|
On June 04 2010 00:46 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 00:43 Madkipz wrote:
early offensive planetary fortress might actually be a worthwhile strategy Oo No, it's not.
What specifically are you referring to? His silly hypothetical that you don't have to forgo an orbital? Just build an extra cc? This is such a non-issue. We need to start ranting about battle.net 2.0 again, because these topics are just silly.
|
On June 04 2010 00:51 HalfAmazing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 00:46 Amber[LighT] wrote: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. What specifically are you referring to? His silly hypothetical that you don't have to forgo an orbital? Just build an extra cc? This is such a non-issue. We need to start ranting about battle.net 2.0 again, because these topics are just silly.
The entire OP is valuable. If I see one more facebook or b.net 2.0 rant thread I'll go crazy :p
|
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)
With the only difference being that 7 Hydras > "4.6" cannons, 1 PF > 20 Hydras.
|
I would love the idea of a Maginot line of planetary fortress- or even better planetary fortress push, or proxy  while i feel they are very very good (almost too good in the late game) i have not played enough of the beta to make a good assumption. I just wish that people would proxy, or PF push screw tanks
|
I think banelings are pretty ugly with the green goo squirting all over the place. Also, infestors leave ugly trail of goo.
And banelings tear apart marines, which I feel is not its intended purpose. I think banelings deserve a nerf.
In all seriousness,
1. Aesthetics. What is aesthetically beautiful is subjective. A korean person brought up in the forums that zealots run with a motion that is similar to the samurai. He complained that this was offensive to the public argued that this should be changed so that the zealot should have a more appropriate walk. What would you say to this argument? Should the game redesign the animation of its unit based on the biased opinion of one person? At least in his case there is more reason than there is here. You argue that it's not aesthetically beautiful. Great, there's your opinion. This person argued that zealot movement was culturally offensive. I think both arguments are pretty ridiculous, and the former worse because at least the latter has solid historical background in the specific person's culture. Also, if you think it's aesthetically bad, then you should ask for a design change, not a stat-nerf.
2. Defense should take less investment than the offense it takes to break that defense (in the manner that the defense was meant to prepare for). For example, spine crawlers should be able to take on at least one roach and at least 4 zerglings. If a spine crawler is a bad investment cost-per-cost to what it's supposed to counter, why would anyone build spine crawlers? everyone would rather build the zergling/roach alternative. The tradeoff here is that for the similar resource investment, you give up mobility for positional strength. Planetary fortress sacrifices all mobility for strong defense. Consider that once the mineral line is mined out, a PF cannot be reused, so you're giving up more than just 150/150 (iirc). Also, the reason why PF is strong is because it is surrounded by scvs and it can be repaired. A PF that's not repaired will not withstand a significant army pressure. And it's completely vulnerable by itself to air.
3. People have made posts putting forth their opinions on this thread on the points you made, just as you have put your own views by opening this thread. There will be always those who disagree, but don't say "no one has argued on the points that I brought up." It's not very right for people who took their time to give a reply that they get a disregarded because you are biased.
|
I think the passive aoe taunt should be removed but other than that it is fine. A fortress next to a mining base does not look awkward to me. It is quite a large investment and you really should be able to exert some good map control if they are spending that much on static D.
|
On June 03 2010 19:01 Grend wrote:
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.
Are you daft? People have already argued if building extra command centers to get mules is viable and the consensus was that no, it isn't. It doesn't matter if you put the fortress or the orbital command at the mining spot, so what basically happens is that you just built another command center just for the mule!
Also what do you do with the command centers you got left over from mined out sites? They got nothing else to do than fly over to your last expansion and gun up themselves to fortresses, if you look at one of those videos that is exactly what he did, he flew over a command center from a destroyed exp and made it into a fortress.
|
I think it should just be more expensive. Like 200/200 or even 250/250 (I'd still get it against Z, not against P or T though).
|
On June 04 2010 00:53 Misrah wrote:or even better planetary fortress push, or proxy
Husky did something along the lines I guess - but as he says, he played against a lesser player, so.
"THORITARY FORTRESS".
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 03 2010 22:29 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Just hit up the Unit Tester Map.
Took 20 banelings, set the "attack buildings" or whatever to auto, ovie-dropped them on the PF - 1 survived.
Did the same with another 20, however this time I had them set to control group 2, so I spammed 2x2x2x... as they dropped.
These might not be the best ways - but yeah, 19-20 does the job.
|
They need to make Contaminate disable static d like the old corruption ability did. That would help Zerg vs the PF
|
The argument about the PF being the first thing that units target is very legitmate. That, though, is probably the only part of the topic I agree with. Unfortunately the argument "it's ugly" doesn't quite fly with me in the case of Starcraft.
|
On June 04 2010 00:53 Shikyo wrote:
With the only difference being that 7 Hydras > "4.6" cannons, 1 PF > 20 Hydras.
this is a racial balance issue, it really has nothing to do with the unit. terran buildings hold better under pressure because we can repair, we make other sacrifices for that capacity (like no passive regeneration and SCVs being tied up for the entire build time of our buildings)
that's why bunker rushes have always been more viable in brood war than cannon rushes, but no one would ever say bunkers are imbalanced. you can't really make this direct comparison because there are too many mitigating factors, like map balance (can the expo's choke be forge/gate walled, is the ramp covered by the planetary fortress), the economy hit from repair time, mutas are WAY stronger in the situation (and in the matchup in general) at the same tech level
|
On June 04 2010 00:53 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +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) With the only difference being that 7 Hydras > "4.6" cannons, 1 PF > 20 Hydras.
1 pf do not beat 20 hydras and 7 hydras do not beat 4.6 cannons unless they go at them one at a time, or the cannons spread their damage while the hydras focus. And you are totally ignoring the fact that cannons are way more versatile than fortresses, allowing you to spread them out, defend against air and detect. Also fortresses costs a substantial amount of gas, usually the main draw of static defenses is that they costs just minerals which you often have in abundance by lategame since mineral only units aren't as effective then.
|
haha next time i have a 200/200 mech army i'm going to spam PFs everywhere to guard my flank while I push forward. They may be expensive, but they also cost 0 supply- unlimited!
|
This thread is getting a little derailed, so I guess it will get closed soon.
It`s fair to say that I am arrogant in that response nujgnoy, but I did not intend to. My point is only that most posts here are about the game balance of the planetary fortress in regular play, which I do not really have a problem with, nor did I intend for this thread to be centered around it. Simply speaking I made this thread to qq about mass planetary fortresses if you want, not to argument whether it in standard play is a problem (Which I have not enough experience to make any call on).
Also it does humour me that while you criticize me for being arrogant, I did try to convey that I had 2 solutions to an eventual problem: 1 for aesthethics and 1 for eventual game imbalance problems. But you seemingly failed to appreciate that, claiming that I wanted a stat change for the aesthetic problem. Some fault may lie with me for being a bad writer in english, so that may explain why you have misunderstood me. If so, please disregard this paragraph. (I meant that in the case of aesthetics a weakened version would be available in a 2x2 format (size) in addition to the PF upgrade, so that if you wanted additional protection beyond what one PF could offer you would opt for the smaller thing.)
I feel I made a good point about what I meant by aesthetics in a response here, and as it shows it has less to do with subjective measures, and more to do with how the game is designed in every other aspect than the Fortress, so I slightly disagree with that point of yours.
I really tried to understand your post Klockan, but among the anger and the slightly jumbled way you wrote it, I`m afraid you lost me  (I`m a fellow Scandinavian, and I sometimes have problems understanding even what I myself have written) Your anger seems to indicate that you think I am very wrong, but what you write seems to hint at the opposite? But I do believe that that argument was among my weakest, and I am not quite sure where he got his CC from.
|
On June 04 2010 01:10 Ocedic wrote:
They need to make Contaminate disable static d like the old corruption ability did. That would help Zerg vs the PF
zerg doesn't need help against PFs, zerg players need to be better
being able to corrupt photon cannons with the same tech as mutas was broken, there's no way around that
|
On June 04 2010 01:20 Grend wrote:I really tried to understand your post Klockan, but among the anger and the slightly jumbled way you wrote it, I`m afraid you lost me (I`m a fellow Scandinavian, and I sometimes have problems understanding even what I myself have written) Your anger seems to indicate that you think I am very wrong, but what you write seems to hint at the opposite? But I do believe that that argument was among my weakest, and I am not quite sure where he got his CC from.
I am not angry, I just thought that the logic was very strange. You argued that there was no choice since you could just build more cc's to become fortresses. But on the other hand none is building additional cc's to mule... Hence the mule is a better investment overall, the only reason you would build additional cc to make a pf is if it is an extremely important place where for example protoss would build 5 cannons, but how often do protoss build 5 cannons at a single place?
|
I'm assuming the Overseer's Corrupt ability doesn't stop its ability to fire? Because that seems like something that should be allowed.
|
Maybe Blizzard should fix the amount of SCVs that could repair it. Put a limit, or something.
|
On June 04 2010 01:31 Bibdy wrote:
I'm assuming the Overseer's Corrupt ability doesn't stop its ability to fire? Because that seems like something that should be allowed.
Welcome to patch 14. This ability has been changed couple patches ago.
What I find weird is that a PF has attack priority...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
