|
On September 11 2010 12:36 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 12:29 Chronopolis wrote:On September 11 2010 12:28 Cloak wrote:
Everyone knows Stimmed Marauders are retarded, but why are Reapers godly at taking out CCs, Hatcheries, and Nexuses too? You leave your base for 10s and you could easily lose your base to one of the fastest units in the game. Yes, but they are very fragile units. In this respect they served a specialized role: making your opponent want to rip his hair out. Imagine if Mutalisks had a 30 damage attack to buildings, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit.
Imagine if Reapers flew and had 90 health, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit.
....
Anyway you people are kind of missing the point imo. It isn't a damage issue, its a mobility issue. Everything in Starcraft 2 got so much more mobile. Except for bases. :/.
You people are just blaming marauder because there the most common manifestation of a bigger problem. Marauders are fine, go show me a single high level player complaining about rauders.
You know what I think? Well, in SC1, units were just as effective against buildings, but due to clumsy pathing and large radius sizes, and 12 limit unit select, it was far harder to effectively snipe anything.
Now, its just an incredibly streamlined process. Get your medics along with yo healers, and drop a few very easy to micro units somewhere and hope for the best. If not, ohwell, the pressure was worth it.
How do we fix this? Well, I don't know, but silly contrived damage changes won't do anything.
|
In WC3 buildings have their own special armour type called Fortified, which only siege units are strong against. Defensive Towers however generally start off with only Heavy armour, which is a lot easier for units to kill.
It's a good system which SC2 should copy.
|
The issue isn't with buildings being armored, it's with Marauder stim. Likewise, Marauder stim enables them to counter a bunch of things they aren't supposed to, like Hydralisks. It's the backbone of Terran's overpoweredness.
I think Marauder stim should be changed, not building armor.
|
On September 11 2010 16:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 12:36 Cloak wrote:On September 11 2010 12:29 Chronopolis wrote:On September 11 2010 12:28 Cloak wrote:
Everyone knows Stimmed Marauders are retarded, but why are Reapers godly at taking out CCs, Hatcheries, and Nexuses too? You leave your base for 10s and you could easily lose your base to one of the fastest units in the game. Yes, but they are very fragile units. In this respect they served a specialized role: making your opponent want to rip his hair out. Imagine if Mutalisks had a 30 damage attack to buildings, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit. Imagine if Reapers flew and had 90 health, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit. .... Anyway you people are kind of missing the point imo. It isn't a damage issue, its a mobility issue. Everything in Starcraft 2 got so much more mobile. Except for bases. :/. You people are just blaming marauder because there the most common manifestation of a bigger problem. Marauders are fine, go show me a single high level player complaining about rauders. You know what I think? Well, in SC1, units were just as effective against buildings, but due to clumsy pathing and large radius sizes, and 12 limit unit select, it was far harder to effectively snipe anything. Now, its just an incredibly streamlined process. Get your medics along with yo healers, and drop a few very easy to micro units somewhere and hope for the best. If not, ohwell, the pressure was worth it. How do we fix this? Well, I don't know, but silly contrived damage changes won't do anything.
Are you serious or just trolling us?
The Marauder was called IMBA by almost very top-player and still is since day1 of the Beta!...
And in SC:BW, Units weren't nearly as effective against Buildings, especially static defense, just look at the following facts:
- Units had less range, so attacking Sunken Colonies was much harder with Marines than it is now with Marauders.
- There were no Units dealing double DMG or even more against Buildings, or is there a Unit in SC:BW that can snipe Buildings as effective as Reapers or Stimmed-Marauders? Cracklings, which came out on T3 were considered "building annihilators" and they are a joke compared to how fast stimmed marauders take down buildings.
- There were no Units that could hop cliffs and stuff, so static defense in front of your base actually meant that the opposing players had to penetrate this barrier before he could wreak havoc in your base. Thanks to reapers, this isn't the case anymore.
- Air-Units that weren't Tier3 had a very short air-to-ground range, so Turrets/Spore Crawlers and Cannons actually could protect your base very well. If you want to defend against Voidrays or banshees with Anti-Air Static defense, you need much more to protect your whole base. Just compare the aior-to-ground range of Wraiths, Scouts and Mutas from SC:BW with Banshees and Voidrays in SC2 - Much bigger range, except the Mutas in SC2. Now compare the range of Anti-Air structures - same range as in SC:BW - there has to be sth. wrong here!
Static defense is worth nothing in SC2 and sniping buildings is far too easy.
Nothing until T2 should do additional DMG to buildings and static defense should get +1 range accross the board (except Turrets, cuz they are VERY strong against Mutas and would just be totally broken, cuz they do much more DMG than other static defense and there even is a +1 range Upgrade). Another approach could be to give Marauders, banshees and Voidrays -1 Range, which would actually make a lot of sense as well.
|
On September 11 2010 18:00 Cade)Flayer wrote:
In WC3 buildings have their own special armour type called Fortified, which only siege units are strong against. Defensive Towers however generally start off with only Heavy armour, which is a lot easier for units to kill.
It's a good system which SC2 should copy.
This is a good suggestion. I don't think the current system is working that well. I think the game that illustrates this well is tester vs a terran(forgot his name t.t) on scrap station in GSL ro64. Terran just uses medivac drops to completely destroy testers main. OFC this is a map specific thing as some maps don't really allow for amazing drop play the same way SS does but there are enough that its an issue.
Also Tester won that game but that shouldn't take away from my point. I mean tester is prob favored to win the whole dam thing anyway.
|
i think it would be better if only static defenses wouldn't be considered armored (Cannon, Spine, Turret...).
It also makes kinda more sense: the buildings with less hp are not armored, buildings with high hp are.
|
On September 11 2010 18:18 groms wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 18:00 Cade)Flayer wrote:
In WC3 buildings have their own special armour type called Fortified, which only siege units are strong against. Defensive Towers however generally start off with only Heavy armour, which is a lot easier for units to kill.
It's a good system which SC2 should copy. This is a good suggestion. I don't think the current system is working that well. I think the game that illustrates this well is tester vs a terran(forgot his name t.t) on scrap station in GSL ro64. Terran just uses medivac drops to completely destroy testers main. OFC this is a map specific thing as some maps don't really allow for amazing drop play the same way SS does but there are enough that its an issue. Also Tester won that game but that shouldn't take away from my point. I mean tester is prob favored to win the whole dam thing anyway.
If the Terran actually threw down a ghost academy and got 1-2 ghosts to EMP Tester's HTs, I'm certain that Tester would've lost. The only reason his army was so powerful was because he could completely blanket the T's army in storms.
I do agree with the building armor type change. Just make void rays and immortals have a special building type attack (much like reapers and ultras already do) and everything should be fine.
|
reaper aren't as good as marauder, just because they dont have stims and has very low health.
|
There are many things i don't agree with the unit marauder, but the one i don't like the most is indeed the building sniping, mainly hatchery and nexus sniping. It's ridiculous. Both protoss and zerg need double or triple the units, cost or number, to be able to take down buildings so fast.
Terran makes a drop in protoss and zerg base, they cause wreck and havoc, destroying nexus or hatcheries worth of 400 minerals and a lot of time to build, or important tech buildings in a matter of seconds. If protoss goes with blink stalkers, (what other P common massable unit attacks air by the way? because it's sure as the sky is blue that the terran will lift up his buildings) poor him, they have very little dps even aggainst armored units like buildings, they can only hope to kill a few techlabs, reactors or scvs. If he brings a warp prism it's obvious he can't aim to destroy any building, only lonely units left behind or scvs. Same for a zerg player who does a drop, being that the terran can lift his buildings and only the hydras will attack.
I have no doubt, taking out this sniping ability from marauders, either making builings unarmored or some other way, would improve gameplay for all races, and make playing protoss or zerg more forgiving, coming close to how forgiving playing terran is.
|
I voted no because the idea of buildings that very clearly have armored plates on them no being considered armored is dumb, though I suppose the same could be said for zerg buildings being considered armored, when they don't have such obvious adornments(other than maybe the possibility of some sort of chitinous exoskeleton) and don't take extra damage from units like the hellion. So I suppose there is fallacy on either end of the logic argument. Well can't change my vote now, but w/e I actually think this would be a good change now that I mull it a bit, stimmed marines kill buildings faster than stimmed marauders anyways.
|
On September 11 2010 18:56 DminusTerran wrote:
I voted no because the idea of buildings that very clearly have armored plates on them no being considered armored is dumb, though I suppose the same could be said for zerg buildings being considered armored, when they don't have such obvious adornments(other than maybe the possibility of some sort of chitinous exoskeleton) and don't take extra damage from units like the hellion. So I suppose there is fallacy on either end of the logic argument. Well can't change my vote now, but w/e I actually think this would be a good change now that I mull it a bit, stimmed marines kill buildings faster than stimmed marauders anyways.
Realism has nothing to do here, it's all about balance.
|
On September 11 2010 18:58 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 18:56 DminusTerran wrote:
I voted no because the idea of buildings that very clearly have armored plates on them no being considered armored is dumb, though I suppose the same could be said for zerg buildings being considered armored, when they don't have such obvious adornments(other than maybe the possibility of some sort of chitinous exoskeleton) and don't take extra damage from units like the hellion. So I suppose there is fallacy on either end of the logic argument. Well can't change my vote now, but w/e I actually think this would be a good change now that I mull it a bit, stimmed marines kill buildings faster than stimmed marauders anyways. Realism has nothing to do here, it's all about balance.
Which is why I said it was a good idea?...
|
As long as Marauders are in the game with stim and the damage output they have, yes buildings should be armoured.
|
On September 11 2010 19:07 abrasion wrote:
As long as Marauders are in the game with stim and the damage output they have, yes buildings should be armoured.
Do you mean shouldn't?
|
On September 11 2010 18:56 DminusTerran wrote:
I voted no because the idea of buildings that very clearly have armored plates on them no being considered armored is dumb, though I suppose the same could be said for zerg buildings being considered armored, when they don't have such obvious adornments(other than maybe the possibility of some sort of chitinous exoskeleton) and don't take extra damage from units like the hellion. So I suppose there is fallacy on either end of the logic argument. Well can't change my vote now, but w/e I actually think this would be a good change now that I mull it a bit, stimmed marines kill buildings faster than stimmed marauders anyways.
Marines can be killed fast, but stimmed marauders will run around and snipe nexus anyway. It takes time to kill them.
As for realism, I think most stupid is medivac - how do they heal from the air?
|
|
|
No they should not be armored. Thats one of the reasons why this game feels a lot like Command and Conquer. But wait a second - wasn't it the same guys that developed C&C generals that developed this? *Hint Hint*
On September 11 2010 18:16 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 16:57 Half wrote:On September 11 2010 12:36 Cloak wrote:On September 11 2010 12:29 Chronopolis wrote:On September 11 2010 12:28 Cloak wrote:
Everyone knows Stimmed Marauders are retarded, but why are Reapers godly at taking out CCs, Hatcheries, and Nexuses too? You leave your base for 10s and you could easily lose your base to one of the fastest units in the game. Yes, but they are very fragile units. In this respect they served a specialized role: making your opponent want to rip his hair out. Imagine if Mutalisks had a 30 damage attack to buildings, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit. Imagine if Reapers flew and had 90 health, everyone would be up in arms about that bullshit. .... Anyway you people are kind of missing the point imo. It isn't a damage issue, its a mobility issue. Everything in Starcraft 2 got so much more mobile. Except for bases. :/. You people are just blaming marauder because there the most common manifestation of a bigger problem. Marauders are fine, go show me a single high level player complaining about rauders. You know what I think? Well, in SC1, units were just as effective against buildings, but due to clumsy pathing and large radius sizes, and 12 limit unit select, it was far harder to effectively snipe anything. Now, its just an incredibly streamlined process. Get your medics along with yo healers, and drop a few very easy to micro units somewhere and hope for the best. If not, ohwell, the pressure was worth it. How do we fix this? Well, I don't know, but silly contrived damage changes won't do anything. Are you serious or just trolling us? The Marauder was called IMBA by almost very top-player and still is since day1 of the Beta!... And in SC:BW, Units weren't nearly as effective against Buildings, especially static defense, just look at the following facts: - Units had less range, so attacking Sunken Colonies was much harder with Marines than it is now with Marauders. - There were no Units dealing double DMG or even more against Buildings, or is there a Unit in SC:BW that can snipe Buildings as effective as Reapers or Stimmed-Marauders? Cracklings, which came out on T3 were considered "building annihilators" and they are a joke compared to how fast stimmed marauders take down buildings. - There were no Units that could hop cliffs and stuff, so static defense in front of your base actually meant that the opposing players had to penetrate this barrier before he could wreak havoc in your base. Thanks to reapers, this isn't the case anymore. - Air-Units that weren't Tier3 had a very short air-to-ground range, so Turrets/Spore Crawlers and Cannons actually could protect your base very well. If you want to defend against Voidrays or banshees with Anti-Air Static defense, you need much more to protect your whole base. Just compare the aior-to-ground range of Wraiths, Scouts and Mutas from SC:BW with Banshees and Voidrays in SC2 - Much bigger range, except the Mutas in SC2. Now compare the range of Anti-Air structures - same range as in SC:BW - there has to be sth. wrong here! Static defense is worth nothing in SC2 and sniping buildings is far too easy. Nothing until T2 should do additional DMG to buildings and static defense should get +1 range accross the board (except Turrets, cuz they are VERY strong against Mutas and would just be totally broken, cuz they do much more DMG than other static defense and there even is a +1 range Upgrade). Another approach could be to give Marauders, banshees and Voidrays -1 Range, which would actually make a lot of sense as well.
This guy is telling the truth.
I mean take a look at the air to ground units in SC1 - The range differences are hideous. Choosing static defense versus the Voids/Banshee is a mistake you do once. One of the things i actually liked about WC2 (if i recall correctly) and SC1 was that buildings were quite tanky.
And besides - since you mention the banshee, the unit is nothing but a C&C 1 rip off, The Orca in SC 2 model.
|
its more like "should marauder lose their capabilities to snipes nexus/hatchery in seconds"
|
I think you could remove the armor damage form marauders altogether and boost their base damage to 15... getting pretty sick of all the +damage going around in sc2.. this isn't supposed to be wc4 >.<
|
On September 11 2010 20:13 Jameser wrote:
I think you could remove the armor damage form marauders altogether and boost their base damage to 15... getting pretty sick of all the +damage going around in sc2.. this isn't supposed to be wc4 >.<
In War3 units had like 500++ health too. But in SC1 things died fast as hell too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
