EPT[Q] Why do pros build so little AA (esp. turrets)? - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Pking
Sweden142 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On November 05 2010 02:52 Chairman Ray wrote: Since the metagame is relatively new, people feel that they can simply counter air with good micro skills. After a while, people will start dropping too many games because they didn't build turrets and such, and it will become more standard. I agree with this. Strats are like fashion trends, look at SC1, some strats were popular, then they went out of style, then someone brought them back with maybe a slight modification. Game still has a long way to go, especially since there are still balance patches to be done, and balance has not stabilized all the way yet. | ||
|
ProtisRobit
United States21 Posts
It's also 300-450 minerals I have invested in my base that keep me from moving out and either killing the enemy or expanding again. | ||
|
k4ne
Austria34 Posts
How many progamers lose like 10+ scv against mutas harass ? they could have put it into 5-6 turrets.... the cost return is pretty fast, 1 turret kill easily 1 muta (100/100 cost...). It's so funny to see a terran to have to backup in his base because of 10 mutas with his thors :D :D Seriously: isn't it better to secure your B1 and/or B2 and beeing able to harass him ? instead having to backup all the time in your base to protect your scv or factory add wich block you for 45s ? or to lose like 5-6 medivacs ? yeah, watch TvZ and see how many medivacs terran lose in a game because of mutas... It's the same for sensor towers... One costs nothing (1 tank) but prevents you from losing many scv/barracks/units and puts you way way behind than 175 gas... mid/late game, 600 mineral or 200 gas is nothing !!! In BW people were doing so much turrets late game to secure their expand and they were right. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i use static defense for detection or blocking off choke @ expo in a another starting location. or FE | ||
|
Boundless
Canada588 Posts
| ||
|
Typhon
United States387 Posts
Also, nothing in the game is free. The banshee player is sacrificing army size and expansion timing by spending money on tech. The defending player has to deal with 2 risks: a) he doesn't defend enough, and loses too much to the banshee b) he overcommits (i.e. spends almost as much as the attacker did on the banshee) to defense, and the banshee pulls back. If you've thrown away your army or expansion potential advantage, you're left one banshee down in the next engagement. | ||
|
Toxigen
United States390 Posts
You can't criticize one small area of play like that by comparing it in a vacuum. Even pros make mistakes and could probably tell you 20 things a game they'd rather do differently in hindsight. Like some posters have said above me, pros are ridiculously good at macro compared to most diamond players -- every 100 minerals count. It's sort of ridiculous to assume that in their hundreds of practice games they never experimented with a lot of static D just to see if it would help. They probably all decided that adding to the marine ball with those 100 minerals is a better investment in the long run. However, I know that at my skill level I'd rather have the turrets. My opponents aren't good enough at micro to diffuse their usefulness and I know that I don't have the APM during a battle to macro, micro the battle and fend off a counterattack all at the same time without the static D. Assuming that a player on the level of BoxeR, NaDa or FoxeR doesn't have the APM for that is probably a gross underestimation of how much those players can multi-task. | ||
|
MrArarat
Argentina132 Posts
On November 05 2010 03:12 Typhon wrote: The pros know how much they can get away with. It's kind of like how a BW Terran would build pure tank/vulture, and the armchair strategist would be thinking "OMG IF YOU WENT MASS CARRIER YOU COULD DEMOLISH HIM" Also, nothing in the game is free. The banshee player is sacrificing army size and expansion timing by spending money on tech. The defending player has to deal with 2 risks: a) he doesn't defend enough, and loses too much to the banshee b) he overcommits (i.e. spends almost as much as the attacker did on the banshee) to defense, and the banshee pulls back. If you've thrown away your army or expansion potential advantage, you're left one banshee down in the next engagement. +1 User was warned for this post | ||
|
zylog
Canada943 Posts
Foxer for instance often positioned his marines to intercept the banshee before it could get into the base. By doing this he shuts the banshee harass down with great effectiveness (e.g. no scan required). Conversely, if you miss the banshee and it gets into your base with cloak, you lose your advantage by having to scan or build a turret. If you scan, a player with good micro can pull his banshee away with 2hp left, forcing you to do another scan to finish it off. If you build a turret in the mineral line, you at least protect that area, though the banshee can still be annoying picking off stray units or supply depots or addons outside of detection range. You might still have to spend 1-2 scans to kill it off. You could go mass turret, but then that's a much bigger initial investment in minerals. | ||
|
Hammurabio
152 Posts
On November 05 2010 03:12 Typhon wrote: The pros know how much they can get away with. Is that true with Nada in his match with Boxer? It seemed like every game Boxer opened with 2 banshees and cloak. Nada would try to defend with just marines and scans. Nada would spend 2-4 scans (480-960m) and still lose 5-15 SCVs (250-750m). Ebay and two turrets only cost 325m. which is less than two scans. And the Ebay would be built any way. I understand why pros don't rely on static defense. But without any detectors, early cloaked banshees do a lot of damage. What am I missing here? . | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
That being said, mobile units are not always better than static defense, especially in ladder play. Why? Because if you have not reached a tech level that can handle your opponent, you cannot engage them. How do you increase your defense level without spending gas or supply? Cannons, Spines, Bunkers. Sometimes, due to the course the game has taken, I find that I have very little gas to spend and quickly am building an excess of minerals. After a Nexus has been built with accompanying pylons and assimilators, I am faced with trying to spend my money on something that will prove useful, and the best choice for this is clearly static defense, especially at a critical expansion. | ||
|
MayorITC
Korea (South)798 Posts
| ||
|
nanoscorp
United States1237 Posts
I think the tipping point should be cloak: ie if your opponent shows you a cloaked banshee, matching him with a turret or two is worthwhile. You know he's invested fairly heavily at that point, and you'll save yourself a MULE or two worth of minerals down the line with some static detection and harvester protection. Also, day9 mentioned timing of defensive structures in a fairly recent show and I think it applies here: when your army is chilling at home, you don't need the static D. On your way out, sure, throw up a couple to provide some insurance. I think of it as closing the door on your way out. In defense of the pros, I'm not sure we mere armchair QBs understand the speed at which armies build up and get thrown at each other. 4-6 marines do matter, quite a bit in some of the confrontations, and the price there isn't 25 energy on your CC, it can be losing your whole army. Sure, a couple turrets would be nice, but so would not losing your whole base to a ground push. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
No, it doesn't always work out as intended. But those marginal risky calls will beat safe, conservative play in a BoX. | ||
|
eatpraylove
United States53 Posts
On November 05 2010 00:07 Rhymenoceros wrote: Because they're are all flawless creations of god... Nope. And they're not idiots either. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Twaxter
Canada190 Posts
The more static D you make, the more holed in you get. The other player will let you have your base, but he'll get the whole map. | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
| ||
|
Typhon
United States387 Posts
On November 05 2010 04:39 Hammurabio wrote: Is that true with Nada in his match with Boxer? ... ... Nada would spend 2-4 scans (480-960m) and still lose 5-15 SCVs (250-750m). It's true that in that particular game, Nada lost out on his gamble. It's also true that In Foxer's games, he tended to be able to defend with Marines. Boxer vs Nada game 2 is a perfect case study. both opened banshee no-cloak. Boxer defends easily with marines and a viking, Nada defends poorly with a Raven and takes crippling losses. Rambling into a Go analogy: in Hikaru no Go, Hikaru was practicing a game and played an kogeima (2,1 jump, like a Knight) and Sai (his teacher) said "You should play an oogeima (3,1 move, a longer jump) there". Hikaru: "Why? I think the kogeima is a good move" Sai: "Of course. It's a solid move that protects your pieces well while advancing. the oogeima is so weak the battle becomes complicated and you have to read really far" Sai: "But if the kogeima worth 99 points, the oogeima is worth 100 points. I let you play the weaker move up until now, but you are at the level where you must make the better move" | ||
| ||
