EPTOn April 30 2011 09:42 Kazang wrote:
You must construct additional pylons.
You must construct additional pylons.
LOL, this
PTR 1.3.3 Cannon Placement with new Pylon Radius - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RoachyRoach
81 Posts
LOL, this | ||
|
RemrafGrez
United States180 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:36 lololol wrote: BW, number of green squares while building a... Gateway: 190 Photon Cannon: 158 SC2: Gateway: 232 Photon Cannon: 208 The current SC2 pylon radius is a lot larger compared to BW. Using the Nexus as a base for comparison is bad, because they are the only building that has more than doubled in size, to 25 squares in SC2 from only 12 in BW, while the grand majority of buildings have actually been reduced from 12 to 9, so the relative size of the pylon field is even larger. I feel a little better after looking at Geovu's BW screenshots and notes about buildings being generally smaller in SC2 and your green squares count. I realize now that building placement outside of the Nexus and forge fast expand are not the end of the world with this change. But the original reason I was worried was cannon coverage at minerals lines, so looking at the newer bigger Nexus does matter I think, since it is preventing some mineral line cannon placement with 1.3.3 pylons. The forge fast expand will be changed, so for that Protosses will just learn which maps are worth it and which aren't. | ||
|
Aerakin
185 Posts
Seriously, there are more than one reasons why you might agree with the change, why pick the worst one. | ||
|
DrGreen
Poland708 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:55 DreamRaider wrote: to begin with u need at least 2 pylons otherwise enemy units will just target the single pylon to take down an entire defense grid of cannons... So this patch shouldnt really change much about base defense in terms of 3rd and 4th This kind of comments are just ridiculous. Yes - sometimes you need to build few cannons on one pylons and you want them spread out as much as possible (you add additional pylons later), i.e. while expanding or walling off ramps or chokes. Also if you'd want to have EVERY building powered by at least 2 pylons - you would need to sacrafice pylon spotters in your base and on the map. No - I dont mind pylon change. Just build one more pylon - Just drop extra supplies instead of using MULE. What about that? | ||
|
RemrafGrez
United States180 Posts
 ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xrMRZ.jpg) | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On May 03 2011 06:07 Aerakin wrote: I'm confused as to why people are saying "now protoss will have to think about their building placement" when terrans, after their wall-in, don't have to think about building placement (can build anywhere, half their buildings can be lifted off) and zergs have so few buildings to place to begin with. Seriously, there are more than one reasons why you might agree with the change, why pick the worst one. I dunno, in ZVZ i care a hell of a lot about my building placement to try and make ling counterattacks less likely to make me instantly lose. And I have to deal with the fact that I dont really have a lot of buildings to work with when doing this, too. :p Honestly, pylon radius is going to be fine. You can still cover both sides of a nexus pretty reasonably from mutas, mutas only have 3 range. You can still wall in fine. Forge FEs will be slightly more complex, but not nearly as complex as they were in BW, where only CERTAIN sides of each building were ling-tight, and eyeballing it didn't always work. | ||
|
Sapp
Poland173 Posts
| ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:36 lololol wrote: BW, number of green squares while building a... Gateway: 190 Photon Cannon: 158 SC2: Gateway: 232 Photon Cannon: 208 The current SC2 pylon radius is a lot larger compared to BW. Using the Nexus as a base for comparison is bad, because they are the only building that has more than doubled in size, to 25 squares in SC2 from only 12 in BW, while the grand majority of buildings have actually been reduced from 12 to 9, so the relative size of the pylon field is even larger. No offense to the quoted poster, who is just providing info to people talking about BW pylon radii, but it's well established that BW and SC2 are different games. So why does BW keep coming up in this thread? I think that the pylon radius nerf is on the balance probably a good thing at least for PvP, but not because the pylon radius was smaller in BW, because Protoss players need to think more about building placement, or because they should have to pony up for unneeded pylons to power their bases for some reason. It's going to make warp-in agression and offensive cannons less threatening and that's probably a good thing for all vs P matchups. I also think the OP does raise an important point about mineral-line defense. Protoss defenses against mutalisks are mineral-expensive (pylons, cannons, and stalkers). Increasing the number of pylons needed to reduntandly power the necessary cannons to defend from mutalisks may wind up being a concern for Protoss in some situations. And as others have pointed out FE simcities are also going to be more vulnerable and slower to construct in some cases. | ||
|
ibreakurface
United States664 Posts
On April 30 2011 09:36 Warrice wrote: i guess you have to make another pylon. End of discussion. I don't see how this effects the game in any significant way (the cannon placement aspect not the 4 gate warpins) | ||
|
wimbowaia
Norway20 Posts
| ||
|
Obaten
United States730 Posts
| ||
|
SoKHo
Korea (South)1081 Posts
| ||
|
Melchior
United States112 Posts
1) There are a lot of maps where I place my first pylon at the top of the ramp when I FFE/Nexus first in case I scout a super-early pool, and the new pylon radius will be too small to power a forge at the bottom of the ramp. 2) A single pylon on one side of the Nexus will no longer be able to power a cannon on the opposite side -- that will make a difference in FFE/Nexus first on maps with open naturals (such as Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis) where you need at least two early cannons to defend the expansion adequately. While FFE/Nexus first will probably still be an option, it will most likely be even more vulnerable to early aggression, which will probably limit the map pool it will be effective on. | ||
|
RemrafGrez
United States180 Posts
On May 05 2011 17:16 Melchior wrote: I think this change will make FFE/Nexus first weaker for a few reasons: 1) There are a lot of maps where I place my first pylon at the top of the ramp when I FFE/Nexus first in case I scout a super-early pool, and the new pylon radius will be too small to power a forge at the bottom of the ramp. 2) A single pylon on one side of the Nexus will no longer be able to power a cannon on the opposite side -- that will make a difference in FFE/Nexus first on maps with open naturals (such as Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis) where you need at least two early cannons to defend the expansion adequately. While FFE/Nexus first will probably still be an option, it will most likely be even more vulnerable to early aggression, which will probably limit the map pool it will be effective on. Well said. I have updated the OP to provide information about the new NesTea strategy that kills Protoss fast expands on these maps. Pylon radius going to make it worse. Is this fair? | ||
|
RubikPi
United States7 Posts
On May 03 2011 07:05 RemrafGrez wrote: Found a very easy PvP anti-4gate method... all you need to do is place your buildings along the walls by your ramp. You need 2 or 3 pylons and 4 gateway sized buildings, so that works perfectly for all builds. Worst thing that can happen is they warp in zealots stuck behind your pylons. So many ways to deal with 4 gate! Give me back my pylon power range. While I do appreciate trying to block off their warp in area, this placement has an immediate disadvantage once they get an observer out and can destroy your buildings from the low ground if they manage an easy contain with sentries. | ||
| ||
