EPTShould Buildings be Armored? - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SwaY-
Dominican Republic463 Posts
| ||
|
Kazang
578 Posts
Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. Example: Voidrays and Immortals are simply bad against marines, becasue their damage is weak for their cost against light. But against armoured their damage is good, not insane, but on par with any other high dps unit. Likewise helions do good damage to light units. Not insane, still less than basic T1 infantry, but bad damage against armour. Conversely units that don't have spilt damage bonus, like marines, do good damage against everything but very high armour targets like BC. They don't have the disadvantage, the same with zerglings and zealots. It's flat value to make them all round good damage units. By comparison the units with spilt damage bonuses are generally at a disadvantage against the type it doesn't have a bonus against. The problem is buildings HP and the ease with which they die, no particular unit is to blame for this as they all do damage proportionate with their value. | ||
|
EnderCN
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
tackklee
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
Ciddass
Germany149 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. . yeah !!! marauders are NOT the problem cause they do less dmg against light .... /facepalm they are a problem. as well as getting 2 medivacs and dropping 2 different spots for 200/200 killing at least 1 hatch with stimmed marauders. a terran WILL get marauders, and a terran WILL get medivacs without having the feeling of "mhh ok im investing in a drop, this should better work :S". | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. that makes perfect sense. thanks for enlightening us all. I guess the hellion's blue flame actually makes the unit worse against non-light units, too. that's also probably totally how Blizzard came around to the +dmg idea. They designed a couple of units and were like: "wow! there are a lot of overpowered units right now. better only make them overpowered against certain types of armor". | ||
|
PTZ.
72 Posts
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. Yeah, that might work but only for building armor. The rest of the armor system in WC3 was way too complicated. I'm pretty sure I played more WC3 than SC2 so far and I still don't know which of the 5ish damage types is good/bad vs which of the 5ish armor type or even what units have the former or the latter >_> | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:46 PTZ. wrote: Yeah, that might work but only for building armor. The rest of the armor system in WC3 was way too complicated. I'm pretty sure I played more WC3 than SC2 so far and I still don't know which of the 5ish damage types is good/bad vs which of the 5ish armor type or even what units have the former or the latter >_> I actually found the armor system in WC3 very clean cut and easy to understand. Catapult throws heavy rock on unit with no armor, of course it does bonus damage. Throws rock at something which weighs twice as much as the rock itself (bear), doesn't do bonus damage. Magic penetrates heavy armor, piercing weapons are good against light armor etc. Very easy to understand imo. On the other hand there's no recognizable logic behind the +dmg system in SC2. It really looks like the designers were just trying to have an easy time balancing things by simply adding specific values to specific units against specific types of armors. There also seems to be mostly no logic behind the armor types. For example, why is hydra light even though probably weighing twice as much as a marine and being twice as big (which is obviously the reason it moves slower than my grandma off creep)? They almost look like ultralisks just with a thinner body, so why aren't they armored instead of light? Or at least normal and not light. | ||
|
wail
United States26 Posts
It was really surprising to see how easily buildings get taken down in Starcraft 2 comparatively. Even compared to Starcraft 1, buildings are easily destroyed. I do think in general I'd prefer to see buildings with a "Structure" armor type and be somewhat harder to take down, although I do think the biggest general issue is with Marauders specifically and not with any of the other +DamageToArmored units. | ||
|
Lucius2
Germany548 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. what kind of retarded vision is this? too bad marauder also quite wtfpwn everything with stim what isnt armored..., as lings, zeals, hydras | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. Example: Voidrays and Immortals are simply bad against marines, becasue their damage is weak for their cost against light. But against armoured their damage is good, not insane, but on par with any other high dps unit. Likewise helions do good damage to light units. Not insane, still less than basic T1 infantry, but bad damage against armour. Conversely units that don't have spilt damage bonus, like marines, do good damage against everything but very high armour targets like BC. They don't have the disadvantage, the same with zerglings and zealots. It's flat value to make them all round good damage units. By comparison the units with spilt damage bonuses are generally at a disadvantage against the type it doesn't have a bonus against. Okay, I guess I could kinda buy this. It doesn't change the fact that the damage can be too much. For example, what if Marauders dealt 40 damage plus 160 to armored? It doesn't matter that they deal only 20% to light, they're still dealing way too much damage. The problem is buildings HP and the ease with which they die, no particular unit is to blame for this as they all do damage proportionate with their value. And here's where your little train of thought derails. There is no other unit besides possibly the Baneling or Immortal (relatively niche units compared to the Marauder) that deals so much damage to buildings as our dear super Marine. If we raise the health of all buildings to compensate, up to a reasonable point where Marauders can't imbasnipe everything, then no units besides the Marauder (and possibly the Baneling and Immortal) are going to be able to kill structures at a reasonable rate. Muta Pylon snipes? Yeah right. Early Zealot pressure? A thing of the past. Ling runbys and Nydus attacks? Get real. Breaking the game's square holes to fit the one triangular peg is not the way to make things work. | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. Example: Voidrays and Immortals are simply bad against marines, becasue their damage is weak for their cost against light. But against armoured their damage is good, not insane, but on par with any other high dps unit. Likewise helions do good damage to light units. Not insane, still less than basic T1 infantry, but bad damage against armour. Conversely units that don't have spilt damage bonus, like marines, do good damage against everything but very high armour targets like BC. They don't have the disadvantage, the same with zerglings and zealots. It's flat value to make them all round good damage units. By comparison the units with spilt damage bonuses are generally at a disadvantage against the type it doesn't have a bonus against. The problem is buildings HP and the ease with which they die, no particular unit is to blame for this as they all do damage proportionate with their value. Yes we could all look at a glass half empty and say it was really half full, but in Sc2 land Marauders actually do 20+ damaged to armor. Does this not mean that it does more damage to Armor? I am confused now. And btw Marauders with Stim have the same DPS as a Marine with Stim sooo.... | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. Which explains why Marauders beat Hydras 1v1. | ||
|
RyanRushia
United States2748 Posts
would be nice if building had their own type of armor as opposde to armored... so units taht do +damage to armored wouldnt be able to bring them donw (i.e. 4 stimmed marauders bringing down expos sooo quick) it raelly can end a game .. cool idea from OP talking about reapers having a viability vs buildings .... change building type and then reaper damage | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. The spilt damage is a disadvantage, if there were no +damage bonuses they would simply do 20per shot regardless of armour type, which is still less dps than 2 marines. Spilt damage bonuses make units worse against a different type, not better against another. Example: Voidrays and Immortals are simply bad against marines, becasue their damage is weak for their cost against light. But against armoured their damage is good, not insane, but on par with any other high dps unit. Likewise helions do good damage to light units. Not insane, still less than basic T1 infantry, but bad damage against armour. Conversely units that don't have spilt damage bonus, like marines, do good damage against everything but very high armour targets like BC. They don't have the disadvantage, the same with zerglings and zealots. It's flat value to make them all round good damage units. By comparison the units with spilt damage bonuses are generally at a disadvantage against the type it doesn't have a bonus against. The problem is buildings HP and the ease with which they die, no particular unit is to blame for this as they all do damage proportionate with their value. The problem is not just +10 damage vs armored. Marauder+stim+medivac - that's the problem. And in usual situation terran has all of it. | ||
|
eivind
111 Posts
On September 11 2010 22:12 Kazang wrote: The stupidity of some people really amazes me. Marauders are not the problem. The whole bonus damage thing is being totally misunderstood. Marauders don't do extra damage against armour, they do less damage against light. I just wanted to quote this with more bold text! This guy is a genious and most people are stupid. | ||
|
CurLy[]
United States759 Posts
this game is a good example of marauder building rape | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On September 12 2010 01:06 eivind wrote: I just wanted to quote this with more bold text! This guy is a genious and most people are stupid. So Marauders were meant to deal 30 damage? It's just nice of Blizzard to nerf them so they do 10 damage against non-armored? I mean the guy is saying that Marauders should basically only be used against Armored units, that its' their only use, because they have split damage and that it let's them be cost effective. But the problem here is that they're sniping buildings too fast. So please, I really don't understand. Please enlighten me. Please. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
| ||
