E indicates Explosive Attack (50% damage to Small Units 75% damage to Medium Units, full damage to Large Units).
C indicates Concussive/Plasma damage Attack (50% damage to Medium Units 25% dam to Large Units).
S indicates Splash damage, which affects all units in the blast area.
(copied from battle.net from unit stats too lazy to type it all)
anyway
will sc2 have this type of damage too ?
or other effects?:D
and the splash damage is it the same way calculated as in sc1?
according to karune this was removed , instead they put a system based on bonus damage against certain units for example tank attack in siege mode gain bonus against blinded units , that means heavy armor units , and to light units it deals less and stuffs like that.
i liked the old damage system too but i am open mind to new things so let see how that unfolds also the Area of effect is like a new name of something old.
"Bonus damage" should allow for better fine-tuning of game balance, as opposed to a strict % based system, since you could have different bonuses for different units. I just hope they don't make it overly complicated. Damage per hit should be quickly computable using mental math. (Glares at WC3)
i bet half of the people know about the old system already so with those bonusses it would only make it more complicated and less people know about it..
the old system was way better -.-
also a stupid idea that if you don't have line of sight you can't hit back to your enemy...
(ea like a sieged tank on a cliff hitting your units) and you can't fire back because you can't see it -.-
what if medic has blind? so single unit would return fire?
rofl
such a stupid idea
the old sytstem is way better
if you have cover there is a 25% u miss or something
2008-06-20 10:12:40, Da_venom wrote:
i bet half of the people know about the old system already so with those bonusses it would only make it more complicated and less people know about it..
the old system was way better -.-
also a stupid idea that if you don't have line of sight you can't hit back to your enemy...
(ea like a sieged tank on a cliff hitting your units) and you can't fire back because you can't see it -.-
what if medic has blind? so single unit would return fire?
rofl
such a stupid idea
the old sytstem is way better
if you have cover there is a 25% u miss or something
" also a stupid idea that if you don't have line of sight you can't hit back to your enemy... "
Just a little reality check there..can you do this in real war? no you cant :o..atleast not accurately
imo all whining towards sc2 atm should be treated with ignore..when game will come, first 2-3 patches will make mega big changes to the game anyway..
old system took 7years to balance.
new system will be balanced far more easily. as long as number of bonuses and penalties is not high, i think it won't be complicated otherwise I agree, noone will understand it well (besides people who really study and memorize it - which is not that sexy IMO.)
2008-06-20 10:12:40, Da_venom wrote:
i bet half of the people know about the old system already so with those bonusses it would only make it more complicated and less people know about it..
the old system was way better -.-
also a stupid idea that if you don't have line of sight you can't hit back to your enemy...
(ea like a sieged tank on a cliff hitting your units) and you can't fire back because you can't see it -.-
what if medic has blind? so single unit would return fire?
rofl
such a stupid idea
the old sytstem is way better
if you have cover there is a 25% u miss or something
" also a stupid idea that if you don't have line of sight you can't hit back to your enemy... "
Just a little reality check there..can you do this in real war? no you cant :o..atleast not accurately
imo all whining towards sc2 atm should be treated with ignore..when game will come, first 2-3 patches will make mega big changes to the game anyway..
this is a game
besides with your argument you could also say the hiding behind cover gives protection
so still going back to the old bw
and as far as your argument goes
if units with HIGH range would attack a unit with low range it wouldn't hit back..
but this is already in sc1.
you still have to move towards the enemy to get in hit range
the problem is that with the old system they had a little balancing problems, i read in an article that blizzard have a lot of issues with the mutalisk so they said that they released the mutalisk unbalanced cause they couldnt balance it thanks to that damage system who got them in some serious problems and thats why if you play starcraft: original in its unpatched version you will notice mutalisk have diferences in comparing to the actual mutalisk , the problem in the first one according to them was that was quite unbalanced in matter of the damage system.
The damage system is one of the few things blizz cant really mess up on. Ofc they are going to update it from SC because if it were the same it would just be another aspect trying to be BW with new units who require new ranges of damage. Give blizzard some credit yo they have made the top 3 rts of all time they arent going to make a pile of shit.
you cant know until you played it, i guess is like an old woman who is used to sweep the house with a broom and when they introduce it the vacuum she will be like WTF is this?
you dont need to play a game before you create an opinion. it can be based on numerous things. Ive never had sex with a guy but i know im not going to like it from plenty of details. same idea for a game, you see and know lots of things and BAM HELL NO SCREW THAT!
whoever made up the rules for sc1 on dmg types...was retarded...
a tank blast, should kill a rine in 1 hit, a ling in 1 hit, a zeal in 1 hit.
THEY ARE ALL SMALL UNITS (maybe not the zeal, but if it IS a medium unit, MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONE)
a zergling is the size of a dog about...a tank vs a dog...
i got a super dog, immune to tank blasts, and nukes, and all other things.
Reminder: IP addresses for each comment are saved. Offensive posts will be censored. Repeated offenses will result in a warning and/or a temporary lockdown of the account.
2
