The current armour and damage types in SC2, as described by Karune: Source: http://sc2pod.com/trackers/blue/?id=491#1330 As said by the man himself, so called soft counters will make an appearance (return?). I like the damage types word for word, but I miss the nice balance of 3 damage and 3 armour types, like in SC. I'd like to see identical number of variations in armour and damage. What do you think these new types of armour and damage will result in? Will strategies allow for slight deviation from direct counters and thus make games more interesting? Will the new system leave room for more innovative gameplay?
Different armour and damage types can only enable a strategy game to be more interesting, unless the settings are really stupid, like in Rangecra..*cough, cough*, I mean Warcraft 3 ahem, where most ranged units can rape everything, from workers to tier3 warriors, other range attackers to buildings, casters, summoned units etc. But I don't like the "light or armoured" system: it is just way too simple to me. I think first the buildings should have their own armor type, unless maybe few of them (like Zerg ones), and I think there should be a special type of armour for the special units like the archons. You do not destroy a building the same way you kill a guy or destroy a tank. Buildings should have their own types, and some units should be dedicated into destroying them (artillery, sappers, demolishers etc). I would say 4 armour types and as much attack types, that would enhance the gameplay and stick to some realism in my opinion. What I would like to know as well is how will work the armour points. If it will be interesting to upgrade the armours of my units or not.
I think it is an enhancement from SC. There is no more 1/2 dammage to small units(dragoon) or 1/4 dammages to building (ghost). All units does full dammage, then the bonus adds to a unit. So a comparing the dammage output on a dragoon and a stalker, if both does 20 dammage, then Stalker is stronger since it does always 20 on all units/building + bonus + upgrades, which is ALOT more than the mediocre Dragoon that did 1/2 dammage on all smal units. (Zealots, Marines, Zerglings, Workers, Mines) Vultures high dammage was reduced to all medium and large unit, that's even worst. New system includes only bonuses and no penality, it will be easier to learn and manage. imo
The Stalker/Dragoon example is incorrect. A dragoon does 20 explosive damage (so 10 vs light). A stalker does (if the damage matched up*) 10 damage + 10 vs armored. Both deal 20 damage vs large/armored units (the terms are almost identical), both do 10 damage vs light/small units (those terms are also almost identical). *I think the latest figure for the Stalker is 10 + 4 vs armored.
My bad about the 20 dammage Stalker, take any 20 dammage unit that hits both ground and air and my exemple is good. (if any exist at that point, maybe Thor?)
Thanks ItzaHexGor, I knew I was not crazy. They said it at WWI, units with exactly same damage in SC and SC2 are stronger in SC2 since they have no penalities in anyway, only bonuses. That is why they needed to reduce effectiveness of some units (10 dammage for the Stalker) to make it as strong as the Dragoon from SC. It all comes down to the same range of health/damage.
Spot on. Basically, they're playing on strengths as opposed to weaknesses. Either way, it's still a universal system, but I definitely do feel that this system will be much more effective. The armour types and split into categories and subcategories that are acquirable right from the start, as opposed to the old system where it only comprised of size, which had a fairly specific order. Also, it just seems as though these bonuses will be much more... Usable. I know that units acted in the same way in StarCraft1, and it might just be 'cause I was so much younger and less familiar with all the mechanics back then, but I reckon players will get a lot more out of these bonuses that they did with the previous damage types.
