I recently found out that pretty much all units in SC2 seem to have a random attack delay attached to them. This seems to mean that there is a randomness in the attack speed of all units, there being a chance of a unit attacking faster or slower than normal.
I found out about this after reading this topic on the EU beta forums and I was quite surprised. Sickstee.nine basically reports that in a 1 zealot vs 1 zealot fight, his zealot died with the enemy zelot surviving with 4 HP even though his zealot ATTACKED FIRST.
There is a replay there as well which unfortunately I can't figure out how to view anymore because of patch 13.
I had a look in the editor and indeed, pretty much all attacks for all units have:
Random Delay Maximum 0.125 Random Delay Minimum - 0.0625
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I am far from being a top level player and I didn't play SC1 online much, but from what I remember the only randomness in SC1 was the miss chance for attacking units on high ground. That was easy to account for (you knew you might miss if you attacked high ground).
This just sounds like in SC2 there is an intrinsic miss chance for all units and there is no guarantee that when equal armies clash the result of the fight will be a draw, with perfect micro on both sides. Or did I miss something?
While some people might find this ok, I'm not sure I like this at all.
You can see that the zealots aren't upgraded in any way (they are both the first zealots me and the computer make). You can see that the Computer's zealot hits first (I think you can make out the shield numbers in the UI).
Having thought about it I agree it's not such a big deal, especially later on when there are more units fighting against each other. I'm not that bothered about it anymore.
However, I think this is something players need to keep in mind, especially in low food fights (early game). It definitely wasn't something I was aware of before
BW seemed to have something like this too though it probably wasn't intentional. Have you ever tried to kill all your SCVs as an obs? Even if your last 2 SCVs started attacking at the same time, one SCV would often randomly attack faster.
That being said, I don't like this randomness. There is no need for it. It doesn't make the game any better.
The interesting thing is that Blizzard said they didn't want a high ground advantage with a random miss chance. They said they didn't like the randomness of it. Now there seems to be other randomness encoded into the game. I wonder what Blizzard's comment would be on that.
On May 24 2010 21:22 Aurdon wrote: The interesting thing is that Blizzard said they didn't want a high ground advantage with a random miss chance. They said they didn't like the randomness of it. Now there seems to be other randomness encoded into the game. I wonder what Blizzard's comment would be on that.
Exactly this. Blizzard either needs to remove the hypocrisy or add in low ground miss chance.
Great find. I can't say I ever noticed this but I think any randomness in this form would be significant and unwanted.
On May 24 2010 21:19 spinesheath wrote: BW seemed to have something like this too though it probably wasn't intentional. Have you ever tried to kill all your SCVs as an obs? Even if your last 2 SCVs started attacking at the same time, one SCV would often randomly attack faster.
That being said, I don't like this randomness. There is no need for it. It doesn't make the game any better.
Oh and good job finding this.
With the unclear attack animation of the SCV, I think, that the SCV double kill only was this difficult due to poor unit pathing. If they did start attacking at the same tick, they should die both 10 out of 10 times.
Is this delay thing actually confirmed? I do remember seeing 2 stalkers shooting each other and dying simultaneously. Did the delay just even out over time, as stalkers need a lot of attacks to kill each other?
It makes sense that one unit, although identical in every way, will attack a bit sooner/later because of their animations (wait that tiny bit more for walk animation to end before attacking?) or whatever. It's obviously not intentional and doubt they can really fix it.
On May 24 2010 21:19 spinesheath wrote: BW seemed to have something like this too though it probably wasn't intentional. Have you ever tried to kill all your SCVs as an obs? Even if your last 2 SCVs started attacking at the same time, one SCV would often randomly attack faster.
That being said, I don't like this randomness. There is no need for it. It doesn't make the game any better.
Oh and good job finding this.
With the unclear attack animation of the SCV, I think, that the SCV double kill only was this difficult due to poor unit pathing. If they did start attacking at the same tick, they should die both 10 out of 10 times.
Is this delay thing actually confirmed? I do remember seeing 2 stalkers shooting each other and dying simultaneously. Did the delay just even out over time, as stalkers need a lot of attacks to kill each other?
Stalkers have a slow moving projectile, even if the units dies the "bullet" keeps on going....its easy to get double kills with ranged projectile units. The slight delay in firing is more than compensated with the delay the projectile takes in reaching its target.
On May 24 2010 21:20 shalafi wrote: I couldn't find it in the editor. Which tab should I be looking at?
It's in the "Stats" tab of the weapons.
I can't take all the credit, Sickstee.nine found it, I just thought about posting this on TL.
Okay, found it. I had to activate "Advanced Values".
It seems that most units have that delay you said exactly, so fast-attacking units can vary more. (For example, the fastest a ling can attack about 20% faster than the slowest ling).
Other attack, like reaper's grenades, can vary up to 0.5 seconds.
This should be easy to test. Just make a map with 2 zerglings, wait for them to attack each other one or two times, save the game and reload it a bunch of times to see if the outcome is allways the same. (If it's even possible, I am not sure if SC" even has a save feature o0). I don't think this is actually true. I remember a lot of times seeing let's say reapers tossing they grenades allways at the exact same time without any guy missing the rhythm.
On May 24 2010 21:20 shalafi wrote: I couldn't find it in the editor. Which tab should I be looking at?
It's in the "Stats" tab of the weapons.
I can't take all the credit, Sickstee.nine found it, I just thought about posting this on TL.
As if it was hidden somewhere haha
BW has it too and that's very noticeable especially when you watch m&m force. The problem here's not the random delay itself, but blizzard's inconsistency in leaving this random shit in the game, that is good ONLY for aesthetics, and refusal to put actually important high-ground advantage, cause it has randomness in it.
If you use UnitTester, make two stalkers, select both and move them towards each other and press S or H to stop, the first shots by both will hit at the exact same times, but there are several times when one will win over the other even with 1-2 unit distance between them.
Distance between them: 0 stalker width Amount of tests both died: 6 Amount of tests one died: 4
Distance between them: 1 stalker width Amount of tests both died: 8 Amount of tests one died: 2
Distance between them: 2 stalker width Amount of tests both died: 8 Amount of tests one died: 2
On May 24 2010 21:19 spinesheath wrote: BW seemed to have something like this too though it probably wasn't intentional. Have you ever tried to kill all your SCVs as an obs? Even if your last 2 SCVs started attacking at the same time, one SCV would often randomly attack faster.
That being said, I don't like this randomness. There is no need for it. It doesn't make the game any better.
Oh and good job finding this.
With the unclear attack animation of the SCV, I think, that the SCV double kill only was this difficult due to poor unit pathing. If they did start attacking at the same tick, they should die both 10 out of 10 times.
I am pretty sure that I saw cases where both SCVs lost HP in the same frame (both wireframes changed in the same frame), but at the end of the battle the attacks were quite a bit out of sync. Some people (including me) also had the impression that they were almost never successful at killing both SCVs if the SCVs started attacking at the same time.
On May 24 2010 21:20 shalafi wrote: I couldn't find it in the editor. Which tab should I be looking at?
It's in the "Stats" tab of the weapons.
I can't take all the credit, Sickstee.nine found it, I just thought about posting this on TL.
As if it was hidden somewhere haha
BW has it too and that's very noticeable especially when you watch m&m force. The problem here's not the random delay itself, but blizzard's inconsistency in leaving this random shit in the game, that is good ONLY for aesthetics, and refusal to put actually important high-ground advantage, cause it has randomness in it.
I'm pretty sure this was not in broodwar. Muta stack? If they fired at different times it just wouldn't work.
This is stupid since it ruins the game. I'm not talking about the randomness... I'm talking about the fact you can't time your army'a attack (attack then move after attack, you have to wait until other units finishes attacking, sighs)
Yeah, it's there, so that all Units dont attack in sync. While somehow understandable, I think this delay is totally unacceptable for the early game units or melee units. (melee units usually dont attack in sync, because they have to move all the time).
On May 24 2010 21:53 Slunk wrote: This should be easy to test. Just make a map with 2 zerglings, wait for them to attack each other one or two times, save the game and reload it a bunch of times to see if the outcome is allways the same. (If it's even possible, I am not sure if SC" even has a save feature o0). I don't think this is actually true. I remember a lot of times seeing let's say reapers tossing they grenades allways at the exact same time without any guy missing the rhythm.
Just tested with reapers against 5 command centers, moving 10 reapers as a group with all within range, and then the first attack on the command center at the exact same time. On all 5 command centers there were some that went out of sync.
In other news, 11 reapers kill a command center in 5 volleys.
I guess you people hit it right on the spot. It's the inconsistency that is worrying
I guess I wouldn't be as annoyed about this if it was stated right from the start. Unit X doesn't do Y damage. It does Y-Z damage (because of attack speed randomness). That way you can sort of account for that in your play.
I always thought that a unit does the same damage all the time and always planned around that. I have a zergling and my enemy has a zergling? I'll try to hit his first and I should win! Seems I was wrong.
The reason I had this assumption was because of stuff Blizz has said - they don't want high ground advantage because it is random and they don't want randomness. But then there is randomness hidden all over the place.
I understand the need to vary the animations but the fact that also varies the outcome of the battle should be like clearly stated everywhere. I'd prefer there was none of this randomness (I think it would make for a better game IMHO) but if we have to live with it, at least make it clear as day so people can expect it.
I agree with the randomness. As long as its not huge its ok. Is there randomness in the amount of damage done? I believe not. What about how fast a unit moves? Nope. So the attack speed is a bit random. If there wasn't any randomness in the game every engagement should just insta-kill based on the algorithm they have for it. I've seen games who took this approach. It efficient though not engaging. I know that Y should always behave like this. Blizzard probably wanted to put an element of luck into the game without it being overpowered. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if this was in all there RTS's but very hidden. Sort of like in other games there are internal stats for your characters you never get to see.
On May 24 2010 22:20 Ceric wrote: I agree with the randomness. As long as its not huge its ok. Is there randomness in the amount of damage done? I believe not. What about how fast a unit moves? Nope. So the attack speed is a bit random. If there wasn't any randomness in the game every engagement should just insta-kill based on the algorithm they have for it. I've seen games who took this approach. It efficient though not engaging. I know that Y should always behave like this. Blizzard probably wanted to put an element of luck into the game without it being overpowered. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if this was in all there RTS's but very hidden. Sort of like in other games there are internal stats for your characters you never get to see.
Look at my previous post. In this situation it does ruin games.
I agree randomness can be a factor but not when it ruins the "game play". I can see how random damage output can affect the outcome, that's ok because the margin is small and why not have this luck factor in games. However this is about the random "attack delay", how can you know when to withdraw after attacking? You don't! you just have to guess. If there won't this random attack delay feature then how can you know when to withdraw after attacking? Through experience and playing a lot. Even having minimum and maximum damage would be a better solution if you want this randomness in RTS. This better be removed when sc2 comes out.
On May 24 2010 21:19 spinesheath wrote: BW seemed to have something like this too though it probably wasn't intentional. Have you ever tried to kill all your SCVs as an obs? Even if your last 2 SCVs started attacking at the same time, one SCV would often randomly attack faster.
That being said, I don't like this randomness. There is no need for it. It doesn't make the game any better.
Oh and good job finding this.
With the unclear attack animation of the SCV, I think, that the SCV double kill only was this difficult due to poor unit pathing. If they did start attacking at the same tick, they should die both 10 out of 10 times.
I am pretty sure that I saw cases where both SCVs lost HP in the same frame (both wireframes changed in the same frame), but at the end of the battle the attacks were quite a bit out of sync. Some people (including me) also had the impression that they were almost never successful at killing both SCVs if the SCVs started attacking at the same time.
This is actually the case, I am surprised.
I tested this using this savegame and I've had all sorts of outcomes. Just test this save a few times, the outcome is allways different. I have had each one survive and both of them explode.
Wow this topic was really helpful. I was wondering why I would lose when my zealot/probe attacked their zealot/probe first. Really, if your unit attacks first, it should win. In 1v1 situations, losing a zealot because their zealot just sat there while yours was actively attacking it is a big psychological blow. They definitely need to fix this.
On May 24 2010 21:49 HubertFelix wrote: So zergling fights are random?
Obviously they are. But mostly because of unit AI
On May 24 2010 21:21 iiomega wrote:
On May 24 2010 21:20 shalafi wrote: I couldn't find it in the editor. Which tab should I be looking at?
It's in the "Stats" tab of the weapons.
I can't take all the credit, Sickstee.nine found it, I just thought about posting this on TL.
As if it was hidden somewhere haha
BW has it too and that's very noticeable especially when you watch m&m force. The problem here's not the random delay itself, but blizzard's inconsistency in leaving this random shit in the game, that is good ONLY for aesthetics, and refusal to put actually important high-ground advantage, cause it has randomness in it.
I'm pretty sure this was not in broodwar. Muta stack? If they fired at different times it just wouldn't work.
Muta micro works because this delay doesn't affect first shot
The randomness is potentially for gameplay reasons; there's a possibility that it's there to prevent large amounts of overkill.
Imagine something like 10 zealots all attacking a thor who gets down to 5 hp. If they were in sync then all 10 would attack at once, killing the thor and and doing 9 overkill attacks. If the zealots are ever so slightly staggered then only 1 zealot will kill the thor and the other 9 can turn on other units.
Even if the other 9 zealots wouldn't overkill in a synced attack it still can help to have the staggered attacks. Every second a zealot's attack cooldown is up, but he's not attacking, is wasted dps. In synced attacks, 9 of the zealots would be wasting DPS once the thor dies as they go to find new targets. In an unsynced setup it's likely that most of the zealots will be able to retarget and attack while losing less dps because they'll retarget while their attack is on cooldown.
Yeah it sucks for low food fights, but in large food fights it might actually be necessary for units to operate a little more efficiently in large battles.
I be of a mind set to have a first strike advantage. It would work like this.
The first hit of a target who is not in combat would have something like a 1.25. The in combat is there so you can't just attack stop attack stop for the bonus.
So your units first hit would pack a little more umph and put the enemy unit in combat for say 3 seconds (or about an average of 2 attacks worth of time.)
I would also consider you to be in combat if the enemy unit is in the process of actively engaging you (A zealot actively going to attack a seige tank for example, the siege will obviously hit first but the Zealot would get the advantage because it engaged first in this example.)
There some different things they could do. The other road is random damage and synchronized swimming looking armies. That would probably bother everyone very quickly.
Take the different races. I expect my Thor team to strike almost as one. Why because they are highly trained individuals. Same with Battleships.
I expect my Zerglings or Ultralisks on the other hand to hit almost whenever because they are not highly trained to be organized. They're made to get the job done however possible.
On May 24 2010 23:25 Logo wrote: The randomness is potentially for gameplay reasons; there's a possibility that it's there to prevent large amounts of overkill.
Imagine something like 10 zealots all attacking a thor who gets down to 5 hp. If they were in sync then all 10 would attack at once, killing the thor and and doing 9 overkill attacks. If the zealots are ever so slightly staggered then only 1 zealot will kill the thor and the other 9 can turn on other units.
Even if the other 9 zealots wouldn't overkill in a synced attack it still can help to have the staggered attacks. Every second a zealot's attack cooldown is up, but he's not attacking, is wasted dps. In synced attacks, 9 of the zealots would be wasting DPS once the thor dies as they go to find new targets. In an unsynced setup it's likely that most of the zealots will be able to retarget and attack while losing less dps because they'll retarget while their attack is on cooldown.
Yeah it sucks for low food fights, but in large food fights it might actually be necessary for units to operate a little more efficiently in large battles.
This would be a really nifty way to prevent overkilling. It seems plausible.
I went through all attacks, and the only non-standard (-0.0625 to 0.125) delays are these:
Battlecruiser: min -0.0625, max 0.1875 Interceptor: no randomness (Interceptor firing rate on Carrier has standard delays though) Reaper grenades: min 0.1, max 0.5 (yep - attack is always delayed at least 0.1)
This was exactly the same in StarCraft 1, just watch a marine ball shooting at a building. The first shot will be perfectly simultanious from all marines, after 3 shots they all shoot at different times. Because the difference between these times is very very small and StarCraft units shoot relativley fast, this has no real effect on games.
On May 25 2010 00:01 Error Ash wrote: [...] this has no real effect on games.
this is true.
but what about replays? i thought that there is no randomness at all in the game, so that only the actual player commands would be saved in the replay file and not the outcome of them. which leads to the small filesize and rewinding capability of replays.
if there is some kind of random effect involved, wouldn't that potentially alter the outcome of some situations in replays?
On May 25 2010 00:01 Error Ash wrote: [...] this has no real effect on games.
this is true.
but what about replays? i thought that there is no randomness at all in the game, so that only the actual player commands would be saved in the replay file and not the outcome of them. which leads to the small filesize and rewinding capability of replays.
if there is some kind of random effect involved, wouldn't that potentially alter the outcome of some situations in replays?
think about high ground miss chance in starcraft1. its like ~50% and if those results of every shot wasn't saved in sc1 replays, they would have a totally different outcome.
Im pretty sure such things are also saved in replays.
I thought I noticed something like this while watching the Archon attack. It just seemed like sometimes it took ages, and then other times it took slightly faster ages.
Sweet, I'm going to hold a tournament to see which of my zerglings are the luckiest.
Regarding replays, I'd guess they have a random seed for each game to generate all the random values needed. Then they only need to store this seed in the replay file. Everything will turn out the same since each pseudorandom value is accessed in the same order.
On May 25 2010 02:50 yoshi_yoshi wrote: Sweet, I'm going to hold a tournament to see which of my zerglings are the luckiest.
Regarding replays, I'd guess they have a random seed for each game to generate all the random values needed. Then they only need to store this seed in the replay file. Everything will turn out the same since each pseudorandom value is accessed in the same order.
Yep it has to store the random seed value.
The attack delay phenomenon also appeared in BW and isn't statistically relevant, especially to the degree that BW's high ground mechanic was.
On May 25 2010 00:01 Error Ash wrote: This was exactly the same in StarCraft 1, just watch a marine ball shooting at a building. The first shot will be perfectly simultanious from all marines, after 3 shots they all shoot at different times. Because the difference between these times is very very small and StarCraft units shoot relativley fast, this has no real effect on games.
qft
I think the randomness is just for aesthetics. It looks a lot better when 20 Marines stagger their attacks by a very small fraction of a second than if all their attacks are 100% in sync. The effects on gameplay are pretty much non-existent.
If I remember correctly, the delay between ultralisk attacks in bw is highly inconsistent. I don't have access to bw right now but if you just let two ultras attack a building, you should easily notice the difference
I can't be sure but I think they implemented it to make fights look more real. Otherwise I don't see a point why else would they implement anything like that.
On May 25 2010 02:38 101TFP wrote: but what about replays? i thought that there is no randomness at all in the game, so that only the actual player commands would be saved in the replay file and not the outcome of them. which leads to the small filesize and rewinding capability of replays.
if there is some kind of random effect involved, wouldn't that potentially alter the outcome of some situations in replays?
There is no true randomness. I'm no expert but as far as I know every "random" thing that happens in a game (and all other computer applications) is based on some kind of formula which can be based on a lot of factors.
A replay mimics everything that has happened during a game and is dependent on the same formula and therefore every battle has the exact same outcome.
As I said, I'm no expert and I'm sure someone can give a better explanation but I hope you understand the basics of it.
The comparisons people are making to sc1 aren't completely accurate.
In sc1 a unit who strikes first would never lose in a 1-on-1 battle. That is assuming the report in the OP is true and both zeals began with the same hp/upgrades.
my comment is, doesn't matter in gameplay. both units have the same kind of randomness, its not like your unit will always lose, also, if you attack first its a ≈99% chance that your unit will win anyway, what the complaining people here are complaining about is that last 1% but honestly, lets face it, that unit will be 1 hit from dying anyway, i dont think it matters, plus, it evens out in the long run.
On May 25 2010 03:55 Jonoman92 wrote: The comparisons people are making to sc1 aren't completely accurate.
In sc1 a unit who strikes first would never lose in a 1-on-1 battle. That is assuming the report in the OP is true and both zeals began with the same hp/upgrades.
There are at least 2 reasons why getting upset about a slight randomness in attack delays is silly.
1) The randomness is in the attack delay which implies you can consistently count on your first attack to execute when in range. So when you are dancing around trying to get in the best position to engage there will be no randomness in when your units first fire when they are finally in range.
2) Even when you let a unit continuously fire and the delay between attacks is slightly random, there are many other factors like positioning that create random noise. If two players have the exact same number of zealots and engage with a-move, just the shape of the group and which zealots have to walk further to start attacking is going to drown out the random attack delay. A skilled player should not be frustrated by these minimal random factors because micromanagement of units improves their efficiency over an a-move blob and can win even if the random factors are stacking up against him.
On May 24 2010 23:19 AlliNPreFlop wrote: Way to fail blizzard, thats a retarded system.
...and they defended their high ground mechanic because it's not random.
I don't think that they are defending their high ground just because it's not random. They are saying the random chance to miss isn't as intuitive as "if you can see, you can shoot." So their goal isn't to eliminate all random factors from the game entirely (see point 2 above--if you wanted all random factors removed then you should be able to stack all units so their positioning isn't random, etc)
Q: Are there any plans to change the current high ground advantage to the Wacraft III/StarCraft mechanic or other alternatives? A: No. We like the high ground rules and we think they are cool for StarCraft II. The random high ground from StarCraft just didn’t seem right for a such a skill based game. The clarity of “if you can see, you can shoot” makes a lot more sense to us.
Suppose in BW player A has enough dragoons to take a group of player B's tanks in an open space, but only just enough that the tanks would on paper be able to beat the goons from a high ground advantage. It's still possible for the goons to win against high-ground tanks if they "roll well" and land most of their shots. For a player in the game or an observer it may not be apparent what role the high ground played in the battle, or if A's goons were better micro'ed or what. Even though the skilled player usually wins in BW, it may not be clear if high ground is helping a lot or a little or what.
Starcraft 2 has more intuitive high ground--if you can see, you can shoot. So players and observers can intuitively see the high ground mechanic's effect on a battle. I don't know if this means the new high ground is better, but I'm pretty sure this is Blizzard's argument.
TL;DR: If you are skillful you will still win in Starcraft 2.
There was a thread about this on the battle.net forums where someone posted a pvp rep and it showed his zealot dying against another zealot even though it attacked first and the other zealot was turned the other way and stationary.
On May 25 2010 02:38 101TFP wrote: but what about replays? i thought that there is no randomness at all in the game, so that only the actual player commands would be saved in the replay file and not the outcome of them. which leads to the small filesize and rewinding capability of replays.
if there is some kind of random effect involved, wouldn't that potentially alter the outcome of some situations in replays?
There is no true randomness. I'm no expert but as far as I know every "random" thing that happens in a game (and all other computer applications) is based on some kind of formula which can be based on a lot of factors.
A replay mimics everything that has happened during a game and is dependent on the same formula and therefore every battle has the exact same outcome.
As I said, I'm no expert and I'm sure someone can give a better explanation but I hope you understand the basics of it.
As Excalibur_Z posted they store a number called a "random seed". Using the same random seed always produces the same sequence of numbers, so a replay will always match the events that occured in the game. Wikipedia Article
I've done some experiments in UnitTester and in Custom games myself. I can reproduce this about 1 in 8 tries (the other 7 tries the zealot hitting first wins the fight) but I haven't done enough tries so take this percentage with a pinch of salt
You can see that the zealots aren't upgraded in any way (they are both the first zealots me and the computer make). You can see that the Computer's zealot hits first (I think you can make out the shield numbers in the UI, again sorry for the low res).
Having thought about it I agree it's not such a big deal, especially later on when there are more units fighting against each other. I'm not that bothered about it anymore.
However, I think this is something players need to keep in mind, especially in low food fights (early game). It definitely wasn't something I was aware of before
I have edited the OP to include the replay and video.
I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
On May 25 2010 06:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
From what we know so far, it's exactly like that in BW.
On May 25 2010 06:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
From what we know so far, it's exactly like that in BW.
I've neeeeeeeeever seen a zealot 1v1 where the zealot which gets hit first still wins.
On May 25 2010 06:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
From what we know so far, it's exactly like that in BW.
I've neeeeeeeeever seen a zealot 1v1 where the zealot which gets hit first still wins.
And yet, the same attack delay was present in BW. Have you seen it happen in SC2?
On May 25 2010 06:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
From what we know so far, it's exactly like that in BW.
I've neeeeeeeeever seen a zealot 1v1 where the zealot which gets hit first still wins.
And yet, the same attack delay was present in BW. Have you seen it happen in SC2?
Check the video in the OP ?^^ I guess its not too much of a deal, but still I find it funny. I know it was like that in broodwar, but Zealots had other stats there.
On May 25 2010 06:34 G.s)NarutO wrote: I think Korean procommentators would totally freak out about this, imagine Bisu vs Stork having 1 zealot each while Bisu's zealot hit first yet still loses the fight. LOL!
From what we know so far, it's exactly like that in BW.
I've neeeeeeeeever seen a zealot 1v1 where the zealot which gets hit first still wins.
And yet, the same attack delay was present in BW. Have you seen it happen in SC2?
Check the video in the OP ?^^ I guess its not too much of a deal, but still I find it funny. I know it was like that in broodwar, but Zealots had other stats there.
What I meant is it probably happens as rarely in SC2 as in BW.
I notice that a lot of times there's an enemy zergling at the watch towers, and I'll send my own zergling to attack it. With equal upgrades, mine loses most of the time even though it attacks first. Never had any explanation for why.
When I was experimenting with BWAPI for the AI micro contest a few months ago I had little BW experience, so I did some game mechanics testing. I can confirm that it is possible for a zealot to lose to another zealot even when scoring the first hit in BW.
EPT
