Units that sucked!

Yes but whether or not they sucked is not always the issue. Good units like the corsair and dragoon (forget the dumb AI for now) and carrier have been taken out.

 

did you personally test the armor-reduce vs damage-increase?
if not can you tell me your source?

 

My source is me, and everything I read or tested over the years since 1998(or 1999, can't remember for sure). It's been a while since I've played SC other than a few games out of the blue now and then, let alone testing anything first hand. I've done more testing than I would ever need to years ago. But since that won't be good enough for you, here...

Blizzard mentions nothing of armor reduction whatsoever on b.net, they describe it as damage increase. Here's a direct quote if you need one, "with every Acid Spore that's attached, the unit takes an additional point of damage whenever it is attacked."

As far as I know to the best of my ability, there is no negative armor in SC anyway.

Since you question the credibility of my explanation, I suppose you might also wish to argue that they are really the same thing in different wording. And you might be right in many cases, but not when you deal with mutas, there is indeed a difference.

The fact that the subsequent bounces off of a mutalisk's glave wurm attack is calculated based on the main attack, or the first hit, mutalisk bounces yield some lower than usual attack damage values. To help you understand why this would make a difference, lets say that our mutalisks are going up against some carriers, and everything is at base value without attack or armor upgrades. Also lets go straight to 9 acid spores on the carriers.

Carriers have a base armor of 4, so a muta with 9-3-1 base attack would do 5-0-0. Now since we said we would have 9 spores on our carriers, our mutas would be dealing 14-9-9(5+9, 0+9, 0+9), or 32 damage per attack.

Now if we pretended just for a moment that there was negative armor in SC and that's how devourer acid spores worked, and then calculated based on that, you wouldn't get the same result. Now, instead of the 9 spores adding 9 damage to each bounce, 4 spores would first work to negate the carriers' armor, then the other 5 work it into negative armor(-5 armor). Our mutas in this case would deal 14-8-6(9+5, 3+5, 1+5), or 28 damage per attack. Notice that the subsequent bounces will now deal full damage before applying bonus damage from the acid spores.

Basically to put all this in simpler terms, with the idea of armor reduction, you are actually suggesting that the effect of the acid spores are mitigated by armor. That's not how devourer acid spores work. Every last spore will have the same effect as the first, and will inflict bonus damage of 1, even if the triggering hit deals less than 1 damage. Meaning 9 spores on any target will always cause every bounce of a muta's attack deal 9 more bonus damage regardless of how much base armor the target had to start with. If acid spores worked by armor reduction, then fully armor up'd carriers would only suffer at max a bonus damage of 2 from each attack, again, not the case.

That's just not how SC armor system works, there is no negative armor. There is nothing in the game that reduces armor, and there is nothing that helps to lessen the damage mitigation from armor. There is no direct attack that pierces or negate armor altogether either. Although most spells or special abilities/effects(such as acid spores in this case) disregard armor, almost all attacks suffer damage mitigation from armor, even the mighty nuke.

But of course, I could still be wrong about anything and everything. Feel free to test out any of this.

 

hahaha...always good to cover your ass with a final sentence like that

 

You got that right baby! You just never know...

 

im actually interested to know the real effect of acid spore. never imagined the way you presented it but if you dont have a proper source where you learnt that then i guess im gonna have to test it out myself brb

 

What I've posted about devourer acid spores are the "real effects." It's not really scarce information you know...

And the source is Blizzard, I've inserted a quote for your needs, but you maybe you didn't really read it in detail.

In any case, feel free to test it for yourself.

 

ive read that quote before when it first came out

 

from what i can see and tell Remy sure knows his starcraft facts and stats

 

to not know is a disgrace! what are you doing on these forums!?

 

holy **** you should mail this to blizzard or something. you could probably get a job there. and then you'll be able to leak us more info. :good:

 

Let me summarize it.

Valks suck.

 

Well if you play zerg sometimes and all your air units suddenly disappear due to valks, I'm sure you'll still be saying they suck but instead of meaning that they actually are bad units, you'll be saying they suck because they slagged your entire air swarm.

 

I dunno man, Ultras a pretty good hahaha, I don't get you people saying they suck suck, I mean they are one of the only zerg units that can actually tank. Even though they are high cost and high food, I think they can be worth it at times. Storm > Zerg

 

Yea ok ultra's don't suck, but in most situations they're either not very usefull or they're just too expensive. Also i don't like how the only way they can be pretty usefull is getting the ups. This is not the same for say, a hydra or a zergling.

 

Zergling is good. Cracklings are divine.

 

Firebats.


\m/ (>_<) \m/

 

Remy, did you ever mod or work with arsenal unit editor or star draft? If you have no clue about what I am talking about just forget it.

 

Sorry Lemmy, I've never been into modding anything, didn't follow much of what went on in various mod communities of any game either.  That's just something I'm not really into.

You know, our names are kinda similar. If an illegal immagrant with a nasty accent called one of us, we wouldn't know who.

 

Hey now, given my Asian heritage, I resent that remark. I...I've always had hard time with my pronunciation...

...it's why I'm so ronery...

Haha, j/p