|
On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.)
No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20).
And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%.
The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings.
|
On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings.
No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play
|
On March 26 2011 16:18 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings. No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play
It definitely played a huge role idk what you're talking about. For example, vultures vs goons compared to vultures vs archons or Zerglings. If vultures couldn't twoshot Zerglings I assure you vulture openings would be quite different.
|
On March 26 2011 16:22 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 16:18 Tabbris wrote:On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings. No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play It definitely played a huge role idk what you're talking about. For example, vultures vs goons compared to vultures vs archons or Zerglings. If vultures couldn't twoshot Zerglings I assure you vulture openings would be quite different.
Look at dragoons vs marines. The dragoons did 50% less dmg vs them but once good got range. Marines were horrible vs them. Seige tanks did 50% vs lings but lings were horrible vs them too. Hydras did 75% vs vulture but they fucked up vultures. Ya vulture opening were good But mostly because the were faster than zerglings. Yes the 2 shot was insanly good but slow vulture werent that good vs speedlings. The other factors seem to play a larger role
Another example is Firebats vs zealots lol. You never used firebats vs zealots even tho they are supposedly good vs them.
|
Ill give you this the vulture vs dragoon and archon was one a the few cases that made the dmg type apperant. But again it didnt mean dragoons counter vultures. No you probably know this all to well if you played protoss but spidermines could fuck up dragoons so bad that vultures could go toe to toe with dragoons cost wise.
I was a zerg in BW so a protoss can correct me if im wrong
|
SC2 actually has more dmg and armor types than BW. Archons for example have bonus vs biological. Then there are units like the queen, which are biological and psionic, so the only units that do bonus dmg against queens are the said archons. And the archons are only psionic, so nothing does bonus dmg against theme. THey are perfect meat shields.
If you look at it, there are biological, light, armored, massive and psionic types. And the dmg bonuses are agains light, armored, bio and massive and buildings. Much more complex than BW.
|
On March 26 2011 16:29 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 16:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 26 2011 16:18 Tabbris wrote:On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings. No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play It definitely played a huge role idk what you're talking about. For example, vultures vs goons compared to vultures vs archons or Zerglings. If vultures couldn't twoshot Zerglings I assure you vulture openings would be quite different. Look at dragoons vs marines. The dragoons did 50% less dmg vs them but once good got range. Marines were horrible vs them. Seige tanks did 50% vs lings but lings were horrible vs them too. Hydras did 75% vs vulture but they fucked up vultures. Ya vulture opening were good But mostly because the were faster than zerglings. Yes the 2 shot was insanly good but slow vulture werent that good vs speedlings. The other factors seem to play a larger role Another example is Firebats vs zealots lol. You never used firebats vs zealots even tho they are supposedly good vs them.
To be fair though, Stalkers are still good against marines even though they don't do their full damage to them. Likewise, Immortals aren't really used to kill Marauders even though they should be a hard counter because - well - they just aren't that good at fighting them. Likewise, you very rarely see hellions killing zealots, even though they should slaughter them.
|
On March 27 2011 02:31 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 16:29 Tabbris wrote:On March 26 2011 16:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 26 2011 16:18 Tabbris wrote:On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings. No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play It definitely played a huge role idk what you're talking about. For example, vultures vs goons compared to vultures vs archons or Zerglings. If vultures couldn't twoshot Zerglings I assure you vulture openings would be quite different. Look at dragoons vs marines. The dragoons did 50% less dmg vs them but once good got range. Marines were horrible vs them. Seige tanks did 50% vs lings but lings were horrible vs them too. Hydras did 75% vs vulture but they fucked up vultures. Ya vulture opening were good But mostly because the were faster than zerglings. Yes the 2 shot was insanly good but slow vulture werent that good vs speedlings. The other factors seem to play a larger role Another example is Firebats vs zealots lol. You never used firebats vs zealots even tho they are supposedly good vs them. To be fair though, Stalkers are still good against marines even though they don't do their full damage to them. Likewise, Immortals aren't really used to kill Marauders even though they should be a hard counter because - well - they just aren't that good at fighting them. Likewise, you very rarely see hellions killing zealots, even though they should slaughter them.
Actually, not making hellions is a mistake for most terran. Blueflame hellions do utter destroy zealots and murder high templer. It's one of the better ways to buff a bioarmy.
Plus, people do get immortals to kill marauders.Terran usually tries to focus fire immortals first due to how fast they can take out marauders.
|
On March 27 2011 00:24 IVN wrote:
SC2 actually has more dmg and armor types than BW. Archons for example have bonus vs biological. Then there are units like the queen, which are biological and psionic, so the only units that do bonus dmg against queens are the said archons. And the archons are only psionic, so nothing does bonus dmg against theme. THey are perfect meat shields.
If you look at it, there are biological, light, armored, massive and psionic types. And the dmg bonuses are agains light, armored, bio and massive and buildings. Much more complex than BW.
Ok that's a whole 2 units, what else you got? You might aswell take massive out since they are also armored.
|
On March 27 2011 04:17 DARKHYDRA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2011 00:24 IVN wrote:
SC2 actually has more dmg and armor types than BW. Archons for example have bonus vs biological. Then there are units like the queen, which are biological and psionic, so the only units that do bonus dmg against queens are the said archons. And the archons are only psionic, so nothing does bonus dmg against theme. THey are perfect meat shields.
If you look at it, there are biological, light, armored, massive and psionic types. And the dmg bonuses are agains light, armored, bio and massive and buildings. Much more complex than BW. Ok that's a whole 2 units, what else you got? You might aswell take massive out since they are also armored.
YOu cant take massive out, since Voidrays do bonus dmg against armored, and in addition bonus dmg against massive. And corruptors do only extra dmg agains massive and not armored, so they own carriers but lose to voidrays horribly.
And ghosts are also biological and psionic, meaning only archons do extra dmg against ghosts.
|
What's this brother mac thing?
|
On March 26 2011 16:29 Tabbris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2011 16:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 26 2011 16:18 Tabbris wrote:On March 26 2011 16:11 DARKHYDRA wrote:On March 26 2011 15:49 Aequos wrote:On March 26 2011 15:26 Elefanto wrote:On March 26 2011 11:44 barkles wrote:On March 25 2011 10:09 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 10:07 DARKHYDRA wrote:
less flexible? Are you seriously this retarded? A flat 50%/75%/100% and only 3 armor types is obviously less flexible than having more armor types and varying amounts of bonus damage. Actually it went down to 25% (concussive damage against large unit type) iirc. But yeah, i do think that the SC2 system is more flexible. it's not really more flexible, it just adds more ridiculous hard counters Would it be any different if Marauders had 20 explosive damage as their base, but only did 10 to "light" units like zealots, sentries, zerglings yet did full to "large" units like stalkers, tanks, and ultralisks? It's essentially the same system, you just see the bonus instead of the penalty, which indirectly buffs units that have no type (which is only the archon and ghost to my knowledge, and I'm not sure about the ghost.) No, if you take a closer look you can see that each damage type interacts with 3 unit sizes so basically a unit has 3 different damage settings depending on what it shoots. In your example the marauder only has 2 100% and 200%(since its base damage 10 and bonus 20). And this seems to be the case for most units with bonus damage in SC2 but with inconsistent bonuses like a stalker gets 100% and 140%. The only thing that i've noticed about SC2's method that is more flexible is that you can give a unit multiple bonuses like the reaper with + to light and buildings. No in Sc1 the dmg type vs size hardly effect the units you got. You didnt mass zerglings vs mech even tho goliaths and tanks did lot of reduced dmg vs Small. You Hardly ever considered those things ask anyone who played broodwar competivly. That system never dictated what was good vs what. Just because the unit took 50% less dmg from it didnt mean that unit was good vs the other said unit. Lots of other factors came into play It definitely played a huge role idk what you're talking about. For example, vultures vs goons compared to vultures vs archons or Zerglings. If vultures couldn't twoshot Zerglings I assure you vulture openings would be quite different. Look at dragoons vs marines. The dragoons did 50% less dmg vs them but once good got range. Marines were horrible vs them. Seige tanks did 50% vs lings but lings were horrible vs them too. Hydras did 75% vs vulture but they fucked up vultures. Ya vulture opening were good But mostly because the were faster than zerglings. Yes the 2 shot was insanly good but slow vulture werent that good vs speedlings. The other factors seem to play a larger role Another example is Firebats vs zealots lol. You never used firebats vs zealots even tho they are supposedly good vs them.
I'm not here to join in the argument, but just to correct something. In BW bio was really strong vs a protoss gateway army. The only reason it's not used is storm and rivers. If those 2 did not exist I can guarantee you every terran out there would be playing marine medic tank.
|
Haha they laughed at Tyler for predicting Adelscott win over MVP. haha
|
On March 27 2011 18:57 YourMom wrote:
Haha they laughed at Tyler for predicting Adelscott win over MVP. haha Yeah this SOTG is so funny after TSL results. 
|
Please, please spend more time talking about the TSL next SotG show. I want you guys breaking the games apart, I'd love discussion on every single game.
|
On March 27 2011 18:57 YourMom wrote:
Haha they laughed at Tyler for predicting Adelscott win over MVP. haha
he also managed to predict cruncher over idra, too.
|
he only said he believed Adelscott had a 40% chance of winning. Not exactly predicting a win, but still he was more accurate than the others.
|
Hope they get Idra for the next cast
|
On March 28 2011 07:09 Palmar wrote:
Please, please spend more time talking about the TSL next SotG show. I want you guys breaking the games apart, I'd love discussion on every single game.
i just want someone on that show to have the balls to admit qxc vs genius was one of the biggest piles of bad ive seen in a long time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
