Note to moderators: My first topic concerning this topic was closed, and that was very fair as it was quite poor. So I have tried to refine it and reposted it. Please give a reasoning if you choose to close this one too so I know what to improve on.
The future of terran base building?
TheLittleOne If you have followed the scene as of late, you would know that TheLittleOne has been a popular player participating in many a high stake tournament. For a long time playing random, he has recently begun playing Terran quite often. TLO has been characterized as a creative player, using new and innovative strategies with great success.
In some games lately versus Zerg, TLO used something that surprised me quite a bit: Defensive Planetary Fortresses placed next to his Orbital Command. This allowed him to move his army about, as well as having a quite potent defence at home. To me, this just seems wrong for two reasons: -It does not fit with the game, and is clearly not the intended purpose of the upgrade -That this seems viable seems to indicate that it is too good in some way, as paying up 400 additional minerals to get the upgrade apparently is worth it.
The Fortress Starcraft is a game where units usually have clearly defined roles. A Nexus produces probes, while photon cannons defend. It makes intuitive sense, and makes it easy to identify threats and opportunities. The Terran in Starcraft 2 has a sort of unique touch to them when it comes to this, as their Command Centre has the option as to whether to go for a more economic approach by upgrading to Orbital Command, or to go for a defensive advantage by upgrading it to a Planetary Fortress. The Planetary fortress upgrade costs 150/150.
But here`s the catch: you do not neccesarily have to forgo the economy of the Orbital Command, as you can build several Command Centres. Granted it costs 400 extra minerals, but as the replays show, this apparently is viable in even very high levels of play.
The other side of the problem is that Terran historically has had a disadvantage compared to the other races: They never had a static ground defense that did not cost psi. Well now they do, and that may be the problem here. If a Terran wants static defense now he has the ability to go "all the way" investing in several planetary fortresses. This both removes one of the weaknesses (and unique things of Terran), and makes the game look esthetically wrong.
The problems with the Fortress that combined causes problems in my opinion: -Only defensive building with AoE damage -Has alot of HP, can get armour, and can be repaired by alot of scvs at once due to it`s large size. -Seems to be balanced around the fact that you will have to sacrifice something to get it (Can be circumvented) -Very good synergy with Missile Turrets -Allows you to have a strong defense, that does not take up psi. -Terran does not have other defensive ground structures that do not cost psi (Bunkers need marines, or rauders or whatever), making the fortress the only alternative for when a Terran wants some static defense at home. -Has attack priority (Thanks to Liquid Nazgul)
What the problem causes -"Illogical base construction" -Visual clutter -Hard to break for Zerg (Debatable)
Summary To sum up, my aversion to this is two sided: -It may be too strong, or: -It`s balanced but just looks and feels wrong.
Should something be changed? I think Blizzard based the pricing of the Planetary fortress on the idea that you would have to sacrifice alot of economy to get it. This can be circumvented, and I therefore think there is a problem. As I have already mentioned several times, there are two distinct problems, and I have separate suggestions to alleviate each of the problems:
- A new defensive structure, that is cheaper than the planetary fortress, but it has a smaller size (Less scv`s able to help), less hp, less damage, but still AoE. This would look alot better than 3 Command Centres (Which are huge and ruin pathing too) clumped together.
-Increased cost of the Planetary Fortress upgrade, perhaps costing more gas?
The strongest counter argument is that I`ve only seen one player do this so far, and that is TLO. TLO may be creative (As in doing crazy things), but as anyone who has listened to the "State of the Game" Podcast knows, he is also virtually the whole of Liquipedia 2 rolled into one person, meaning that he is clever as hell. I fear that this will become a legitimate strategy being used, which to me would just be a ugly, wrong and twisted turn of how the game is played. (Not criticizing TLO, it`s great that people find the loopholes)
Please do not make this into a "Damn Zerg players, wanting a nerf on terrans ffs", it has more to do with the Planetary Fortress upgrade being slightly misplaced in Terran, causing weird decision making problems, and a not so nice looking game visually.
Some examples:
Edit: Added Nazgul`s great argument, and fixed a spelling error.
What bothers me is that PF has attack priority if it is closer to your units than your opponents forces. In big battles this totally messes everything up and basically makes it impossible to attack a good and alert player. PF should be strong but not so strong that it makes an attack useless due to attack priority.
On June 03 2010 19:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What bothers me is that PF has attack priority if it is closer to your units than your opponents forces. In big battles this totally messes everything up and basically makes it impossible to attack a good and alert player. PF should be strong but not so strong that it makes an attack useless due to attack priority.
exactly + if you want to harass it makes it harder, as you cannot order your units to kill scvs untill they die. I mean you actually can, but it takes a lot of time
a PF at a terran's natural gaurantees that I will not be breaking into it. Quite a cheap investment for a lot of security. I mostly see terrans put it up on their third expansion as their macro is already quite secure with 2 orbital commands.
I agree that it should be strong, but not as strong as it is right now. Ive seen a pf get ~80+ kills and if you try to attack it scvs can spam repair while it tears away at your army, also attack priority makes it so that your units will try to attack it instead of the units around it.
Your also sacrificing the lift off when u build the PF. But as a zerg player I've learned the hard way to not engage a PF untill I have mutas or BLs or have a massive army advantage
I don't think its such a big deal. Zerg has 3 ways to bypass a PF. Drops, Nydus, and flying units. Attacking it head on with cheap ground units (most of zergs army) is silly because that's exactly what the PF counters.
I'm wondering though about attack priority... If it was taken away and you always attacked whatever was closest, would that decrease micro requirements too far across the board?
On June 03 2010 19:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: What bothers me is that PF has attack priority if it is closer to your units than your opponents forces. In big battles this totally messes everything up and basically makes it impossible to attack a good and alert player. PF should be strong but not so strong that it makes an attack useless due to attack priority.
I've noticed lots of attack priority oddities. It's not necessarily terrible though. Makes for some pretty cool tactics possible. Kinda like how a pylon messed up attacks in SC1.
As long as they're not overpowered, it's fine. Although a few weeks back, I was hilariously defeated in a 2v2 by a PF rush. Zerg pressuring front pulled my attention away and the PF managed to land.
i think it sux :p edit: just read overseer dont work at it, so many rumors. i dont even use the PF. just dont attack it and go expand instead, its not hard at all
just because z is a 1a2a3a race doesnt mean u have to play like one, go for drops nydus or even destroy the backdoors like that map was. i think ur just a stupid gamer if u have problem with the PF
its a huge investment and if he goes for it u can just play defensive instead, theres nothing that forces the zerg to attack the front like that lol
and if ur worried about terran defending expoes with it, just stop it before its done. takes huge time to build up a PF base
hey, it´s terran. i think if the made a tank in siege and some bunker with rines for the same cost it would actually be just as efficient witch scvs repairing. correct me if im wrong im toss.
and btw. you are quite abusive with the "it´s not beautiful" argument, but honestly...who cares? a bunker in a protoss base also doesn´t look as it belongs there. and in bw the people made hatcheries only to build units from them without ever mining. in sc2 terrans use their main building to rip those units to shreds. if it´s getting imbalanced change it. if not leave it.
On June 03 2010 19:33 cArn- wrote: 550/150 is not an investment already ?
No if it's as powerful as a 2000/1000 ground army.
On June 03 2010 19:43 MorroW wrote: i think it sux :p edit: just read overseer dont work at it, so many rumors. i dont even use the PF. just dont attack it and go expand instead, its not hard at all
just because z is a 1a2a3a race doesnt mean u have to play like one, go for drops nydus or even destroy the backdoors like that map was. i think ur just a stupid gamer if u have problem with the PF
its a huge investment and if he goes for it u can just play defensive instead, theres nothing that forces the zerg to attack the front like that lol
and if ur worried about terran defending expoes with it, just stop it before its done. takes huge time to build up a PF base
Mech terran can just wait with planetary fortresses until the map mines out.
On June 03 2010 19:33 cArn- wrote: 550/150 is not an investment already ?
No if it's as powerful as a 2000/1000 ground army.
the PF is supposed to be able to defend large armies that just straight up attacks it. just attack somewhere else or tech up. u dont counter this one with 1a2a3a and dont say its imba because of that. it SHOULD beat an army x4 the cost of the PF else it wouldnt fill its purpose at all. just like 1 turret win vs 3 muta or 1 spine crawler kills many hellions. its a countergame and PF happens to be unable to move, lift, throw mules and costs a shitload of money.
On June 03 2010 19:43 MorroW wrote: i think it sux :p edit: just read overseer dont work at it, so many rumors. i dont even use the PF. just dont attack it and go expand instead, its not hard at all
just because z is a 1a2a3a race doesnt mean u have to play like one, go for drops nydus or even destroy the backdoors like that map was. i think ur just a stupid gamer if u have problem with the PF
its a huge investment and if he goes for it u can just play defensive instead, theres nothing that forces the zerg to attack the front like that lol
and if ur worried about terran defending expoes with it, just stop it before its done. takes huge time to build up a PF base
Mech terran can just wait with planetary fortresses until the map mines out.
well guess what PF takes about a minute to build or so and thats when u attack. he cant have PF's all over the map man. u just need some better timing
1 swarm and 2 lurker stop 5000 marines in sc1 with 1a2a3a and this is same situation with the PF. strike before or get around it
On June 03 2010 19:26 Kvz wrote: a PF at a terran's natural gaurantees that I will not be breaking into it. Quite a cheap investment for a lot of security. I mostly see terrans put it up on their third expansion as their macro is already quite secure with 2 orbital commands.
That depends largely on the design of the map and the positioning of the "ramp" to the main base. The PF only has range 6 (upgraded to 7) and that does NOT cover a lot of space.
On June 03 2010 19:26 Kvz wrote: I agree that it should be strong, but not as strong as it is right now. Ive seen a pf get ~80+ kills and if you try to attack it scvs can spam repair while it tears away at your army, also attack priority makes it so that your units will try to attack it instead of the units around it.
It is strong now? Errr ... only against Zerglings or Marines (one-shotting). The ridiculously slow rate of fire and its damage requires the PF to take two shots for a Hydralisk and even more for Roaches. It is only going to kill a lot of stuff if you have 20 SCVs repairing it, but then you can target-fire the SCVs and the Terran loses a lot more than a defensive structure. Sure the PF will kill early-mid assaults on it, but any late-game army will annihilate it in seconds, much too fast for the Terran to get his SCVs there to repair.
Each race has units which outrange the PF and it doesnt even shoot air, so making it weaker means you are making it useless.
The thing which annoys me most about the Planetary Fortress is its grand name compared to the rather meager damage output and boring weapon. I would prefer for the PF to have a defensive shield matrix (cf. Brood War) and a big cannon (cf. Thor), both of which use energy, plus some small infantry-like auto-fire. Sure the Fortress kills stuff early- and mid-game, but in the late game it has the survivability of a Depot.
you are quite abusive with the "it´s not beautiful" argument
Not sure what you mean about abusive, but yes to me that part of it is important. I do not feel that it should be viable to spam fortresses, purely out of a game design, and esthetic point of view. If the intention is to give Terran static AoE defense worth 550/150, then a different solution than the planetary fortress would be better in my opinion.
Edit: Would be sweet with some more replies actually pertaining to the issues I brought up.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Gilsio/SC22.png)
