|
On January 13 2014 05:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc.
I think it will come up soon. Didn't really expect all this activity so soon. 
|
On January 13 2014 05:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc.
not sure if up-to-date, but this is the place you are looking for:
http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Starbow_Wiki
|
On January 13 2014 05:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc.
We have a (somewhat) updated wikia: http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Starbow_Wiki
Edit: lol, dat triple answer.
|
|
|
On January 13 2014 04:40 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 04:37 zlefin wrote:
The source you're citing is only ripping evidence from the game files, not from actual testing. And the source you're citing is yourself, ripping evidence from... Your own statements. Look, I don't remember the attack speed bonus from BW stim pack, it may very well be 66%, but you don't magically prove it by repeatedly claiming that it's true. Liquipedia's source is Blizzard's own numbers, which unfortunately seem more reliable to me than the word of a person I do not know claiming he "extensively tested" something but has no further proof besides this claim. But I'm sorry, this is off-topic. I'll stop now.
well we have 2 sources: liquipedia, which just reposted info from the game files, and a guy who claims he tested this, that the game engine doesn't work in a way it was supposed to work (which is pretty common in many other scbw mechanics), and that the resulting dps is only 66%. Liquipedia is not written by the gods, it's just a collection of common knowledge, and since zlefin explained why common knowledge might be wrong in this example, I would actually side with him on this one. Besides, why would he lie?
|
the evidence was already provided, see the post cheren linked to. That establishes the discrepancies between the numbers in the game files and actual results in game. Either do some tests yourself or stop harping zealous, you're not a scientist. Assuming the other person is lying is also not a good method. You said you were going to leave this discussion earlier, please do so.
Thank you Cheerio.
We should probably move this to another thread though, or into liquipedia, so as to stop disrupting starbow. (the only relevant point being that the discrepancies in how some units actually were in bw affects how you'd expect them to transition into mods based partially on bw, as the game files don't present the full and accurate story, and some of the differences are rather significant from a balance perspective)
|
On January 13 2014 05:57 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc. We have a (somewhat) updated wikia: http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Starbow_WikiEdit: lol, dat triple answer.
Ye not completely updated though. As I understand it, Sentinels detection ability is changed a bit now.
|
On January 13 2014 06:02 zlefin wrote:
the evidence was already provided, see the post cheren linked to. That establishes the discrepancies between the numbers in the game files and actual results in game. Either do some tests yourself or stop harping zealous, you're not a scientist. Assuming the other person is lying is also not a good method. You said you were going to leave this discussion earlier, please do so.
well, acording to the other source, your 66% are in fact wrong...
|
On January 13 2014 05:28 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:11 zlefin wrote:
Zealously, you are not wiling to do any of the tests yourself, so stop talking, all you're doing is proving your own poor manners, and inability to conduct actual science.
I'll take the argument up on liquipedia, maybe there people will be actually courteous.
Zenbrez, good, you haven't contributed anything useful to the discussion other than to make someone with problems get angry.
For all we know you haven't conducted any tests either. Especially since the two different sources we have both arrived at different conclusions than you did in your supposed tests. Come on man, show us the evidence and I'll get off your back.
Evidence is hard. Typing on the internet is easy.
|
A lot more right than the other source was; if pressed i'd have said I need to redo the tests to get an exact number, but it's around 66%. Certainly not 100%.
Though it would be nice if we had the thread Ixess got those dps calculations from and the methodology it used. At any rate, I'm going to try to move this to liquipedia discussion. It's just hard to stop my compulsive arguing.
|
On January 13 2014 06:03 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:57 Xiphias wrote:On January 13 2014 05:51 Ramiz1989 wrote:
When I saw Starbow for the first time(like 1 year ago I think) I didn't quite like it, but now seeing some of the games, it really seems a lot more polished and more balanced than before and I actually really dig it right now. Wish Blizzard would recognize something from this and would change something in LotV.
Also, is there a way to look at all of the Starbow's units, upgrades and stats? I really want to see what Viper has, what have you done with Roach, Sentinel stats etc. We have a (somewhat) updated wikia: http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Starbow_WikiEdit: lol, dat triple answer. Ye not completely updated though. As I understand it, Sentinels detection ability is changed a bit now.
It is ok, I like to see all of the ideas that people had.
And thanks for the answers guys, exactly what I was looking for. 
|
what is the damage structure? Light vs armored or some kind of what it was in bw?
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 13 2014 06:02 zlefin wrote:
the evidence was already provided, see the post cheren linked to. That establishes the discrepancies between the numbers in the game files and actual results in game. Either do some tests yourself or stop harping zealous, you're not a scientist. Assuming the other person is lying is also not a good method. You said you were going to leave this discussion earlier, please do so.
Thank you Cheerio.
We should probably move this to another thread though, or into liquipedia, so as to stop disrupting starbow. (the only relevant point being that the discrepancies in how some units actually were in bw affects how you'd expect them to transition into mods based partially on bw, as the game files don't present the full and accurate story, and some of the differences are rather significant from a balance perspective)
The thing is that your "extensively tested" numbers were actually wrong (off by some 6.5% if we are to believe Ixess' thread). The misunderstanding could have been cleared up if you'd shown us some of your fabled research instead of repeatedly claiming I should prove you wrong and not the other way around when you had no actual evidence to show. I think that if you experience a problem with people not taking your word for things IRL, your problem may lie in overreliance on what you know to be true and not enough accessible facts. I never said you were wrong, I said you can't just make a statement and expect people to believe it without backing it up. I'm sorry if I upset you, but that's how arguments work.
|
|
|
God exists, if you don't believe it then you should come up with some evidence to show that he does not exist.
No offence zlefin, but that is basicly what your argument is.
|
Zealous, stop talking since you're still unwilling to do tests yourself; and it has nothing to do with that issue, people just tend not to believe or listen to me, even if I back things up with thorough evidence. People react to certainty, and the truth is generally less certain, so someone who tends to be very accurate isn't listened to, because people perceive the degree of uncertainty as a lack of confidence in the answer. I accept your apology.
|
On January 13 2014 06:09 zlefin wrote:
A lot more right than the other source was; if pressed i'd have said I need to redo the tests to get an exact number, but it's around 66%. Certainly not 100%.
Though it would be nice if we had the thread Ixess got those dps calculations from and the methodology it used. At any rate, I'm going to try to move this to liquipedia discussion. It's just hard to stop my compulsive arguing.
listen. If I made a comprehensive test some 10 years ago, shared it with the community, and then came back now only to find the truth long forgotten and people hinting I'm lying I would be pissed myself. As far as I'm concerned your behavior only adds up to your statements. But retesting your hypothesis is a waste of time and I encourage you not to do it. On the other hand you said there were other oddities with the engine. Sharing those might help the research team of Starbow as well as ring a bell if those aren't so long-forgotten thus adding credibility to your claims.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 13 2014 06:35 zlefin wrote:
Zealous, stop talking since you're still unwilling to do tests yourself; and it has nothing to do with that issue, people just tend not to believe or listen to me, even if I back things up with thorough evidence. People react to certainty, and the truth is generally less certain, so someone who tends to be very accurate isn't listened to, because people perceive the degree of uncertainty as a lack of confidence in the answer. I accept your apology.
If you'd showed me your research, or even a part of it, or explained how you arrived at your conclusion, in the first place I would have accepted that as the truth because I don't have any significant evidence to the contrary. However, since you didn't, there was never any real evidence to prove your statement either, which is what I was calling you out for.
|
On January 13 2014 06:35 zlefin wrote:
Zealous, stop talking since you're still unwilling to do tests yourself; and it has nothing to do with that issue, people just tend not to believe or listen to me, even if I back things up with thorough evidence. People react to certainty, and the truth is generally less certain, so someone who tends to be very accurate isn't listened to, because people perceive the degree of uncertainty as a lack of confidence in the answer. I accept your apology.
You didn't back it up with evidence. Stop pretending you did.
All you did was saying the numbers are wrong, "because you know otherwise".
Guess what, I claim your numbers are wrong, because I know otherwise.
Don't even know what that pseudophilosphical shit about certainty should be, that you are talking about. If anything, the truth is always certain. Knowing the truth or even just the existence of truth is not.
Also you don't know what an apology is, since you seem to see one where none is.
|
I showed you my methodology in a prior post zealous, you ignored that post.
Cheerio: as I mentioned a bit ago, the other anomalies include ultralisk attack speed (somewhere around 17-18 cooldown instead of its listed 15; and corsair cd of around 9 instead of the listed 8; and zergling with adrenal gland at around 5.5 cooldown instead of its listed 6).
I'm not sure if everyone has the full details on dark swarm but I think most have it right, or roughly right; though I'd have to ask to verify. The liquipedia page on dark swarm is about right, but doesn't have all the details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
