|
United States47024 Posts
On October 06 2010 08:31 Nokeboy wrote:Show nested quote +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. The amount of ultras needed to take a massively repaired PF is not really worth it unless you are already in a winning position, considering they more than likely have a Oribital CC sitting around doing nothing they can replace it with
To be fair, it WAS cost efficient when ultra splash hit the repairing SCVs.
On October 07 2010 00:30 Karkadinn wrote:
All static defenses are dead weight in the sense that you define it. How does that justify Terran having better static defenses than everyone else?
The purpose of static defense is to delay opponents attacking those bases long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Terran is the least capable of reinforcing distant expansions (Protoss has warp-in, Zerg has faster movespeed on creep and nydus worms, etc.), so it makes sense that their static defense should be able to last longer.
The PF probably overdoes this, but the theory of T having strong static defense is at least somewhat sound.
|
If you guys watched BW games, a common tactic is for players to harass or engage the other player's main army with their main army while sending a small strike force to take out expansions. You can't do that with PFs because you need your main army to take out a PF that is being repaired. Not to mention that taking out said PF also consumes a lot of APM, so it's harder to harass your opponent's main army.
|
On October 07 2010 01:21 andrewlt wrote:
If you guys watched BW games, a common tactic is for players to harass or engage the other player's main army with their main army while sending a small strike force to take out expansions. You can't do that with PFs because you need your main army to take out a PF that is being repaired. Not to mention that taking out said PF also consumes a lot of APM, so it's harder to harass your opponent's main army.
You can, just not with a bunch of zerglings.
When I see a PF in TVT, I invest that cash into researching hunter seeker missle and go ka-boom! on the SCVs 
|
On October 07 2010 01:28 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 01:21 andrewlt wrote:
If you guys watched BW games, a common tactic is for players to harass or engage the other player's main army with their main army while sending a small strike force to take out expansions. You can't do that with PFs because you need your main army to take out a PF that is being repaired. Not to mention that taking out said PF also consumes a lot of APM, so it's harder to harass your opponent's main army.
You can, just not with a bunch of zerglings. When I see a PF in TVT, I invest that cash into researching hunter seeker missle and go ka-boom! on the SCVs
Well, it was mostly done with roughly a control group of units like marines, vultures, zerglings, hydras, zealots and dragoons in BW. The counters people are bringing up here are factory, starport, robo bay, stargate and hive tech units. Either that, or the equivalent of 2 BW control groups of banelings to suicide them in.
|
To have minimal casualties: For Protoss you need to take it out with ranged collosus, or high templars (maybe void rays if they don't go turrets). For Terran you need siege tanks or stim marauders. For Zerg you need ultralisk or broodlords.
Ironically the best race at taking out PF is the one that makes them.
|
On October 07 2010 01:09 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:31 Nokeboy wrote: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. The amount of ultras needed to take a massively repaired PF is not really worth it unless you are already in a winning position, considering they more than likely have a Oribital CC sitting around doing nothing they can replace it with To be fair, it WAS cost efficient when ultra splash hit the repairing SCVs. Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 00:30 Karkadinn wrote:
All static defenses are dead weight in the sense that you define it. How does that justify Terran having better static defenses than everyone else?
The purpose of static defense is to delay opponents attacking those bases long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Terran is the least capable of reinforcing distant expansions (Protoss has warp-in, Zerg has faster movespeed on creep and nydus worms, etc.), so it makes sense that their static defense should be able to last longer. The PF probably overdoes this, but the theory of T having strong static defense is at least somewhat sound.
The only problem with this explanation is that it relies on the 'Terran are immobile' weakness, which in the current environment appears to be more theoretical than actual.
|
On October 07 2010 01:21 andrewlt wrote:
If you guys watched BW games, a common tactic is for players to harass or engage the other player's main army with their main army while sending a small strike force to take out expansions. You can't do that with PFs because you need your main army to take out a PF that is being repaired. Not to mention that taking out said PF also consumes a lot of APM, so it's harder to harass your opponent's main army.
you'll just need a few air units
|
i love how all the terran are defending using these like oh yeah these are fine even though lings cant harass the worker line. only takes a few void rays to kill one. oh sorry put up like 3 turrets!? my badd. i lol every time i see like 10 zealots and 15 stalkers wailing away at these and still lose.
|
On October 07 2010 01:47 KillerPlague wrote:
i love how all the terran are defending using these like oh yeah these are fine even though lings cant harass the worker line. only takes a few void rays to kill one. oh sorry put up like 3 turrets!? my badd. i lol every time i see like 10 zealots and 15 stalkers wailing away at these and still lose.
Is lings harassing a worker line despite measures taken to prevent exactly that some sort of right?
|
in my opinion what makes the PF bad balance-wise is how easily you can stop every zerg harass compared to the effort it takes to construct and hold onto one. regardless of how good the zerg plays and how active he tries to be about harassing the terran, every noob can just place a PF at his 3rd and be completely safe of any harass, may it be banelings, lings, burrowed roaches, etc. (of course air harass is clearly not a choice due to the ridiculous turret damage)
i think it would add a nice and FUN dynamic to the tvz matchup if z had more possibilities to throw a t off guard, which would certainly happen if he couldnt just rely on his defences so easily, he would have to think more about where he positions his army.
surely this does not affect the pro level that much, because they're better off with OCs anyways, but it's not as the "lower" terrans needed such a device as the PF to have a fair matchup. i would even say that it would help the esthetics of the matchup because the terran would have to split up his apm more and hence wouldnt be able to do all the drop/helion harass shenanigans that are going on those times...
i'm a diamond zerg player if you wonder, not as high on the ladder as i would be if i had more practice, more following the game from replays and commentaries.
those were just my spontaneous thoughts and as you can see from my postcount i'm a long time forum lurker. i hope i can integrate myself more into the tl community, if you think what i wrote was to unreflected just pm me and i'll revise it!
|
I think it would be pretty neat if overseers could infest the PF when it hit red hp. However instead of producing infested terrans like in bw, zerg could use it as a mining base (no larva) with the gun still working.
|
They just need to fix the auto target priority of SCVs that are repairing to be the same as an scv that is attacking.
|
On October 07 2010 00:28 kthnx wrote:fix: overseer's contaminate makes building unable to repair.
I like this solution.
Or (is this drastic?) make SCV repair non-stackable.
|
On October 07 2010 01:07 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 01:04 Saechiis wrote:On October 07 2010 00:13 Velr wrote:
I gladly trade Spinecrawlers and fighting Queens for Bunkers/PF...
Next thing you say is probably that Turrets suck... So what's keeping you from switching to Terran? You'd do us all a big favor. Checked ladder populations lately? That's what plenty of people are doing.
As this thread clearly shows players are extremely susceptible to pro opinion and will merrily hop on the bandwagon whenever they get the chance. Result is that every time a Zerg loses he will come to Teamliquid and make a thread about how he lost because of unit X and structure Y being imbalanced. Even though we all know the reason of loss in 99% of cases will be that he was the worse player and that he has huge flaws in his game. Most of the whine thread are in fact made by bronze, silver and gold zergs who'd rather blame the game than their own play for their losses.
Pro Zerg opinions are already beginning to shift towards ZvP is even harder then ZvT ... I wonder how long it will take for the forum to be flooded with imba-threads about everything Toss has.
Edit: lol, it has already started: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=158592
|
On October 07 2010 02:39 Saechiis wrote:[ Pro Zerg opinions are already beginning to shift towards ZvP is even harder then ZvT ... I wonder how long it will take for the forum to be flooded with imba-threads about everything Toss has. Edit: lol, it has already started: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=158592
While I don't disagree with what you said. Pro Zerg opinion has been ZvP is harder than ZvT even during the ZvT flame wars, at least in Korea. People just chose to bandwagon ZvT
|
On October 07 2010 02:39 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 01:07 Karkadinn wrote:On October 07 2010 01:04 Saechiis wrote:On October 07 2010 00:13 Velr wrote:
I gladly trade Spinecrawlers and fighting Queens for Bunkers/PF...
Next thing you say is probably that Turrets suck... So what's keeping you from switching to Terran? You'd do us all a big favor. Checked ladder populations lately? That's what plenty of people are doing. As this thread clearly shows players are extremely susceptible to pro opinion and will merrily hop on the bandwagon whenever they get the chance. Result is that every time a Zerg loses he will come to Teamliquid and make a thread about how he lost because of unit X and structure Y being imbalanced. Even though we all know the reason of loss in 99% of cases will be that he was the worse player and that he has huge flaws in his game. Most of the whine thread are in fact made by bronze, silver and gold zergs who'd rather blame the game than their own play for their losses.
And Terran and Protoss just happen to attract better, less whiny players, right? Right. I don't even know why you bothered to post this hate mongering drivel.
|
On October 07 2010 02:09 DrivenBatty wrote:
I think it would be pretty neat if overseers could infest the PF when it hit red hp. However instead of producing infested terrans like in bw, zerg could use it as a mining base (no larva) with the gun still working.
then terran players will complain about how hard it is to take down an infested planetory fortress with 10-15 drones "healing" it!
|
I'm perfectly fine with PF being as strong as they are, however the AI of my units attacking it before scvs makes it ridiculous.
If I had the option to reduce the "threat" of a PF to that of any other non-attack building I would do it in a heartbeat. If I wanted to specifically target the PF over anything else in my armies range, I would select my army and right click the biggest freaking object in my view.
Ive lost plenty of games because I could not take out expansions in a time effective manner because the AI does things I strongly disagree with.
|
On October 06 2010 15:08 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 14:14 Asshat wrote:
This thread strongly resembles the blue flame hellion thread from a day or two ago. I am curious in finding out what will tomorrow's "this isn't really a bitch thread about 'X' terran related object" be. Terran having the most and best options for pretty much everything is not a new development. Really, you should be used to it by now, if you've been paying attention at all. Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 14:14 Asshat wrote:
Fact is, there are ways around it. The planetary fortress works no differently than any other piece of static defense. It can be outranged, it can be outmaneuvered and it is a heavy investment made by the player who built it. "The planetary fortress isn't different from any other static defense once we discount the ways in which it is different from other static defenses."
On October 07 2010 02:44 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 02:39 Saechiis wrote:On October 07 2010 01:07 Karkadinn wrote:On October 07 2010 01:04 Saechiis wrote:On October 07 2010 00:13 Velr wrote:
I gladly trade Spinecrawlers and fighting Queens for Bunkers/PF...
Next thing you say is probably that Turrets suck... So what's keeping you from switching to Terran? You'd do us all a big favor. Checked ladder populations lately? That's what plenty of people are doing. As this thread clearly shows players are extremely susceptible to pro opinion and will merrily hop on the bandwagon whenever they get the chance. Result is that every time a Zerg loses he will come to Teamliquid and make a thread about how he lost because of unit X and structure Y being imbalanced. Even though we all know the reason of loss in 99% of cases will be that he was the worse player and that he has huge flaws in his game. Most of the whine thread are in fact made by bronze, silver and gold zergs who'd rather blame the game than their own play for their losses. And Terran and Protoss just happen to attract better, less whiny players, right? Right. I don't even know why you bothered to post this hate mongering drivel.
Lol, have you seen your post history? How do you expect me to tell you that you aren't whiny? It's exactly these immature responses to thought out posts that makes no-one care about your (biased) opinion.
|
Don't like how people use the word "cost effective" (it's running rampant through this thread).
Some people will see a bunch of banelings take out a thor or a PF and say, "durr, not cost effective, so noob."
"Cost effectiveness" isn't always sufficient to determine what the best decision is at a given time.
Lets take this to an extreme. Imagine if you needed to take down one supply depot and if you took down this supply depot, for what ever reason, it effectively allowed you to win the gane. However, it will cost you 10 ultras to take down this supply depot. Obviously the ultras cost A LOT MORE than the supply depot but the strategic benefit still makes it a good trade. Units, tech, defenses etc. aren't just worth the single sum of minerals/gas you spent on them when they were first made, they are worth that PLUS the strategic benefit they afford you at any given time. If your whole game plan revolves around harrassing with storm drops then those dropships with templar in them are worth a lot more than x minerals and y gas, because if they die without doing damage then you lose.
Sometimes it's better to trade an army with a target that is worth less because it gives you some sort of strategic advantage. If your opponent has a small army and a PF to defend and you have a lot more than him it might be worth it to take out the PF with a bunch of banelings so you can destroy his army and do significant damage to him before he can rebuild his defense (zerg can reinforce faster than terran).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
