On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
On January 28 2016 03:33 JokerAi wrote: way to low nerf Adept Damage decreased from 10 (+13 light) to 10 (+12 light)
Don't be deceived by the low number. It will have a big impact in early game TvP where adepts will now 3 shot marines and SCVs instead of 2 shot them. They will go back to normal once upgraded to +1, but the goal of this was to make adepts weaker in early game TvP, but keep them intact during the mid game, late game for TvP and for PvZ.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
You said, and I quote, "it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does." You were wrong. It is not impossible to come up with a sci-fi explanation for the way Armored works.
I agree that there is no need to come up with one in the first place.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
You said, and I quote, "it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does." You were wrong. It is not impossible to come up with a sci-fi explanation for the way Armored works.
I agree that there is no need to come up with one in the first place.
How exactly can you claim that I am wrong? To argue against that, you made up a sci-fi ( a make beleive story) rooted in nonsense, using "scientific sounding words" and then claim it makes sense. I really don't understand how anybody can just make something up and then claim this totally make sense.
(Like really. In material science if a material shatters in impact, it is too brittle to fracture the other material. If it is tough enough to fracture another material, it would be better to create a solid penetrator with an explosive shot to penetrate a greater amount of armour and damage the internal body. Why would damaging the armours integrity cause damage anyways? What happens once the armour has been destroyed? You would be wanting to damage the target, not the armour. In real life any design that can catastrophically damage armour would be better designed to penetrate the armour and destroy the target of flesh and bones.)
Anyways this is offtopic, and there is no discussion to be had with someone who can so easily claim apples are oranges.
The reasoning behind dealing bonus damage vs armored is simple: armored units tend to have more HP. Instead of thinking that armored units are taking more damage from attacks with bonus damage vs armor, flip it around and think of it as armored units are taking less damage from attacks not dealing bonus damage vs armor. For example, the marauder has more than twice the HP of a marine. So a marauder will tank more marauder shots than a marine will, despite the fact that they receive twice the damage. Bonus vs armor simply reflects the fact that marauder shots are still effective vs armored targets, while marine shots are not.
You could turn the whole system around, with equivalent results in some regards, by giving all armored units less HP, remove all bonuses vs armor type attacks, and give all units without this bonus in the first place a decreased damage output vs armor. This would make sense, but it messes everything up because not all units are dealing the same amounts of damage. So it doesn't scale very well. For example, you would have to decrease the HP of an ultralisk by a ton to compensate for the removal of bonus vs damage attacks. But this just leaves it vulnerable to high damage output shots, like siege tank shots. Also, some abilities does fixed damage, like snipe. So with this system either snipe would have to deal enormous damage vs ultralisks, or miniscule damage vs marines to account for the HP changes.
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
On January 28 2016 09:37 cheekymonkey wrote: The reasoning behind dealing bonus damage vs armored is simple: armored units tend to have more HP. Instead of thinking that armored units are taking more damage from attacks with bonus damage vs armor, flip it around and think of it as armored units are taking less damage from attacks not dealing bonus damage vs armor. For example, the marauder has more than twice the HP of a marine. So a marauder will tank more marauder shots than a marine will, despite the fact that they receive twice the damage. Bonus vs armor simply reflects the fact that marauder shots are still effective vs armored targets, while marine shots are not.
I don't think that is quite right, the marauder costs more than twice the money of the marine and that is simply reflected in the stats. There are other quite fragile armored units in the game for their cost as well, like the siege tank, the stalker or most armored fliers. And vis-verca there are quite tanky unarmored units in the game, like the zealot, the adept, the archon or the hellbat.
I think the original idea behind armored was probably that armored units have base armor, while originally the only light unit with a base armor was the zealot (?), + Show Spoiler +
probably because it was that way in broodwar and it was necessary against marines and zerglings
. That should make armored units good against low damage per shot units like the basic units marine, zergling, zealots. The underlying design idea probably was that to beat those armored units you should rather bring heavy hitting units and the +vs armored was a way to create such units, without breaking them against light units. Also the transition from the broodwar system with explosive/concussive damage probably played a role for the actual designs of the units, but note that what I wrote above is especially true for the new SC2 units or changed units. E.g. Corruptors with 2 armor and slow, heavy hitting attacks to combat the BC and the Carrier, with their (from broodwar changed) multiple fast attacks. Thereby making the corruptor very tanky against those units, while "ignoring" their armor. Or the roach with its original 2 armor specifically designed to combat zergling/zealot/marine + Show Spoiler +
if you do custom tests with the a 2 armor roach, it trades pretty much perfectly with the marine supply/supply and cost/cost; i think such considerations were the reason for the "weird number" of exactly 145 health they have
But I think what happened is that armored units armor was gradually toned down in the alpha and beta and today there are very few units with more than 1 natural armor. Or they overestimated the effect of 1 armor to begin with. Whatever the reason, the eventual result is that many armored units have a lot of strong hardcounters but draw very little advantage from their base armor.
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
The way this light vs. armored thing works is, unit HP is not a strictly defined measure of punishment a unit can take, but actually a holistic measure of a wide variety of factors, including natural armor. (Like HP in D&D doesn't actually mean a 10th level character can take 10 hits to the chest while a 1st level character can take 1. Some of those 10 might be dodged, blocked, etc.).
Therefore, units with bonuses against armored simply do a better job at piercing natural armor, and do more apparent damage than units without the bonus, when compared to a "normal "attack.
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
On January 28 2016 05:09 MiCroLiFe wrote: when is it live?
The patch will be live this Friday:
It was previously announced that we would be releasing a balance update to the live StarCraft II client on Thursday, January 28 (PST). Due to IEM qualifiers occurring in EU, and GSL matches that would be held immediately after the patch going live, we have opted to postpone the balance update until Friday 1/29 (PST, or Saturday 1/30 in KR).
How does this even happen? The schedules are well known.
good for korean pros to have that much time in advance to know on which patch they play. Not like Code S qualifiers are important or so.
They announced it. They should look at tournament schedules before setting patch dates. They should not change the time of the patch hours before it rolls out. Unless they let the participants in GSL/SSL know they weren't going to actually roll out the patch long before announcing this publically, it's entirely possible they've been practicing for their matchups on the balance test map for the past week and getting completely screwed by this.
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote: Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
If that's true, I would imagine that wearing a bullet proof plate rated against 7.62 x 39 ammo would reduce or negate damage from the 5.56 and the 7.62 x 39 ammo anyhow, thus rendering your point, whatever it may be, invalid.
So yeah, it makes no sense, stop trying to argue it does please. Not that it matters much, SC2 is a game.
In the future there is an ammo type that shatters on impact with certain alloys, causing deep fractures and sabotaging the arnor's integrity. Against light armor there is little to no extra effect because little to no armor is there to be sabotaged.
Boom. Put that one in the "solved" pile.
Or you know, SC2 is a game. No need to put nonsensical pseudoscientific explanations for a game mechanic. "Boom" No mystery, nothing to solve here. .
because its a game these stupid explanations are part of the fun. Marauders are wearing Firebat suits. the Firebat was discontinued when too many Firebats were lighting themselves on fire.
Blizzard needs to buff the cyclone as well. Right now the only use for the cyclone is to annoy or troll opponents. Where is the unit is going to make mech viable again?
EPT
So it's not an unknown thing.
