|
On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote: static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything? -Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D -Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly.
Still at it, eh Parku? Fighting the good fight?
It's a bit rich to hear you accusing anyone of race bias. Or did you forget that you once suggested that Stimmed Marines attacking 20% slower, combined with a Psi Storm buff to make the spell twice as effective, would finally give us a balanced SC2?
Here's the full proposed patch notes for anyone who wants a hearty laugh.
|
On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote: static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything? -Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D -Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly. Good job quoting me, completely avoiding my arguments, making up a bullshit example to put words in my mind, AND whine about P being underpowered.
Dem Parkufarku skills.
Also, I've played random for 4 years, and I've never proposed the most ritardidonculous balance suggestions anybody has ever read :-)
|
On May 27 2015 06:17 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 03:37 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 27 2015 01:58 claybones wrote: I feel like Terran basically has the tools they need, however they do still feel weak in a certain regard. I couldn't comment there though. Sure, PFs defend against zerglings, but pretty much everything else can take down a PF with a decent investment... Terran GtG defense is way too big and expensive to be used as much as you'd need it. Question is, can Planetary fortresses kill enough units equal to their cost even without repairs? Enough to deflect some pressure from minor units like the ones from Drops and Runbies? I think PF is quite efficient. They can be also repaired, which is very exclusive and strong for a 1500HP building with 3 armor. With Building armor it's 5 armor, something very noticeable, Specially vs Marines, LotV marauders, Hellions, Zerglings, Zealots, Adepts... common ground harass units. Could 100gas instead of 150 help in a positive way? To be entirely honest, I'd rather see them less effective. PFs to an excellent job of completely shutting down Zerglings and Zealots in a set-and-forget way, which is bad. On the other hand, Stalkers, Roaches, etc can be positioned in such a way they don't even care about the PF.
Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
The PF is kinda like a short-ranged, immobile, rapid-fire High Templar (epic comparison, I know ^^), it's attack is REALLY powerful but it is very unversatile.
|
On May 27 2015 16:41 SC2Toastie wrote: To be entirely honest, I'd rather see them less effective. PFs to an excellent job of completely shutting down Zerglings and Zealots in a set-and-forget way, which is bad.
Eh. A-move units getting A-mowed down. Not the worst thing in the world, all things considered. It's more of a theoretical issue than a practical one, anyway. Not too many PFs in high level PvTs these days.
Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
That sounds remarkably like buffed Siege Tanks.
|
On May 25 2015 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 04:30 Riquiz wrote: Buffing units(buildings) that don't cost supply seems like a bad idea.
We have had many o times, where people have complained about static d being stupid.
Few examples, infestor broodlord, passive swarmhosts, passive mech and sometimes even cannon/airtoss/storm.
Static defence is a way to increase your army strenght, without costing supply, but the drawback is that they are Static.
I think making them better, would encourage more turtle-like play, instead of having groups of units to defend. Bunkers and Shield Batteries and Nydus are great defenses that forces groups of units. to defend attacks. In Starbow they talked about the concept of not having free defense, that's why they added a cooldown to the planetary fortress activation, that's why cannons need to be chronoboosted for maximum effectiveness, that's why broodlings no longer spawn from destroyed buildings. I think it's a good concept and I thought that if you count nexus energy and unit deployment as a sort of resource these ideas are similar to the bunker and shield battery concept in that they require some level of commitment. However, placing a planetary fortress as an initial investment which will permanently lock down an area would be bad, although you do need to repair them and they can't defend against everything on their own. Cannons are okay, since they tend to die easily and you need to constantly rebuild them. Locking down areas with missile turrets might be bad because there is only the initial cost there too, but it might be better if there was a spell like blinding cloud so that you could destroy them.
I wonder if other ideas for this exist too. For instance, I was promoting the idea of pylons being shield batteries by default like moon wells in Warcraft 3. But pylons will be unused often and you can place units with warpgate and therefore it would be kinda like free energy and free defense and fail this test. This isn't true for bunkers, since terran doesn't have warpgate.
|
As a Zerg player, static defense is already pretty tough to deal with.
Cannons are always a threat early game, and mid game they allow super easy expansions with the correct sim city. Plus. a single Turret in the mineral line can hold off the first dozen or more Mutas.
|
On May 27 2015 16:41 SC2Toastie wrote: Terran could do with some static that was more spammable , would allow it to hold chokes with low supply investment but not with the same amount of dominance a PF shows.
Terran needs a trap type ability. Maybe not mines but something like a slowing trap could make tanks a bit more reasonable to use in small numbers defensively. The game should also be balanced to work with a 2 supply siege tank (That's asking for a miracle though).
|
On May 27 2015 15:26 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 05:40 parkufarku wrote:On May 26 2015 20:38 SC2Toastie wrote:On May 26 2015 20:00 JCoto wrote:On May 26 2015 12:00 friendship wrote: static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything? -Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D -Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway. The problem is that "air harass" is not even occasional. It's part of GG moves of Terran (3-4 medivac drops) and Zerg (heavy on mutas) and occasionally, some weird Protoss strats (VoidRay mass). Terrans have very strong turrets (28DPS) that can be mass-repaired and tend to disencourage that kind of "doom" moves. Zergs have spores with decent DPS (18 DPS) that can be healed too and deal a ton of extra damage to mutas because they have bonus +30 vs biological. In the case of Protoss, Cannons are not that bad but have the lower DPS (16) and the longest weapon CD (more wasted shots because of longer overkilling period). The problem is that they can't be healed at all, don't have the better efficiency vs mutas, and vs T common 2-medivac drop just erases cannons in 1 second because the punch of marauders vs armored. In the Midgame, cannons feel very useless to defend. To be effective at defending positions, Storm, Chargelots and phoenixes are needed. Cannons have the advantage of hitting both air and ground, on the other hand. a HT and 2/3 cannons (add warp ins for extra funsies) are a very tough defense to penetrate for any drop army without commitment and high investment. We are talking about just static defense and yet you bring in a Protoss HT, high tier specialized spellcaster, in order to act like Protoss has it as good as Terrans do. You never give up advocating for Terrans do you? Even when it's clear they have the highest DPS and best regeneration (repair > regen). That's like saying, turrets + Thor + bunker will deter early muta harrass...no really? If anything, Terran static D need to be nerfed, while P's should be buffed, and Z's buffed slightly. Still at it, eh Parku? Fighting the good fight? It's a bit rich to hear you accusing anyone of race bias. Or did you forget that you once suggested that Stimmed Marines attacking 20% slower, combined with a Psi Storm buff to make the spell twice as effective, would finally give us a balanced SC2? Here's the full proposed patch notes for anyone who wants a hearty laugh.
Lol the Terran army strikes again. I've already explained I wasn't even fully serious about it, but keep bringing it up.
Terran scums passionately defend their race and try to bring ad hominem arguments. The irony is, I PLAY Terran in SC2. So I'm actually being way less biased than your obvious race bias.
|
I think buffs in general are a better plan than extensive nerfs. Look at CS:GO's example slow and steady but drop the hammer even if people don't want it just to see what happens. And go from there
|
How about give photon cannons a 2x multiplier for shield upgrades.
Every time you upgrade shields their shield "armour" goes up by two. Capping out at 7 instead of 4. [base level] - 1 [shield upgrade level 1] > 3 [shield upgrade level 2] > 5 [shield upgrade level 3] > 7
|
cannon rush into upgraded cannon contain will be so Scary.
Also I am a bit sad that they didn't introduce new buildings for utility, they said they will consider it before
|
@parkufarku Not a terran but thanks
-Are bases overly difficult to hold (even with static D) with respect to the investment needed to destroy them? -Is a good answer to have an affordable, non supply costing, cost effective defense scheme: PF, PO, cannons, spores & spines, turrets? -Are there any 'unfair' options for harass or aggression in the game that can't be reliably scouted or deduced (in the case of proxy tech structures) that cannot be dealt with by units and some support of static D?
No I don't think so. Then why would we do it...?
It would be a great idea if we wanted to reduce the importance of UNITS-- those things that cost varying levels of supply, minerals and gas and can be used for A-moving in various directions and in some extreme cases can even be put into different control groups for strategic ends.
|
On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote: cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
cannons need to be stronger in order to defend against base trades, defending mutas when youre in a defensive position is extremely easy to do even with stalkers. its when youre moving out that it becomes tricky, its almost impossible to prevent the game from turning into a base trade scenario when you go blink tech vs mutas (unless you never plan on attacking until the super late game).
|
dude that's simply preposterous...
Cannons need to be stronger to beat a muta player in a base trade scenario? Having stronger cannons will prevent this whole situation anyway. Zerg will not spend 100/100 per unit to fight against 150/0 supply-free buildings. Why not just remove mutas from the game? If you want going blink tech against a 4 base zerg to be possible, maybe consider not going purely blink. I've seen a few pros make units besides blink stalkers against zerg with pretty impressive results.
How about each side just choose a tree as a safety zone where you can't be tagged? Oh yeah because that kind of game sucks.
|
On May 28 2015 16:01 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote: cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. cannons need to be stronger in order to defend against base trades, defending mutas when youre in a defensive position is extremely easy to do even with stalkers. its when youre moving out that it becomes tricky, its almost impossible to prevent the game from turning into a base trade scenario when you go blink tech vs mutas (unless you never plan on attacking until the super late game).
What do you think about giving some complementary Nexus mechanic that could interact positively with cannons?
I talked a page ago about a building shielding mechanic that is present in the editor, probably discarded from HotS beta. Zerg and Terran can heal their Static D with ease, but Protoss is condemned to throw money on structures becase it's impossible to keep them alive like Terrans and Zergs do. In emergency situations, SCV's can hold the structures a bit more and queens can transfuse. Could Protoss have some mechanic to make cannons last a bit more on battle? I think that the concept is very interesting.
Nexus energy tends to be limited when macroing correctly, so being able to shield cannons at the cost of 25-30 energy or so for 15-25s could be a great idea, and possibly very balanced. It forces a small window time of retreat that gives you time for unit production, and getting some extra kills. What's more, it could only be cast in a small radius around the Nexus, so concercns about cannon rush are solved.
In common situations, Protoss has 2 defensive cannons per base, which is not much. 15 mutas, double medivac drop, a few roaches can pretty much ignore the strength of 2 cannons because that units heal fast or can pretty much destroy the cannons quite fast.
I think considering how the Nexus energy is played out regarding Protoss macro, that woould energy tension like MULES and Scanning. In the same way Terrans have to conservate some energy, Protoss would have to chose between Chronoboosting everything or saving some "emergency" energy for casting the shield mechanic to prevent building snipes. And at 25-30 cost, you can easily limit the efficiency of the mechanic. Maximum 3-4 casts, effect lasting only 15-25 seconds. Sounds quite good to me, fairly better than having Photon Overcharge.
|
|
|
|