|
On June 23 2010 23:34 STS17 wrote:It takes almost a full minute for the building to construct in addition to the time it takes to set up the expansion. Assuming semi-decent scouting, you should be aware of it before it is completed. It is basically the Terran player saying “I’m mining from this base, get over it” which is not something the other races can’t do themselves. How many high level zerg games do you see where the Zerg builds a half a dozen spine crawlers at their nat on lost temple (and similar maps) to defend pushes, it is accomplishing the same thing – but nobody is complaining about that and it is a lot more common than the P-Fort.
I don't think that these are strong arguments. The PF, assuming you float down the command center, is the quickest and safest form of static defense to deploy (50 seconds to morph; a spine crawler builds in 50 seconds, while protoss is looking at 25+40 seconds for pylon+cannon). 50 seconds are actually 36 seconds of game time, which pretty much means that you need spotless scouting to spot it and stage a quick attack with zerglings. If terran can hold it off for 20 seconds or so, the PF is built.
And... well, six spine crawlers actually seem weaker and have a higher cost (900 mins versus 550/150 is approximately even, but the six larvae used when you're trying to saturate your expo are a significant delay - and you do not get the ability to train SCVs that a PF has. They're mobile, however, which could be very useful later on). The problem is also understanding which matchup they should be evaluated in. If it's ZvT (emphasis on "both players can do this"), then I feel that the comparison is really unfitting, as T has much fewer problems taking crawlers out thanks to their good siege/anti-armored unit selection and quick air; they can also avoid them due to their quick, useful transports. If it's ZvZ (emphasis on "zerg has the same problems dealing with the two sorts of defense"), everything makes more sense but the dynamics are different (for instance, you can do a zergling runby and attack drones, queens and tech; out-expanding your opponent in ZvZ is also likely to win you the game, while out-expanding your opponent in ZvT is pretty much a requirement).
|
What about splash damage requiring an upgrade?
|
PF has a huge problem with air units and siege range units.
Maybe placing a cd before the PF shoots, so it can be sniped by range 6 units (but it would take a very long time).
|
make it only work when you have 2 scvs loaded into it. maybe someone said this already but im not gonna look through 10+ pages
User was warned for this post
|
On June 23 2010 23:34 STS17 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe they fixed the “PF does 150% splash damage” bug when they corrected the HSM bug as well.
That being said, the PF is not nearly as large of an investment as people claim it is if it is being used at a mining expansion since it’s only 150/150 at that point. If you do what TLO did and build like 50 of them at one base then yes they are a hefty investment for security.
However, a lot of players seem to think this game is all about killing your opponent right now and very few seem to realize that you need to wait to beat a turtling player. Now, this doesn’t mean never harass or be offensive, just don’t take you army and try to a-move it into his base. It takes almost a full minute for the building to construct in addition to the time it takes to set up the expansion. Assuming semi-decent scouting, you should be aware of it before it is completed. It is basically the Terran player saying “I’m mining from this base, get over it” which is not something the other races can’t do themselves. How many high level zerg games do you see where the Zerg builds a half a dozen spine crawlers at their nat on lost temple (and similar maps) to defend pushes, it is accomplishing the same thing – but nobody is complaining about that and it is a lot more common than the P-Fort.
What I don’t understand about these forums is that a couple months ago people were posting threads saying “SC2 needs 30 APM to play, there is literally no micro involved at all” and then 2 months later (nothing has changed game-wise) and the threads consist of “Waaah! I have to micro! It’s too hard!”
It is a larger investment than 150/150. You are also losing MULEs/scans and the ability to lift.
|
Planetary Fortress costs 550/150 regardless of what you're using it for, but it has important functionality that other statics defenses don't.
|
On June 23 2010 21:43 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2010 18:57 DooMDash wrote:I mean, this argument to me is like "Oh your ultralisk took out my 200 Zerglings", IMBA! Just don't make units that get owned by specific units next time. Without necessarily agreeing on PFs being too strong, I need to point out that this is not a good answer. Zerg T3 comes really late and transitioning to it from most strategies (that is, those not already including T3) has a cost that compares to that of building a single PF (hive+ultra cavern or greater spire; add an infestation pit if you weren't going for infestors previously). If you prefer: PF owns all of zerg's T1 and T2, save for mutas (which do not do any reasonable damage to it unless massed, and I find that massed mutas against terran usually puts you at a disadvantage due to thors or marines). It's a different scenario from making the mistake of building that single specific unit that gets murdered; if you want to argue for the PF, you need to do so along a different line. Also, somebody claimed: "Static defense should win against offense for cost". While this is true, let me add a, "With the exception of siege units". The kink in this is that zerg do not have any siege unit that they can be expected to deploy in a reasonable time. Last but not least: the only non-misleading way to think of the costs associated with a PF is treating them as costing 550/150. Forget that Orbital Commands exist when thinking of the costs. Calling in other factors such as "not being able to call MULEs" is misleading. If you kept that line of accounting, you'd have to say that making a barracks and 8 marines costs you 550 minerals and the ability to call down MULEs.
You are making the mistake of assessing balance in a vacuum. It's not just the Orbital Commands that must be considered but Queens and Chrono Boost and the totality of each race. PF's don't actually do that much damage, it is the targeting priority that may be problematic.
|
There are complaints about losing army advantage when building a planetary fortress. In the OP video, it appears that the PF is a mineral dump. When you have enough hellions and don't require excessive missile turrets, the planetary fortress is really only costing you gas as you'll have excess minerals. If you think about its gas cost being 150, its not bad for a stationary defense. You could have 5 hellions and 150 gas, or a planetary fortress guarding your expo/base......
If the build didn't have excess minerals, I doubt we would see the PF be viable.
|
On June 24 2010 09:53 Grond wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2010 21:43 Meff wrote:On June 23 2010 18:57 DooMDash wrote:I mean, this argument to me is like "Oh your ultralisk took out my 200 Zerglings", IMBA! Just don't make units that get owned by specific units next time. Without necessarily agreeing on PFs being too strong, I need to point out that this is not a good answer. Zerg T3 comes really late and transitioning to it from most strategies (that is, those not already including T3) has a cost that compares to that of building a single PF (hive+ultra cavern or greater spire; add an infestation pit if you weren't going for infestors previously). If you prefer: PF owns all of zerg's T1 and T2, save for mutas (which do not do any reasonable damage to it unless massed, and I find that massed mutas against terran usually puts you at a disadvantage due to thors or marines). It's a different scenario from making the mistake of building that single specific unit that gets murdered; if you want to argue for the PF, you need to do so along a different line. Also, somebody claimed: "Static defense should win against offense for cost". While this is true, let me add a, "With the exception of siege units". The kink in this is that zerg do not have any siege unit that they can be expected to deploy in a reasonable time. Last but not least: the only non-misleading way to think of the costs associated with a PF is treating them as costing 550/150. Forget that Orbital Commands exist when thinking of the costs. Calling in other factors such as "not being able to call MULEs" is misleading. If you kept that line of accounting, you'd have to say that making a barracks and 8 marines costs you 550 minerals and the ability to call down MULEs. You are making the mistake of assessing balance in a vacuum. It's not just the Orbital Commands that must be considered but Queens and Chrono Boost and the totality of each race. PF's don't actually do that much damage, it is the targeting priority that may be problematic.
Yeah, that's why I'm actually not trying to pass judgement on balance anywhere in my post, just giving some ideas for people who do want to make such calls. It's actually why I opened it with a, "Without necessarily agreeing on PFs being too strong" to try and make it clear.
And... well... the first two points in my post are exactly trying to give data based on global zerg makeup and the third is an objection to invoking that sort of stuff where it's not needed, that is in calculating the cost for a PF. If you're trying to say that you need to consider the entirety of the game to assess a cost, not balance, that's where I'll disagree. Hydras cost 100/50 and no amount of queens or MULEs or chrono boost or heuristic analysis can alter that; similar reasonings apply to PFs. That sort of thing comes into play when you consider balance, which is a much bigger issue than calculating cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
