana). Templar with the mana upgrade can come out casting storm - Ravens are still far from a HSM with their upgrade. Do I really need to go on?
|
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are.
|
On April 06 2010 11:38 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 09:31 OreoBoi wrote:
Wait... so, if this is true, the hunter seeker missile does more damage than storm and it as a larger radius?
Blizzard... come on.... HSM is hit or miss, there is no in between like storm. You have to work to cast a storm that hits nothing, while HSM can be dodged and ran away from, or isolated to one lone unit. HSM costs 125 mana from a unit that is around double the cost of a HT (which casts storm for 75 mana). Templar with the mana upgrade can come out casting storm - Ravens are still far from a HSM with their upgrade. Do I really need to go on?
Oh I wasn't aware it cost double the energy, sorry don't play terran in sc2.
I think the instantaneous damage is better though, at least if it hits it can kill something. It is quite easy to run away from a storm and not take much damage.
After they change the radius, I think it will be fine, but 100 instant damage in a 1.6 radius a lot better than storm.
|
To those who say Planetary Fortress splash isn't a bug: Yes, yes it is. It isn't necessarily imbalanced- maybe the devs are satisfied with its current splash damage. Maybe not. However, no one can deny that with its current implementation, the Planetary Fortress' tooltip is grossly misleading- it suggests it hits about as hard as an Archon attacking a clump of biological units, but in effect hits much, much harder. It needs to be changed, even if it's just to make it more intuitive.
As to the HSM, there's clearly an error as well. The 1.2 area radius doesn't make sense considering the 1.6 area radius value before it- it definitely looks like that 1.6 area was meant to be 0.6.
|
what if Blizzard sees this and they think "oh, we like how the PF's been doing" and then just buff the overall damage to 60. :p
|
On April 06 2010 11:46 Newguy wrote:
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are.
as we see, HSM is bugged, simply making the x1.0 radius to 0.6 and HSM will not kill more than 3-4 hydras
|
On April 06 2010 08:56 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:54 Perseverance wrote:
wow very nice, I can't believe that it went this long unnoticed.....and to think, I've lost games because of this..... No kidding, no wonder a PF can solo 20 hydras...
that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard
|
On April 06 2010 11:46 Newguy wrote:
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are.
Yeah let's just forget the fact storm costs 75 energy and with upgrade it can be cast right away. HSM is 150 energy, I'm speechless. I have no idea what you are on about. Why are you comparing storm with HSM. If you want to actually compare, HSM is easier to dodge. At least you can get 20 damage off if you cast on on group of units, HSM have to travel to the enemy unit with super super super slow speed and you can just move away. Also you can use sentries to trap enemy units to cast storms. I mean wow, just wow.
On topic:
I must say this splash is bugged. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I don't think there ever was a unit in the history of Blizzard that did more damage in splash than the targeted unit. I'm sure this will be fixed in future patches.
|
Regardless of whether the abilities are bad or good, it's important that if these are bugs (which they really seem to be) that they are fixed so that at least the data is consistent, and when they try and balance it, they can balance it around the way that the abilities are actually working, not make assumptions on how they are supposed to be working, and balance around that.
Maybe the reason that seeker missile is so expensive energy-wise is because it's so devastating. But maybe it's only so devastating because it's 100% radius is bugged. Correcting the 100% radius will weaken the seeker missile, but then it might be reasonable to reduce it's energy cost to 75, or increase it's pursuit speed to compensate. Maybe it's supposed to have a high full-damage radius, but in that case, remove the half damage radius, or at least put it at a higher radius than the full damage radius.
Maybe Planetary fortress is good the way it is, but it would make more sense if it said it dealt 60 damage, and did a 100%, 50%, 25% spread instead of dealing 40 damage to it's initial target, 60 to it's surrounding targets, 30 to those further out, and 15 at the edge. It should do 60 to it's initial target instead and read as dealing 60 damage on the tooltip at least.
Regardless of whether they are balanced in play or not, it's much easier to ensure they are ultimately balanced when you're dealing with an accurate set of data.
|
Can someone check the splash on Ultralisks? I dont have the programs to let me grab the XML files from the MPQs so I'm wondering about other splash damages if they are calculated correctly as well. Hellions seem to be working correctly but maybe we should just look up all splash damage just to be sure since two seem to be wrong already?
|
Blizzard should hire you as some guy who double checks things
In what file can you find these info?
|
Is the aggro value bugged aswell ? When you attack a terran with planetary fortress with a+clic all your units at range attack the planetary fortress instead of the army.
I've lost some games like this. It makes zergling useless against defensive terrans.
|
On April 06 2010 13:18 HubertFelix wrote:
Is the aggro value bugged aswell ? When you attack a terran with planetary fortress with a+clic all your units at range attack the planetary fortress instead of the army.
I've lost some games like this. It makes zergling useless against defensive terrans.
Banelings >> PF if they're being defensive just run in with some units to distract the shots from the banelings and blow it up. But AFAIK that part is working correctly
|
Yeah you can adapt your gameplay to this. All my friends in the beta and myself really feel this like a bug. I don't think blizzard wanted to create a super magnet tower.
|
On April 06 2010 13:00 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Can someone check the splash on Ultralisks? I dont have the programs to let me grab the XML files from the MPQs so I'm wondering about other splash damages if they are calculated correctly as well. Hellions seem to be working correctly but maybe we should just look up all splash damage just to be sure since two seem to be wrong already?
there's quite a lot of entries for the ultralisk: one for the target itself, one for the splash damage, one for the structure attack.
looks fine to my inexperienced eye
but let me PM you every entry
|
On April 06 2010 13:27 roemy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 13:00 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Can someone check the splash on Ultralisks? I dont have the programs to let me grab the XML files from the MPQs so I'm wondering about other splash damages if they are calculated correctly as well. Hellions seem to be working correctly but maybe we should just look up all splash damage just to be sure since two seem to be wrong already? there's quite a lot of entries for the ultralisk: one for the target itself, one for the splash damage, one for the structure attack. looks fine to my inexperienced eye but let me PM you every entry
Sounds good there arent any other radius based splash attacks are there? Ultras are like a frontal cone and hellions are line based... I can't think of any more can you? Colossi do flat damage to everything it hits with the laser sweep... Baneling explosions maybe? But those seem to do flat damage as well.
|
On April 06 2010 13:36 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 13:27 roemy wrote:On April 06 2010 13:00 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Can someone check the splash on Ultralisks? I dont have the programs to let me grab the XML files from the MPQs so I'm wondering about other splash damages if they are calculated correctly as well. Hellions seem to be working correctly but maybe we should just look up all splash damage just to be sure since two seem to be wrong already? there's quite a lot of entries for the ultralisk: one for the target itself, one for the splash damage, one for the structure attack. looks fine to my inexperienced eye but let me PM you every entry Sounds good there arent any other radius based splash attacks are there? Ultras are like a frontal cone and hellions are line based... I can't think of any more can you? Colossi do flat damage to everything it hits with the laser sweep... Baneling explosions maybe? But those seem to do flat damage as well.
maybe siege tank too
|
alright alright ^^
hold on - ill make a new topic for everything splash
|
It's possible the Archon splash could be bugged in the opposite way, though it's much less of a clear cut case.
<CEffectDamage id="ArchonDamage" parent="DU_WEAP">
<AreaArray Radius="0.093" Fraction="1"/>
This splash can never happen unless units are directly overlapping each other at the center, like Mutas in SC1, as a comparison, its less than 4% of the Siege tank full damage splash area.
<AreaArray Radius="0.4" Fraction="0.5"/>
This splash can happen but only affects the smallest units if they are perfectly aligned, and overlapping air units.
<AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.25"/>
This is the splash you see most of the time, which is weak and very small radius as well, it's 40% of the siege tank splash area.
Not sure why they have a splash that pretty much can't happen. Why is the radius 0.093 (which isn't related to anything else in the game)? It's not a a number derived from the following numbers either (0.4, 0.8).
As I said this, unlike the Planetary Fortress, isn't a clear cut case, it could be intentional but its odd regardless.
|
On April 06 2010 19:58 Paladia wrote:
isn't a clear cut case, it could be intentional but its odd regardless.
It's called an Easter Egg.
|
What noob makes fortress at natural?
|
Good catch OP, definately looks like a bug, so we will see if blizzard intends to change the damage or just update the stats.
|
there will always be little misstakes like this in beta, but its good that there are people out there looking for these things so that they get fixed for the final game, as for the archon i think that its probably on purpose but i would love to see that change and them get some splash damage in the next patch
|
On April 06 2010 22 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 06 2010 22 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:03 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
What noob makes fortress at natural?
Afraid Terrans.
|
i don't see how you guys can't understand that taking out the closer units is more urgent than taking out the back units, especially with melee rushes, so they hurt the really close ones more?
it also makes sense that a shot would have more power at close range
wtf i don't understand why its so hard for you guys to understand someone explain?
|
On April 06 2010 22:03 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
What noob makes fortress at natural?
Clearly you've never heard of the incredible Moon build, ask Artosis
|
So archon splash is 40% of a tanks at it's max?
What was it in broodwar? Anyone know?
That doesn't seem all that useful
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 06 2010 23:41 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
So archon splash is 40% of a tanks at it's max?
What was it in broodwar? Anyone know?
That doesn't seem all that useful
Archons never had a very large splash radius, and especially not in the full damage zone. I'd actually be pretty surprised if a 0.4 radius for secondary splash even hit a neighboring Zergling in SC2.
|
On April 06 2010 11:46 Newguy wrote:
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are.
Blizzard could also make starcraft like AOE3 with the whole %bonus damage vs specific unit types sort of thing. Like instead of armor types... certain units could just do more damage against certain other units. It's hard to explain. If you've played AOE3 you'll know what I'm talking about.
|
On April 06 2010 23:49 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:46 Newguy wrote:
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are. Blizzard could also make starcraft like AOE3 with the whole %bonus damage vs specific unit types sort of thing. Like instead of armor types... certain units could just do more damage against certain other units. It's hard to explain. If you've played AOE3 you'll know what I'm talking about.
i think i know what you mean. something like "marines +10 damage vs all ranged units" and "hydras +10 damage vs all Air units" etc... imo this would suck hard.
|
On April 06 2010 23:13 Nal_rAwr wrote:
i don't see how you guys can't understand that taking out the closer units is more urgent than taking out the back units, especially with melee rushes, so they hurt the really close ones more?
it also makes sense that a shot would have more power at close range
wtf i don't understand why its so hard for you guys to understand someone explain?
It is because you have misunderstood how it works.
The radius mentioned is not the radius from the PF, it is the radius from where its shots lands.
|
Wow, so Planetary Fort and Hunter seekers are bugged, nice work.
|
Although I think that they need to fix the bug with PF, thus reducing its damage, I think that HSM is just fine the way it is. Its really not much more powerful, if even as powerful, as Reavers in BW. Scarabs moved faster, but Reavers themselves were slow ground units. HSM is slow, but its on a flying unit with plenty of other uses.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a Protoss player, so that's why I'm hoping for a PF nerf. But in my opinion, HSM should remain as strong as it is now.
|
The tooltip may be misleading but the splash is working correctly. The dual cannons will hit around the 'target' making the surrounding area take more damage then the centre. At least on one axis...
|
from Wikipedia
A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways.
The planetary fortress is obviously a bug, but the hunter seeker missile might not be. We would have to know if they are just overriding the 50% damage area by changing a single number instead of taking the long way around.
I would venture a guess that the PF damage and the HSM are good bugs though. No one is complaining about either being imbalanced, so I hope blizzard updates what they say about the abilities and not the actual damage in game.
|
On April 07 2010 01:09 seppolevne wrote:
The tooltip may be misleading but the splash is working correctly. The dual cannons will hit around the 'target' making the surrounding area take more damage then the centre. At least on one axis...
The center target would still take the most damage because it's getting ripped apart by shockwaves from all sides. The damage from an explosive isn't the fireworks, it's the boom.
|
It helps when the entire Planetary Fortress damage effect is posted.
<CEffectDamage id="PlanetaryFortress" parent="DU_WEAP"> <EditorCategories value="Race:Terran"/> <Kind value="Splash"/> <Amount value="40"/> <Death value="Fire"/> <SearchFilters value="Ground;Self,Player,Ally,Missile,Stasis,Dead,Hidden,Invulnerable"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/> <ExcludeArray Value="Outer"/> <ExcludeArray Value="Target"/> </CEffectDamage>
Its doing 1.5x damage to all targets within the 0.5 radius when it should just be 1x, splash attacks also don't hit the actual target its attacking and they just get damaged by the splash itself.
The Archon's splash radius is significantly smaller compared to SC1, the max radius was 25% smaller than the siege tank when in SC2 its closer to 35% smaller.
|
On April 07 2010 04:24 Hunter_Killers wrote:
It helps when the entire Planetary Fortress damage effect is posted.
It has been posted already.
On April 06 2010 23:53 MeProU_Kor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 23:49 obesechicken13 wrote:On April 06 2010 11:46 Newguy wrote:
one HSM can kill like 8 hydra, 1 storm kills like none if the zerg is good. I think storm needs a buff, maybe so that it does bonus damage to armored and whatever type hydras are. Blizzard could also make starcraft like AOE3 with the whole %bonus damage vs specific unit types sort of thing. Like instead of armor types... certain units could just do more damage against certain other units. It's hard to explain. If you've played AOE3 you'll know what I'm talking about. i think i know what you mean. something like "marines +10 damage vs all ranged units" and "hydras +10 damage vs all Air units" etc... imo this would suck hard.
Yeah it would make the game far easier to balance but the problem is that there would be fewer hard counters. Everything would be rather soft. This means that the winning player would be the one who won the first battle.. considering that the high ground miss chance has been removed.
It's better than what it is currently where immortals do lots of damage to small units and buildings though.
|
The 1.5 does explain how it melts units so quickly when it suppose to have only 40 dmg.
|
I've posted twice on the blizz forums for such quirks(HSM splash, buildings repairing at different rate when on the ground and lifted off, e.t.c.) and that was several patches ago and nothing has changed :/
|
On April 07 2010 08:33 lololol wrote:
I've posted twice on the blizz forums for such quirks(HSM splash, buildings repairing at different rate when on the ground and lifted off, e.t.c.) and that was several patches ago and nothing has changed :/
Buildings have always repaired at different rates even in SC:BW the repair rate is based on build time iirc
|
Who says this is an error?
|
It seems that it is in fact an error in light of the archon data. The numbers you pulled from the archon seem to make sense, full damage in the middle, and gradually less as the radius increases.
|
I vote for bumping the damage to 60 instead of 40 if they're going to fix the 1.5 to 1.
|
It could be some kind of cannon that blows up and that nearest splash damage is the greatest
BLIZZARD NEVER MAKES MISTAKES
|
On April 07 2010 08:35 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 08:33 lololol wrote:
I've posted twice on the blizz forums for such quirks(HSM splash, buildings repairing at different rate when on the ground and lifted off, e.t.c.) and that was several patches ago and nothing has changed :/ Buildings have always repaired at different rates even in SC:BW the repair rate is based on build time iirc
It says "buildings repairing at different rate when on the ground and lifted off", it doesn't say "all buildings are not repairing at the same rate", it specifically mentions being on the ground and lifted off.
|
Did this get changed with the patch?
|
On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote:
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
|
On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote:
Did this get changed with the patch?
no
|
On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote:
Did this get changed with the patch? 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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On April 08 2010 21:01 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 20:42 Paladia wrote:On April 08 2010 05:19 Piousflea wrote:
Did this get changed with the patch? 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? 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
would prefer 100%/67%/33%
then fiddle with the radius if you want to make it more compliant with rl-physics
same for HSM pl0x
|
PF... now it all makes sense! This is why as Protoss I never attack one without multiple immortals and as Terran I never attack one without siegemode and/or banshees. Sheesh.
|
Chen quote:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 07:10 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:55 Cade)Flayer wrote:
Planetary Fortress costs a ton of resources to make so I don't think this is a bug. Not only does it cost 150 extra gas but also you lose so much more due to lack of Mules and you lose Scans as well. It's also Terrans only static defence that doesn't cost food so it has to be super powerful otherwise T could never FE. 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. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:09 ArdentZeal wrote:<AreaArray Radius="0.5" Fraction="1.5"/> <AreaArray Radius="0.8" Fraction="0.75"/> <AreaArray Radius="1.25" Fraction="0.375"/> 0.375 * 2 = 0.75 * 2 = 1.5 I doubt that there is an error. The multiplier (*2) seems intentional 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". =]
|
It does do 40 damage, to its initial target. If there is one unit around or units are spread out, it'll do 40 damage every shot like the tooltip states. You only get raped by 60 damage if you clump. Learn to spread out is the message here I guess.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 09 2010 01:25 Tdelamay wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 09 2010 01:25 Tdelamay wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
|
|
It may not be a bug. Setting higher AoE damage for units near the target but lower damage for the target itself has the effect of encouraging players to spread out more against the PT, while using fewer, stronger units. I don't see any problem with that decision, it should probably just be made a bit more obvious in game.
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.
|
On April 09 2010 05:35 Cyclon wrote:
It may not be a bug. Setting higher AoE damage for units near the target but lower damage for the target itself has the effect of encouraging players to spread out more against the PT, while using fewer, stronger units. I don't see any problem with that decision, it should probably just be made a bit more obvious in game.
You can't really spread out enough to reduce the splash significantly and still deal enough dps to the Planetary Fortress to take it out before your opponen't army is there. You can't afford to fight a PF and your opponent's army at the same time. So you either take it down as quickly as possible or you just ignore it.
|
Either way the damage is a lie and that needs to be fixed, damage should always be posted in a reduction based format not secretly make it more powerful so someone sees 40 and thinks okay 40 dmg not someone sees 40 finds out its more like 60 and goes haxx
|
Obviously this bug needs to be fixed, but given that the planetary fortress isn't particularly popular to begin with, I'd really like to see an overhaul of the building. Let it be used defensively to heal units or restore energy or something, rather than just being a fat building to avoid attacking. Otherwise I doubt it will ever see much use over orbital.
|
On April 09 2010 05:41 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 05:35 Cyclon wrote:
It may not be a bug. Setting higher AoE damage for units near the target but lower damage for the target itself has the effect of encouraging players to spread out more against the PT, while using fewer, stronger units. I don't see any problem with that decision, it should probably just be made a bit more obvious in game.
You can't really spread out enough to reduce the splash significantly and still deal enough dps to the Planetary Fortress to take it out before your opponen't army is there. You can't afford to fight a PF and your opponent's army at the same time. So you either take it down as quickly as possible or you just ignore it.
You don't necessarily have to spread out so much that the AoE never hits more then 1 of your unit at a time, just make sure you don't blob it up so that the AoE hits 8-10 at a time. Especially true since most player's at the moment probably aren't microing their PF much while they try to pull every unit on the map to trap you. So find what it's targetting, micro it away from the group to avoid splash a bit more.
Also, it makes units like Archons and Ultralisks better, as they are high HP and the splash AoE (probably? haven't tested) isn't big enough to effect units next to them. Not that it will make them great units, but they can use all the help they can get.
|
I don't understand how it would work for a gun to do more damage in splash then on the target, but I don't think it's a typo either.
|
Maybe the gun is splashing tons upon tons of metal fragments that hurt more than the actual impact.
I dunno
|
On April 09 2010 05:35 Cyclon wrote:
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.
Or... players could just read the game manual instead?
http://classic.battle.net/scc/terran/ustats.shtml
All those things you mentioned are actually quite clearly documented in SC1. This is not the case for the abnormal way the PF's splash damage works.
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
On April 09 2010 09:54 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 05:35 Cyclon wrote:
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. Or... players could just read the game manual instead? http://classic.battle.net/scc/terran/ustats.shtmlAll those things you mentioned are actually quite clearly documented in SC1. This is not the case for the abnormal way the PF's splash damage works.
Actually, I don't recall it being anywhere in the SC1 manual. There was a text file in the SC install directory with that information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://mitglied.multimania.de/roemern/hsm-bug.jpg)
