|
On June 03 2010 20:35 Travin wrote:
550 minerals + 150 gas equals 4.6 photon cannons. 4.6 photon cannons have 1380 hp (almost the same as a pf), have detection, can shoot air and do 92 dmg (not counting armor).
If I was able to buy photon cannons instead of pf's to protect my natruals or as extra static defence I would be very happy. (not to mention the ridicliously long building time of a pf if you just intend to use it as a static defence)
your numbers don't make sense because a planetary fortress is much stronger than 4.6 photon cannons when i fight it in game, it can be repaired as well.
Anyways, i don't really think its overpowered because it gets countered by expansion from other player, still is kinda ridiculous tho
|
On June 03 2010 21:08 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 21:06 Velr wrote:
I think the raw strenght of the PF is fine.
What i hate and think of as incredibly wrong is that it makes any smallscale harass downright impossible.
Nvm the fucking target priority issues. As opposed to if instead of a PF the terran would have had a couple of tanks behind a rax/supply wall? Either way in the lategame a small z force won't be achieving much in a frontal assault.
im not really talking about multiple pfs, so the cost is 150/150, this 150/150 make an expansion basically unharassable.
As for your tank argument:
tanks cost supply.
tanks at home make the terrans "standing" army smaller.
Anyway, its not about running into a fortified terran base, its about running into some backwather expo that has no/nearly no other defense. You either have to bring a really serious army or wont achieve anything because the terran clicked a 150/150 button on his command center and sends his scvs to repair.
Just feels wrong to me.
|
On June 03 2010 21:25 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 21:08 moopie wrote:On June 03 2010 21:06 Velr wrote:
I think the raw strenght of the PF is fine.
What i hate and think of as incredibly wrong is that it makes any smallscale harass downright impossible.
Nvm the fucking target priority issues. As opposed to if instead of a PF the terran would have had a couple of tanks behind a rax/supply wall? Either way in the lategame a small z force won't be achieving much in a frontal assault. im not really talking about multiple pfs, so the cost is 150/150, this 150/150 make an expansion basically unharassable. As for your tank argument: tanks cost supply. tanks at home make the terrans "standing" army smaller. Anyway, its not about running into a fortified terran base, its about running into some backwather expo that has no/nearly no other defense. You either have to bring a really serious army or wont achieve anything because the terran clicked a 150/150 button on his command center and sends his scvs to repair. Just feels wrong to me.
I haven't had too much problems taking out expos w/ PF's in them, though obviously they do require more than a-move. If you think about it though, it does make sense for terrans to have it.
When a toss wants to take an expo in a disputed zone, he cannons all over the place. W/ zergs, sunken/spores (depending on enemy army composition) + a nydus for near-instant reinforcements. Terrans have turrets for air, but the only semi-static ground defense is bunkers, which aren't very useful lategame, especially if the terran meched (not to mention take supply for the marines). Back in bw when I played terran I would mine all around the expo, so I could see the attack coming and be able to respond (as well as delay my opponents a bit), in sc2 its no longer an option.
Edit: and while it can be argued that sensor towers can serve in that role (scout around the expo as mines did), they do not delay the opponents and in fact are about as useful as a giant sign saying "HEY, I JUST EXPO'D HERE!".
|
I'm not buying into this whole esthetique argument of yours. First of all I think it looks magnificent as a static defense in its own right. I'm picturing this as a huge fortified tower placed at a strategic location at the outer rim of the terran base defence. I think it would look awesome if there was multiple fortresses spread out to defend all your entrances. This might however just be me and if you don't think it looks cool, then sure that's your call. But consider the fact that supply depots are used as a wall, constituting perhaps the most fundamental part in the terran wall-in strategy. If you go back to the initial BW, this was clearly not the way they were designed to be used. They're basically farms that was intended to be massed at the back of your base, however due to some clever gameplay by the community, we quickly found use for them as a wall. But from a meta-game perspective this is just plain out wrong! Why on earth would you put the buildings where people are suppose to live as the first line of defence? They are constructed to be the walls and the first thing that gets destroyed if a break happens. I don't know about you, but I would have serious objections moving into one of those houses. However the game has evolved since then and now it is as natural as anything. They even perfected the living-room-wall to be able to sink into the ground such that you can now construct gates from them as well as walls. Don't you think the initial game developers of BW would find this construction equally weird or wrong in the same sense that you are finding the planetary-fortress-base weird?
|
Maybe they could change it to something like you'd have to load up some SCVs to operate the cannon (about 4 or so). Therefor you would lose some economy for firepower and still need the usual SCVs to repair. So this would mean the PF won't be able to simply attack on it's own, but you'd have to control some SCVs in order to have the attack power. So a skilled opponent may cut of the SCVs before reaching the fortress (fungal growth perhaps).
I wouldn't change anything about the firepower, because that would render the PF useless or at least less effective.
EDIT: Typo
|
So one player uses it to his advantage in a creative manner and right away you cry foul and want changes done? Come on.
That is what I tried not to do. I only observed that to me, it would be detrimental if this became a trend. All props to TLO for being creative and awesome.
First of all I think it looks magnificent as a static defense in its own right. I'm picturing this as a huge fortified tower placed at a strategic location at the outer rim of the terran base defence
i tried to emphasize the part that is not the visual look of the fortress that I find troublesome as such, (It looks dangerous), but that it is messy game design wise (And thus esthetically wrong) since it is:
A) An economic production building mainly.
B) It`s huge and if you compare it`s size to other buildings in the game, you will see that it differs from all other buildings, as size of building is a clear indicator of what the use of the building is. (3x3=Miner production, 2x3 fighter or upgrades, 2x2 Supply or defence)
C) It removes something distinctive with the terran, namely the lack of regular static ground defence, which I do not think was the intention of the planetary fortress to do.
I do not believe it is good for a game to end up working way different than what was envisaged. Imagine trying to interest someone in SC2 in a few years, and they have a hard time understanding why the best strategy is to make tons of resource centres side by side. It seems unintuitive.
Don't you think the initial game developers of BW would find this construction equally weird or wrong in the same sense that you are finding the planetary-fortress-base weird?
Perhaps, but your example differs in one important aspect. You would still make supply depots mainly due to the fact that you needed them to expand your supply count. Producing several Planetary Fortresses flies right in the face of the main objective of the building, which is to make workers and be a resource center.
|
On June 03 2010 20:16 Snowfield wrote:
How many banelings to kill a fortress?
around 20, thats assuming all of your baneling blow up in front of the fortresses face without getting blown up by the aoe dmg.
|
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.
My goal here is not to brag but I see a LOT of people posting on TL about how there is no more Micro and that how the SCVs split on their own ruins the game (Yeah, it's the end of the world).
I find it ironic that suddenly, the PF demanding micro from players is making the very same people angry and calling possible imba. (This isint directed at anyone in particular)
My advice:
Calm the fuck down, it's just a video game.
On a related note, I'm going to build more PFs from now on but I do agree with OP, you're building PFs for defense, which is a good thing, but the whole ''command center'' part (Scv production, ressource gathering) of the PF is unused. A dedicated Artillery bunker thing-a-majig would make more sense.
|
honestly planetary fortresses are only strong if you attack them the wrong way. they die to all the siege units which outrange them (brood lords, upgraded colossi, and upgraded tanks), and their synergy with turrets is limited to defending harass. turrets are simply not powerful enough to defend massed air, and breaking a fortress with mutas, banshees, or void rays is very possible. fortresses encourage unit diversity and are not a significant obstacle in the later stages of the game.
your point about terran flavour and aesthetics is reasonable, but the gameplay benefits are too strong to make an issue of it. i think without them a map balance issue would arise around island expansions. the efficiency of warpgates and nydus worms at defending islands is only offset by the fact that we can take and defend islands without dropships. in brood war the balance was different because nydus came so late in the game, and protoss did not have instantaneous reinforcement. now that midgame reinforcement is so simple for the other races, terran must compensate for that lack.
|
No offense to the Topic Starter (or OP if prefer) I can see you put a lot of effort into it. but this thread is a little ridiculous and bordering absurd. The PF is fine for all the reasons other people have posted:
-Range of 6 (upgraded 7) Thats a fairly small area
-Can't shoot air
-Sacrifices Economy, Scan, and call down supply (in a base trade call down supply is vital)
-Can't lift off
-If a PF is built anywhere thats not a mining position, or close to it, they die pretty damn fast, since there won't be SCV's there.
Etc...
|
On June 03 2010 19:51 MorroW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 19:47 Shikyo wrote:On June 03 2010 19:46 Shikyo wrote: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. 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
The problem is that you actually had a way to deal with 1 swarm and 2 lurkers in SC1 (vessels). Whereas there is no way to deal with PFs in SC2. And "going around it" isn't dealing with it, it's avoiding it.
|
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.
Yeah, the PF would be fine, or at least not so crazy if the attack priority wasn't so ridiculous.
|
I love the fact that the PF is that strong! I only support the point with the attack priority so far. but the thing should stay as badass as it is.
|
I heard that you can repair your bunkers with scvs inside of it. Is that true? If so, can you repair your planetary fortress with scvs loaded into it?
Also, while I agree that it is very powerful, it does also have a HUGE build time (in terms of defensive structures) that is in two steps. The main problem with it is that it allows SCVs to become correlated with killing enemy units. Also, if they manage to kill the Orbital, they still have to stick around and kill the PFs in the area to actually shut down the expansion, before moving on to the main or other attack targets.
I think it's fine, though. Terran's feel as a race has always been the one based around tactics like these. Protoss is about a few strong units, zerg is about swarming the enemy. I don't think using PFs as defense seems out of place like you say, though a damage nerf or something wouldn't be too crazy an idea.
|
Fort is very expensive yo. You lose out on a lot of mules/scans/calldown supplies. It's very little more than a deterrent, as few players will attack it without an army that can take it down easily. It rarely gets enough kills to justify its cost, so its value lies more in buying time and peace of mind.
|
early offensive planetary fortress might actually be a worthwhile strategy Oo
|
On June 04 2010 00:41 HalfAmazing wrote:
Fort is very expensive yo. You lose out on a lot of mules/scans/calldown supplies. It's very little more than a deterrent, as few players will attack it without an army that can take it down easily. It rarely gets enough kills to justify its cost, so its value lies more in buying time and peace of mind.
Did you bother to read the OP at all?
He has a valid point about the PF's. Though I've never experienced TLO's type of PF play it is frustrating to watch an army of roach/hydra/ling/banes get annihilated by ONE planetary fortress with about 10 SCV's on repair duty.
On June 04 2010 00:43 Madkipz wrote:
early offensive planetary fortress might actually be a worthwhile strategy Oo
No, it's not.
|
PFs are GREAT against ling/hydra, and i mean if you have a good macro as it is with some extra minerals not being used to prod units, why not? It can do quite a bit if positioned well, and willl negate any type of super-ling harass on the mineral lines.
|
On June 04 2010 00:43 Madkipz wrote:
early offensive planetary fortress might actually be a worthwhile strategy Oo
on goatrope's stream the other night he won a game in plat with it =P
it's not really viable though. they can use workers to indefinitely block you from landing in their base and if you try to build it outside their natural to contain them, they have a ridiculous amount of time to snipe the building SCV or just ling it to death before it finishes. bunker rushes and tank contains are so much easier to pull off it's ridiculous.
it's funny to think about and amazing to pull off but a piece of cake to counter if you're awake
highly recommended for placement matches though 
|
I actually think they arent nearly as good compared to the mighty MULES and scans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
