Staredit Network > Forums > SC2 Assistance > Topic: forcing lower damage
forcing lower damage
Aug 29 2010, 6:53 pm
By: exelsisxax  

Aug 29 2010, 6:53 pm exelsisxax Post #1



is there any way i could force a unit to deal reduced damage to shields? having shields the same type as unit really screws some stuff up.



None.

Aug 29 2010, 7:07 pm Centreri Post #2

Relatively ancient and inactive

Pseudotrigger method:
Event: A unit attacks
Condition: Target shields are above 0
Action: Split this up into two cases - if attack damage < shields left, just give the unit some more shield hit points. If attack damage > shields left, add some to the actual life and the remainder to the shields.

This should work, but it's messy. There's probably a data-based way.



None.

Aug 29 2010, 7:21 pm Temp Post #3



In the damage effect for the whatever is attacking the shields change Combat - Shield Bonus (positive or negative). You can also modify a unit's base shield armor if you want it on a certain unit.



None.

Aug 31 2010, 12:44 am exelsisxax Post #4



i really dont know how to trigger at all, and it doesnt seem like it would fit my purposes. in the data editor, i can see the shield bonus fields, but they dont actually deal a lower amount of damage ever. i tried putting -5 onto a stalker for shields, but it still did full damage to a nexus. it seems to attempt to cause maximum damage with any damage type it has available, and since shields are still classified as armored/light bio/mechanical or structure, it will refuse to accept a reduction in damage. i dont see any way around this, unless i can force the game to cause reduced damages.



None.

Aug 31 2010, 12:50 am Temp Post #5



Did you try changing the shield armor on units with shields?



None.

Aug 31 2010, 7:34 pm exelsisxax Post #6



i dont think armor would work on shields because i have weapons designed to eat shields with very high fire rates or attack numbers. i also have heavy weapons with over 250 dmg, making armor a very tricky thing to get right.



None.

Aug 31 2010, 7:46 pm Biophysicist Post #7



Look at the Immortal's hardened shields. They use a validator and a damage response. Copy that behavior and edit the damage response.

gtg so not much detail sorry



None.

Aug 31 2010, 8:04 pm Temp Post #8



I just tested the Shield Bonus field and it worked fine. The way it works though is the stalker does 14 damage to armored units (nexus) and then -5 for shields so it ends up doing 9 damage to the shields of the nexus. You can also use the shield factor field to modify the damage down to fractions instead of a set amount.



None.

Aug 31 2010, 8:35 pm payne Post #9

:payne:

This might help. :)



None.

Aug 31 2010, 8:47 pm exelsisxax Post #10



i just retested as well. before i guess i just didnt set the shield bonus low enough. i set it to -9 this time and it worked. odd thing however, against a nexus, a stalker with +5 armored and +5 structures dmg with -9 to shields and 10 base damage did 11 dmg to the nexus shields. therefore, i am now changing the topic of this thread to: how is this damage calculated? the average of 1/15/15/10 dmg would be 10.25, so it could be that if always rounded up. also could be sum of all applicable bonuses/negations, 10+5+5-9=11. shall test.
edit: payne i saw your past after i posted mine, i saw that earlier today but it is quite messy and too cumbersome for my purposes.
edit#2: this thread can be closed down at the leisure of the moderators. turns out bonuses are accumulative, not averaged.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2010, 8:54 pm by exelsisxax.



None.

Sep 1 2010, 1:01 am Lanthanide Post #11



Why would the bonuses ever be averaged? That makes no sense.



None.

Sep 1 2010, 9:11 pm exelsisxax Post #12



i thought they might be averaged because the bonuses ALL stack. if you have a unit with +2 dmg to mechanical, armored, structure, and massive, and hit a unit with all of those types, it would do 8 bonus damage. thats probably why no melee units have more than 2 dmg types.



None.

Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[06:02 pm]
Zoan -- of course it isn't full understanding. You could ask "is the mechanism by which this counterexample blows up the ONLY mechanism possible for an initial configuration to blow up?"
[05:48 pm]
Zoan -- ppl do it all the time in PDEs
[05:47 pm]
Zoan -- Heinermann
Heinermann shouted: it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
Constructing a counterexample is answering the question: "Is Navier Stokes well posed?" in the negative
[05:44 pm]
NudeRaider -- I only heard about it, didn't any news article, so what did it do then?
[05:43 pm]
Heinermann -- it also didn't solve that problem but hey as long as the investors are pleased
[05:39 pm]
NudeRaider -- I have no idea tbh. All I know no human was ever able to solve it, but there's at least a few that beat portal ;)
[05:32 pm]
Zoan -- Navier Stokes is not that esoteric I thought
[04:32 pm]
NudeRaider -- Zoan
Zoan shouted: I find it kind of sad that on the same day it was announced AI solved Navier Stokes, it was also announced AI beat Portal, and there's a good deal of people who don't know which is more impressive
you find it sad not everyone is a math nerd?
[03:25 pm]
NudeRaider -- (and yes, I capitalized that correctly :ego:)
[03:24 pm]
NudeRaider -- Symmetry
Symmetry shouted: Hi not I'm dad
Hi dad, I'm nude
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Rawflesh0615, Ultraviolet