EPT/leave unsatisfied
Attack Boni - Too Limited Usability? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
/leave unsatisfied | ||
|
hofodomo
United States257 Posts
Also, I'm not sure why the fact that the Latin plural of bonuses is even an issue. There may be relations between the two, but that doesn't justify randomly using the rules of one language in another. | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:45 hofodomo wrote: Also, I'm not sure why the fact that the Latin plural of bonuses is even an issue. There may be relations between the two, but that doesn't justify randomly using the rules of one language in another. cool... "colossuses" then? | ||
|
siv00
261 Posts
| ||
|
bubusls
Romania61 Posts
 . | ||
|
nybbas
United States71 Posts
It's kind of like in wc3. where units with "heavy" armor as opposed to light, if i remember correctly, were usually at a larger disadvantage as more units had bonuses against them, then there were bonuses against light. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:52 siv00 wrote: Boni is not correct Everyone in this thread cares so much. Thanks siv00 for your awesome contribution on the topic. You blew my mind with your text, I need to lay down and take it all in before I get a headache from your stellar contribution. To the OP I'm not sure how mixing would turn out, but if it adds more originality to the game I'm all for it. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
| ||
|
gedassan
Lithuania83 Posts
It's not only Thors that are armored and yet gain bonus vs. light air. There are also colossi (see, just like boni) who have it, although they are not light. There is a mix of units with various armor types. If you consider a dragoon and a siege tank in SC1 - they are exactly like stalker and marauder are in SC2. Both deal full (or bonus) damage against each other. Is SC1 less skillful because of that? Also, marines vs zealots etc etc. The systems are the same in SC1 and SC2. I also believe that SC2 presentation of damage as bonus damage is more user-friendly. It is easier for me to calculate a sum of base+bonus in SC2 than to subtract 75%/50% based on a unit type in SC1. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
and Bonus m. (genitive Bonus or Bonusses, plural Bonusse or Boni) Anyway, i believe it would be ok to test it out, but this would have such a huge impact on gameplay and i cant really tell what would happen | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
The reason is that as other people have mentioned before, battles would be non skill dependant, as all that mattered was counters. So when your armies clash, the outcome would usually be known in beforehand as the one army would crush the other every time. Fakeouts and denying of scouting would be the whole extent of the metagame. Off topic: Who cares if boni is right in latin, I thought this was a English only forum! I do not think I should post my opinion on people using latin to seem clever, as it would be quite rude. | ||
|
puckthecat
United States18 Posts
More on topic, it seems to me that the OP is really just a complaint about Stalker/Marauder. The other units with these bonuses fill different enough roles this really isn't an issue, in my opinion. | ||
|
willeesmalls
United States477 Posts
On May 09 2010 04:56 Jyvblamo wrote: Let's all agree to define the pluralization of Bonus as 'Boners'. Or you could say that Blizzard made a boner with the boni. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
On May 11 2010 20:58 Grend wrote: I disagree with this. The reason is that as other people have mentioned before, battles would be non skill dependant, as all that mattered was counters. So when your armies clash, the outcome would usually be known in beforehand as the one army would crush the other every time. Fakeouts and denying of scouting would be the whole extent of the metagame. Why? bonuses would never actually apply Light army vs heavy army = both gets bonuses Heavy army vs heavy army = none gets bonuses light vs light = none gets bonuses fights would be decided by micro and how well you can target the right units with its counter / micro away form your counter | ||
|
pstr
Denmark1 Post
| ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
| ||
|
Garnet
Vietnam9055 Posts
| ||
|
MetalSlug
Germany443 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23404 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:56 bubusls wrote: Logically, I find the bonus against armored stupid, like being armored is supposed to be a bad thing, then why bother getting armor ? If I get armor, it's because I want to make my units stronger, not to give them a weakness, I don't get it. Don't know what drugs they were taking when they made this up, I know in real life there are such thins as armor piercing rounds, but this is not the way they work , there is no such thing as a projectile that wounds a man, but gets a + 4 bonus versus a tank .If you haven't noticed, marauders and marines are both humans. But wait!! Marauders have 145 hp and +1 armour and marines have only 45!!! That means the stalker attack is more deadly to the LESS ARMOURED marine. However stalkers are effective vs the armour of marauders and thus kill the "145 hp" quicker. Armoured ==> more health more or less. Not actually "+armour+ And colossi sounds dump. Just use "colossus" for multiple colossus. Feels more natural. "Those colossus are going to attack the natural of..." | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
| ||
