|
Hello guys,
just wanted to do a quick survey, who would think that buffing static defense would be a good idea in the game?
Pro:- More supply can be used to be aggressive when you dont have to leave units behind for defense
- Players can expand more care-free because static D is there to save the day
- Cheesy / Gimmicky play is not an auto-win when the enemy is out of position
- Game becomes more friendly for casuals and new players
Contra:- Players can expand more care-free because static D is there to save the day
- Turtle styles are easier to pull off and harder to fight against
- Static D cheeses (Cannon rush, Spine Crawler rush, Bunker rush, etc) become more potent
I was thinking perhaps one could add an upgrade, late game, to buff static D. This way early cheese would not become stronger and early aggression can still be effective, but when the game becomes much more demanding you can invest money into static D to relax a little bit more.
I mean, right now static D is pretty useless in the late game because of the sheer power of deathballs just rolling over cannons / turrets / crawlers.
What are your opinions on this?
Poll: Buff static defense?Only in the late game (upgrades perhaps) (91) 44% Bad idea (89) 43% Definitely a good idea (24) 12% Would not make much of a difference (3) 1% 207 total votes Your vote: Buff static defense? (Vote): Definitely a good idea
(Vote): Would not make much of a difference
(Vote): Only in the late game (upgrades perhaps)
(Vote): Bad idea
|
I think late game upgrades would be best. Terran has upgrades to the turrets (building armour and hi sec auto tracking) which make them much more viable, whereas cannons, although benefitting from shields upgrades, will get annihilated regardless by a flock of muta or a marauder heavy drop.
I think a buff to static defense should be giving another way to protect against harass, not outright stop an army like mass spore can and did during the swarm host days. I did however once theorycraft that Zerg buildings should benefit from ground carapace upgrades, giving them a maximum of 3 extra armour - particularly useful in defending against base/tech snipes from drops or warp prism harass or even roach runbys.
So yes, an upgrade which gives more health/armour/damage to static defense, I think particularly for Protoss - maybe a cyber core upgrade for cannons that makes them shoot twice, only researchable after twilight is built, for example?
|
Yeah, I was mostly thinking about Protoss with this too. Terrans already got upgrades for missle turrets and planetaries.
I think you are right that zerg Spore Crawlers are pretty powerful already, but spines are not all that great against late game harassment.
|
On May 25 2015 01:58 Larkin wrote:
I think late game upgrades would be best. Terran has upgrades to the turrets (building armour and hi sec auto tracking) which make them much more viable, whereas cannons, although benefitting from shields upgrades, will get annihilated regardless by a flock of muta or a marauder heavy drop.
I think a buff to static defense should be giving another way to protect against harass, not outright stop an army like mass spore can and did during the swarm host days. I did however once theorycraft that Zerg buildings should benefit from ground carapace upgrades, giving them a maximum of 3 extra armour - particularly useful in defending against base/tech snipes from drops or warp prism harass or even roach runbys.
So yes, an upgrade which gives more health/armour/damage to static defense, I think particularly for Protoss - maybe a cyber core upgrade for cannons that makes them shoot twice, only researchable after twilight is built, for example?
I don't think it should be a cyber core upgrade. I like how Terran's static defense upgrades being on the engineering bay relegates them to lategame because you need to use the research time from the ebays for weapon/armor upgrades instead, but if it was on the cyber core it would have more midgame presence which I don't think is necessary. I think the upgrades should only come into effect once static d is forced to fight 3/3 units which tear unupgraded structures to pieces.
|
I wouldn't mind late game static d upgrades, but definitely not before that stage.
|
Static defense only serve to prevent harassment play in late game. That's an awfull way of increasing the defenders advantage. No the charm of BW was abilities like Dark Swarm that made could completely stop a large army for attacking a certain location (or at least it would take time to get through it).
|
On May 25 2015 02:14 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 01:58 Larkin wrote:
I think late game upgrades would be best. Terran has upgrades to the turrets (building armour and hi sec auto tracking) which make them much more viable, whereas cannons, although benefitting from shields upgrades, will get annihilated regardless by a flock of muta or a marauder heavy drop.
I think a buff to static defense should be giving another way to protect against harass, not outright stop an army like mass spore can and did during the swarm host days. I did however once theorycraft that Zerg buildings should benefit from ground carapace upgrades, giving them a maximum of 3 extra armour - particularly useful in defending against base/tech snipes from drops or warp prism harass or even roach runbys.
So yes, an upgrade which gives more health/armour/damage to static defense, I think particularly for Protoss - maybe a cyber core upgrade for cannons that makes them shoot twice, only researchable after twilight is built, for example? I don't think it should be a cyber core upgrade. I like how Terran's static defense upgrades being on the engineering bay relegates them to lategame because you need to use the research time from the ebays for weapon/armor upgrades instead, but if it was on the cyber core it would have more midgame presence which I don't think is necessary. I think the upgrades should only come into effect once static d is forced to fight 3/3 units which tear unupgraded structures to pieces.
True, and a good point.
However, having the upgrade from the forge means that, theoretically, you could see cannon rushes with the upgrade, unless the cost of the upgrade was like 200 gas or something.
|
Structures in general scale a little too poorly into the lategame imo.
|
Absolutely no, of course.
It'd be better if static D was removed altogether, than straight up buffing it. It serves a role though to defend certain early game cheeses, but that's where it should remain.
Missile turrets and spores are already too strong as is, and shouldn't be that good if the game wants to promote micro vs. micro battles. Splitting armies to defend against a main push and a harassment attack is an interesting (and very difficult) part of the game, and I can't think of anyone except new players who would prefer to 'be completely safe from any harass' by just dropping static D all over their mineral lines and then focus on 1a moving the deathball consisting of every unit they have.
Structures in general scale a little too poorly into the lategame imo.
No they don't. The purpose of the game isn't the last forever. The idea is that it shouldn't end too quick, but eventually it has to end. There's a sweet spot in between, and stalemates where static D can't be cleared with the units anymore would be disastrous. In the lategame it's good that armies can clean up buildings fast so that the game can actually progress towards the inevitable end.
|
The only thing that would happen by buffing static defenses in the lategame is having 2 players sit forever with split map behind a line of unbreakable static defenses. So it's still a really bad idea. Buffing them in early/midgame too is pure madness.
|
On May 25 2015 02:51 KingAlphard wrote:
The only thing that would happen by buffing static defenses in the lategame is having 2 players sit forever with split map behind a line of unbreakable static defenses. So it's still a really bad idea. Buffing them in early/midgame too is pure madness.
Buffing late game defenses does not mean they are unbreakable.
|
I'd support minor lategame upgrades only. Like a Hive upgrade for Zerg that allowed spines/spores to be rooted off creep.
|
Issue with this is static defense of the Terran costs supply or is to expensive for what it does (PF). Static defense of the Zerg can move and doesn't cost supply.
So Zerg would benefit massively and Terran would have nothing from it.
Zerg defense should cost 1 supply until they decide to permanently root it T.T . Or they should allow Terran to do the 100% scraps on their static again not only Bunkers. And Protoss gets badass damage Photons.
|
I think only protoss needs a buff to the static D, and only to its anti-air capabilities in the mid-late game.
|
Hmm, I like this train of thought. If the bunker capacity upgrade also gave Bunkers +100 or +200 HP, that would make them far more useful lategame. The turrets on top from the campaign would be pretty handy too. Zerg probably doesn't really need better static D, but maybe a vs armor upgrade for the spine crawler would be nice. Especially to help blunt huge Roach attacks. I don't think it would be too excessive, given that Sunken Colonies did 40 damage to large targets. That having been said, Zerg probably needs buffs to static D least, given their tendency to be able to afford to make them en masse once they start hitting the 80+ drone count.
Protoss needs it though. Kind of badly in LotV, where there isn't so much of an early game. Templar Archives uprade to bump up Photon Cannon shot from 20 flat damage to 30 flat damage is worth a test map, imo.
|
The only race that would benefit from this at the moment is Protoss, who struggles hard to hold bases in this newer fast paced turtle unfriendly economy.
And I think instead of buffing static defense which readily encourages turtling or at the very least denies harassment, it would be solved if David would just make Gateway more mobile and able to spread out, I'm sick of the band aid fixes.
If anything, maybe some type of very small splash to cannons in the late game to fight the Mutalisk flock, and letting spine crawlers benefit from carapace upgrades or maybe a Hive tech upgrade, because spines are just totally worthless vs. late game harass. 3/3 Zealots can just shrug them off and 3/3 bio drops kill them in about 1.5 seconds.
|
Buffing units(buildings) that don't cost supply seems like a bad idea.
We have had many o times, where people have complained about static d being stupid.
Few examples, infestor broodlord, passive swarmhosts, passive mech and sometimes even cannon/airtoss/storm.
Static defence is a way to increase your army strenght, without costing supply, but the drawback is that they are Static.
I think making them better, would encourage more turtle-like play, instead of having groups of units to defend.
|
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas
|
Why would you ever want to buff static D? Oo
|
On May 25 2015 04:30 Riquiz wrote:
Buffing units(buildings) that don't cost supply seems like a bad idea.
We have had many o times, where people have complained about static d being stupid.
Few examples, infestor broodlord, passive swarmhosts, passive mech and sometimes even cannon/airtoss/storm.
Static defence is a way to increase your army strenght, without costing supply, but the drawback is that they are Static.
I think making them better, would encourage more turtle-like play, instead of having groups of units to defend.
Bunkers and Shield Batteries and Nydus are great defenses that forces groups of units. to defend attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
