On January 13 2014 04:09 Xapti wrote: WTF is the point of having both dragoons and stalkers?
Sure they're not identical units but they're so damn similar. It would be like including both SC1 hydras AND SC2 hydras; actually that's not even a good example because the difference there is at least twice as much as the difference between dragoons and stalkers (significant cost difference, significant damage effectiveness difference, significant tech level difference). It makes far more sense to add both SC1 hydras and SC2 hydras than stalkers with dragoons —not that it's necessarily a good idea either.
But they aren't similar. I take it you've not tried them.
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
On January 13 2014 04:09 Xapti wrote: WTF is the point of having both dragoons and stalkers?
Sure they're not identical units but they're so damn similar. It would be like including both SC1 hydras AND SC2 hydras; actually that's not even a good example because the difference there is at least twice as much as the difference between dragoons and stalkers (significant cost difference, significant damage effectiveness difference, significant tech level difference, and significant health/power difference although that's typically related to cost). It makes far more sense to add both SC1 hydras and SC2 hydras than stalkers with dragoons —not that it's necessarily a good idea either.
This question has been asked and debated for months on the StarBow thread itself, the current iteration is the product of a lot of discussion and testing and is still in development (with a general consensus that people like the way the stalker feels atm)
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
I believe the standard is that if you are to make a claim, you back it up. I tend to trust Liquipedia more than users whose work I'm not familiar with, and since no one has changed the Stim pack entry on Liquipedia after all this time, I would feel more inclined to believe that than you. I don't actually remember what the case was with stim in BW - it's been somewhere around 4 years since I last watched more than a game a month. You may very well be right, but if you've already posted your findings once, digging them up and posting them again to verify shouldn't take long.
Besides, anyone can say "I don't make unverified claims", it doesn't necessarily make it true.
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
I believe the standard is that if you are to make a claim, you back it up. I tend to trust Liquipedia more than users whose work I'm not familiar with, and since no one has changed the Stim pack entry on Liquipedia after all this time, I would feel more inclined to believe that than you. I don't actually remember what the case was with stim in BW - it's been somewhere around 4 years since I last watched more than a game a month. You may very well be right, but if you've already posted your findings once, digging them up and posting them again to verify shouldn't take long.
Besides, anyone can say "I don't make unverified claims", it doesn't necessarily make it true.
It already was backed up and verified, and proven on bnet already. Fine, I'll go look it up; but you trying to spread misinformation doesn't help things. It only makes fewer people know the truth.
why not try testing it yourself to do something useful instead of gainsaying sound research?
edit: it looks like blizzard deleted the old forum, so stuff from before 2008 is all gone.
note: if I sound angry at you it's because I am, and you're wasting my time by going against something that was proven and known to the community for a long time.
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
I believe the standard is that if you are to make a claim, you back it up. I tend to trust Liquipedia more than users whose work I'm not familiar with, and since no one has changed the Stim pack entry on Liquipedia after all this time, I would feel more inclined to believe that than you. I don't actually remember what the case was with stim in BW - it's been somewhere around 4 years since I last watched more than a game a month. You may very well be right, but if you've already posted your findings once, digging them up and posting them again to verify shouldn't take long.
Besides, anyone can say "I don't make unverified claims", it doesn't necessarily make it true.
It already was backed up and verified, and proven on bnet already. Fine, I'll go look it up; but you trying to spread misinformation doesn't help things. It only makes fewer people know the truth.
why not try testing it yourself to do something useful instead of gainsaying sound research?
He's not saying you're wrong, he's saying you're not providing the sound research you claim to be available.
Lets say you didn't know everything you know now, and I say stim in bw was actually 78%, and then followed up by saying it's been proven years ago, I only post what I know to be factual, this is 100% sound research etc etc.. if you were smart, you would question my claim. That's what Zealously is doing, saying you have proven search doesn't mean there is proven research, he's just asking to see it.
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
I believe the standard is that if you are to make a claim, you back it up. I tend to trust Liquipedia more than users whose work I'm not familiar with, and since no one has changed the Stim pack entry on Liquipedia after all this time, I would feel more inclined to believe that than you. I don't actually remember what the case was with stim in BW - it's been somewhere around 4 years since I last watched more than a game a month. You may very well be right, but if you've already posted your findings once, digging them up and posting them again to verify shouldn't take long.
Besides, anyone can say "I don't make unverified claims", it doesn't necessarily make it true.
It already was backed up and verified, and proven on bnet already. Fine, I'll go look it up; but you trying to spread misinformation doesn't help things. It only makes fewer people know the truth.
why not try testing it yourself to do something useful instead of gainsaying sound research?
In general people trust Liquipedia over a forum poster that is claiming to have "tested it". If you have new information, please show us and someone will update Liquipedia. Its like math, he is just asking you to show your work.
Because I dont' like having to reprove something everytime someone who doesn't know jack about how the game works and hasn't done any testing of their own says stuff. I'm trying to educate the community. He's not providing useful gainsaying or any evidence that contradicts my own, I already explained why it's because actual engine results do not match what the game files show. So the burden of proof is on him now.
Go ahead do the tests yourself, set up units attacking command centers with near simultaneous start times; make sure to stop before they get into the red and start burn damage. Do multiple rounds of test, use medics to heal, stim liberally so you're sure it's always in effect. Also do tests to verify that using the stim button a lot doesn't effect the fire rate as a potential confounding factor.
It's annoying to me when people don't listen to me, and given that this was proven long ago (and it was), it's annoying that people don't know about and still make trouble.
It doubles the rate of fire. In Sc2 and SBOW it only increases DPS by 50%.
the wiki is wrong. The game files say 100%, but the actual in game effect is 66%, due to engine reasons. I exhaustively tested a lot of mechanics back in bw, and there's a number of oddities like this.
Just like some other units don't attack at their listed cooldown due to engine reasons in bw.
Honestly you could just as well be wrong unless you provide some source or proof besides "I tested it"
the proof has been posted previously on bnet, and the methodology. I posted it when I did the tests some decade ago. I don't randomly post things without verifying them. And I dont' like having to repeat my entire methodology for known issues a decade old. Unless you've done some extensive testing yourself, rather than just looking up a wiki that copied from gamefiles without verifying that things actually worked that way, you aren't adding much.
I believe the standard is that if you are to make a claim, you back it up. I tend to trust Liquipedia more than users whose work I'm not familiar with, and since no one has changed the Stim pack entry on Liquipedia after all this time, I would feel more inclined to believe that than you. I don't actually remember what the case was with stim in BW - it's been somewhere around 4 years since I last watched more than a game a month. You may very well be right, but if you've already posted your findings once, digging them up and posting them again to verify shouldn't take long.
Besides, anyone can say "I don't make unverified claims", it doesn't necessarily make it true.
It already was backed up and verified, and proven on bnet already. Fine, I'll go look it up; but you trying to spread misinformation doesn't help things. It only makes fewer people know the truth.
why not try testing it yourself to do something useful instead of gainsaying sound research?
edit: it looks like blizzard deleted the old forum, so stuff from before 2008 is all gone.
note: if I sound angry at you it's because I am, and you're wasting my time by going against something that was proven and known to the community for a long time.
I'm not spreading misinformation, I'm calling you out for making (to me) unverified statements that goes against a source I find more trustworthy. It's standard procedure.
On January 13 2014 03:52 shivver wrote: I wish blizzard would just sell you the rights to sc2 so all these glitches and bs could be patched out within a week..
Currently I can't get a game because of multiple stupid errors on EU
I think Starbow is a great testiment to the love people have for Starcraft as a whole, but people really need to stop thinking a few enthusiastic community members (with expertise or otherwise) could "patch out all glitches and bs within a week". It's delusional to think that "fixing" the issues you see in Starcraft II would take less than a week or that new issues wouldn't arise if one didn't extensively test everything first.
Well to be honest Starbow is an entirely different game. These people couldn't "patch out the issues SC2 has within a week", SC2s issues are rooted deep. The reason Starbow dodges some of them is because it started being developed 2 years ago without the kind of units that SC2 has. The sentry isn't in it, my understanding was it was never in it. Not only is Toss not reliant on it (which also leads to them not needing the MSC, which is also not there), but the Gateway units are strong enough (along with chrono-boosted cannons) that the way Protoss plays early game in SC2 and all the inherent issues with that don't exist.
The Colossus isn't in it and it doesn't need to be in it. Those massive bioballs the Colossus is designed to exterminate aren't there. Units don't clump anywhere near as much so the Colossus gets neutered anyway. I haven't seen enough of Starbow PvZ to say what role a Colossus would have there but it seems to me that Toss can manage just fine without it since they've been given other tools to fill the role anyway.
There's no easy fix to some of the issues SC2 has and if it will come it will come with a complete overhaul in LOTV, which I hope for dearly.
Completely agree about fixing Starcraft 2's core issues, that would be an enormous undertaking, something not very realistic for group of volunteer modders. I think starting over fresh, kind of what's been done in Starbow, is a better idea.
Question though: If LotV ships and the desired overhaul isn't there, if we are still seeing boring 3 base turtles, force fields on the ramp, 2 hour swarm host games etc, would it not be a better alternative to push Starbow as the main competitive platform of the game? What kind of conflicts and problems could you see arising if Starbow were to gain a massive boost in popularity and started to become a serious rival to SC2?
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.
I've provided my methodology, either do the tests yourself to contradict mine or stop. You have your POV fine; but understand how frustrating it is to prove these things, have them verified, then a bunch of people awhile later don't know about it and complain and refuse to do any testing themselves, but merely cite a source that obviously didn't do any testing of its own and only copied data from game files, or provide methodological arguments.
Fine I'll just edit liquipedia directly, then maybe I can talk with someone who's willing to do actual testing to verify things.
On January 13 2014 04:35 zlefin wrote: Because I dont' like having to reprove something everytime someone who doesn't know jack about how the game works and hasn't done any testing of their own says stuff. I'm trying to educate the community. He's not providing useful gainsaying or any evidence that contradicts my own, I already explained why it's because actual engine results do not match what the game files show. So the burden of proof is on him now.
Go ahead do the tests yourself, set up units attacking command centers with near simultaneous start times; make sure to stop before they get into the red and start burn damage. Do multiple rounds of test, use medics to heal, stim liberally so you're sure it's always in effect. Also do tests to verify that using the stim button a lot doesn't effect the fire rate as a potential confounding factor.
It's annoying to me when people don't listen to me, and given that this was proven long ago (and it was), it's annoying that people don't know about and still make trouble.
The burden of proof is on you, because others have cited Liquipedia and most people trust liquipedia than an anonymous person. As others have said, you are only citing yourself and your research. People are not saying you are "wrong" they want you to prove your findings by posting your whole research. It is not unreasonable for people here to be a little skeptical of what you are saying. Find someone else who can verify your claims. If it was known to the community and proven to the community then why is liquipedia still wrong? At this point in time liquipedia is a more trustworthy source than you are yourself.
The best way would be to prove through video evidence, but that is a lot to ask for unless you are truly adamant that you are correct.
EPT
