Armored attribute needs to be removed

From a few units:

Supply depot / overlord / pylon

All research buildings (so all research buildings, Spawning pool, hydralisk den etc, that means tech labs and reactors as well)

All command center / nexus / hatchery

(Planetary fortress gets the armored tag)

What this does is stop a few marauders from sniping that supply depot wallin with 1 hit, marauders from sniping out nexus / hatcheries almost without response and marauders sniping out research buildings.

Removing overlord armored will also reduce viking harass effectiveness.

In total, Zerg get a boost in this case since their research buildings are so key to production and overlords don't get sniped by vikings left right and center.

Also nerfs Marauders a bit on base raids but keeps their effectiveness in combat.

I don't get your constant "this NEEDS to be changed" threads.
Why make viking harass less viable? It's perfectly fine as it is.

Do you wall-in in TvT?

Why does the game NEED these changes? If anything, proxy pylons are too big of an issue right now.

Sounds like you've tried your hand at Zerg again.

Personally I wouldn't mind having the armored tag simply removed from buildings. Let them keep the Structure tag and have units with a bonus against them, like Reapers, so the Marauder doesn't overshadow them at everything.

@ DemoSquid

Reapers and Marauders are pretty distant. Have you seen how effective 5 rax reaper is? and reapers are much better at sniping tech. Just 5 or so reapers can hop a cliff and snipe roach warrens etc.

And tell me... how often to those players using 5RR keep building Reapers or tech to something else, compared to insta-switching to Marauders who are a more solid unit all around? Reapers have their use, but Marauders overshadow them in every way. You don't see Reaper balls 20 minutes into the game for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hammy

I don't get your constant "this NEEDS to be changed" threads.
Why make viking harass less viable? It's perfectly fine as it is.

Do you wall-in in TvT?

Why does the game NEED these changes? If anything, proxy pylons are too big of an issue right now.

Sounds like you've tried your hand at Zerg again.

---

I don't get your attitude. Proxy pylons are too big of an issue!??!?!!

Lawl, you're funny. Actually I've been owning people with my MMM ball and finding it stupidly easy to win 1v1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minerals

@ DemoSquid

Reapers and Marauders are pretty distant. Have you seen how effective 5 rax reaper is? and reapers are much better at sniping tech. Just 5 or so reapers can hop a cliff and snipe roach warrens etc.

---

Yes... I'm going to keep 12 reapers around mid-late game...and expect a protoss/zerg player to have not used observers and creep to see the whole map around their perimeter.

And yes conviently all the bases are accessible.
Way too many assumptions, and Reapers are strong as plastic toy soldiers up against anything past Tier 1.5

8-12 Marauders + Medivacs + Stim = Ownage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

What this does is stop a few marauders from sniping that supply depot wallin with 1 hit, marauders from sniping out nexus / hatcheries almost without response and marauders sniping out research buildings.

---

Call me ignorant but if the opponent manages to kill my research buildings with Marauders:

A - I'm an idiot for not defending my base properly, so I deserve the loss
B - A group of Marauders that can kill my research building is either too large for it to be called "sniping", or if its a smaller group, I'm once again an idiot for letting them do it.

Quote:

---

Zerg get a boost in this case since their research buildings are so key to production

---

I don't quite understand this. Yes, if Zerg loses their Hydra Den they can't make Hydras anymore, just as Terrans can't make Marauders if they lose their Tech Lab and Protoss loses Stalkers if their Cy Core is blasted.

Now, maybe make some of the Zerg buildings have higher-HP since their HP is much lower than their counterparts (Spire/Starport/Stargate for example), but overall I don't see how the importance of such buildings is greater compared to the other races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

I don't get your attitude. Proxy pylons are too big of an issue!??!?!!

Lawl, you're funny. Actually I've been owning people with my MMM ball and finding it stupidly easy to win 1v1

---

You have to understand that 10 games in low gold aren't enough to get a sense of the game. I'm not saying you need to be WhiteRa to understand the game, but it does take a bit more analysis then you seem to have put in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do so by elaborating on your ideas for a change.
You frequently say what the game NEEDS, but don't seem to consider the impact the changes might have.
Whether buildings remain armored or not is irrelevant to me, but complaining about viking AtA versus overlords is a bit silly.
Overlords are not what's wrong with the matchups.

If you're owning with MMM balls, then that's good, you'll rank up, but I hardly think you won those few games because you're running in and sniping buildings.

Marauders demolishes Armored stuff. That doesn't means that the buildings don't need to be Armored, just that giving a unit that costs the same than a hotdog and a coke a 10 +10 vs Armored attack and Stim on top of it, is probably too good.

I feel like this is an unfiltered troll thread... no offense. The game mechanics and armored statuses are there for a reason. Even if a little strong, every race has their "siege" units.

The "Structure" tag is there for siege units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McTwist

I feel like this is an unfiltered troll thread... no offense. The game mechanics and armored statuses are there for a reason. Even if a little strong, every race has their "siege" units.

---

lol, whip out the troll card. Next you say it's hitler's undoing.

Zerg siege units require you to create a useless unit first to get it. Where is the design in that? At least with Guardians, you can mutate your already mutlitasking mutalisks into them. Swarm Guardians?

But anyway, the point isn't about siege units. The point is that why are buildings all armored?

It's Hitler's undoing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

Lawl, you're funny. Actually I've been owning people with my MMM ball and finding it stupidly easy to win 1v1

---

Sooner or later, people are going to counter those MMM balls, but i do realize that in silver or gold league, they might be effective.

Other than that, i don't feel that this armor attribute is a legitimate problem.
Starcraft 2 does have some serious balance issues. But i think the biggest issue RIGHT NOW is that people simply whine too much while not playing enough. Seriously, i witness this everywhere.

All the time from the beginning people are suggesting SC2 is way more easier than BW, no micro, easy macro etc. And these threads combined with those gives me the impression that they actually want it to be even easier.

Quote:

---

lol, whip out the troll card.

---

I find it interesting that you'll respond to someone calling you a Troll, but completely ignore someone basically calling you an ignorant n00b, though in nicer language.

isn't there anyone who is annoyed by the fact that structures die too fast? that cannons/bunkers/spinals aren't as useful as they were back then?

What is wrong with making structures, structures again, this way weakining units like marauders and immortals from just demolishing them easily making them almost useless?

IMO All buildings need to have their armored tag gone, this way immortals and marauders are less of a firepower against them while keeping siege units - tanks, collosi, broodlords as effective due to their range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nonick

isn't there anyone who is annoyed by the fact that structures die too fast? that cannons/bunkers/spinals aren't as useful as they were back then?

What is wrong with making structures, structures again, this way weakining units like marauders and immortals from just demolishing them easily making them almost useless?

IMO All buildings need to have their armored tag gone, this way immortals and marauders are less of a firepower against them while keeping siege units - tanks, collosi, broodlords as effective due to their range.

---

They die at just the right speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Call me ignorant but if the opponent manages to kill my research buildings with Marauders:

A - I'm an idiot for not defending my base properly, so I deserve the loss

---

?? So super high tiered players are idiots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by userstupidname

?? So super high tiered players are idiots?

---

No. I'm saying ideally you'll always been scouting and have some sort of perimeter defense so that your opponent can't get into your base undetected. Doesn't always happen but it should. I know I'm inexperienced but this seems pretty basic to me.

Quote:

---

isn't there anyone who is annoyed by the fact that structures die too fast? that cannons/bunkers/spinals aren't as useful as they were back then?

---

This isn't true. Some structures have lower Hp (Depots), so they're expected to die faster. If other structures seem to die "too fast", then it is simply due to having more units that do lots of damage.

There wasn't a unit like the Marauder back in SC1, that is cheap, durable for its cost, and has reasonably high DPS. So naturally buildings will die faster when there are units around that kill them faster.

In short, if you think buildings die too fast, you should look to the unit doing the killing, not to buildings.

Quote:

---

What is wrong with making structures, structures again, this way weakining units like marauders and immortals from just demolishing them easily making them almost useless?

---

Immortals do not "easily" make them "almost useless". Immortals are a lot like Reavers in SC1; they can make fairly short work of buildings if you throw 2-3 at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

This isn't true. Some structures have lower Hp (Depots), so they're expected to die faster. If other structures seem to die "too fast", then it is simply due to having more units that do lots of damage.

There wasn't a unit like the Marauder back in SC1, that is cheap, durable for its cost, and has reasonably high DPS. So naturally buildings will die faster when there are units around that kill them faster.

In short, if you think buildings die too fast, you should look to the unit doing the killing, not to buildings.



Immortals do not "easily" make them "almost useless". Immortals are a lot like Reavers in SC1; they can make fairly short work of buildings if you throw 2-3 at them.

---

I think the simple answer is that the pace of this game has been increased dramatically through correct unit selection and hit&run tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dropsonic

They die at just the right speed.

---

If you mean getting 2 shot is the right speed, you are measurably mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

This isn't true. Some structures have lower Hp (Depots), so they're expected to die faster. If other structures seem to die "too fast", then it is simply due to having more units that do lots of damage.

There wasn't a unit like the Marauder back in SC1, that is cheap, durable for its cost, and has reasonably high DPS. So naturally buildings will die faster when there are units around that kill them faster.

In short, if you think buildings die too fast, you should look to the unit doing the killing, not to buildings.



Immortals do not "easily" make them "almost useless". Immortals are a lot like Reavers in SC1; they can make fairly short work of buildings if you throw 2-3 at them.

---

They die too fast to units with +armored, like the marauder and immortal. I know you can't spam immortals like you spam marauders, but mixing immortals in a toss force can do way too much damage to buildings in a short period IMO. I think it is a bigger problem with marauders though, spammable unit that can 2 shot buildings while microing is just absurd.

So making buildings structures again and not armored can ease up base wrecking easily, and helps preventing sniping with reapers for example which is pretty retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nonick

If you mean getting 2 shot is the right speed, you are measurably mistaken.

---

2 shot? Yeah, by like a 200/200 army.

Lategame this might be problem, but it really shouldn't be. I mean, defensive buildings are and SHOULD only be useful against early game pushes and detection. Maybe also in the midgame, but there you shouldn't count on them.

But late game, these shouldn't play a big role. It simply isn't logical that you can use tier 1.5 buildings to protect yourself against T3 or mass T2 units.
If you now suggest that the defensive buildings should be upgradable, i suggest you go play another game. Starcraft simply isn't a game for somebody who likes to turtle.

As for passive buildings ( Supply depots etc. ), they should stay the way they are. Take away the armor, and you take away various forms of doomdrops ( Immortals and whatever ). It simply makes the game more dynamic.

Again. I think you complain way too much. This isn't a balance problem, since every race can do it.

Quote:

---

know you can't spam immortals like you spam marauders, but mixing immortals in a toss force can do way too much damage to buildings in a short period IMO.

---

Just like mixing in a few Reavers allowed you to kill buildings quickly in SC1.

Quote:

---

So making buildings structures again and not armored

---

I don't know where this "again" is coming from. Buildings are structures. And they've always been armored. The SC1 equivalent of armored is Large, and buildings were always large in SC1.

And that last part is why you're looking at the wrong thing. Buildings took full damage from explosive attacks in SC1, and that was "just fine". The difference is that there was no Marauder in SC1. So the problem has nothing to do with the building's type, but with a single unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Marauders demolishes Armored stuff. That doesn't means that the buildings don't need to be Armored, just that giving a unit that costs the same than a hotdog and a coke a 10 +10 vs Armored attack and Stim on top of it, is probably too good.

---

qft.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dropsonic

2 shot? Yeah, by like a 200/200 army.

Lategame this might be problem, but it really shouldn't be. I mean, defensive buildings are and SHOULD only be useful against early game pushes and detection. Maybe also in the midgame, but there you shouldn't count on them.

But late game, these shouldn't play a big role. It simply isn't logical that you can use tier 1.5 buildings to protect yourself against T3 or mass T2 units.
If you now suggest that the defensive buildings should be upgradable, i suggest you go play another game. Starcraft simply isn't a game for somebody who likes to turtle.

As for passive buildings ( Supply depots etc. ), they should stay the way they are. Take away the armor, and you take away various forms of doomdrops ( Immortals and whatever ). It simply makes the game more dynamic.

Again. I think you complain way too much. This isn't a balance problem, since every race can do it.

---

i think the basic problem here is that with only say, a handful of marauders... 4-5 or so, coupled with stims can make short work of any defenses....
or at least and food counting buildings... and i don't they count as late game units, nor do their abilities... and suddenly, people can easily mass an early game unit that already causes huge amounts of damage and completely demolish bases with the right timing...

then again... feedbacking full medivacs is, oh so satisfying...

Question - what about Marauders is the main problem with them? The stims, the cost, the HP, the attack power? I agree they're too strong, but what aspect of it makes them this way above the rest?

Its the cost for sheer power I think. Lets compare it to Protoss' "equivalent" unit.

Marauder
100/25
125 HP
10+10

Stalker
125/50
160 HP
10+4

We understand that the Stalker has shields and hits air so its cost increases for that versatility. This is, however, meaningless in the early game. First off, early game when these two units come out there isn't any air, so that advantage is null. Secondly, with the 50/50 saved by building two Marauders compared to 2 Stalkers, the Terran player can research Concussive Shells. This means the Stalkers can't run away from the engagement so their shield recharge can never come into effect. One Marauder beats one Stalker, always.

Lets not even mention the uselessness of Zealots. Until Blink or Charge is researched, Marauders rule the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Its the cost for sheer power I think. Lets compare it to Protoss' "equivalent" unit.

Marauder
100/25
125 HP
10+10

Stalker
125/50
160 HP
10+4

We understand that the Stalker has shields and hits air so its cost increases for that versatility. This is, however, meaningless in the early game. First off, early game when these two units come out there isn't any air, so that advantage is null. Secondly, with the 50/50 saved by building two Marauders compared to 2 Stalkers, the Terran player can research Concussive Shells. This means the Stalkers can't run away from the engagement so their shield recharge can never come into effect. One Marauder beats one Stalker, always.

Lets not even mention the uselessness of Zealots. Until Blink or Charge is researched, Marauders rule the field.

---

Kind of makes me glad I switched to zerg recently, Marauders can't hit the food supply and if you're resourceful enough you can break the ramp block and bust into the mineral line, killing off the rest of the marauder income while teching to mass roaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senervo

then again... feedbacking full medivacs is, oh so satisfying...

---

... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang

Question - what about Marauders is the main problem with them? The stims, the cost, the HP, the attack power? I agree they're too strong, but what aspect of it makes them this way above the rest?

---

It's really a combination of factors. The unit is slower than the Marine as a disadvantage, but that's defeated by slow, that makes all enemy units unable to catch them. And, really, this kind of ability shouldn't be automatic as long as the unit is attacking. It completely kills any micro you could attempt. When did you see a spellcaster with that attack power and HP, anyways? The Protoss spellcasters have a crappy HP in contrast to the Marauder and Ghost.

I would change EMP for Slow with a big AoE, and the Marauder be stripped of it. They hardly need something like that to survive.

Blizzard should just make SC2 modifiable already so people can make their own ladders with their own balance changes, stats, etc. That way, we could have several hundreds ladders with 1-2 people in each of them to make those players happy. :/

EDIT - And to the poster above, marauders are a touchy subject because of their hit points. It's pretty damn obvious when you think about it. Anybody could adjust the costs and build times while lowering a unit's hit points. It's not very difficult, but it's a touchy subject.

How bout removing the Armored-Attribute for Massive units. I see the word massive as nothing more than an extra crutch.

Quote:

---

How bout removing the Armored-Attribute for Massive units. I see the word massive as nothing more than an extra crutch.

---

Yeah, it's totally a crutch. Not being able to be Graviton Beamed, and being able to smash through Force Fields just by walking into them. Yeah, that just sucks :rolleyes:

As for the idea itself, it makes no real sense. It seems to me that all of this "remove the Armored attribute" stuff comes directly from "I don't want it to die to Stimmed Marauders". Well, maybe that's the problem, and not the attribute itself.

I really think we just need to lower the Marauders damage. Even if its just its just the attack speed.

Take off stim? They don't have it in the campaign and they do just fine.

So it all just boils down to marauders. I say keep stim on the marauders but don't give them the attack speed increase.

Also reduce their health to 100.

I'm starting to think Marauders are fine the way they are - no offense to the nay-sayers...

The reason is that Terran have no real answer to units like Ultras or mass roach, or even banelings without marauder DPS.

In TvP, they may be slightly OP, but Protoss lately have been able to adapt their unit compositions and builds to counter marauders pretty well. So much so that they aren't the real issue anymore; PvT is more about who has the better econ and macro while not dying or losing important tech or econ or production facilities to harass by Banshee or marauder/marine drops.

If Blizzard changes Marauders right now, they will break TvZ as all Terrans will die to any roach/baneling play (which is pretty damn effective right now), and in TvP, they will just get steam-rolled by mass stalkers from 4 gates.