Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61

Thread: Armored attribute needs to be removed

  1. #51

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    But the same doesn't apply. The Dragoon is more expensive, takes longer to build, and the attack is not directly comparable for the reasons i listed before, and had no stimpacks and no slow.
    I wasn't making a direct comparison to the dragoon; it was more of a broader analogy of roles not specifically based on its attack. The Dragoon obviously had lower DPS and lacked stim and slow... It's ridiculous you even thought about it that way.

    My point here was that, just as Dragoons were an army core in BW for Protoss, in that exact way, Marauders are now the core for any Terran army that goes the Bio way. And as support for mech play, they do the right amount of damage/sec. If they did any lower, it would weaken Terran against mass roach/baneling and later ultras. The latter take insane amounts of hits from tanks to die due to their whopping 6 overall armor. With speedy DPS from marauders as support for tanks, Terran is able to stay alive in T3, because Ultras just demolish tanks with their current DPS vs armored.

    Whether as core or as support, marauders do the right amount of damage against T3, and the timing of the Concussive shells upgrade and stim upgrade make them balanced against when you can have enough zealots out with stalker and sentry support, and shortly after - chargelots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    That's why i never talked about removing the Marauder, but nerfing it. If it's support, it's support, it doesn't needs to demolish everything in it's path, or there are some serious issues with the design of the game.
    My bad if I expressed myself that way. I don't really mean remove the Marauder itself, but its DPS. Nerfing the Marauder would warrant buffing siege tanks which would make them imbalanced against everything else in all 3 matchups - and Blizzard is actually finding them imbalanced already, hence the nerf to 35+15 to armor from 50 damage.

    Also, using your same line of thinking, Siege tanks should have been removed from BW since they demolished EVERY ground force at that time due to their stupidly high damage in siege mode. BUT, players found alternatives and counters to beat siege tanks such as zealot bombs, stasis field, and for Zerg, just pure macro or Ultras, Mutas, and anything that can cause friendly splash.

    The flaw is not in the design of the game, but our way of perceiving the Marauder. It is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    Also, the Dragoon got removed because it was too versatile, but they gave the same attack to the Marauder (probably better), and even gave it Slow and Stimpacks, only limiting the unit to attack ground targets. Guess what? There are no air units in that tier. Of course, that means that you cannot go crazy and build only Marauders, unless you plan to finish the game before the enemy gets air, but with that price, powerful attack, and Slow. It's just too too affordable and too good, and can be built in large numbers easily early game, causing trouble.
    No, the dragoon was removed because it really sucked. It tripped on its dick waaay too many times to be reconsidered for combat in SC2. It did come back as the Immortal, since they didn't want to outright kill the unit. But, the replacement Stalker is faster, and actually more versatile than the dragoon could ever be with Blink and the innate long range, allowing them to kite melee units very easily.

    Marauders actually take a long time to make compared to marines, which gives time for the right counter units to be made in time. And, in any marine marauder combo, the real DPS that you see is from the marines, not the marauder itself, although it does deal decent damage.

    The Marauder can be compared "softly" to Dragoons in PvT where goons were the damage dealers to Terran defenses until tanks got out. If your tank is late, mass dragoons will pound on the Terran front door and break through eventually after a certain number of dragoons appear. Terran couldnt use marines as those would die too easily, so would vultures.

    If you look at how sentries and stalkers are used on chokes and ramps against marauders, it is comparable since the FF allows for time, just like that Terran wall in BW, to obtain enough zealots and stalkers, and sometimes, even an Immortal to deal with the marine/marauder army knocking at the front of the Protoss base.

    In TvZ, it is queens, spine-crawlers and speedlings that counter early marauders, and slow doesnt affect speedlings on creep, or the effect is null.

    So, I think you are just over-reacting to the Marauder, and have been since Beta which I think is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    If there are problems in T3, it would be much more reasonable to solve them with the Tank, instead of nerfing the Tank, and leaving the Marauder as it is.
    The tank is too strong DPS-wise as even zealots with charge cannot approach the tanks - now with the damage change, different unit types might be seen in "vs T" matchups such as chargelots (more), hydras, and even T2 roaches.

    At T3, ultralisks are too powerful in TvZ. I discussed this above, that without marauder support, or marauders period, the tanks cannot "tank" damage as well as marauders can. The HP combined slow and stim of the marauders make them very resilient and mobile against ultras and friendly splash from tanks. Tanks are sooo immobile that they'd be taken out too easily - remember how little tanks were used in BW TvZ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    Why? Cannot the Terrans afford to actually fight against the enemy spellcasters?
    ?? No offense, but that question does not make any sense. Care to clarify it, please?

    I just meant that the ghost already has Snipe, Nuke and EMP with EMP being AoE. Another AoE spell would make ghosts OP, and having Slow as AoE is definitely OP for reasons I explained previously as well.

    For any retreating army, slow as AoE would make it impossible to save units, like you can now, against a T army.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    At least will require skill to be used, instead of been a free launch and get autocasted over whatever the Marauders are shooting at. They completely disable Zealots early game. Also, it has a small AoE, otherwise would be quite useless against Zerglings, because of their numbers.
    It will be the opposite and will require too little "skill" to cast that spell and kill the retreating army. You just select the hypothetical ghost and cast slow and A-move your army = insta-win. There would be no retaliation and no opportunity to regroup units with fresh reinforcements which would allow T to push and win since the reinforcements would be too weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    What's the problem? Just move the spell to the Ghost, and let the Terran cast it over the Zerg army.
    ...

    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel
    I disagree. The unit is clearly too powerful for cost. There's even a Day9 video were he shows how to stop Terran infantry by constantly casting FF on the ramp. Nobody would do that there wasn't a problem, because a small mistake means that they get vision up the ramp, or even get all the units up there, and then your units are screwed.
    If a Terran goes 3 Barracks, gets one Reactor and 2 Labs, they can pump a lot of units very fast, and comfortably, while a Protoss player must struggle to Warp-in units while keeping a perfectly balanced Zealot and Stalker force, and keeping the Stalkers close, but not in front of the Zealots, and with a smaller army, as they cost more.
    I explained this earlier in this reply: it is all about timing. The FF is there to stall the bioball so that the Protoss can warp in more units to deal with the Bio Ball. It is actually a good thing that Protoss has to do that - that means that there is an interesting dynamic to the game that will give birth to Strategy on how to counter such an aggressive move by T: aka ForceField, or nowadays just pure 4 gate zealot/stalker/sentry.

    It is similar, again, to TvP in BW where you use the 4 rines initially to stall the attacking dragoons until your 1st tank pops out.



    In conclusion, I think Norfindel, you have a problem to deal with marauders personally, and has nothing to do with the game design. I have heard you complain about the Marauder time and again since BETA was released... I think it is time you learned how to counter a marauder/marine push, don't you think?

    The answer is not just unit composition, but timing. Practice your build order timing better, cut corners to get that extra unit out , don't overspend on pylons, and make units as the money becomes available.

    I think you will greatly benefit from this day9 daily:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36BSwQY0Ag

  2. #52

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Sorry, won't answer the wall of text again, takes too much time.

    It can hardly be my perception when more people are complaining about it. Hell, this thread asks to remove the Armored attribute from buildings, mainly because the Marauder demolishes them too fast.

    There are progamers out there complaining about balance, and that are making the move to Terran, because there is money involved.

  3. #53

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    And as support for mech play, they do the right amount of damage/sec. If they did any lower, it would weaken Terran against mass roach/baneling and later ultras.
    Thors make very good meatshields, especially with SCVs repairing. You could easily have stimmed Marines behind them and they'd be fine.

    Yes, Thors are higher tech. But since Terrans can easily wall-in, they are free to tech to whatever they want.

    Against Protoss, Terrans can use Ghosts with EMP to take away lots of health from the Protoss units. This would allow a reasonable Marine/Reaper (Reapers to kill Zealots) ball to take on an early-to-mid-game Protoss army. All of this stuff is low tech.

    There is every chance that the Terrans as a race would still be functional (if slightly limited in their early tech pattern) if you took out Marauders entirely. Not that this is necessarily a good idea, but nerfing the Marauder would not break TvP. The Terran would just have to come up with alternate ways of dealing with Protoss that don't involve "spam Marauders".

    Whether as core or as support, marauders do the right amount of damage against T3, and the timing of the Concussive shells upgrade and stim upgrade make them balanced against when you can have enough zealots out with stalker and sentry support, and shortly after - chargelots.
    You're assuming that nothing else could handle it. If you took Stim away from Marauders, they'd still be useful to the Terrans as meatshields and for their slowing effects. They'd still be important against both Zerg and Protoss.

    Ultralisks would be easily dealt with by Thors with 250mm cannons. Oh, you forgot about the 250mm cannon upgrade, didn't you? Of course you did; Marauders made it totally worthless. Nerf Marauder DPS, and suddenly this upgrade starts making sense.

    Mass Roach can be dealt with via a combination of Marines and Thors with SCVs to repair. Or Marines with Siege Tanks.

    Or, you know, Marines and Marauders, since they didn't just disappear. Roaches have a fundamental flaw; their short range. Marauders can stand between the Roaches and Marines to act as meatshields.

    For the Protoss, mass Stalker can be dealt with by Marines with Medivacs, Stim, and Combat Shields. Gently stir in a Ghost for EMP to take down their shields, and everything works out.

    Or, you know, Marines and Marauders. The Marauder's damage is far from inconsequential, and they still act as good meatshields. As well as their slowing effect making Zealots vulnerable.

    Just because a match has good timings doesn't mean that the match will be broken if those timings change. Those timings are simply the most effective way to play currently.

    Hell, this thread asks to remove the Armored attribute from buildings, mainly solely because the Marauder demolishes them too fast.
    There, fixed that for ya.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  4. #54

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Notably, only 3 people have a problem with this here:
    You, wankey and Demo.

    No offense to any of you, but I think you guys just need to learn the game better. I think all you're doing is perceive marauders as a problem when there is a perfectly sound counter for each race, ready to be executed once you are at a higher level of play (i.e. Gold and above).

    I used to have trouble with marauders in my silver days in Beta - Demo knows this well; I lost so many games and even tried hard vs Superkiller (who was in Platinum at the time) to find a counter. As I got better at the game, I found that the marauders weren't my problem, but my macro and base-management as well as the proportion of zealots mixed in my army.

    At lower levels (read lower tier Gold and below), even using Immortals as a crutch for Protoss till you get Colossi has been around since Beta phase 1... If you haven't learnt to do this yet, maybe it's high time you did, instead of just complaining continuously about something that's perfectly fine balance-wise, just because YOU cannot counter it, since I see no one else here.

    That's just one example of a counter, another is Phoenix play, and for Zerg its just getting the right proportions of speedlings and roaches and later banelings.

    Also, name the SAID progamers who have mentioned that marauders need to be nerfed. If you cannot, then why even mention that...

    Norfindel, since Beta, you're the only one who was most vocal against marauders, right? How many times have people said this to you: the counter is THIS, or the counter is THAT. You completely ignore those people and continue creating these kinds of threads (granted that this one was made by wankey). If you search the forum, it is literally littered with these kinds of threads created by you.

    Don't you think that this topic is really fruitless and has been beaten to death already? How many tries does it take for people to see the simple solution to "The Marauder Problem"?



    Quoted for emphasis:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wankey View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norfindel View Post
    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.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Except is not just us, PW. As Norfindel pointed out, many professionals are switching to Terran because they're also convinced Terran is the strongest race, and it has a lot to do with the Marauder specifically. At the very least, if we don't change buildings, that unit needs to be weaker in some respect. Lowering its attack by a bit seems to be the best option, imho. 10+10 to 6+10, maybe. Make light units better against it and everything is solved. It needs to be a support for Marines, to slow, tank, and help against armored units. It shouldn't be replacing Marines completely, which is does a lot of the time.
    Last edited by DemolitionSquid; 09-10-2010 at 12:41 PM.

  6. #56

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    If mass marauders are still seen as a problem, simply removing stim from them would probably make the most sense; both in terms of balance and lore wise, seeing as only marines can stim in the campaign. Or a slight increase to their gas cost (50 instead of 25) might be enough.

    Then again I'm mainly just a casual player so I probably couldn't speak much on it.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    I think all you're doing is perceive marauders as a problem when there is a perfectly sound counter for each race, ready to be executed once you are at a higher level of play (i.e. Gold and above).
    Note my signature, i'm at gold, Demo is at a higher league. I seen diamond players complaining about this. Also, the game needs to be fair at all levels, or its just "elitist balance".

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    I used to have trouble with marauders in my silver days in Beta - Demo knows this well; I lost so many games and even tried hard vs Superkiller (who was in Platinum at the time) to find a counter. As I got better at the game, I found that the marauders weren't my problem, but my macro and base-management as well as the proportion of zealots mixed in my army.
    You don't seem to understand that the matchmaker puts people against players with similar skills, so the Terran player is roughly as good as the other player. If it's easier for the Terrans, it's because it's easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    Also, name the SAID progamers who have mentioned that marauders need to be nerfed. If you cannot, then why even mention that...
    Sorry, don't remember the name, but it's well-known. I have a bad memory for names. Maybe idra? Not sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    Norfindel, since Beta, you're the only one who was most vocal against marauders, right?
    I doubt it. Take a look at the starcraft2.com forums, and TL.

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    How many times have people said this to you: the counter is THIS, or the counter is THAT. You completely ignore those people and continue creating these kinds of threads (granted that this one was made by wankey). If you search the forum, it is literally littered with these kinds of threads created by you.
    If it bothers you so much, don't read them. I didn't ignore them, it's just that it's obvious it's much easier for the Terran player, and i don't accept that as good game design.

    Quote Originally Posted by protoswarrior View Post
    Don't you think that this topic is really fruitless and has been beaten to death already? How many tries does it take for people to see the simple solution to "The Marauder Problem"?
    Not really sure. You should ask Blizzard about that.

  8. #58

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    I think all you're doing is perceive marauders as a problem when there is a perfectly sound counter for each race, ready to be executed once you are at a higher level of play (i.e. Gold and above).
    I think you don't know what "balance" means.

    Balance doesn't just mean "there's a 'perfectly solid' counter for everything." It places requirements on that counter. If using that counter requires that you must be significantly more skilled than your opponent, then that is indicative of a balance problem. Balance fixes are not just for something that is impossible to deal with, but also for things that are too difficult to deal with.

    Blizzard knows this. That's why they imposed a Zealot build time nerf, as well as a WarpGate cooldown nerf. These things were not impossible to deal with. But they were too difficult to deal with.

    In short, it doesn't matter that if you were better, you could deal with situation X. Because you still have to be much better than your opponent to deal with it. Which is imbalanced.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  9. #59
    Briggs's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Honestly, this needs to stop, ZvT, sure roaches are horrible against marauders, go early +1 speedling, I've tested it, you can get out 12 +1 speedlings to his 4-5 marauders, easy defense, then tech to early muta, (tested this also, you can get 5 mutas out in 8 minutes and still have the +1 speedlings to deal with marauder harass) and we all know marauders can't look up; infestors, also a very good counter to marauders, 1 infest and the entire mmm ball is frozen and taking damage. with your army safe and sound, hell with zerg's larvae advantage, you could double your army with 2 infests on the terran bio ball.

    PvT- get some sentries out and FF or shield your zealots, this reduces damage or blocks your ramp completely, if you fear of Medi drops, get some cannons around your perimiter, no different that Terran setting up turrets, Terrans need Engineering bay, protoss need a forge. Not different and accomplishes the same task. sure Zealots are close ranged fighters and stalkers are armored units that hit from range (more damage to armored units i might add) zealots hit twice for 8 damage each = 16 damage per hit, stalkers hit for 14 damage per attack against armored units, then add in a sentry with the shield and marauder does 8+10 damage to stalker. so 18 damage. I might add that both zealots and stalkers attack faster than a marauder, and a marauder has to tech to get stim.

    So yes, I can see the complaints, but as you'll clearly see here (facts are cool) It's not an overwhelming advantage, barely one at all. considering if you have a sentry posted with a cannon at your ramp, tech to 4 warp tech (common) you can hold off early terran agression and warp in units for a counter attack. Play a sentry like a zerg plays an infestor, keep a couple at your base to put up forcefields. Sure slow is strong, but infestors and sentries have the ability to STOP an opponent. Unlike the Terran.

    And if you feel the need to nerf them, making them more of support unit, then I suggest raising the concussive shell upgrade cost and time needed to build it to something similar to the combat shield. If that ever happens, it'll slow down the marauder by just a bit, not a lot but maybe enough to satisfy these people that live off of IMBA!!!! threads.
    Last edited by Briggs; 09-10-2010 at 05:02 PM.

    Life is NOT a privilege, it is NOT a right, it is a pleasure,..Live it.

  10. #60

    Default Re: Armored attribute needs to be removed

    Honestly, this needs to stop, ZvT, sure roaches are horrible against marauders, go early +1 speedling, I've tested it, you can get out 12 +1 speedlings to his 4-5 marauders, easy defense, then tech to early muta, (tested this also, you can get 5 mutas out in 8 minutes and still have the +1 speedlings to deal with marauder harass) and we all know marauders can't look up;
    5 Muta do nothing against Missile Turrets, Marines, or a Thor or two. All of which can easily be gotten once they see your Spire start building.

    In short, no: you can't take advantage of a Terran who's paying attention.

    Also, I'm curious how, as a Zerg, you even know they're going for Marauders. Any decent Terran will have killed all your pre-Lair scouting attempts. And if you get Speed and +1, that's 200 gas you just wasted when you find out that they're going for Reapers or Hellions.

    PvT- get some sentries out and FF or shield your zealots, this reduces damage or blocks your ramp completely
    Zealots? You mean those things that will never, ever get close to the Marauders due to Concussive Shells?

    I might add that both zealots and stalkers attack faster than a marauder, and a marauder has to tech to get stim.
    Safe behind his walls, a Terran is free to tech to whatever he wants.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

Similar Threads

  1. Zerg no vs armored extra damage.
    By Shinod in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 06:43 PM
  2. What if Supply would be removed
    By Perfecttear in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 10:01 AM
  3. Lurker Removed/Other Changes
    By Jabber Wookie in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 02:55 PM
  4. News Forum Removed
    By Gradius in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 01:39 PM
  5. SC2 System Requirements have been REMOVED
    By Sydarm in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 04:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •