Mothership Update

Quote:

---

I'm honored so many people are so obsessed with me that their life goal is to prove me wrong about something as stupid as the Mothership's attack.

The Mothership does NOT work like the C&C4 Salamander.

And even if does, the fact you think it could "tarnish" my reputation is sad, pathetic, and wholly laughable. You guys need to get out more.

---

My life’s goal is now to prove you right. :p

Anyway, I really think we need more information before we start discussing the Mothership’s attack in all these serious tones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Vortex is definitely a modified Stasis Field.

But that's definitely not a bad thing.

---

It's not exactly something stellar either. Sure the ability to keep sucking in things is nifty, but it's still Stasis Field in every sense of the word, now with flashy graphics. Black Hole is still a better idea, and it'll be a shame if Blizzard plays it safe and keeps Vortex.

As for the story itself, the writing was average at best, and Juras was just annoying and inconsistent.

DoW did it best with the Baneblade, a tank that can shoot multiple targets that was truly a beast to be feared. This was a target you wanted to take down ASAP.

The Mothership has no reason to attack multiple targets if it's going to have such a weak attack. No one really cares about it. The only thing to worry about is the Vortex, really. You can work around Time Rift and Cloaking field, but Vortex is the only thing you can get screwed over by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lupino

It's not exactly something stellar either. Sure the ability to keep sucking in things is nifty, but it's still Stasis Field in every sense of the word, now with flashy graphics. Black Hole is still a better idea, and it'll be a shame if Blizzard plays it safe and keeps Vortex.

---

How was Black Hole a better idea at all? What do you even think Black Hole DID?

Vortex is far more tactical, far more interesting. There's way more potential strategies for it than just 'cast it, watch everything die.'

Quote:

---

There's way more potential strategies for it than just 'cast it, watch everything die.'

---

It wasn't even that. It was 'cast it, watch everything flying die.' All those ground units were perfectly safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

So what you're saying is that it would have, at best taken 4 shots to kill a single Hydralisk by itself. That's pretty pathetic damage output, particularly when coupled with its slow cooldown. Its guns got a pretty substantial nerf.

A single Stalker or Zealot can kill stuff faster.

---

no thats not what I'm saying. That is if the dmg is literally the absolute minimum in my math inequality. But X (x being the total dmg per shot) it could have been much more; we're not going to know what x exactly is until there is another video that can give us more instances where the mothership is the one doing dmg to individual targets or beta finally comes out.

As for demo's post...you shouldn't assume with absolute certainty you are right on this. especially since Blizzard has already used a mechanic like the "salamander attack" in a released game. The sc2 editor/engine would be more than capable of creating a much better version of it and Blizzard has the tendency to re-use cool spells / abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jconant

As for demo's post...you shouldn't assume with absolute certainty you are right on this. especially since Blizzard has already used a mechanic like the "salamander attack" in a released game. The sc2 editor/engine would be more than capable of creating a much better version of it and Blizzard has the tendency to re-use cool spells / abilities.

---

So Archer is allowed to assume he's right and post baseless, proof-less tripe as truth, but I'm not?

I love the smell of bias in the morning. Get over me, I'm out of your league.

Quote:

---

no thats not what I'm saying. That is if the dmg is literally the absolute minimum in my math inequality. But X (x being the total dmg per shot) it could have been much more;

---

No, it couldn't have been "much" more. We know the Hp of the Hydralisk (sort-of), and we know that the Mothership fired off 3 shots. And that the 3rd shot didn't hit. That means the Mothership must deal no more than 80/3 - 1 damage, or 26 damage.

That's not a lot. Especially for its slow firing rate.

You can't argue the third shot didn't hit yet include it in your calculation for what the *most* X could be...you're math is wrong


"So Archer is allowed to assume he's right and post baseless, proof-less tripe as truth, but I'm not? I love the smell of bias in the morning. Get over me, I'm out of your league"

I am open to reading both your opinions regardless of how well you support them, so drop this delusion that this topic is about you vs. archer being right or wrong. You think I'm wrong just because of Archer is in agreement with some of my idea...and you're the one crying bias?

If you disagree with me, feel free to give a counter argument, but don't yap about me holding some illusion that myprediction is a fact upon baseless information. It is a guess based upon observation of the video and the mathematic information available. To be absolutely certain that my prediction is correct would require more data, hopefully a situation where a colossus doesn't choose to attack ms' target at the same time.

Quote:

---

You can't argue the third shot didn't hit yet include it in your calculation for what the *most* X could be...you're math is wrong

---

You're the one who said that the third shot hit; I'm simply drawing conclusions based on your data. However, it is clear that whether it hit or not, it did not deliver the actual killing blow. If it did hit, my calculations stand.

And if it didn't hit (which you did not argue), the worst-case damage for the attack is (80 - ColossusDamage) / 2 , or 17. Slightly better than a Zealot, only with much longer cooldown. The best case damage is 39.

Keep in mind old mothership was 8*8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jconant

You can't argue the third shot didn't hit yet include it in your calculation for what the *most* X could be...you're math is wrong


"So Archer is allowed to assume he's right and post baseless, proof-less tripe as truth, but I'm not? I love the smell of bias in the morning. Get over me, I'm out of your league"

I am open to reading both your opinions regardless of how well you support them, so drop this delusion that this topic is about you vs. archer being right or wrong. You think I'm wrong just because of Archer is in agreement with some of my idea...and you're the one crying bias?

If you disagree with me, feel free to give a counter argument, but don't yap about me holding some illusion that myprediction is a fact upon baseless information. It is a guess based upon observation of the video and the mathematic information available. To be absolutely certain that my prediction is correct would require more data, hopefully a situation where a colossus doesn't choose to attack ms' target at the same time.

---

Archer argues the MS can attack like the C&C4 Salamander, ie. it does 4x the damage if its positioned over the target.
I ask for proof.
None is offered.

For the 10th time: Until we see the MS attack from two or three sides of its body simultaneously, you have no proof.

Most of the video 2 turrets are firing simultaneously at one target. Archer pointed out that the one turret acts alone at a certan point of the video. The inconsistancy suggests that the turrets fire independently and choose its own targets.

The Battlecruiser's attack works in that it fires a volley of 8 shots at one target. If the target dies, the remaining shots will auto-target the next living enemy unit, preventing wasteful damage on a dead unit. This could be what the mothership has, and it's just that a unit wasn't in range or died off causing the turret to look like it's acting independantly.

But we won't know for sure till we actually see it in more situations.

http://www.ressim.net/out.php/i392861_ss107-hires.jpg
http://www.ressim.net/out.php/i392862_60801-orig.jpg

thanks for the new ms. art team..hopefully carrier ,stupid buggy and others...

lol poor demo. Hes all worked up about this :p


And yah I think the new mothership looks great. Id say its safe to say the carrier will be getting a visual upgrade but I wouldnt hold your breath for the "banana" model.


Also scorpio, while i agree with some points, I think your signature is slightly less than constructive critisism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

lol poor demo. Hes all worked up about this :p

---

I'm worked up because I'm SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT.

You are a plague upon this forum.

I love how when I came to these forums Demo was the one who went around insulting everyone. And now Im the only one who can make him lose his mind. Hes been beaten at his own game :p

So you're proud of being the bigger asshole O_o

Whats the team america quote?

But anyway were off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm honored so many people are so obsessed with me that their life goal is to prove me wrong about something as stupid as the Mothership's attack.

The Mothership does NOT work like the C&C4 Salamander.

And even if does, the fact you think it could "tarnish" my reputation is sad, pathetic, and wholly laughable. You guys need to get out more.

---

Demo, while he has no proof to provide that it attacks like the C&C Salamander, you have no proof to state that it does not. What we have is a lack of determining data so we can speculate based on the small snippet of data we have access too. For that reason, I believe that in your terms of "fact", we don't have enough proof to provide a truth to any of the data. I advise you proceed with that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Archer argues the MS can attack like the C&C4 Salamander, ie. it does 4x the damage if its positioned over the target.
I ask for proof.
None is offered.

For the 10th time: Until we see the MS attack from two or three sides of its body simultaneously, you have no proof.

---

Likewise, until we see the MS attack from two or three sides of it's body simultaneously, you have no proof that it does not act that way.

Unfortunately, this is an example of focusing on problems (caring too much to disprove other's points) than trying to focus on solutions (bring up all viable options regarding it, allowing each to be a possibility until proven otherwise EVEN if they are unlikely)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

So Archer is allowed to assume he's right and post baseless, proof-less tripe as truth, but I'm not?

I love the smell of bias in the morning. Get over me, I'm out of your league.

---

Please contribute to the conversation at hand instead of demean others in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jconant

"So Archer is allowed to assume he's right and post baseless, proof-less tripe as truth, but I'm not? I love the smell of bias in the morning. Get over me, I'm out of your league"

I am open to reading both your opinions regardless of how well you support them, so drop this delusion that this topic is about you vs. archer being right or wrong. You think I'm wrong just because of Archer is in agreement with some of my idea...and you're the one crying bias?

If you disagree with me, feel free to give a counter argument, but don't yap about me holding some illusion that myprediction is a fact upon baseless information. It is a guess based upon observation of the video and the mathematic information available. To be absolutely certain that my prediction is correct would require more data, hopefully a situation where a colossus doesn't choose to attack ms' target at the same time.

---

Quoted for truth and educational reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

I love how when I came to these forums Demo was the one who went around insulting everyone. And now Im the only one who can make him lose his mind. Hes been beaten at his own game :p

---

Archer, I understand that he's been disrespectful for you, please don't flamebait him. I'm posting this here for a public service announcement to everyone involved, not just you so please don't feel I'm calling you out. ^_^

I would only agree about nerfing the MS's damage, if it means that the unit has so many HP, that it would be able to take a lot of stuff down by itself if the damage were higher. Otherwise, it's limited to 1 damn unit, why bother to nerf the damage, if it isn't going to go OP by building 10 of them?

TBH though, ~20 damage per shot isn't that bad. Might not kill a hydra in a full volley, but there are few units in the game that can. If it did 25 damage, it would potentially be doing about the same damage as 3 broodlords.

Something to consider is that there could be a + modifier that we're unaware of or unable to determine based on the testing we've seen. It won't get us anywhere to speculation what it is.. but considering that when we're speaking of over/underpowered damage is an option to add variety to our discussion/ideas.

man...enough wrenches have been thrown in to be puzzled over. Should we really speculate over + bonus damages? =P

Quote:

---

Likewise, until we see the MS attack from two or three sides of it's body simultaneously, you have no proof that it does not act that way.

---

We have no proof, but isn't that semi-random and bad game design to have attacks that work that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

We have no proof, but isn't that semi-random and bad game design to have attacks that work that way?

---

Yes it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

We have no proof, but isn't that semi-random and bad game design to have attacks that work that way?

---

No, its not.
All units automatically, randomly attack the closest enemy unit to them.
All units only target the enemy unit the player wants them to target if the player tells them to target that unit, ie. micro.
Just because the Mothership is always rotating and has no discernible front of back doesn't mean it will function any differently.
At most it MIGHT mean the Mothership can attack something "behind" it as it moves, but there's no proof of that, the video doesn't show.
At most it MIGHT mean the Mothership can attack from 3 sides at once, but there's no proof of that either.

Demo, ee know that the mothership has six cannons and they can all attack. We also know that this multi-positional firing mechanism is a change from the old fire all-at-once mechanism. We also know that C&C4 recently had a similar unit with similar attack cones. We also know that Dustin is a big fan of C&C ;) We also know that only one cannon fires when it is in range and that only two cannons fire when they are both in range.


So what makes you think the number just automatically stops at two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Demo we know that one cannon can attack by itself if it is the only one in range.

---

Cannons? They're lazers... and I saw two every time the MS attacked in that video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

We know that two cannons can attack if they are both in range.

---

Two lazers... one attack. Like the Colossus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

We know that the mothership has six cannons and they can all attack.

---

No, you know that it can fire two lazers, one attack, from any side of its body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

What makes you think the number just automatically stops at two?

---

The fact I haven't see it do otherwise?

"What makes you think God doesn't exist?"
"I dunno, maybe the lack of proof?"

Demo if you look carefully you can see one cannon attack a baneling when that cannon is the only one in range. The cannons dont fire as pairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Demo if you look carefully you can see one cannon attack a baneling when that cannon is the only one in range. The cannons dont fire as pairs.

---

I can't see it. Time log?

If it can attack from multiple weapons at a time (like the BC), it needs to have considerable range, or it will be useless, as it's damn big for the rear weapons to do much. You don't want your Mothership surrounded most of the time, and when that happends, it's time to run, or cast, not fight.

Anyways, it could be just a visual thing, as the current attack won't make sense, unless it's launched from the nearest weapon. That said, i think that the new attack is horrible, the old one was much better.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I can't see it. Time log?

---

Its like 20 or 25.

And there are two things that make the Mothership surrounded. The first is that it has a cloaking field so if your army is surrounded the survivors will group under the mothership for a last stand. And then if the mothership is in immidiate danger it can wormhole back to base.

Quote:

---

Its like 20 or 25.

---

I don't see it. Is it at the moment right before the Hydralisk is taken out by the Colossus? If so, then it's simply the animation cutting off before the second beam fires. You can see the pulse of light that shows that the second beam is going to fire, but it stops before shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I don't see it. Is it at the moment right before the Hydralisk is taken out by the Colossus? If so, then it's simply the animation cutting off before the second beam fires. You can see the pulse of light that shows that the second beam is going to fire, but it stops before shooting.

---

If youll look at that and other times you can see that the weapons fire independantly. For instance later in the video you see both weapons fire at the same time. The reason for the delay at 20 is because the enemy unit was not in range of the second one till a few moments later.

Quote:

---

If youll look at that and other times you can see that the weapons fire independantly.For instance later in the video you see both weapons fire at the same time.

---

No, they don't. One of the beams always fires slightly ahead of the other.

That's something I've noticed about multi-attacks in SC2: they're never simultaneous. Missile turrets fire one missile slightly before the other, Marauders fire one shot slightly before the other, etc.

The "delay" at 20 seconds in is no different from the delay at 22 seconds or any other shot. That's simply how multi-attacks work now.

The time frame is different. Look closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldrius

How was Black Hole a better idea at all? What do you even think Black Hole DID?

---

Because it was a much more permanent, powerful solution to "hey, let's suck you into this alternate dimension or wherever, and be kind enough to let you back out" and it wasn't just a flashy copy of Stasis Field.

Quote:

---

Vortex is far more tactical, far more interesting. There's way more potential strategies for it than just 'cast it, watch everything die.'

---

It's about as interesting and tactical as Stasis was, which is to say Blizzard can't think of anything new/wants to play it safe. Black Hole could have had so much more potential if they were willing to tinker around with it while keeping the core mechanic in place.

Quote:

---

Because it was a much more permanent, powerful solution

---

A Marine that does 500 damage is a much more permanent, powerful solution to one that does 6 damage. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Quote:

---

It's about as interesting and tactical as Stasis was

---

The crucial difference is that it denies terrain. This is new and interesting. Stasis doesn't prevent units from moving through an area.

Quote:

---

Black Hole could have had so much more potential if they were willing to tinker around with it while keeping the core mechanic in place.

---

Please. All it did was kill stuff. It was an inescapable Psi Storm that killed only flying units. That doesn't have much potential.