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.
The AI auto attacking the planetary fortress is a known issue since the beginning of the beta. I hope more known players will abuse this, so maybe blizzard will see this issue.
Attacking a terran camping at is planetary fortress is very problematic with zergling or ultralisks. Terran will just say "you must drop!", they are right it's the only way to make a good attack if the terran has a planetary fortress.
It is not 100% gamebreaker but it's not normal that one structure disable every possibility to attack with melee units without drop.
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
Are you suggesting to "timing attack" a set-up mech terran while he's building something equivalent to one Siege tank? It's like telling Zerg to timing attack at 8 tanks, before terran gets his 9. tank. And no, minerals really don't count as a cost in mech.
Well, with 2 overseers you can shut a planetary fortress down for a whole minute, or 2 minutes if they stockpile to 150 energy. So idk why people aren't doing that more. Also broodlords outrange missle turrets, so planetary + turrets can't defend against broodlords.
On June 03 2010 20:25 slowmanrunning wrote: Well, with 2 overseers you can shut a planetary fortress down for a whole minute, or 2 minutes if they stockpile to 150 energy. So idk why people aren't doing that more. Also broodlords outrange missle turrets, so planetary + turrets can't defend against broodlords.
It doesn't get corrupted by overseers. read the previous posts.
On June 03 2010 20:25 slowmanrunning wrote: Well, with 2 overseers you can shut a planetary fortress down for a whole minute, or 2 minutes if they stockpile to 150 energy. So idk why people aren't doing that more. Also broodlords outrange missle turrets, so planetary + turrets can't defend against broodlords.
The mech build gets a million billion vikings so broodlords can only do so much, and the corrupt thing doesn't work according to patch notes. Maybe there's a mistake there though.
I don't like those exeptions for spells. The corruption not working on the planetary fortress and the thor's stun or mind control not working on ultralisks (it's obvious that blizzard designed frenzy for ultralisks).
This is idiot because it's the main purpose of those spells, stun & mind control to counter big units and corruption to disable important buildings. If blizzard is afraid of the imbalance of those spell they shouldn't put them in the game.
On June 03 2010 20:32 HubertFelix wrote: I don't like those exeptions for spells. The corruption not working on the planetary fortress and the thor's stun or mind control not working on ultralisks (it's obvious that blizzard designed frenzy for ultralisks).
This is idiot because it's the main purpose of those spells, stun & mind control to counter big units and corruption to disable important buildings. If blizzard is afraid of the imbalance of those spell they shouldn't put them in the game.
It's not an exception. Read the post I linked, please. The new ability Contaminate (Overseer) IS NOT THE SAME as the old version of Corruption (Corruptor). It doesn't disable any buildings, this isn't an exception for planetary fortress.
On June 03 2010 20:25 slowmanrunning wrote: Well, with 2 overseers you can shut a planetary fortress down for a whole minute, or 2 minutes if they stockpile to 150 energy. So idk why people aren't doing that more. Also broodlords outrange missle turrets, so planetary + turrets can't defend against broodlords.
Their ability is not the same as corruption was. It does not stop attacking, so it's useless to cast it on defensive buildings.
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)
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.
This is irrelevant, it is as powerful as a ground army ONLY if it gets repaired by SCVs, and this is the main reason it is so strong in some situations. So the investment is actually even higher than what I said.
This said, it's a static defense, while the said army is mobile, which is the downpart of that. Plus, it does nothing against air.
Honestly it might be strong in some cases, but it's as good as it should be.
Edit : and yeah, Travin point is solid. If PF is not fine, nor are cannons.
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)
Cannons do not splash, can be killed one at a time (pf remains 100% dps until dead) and can't be repaired faster than you can kill them
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)
Cannons do not splash, can be killed one at a time (pf remains 100% dps until dead) and can't be repaired faster than you can kill them
They can also be built one at a time, for smaller investments, and they can be arranged in ways that make them easier to defend (such as behind simcities).
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)
Cannons do not splash, can be killed one at a time (pf remains 100% dps until dead) and can't be repaired faster than you can kill them
They can also be built one at a time, for smaller investments, and they can be arranged in ways that make them easier to defend (such as behind simcities).
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.
So one player uses it to his advantage in a creative manner and right away you cry foul and want changes done? Come on.
If he spent the 550/150 to get it he *should* be getting something good out of it right? It's not like it's an impenetrable defense either.. it doesn't hit air for one.
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 21:06 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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 01:20 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?
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...
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...
What do you mean? That it target fires banelings over Roaches, or something? I think that's the case with every unit's AI. Every unit has a built-in 'threat' value associated with them in the data. Its just more obvious with this thing because its always sitting there without orders (always relying on its standard AI) and will have units coming at it from all directions.
On June 04 2010 01:35 Atrio wrote: Maybe Blizzard should fix the amount of SCVs that could repair it. Put a limit, or something.
blizzard doesn't really make artificial fixes like that, they'd either have to make a pathing change to command centers in general or SCVs in general to limit it which would both have too many other effects
Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
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...
I agree. As Nazgul pointed it out, it shouldn't have attack priority. Denies any attack close to it, such as harassing.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
also for terran: siege tanks/thors/banshee, for protoss, void rays/collosus/ immortals, for zerg: spreading roaches out alot and using burrow, mutalisks, burrow micro (attack form two areas and as the PF turns to attack you burrow your units, so it then keeps spinning to the otherside and you unburrow and reburrow effectively to keep it spinning while you get in range. it takes alot of micro and stuff but it's doable. Ultralisks. 2 ultralisks can take down a PF and live. 1 to kill workers the other to kill the PF.
Hey guys. Just thought I would add my two cents to this discussion.
I am a high ranking Diamond player (10 in my division as of last night) and I have found a lot of success by opening with a PF on my main. I know this sounds insane, but honestly it puts a stop to almost any early rush. Combined with a fast (hidden) expo, it allows me to hold off early attacks easily.
My build order confuses the hell out of opponents and forces them to change their tactics. I usually go:
10 - Depot 11 - Gas (3 on gas right away) 12 - Engineering bay 16 - Expo 17 or 19 - PF 19 - Range upgrade
Then start building production at your expo. I can provide quite a few reps of this if anyone is interested. I have at least 50 replays of it working and 40 of it not.
This is unusual, but it seems to work. My opponents usually concentrate very hard on breaking open the PF to get at the sweet delicious innards, and they don't notice my expo until much, much later.
With the above build you can basically get the PF whenever you have enough gas. I will get it very early if I see a 6-7-8 pool or a proxy Reaper or proxy gates. The PF melts zerglings and even does quite well against Toss.
Now, is the PF overpowered? NO!
Terran deal with it the easiest - Tanks, or if the player is smart he will sit just out of range with Marines or Marauders and take out every structure that ISNT the PF, as well as the SCVs. When the tanks DO finally come it's game over for the PF.
Protoss - Immortals or just mass stalkers usually spell the end of any PF. Even if you repair constantly you can only really hold off maybe 8-10 stalkers. Again with ranged units you can dance around the PF and kill everything else in sight.
Zerg - Zerg probably has the hardest time dealing with the PF, but banelings, or even better Hydras + Lings can take it out easy. Again the best thing to do in this case is ignore the PF and kill everything else.
Air can also work if the terran isn't super-turtling with turrets everywhere.
Basically, it is an interesting way to delay your opponent and stave off rushes. The greatest sacrifice you make with a PF opener is map control and unit production. It does help with some annoying rushes, but it also greatly depends on the map you are playing. On Desert Oasis, for example, Reapers still do a lot of damage to your economy when they jump up that cliff. The PF can't hit them at the edge, but they can kill your SCVs, gas, etc.
Just thought I would get a word in here, because if there's something in SC2 I know about, it's using the PF.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
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...
What do you mean? That it target fires banelings over Roaches, or something? I think that's the case with every unit's AI. Every unit has a built-in 'threat' value associated with them in the data. Its just more obvious with this thing because its always sitting there without orders (always relying on its standard AI) and will have units coming at it from all directions.
The other way around, Units prefer to shoot the planetary fortress rather than units
The attack priority I think is the biggest issue, because if you are fighting a small defending force and a PF, the PF just tanks all the damage, unless you manual attack, which is quite difficult to do (this is for both pvt and pvz). If the priority was lower, players could choose to a-move workers or a-move the defending force, and then walk past the fortress. Of course, the PF could be focused fired by manual click.
Regarding building multiple PF's for defense, there SHOULD be multiple ways to exploit this as protoss and zerg, as long as the terran players don't learn to turtle like flash and negate all the possibilities.
On June 04 2010 02:49 Chronopolis wrote: The attack priority I think is the biggest issue, because if you are fighting a small defending force and a PF, the PF just tanks all the damage, unless you manual attack, which is quite difficult to do (this is for both pvt and pvz). If the priority was lower, players could choose to a-move workers or a-move the defending force, and then walk past the fortress. Of course, the PF could be focused fired by manual click.
As Nazgul touched on, this is the only thing that makes the PF kind of ridiculous.
Building a planetary fortress is kind of like building permanent "soft" dark swarm. If you attack with your army normally (even if you spent good time pre-positioning properly), you will just end up doing no damage and will be held off by minimal forces.
The APM required to macro and to micro your army by right-clicking every single unit in the opposing army (even assuming they are standing still) is pretty insane. So attacking into a planetary fortress (even with a ~maxed army) is just a no-go. Imagine if in TvZ, destructible rocks had attack priority for Zerg.
Even if you "nerf" the planetary fortress by making it have normal army priority, it will still be pretty damned good at defending expansions. It creates a large zone of protection around itself that a small defensive army can maneuver around and it can be rapidly repaired. It just won't act like dark swarm any more.
Imagine how imba Tank Hellion would be if upon getting hit by a tank, a Zerg unit would try to path directly to the Tank, even with Hellions blocking the way. This is kind of what the planetary fortress is like right now.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
You, you and you! You forgot the Bunker! What is the meaning of this blasphemy!?
You still need to fill it with something, though. Which either means leaving some of your army behind to defend while you go gallivanting off to admire the countryside, or exposing yourself to sneak attacks. Protoss and Zerg can just build some supply-less defenses to protect from most stuff. They're not perfect, but they can stall for time or outright stop sneak attacks on expansions from Speedlings, Hellions, DTs, Zealot drops etc.
Terrans that spam Orbital Commands are very vulnerable to Dark Templar attacks. Sure, they probably always have a lot of energy to scan them, but they probably aren't going to leave units spread across the map to thwart attacks from all sides.
Its a trade-off. Do you sacrifice Orbital Commands to have decent defenses from sneak attacks on your expansions, do you take the risk and spread units around the place for defense, or do you invest in building a Planetary Fortress next to all of your Orbital Commands (like TLO does), reducing the size of your army, but securing your positions.
On June 04 2010 03:16 tarsier wrote: the attack priority thing does seem like a problem, but honestly why would you be fighting enemy forces within the attack range of a PF?
I don't know, to kill SCVs or destroy an expand when you have the advantage?
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
You, you and you! You forgot the Bunker! What is the meaning of this blasphemy!?
I did not forget the bunker.
The bunker requires that you fill it with supply units to make it work. This means that your standing army is weaker so you had to sacrifice 2 tanks as Terran to have a full bunker at home.
I see no problems with this and realize that although he may ahve used this in higher stakes games, it's not an original idea. Many people were even talking about doing that before the beta came out, myself included.
I really dislike your asthetic argument. It looks like a friggin' fortress, what's the problem with that? Why should it have to be constructed near minerals? That argument is literally of ZERO importance to me.
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
On June 04 2010 02:05 Jayme wrote:
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
You, you and you! You forgot the Bunker! What is the meaning of this blasphemy!?
I did not forget the bunker.
The bunker requires that you fill it with supply units to make it work. This means that your standing army is weaker so you had to sacrifice 2 tanks as Terran to have a full bunker at home.
someone lifted their cc off against me and then landed in my base and made a PF. It was quite comical. I could imagine it working at least once vs a protoss player :D. Obviously to defend it you just dont let it land, but it will rape everything on the ground you throw at it when you bring your scvs to repair.
I dont think its IMBA from my limited experience though. If it attacked air, ya it would be horribly imbalanced.
On June 04 2010 03:16 tarsier wrote: the attack priority thing does seem like a problem, but honestly why would you be fighting enemy forces within the attack range of a PF?
I don't know, to kill SCVs or destroy an expand when you have the advantage?
is that how you usually kill SCVs? attack the expo where their army already is?
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
On June 04 2010 02:05 Jayme wrote:
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
You, you and you! You forgot the Bunker! What is the meaning of this blasphemy!?
I did not forget the bunker.
The bunker requires that you fill it with supply units to make it work. This means that your standing army is weaker so you had to sacrifice 2 tanks as Terran to have a full bunker at home.
o.O
Tanks in bunkers?!
i think he means that a full bunker costs 4 rines at 1 supply each. that 4 supply could have been used as tanks if you're maxed
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.
What a cool and great idea!! Adding a D-matrix onto the PF... holy shit, that'd be awesome. Seems wholly sensible for the PF to have such an ability in the lategame as the armies get quite big.
But to respond to the OP, I agree that the PF seems a little robust for its cost and availability. Perhaps moving its unlockability to Factory instead of Engineering Bay would be better?
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
Woah, hang on. How is this different to SCBW? Terrans have always had to rely on using actual units for defense. That's why they're the defensive race. Giving them the PF is just further evidence that the Terran army is no longer this 'Immobile Beast' that a lot of Terran veterans keep claiming.
Oh and yeah, if that's what you mean by target priority, that's retarded. I don't want my units firing at the giant, repairable, high armour monstrosity, when they're getting fired on by his actual army, too.
On June 04 2010 02:05 Jayme wrote:
On June 04 2010 01:44 ymirheim wrote: Terran does not have any anti ground defensive structure before the planetary fortress. Think about that for a second, zerg got spine crawlers and protoss got photon cannons which are cheap and available very early. The only defensive structure that the terran can build come at the cost of an expansion. It is insanely expensive and extremely localized. It is not like you can set up a defensive grid of PF's early on, if you can afford it you can pretty much set up one at the most key choke you can think of while zerg/protoss can set up a grid of defense to cover all important points. The PF makes up for its lack of covering a lot of ground by having splash and thus covering really well within its range, and it makes up for the fact that it is so expensive by doing a lot of damage.
I agree though that it should not have firing priority for the AI in the sense that your units auto targets the PF over other units, that I am perfectly fine with having changed but otherwise I feel that it is perfectly balanced.
The fact that they never had anti-ground defense in a structure that didn't take supply was pretty much a part of what Terran were.
The reason their ground army was allowed to be so insanely powerful was because they weren't mobile at all. If they left their base, it would stand a strong chance of DYING.
With PF this isn't really the case anymore.
The attack priority is whats extremely annoying about it though.
You, you and you! You forgot the Bunker! What is the meaning of this blasphemy!?
I did not forget the bunker.
The bunker requires that you fill it with supply units to make it work. This means that your standing army is weaker so you had to sacrifice 2 tanks as Terran to have a full bunker at home.
o.O
Tanks in bunkers?!
i think he means that a full bunker costs 4 rines at 1 supply each. that 4 supply could have been used as tanks if you're maxed
Tanks are 3 supply..? And that's a dumb analogy... but I can see him trying to use 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.
What you described isn't even somewhat relatively close to what happens. It's rate of fire isn't slow at all, it deals splash damage and OWNS hydralisks and stalkers, not to mention marines and zerglings. At the same time, the armor is so high that they do little dmg in return. It not only effectively shuts down harassment but can massively tank midsize armies.
If you make a CC and a PF the Z can take 2 more bases. PF doesn't do anything to defend vs drops. I unfortunately can't play SC2 since 1.13 so I don't know how the overseer ability is, but any time I would ZvT and they made a PF i would make a single corruptor to disable it. I would imagine the ability they gave the overseer would do the same thing, no?
"It's not being used as intended" is a valid argument from the people who worship muta-stacking...?
Moreover, since when is Starcraft "a game in which units have clearly defined roles"? This definitely doesn't describe BW, in which there are quite a few catch-all units doing all sorts of things. In fact, that's what makes it interesting.
And the Terran imba shitstorm continues ... it seems to me that most people would rather complain on TL about everything they lost to, rather than finding a way to beat it. Seriously ... the Planetary Fortress?
Doesn't anyone wonder why good terrans always seem to get OC's? That's right. Because they need the scans and extra income by Mule's (and ocassionally Drop Supply). But since TLO spammed PF's once it's imba? (did he even win that game?).
First of all PF's are beaten in cost efficiency by photon cannons which for the same cost do more damage, shoot both ground and air and double as detector ... You can outrange the PF --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it by air --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it with cloaked units --> it's a 550/150 paperweight. Or you could just kill them before they turn into PF's, since a CC takes ages to build and then another age to morph it to a PF.
But no! I have a better idea ... I will take my army and run it into his PF/ Siege tank/ Turret/ Bunker wall ... that ought to do the trick! :D
... wait what!?
my army melted ... imba!
So guys, let's try to adapt to the game rather than demanding it to adapt to our every demand. Because on a brighter note, when terrans begin leaving their bases defended by only turrets and PF's ... Ultralisks would become viable! Yeah.
PS.
To OP ... ofcourse Blizzard designs everything with a certain goal in mind (awesomess) but even in SC, the most balanced game ever according to SC fans, units and buildings were used in original ways to get an edge over the opponent. Muta stacking certainly wasn't a choice of design but people found out about it and used it to their advantage.
When you get cannon/ bunker rushed, what are you going to do? Try to convince your opponent bunkers and cannons are for base defense only? Or that it's aesthatically unpleasant?
The problem with the planetary fortress (like the sensor tower) is how they interact with mech play. Terran mech is much stronger than any other composition in the game in a head-to-head conflict, but is balanced by its immobility. Blizzard seems to have put planetary fortresses and sensor towers into the game so that a good player will be able to compensate for his mech's immobility by seeing an attack coming a few seconds early and having easily placed high-HP defensive structures at each expo to buy a few more seconds for his army to move. The problem isn't that the PF is too strong on its own. The problem is that it's too good at compensating for mech's only weakness.
On June 04 2010 05:17 Saechiis wrote: And the Terran imba shitstorm continues ... it seems to me that most people would rather complain on TL about everything they lost to, rather than finding a way to beat it. Seriously ... the Planetary Fortress?
Doesn't anyone wonder why good terrans always seem to get OC's? That's right. Because they need the scans and extra income by Mule's (and ocassionally Drop Supply). But since TLO spammed PF's once it's imba? (did he even win that game?).
First of all PF's are beaten in cost efficiency by photon cannons which for the same cost do more damage, shoot both ground and air and double as detector ... You can outrange the PF --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it by air --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it with cloaked units --> it's a 550/150 paperweight. Or you could just kill them before they turn into PF's, since a CC takes ages to build and then another age to morph it to a PF.
But no! I have a better idea ... I will take my army and run it into his PF/ Siege tank/ Turret/ Bunker wall ... that ought to do the trick! :D
... wait what!?
my army melted ... imba!
So guys, let's try to adapt to the game rather than demanding it to adapt to our every demand. Because on a brighter note, when terrans begin leaving their bases defended by only turrets and PF's ... Ultralisks would become viable! Yeah.
PS.
To OP ... ofcourse Blizzard designs everything with a certain goal in mind (awesomess) but even in SC, the most balanced game ever according to SC fans, units and buildings were used in original ways to get an edge over the opponent. Muta stacking certainly wasn't a choice of design but people found out about it and used it to their advantage.
When you get cannon/ bunker rushed, what are you going to do? Try to convince your opponent bunkers and cannons are for base defense only? Or that it's aesthatically unpleasant?
I feel like your post was just a bunch of rambling.
And I'd take a PF over 5 photon cannons as the PF does splash and can be repaired.
On June 04 2010 05:17 Saechiis wrote: And the Terran imba shitstorm continues ... it seems to me that most people would rather complain on TL about everything they lost to, rather than finding a way to beat it. Seriously ... the Planetary Fortress?
Doesn't anyone wonder why good terrans always seem to get OC's? That's right. Because they need the scans and extra income by Mule's (and ocassionally Drop Supply). But since TLO spammed PF's once it's imba? (did he even win that game?).
First of all PF's are beaten in cost efficiency by photon cannons which for the same cost do more damage, shoot both ground and air and double as detector ... You can outrange the PF --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it by air --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it with cloaked units --> it's a 550/150 paperweight. Or you could just kill them before they turn into PF's, since a CC takes ages to build and then another age to morph it to a PF.
But no! I have a better idea ... I will take my army and run it into his PF/ Siege tank/ Turret/ Bunker wall ... that ought to do the trick! :D
... wait what!?
my army melted ... imba!
So guys, let's try to adapt to the game rather than demanding it to adapt to our every demand. Because on a brighter note, when terrans begin leaving their bases defended by only turrets and PF's ... Ultralisks would become viable! Yeah.
PS.
To OP ... ofcourse Blizzard designs everything with a certain goal in mind (awesomess) but even in SC, the most balanced game ever according to SC fans, units and buildings were used in original ways to get an edge over the opponent. Muta stacking certainly wasn't a choice of design but people found out about it and used it to their advantage.
When you get cannon/ bunker rushed, what are you going to do? Try to convince your opponent bunkers and cannons are for base defense only? Or that it's aesthatically unpleasant?
I think you are overreacting. For example my comment on PF attack priority had nothing to do with race balance and everything to do with game balance. For the fun of the game I think PF attack priority should be removed. Like Morrow said you can just never attack it and expand yourself, but to keep SC2 a dynamic game there should at the very least be a slight possibility of attacking a PF with an army next to it if you have enough units to do so.
Pretty sure a lot of the comments in this thread are made with this in mind and not so much pure race balance of saying T > P.
Has anyone actually lost a game because of a Planetary Fortress? In all the games I've played, I don't recall having ever been repelled by one, nor having staved off any serious attack by having one. The only benefit I've gotten from it is keeping away some light harrassment. I don't even bother building them most of the time, since I'd rather use the resources for another tank, Viking, or Medivac. They're really not that big of a problem to deal with, any more than dealing with a sieged tank or two.
No actual comments on balance here from me. But I'm starting to think Terran's got it pretty good with their defense of T mechanics, which is "just don't attack it." Terran Mech army? LOL@U just don't attack it dummy. PF? LOL@U just don't attack it dummy.
I like this strategy... man TheLittleOne is hilarious.
If this becomes part of a standard Terran strategy, it will become anticipated, scouted, and prevented. There are certain strategies in SC1 that must be prevented as well, because they're so hard to stop once they're going. There are aesthetically bad things in pro SC1 games (muta clump) but we accept this.
Realistically, if this became predictable, it would be important to scout and destroy their Engineering Bays early to prevent this upgrade, and missile turrets. EngBays don't even float in this game, so that's easier. Siege Tanks have higher range than the PF, and the Yamato Cannon can out-range it too.
I am overreacting, it's the hard counter to whiny people That said I wasn't replying to anything in particular, I just felt that this would become another Terran imba thread and tried to pre-emptively nuke everyone with reasons the PF sucks (which it kinda does in comparison to the much cheaper OC).
Ofcourse you have a point on the PF being an annoying attack priority. But in reality you barely see any PF's. Morphing to a PF means the player isn't confident in his ground army being able to withstand pressure. If he was confident he would have chosen the economic route. It almost gives the Zerg and Protoss a hint to the opponents army-composition, strength and confidence.
In cases like TLO who was maxxed out and needed to dump his minerals it will be annoying, but in such late stages of the game Zerg should definately have Broodlords and Corrupters out to dominate.
I think some people have already pointed this out, but the awesome part of starcraft is that there is no unit is going to be limited to the "role" that blizzard gave it. In fact I think they want you to be able to expand the role of a unit.
So when you say that the PF is not being used as intended, I actually think that is a good thing. It shows the strategic depth of the game.
So I don't agree with the OP, but I definitely see the merits of lowering its attack priority. I think it would be fun to see more DoTA style turret dives to take out mules or key units or something.
On June 04 2010 06:43 Wolfpox wrote: I like this strategy... man TheLittleOne is hilarious.
If this becomes part of a standard Terran strategy, it will become anticipated, scouted, and prevented. There are certain strategies in SC1 that must be prevented as well, because they're so hard to stop once they're going. There are aesthetically bad things in pro SC1 games (muta clump) but we accept this.
Realistically, if this became predictable, it would be important to scout and destroy their Engineering Bays early to prevent this upgrade, and missile turrets. EngBays don't even float in this game, so that's easier. Siege Tanks have higher range than the PF, and the Yamato Cannon can out-range it too.
I feel like the bold comment of your thread is anything but realistic... why would you possibly destroy their ebays when it can be remade so easily and repaired while being attacked? If you waste units killing the e-bay then their need for the P-fort is that much less...
On June 04 2010 05:17 Saechiis wrote: And the Terran imba shitstorm continues ... it seems to me that most people would rather complain on TL about everything they lost to, rather than finding a way to beat it. Seriously ... the Planetary Fortress?
Doesn't anyone wonder why good terrans always seem to get OC's? That's right. Because they need the scans and extra income by Mule's (and ocassionally Drop Supply). But since TLO spammed PF's once it's imba? (did he even win that game?).
First of all PF's are beaten in cost efficiency by photon cannons which for the same cost do more damage, shoot both ground and air and double as detector ... You can outrange the PF --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it by air --> it's a 550/150 paperweight, attack it with cloaked units --> it's a 550/150 paperweight. Or you could just kill them before they turn into PF's, since a CC takes ages to build and then another age to morph it to a PF.
But no! I have a better idea ... I will take my army and run it into his PF/ Siege tank/ Turret/ Bunker wall ... that ought to do the trick! :D
... wait what!?
my army melted ... imba!
So guys, let's try to adapt to the game rather than demanding it to adapt to our every demand. Because on a brighter note, when terrans begin leaving their bases defended by only turrets and PF's ... Ultralisks would become viable! Yeah.
PS.
To OP ... ofcourse Blizzard designs everything with a certain goal in mind (awesomess) but even in SC, the most balanced game ever according to SC fans, units and buildings were used in original ways to get an edge over the opponent. Muta stacking certainly wasn't a choice of design but people found out about it and used it to their advantage.
When you get cannon/ bunker rushed, what are you going to do? Try to convince your opponent bunkers and cannons are for base defense only? Or that it's aesthatically unpleasant?
I feel like your post was just a bunch of rambling.
And I'd take a PF over 5 photon cannons as the PF does splash and can be repaired.
Yes, in comparison to your pure objectiveness and multi-layered argumentation my words seem worthless.
PS. I'll just attack your PF with muta's, you just keep using your minerals and SCV's for repairs
My only argument for the planetary fortress' legitimacy is that no player can win the game camping at his PF. As long as someone does that, you have the choice to expand freely around the map.
I found a couple of things that were not brought up. at least no in specific detail
we keep bringing up the fact that PF is good against a large ground army. Ok. so large army, now we are assuming for a decently lengthed game. for arguments purposes, lets say its a 12 minute game.
In 12 minutes, assuming it takes 2 minutes to get an orbital command. You are sacraficing 10 mules, 10 mules@270 minerals, you are sacraficing the startup cost of 150gas(not counting minerals as it cost the same as OC) 2700 minerals. so now we are at 2700minerals 150 gas in 12 minutes. From a financial standpoint we just really need to look at the sacrafices a PF really brings to the battlefield.
Also those ignoring the hard counters to a planetary fortress are basically stating that they should be able to counter something in a way that they want to counter it. I mean, seriously, at least 2 counters per race, with or without turrets. Fine by me, ignore what your oppnent is doing and just counter blindly, have fun in the bronze league.
Now on a side note, in gold leage, I do scout before PF or OC and will go PF if i see an early pool, after that I plan to quickly expand as I know I have some econ to make up for.
Theory crafting im working on. Is it worth it to PF the choke up to a essential Zel'naga tower such as on lost ruins? scv to activate/repair light damage on tower. Serves as a massive distraction, excellent map control and some longevity even during a frontal assault.
in the eyes of a terran, the PF is mostly a very large very expensive, very long to build seiged tank with high hp that can make scvs and bring back money, unprotected can easily be out ranged w/o upgrade or sniped, its splash isn't much unless your using unarmored units. Many of the theory craft strats ive been thinking about is using it for central map control with bunkers and turrets in the center of a map or at the enemies' natural
There is a hidden cost of a planetary fortress that everyone ignores. You cant get an orbital command. This in my mind makes it more of an investment than 550/150 but whatever. I would agree that PF may be a little too powerful in the mid/high diamond games I play, but pros have to trouble killing them. If you zerg you can kill one with minimal damage if you use a few roaches and some hydras behind them.
The priority may be imba, I have won a few games because of it.
I would be really, really sad if the Planetary fortress was changed in a way that no longer made it worthwhile. I think using it as a ground defense is a good tool. I don't see it as being wrong in design. You point out a lot of advantage of the planetary fortress, but does it actually make the terran too strong? It has yet to be proved. Blizzard have the numbers, and they will nerf it if needed. On my side, I very much appreciate the role of the PF.
I've always felt that the PF is underpowered in the sense that it's nearly always worse than an orbital command. If it were to be weakened, I would like it to be changed so that instead of doing massive amounts of damage to enemy armies, it acts as a defensive building... charging nearby vehicles and aircraft with energy or health.
To weaken the planetary fortress so that it can be easily killed by moderately sized armies is to remove it from high level play.
I'm a crappy Terran player, but I wouldn't mind at all if they lowered the attack priority of the PF. I think it should probably be a higher attack priority than the SCVs next to it, though. Just my opinion, of course.
Granted it costs 400 extra minerals, but as the replays show, this apparently is viable in even very high levels of play.
-Visual clutter
- 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.
Doesnt it cost an extra 150/150? 450/150 if you count the CC
Visual clutter? how?
I dont really think that many scvs will be available to repair the planetary fortress.
On June 03 2010 19:33 cArn- wrote: 550/150 is not an investment already ?
when you see the mineral income advantage that mules give, no its not at all.
Even though im not a zerg(protoss) i find one of this alone is enough to deter me from attacking a base, they are soooooo fucking strong its not even funny.
i even lost games attacking into one of these because of it..
something has to be done about them, increase the gas cost a bunch or higher in the tech tree
On June 23 2010 06:07 sadeiko wrote: I found a couple of things that were not brought up. at least no in specific detail
we keep bringing up the fact that PF is good against a large ground army. Ok. so large army, now we are assuming for a decently lengthed game. for arguments purposes, lets say its a 12 minute game.
In 12 minutes, assuming it takes 2 minutes to get an orbital command. You are sacraficing 10 mules, 10 mules@270 minerals, you are sacraficing the startup cost of 150gas(not counting minerals as it cost the same as OC) 2700 minerals. so now we are at 2700minerals 150 gas in 12 minutes. From a financial standpoint we just really need to look at the sacrafices a PF really brings to the battlefield.
Also those ignoring the hard counters to a planetary fortress are basically stating that they should be able to counter something in a way that they want to counter it. I mean, seriously, at least 2 counters per race, with or without turrets. Fine by me, ignore what your oppnent is doing and just counter blindly, have fun in the bronze league.
Now on a side note, in gold leage, I do scout before PF or OC and will go PF if i see an early pool, after that I plan to quickly expand as I know I have some econ to make up for.
Theory crafting im working on. Is it worth it to PF the choke up to a essential Zel'naga tower such as on lost ruins? scv to activate/repair light damage on tower. Serves as a massive distraction, excellent map control and some longevity even during a frontal assault.
You arent losing any minerals and the chances are from what the OP described its going to be defending a base with an OC already there, i mean what are your other OC doing? idle? Unless you completly dont make the OC's at all you arent losing mining speed even in the slightest
changing it's attack priority to be below an SCV that is repairing, but above SCVs who are mining would fix the major problem with it that I see. Melee units that can't get to the PF will run around behind the SCVs repairing not attacking them. Yes you can micro your way to victory by individually killing each scv, but by then you've lost your army to the massive splash.
On June 03 2010 19:11 shlomo wrote: I don't so much mind the planetary fortress in itself, but I do think it's a little too cheap / easily available. Should be more of an investment imo.
It costs over 500 minerals + gas (I think) and the time it takes to make the CC + morph it.
That is a STEEP cost in most phases of the game.
As for "feels wrong", that's a personal opinion that you can't just throw on it and say we should change it. I for one love the PF and think it looks fine to build it places. The thing you take for granted is the incredibly steep cost that could go towards another expansion.
Not only that, it's pretty easily taken out by most non-squishy things (Marauders, Roaches can work, Ultralisks destroy it) and any type of air because static defense sucks against air (Mutalisks, Void Rays, etc... all destroy static defense in good numbers).
Finally, you're sacrificing both Scans and MULEs to make a Planetary Fortress (+ the option to move it).
Sounds like a great idea on paper, but get into a game and try to use if to good effect. It's a terrible idea early game because of the resource sink.
Does the splash damage hit friendly units as well? If so, microing melee units next to repairing SCVs seems pretty worth it even if you have to queue-attack all of them individually.
PF are the most expensive structure in the game, sorry a control group of hydras/lings cant kill it... a PF+CC=3hatch +gas... get over it, Terran is very weak versus Zerg in the early and midgame... this is like me saying hydras are hard as .. to kill, nerf them, it is part of the game... get some mutas, do some drops, do something other than a-move. The Terran just sacrificed a 3rd in order to control their second... that is a lot of money to secure an expo (that is screwed by mutas), which makes the game a bit more interesting, hence it is a good thing...
On June 23 2010 09:41 Simplification wrote: PF are the most expensive structure in the game, sorry a control group of hydras/lings cant kill it... a PF+CC=3hatch +gas... get over it, Terran is very weak versus Zerg in the early and midgame... this is like me saying hydras are hard as .. to kill, nerf them, it is part of the game... get some mutas, do some drops, do something other than a-move. The Terran just sacrificed a 3rd in order to control their second... that is a lot of money to secure an expo (that is screwed by mutas), which makes the game a bit more interesting, hence it is a good thing...
It's not about a control group of hydras or lings killing it, itst he fact that it + the scvs that repair it can hold off entire armies because of its splash.
Dont even try to say that it being that expensive justifies it being able to kill a maxed army (with a little help for the terrans army) because scvs repair it and its splash is fucking giant
in TvZ ive always put down an extra PF if I felt I was slightly behind, however I usually do so on my 3rd or 4th expo. if you can get a gold expo up and mule its really very much worth the cost.
I don't feel like it's badly designed. Balanced as is, that could be debatable. However, when a large army runs up to what is supposed to be a fortress, and an epic defense ensues with repairing scv's and desperate terran units against a larger zerg push, the planetary fortress feels like a, well, fortress.
Attack priority I understand is a concern, individually targeting scv's while they repair the fortress might be a bit rough.
On June 23 2010 09:41 Simplification wrote: PF are the most expensive structure in the game, sorry a control group of hydras/lings cant kill it... a PF+CC=3hatch +gas... get over it, Terran is very weak versus Zerg in the early and midgame... this is like me saying hydras are hard as .. to kill, nerf them, it is part of the game... get some mutas, do some drops, do something other than a-move. The Terran just sacrificed a 3rd in order to control their second... that is a lot of money to secure an expo (that is screwed by mutas), which makes the game a bit more interesting, hence it is a good thing...
It's not about a control group of hydras or lings killing it, itst he fact that it + the scvs that repair it can hold off entire armies because of its splash.
Dont even try to say that it being that expensive justifies it being able to kill a maxed army (with a little help for the terrans army) because scvs repair it and its splash is fucking giant
Lol if you mean the terran army with a little help from the PF can hold of a max zerg lol not other way around. They are good they are not THAT good lol.
I like this Planetary fortress strategy. The more options there are that are viable, the more flexible and interesting games are. TLO games are much more fun to watch and he really keeps players wondering. From a strategy standpoint, more options is a good thing (Baneling vs baneling zerg anyone)?
In response to mutalisks, they aren't ideal building destroyers, and tbh vs 5 armor when PF is upgraded reduces their damage significantly further.
If you're a zerg that is worried about PFs, you can always use Overseers to corrupt the PF and it won't be able to attack for the duration of the fight. No research is required either and it doesn't cost too much energy. Overseers are also usually something that is commonly built vs ghosts and banshees.
I honestly think it's the easiest way to deal with PFs.
On June 23 2010 12:00 Petshop wrote: If you're a zerg that is worried about PFs, you can always use Overseers to corrupt the PF and it won't be able to attack for the duration of the fight. No research is required either and it doesn't cost too much energy. Overseers are also usually something that is commonly built vs ghosts and banshees.
I honestly think it's the easiest way to deal with PFs.
Edit: Changed the word gas to Energy.
Incorrect. Contaminate only affects production; it does not shut down a building fully like corruption did.
On June 23 2010 12:00 Petshop wrote: If you're a zerg that is worried about PFs, you can always use Overseers to corrupt the PF and it won't be able to attack for the duration of the fight. No research is required either and it doesn't cost too much energy. Overseers are also usually something that is commonly built vs ghosts and banshees.
I honestly think it's the easiest way to deal with PFs.
Edit: Changed the word gas to Energy.
After they move the ability from corruptors to overseers it no longer works on def buildings like PF. It will stop the workers but not the guns.
To all those who whine about the PF being too strong:
Every race has its unit which outranges the PF ... and guess what? All these units have splash damage (even the Broodlings deal splash damage when the PF hits them and thus they kill SCVs).
The rate of fire is pretty slow and it needs just how many shots to kill a Hydralisk? Two to three (the splash damage is higher than the main target damage). There are no damage upgrades for building attacks, so this wont change and it will get worse over time.
If there are no SCVs repairing a PF it can be killed in three seconds and that means just one shot, because the turret turns soooo slow and is usually pointing in the wrong way. A PF at a strategic location usually does NOT have 20 SCVs standing by to repair it in a crisis and even calling down MULEs takes a few seconds before they start repairing. It is not hard to kill in most situations.
If you expect to be able to kill a unit / defensive structure with small or soft units it is your own fault when it goes badly. It is the same for siege tanks, but sadly the whining already has made Blizzard follow the logic and change the damage.
Dont bring a sword to a gunfight and expect to have a chance of winning!
Man, I moved an army into my opponents nat on sCRAP station... boy, that was the biggest mistake Ive ever made... I had several immortals stalkers, zealots and sentries, but combined with his marauders stimming down the ramp behind me and the tanks on the cliff, my army lasted just a tiny fraction of a second. Forcefield didnt do anything. Guardian shield didnt do anything. My zealots melted, my immortals apparently had a massive achilles heal and my stalkers blinked out of existence.
I dont know if id call it overpowered, but it is incredibly intimidating. Maybe if there were a way to disable the gun separately from the CC itself...
On June 23 2010 13:57 Rabiator wrote: To all those who whine about the PF being too strong:
Every race has its unit which outranges the PF ... and guess what? All these units have splash damage (even the Broodlings deal splash damage when the PF hits them and thus they kill SCVs).
The rate of fire is pretty slow and it needs just how many shots to kill a Hydralisk? Two to three (the splash damage is higher than the main target damage). There are no damage upgrades for building attacks, so this wont change and it will get worse over time.
If there are no SCVs repairing a PF it can be killed in three seconds and that means just one shot, because the turret turns soooo slow and is usually pointing in the wrong way. A PF at a strategic location usually does NOT have 20 SCVs standing by to repair it in a crisis and even calling down MULEs takes a few seconds before they start repairing. It is not hard to kill in most situations.
If you expect to be able to kill a unit / defensive structure with small or soft units it is your own fault when it goes badly. It is the same for siege tanks, but sadly the whining already has made Blizzard follow the logic and change the damage.
Dont bring a sword to a gunfight and expect to have a chance of winning!
1. they shouldnt be forced to get broodlords just to deal with 1 planetary fortress, colossus and tanks yeah i can see you having.
2. i believe someone discovered it has what 60 splash damage? 60 damage goes to 57 because of armor wooooow thats gonna help, not only will the one hydralisk get killed in 2 shots so will the 4-5 around it.
3. if its in your base then sure i can see this happening, but since the OP described it defending mining bases why wouldnt there be scvs to repair it?
Other than the whole priority problem, which is debatable i think but agree that it prob should be equal with workers at least, i don't think there is really a problem with the PF right now. I mean yah you potentially could build them around the place but then thats a lot of money and time being sunk into static defense which lets your opponent take the rest of the map easier or attacks on undefended positions more threatening so balance wise i think its more or less fine. As to aesthetics, meh, thats going to be largely a personal thing which i don't think at all warrants a change. If Blizz did remove the PF and make a new defense building that requires no psi then your removing the decision one has to make to decide if you want an OC or the PF, eco later or safety now, and really it would be the same thing as a super beefy cannon ppl can build anywhere which to me makes even less sense from a design perspective than the current aesthetic problem of PFs around the map. Really once the game gets going more and you know actually releases i think the PF in the middle of the map will become more of a BM type of thing than a legit strat.
I guess we should change it to "Planetary Slight Defense". It's more than fine as it is... its frickin 550,150 and cannot be lifted off. Ultralisks > PF. Immortals > PF. Marauders > PF. Air > PF.
It takes 2 Ultras, that end up both living, to take out a PF. Both un-upgraded.
It takes 2 Immortals, that end up both living, to take out a PF. Both un-upgraded.
For toss they have colossus and forcefields ( FF to deal with repair ). With Z they have fungal growth ( to prevent repair ) and roachs or ultras. Excluding air of course.
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. ( BTW Ultralisks with maxed upgrades can kill almost 400 lings unupgraded, via unit tester, not that this has to do with anything ).
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.
wow. so much hate for terran. i doubt such things can be good for the game. another thread that ain't a discussion anymore.
i dont know if PF is balanced or not and i'd really like to play like at least 4 more months before calling anything imbalanced/overpowered or too strong.
my thoughts to topic:
i really like the idea of the PF and i completely disagree with it beeing badly designed
PFs are strong, but not so strong that they cant be broken. A decent # of Roaches and hydras will drop one, especially with any micro at all to kill some of the repairing SCVs first. Not to mention banelings....
Really the PF is useless vs terran b/c of siege tanks, and pretty awful vs toss too (immortals and void rays). Its main use is vs the much, much more mobile zerg army to hold them off until you can move your fat ass thors into position.
What if they gave Hydras 7 range w/ the upgrade? This way Zerg could out range PF unless they got the upgrade. I know hydras are already pretty sick units though, so that may end badly.
On June 23 2010 22:26 DooMDash wrote: What if they gave Hydras 7 range w/ the upgrade? This way Zerg could out range PF unless they got the upgrade. I know hydras are already pretty sick units though, so that may end badly.
That imbalances everything else though lol- plus who dosent get the range upgrade if they build a pfort?
I haven't read this thread, but what if the overseers' contamination would deny repairing of terran buildings? So PFs wouldnt be so powerful, plus it would enhance micro managemant to not let the overseer come into reach
On June 23 2010 22:33 flothefreak wrote: I haven't read this thread, but what if the overseers' contamination would deny repairing of terran buildings? So PFs wouldnt be so powerful, plus it would enhance micro managemant to not let the overseer come into reach
This dosent seem like a bad idea- not being able to repair is such a small buff to contaminate (but I'd rather see it on Corruptors again.)
My rationalization for this is it gives corruptors a way to affect a battle that dosent have any air units in it. Just my 2 cents.
On June 23 2010 15:02 Knee_of_Justice wrote: Man, I moved an army into my opponents nat on sCRAP station... boy, that was the biggest mistake Ive ever made... I had several immortals stalkers, zealots and sentries, but combined with his marauders stimming down the ramp behind me and the tanks on the cliff, my army lasted just a tiny fraction of a second. Forcefield didnt do anything. Guardian shield didnt do anything. My zealots melted, my immortals apparently had a massive achilles heal and my stalkers blinked out of existence.
I dont know if id call it overpowered, but it is incredibly intimidating. Maybe if there were a way to disable the gun separately from the CC itself...
If you had any decent sized army, that should've raped Marauders+PF. Replay or it goes under the assumption that you micro'd terribly.
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
agreed.
Just because a terran player builds a PF, should that force a Zerg player to attack him head-on? That's just stupid on zerg's part...its the same as going head on with a crapload of hydralisks into a line of tanks behind a wall..why in the world would you do that?
On June 23 2010 22:26 DooMDash wrote: What if they gave Hydras 7 range w/ the upgrade? This way Zerg could out range PF unless they got the upgrade. I know hydras are already pretty sick units though, so that may end badly.
That imbalances everything else though lol- plus who dosent get the range upgrade if they build a pfort?
On June 23 2010 22:26 DooMDash wrote: What if they gave Hydras 7 range w/ the upgrade? This way Zerg could out range PF unless they got the upgrade. I know hydras are already pretty sick units though, so that may end badly.
That imbalances everything else though lol- plus who dosent get the range upgrade if they build a pfort?
I don't.... unless its in a FFA or something.
Slightly off topic, but +1 static defense range is one of my first upgrades VS Zerg in any game.
i wrote a topic about defensive planetary fortresses 3 or 4 months ago. it was ridiculous back than. now tlo does this strategy and it suddenly becomes viable. you don't understand a thing about starcraft strategy. it costs 550 minerals. and does more damage than bionic units that cost 550 minerals. sometimes you can't hold your back entrance because terran is not mobile enough to deal with speedlings. it is viable in those situations.
On June 23 2010 22:26 DooMDash wrote: What if they gave Hydras 7 range w/ the upgrade? This way Zerg could out range PF unless they got the upgrade. I know hydras are already pretty sick units though, so that may end badly.
That imbalances everything else though lol- plus who dosent get the range upgrade if they build a pfort?
I don't.... unless its in a FFA or something.
Slightly off topic, but +1 static defense range is one of my first upgrades VS Zerg in any game.
I would think armor might be more useful since most Zerg units don't do huge chunks of damage, plus it effects all your buildings. I suppose +1 turrets would be nice.
+1 range is so important for preventing muta harass- its really a small gas investment for allowing your turrets to cover such a greater area. If im going to have a Pfort the +1 range is also a huge bonus. If you can fire into the 2nd row of hydras/roaches, you are going to do much more splash damage to the whole group than if you are firing at the first row only.
I get the armor upgrade after the range upg, because usually i throw down my eng bay only if i need turrets or a pfort, so im going to want the range on those turrets right away.
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!”
Fight him where the static defenses aren't. In battle the enemy gets a vote, and victory always goes to the general who can control the terms of engagement. If terran sacrifices the opportunity cost to build an extra PF, zerg has the opportunity to gain either an economic or army advantage.
Just because something denies a tactic you want to use, it doesn't make it imba.
Would making the Overseer contaminate ability stop the PF be to strong? Otherwise it might add a element to that match-up and give the Overseer further use.
On June 23 2010 23:39 nihlon wrote: Would making the Overseer contaminate ability stop the PF be to strong? Otherwise it might add a element to that match-up and give the Overseer further use.
Yes it would, when Contaminate was on the Corruptor it had the ability to do this but Corruptors were much more expensive and therefore not as readily available, even if it was by the simple virtue of their location in the tech tree. Overseers however, are available sooner, and cheaper, not to mention in much higher quantity. When the ability was moved over to them, its effectiveness had to be reduced to compensate for its new availability.
On June 03 2010 19:35 ghen wrote: 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.
How could you say nydus is a counter? the nydus would be able to kill a PF when the PF could attack it as it is being built. Please elaborate what you mean, also PFs could be in the main so nydus wouldn't really help.
Planetary Fortress is great as it is, imo. Its 3-way usage as cc, static defense, and drop-offense, makes for interesting games. It's very powerful, but very costly too; it has major weaknesses.
If anything, I'd like to see more players use it in late game with 200/200 armies. To compensate for the lack of AA, always build a bunch of turrets around the PF and it almost becomes "invulnerable", with some repair support. To take out one of those becomes a mini-challenge.
I think the OP has one single main argument - aesthetics. Or what I'd care more about: map clutter. But yes, that's actually good, don't make it smaller please. Because it means it costs the Terran quite a lot of mobility and building area, plus once down he cannot move the PFs anymore, he has to kill them, if he needs the terrain.
Remember, even if you want, you cannot control too much how the good game compositions would evolve to look, and insist on making them pretty or cool. They will have a tendency to become "weird" anyway.
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).
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.
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 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![[image loading]](http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/Gilsio/SC22.png)
(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. 
That said I wasn't replying to anything in particular, I just felt that this would become another Terran imba thread and tried to pre-emptively nuke everyone with reasons the PF sucks (which it kinda does in comparison to the much cheaper OC).
