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.
I think for the most part you answered your own question. Stationary defenses put you on the defensive, meaning you can't put any pressure on or expand further without a larger commitment.
Of course having those extra one or two turrets is going to help when you scout the mutalisks incoming, but for banshees the spores / turrets are mostly used for detection. The long range on the banshees and void rays make it impractical to build enough stationary defenses to kill banshees or voids.
Honestly, losing that many workers, especially against mutas, can be prevented with a couple of missile turrets if you are lacking in AA.
Cannon, Spores, and Turrets are built for their detection ability, as well as helping fend off drops. They are not meant to fend off large attacks (this is the view from the pro's perspective...many interviews will attest to this.)
Small groups of units will be stronger than static defense, and can later be used to attack...this being the second reason to avoid static defense.
Turrets and Spores can only attack air, while marines and hydras/queens can attack both air and ground (as well as spit larva and produce creep) - so economically, units are better.
Stationary defense like that is a waste of money, so you generally want to get as little as possible. Units that can attack air are more valuable and can move around and be used offensively as well.
only time its ok to build defense is if the zerg player is going muta's. You should have a couple turrets or cannons early on to reduce pressure. In the end this should help you move out and steam roll your opponent.
and for zerg players spining up when you have no men. very useful against toss.
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.
bronze talking: I also saw GSL (especially) Loner gathering his army in front of his base with an Toss observer hovering over the area - and there was no turret up. Toss (nexgenius) had full knowledge what is going on - when & where. I was really shocked.
but probably if you are a good toss or bansheeist - you advance very slowly or have good micro control, so you do not run into a turrent but move around.
however I like having one "save-spot in my base" where I can pull/lure attackers into because there are 2 turrets. I can "park" my workforce there during attack - the mutas start auto targeting the turrets and after 10 sec. my main army should arrive to repel the attack.
1 think 100 mins (or 1 cannon) + 4-5 marins (or 3 stalker) are a good investment to hold off a standard 1-2 banshee attack near the minerals.
"why do bad people build so many" - I can tell you I am one of them - they generate the illusion of security because the game has so much complexity and uncertainty for low level players. +plus if you have a wall of turrets - what this buys you is time until your army arrives - which is especially a need for low skillers and their army that is out of position by nature.
On November 04 2010 22:43 FrankWalls wrote: the question is, why do non-pro players build SO MUCH anti air
Touche. A point well raised to counter the OP.
That's obviously because they think they need that much to feel safe... but you can't win with only defense
OP, pros generally have incredibly good understanding of timing, so they know when air can come and they usually have a mobile, offensive force to help counter air harrass... so this means they can skimp on the static defense. If you already have marines and know where you can position them to take care of banshees, why bother making more AA? Banshees will just avoid the turrets, whereas marines can chase them down. Your turrets can't counter-attack.
Besides, you often need a decent-sized army of your own to counter a decent-sized air force anyway, so wasting money on things that don't move will only put you farther behind. How do you counter 11 mutalisks in Brood War? Static defense? I think not. Same goes with SC2.
I think it depends on the person your playing against most times. If they are harassing your base more then going after your army or expansions its worth a few more, but if your on top of your scv movement you should be moving them toward your main army and your army toward the scvs at the same time, I keep my workers hot keyed so i can do this quickly, i also try to design my base and depots to restrict enemy movement by raising the depots, then lowering them to increase my own troop movement putting the buildings i can afford to loose on the outskirts, while the buildings that will hurt me to loose close to the middle.
just my opinion, not tell you what to do with your own.
oh plus the range upgrade to turrets makes the "random" placement make more sense, its more about covering an area with detection than making more to cover the area, i'd think
Besides the fact that pros are normally and rightfully confident in their ability to defend with their units because they practice against those scenarios so much, putting down an ebay and turrets not only costs a lot of minerals that could be used for workers and units, it also costs time, which is arguably more important. The AA will undoubtedly delay the build, and pros hone their builds down to the second. Pushing a few seconds early can be the difference between a win or a loss.
I've been like wtf don't they build a couple stupid turrets during this whole GSL too. After thinking about it I came to the conclusion : they are stubborn idiots.
I mean really, a million kittens died cause of those fags who just don't want to build an ebay + 2 turrets (or even a single one for vision ffs) to permanently protect their workers instead of spamming scans all game long to kill banshees, every single time a banshee has been ingame with cloak it did WAY more damage than the cost of an ebay + 2 turrets , same for the cost of the scans they keep using to fend them off. This is even more the right thing to do considering the huge investment that are cloaked banshee, if he has cloaked banshees he doesnt have much more else so the money that could've been into a tinsy bit bigger army is not needed at all.
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.
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.
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.
Foxer lost *so* many SCVs to the banshee harass which would've been easily stopped with one turret.
At the very least one turret saves having to use a scan, which in balance discussion every single terran claims isn't free but actually costs over 300 minerals. Foxer used scan to reveal cloaked banshees in his main at least 3 times, you're telling me one turret isnt worth it?
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?
Pros tend to change off game resources (Positioning, APM, Looking at the minimap, ect) for in game resources. With good control you only need "Shoot at this" stationary defenses to buy time for ther army to come.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
I think pros tries to cut as many corners possible in order to get that slight edge in games. I also think they tend to err on the side of trying to get away with too much... they're pushing the limits in order to learn and get better.
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.
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.
As a protoss, you can usually stop any banshee harass with an observer and a couple stalkers. It also allows you to spend that 300-450 minerals on more stalkers or colossi or whatever I need. It's much more beneficial for me to get the couple extra stalkers because I need them anyway to keep the colossi alive.
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.
i don't really understand too... 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.
Mobile units are always better than static defenses. Why? Because after you finish killing his cloaked banshee, you can take those units and GO KILL HIS BASE with them.
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.
Saying something like: "oh man, he would have fared much better in that harass if he had built 3 more turrets" is a lot like saying "oh man, he would have fared much better in that battle if he had built another thor instead of those 2 tanks."
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.
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.
Maybe it's because the top players are gaming each other with their strategies.
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.
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?
Pros always spend their resources, and because they play other pros, they never have excess resources to invest in static D early in a game because they always have to replenish their army. Pros DO build static D, especially in TvZ, when they need to secure expansions and dont have medivacs yet to heal a wasted stim. What they dont do is spam cannons or turrets, but then again, who does?
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.
Same was said for SC1 til Flash came along and made Turrets look like the new supply depots. But in the case of SC2, a lot of air units have much longer range than in SC1 (eg: Voids, Banshees) that even if you did build turrets, they wouldn't help much except against Mutas/Phoenixes.
Even with a missile turret up, Nada lost half his mineral line to a single banshee. The range thing mentioned earlier matters, it takes more than 1 turret to cover a mineral line from air harassment.
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.
It's a mistake to think only about what happened and neglect to think about what a player was trying to accomplish. A player using stimmed marines and scans vs banshees is trying to kill the banshee, not just keep it out of his base. Scans are unpredictable; turrets are obvious and easily avoided. And never, ever underestimate the power of just one or two extra units to alter the outcome of a battle. It can mean the difference between trading armies and coming out with forces to spare.
No, it doesn't always work out as intended. But those marginal risky calls will beat safe, conservative play in a BoX.
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? ... ... 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"
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 disagree with you.
When you are doing a drop, if you see a turret you just move around it. This means that it's a lot harder to protect your base with static defenses like turrets.
More importantly if you see a series of turrets you cannot ignore, you just don't go through with your drop.
A couple well positioned vikings on the other hand, will not only stop the drop from happening but also kill all the units in the transport putting you much further behind than if they had just stopped the drop from happening.
If I build 4 missile turrets, I've spent the same as I would on an expansion. At this point, my opponent can freely take an expansion, knowing that he's "keeping up" in terms of cost spent on army.
I'm a big fan of banshee harassment, I see turrets/cannons/spores going up, and either A) move around to shoot something else, B) expand if he has so many turrets that I can't hit anything.
well, in regards to banshees, it's because they are INCREDIBLY effective at killing tons of workers from any given point in ur mineral line. so... u need 3 or *maybe* 2 perfectly placed spores/cannons/turrets to stop 1 banshee from killing like a dozen workers
and guess what, if u actually do that.. the banshee was already successful.
in sc1 u could build some static d because there wasnt any air that they could just make 1 of and kill a million workers with, so if they were committing to air harrass it meant they actually had to invest considerably resources. with a banshee this just isn't the case.. it really doesn't take much resources at all.
it's funny, a lot of you who say "build turret to stop banshee"... well... if u were playing in that game, and u built 2 turrets (200 minerals) to stop the banshee, chances are u wouldn't be covering every spot of ur mineral line. well guess what, the pro ur playing against is just going to fly the banshee to that exact spot, hold position, and proceed to kill all the workers that try to mine from that mineral patch. so you wasted 200 minerals and accomplished almost nothing.
and even if ur good enough to cover the mineral line, he's going to fly the banshee over and kill ur supply depots instead.
basically, anti air isn't good unless it's to stop a considerably resources commitment from the other player. which is exactly how it was in sc1.
That's not completely true. Cannons, turrets and spore crawlers have a sight range of 11 and are detectors. One on of them in your eco line will probably be enough to detect all banshees harassing your eco lines.
There are several reasons why the pros don't go for stationary defenses as Protoss and Terran, but the biggest reason is probably that they can be circumvented. Aerial Harass can poke around a base looking for undefended tech, supplies, production buildings or mineral lines and hit where the defenses are not. Cannons are incredibly frail and bunkers are very expensive to fill up.
Now stationary defenses you do see with some frequency amongst the pros are the Zerg Crawlers and the Terrans putting out a lot of late game Planetary Fortresses. Zerg Crawlers are a major exception because they are not as frail as the other units, can be healed pretty well with queens without endangering workers, and hit fairly hard. Add to all this that they can be repositioned as deemed necessary. Add to this that mid-late game zerg are pretty gas bound so often they have less gas than they do larva and minerals that they can make use of so a number of the extra larva for drones and then to crawlers just to keep on par with their opponents spending without being rendered utterly useless by the addition of say a Colossus or a few hellions like Zerglings are.
On November 05 2010 09:08 Perscienter wrote: That's not completely true. Cannons, turrets and spore crawlers have a sight range of 11 and are detectors. One on of them in your eco line will probably be enough to detect all banshees harassing your eco lines.
i don't think detection is the primary problem, it's actually killing the banshees that is generally the problem
sure, sometimes detecting them is the problem... but it doesn't matter if u can detect them if u don't have stuff at ur mineral line to stop them from killing ur workers
I think they make the minimum because they think they can get away with it, often maps that are good for air, both players will end up going air, so provided you have some map awareness you can shutdown any harass or force them to lose their air army to yours. I think the trend is similar to SC1 where pros would try to create a "line" of turrets on maps like Python where mutalisks cant harass from multiple angles, as its easy to leave your force in your base to defend if they fly past the turrets.
On November 05 2010 03:04 jinorazi wrote: since bw i've always been stuck with the mindset, "if you got money for a canon, get a dragoon instead".
i use static defense for detection or blocking off choke @ expo in a another starting location. or FE
This makes more sense when a goon is about equal to a cannon. Photon cannons are way better than stalkers if all you want to do is defend a point (150/150 vs 80/80 hp/shields, range of 7 vs range 6, 20 damage against everything vs 10/14 for the stalker). If you time things correctly, you can often build cannons and get a much better economy with less risk, and end up with a similar army at around the same time down the road... with more defense.
Although that doesn't really apply to air defense.
I assume you're referring to boxer v hopetorture (lol at both nicks btw) boxer was aiming for mineral heavy - exp+marine push build if he built eng-bay and 1 turret at main and exp that's 6 marines less in his push as well as some mining time lost cause your scv will be building
some might say scan = mule = minerals but they'd be wrong ; )
I've seen lots of games where harvesters get rocked and I wondered why pros don't build static defense. I'm pretty sure the real reason is that they feel giving up edges like wasting mins on defense is giving up too much early game. In the pro's, even small edges aren't something they are willing to part with. It's a gamble to some degree. They are hoping they can defend it with their army and many times they can. But sometimes, they can't and the tradeoff is something they are willing to live with.
Defensive structures definitely need more range for them to be used more frequently, especially spore crawlers.
I'm more surprised by the lack of Thors used by a lot of the top players against heavy Muta play. I feel like getting one Thor would do a lot to compliment the marine forces.
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.
nalgene sums it up relatively well. When your opponent sees the turrets, he can just pull his banshee back and add it to his army. Every turret you make is that much money less for your army, while his banshees/mutas/voids can join into their army.
On November 04 2010 23:50 gREIFOCs wrote: Pros tend to change off game resources (Positioning, APM, Looking at the minimap, ect) for in game resources. With good control you only need "Shoot at this" stationary defenses to buy time for ther army to come.
Hit the nail on the head. Many pros would rather "spend" some of their APM addessing Anti Air and instead spend minerals on immediate other needs, than spend hundreds of minerals on an air threat that may or may not come. Having high apm saves you minerals.
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.
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".
Are you at least aware that the fact cloaked banshees are huge investment helps my point even more, as I already said in my post .. ? It seems like your only point was "hurrdurr, they are progamers stfu".
In TvZ for example, you get turrets out right before you go timing push if you know he got mutas.
It's pointless to just mass up aa if you have units that can handle it in base. Ofc 1 on each base can be helpful if you meeting cloacked units so you don't have to waste scans and so on.
The thing about static defences like turrets is that the enemy can choose not to fight them. If I go muta I normally start with 3 to 5 in the starter wave just to test the defences and see what's up ahead. If then then see that a Terran as built 5 turrets on a mineral line I cheer because it's less units to fight. And I start macroing up a big ground force instead. Suddenly the turrets are just there and they can't help against a big ground push. Yes the argument is that you didn't lose a ton of workers but you could have done that with normal units too. Or I can move my air force to a different location and kill tech structures that isn't covered.
Static defences can never join you in the offense. So for pure detection and AA they will be in your base. It can provide nice cover for your base while you are out of it, but it's still a lot of resources that could have been in your army.
I think one the main things in the game is to build up momentum. You want a driving force that can be used to destroy the enemy. A big line of defensive structures helps you live not kill. And again... the enemy can choose to not fight you there because it's not where the battle will be won.
On November 05 2010 05:02 nanoscorp wrote: Even with a missile turret up, Nada lost half his mineral line to a single banshee. The range thing mentioned earlier matters, it takes more than 1 turret to cover a mineral line from air harassment.
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.
A couple turrets in one base is cost effective vs banshee tech. A couple turrets in 3+ bases isn't.
Cannons and spores are 150 a piece making them much less cost effective vs air harass. From personal experience, cannons are only useful against zerg.
On November 04 2010 22:43 FrankWalls wrote: the question is, why do non-pro players build SO MUCH anti air
My take on this is that at lower levels:
A) They don't have the multi-task, macro, micro, or game sense to successfully defend and attack at the same time. I know that when I was getting started in the beta, having not played SC1 for a few years and never having been great, it was helpful to use the crutch of throwing down a handful of Spores when I moved out to attack, simply because I didn't quite have the ability to defend myself from an air counter while adequately controlling my offensive units.
B) Players struggle to keep their minerals low so they think they can "afford" to mineral dump with a handful of stationary defense (when in reality that money could be put toward expansion and mobile defense).
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.
That is terrible logic. I'd like to see what your stance on this when you lose every single one of your probes because you were on the other side of the map with your army and the opponent decided it would be smart to walk a dozen lings into your base, or leaves several mutas slaughtering your workers without it hitting all that deep into his army size to defend your push. Make 2 cannons in your mineral lines, save 30 probes. Decent trade off imo.
And to those people who are arguing that defences are immobile, so your opponent can just go around, tbh most people including pros walk right into static d and thusly look like a moron all the time. Watch a single BW PvT game where a couple turrets stops an arbiter warping in the whole freaking protoss army, and then tell me that turrets are not worth it.
Also, do not argue that static defences are unnecessary 9/10 games, because it is only true if your opponent does not go for any harass. If my opponent is not going DTs, mutas, or banshees ofc I wouldn't build cannons everywhere, that would be stupid. Also, forges, E-bays and evo chambers are not 'dead minerals'. Click on forge, click on one of the buttons, and you can make your whole army stronger. Why wouldn't you build one or two?
lol i think pro players have other uses for their min than static defenses.. maybe they just want to kill their opponent's bases? A few extra units can make a huge difference in army collisions. 6 more marines to reinforce can mean you break their army leaving you with a larger % army intact. i'm in silver (actual play may be different due to improvements) and love to put down spore crawlers, but mutas and an overseer (or a moveable force) are a lot more effective, as the enemy air force muscle down a crawler and then snipe my workers right outside the range of my other crawlers. I usually have at least 3 spores (one for each gas and one behind minerals). I'm also very fond of the baneling drops... and know from much experience that a loose wall of turrets can't stop my drops right into their mineral line (and i even get almost all my overlords out alive) but marines with focus fire and stim is a lot more of a pain.. and usually results in me having to retreat my ovies..same thing with my muta harrass at around 7-10 mins.. i usually pray that my opponent sinks a lot of money into static anti-air.
EPT
+plus if you have a wall of turrets - what this buys you is time until your army arrives - which is especially a need for low skillers and their army that is out of position by nature.
