EPTUltras vs Repaired PF - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kryptonite
United States155 Posts
| ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:00 VanGarde wrote: You stop there because it is unreasonable for a PF o a game to last that long. It is only asinine in the minds of people who do not fully grasp how the economy in Starcraft 2 works. Which is precisely why people like you should not have a say when it comes to balance issues. Your math only works in theory. There are situations where a stable, but lower, income is worth more than a rather unstable, but theoretically higher income. For example when there is an enemy on the map that wants to harrass you and you would have to spread out too much to defend all of your expands(which can result in losing one of your expands), which is quite likely in an even game when you have more than 2 bases. And you act as if scan does not exist lol. | ||
|
Genome852
United States979 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:06 gospelwut wrote: This clearly seems like a bug. It's already been confirmed as one. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/627980105 | ||
|
GoodNewsJim
United States122 Posts
As long as I'm not confused at why that happened. Thanks for the post, I don't have to make one myself | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:03 JustPlay wrote: If you think a PF really adds up to the price of MULE over time then every zerg building adds up to the mining rate of a drone over time. Yes that is true, I already talked about that. The main difference is that it is built into the zerg mechanics since as you pointed out it goes for every building. It is not a choice between one building that costs a drone and one where you get the drone back. To clarify this concept even more to the folks who do not seem to understand the difference. Say I play two identical games on metalopolis. I get a non gold third base and in one game I get a planetary fortress at the third, while in the other game I get an orbital command at the third. Fast forward 12 minutes from the completion of the expansion. There is a huge battle. In the game where I built an orbital command as my third I have 43 more marines than I do in the game where I built a planetary fortress as my third. | ||
|
Elwar
953 Posts
Maybe its because Terran has no static ground defense ala cannons and spine crawlers, but bunkers and seige tanks would seemingly make up for that. | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:06 clusen wrote: Your math only works in theory. There are situations where a stable, but lower, income is worth more than a rather unstable, but theoretically higher income. For example when there is an enemy on the map that wants to harrass you and you would have to spread out too much to defend all of your expands(which can result in losing one of your expands), which is quite likely in an even game when you have more than 2 bases. And you act as if scan does not exist lol. Ofcourse, that is what I was trying to say in the first place too.. I am explaining the theory because it is essential to understand the theory of the economical impact of a planetary fortress for people to understand why it is also essential that it can be repaired during an engagement and not sniped by a handful of units. OBVIOUSLY there are a million and one smaller factors that will mean that you don't actually get exactly that number of minerals with an OC, you will scan etc but you still have to start at the total potential income that you could have gotten with an OC over a PF. | ||
|
xNaquada
Canada19 Posts
This must be a bug. Hopefully discussion can focus on such, rather than semantics, personal agendas and balance trolling. | ||
|
StarDrive
90 Posts
On September 22 2010 09:02 VanGarde wrote: Seems to me that it might actually not be worthwhile getting PF's at all in TvZ. I mean, it is not like they are bad all of a sudden its just that if you make a CC into a PF that is an astonishing investment. Shortsighted people like to point out that a PF costs 550/150. It doesn't. It costs that PLUS 250-300 minerals every 30 seconds or however long it takes for an orbital command to gain 50 energy. By this reasoning, every time you build 4 barracks you could have built an Orbital Command and thus the actual cost is 10000 minerals 10 minutes later. And every time Zerg builds a zergling he could have built a drone so each zergling actually costs several hundred minerals 10 minutes later. | ||
|
Devlin
Sweden91 Posts
On September 22 2010 09:49 VanGarde wrote: Yes, that is also true. The drone used to make a zerg building is lost income. Ofcourse both of you who are using this is an example are just missing the point. When you make a building from a drone you are not at a fork in the road where you choose between two options that can be weighed against each other. You HAVE to make a pool obviously and thus that logic does not apply to this example. A correct example would be the decision between making a spine crawler and not, you loose income over time by making a spine crawler, thus it is a loss to make one, a loss that should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Ofcourse it is still not a very related example because the difference in scale is so far off. The income we are talking about when choosing between OC and PF are in scales way way above the cost of a spine crawler. Protip: Good terran players will avoid getting a PF. It is a defeat in itself to have to build a PF at an expansion. The math logic in your previous post just doesn't work. You build a Planetary Fortress. You don't build an Orbital Command. OCs don't "give" you minerals, they accelerate the income rate, therefore you don't "lose" minerals by going PF over OC. If we go by your calculations, getting an ultralisk costs: Hatchery: 300/0 Spawning Pool: 200/0 Lair: 150/100 Infestation Pit: 100/100 Hive: 200/150 Ultralisk Cavern: 150/200 Ultralisk: 300/200 -------------- Total: 1400/750 + drones and larva which could be spent on more producing drones. I could go on and on here about how those drones could over time be turned into Hatcheries which would subsequently spawn more larva which would mean more Hatcheries and more larva infinitely, meaning a ton of income. But that's just silly. And that's the way you argue. And no, you can't compare the loss of mules to the loss of drones. You have to rebuild drones. Mules are free. | ||
|
Wi)nD
Canada719 Posts
| ||
Wunder
United Kingdom2950 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:12 StarDrive wrote: By this reasoning, every time you build 4 barracks you could have built an Orbital Command and thus the actual cost is 10000 minerals 10 minutes later. And every time Zerg builds a zergling he could have built a drone so each zergling actually costs several hundred minerals 10 minutes later. Yup. That's not an exaggeration at all, because y'know, Barracks, Planetary Fortresses and Orbital Commands are all built from the same place, oh wait. | ||
|
StarDrive
90 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:17 Wunder wrote: Yup. That's not an exaggeration at all, because y'know, Barracks, Planetary Fortresses and Orbital Commands are all built from the same place, oh wait. Sorry, having a tough time trying to decipher your argument. Help please? | ||
|
JustPlay
United States211 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:17 Wunder wrote: They are all built from minerals.Yup. That's not an exaggeration at all, because y'know, Barracks, Planetary Fortresses and Orbital Commands are all built from the same place, oh wait. | ||
|
MegaVolt
28 Posts
| ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On September 22 2010 10:14 Devlin wrote: The math logic in your previous post just doesn't work. You build a Planetary Fortress. You don't build an Orbital Command. OCs don't "give" you minerals, they accelerate the income rate, therefore you don't "lose" minerals by going PF over OC. Semantics, the MULE is a worker. SCV's, probles and drones do not "give" you minerals either. As I said before you don't "lose" minerals by having all your workers killed by a hellion drop either. But you loose income over time. Having a planetary fortress is financially as if you had and oc but never called down MULE's. Seriously is this concept really so hard for people to grasp? | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
I wanted to test it this way since we have all seen the videos of large numbers and surround. I wanted to show with a linear line, just how many lines of workers are killed. | ||
|
Intricate
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
| ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
ultra has a range of 4? wtf.. and On September 22 2010 10:20 JustPlay wrote: It is splashing 2.5 away from the planetary fortress' radius just like it is supposed to. It is obviously going to be nerfed by either ultras not splashing buildings or the splash mechanic in SC2 being redesigned, but either way it is 100% working exactly like ultralisks are supposed to. lol, are you high man? how is that working as intended? the AOE radius should start at where the ultralisk is attacking the unit and from there. not from the edges ofa PF (thus extending the range by 300% at least | ||
| ||
