Costs of structures

General Discussion
21

Marines should have 333hp confirmed. Blizz please!

22

No, but barracks should cost near 1000 with 1000 HP or cost 150 with near 150 HP .

23

This could repair some of the broken. The HP should be more proportional to the costs.

24

Why? Its a building, not a unit. They do totally different things.

1 Like
26

Is more useful to have a factory than just to have the units, because with the factory, units can be created, so the factories are actually cheaper than units and devalued. In real life a factory of cars is pretty much more expensive than a single car, in what proportion? IDK.

27

I get your point but the scale of buildings vs units in an RTS game like this is purposely unrealistic.

28

So what? Its a game. It doesnt need to reflect accurately on real life. More importantly, if you make a barracks cost 8000 minerals, then its going to be 10 minutes before you make your first marine.

2 Likes
29

It will be like 5 minutes just for the first supply depot.

30

This game have a lot of effects trying to be realistic, the proportion of costs and time and HP are more important than effects because they are needed for the strategy. OK, I donā€™t have all the answers. The HP, time and costs are as important as units and structures abilities; for that I donā€™t want 1:1 proportion of costs and HP.

31

Such as marines being able to shoot down a starship, or having infinite ammo? Or Thors existing?

32

As a Zerg I definitely miss the U238 upgrade.

And siege tank research.

33

Marines being able to shoot down a starship is totally unreal but I can accept it, unlimited ammo too but it can be limited, I figure Thorā€™s are possible real. I think you want me to say itā€™s a game and it is and I think it could be more fair with the way I say.

34

Yeah, not having to research siege feels a bit busted to me (but donā€™t tell the terran players that), since itā€™s not like we got burrow baseline or anything. Iā€™m pretty sure you can even research tunneling claws and have it be completely wasted if u didnā€™t research burrow. I never did play SC competitively, no more than necessary to get my five stars, and then i played lotr games until my dial up connection failed.

Those were the days.

35

Why is your way more ā€œfairā€? What problem is this solving?

36

The rule say that the player who destroy all enemy structures wins!, so a barrack is more important than 3 marines that cost the same. The problem that I see is the incongruity between the value and the cost. This affect the strategy to the point of waste in structures because of thatā€™s the way rules are.

37

Yeah, but those 3 marines can kill a barracks, but not the reverse.

1 Like
39

Yeah, but if you have 3 marines and no structures, and I have a barracks and no units, who wins?

40

noone in that scenario since both player are terran so you and kelthar will have a barracks flaoting where no groundbased unit can hit it so itā€™ll end in a draw in that circumstance :smiley:

41

In chess, how much value the king? The game! Something similar happens with structures.

42

Well, there is/are structures that attack, or cause AOE damage, upon their destruction. EZ and free damage output with no effort at all on the structure owner to execute. Guess the raceā€¦ :thinking: