Engineering bay's and armories!

Ive been wanting to say this for a while: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE TERRAN ENGINEERING BAY AND ARMORY?!?!

If you think of it, and armory is where the infantry keeps there weapons and amunition and an engineering bay is, well lets see: an engineer is a person that will normaly work with machinery. machinery = machines = siege tanks = factory.

BUT THEN WHY DOES A SIEGE TANK GET ITS UPGRADES FROM AN ARMORY? ??? ??? ???

 

Perhaps Armory has something to do with Armor??? Or The Tank's ammunition is kept on the armory... Ask Blizzard! ^^

 

Armory isn't specifically infantry. It's also where they keep tank shells and the like.

 

Again, another minor problem.

Engineering bays can be used to engineer new infantry technology and the armory is where the supplies and ammo is kept. The supplies for tanks and ammo is purchased from the armory.

 

ok so there just cool names.

 

I see no problems with the eng bay and armory the only terran buildings I think have problems are the merc haven and munitions depot they dont serve but one purpose that could easily be merged into other buildings

 

Does anyone have a good pic of the new engineering bay?

 

I dont think we have seen pics of wither the engineering bay or the armory... if thats even their name anymore.

 

they need to get rid of the merch building, pointless to build a building just to build a single unit

 

not realy, you need it to make ghosts and nukes.

 

I agree that some of the new buildings are pointless and a waste of space. It's not like Zerg where you need a specific building for a unit in order to kind of balance the ability to switch production so quickly.

I've said in other threads, and I know its getting annoying and repetitive, that the Reaper should not be a new unit by itself. It should be an upgrade for the Firebat that would make it relevant in later-game play. Some of the Terran buildings also need to be combined. Mostly new buildings. Why do you need a building in order to create a single unit? That's the purpose of the Academy, to give you access to the more advanced infantry. If you want to make it a separate upgrade to turn Firebats into Reapers, then that's fine, but it should be just that... an upgrade, not a separate unit.

Starcraft is about using the same basic units through Tier 1, 2, and 3 (now 4 in SC2) effectively. Letting the Firebat fall by the wayside does not fit that philosophy.

 

the only thing i dont like about the engineering bay is it can't lift... i mean it has those 4 legs taht are meant to let the building land... but still it still can't lift.

 

You mean the new one for SC2?

 

where doe it say the engineering bay cant lift off

 

Yeah thats news to me.

 

....you seem to think that SC2 is just another expansion pack

 

Actually Hillza, you should read some of my other threads and you would see that I am absolutely for making this a new game. It's just that some of these buildings are completely unnecessary.

If they're going to put the firebat in the game, which I don't think has been confirmed yet, they need to make it relevant through the whole game. Creating an entirely new unit when the Firebat could just be upgraded to take its place is stupid.

 

regardless of what your other threads say, your post suggests that you consider it an expansion pack.

if the firebat upgraded to the reaper, the dragoon might as well upgrade into the stalker and immortal. you might as well keep the shuttle and upgrade it to the phase prism. vulture might as well upgrade into cobra. hell, why dont we keep all the old units and you have to upgrade them into the new ones?

 

Did you even read the two posts previous?

I said that Terran is not Zerg in that they shouldn't require a completely separate building in order to produce ONE unit so early in the game. Creating a completely separate building in order to build the Reaper as a free-standing unit is stupid.

Also, your argument about the Dragoon being upgraded to the Immortal in relation to a Firebat becoming the Reapers is baseless.

The Dragoon was relevant throughout the entire game in SC1, as is the Vulture, etc. The Firebat (if it is included in SC2) will be left behind in Tier 1 just like it was in SC1. It is a very effective mineral raider, which is exactly what the Reaper is supposed to be. The problem is its mobility. The Reaper is basically a Marine with a weaker attack that has increased mobility. Why design a completely new unit when there is a unit that has been overlooked in the last game that could be upgraded and brought to relevance?

This is completely different from suggesting other units simply be upgraded to become the "new" unit.

If they want to eliminate Firebats from SC2, fine by me, create the Reaper as a new unit. My argument is simply that this is an unnecessary addition to Terran infantry when it could simply be something that brings the Firebats back into relevance. Also, if the Firebat doesn't exist in SC2, what will the Terrans use against melee units? Marines aren't effective against Zealots by themselves.

 

but would it really make sense to have them built from the barracks? reapers are crazed marines that have gone through extensive training. you dont build them like we saw how marines were built, they are ready to order. that's why they have their own building. if you think about it, ships could be built from the factory as well, but they aren't for a reason.

having the firebat upgrade to the reaper so that you can use it for the rest of the game is stupid. what would the upgrade do, but the flamethrowers on their backs and call them jetpacks? it would be done for no other reason then nostalgia.

and as i've said in a different post, you can always block the zealots with supply depots and use ranged attacks to your advantage, instead of treating it like some handicap