|
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.
|
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.
Being static is a huge draw back, it does nothing to promote action/counteracts all it does is stifle it, especially if it is buffed, 2 spines and a spore should do nothing but slow a drop down sufficiently to get units into position.
Would way rather they buffed Nydus to make it a great defensive tool (wean Zerg off of Mutalisks to stop drop play if you can quickly shuttle units between bases) and perhaps add the shield battery so smaller groups of units can defend more spread out positions.
Bottom line, buffing static defense is a bad idea across the board, the only sensible thing along those lines is to buff cannons vs. Mutalisks but good Protoss players can anticipate the tech switch already, the Mutalisk death switch has been well figured out and they aren't nearly as good in ZvP as they used to be.
|
Bunker build time? 
|
On May 25 2015 07:10 GinDo wrote:Bunker build time?
Bunker salvage amount buffed to 76% from 75%.
|
On May 25 2015 07:53 Caihead wrote:Bunker salvage amount buffed to 76% from 75%.
Lets not get carried away here that would be op.
|
Make it so cannon, turrets and bunkers can move like spines and spores. Or make spines and spores Actually static and not dynamic. Spines and spores should count as units when they're unrooted And also bleed out when off creep too.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 25 2015 02:50 xyzz wrote: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. 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.
In terms of game design, I think you're on the right track. One of the main issues with SC2 is that controlling space is difficult compared to BW where something like two lurkers on top of a ramp could hold off endless waves of marines. Tbh, I think this is largely a function of how armies interact in SC2 and the difficulties of splitting up armies.
First, armies in SC2 simply kill things way too quickly. A lot of the "Terrible Terrible Damage" factor is related to clumping and the smooth AI as well as unlimited unit selection. There's not really anything to do about it at this point, but as a result, it means that maxced armies can wipe out small numbers of units and/or static defense in moments, effectively forcing players to defend big armies with big armies. To compensate for this, space control units really need to be introduced into the game that can effectively zone out armies but not stack very well (consider the overkill factor of tanks in BW) or at least some kind of terrain advantage, particularly a good high ground advantage.
Buffing static defense is a bandaid fix which does not actually promote more unit movement. In theory, you could expand and believe in your expansions better, but in reality, I think buffed static defense only promotes turtling. Good game design dictates that you should be using units to defend threats; this takes more skill and promotes more action around the map. That said, I think a lot of hyper mobility factors in the game need to be removed (or rehauled) in order to really start achieving that kind of design, namely warpgate and nydus networks. I think if we even want to approach the idea of more active gameplay that relies on multiple small skirmishes, we need to address 1) how the economy works, 2) hypermobility of entire armies, and 3) better space control via units and/or terrain changes.
Blizzard's attempt to "create more action around the map" was to starve people out in LotV. However, I personally believe this errs from the spirit of Starcraft and fails to actually recreate the magic of positional play desperately needed in the game.
|
SC2 has less harass and aggression than BW, that's a fact that we're reminded at every f* path by Blizzard itself.
SC2 statics are better than BW statics, be it in stats, use or AI. More turret DPS andbetter upgrades with easier SCV repair pulls for it and bunkers (intelligent use of surface area), 50% more HP/Shield canon and decent AI), zerg static that are 1 step build AND aren't static anymore....
Shield battery does not exist anymore, but it was only rarelly used with PvZ and that's because archon were good. Maybe it could be a Nexus ability to avoid relying on mamacore, but I'm not develloping SC2 so you probably will never see it unless you play SB. 
Also buffing static will also buff early game cheese like canon rush, spine rush and 11/11 rax.
Cheesy / Gimmicky play is not an auto-win when the enemy is out of position
lol
I don't think you understands well, all your points are valid, but speak of defender ADVANTAGE. The reliance of static on defense being one of those advantages. Problem with SC2 is the speed at which aggression comes and the lack of defender advantage makes being passive really hard and unadvantageous. Mechanics like warp-in denies the only for of defender advantage that exist in SC (aka distance/time).
I think you're on the good way by identifying the problem, just the solution you propose is utter no-sense.
|
On May 25 2015 14:14 varsovie wrote:SC2 has less harass and aggression than BW, that's a fact that we're reminded at every f* path by Blizzard itself. SC2 statics are better than BW statics, be it in stats, use or AI. More turret DPS andbetter upgrades with easier SCV repair pulls for it and bunkers (intelligent use of surface area), 50% more HP/Shield canon and decent AI), zerg static that are 1 step build AND aren't static anymore.... Shield battery does not exist anymore, but it was only rarelly used with PvZ and that's because archon were good. Maybe it could be a Nexus ability to avoid relying on mamacore, but I'm not develloping SC2 so you probably will never see it unless you play SB. Also buffing static will also buff early game cheese like canon rush, spine rush and 11/11 rax. lol I don't think you understands well, all your points are valid, but speak of defender ADVANTAGE. The reliance of static on defense being one of those advantages. Problem with SC2 is the speed at which aggression comes and the lack of defender advantage makes being passive really hard and unadvantageous. Mechanics like warp-in denies the only for of defender advantage that exist in SC (aka distance/time). I think you're on the good way by identifying the problem, just the solution you propose is utter no-sense.
I wouldn't say its utter non-sense. I don't grok it as well as I'd like--but the truth is, in the end this is a game and not life and death. As such, a fix that enables a more preferred play style should be given credence even if it means the game will shift further away from its initial concept.
For example--late game buffs to bunkers, shield batteries, and nydus to give better late game position based play that doesn't buff canon/bunker rushes while giving small numbers of units a chance at stalling larger armies should be tested.
|
What if spores and spines would cost 1 supply? Since you sacrifice a drone and can move them it wouldn't be as annoying as if you made cannons or turrets cost supply. Then you could also give them a late-game upgrade without breaking the game.
|
I think ground static D is fine, there is no need to buff that. I feel that air static D should have an upgrade to allow them to do AOE to deter opponent from massing air units, some maps just allow air units to fly directly into the back of mineral lines with no risk.
|
[QUOTE]On May 25 2015 01:52 RoomOfMush wrote:
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
I don't see how that is a good thing, it just makes the game easier for people who want to box their whole army and A-Move across the map while punishing the higher APM player who would like to use runbys to defend against higher army value at the time. Terrans using drop play to outmaneuver their opponents.
Don't understand what benefits there are for this, the "pros" are almost all negative from my perspective.
|
I believe that static D is an important part of RTS games. Static D plays a huge role in real-life military, so why should it not play a role in video game military as well?
If you compare SC2 with SC:BW you will see that BW static D was much more scary and potent. Thats not directly because of the stats (raw damage, hp, etc) but the map design, pathing, unit collisions, etc. If you, as a zerg, put sunkens, spores and lurkers on top of a narrow ramp (of which there were plenty in BW maps) you had a ridiculously tight defense, your enemy actually had to invest into breaking that instead of face rolling over it.
In SC2 battles always seem to resolve around deathballs running around. You dont want to put units into defensive positions because then your deathball is smaller then your opponents deathball. And the bigger deathball almost always wins (if we assume equally skilled players and balanced races). So putting units aside for defense means you can not fight with your army because your army is weaker. That wasnt such a big problem in BW, at least it doesnt seem that way to me.
When I watch the SSL11 that is going on right now I see those BW pros put up lots and lots of static D and the games do not degenerate into turtle fests at all. The static D gives them an opportunity to be more aggressive and to be more out on the map because they dont have to live in fear and they know that they have a steady income that is not suddenly going to take a big hit because of 8 zealots or 6 dark templars or a crackling run by or something.
|
On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas
No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
|
On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me.
|
On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me.
if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong
|
On May 25 2015 23:26 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me. if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong
How is he doing something wrong?
Zerg has an easy time building 30 mutalisks all at once in the very late game. Its not even that uncommon, I have seen it happen in plenty of pro matches.
|
I'm with the opinon that static D should be a little stronger or have complements to them. If we compare races to BW, their static D is probably weaker than in SC2. Static defense was buffed when being ported to SC2, but so were the potential aggressions that you could face.
Terrans have a very good kit regarding static D, if we think of Building Armor and Repair. Turrets are also very strong and deal a ton of damage to all types of units, unlike BW, and have a bit more health. Fortresses are also strong, but very late-game oriented.
However, Terran has sometimes some problems defending ground as Siege Tanks are way less common than they were on BW and the units it counters are more mobile than their BW counterparts (Roaches burrow move+regen, Stalker blink) and widow mines cannot cover completely the defensive uses that spider mines had at holding occasional runbies. However, I think that Terrans do quite well regarding static D from what we see in SC2.
Zergs can also transfuse with queens and static D is quite more comfortable to build, and can be repositioned. Back in BW the stats of them were very similar and you could not reposition or transfuse them. But Spine crawler is a bit weaker.
Protoss cannons have also more HP than their BW counterparts and similar stats regarding damage and attack speed.
I think that the problems with static D feeling "weak" is a combinaison of factors from SC2:
1- The loss of high ground advantage.
2- Silk Smooth pathing, making static defense quite useless to set "barricade points" to block runbies. Back in BW few cannons with few units caused much more "block" effect since units were dumber. In SC2 units just move perfectly, so a runby will just ignore you and rush the minreal line without any kind of "block" delays, thus minimizing the exposition to the static defense.
3- Terran Drop play being x2/x3 times stronger, since Terran Marines have 40% more HP, Medivacs combine the function of Medics and Dropships in 1 unit, and Terran has Marauders, that have more HP and way more damage vs armored (structures) than Firebats. Also, Medivacs have the "speed" button to get drops in with minimized exposure.
4- Protoss Drop/Warp play being fairly stronger than on BW, since Warp Prisms have more HP, and can warp units into the battlefield. Sentry cheese also exists.
5- Stronger units early game for Zerg and Terran. Roaches have almost x2 the health of BW Hydralisks (despite having less damage), Banelings do a ton of damage to buildings, and Marauders have inmense firepower vs armored (buildings) with good HP, compared to the BW Firebat.
6 - Air to ground units having good firepower. Banshees and VoidRays have a very noticeable DPS vs ground, specially VoidRays vs armored, that make static D look less intimidating, specially early game.
7- The effect of economy when expanded. With a BW-type of econ, there is a point where mineral just floats if you have expanded enough.
Maybe when thinking about this topic, we could apply adjustements over this questions too. Having some high ground advantage, additional mechanics for Terran Bunkers, Autoturrets being some thing that is not dropped from Ravens, some more damage on SpineCrawlers, delaying "SpeedyVacs" with an upgrade, some mechanics for the Queen, Baneling nerf, some Protective mechanic from Nexus for the Photon Cannon, extra damage vs armored on Photon cannons, nerfing the Warp potential on WarpPrisms.. etc.
IMAO, passive strength brought by static D is quite okay in the game. Zerg is in a good spot, but Terrans has some sometimes problems regarding ground control that are probably solved by the SiegeTank - Medivac combo on LotV, and could have another option for bunkers or something different early game. Protoss cannons feel also relatively weak when not being cheesed, since it's impossible to repair or heal them annd are relatively fragile at defending. If there was some mechanic that prevented cannon sniping, we could just remove Photon Overcharge.
|
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway.
|
agreed static d leads to more deathballs and players with less skill getting buffed. Very similar to the warp mechanic.
|
On May 25 2015 03:51 FeyFey wrote:
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.
As if refund 75% of money for 'oops i invested too much in D' wasn't bad enough....
Besides, PFs and bunkers are very good defense in mid game too. Spines/Cannons don't even compare. Terran has it the best and ur still complaining
|
How about an anti air add-on for the protoss cannon. This would be an upgrade available around mid game and could increase air damage of cannons, either from a straight damage upgrade, adding a splash component or as an extra separate attack.
|
I think the damage static defense does is pretty irrelevant from midgame and up. The main job of static defense is to give you time to react. A potential buff should therefore be a health buff to defensive structures.
|
On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway.
The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass).
Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves.
Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological.
In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. 2/3 are a very common part of the lategame so defending at that phase is not that painful, but Protoss is quite vulnerable until that point.
Having more drawn games is not that bad by the way.
|
A buff to the Bunkers Neosteel Frame upgrade would unlock a per bunker upgrade for 50/50 that gives it +2 slots, +150 HP and a Perdition Turret (Roughly the power of a Hellbat with range 3 or so) but makes it permanent (SALVAGE IMBAUU), so they can actually defend against shit without taking all your supply.
Photon Cannons would benefit massively from gettig 25/33/50% splash added to their attack roughly the size of Thor AA splash (vs Mutalisk mostly, probably helps vs Marines but nothing else).
Zerg structures are pretty fine, Spines and Spored would probably be strong with faster unburrow/burrow/move speed, to keep in the theme of the race.
|
On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed.
Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment.
|
Notice how an important fact to consider is not making StatDef overpowered or set and forget style defense, they have to be able to somehow secure bases but should never hold against a considerable supply of army (15-20s) on their own.
|
On May 25 2015 23:26 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me. if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong
Like not scouting an obscure proxy spire in some nowhere part of the map with a lucky or stupidly pathed halluc phoenix, while my opponent built a hydra den as a fake?
Yeah, dumb on me for not doing that.
|
On May 26 2015 21:05 Redfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 23:26 Ej_ wrote:On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me. if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong Like not scouting an obscure proxy spire in some nowhere part of the map with a lucky or stupidly pathed halluc phoenix, while my opponent built a hydra den as a fake? Yeah, dumb on me for not doing that.
If your Zerg opponent can save 3K gas in the midgame, when that scenario is relevant, then yes, dumb you.
|
and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period)
It's the projecile speed that determines overkill. Not attack speed.
|
On May 26 2015 21:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period) It's the projecile speed that determines overkill. Not attack speed.
It's both, Thors don't have projectile speed in it's AtG, but it still overkills zerglings.
|
Considering the new eco in LoTV (that favors mass expanding) cannons might indeed need some lategame buff.
Zerg static defense is not really static, turrets are cheaper and bunkers can be salvaged (they still can right?).
|
Making it viable for players to take and defend more bases would be the best way to improve SC2 so I can get on board with your general motivation. That being said most static D does it's job adequately in most scenarios.
Protoss needs splash damage that defends in a more supply effective way (see reavers, SC1 templar). Zerg needs a way to slow down attackers while their armies reinforce outlying bases. They may have it if they figure out the perfect combination of infestors, lurkers and spines. The nydus canal would be nice too (like a cheaper worm that has to be within a certain range of a hatch and makes no sound on spawn). I feel like Terran basically has the tools they need, however they do still feel weak in a certain regard. I couldn't comment there though.
|
On May 26 2015 22:06 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 21:49 Hider wrote:and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period) It's the projecile speed that determines overkill. Not attack speed. It's both, Thors don't have projectile speed in it's AtG, but it still overkills zerglings.
It's a culmination of damage point, projective speed and the amount of damage/attack.
|
On May 27 2015 01:58 claybones wrote:
I feel like Terran basically has the tools they need, however they do still feel weak in a certain regard. I couldn't comment there though.
Sure, PFs defend against zerglings, but pretty much everything else can take down a PF with a decent investment...
Terran GtG defense is way too big and expensive to be used as much as you'd need it.
|
A buff to the pylon radius should help with protoss static D.
currently it's like 1 pylon/2 cannons.
|
On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment.
We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen).
That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really?
If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly.
|
Lategame upgrades could be interesting (small air splash for photons for instance ?). Otherwise, it's a big no.
|
On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly.
You know, Terrans never see problems regarding drops and so, and tend to neglect how strong their static D is specially with SCV's behind it....
Toastie is a good poster, but I think there he neglected that in fact, safety HTs with storm are very, very lategame or mid-lategame and Protoss must play 100% turlte until max supply then, because terran is going to be maxed out sooner anyways. Bio is very powerful and will max out very easily, and having a good answer for Protoos takes time and a lot of money, but what's more important, will cut the mobility of the army incredibly since both Colossi and HT are slow, so Drops have an easy time with that. Considering a LotV econ, there are going to be 4-5 bases available to harass with double drops that are quite cheap, very efficient and hard to intercept, and leaving HT supply behind each base is not a good option. In that theoreitical situation, Protoss is going to need better static D to deal with drops but also with the stupid LotV nydus worm.
In fact, cannons will benefit for a complementary mchanic, or bonus damage vs armored (thinking of 20+10 here) to defend early Roaches and Medivac Drops/Marauders. Or even both. The problems I see is Cannon rush, which is something very iconic and fun, but could be indirectly buffed by bonus damage vs armor (even since Zerglings, Drones and Queens are light). That should be reviewed too.
There is a cut ability in the editor for Protoss Nexus, called "invulnerability shield", that is a protectice bubble that turns a structure invulnerable for 20seconds. I think it is casteable in 12 range. By working a bit on it , it would be a very great measure to defend early pressures and drops at the cost of losing Chronoboost, which is not bad. I think that the problems it would had would be that the Protoss would fall behind in macro even easier early game, when Zerg can expand quite comfortably and Terrans have mules and econ behind early rushes that are very, very problematic for Toss to deal without Photon Overcharge. But we'll need to see.
Te whole idea is to find something that could empower protoss static D replacing the gimmick of Photon overcharge from MSC, since Photon Overcharge is simply adding a 13 range Photon Cannon on top of a nexus.
|
On May 25 2015 20:03 RoomOfMush wrote:
I believe that static D is an important part of RTS games. Static D plays a huge role in real-life military, so why should it not play a role in video game military as well?
If you compare SC2 with SC:BW you will see that BW static D was much more scary and potent. Thats not directly because of the stats (raw damage, hp, etc) but the map design, pathing, unit collisions, etc. If you, as a zerg, put sunkens, spores and lurkers on top of a narrow ramp (of which there were plenty in BW maps) you had a ridiculously tight defense, your enemy actually had to invest into breaking that instead of face rolling over it.
In SC2 battles always seem to resolve around deathballs running around. You dont want to put units into defensive positions because then your deathball is smaller then your opponents deathball. And the bigger deathball almost always wins (if we assume equally skilled players and balanced races). So putting units aside for defense means you can not fight with your army because your army is weaker. That wasnt such a big problem in BW, at least it doesnt seem that way to me.
When I watch the SSL11 that is going on right now I see those BW pros put up lots and lots of static D and the games do not degenerate into turtle fests at all. The static D gives them an opportunity to be more aggressive and to be more out on the map because they dont have to live in fear and they know that they have a steady income that is not suddenly going to take a big hit because of 8 zealots or 6 dark templars or a crackling run by or something.
um....... if you are the player doing the drops zealot harass or ling run bys, you don't have the opportunity to be more aggressive. Just the thinking seems backward. I do agree though, warp gate is abused so much. Its the worst part of sc2.
|
On May 27 2015 03:37 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 01:58 claybones wrote:
I feel like Terran basically has the tools they need, however they do still feel weak in a certain regard. I couldn't comment there though. Sure, PFs defend against zerglings, but pretty much everything else can take down a PF with a decent investment... Terran GtG defense is way too big and expensive to be used as much as you'd need it.
Question is, can Planetary fortresses kill enough units equal to their cost even without repairs?
Enough to deflect some pressure from minor units like the ones from Drops and Runbies?
I think PF is quite efficient. They can be also repaired, which is very exclusive and strong for a 1500HP building with 3 armor.
With Building armor it's 5 armor, something very noticeable, Specially vs Marines, LotV marauders, Hellions, Zerglings, Zealots, Adepts... common ground harass units.
Could 100gas instead of 150 help in a positive way?
|
On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly.
Still at it, eh Parku? Fighting the good fight?
It's a bit rich to hear you accusing anyone of race bias. Or did you forget that you once suggested that Stimmed Marines attacking 20% slower, combined with a Psi Storm buff to make the spell twice as effective, would finally give us a balanced SC2?
Here's the full proposed patch notes for anyone who wants a hearty laugh.
|
On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly.
Good job quoting me, completely avoiding my arguments, making up a bullshit example to put words in my mind, AND whine about P being underpowered.
Dem Parkufarku skills.
Also, I've played random for 4 years, and I've never proposed the most ritardidonculous balance suggestions anybody has ever read :-)
|
On May 27 2015 06:17 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 03:37 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 27 2015 01:58 claybones wrote:
I feel like Terran basically has the tools they need, however they do still feel weak in a certain regard. I couldn't comment there though. Sure, PFs defend against zerglings, but pretty much everything else can take down a PF with a decent investment... Terran GtG defense is way too big and expensive to be used as much as you'd need it. Question is, can Planetary fortresses kill enough units equal to their cost even without repairs? Enough to deflect some pressure from minor units like the ones from Drops and Runbies? I think PF is quite efficient. They can be also repaired, which is very exclusive and strong for a 1500HP building with 3 armor. With Building armor it's 5 armor, something very noticeable, Specially vs Marines, LotV marauders, Hellions, Zerglings, Zealots, Adepts... common ground harass units. Could 100gas instead of 150 help in a positive way?
To be entirely honest, I'd rather see them less effective. PFs to an excellent job of completely shutting down Zerglings and Zealots in a set-and-forget way, which is bad.
On the other hand, Stalkers, Roaches, etc can be positioned in such a way they don't even care about the PF.
Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
The PF is kinda like a short-ranged, immobile, rapid-fire High Templar (epic comparison, I know ^^), it's attack is REALLY powerful but it is very unversatile.
|
On May 27 2015 16:41 SC2Toastie wrote:
To be entirely honest, I'd rather see them less effective. PFs to an excellent job of completely shutting down Zerglings and Zealots in a set-and-forget way, which is bad.
Eh. A-move units getting A-mowed down. Not the worst thing in the world, all things considered. It's more of a theoretical issue than a practical one, anyway. Not too many PFs in high level PvTs these days.
Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
That sounds remarkably like buffed Siege Tanks.
|
On May 25 2015 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In Starbow they talked about the concept of not having free defense, that's why they added a cooldown to the planetary fortress activation, that's why cannons need to be chronoboosted for maximum effectiveness, that's why broodlings no longer spawn from destroyed buildings. I think it's a good concept and I thought that if you count nexus energy and unit deployment as a sort of resource these ideas are similar to the bunker and shield battery concept in that they require some level of commitment. However, placing a planetary fortress as an initial investment which will permanently lock down an area would be bad, although you do need to repair them and they can't defend against everything on their own. Cannons are okay, since they tend to die easily and you need to constantly rebuild them. Locking down areas with missile turrets might be bad because there is only the initial cost there too, but it might be better if there was a spell like blinding cloud so that you could destroy them.
I wonder if other ideas for this exist too. For instance, I was promoting the idea of pylons being shield batteries by default like moon wells in Warcraft 3. But pylons will be unused often and you can place units with warpgate and therefore it would be kinda like free energy and free defense and fail this test. This isn't true for bunkers, since terran doesn't have warpgate.
|
As a Zerg player, static defense is already pretty tough to deal with.
Cannons are always a threat early game, and mid game they allow super easy expansions with the correct sim city. Plus. a single Turret in the mineral line can hold off the first dozen or more Mutas.
|
On May 27 2015 16:41 SC2Toastie wrote:
Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
Terran needs a trap type ability. Maybe not mines but something like a slowing trap could make tanks a bit more reasonable to use in small numbers defensively. The game should also be balanced to work with a 2 supply siege tank (That's asking for a miracle though).
|
On May 27 2015 15:26 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote:
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly. Still at it, eh Parku? Fighting the good fight? It's a bit rich to hear you accusing anyone of race bias. Or did you forget that you once suggested that Stimmed Marines attacking 20% slower, combined with a Psi Storm buff to make the spell twice as effective, would finally give us a balanced SC2? Here's the full proposed patch notes for anyone who wants a hearty laugh.
Lol the Terran army strikes again. I've already explained I wasn't even fully serious about it, but keep bringing it up.
Terran scums passionately defend their race and try to bring ad hominem arguments. The irony is, I PLAY Terran in SC2. So I'm actually being way less biased than your obvious race bias.
|
I think buffs in general are a better plan than extensive nerfs. Look at CS:GO's example slow and steady but drop the hammer even if people don't want it just to see what happens. And go from there
|
How about give photon cannons a 2x multiplier for shield upgrades.
Every time you upgrade shields their shield "armour" goes up by two. Capping out at 7 instead of 4.
[base level] - 1
[shield upgrade level 1] > 3
[shield upgrade level 2] > 5
[shield upgrade level 3] > 7
|
cannon rush into upgraded cannon contain will be so Scary.
Also I am a bit sad that they didn't introduce new buildings for utility, they said they will consider it before 
|
@parkufarku
Not a terran but thanks
-Are bases overly difficult to hold (even with static D) with respect to the investment needed to destroy them?
-Is a good answer to have an affordable, non supply costing, cost effective defense scheme: PF, PO, cannons, spores & spines, turrets?
-Are there any 'unfair' options for harass or aggression in the game that can't be reliably scouted or deduced (in the case of proxy tech structures) that cannot be dealt with by units and some support of static D?
No I don't think so. Then why would we do it...?
It would be a great idea if we wanted to reduce the importance of UNITS-- those things that cost varying levels of supply, minerals and gas and can be used for A-moving in various directions and in some extreme cases can even be put into different control groups for strategic ends.
|
On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
cannons need to be stronger in order to defend against base trades, defending mutas when youre in a defensive position is extremely easy to do even with stalkers. its when youre moving out that it becomes tricky, its almost impossible to prevent the game from turning into a base trade scenario when you go blink tech vs mutas (unless you never plan on attacking until the super late game).
|
dude that's simply preposterous...
Cannons need to be stronger to beat a muta player in a base trade scenario? Having stronger cannons will prevent this whole situation anyway. Zerg will not spend 100/100 per unit to fight against 150/0 supply-free buildings. Why not just remove mutas from the game? If you want going blink tech against a 4 base zerg to be possible, maybe consider not going purely blink. I've seen a few pros make units besides blink stalkers against zerg with pretty impressive results.
How about each side just choose a tree as a safety zone where you can't be tagged? Oh yeah because that kind of game sucks.
|
On May 28 2015 16:01 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. cannons need to be stronger in order to defend against base trades, defending mutas when youre in a defensive position is extremely easy to do even with stalkers. its when youre moving out that it becomes tricky, its almost impossible to prevent the game from turning into a base trade scenario when you go blink tech vs mutas (unless you never plan on attacking until the super late game).
What do you think about giving some complementary Nexus mechanic that could interact positively with cannons?
I talked a page ago about a building shielding mechanic that is present in the editor, probably discarded from HotS beta. Zerg and Terran can heal their Static D with ease, but Protoss is condemned to throw money on structures becase it's impossible to keep them alive like Terrans and Zergs do. In emergency situations, SCV's can hold the structures a bit more and queens can transfuse. Could Protoss have some mechanic to make cannons last a bit more on battle? I think that the concept is very interesting.
Nexus energy tends to be limited when macroing correctly, so being able to shield cannons at the cost of 25-30 energy or so for 15-25s could be a great idea, and possibly very balanced. It forces a small window time of retreat that gives you time for unit production, and getting some extra kills. What's more, it could only be cast in a small radius around the Nexus, so concercns about cannon rush are solved.
In common situations, Protoss has 2 defensive cannons per base, which is not much. 15 mutas, double medivac drop, a few roaches can pretty much ignore the strength of 2 cannons because that units heal fast or can pretty much destroy the cannons quite fast.
I think considering how the Nexus energy is played out regarding Protoss macro, that woould energy tension like MULES and Scanning. In the same way Terrans have to conservate some energy, Protoss would have to chose between Chronoboosting everything or saving some "emergency" energy for casting the shield mechanic to prevent building snipes. And at 25-30 cost, you can easily limit the efficiency of the mechanic. Maximum 3-4 casts, effect lasting only 15-25 seconds. Sounds quite good to me, fairly better than having Photon Overcharge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
