EPTShould Buildings be Armored? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
L0thar
987 Posts
| ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
| ||
|
Spaceninja
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Alphaes
United States651 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States624 Posts
| ||
|
pechkin
158 Posts
Make stim for marauders only movespeed bonus so they can chase stimmed marines and support them, but only support, not wtfpwn. | ||
|
SpaceAnt
Spain64 Posts
for instance i see lots of korean players getting their nexi raped by marauder drops and other unnoticed incursions without being able to stop it no mather how many units they move there really, unless they somehow predicted the drop/attack So for overall keeping the game interesting i think non-armored buildings won't do it sry. Btw this not only affects marauders, a few ultras seem pretty much the best way to beat a planetary fortress supported with missile turrets for zerg, and voidrais can also destroy expansions in no time and get away. | ||
|
Ezareth
United States60 Posts
The real problem appears to need an adjustment, maybe more base damage and less +armored damage? I dont know. Either way removing armor from buildings makes immortals and voidrays much weaker, not to mention stalkers. | ||
|
Tiax;mous
669 Posts
On August 15 2010 14:03 Alphaes wrote: Don't 2 marines out-DPS one marauder (against armored, even)? Do people just prefer Marauders drop-snipes for their enhanced survivability? I don't know the exact numbers but as far as i remember against armored units ; 2 marines do just a little lower dps ( higher or lower , i'm pretty sure it's very close tho ) . Just add marauders an extra attack type against buildings ( like ultra's current attack ) that does 10 dmg ( normal marauder damage ). | ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
I suppose when it comes down to it, a marine firing looks less dramatic than a Marauder shooting a giant white chunk, so perhaps this is a main factor. Starting to think this might be a bad idea, as the units tat would get hit the absolute most would be (in no particular order): Roach. Good luck busting down the walls after a nerf like this! Immortals. Void rays (very significant, but I wouldn't mind  )Siege tanks Ultralisks... etc. Pretty big blanket nerf to a LOT of different units. I agree that buildings fall perhaps too quickly for my tastes, but I think this change would significantly nerf a pretty arbitrary set of units. You could achieve the same result by just being a bit more thoughtful about what you change. Perhaps all buildings need is simply more hp. | ||
|
Marl
United States694 Posts
| ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
On September 11 2010 05:35 Tiax;mous wrote: I don't know the exact numbers but as far as i remember against armored units ; 2 marines do just a little lower dps ( higher or lower , i'm pretty sure it's very close tho ) . The problem is ; even if 2 marines do more damage , you got limited space in those medivacs. And without a doubt , 8 stimmed marauders ( 2 medivac ) do much more damage than 8 stimmed marines. Just add marauders an extra attack type against buildings ( like ultra's current attack ) that does 10 dmg ( normal marauder damage ). What the hell are you babbling about? A marine takes up one slot, and a marauder takes up two. And two marines do MORE damage to armored units, not less. Although if the unit has a lot of armor, it can tilt in favor of the marauder, but only if the marines don't have +attack. | ||
|
Tiax;mous
669 Posts
On September 11 2010 05:40 ltortoise wrote: What the hell are you babbling about? A marine takes up one slot, and a marauder takes up two. Oh right , damn i shouldn't post sleepless. Apologies about that train wreck... | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
and static defense is bad enough - why the hell should it be armored? I don't understand Blizzards reasoning behind that... ppl who voted for option1 r clearly noobs in my book. | ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
On August 14 2010 05:08 NuKedUFirst wrote: In my opinion keep as is, why change things for the sake of changing there is no "real" problem about it. OH immortals and stalkers killing your buildings fast? Kill them instead. Buildings are really going to matter whether armored or not unless you are bronze and just go cannons, etc. Most players that know how to play wont have to worry about it anyways as 98% of their income will be for units so I don't think a change is needed. Except when T drops 4 marauders in my main and kills an expensive tech building in roughly 6 seconds. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
Karl Maka
Canada55 Posts
| ||
|
Kazang
578 Posts
In general I think any unit sniping off really key buildings like a Nexus (which has a major disadvantage over a Hatch/CC in that it can't be healed or repaired) is not a good thing. Personally I would boost the HP of a CC/nexus/hatch to prevent nuking the building before you can react. But leaving regular structures still vulnerable to anti building attacks. Sniping a CC to end the game is just a cheap strategy and is insanely easy to do. It takes 10 seconds for 8 marauders or 4 immortals to drop a CC, those 4 immortals have more combined HP than the building and the hardened shield on top of that, unless you already have a force ready to kill that drop pretty much instantly they can easily drop the building before you can kill them. Balancing around straight up predicting the drop is pushing things a bit, people are not clairvoyant after all. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
It takes 10 seconds for 8 marauders or 4 immortals to drop a CC, those 4 immortals have more combined HP than the building and the hardened shield on top of that, unless you already have a force ready to kill that drop pretty much instantly they can easily drop the building before you can kill them. No building is as important as the CC or Nexus, and there's two pretty important differences between them. A Nexus can't fly or be repaired. | ||
| ||
