|
On November 04 2010 23:39 Daelone wrote:
I think they are most worried about how the turret doesn't move, and can be destroyed very quickly with the right micro, and that it only attacks air, marines attack both
2 marines that attack both and can move, or one turret that stands still and only attacks air?
A turret can take hits like a champ and be repaired by nearby SCVs, does more damage, and doesn't cost supply
I'm also baffled by the lack of static defenses with the abundance of minerals we tend to see in these pro-games.
|
On November 04 2010 23:30 pxds wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 23:17 cArn- wrote:
People saying that it's wasted resources that should go into army are just as wrong as them really, there is no reason not to invest 325 minerals to prevent multiple 15 kills banshees.
just think about it: - 325 minerals = 6 marines - 150min 100 gas = 1 banshee if we convert the banshee cost into marines, it'll be around 5~6 marines. so if you can kill that banshee, it means you now have 6 more marines than your opponent. if those resources went on the turrets, you would break even on the army count.and please, don't call pro gamers idiots.
Bad argument, any decent player will outmicro most of those marines w/o stim, and adding stim would be another investment.
I think the real reason is that against pro level micro static defense will not kill harassing units; the controller will leave before the unit dies. The real value of marines over turrets or stalkers over cannons is that you can chase down the units you wound to kill them, or move between expansions; something always required at high level.
|
On November 04 2010 23:30 pxds wrote:
and please, don't call pro gamers idiots.
Because they're are all flawless creations of god. We can have a discussion about mistakes they make and a general reluctance to make stationary D.
In the specific case being discussed, stationary D would have helped.
|
If you do it EVERY GAME then you are more likely to loss more resources than if you don't do it every game.
Sure 1/10 games that turret would have helped but the other 9 or so its a complete waste. So why be disadvantaged in 9/10 so you can be fine in 1/10?
Plus if you are known for turrets the enemy will not build air harass and you lose the amount EVERY game. Its like if you bluff every hand of poker every hand. It doesn't work. What if someone went DT rush every single game? Would be stupid yes?
|
The game is still evolving very quickly and there really aren't standard timings yet. When the game evolves more, I feel that people will use static defense more appropriately. When playing TvZ, I usually have a six sense about it and I put down two turrets in my minerals just to prevent mutas from walking in and raping all my SCV's.
|
Canada13389 Posts
Well the only reason you should get any static defense is for their detection range if you choose not to get detectors (like overseers or ravens or observers). Keep in mind the detection range is farther than the attack range which means mobile units can chase down the harrassing units more easily without worrying about the cloak tech.
So lets look at it this way: static defense cant move so a missile Turret will not kill a banshee because the banshee can move away. However the Turret can detect the banshee even if it moves away and then the mobile units can find it. HOWEVER as Terran, there are scans. If the individual player chooses to use scans instead of Mules due to personal preference and style the scans can be used instead of missile turrets. Keeping in mind the investment cost of GETTING cloaked harass units such as banshees the player who doesnt get static defense is farther ahead economy wise as well.
Getting detection like static AA to stop the harrassment would reduce this net gain of economy and time. If you have 150 minerals you can build an E bay or a Barracks or 3 marines from 3 rax. You sacrifice more by getting the static AA then you do by using scans or mobile detection along your chosen tech route.
Zerg if they have a lair its easier and safer to get an overseer since all cloaked harass units can only attack ground (with the exception of infestors using infested terrans while burrowed; they can hit air but are super up high on the tech path).
Protoss, since so many go Robo bay openings its easier to have a observer and they cost less minerals than getting forge/cannon.
Also, mobile detection units are mobile and fast so they can get to where you need them and be more cost effective. For example, an observer can follow banshees around while they are close to your main / expansions, as can a overseer as can a Raven.
We must also keep in mind that progamers need EVERY advantage they can get and economy, unit production and unit producing structures are such an advantage. As are the ancillary functions to the mobile detectors (changeling/stop production spell - dont know what its called for overseers/turrets for ravens/cloak for observers) they are MUCH more useful than a turret or a cannon or a spore crawler.
|
I thought it was pretty standard even in pro to build turrets against a zerg since muta/ling is so common.
Against P/T it never happens because of the long range of banshee void rays. I think you have to build about 4 turrets/cannons around a mineral line to prevent a banshee from being able to shoot anything unopposed. Or you could just build a couple stalkers or marines and park them there. I think that's what it comes down to.
|
On November 04 2010 22:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
Defensive structures are terrible in this game.
In BW where the longest range non-T3 AtG attack was 4 range, turrets were a worthwhile investment.
Now, banshees and void rays not only destroy defensive structures once you have 3 or 4 of them, they also have 6 range, so they can destroy your whole base around it.
Its ALWAYS better to just make units that can shoot up in the current game.
True with one important exception: Turrets!
Turrets actually deal an enormous amount of DMG and have pretty decent health for their cost and they can even be repaired, so if you deal with the low-ranged Mutalisks, Phoenix harrassing your eco or basically any kind of Drops, Turrets are incredibly powerful.
|
On November 04 2010 23:54 Durp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 23:30 pxds wrote:On November 04 2010 23:17 cArn- wrote:
People saying that it's wasted resources that should go into army are just as wrong as them really, there is no reason not to invest 325 minerals to prevent multiple 15 kills banshees.
just think about it: - 325 minerals = 6 marines - 150min 100 gas = 1 banshee if we convert the banshee cost into marines, it'll be around 5~6 marines. so if you can kill that banshee, it means you now have 6 more marines than your opponent. if those resources went on the turrets, you would break even on the army count.and please, don't call pro gamers idiots. Bad argument, any decent player will outmicro most of those marines w/o stim, and adding stim would be another investment.
if the decent player can kill 6 marines, then, yes he'll be in a good shape army wise, otherwise not. on top of that, he will also repell the harass anyway with the mobile marines.
if one goes for cloak banshee, it means that he doesn't have much of an army, since he's teching hard, so you'll be far ahead on your army count and probably would already have stimpacks.
November 05 2010 00:07 Rhymenoceros wrote:
Because they're are all flawless creations of god. We can have a discussion about mistakes they make and a general reluctance to make stationary D.
In the specific case being discussed, stationary D would have helped.
i'm not saying that they're gods, i just don't like the cocky attitude some people have around here calling someone on the GSL stupid, while they are struggling to get to diamond on the ladder. i'm not even trying to start a discussion about mistakes pro makes, and unlike you, i shared my point of view instead of just replying "yeah, turrests would help".
|
Easiest reason is because most play very standard, not using a lot of air attacks.
|
In the case of Turrets, I think we can all agree that if the opponent is opening with air harass units (Mutas, Banshees, Phoenix), it is a worthy investment to put down two turrets in each base.
|
On November 04 2010 22:12 Shockk wrote:
After watching the GSL over the last days/week I've always seen the same trend: Pro gamers seem to hate stationary AA (turrets, spores etc.). Even when they know what's coming (see the latest GSL RO4 games).
I of course know the obvious reason for this: Stationary defense won't help you in the offense, it's wasted ressources if the enemy stops attacking with air, most of the time basic ground units will be able to fend of the attack without having to invest in the tech for AA, etc., etc.
But I've seen several games now where the cost of the lost SCVs (drones, probes) outweighs the costs of an Engineering Bay + a couple of turrets (or the equivalent for Z/P) by a huge amount. I don't get why I only see a turret every 10 games or so when (from my point of view) even a single turret could stabilize their play so much against the occasional banshee/muta/phoenix harass.
And if they do invest in turrets or spores, they either build one or two at seemingly random locations, where the enemy may still snipe workers from gas or depots, or they totally overcomit and build 3-4 spores at every base.
well you've answered your question, its a defensive unit that cant move.
|
I put AA, because of detection, nothing else...
I love using my scans for revealing the enemy, not to reveal his banshees, or DT's...
|
Ok, let us clarify a few things.
First off, static defense is just that, static. It won't move. To people that claim that "omg 1 turret would have stopped banshee harass" do not understand that all the banshee player has to do is reposition. Then that means you will need to build more than 1 turret to cover just your scvs. The banshee can attack from all angles as an air unit. So if they start sniping from the inside of your base you will have to waste a scan anyways, which you guys are opposed to.
Same goes for mutas. The turrets will only help delay the zerg, until he can get a critical mass to one shot turrets. Towers are "dumb defenses" because any decent player can avoid any kind of danger that comes from these types of defense. Marines however are "smart defenses" in the hands of capable players. If you guys are watching a lot of pros, you notice a lot of marine play from Terran vs Zerg. Ask yourself, why doesn't zerg try to harass the mineral line? It is because the mutas have to constantly keep tabs on marine numbers and movement because they are threatening to the Zerg.
The most important point to make is this though. These players literally play thousands of games to refine their strategies. There is thought and reasoning in addition to experience behind why they choose to do these things, not simple theory like we are trying to apply to the matter. As stated above, the game is evolving. Once there are strategies that capitalize on this type of gameplay of not using static defenses, I am sure they will pick it up and use them. Until there is need to do so though, they simple will not.
It has become more efficient to build an overseer, obs, or raven for detection and to have anti air units rather than towers. Few exceptions are early game cannons, bunkers (refundable), and crawlers (movable and bonus to heavy) because they are necessary to defend timing pushes and rushes of ground units.
|
sometimes if their army were 300-400 minerals smaller they would have lost anyway. It's better to lose because you had a bigger army than because you built too many defenses.
|
I think simply because the game is young and people don't really understand how to balance aa defense economically with the situations. Look at bw and how flash turrets up, I think we will be seeing a trend towards this over time once people figure out how many they need and how to place them to balance the risk of losing workers with the cost of building aa.
|
I don't understand it either (above mid diamond random). Turrets already have a range and damage, which allows for comfortable aa defence, when you put them in the mineral line. I personally prefer one or two. Two would shut down any phoenix harassment for instance.
If you leave behind 5 marines (costing 250 minerals) per ecoline against 3 phoenixes and your enemy has increased the number of phoenixes to 4 and you push out, this will happen. He'll pick off your 5 marines without losses due to comfortable shields and your defences are laid bare. The Protoss will cause severe damage to your ecolines.
I also like them against mutalisks, because they can be repaired. Marines are being picked off easier and have a small range.
Turrets are rocks.
|
On November 05 2010 01:05 stickman.hqt wrote:
Ok, let us clarify a few things.
First off, static defense is just that, static. It won't move. To people that claim that "omg 1 turret would have stopped banshee harass" do not understand that all the banshee player has to do is reposition. Then that means you will need to build more than 1 turret to cover just your scvs. The banshee can attack from all angles as an air unit. So if they start sniping from the inside of your base you will have to waste a scan anyways, which you guys are opposed to.
Same goes for mutas. The turrets will only help delay the zerg, until he can get a critical mass to one shot turrets. Towers are "dumb defenses" because any decent player can avoid any kind of danger that comes from these types of defense. Marines however are "smart defenses" in the hands of capable players. If you guys are watching a lot of pros, you notice a lot of marine play from Terran vs Zerg. Ask yourself, why doesn't zerg try to harass the mineral line? It is because the mutas have to constantly keep tabs on marine numbers and movement because they are threatening to the Zerg.
The most important point to make is this though. These players literally play thousands of games to refine their strategies. There is thought and reasoning in addition to experience behind why they choose to do these things, not simple theory like we are trying to apply to the matter. As stated above, the game is evolving. Once there are strategies that capitalize on this type of gameplay of not using static defenses, I am sure they will pick it up and use them. Until there is need to do so though, they simple will not.
It has become more efficient to build an overseer, obs, or raven for detection and to have anti air units rather than towers. Few exceptions are early game cannons, bunkers (refundable), and crawlers (movable and bonus to heavy) because they are necessary to defend timing pushes and rushes of ground units.
If the two turrets are in your min line, ie: right next to the CC between your minerals, they can be repaired very quickly. It takes a lot of mutas to reach critical mass to be able to take down a turret that has 8 scvs repairing it.
Even then, once they reach that number, you need to have turrets anyway, because it delays the mutas from sniping all of your scvs and allows time for your units to get to your workers. Typically, once you have an expo, you keep your units somewhere in between them so you can respond to harass quickly and cover more ground.
TLDR: Turrets help you buy time vs mutas and they are really hard to take down unless Zerg commits to mass mutas.
|
turrets are only good against mutas if you're way behind and/or didn't scout mutas.
otherwise you'd have plenty of marines/thors out and crush the zerg base in seconds while his piddly mutas pick away at your buildings one by one.
however - there is absolutely no reason why pro players shouldn't lay offensive turrets if they have 1000+ minerals saved (happens occasionally). i think the only reason you don't see it is because of priority APM limitations.
|
In my standard TvZ build I'll usually place a line of 3 adjacent turrets in a 2x6 block on one side of my main mineral line soon after I get my PF expansion down (and the +2 building upgrade!). This way the almost inevitable mutas have to engage all 3 turrets at the same time, and most players I've done this against will just give up and fly away. If they try to be cute and snipe some unprotected buildings, it doesn't take me long to pull a couple thors from guarding my expo.
By the time they reach a "critical mass" of mutas, I generally have enough thors to put 'em down for good and push out. I'm not a super high level player, but I win a lot of TvZ's this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
