|
I want to start a discussion dedicated to the Planetary Fortress and its role in TvP and TvZ.
This is certainly not a QQ thread. I am not a game developer or balance designer, nor do I claim to be. I have some feelings about the PF that I want to share and gauge against the feelings and experience of the TL community.
It seems to me that the mass scv-repaired planetary fortress is a pretty big deal and (possibly) may be influencing the dynamics of TvX midgames more than it should.
Why you ask? It is very important to deny or take out expansions to maintain an eco advantage once the game moves beyond the 2 base (main + natural) play. At this point most T's quite sensibly opt for a PF at their third and/or beyond. Now a small force of marauders catching the P or Z out of position can very very quickly stim and snipe a nexus/hatch, while T is simply not punished for being out of position since almost no amount of units can do damage fast enough to take out a repairing PF before reinforcements come lumbering in.
This makes it too easy, IMO, for T to gain a big advantage through sniping an expo while P and Z can't counterhit to even things up.
Maybe I'm way off base here, I'm only ~1400 D but it seems intuitively wrong for T to have both the ability to snipe key structures very fast and sneakliy with medivac + stim rauders, *AND* to prevent any such snipe on his key expansion(s).
Of course it is reasonable that each race has specific strengths and weaknesses. Zerg has mobility and flexibility for tech switches with larva. Protoss has warpgate tech and generally very beefy units + chrono... But its not like T *needs* the advantage bestowed by the option to make PFs and mass repai them with SCVs. Terran already has MULEs, scan, the greatest diversity in safe opening builds, is the best at stopping cheese, and has near immunity to base trading since T buildings can float away.
Perhaps the PF mechanism was put in to counteract an expected weakness in Terran mid-late game - immobility. Honestly however I'm just thinking that Blizz thought of too many 'cool ideas' for T during campaign development and couldn't properly commit to removing all of the necessary ones for multiplayer play. We could do without the PF altogether. I think SC2 would be a better game without it.
So, TL masses, experts, and pros... What say you about this thought process? Am I a QQing noob or does this make some sense to you?
|
QQing noob, if I have to choose one.
this has been discussed to death, and you answered your own question. ITs there to compensate for lack of T mobility in late game. If you go all bio, you die.
ultras still > pfs, even after nerf.
collosi and broods outrage.
they arent invincible. also. just go kill his natrual if he makes a PF and 6 turrets at his third.
|
I think that once the maps start to become much more large and terran's lack of mobility becomes more apparent, the PF will become more of a necessity than it is right now.
|
PF just all around sucks.
I don't see professional Terran players of the future ever making one. Mules are just too dam powerful, once the macro of the game is "solved" to an extent players as good as Flash is now in BW are not going to waste the chance to Mule.
If they want defence.... bunkers + turrets.
To me it just seems nooby and pointless.
|
I amm just a low diamond zerg player, but i completely agree with you. I have played many games where, even though i was up 4 or 5 bases to 3 i simply could not kill him. It seems you have to prevent the terran from getting a planetary fortress up on the third expo or they become very difficult to beat. And because they dont fear getting there expo sniped they feel free to do stimmed marauder drops all over the place, sniping even defended hatcheries in like 5 seconds. I dont think i have won a game where the terran has gotten a planetary at the gold expo.
|
I think your right, PFs was an idea from single player campaign that was carried over into multiplayer.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On October 06 2010 06:43 Klive5ive wrote:
PF just all around sucks.
I don't see professional Terran players of the future ever making one. Mules are just too dam powerful, once the macro of the game is "solved" to an extent players as good as Flash is now in BW are not going to waste the chance to Mule.
If they want defence.... bunkers + turrets.
To me it just seems nooby and pointless.
Turrets I can kind of understand as you usually get them anyway, but bunkers are silly, Since it means you have to leave units back there, which could be with your main force and could cost you a battle, those four marines could make all the difference, and that's four marines per bunker.
|
On October 06 2010 06:44 ShadowReaver wrote:
I think your right, PFs was an idea from single player campaign that was carried over into multiplayer.
???
arent ALL untis ideas from the single player campaign, and are then carried over into multiplayer?
|
kill the scv's then it wont be a waste of your units?
if there are no scv's at his expansion, problem solved.
i agree that the a-move priority is messed up, but it's not so hard to micro your units to kill the scv's...
|
On October 06 2010 06:47 danson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:44 ShadowReaver wrote:
I think your right, PFs was an idea from single player campaign that was carried over into multiplayer. arent ALL untis ideas from the single player campaign, and are then carried over into multiplayer?
Uggh, have you even played the single player campaign? Shrike Turret, Perdition Turret, Automated Refinery, Hive mind emulator, list goes on and on...
|
On October 06 2010 06:47 danson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:44 ShadowReaver wrote:
I think your right, PFs was an idea from single player campaign that was carried over into multiplayer. ??? arent ALL untis ideas from the single player campaign, and are then carried over into multiplayer?
What he means is... That it was a unit/structure such as the Diamondback or the Goliath (yes i know was in SC1) that were made for only campaign... but PF *slipped* by..
idk if that's true, but it's just what he means.
|
On October 06 2010 06:36 danson wrote:
QQing noob, if I have to choose one.
this has been discussed to death, and you answered your own question. ITs there to compensate for lack of T mobility in late game. If you go all bio, you die.
ultras still > pfs, even after nerf.
collosi and broods outrage.
they arent invincible. also. just go kill his natrual if he makes a PF and 6 turrets at his third.
Of course it's not invincible, but it's almost damn near invincible if it comes to the late game and you're winning and trying to kill off Terran's last mining gold base with 26 roaches and fail because scvs are reparing it.
Personally, I think the maps are too small now, so Terran immobility doesn't really count for a lot.
|
On October 06 2010 06:52 toadstool wrote:
Personally, I think the maps are too small now, so Terran immobility doesn't really count for a lot.
Ya. When people say stuff about "Oh, terran is moving with his immobile army.." It just doesn't seem "immobile" when it took 10 seconds to move across map. Ofc they're not speedlings or mutas... but compared to the rest of a terran army (combined with map size) it's not really THAT immobile
|
On October 06 2010 06:47 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 06:43 Klive5ive wrote:
PF just all around sucks.
I don't see professional Terran players of the future ever making one. Mules are just too dam powerful, once the macro of the game is "solved" to an extent players as good as Flash is now in BW are not going to waste the chance to Mule.
If they want defence.... bunkers + turrets.
To me it just seems nooby and pointless. Turrets I can kind of understand as you usually get them anyway, but bunkers are silly, Since it means you have to leave units back there, which could be with your main force and could cost you a battle, those four marines could make all the difference, and that's four marines per bunker.
You'll always have reinforcements that won't yet be with your army.
You're probably right though bunkers aren't that great either. That's sort of the point really.
An OC instead of a PF would pay for 1 bunker by the time the first Mule is done. Then every other Mule after that is 270 extra minerals or 3 bunkers.
If you used the income from the OC for defence... you could make more defence. That's the point I'm making really, the PF isn't cost efficient unless your opponent is impatient.
No zerg attacks these days until they are maxed with broodlords and ultras, at which point the PF is irrelevant anyway.
I don't really hate PF I just think it's silly that Terran gets something so "useful" for lower level players when Protoss and Zerg don't. They already have easy macro, units that you can make without even scouting etc...
|
PF's are a bitch to deal with as X. I do believe it's in there b/c of the mobility thing though. They do feel BS in some games, while fine in others. To deal with them, I go about it in this way.
As Protoss:
Option 1. Stand behind minerals and snipe workers with stalkers. Map dependent.
Option 2. Have several immortals to tank the hits and do fast DPS to buildings. Spread your guys out to avoid splash. Depends on if you can afford to make many immortals.
Option 3. Use colossi or high templars to kill repairing SCVs. This is my favorite way of taking them down.
Option 4. Voidrays. Can be nullified by a couple of turrets.
As Zerg:
Option 1. Mutas before turret defense. Obvious, but usually not practical.
Option 2. Ultras/BLs.
Option 3. Army plus fungal growth to freeze SCVs before they can repair.
Option 4. ??
|
Terran macro is easier than Protoss macro?
|
I agree with OP sometimes you cant even surround it with lings and turrets blocking it so meele units cant hit it. i am 1300 diamond z.
|
PF was awesome idea that just got way out of controll with repair and how stuff dont focus the scv's.
|
You know that PF doesn´t attack air, right ?
|
Planetary fortress is fine.
AI attacking it instead of repairing SCV is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
