Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
I think the reason people want there to be decision-making (by way of drawbacks) for this is because using Supply Depots as walls is not their primary function (which is to provide supply, full stop).
It is now ;)
Pylons have multiple uses. Overlords have multiple uses. Before, Supply Depots just took up room. Now, they have an actual use. Where you put them matters.
Quote:
Because I'm telling you right now, with the way it currently is every single Terran player who's worth a damn will be doing this on maps that allow for it. 95% of the population will be opening up with the same build order as David Kim just did to get his choke blocked off.
Again, how is that any different from what we have now, where the Terrans always use a Supply Depot and Barracks to wall themselves off? All you're doing is substituting one kind of standard play for another. If you take away submerged Depots, they'll just go back to Barracks+Depot just like SC1.
I understand and appreciate your intent. But what you're suggesting simply isn't going to accomplish your goals.
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Again, how is that any different from what we have now, where the Terrans always use a Supply Depot and Barracks to wall themselves off? All you're doing is substituting one kind of standard play for another. If you take away submerged Depots, they'll just go back to Barracks+Depot just like SC1.
A 2-depot and rax wall vs. a 3 depot wall has many more variables involved. It takes time to float a rax/factory back and forth. In the brief second it takes to manipulated its position a marine could have been produced. A player may reposition the rax, move out with his troops, and forget about resetting the rax allowing for a brief opening a player could take advantage of. It's must easier to lift a submerged depot on-the-fly than it is to move, reposition, and drop a rax.
On top of the timing, that lift-off abolishes any unit queue's actively being worked on. So there's a big drawback in needing to constantly reposition a unit production building.
Furthermore, the tightness afforded by multiple depots may not be as easily reproduced when you involve a larger building. Especially when that building relies on a smaller add-on with intentions of throttling back and forth between two different add-ons.
So you see, the standard wall-in technique is much more inferior than depot wall. If this suggestion was implemented would it cause players to ignore this powerful technique? Unlikely. But it adds a level of aptitude for Terrans.
Take a step back and think about this conceptually:
You're playing as Terrans on Lost Temple. What will your opening build order be? If you envisioned anything other than what David Kim just demonstrated then I only have one thing to say to you - "Are you a noob?" Because every other Terran player is/will be doing just that. And why shouldn't they be? It's reassuring knowing you have a natural blockade into your base that can prevent intrusion. After all, you're gonna have to build 3 supply depots eventually anyways.
Now imagine you're any race playing on Lost Temple. You send your 7th worker to scout four your opponent. Your first guess is wrong. Your second guess finds the Terran and naturally cannot advance beyond the ramp because ever single website related to SC2 has published the perfect initial build order needed to block your ramp in record time and most players have honed this technique.
Okay, so at least you know what to expect. You mass a group of tier one units in the hopes of punching through that wall knowing full well the results. Any tier one unit you bring is blind until they walk up that ramp, and at the top they encounter a pack of ranged resistance (because 90% of the Terran force is ranged) and can't do crap to punch through.
Your offense has just been suspended completely until you can transport or walk up cliffs. As Terrans, you might be able to punch through that wall if you use tanks, but by that time the player is likely to have opposing tanks ready to blast back from above and behind, possibly with bunker reinforcements. Zerg probably has the best chance to punch through using banelings. Protoss just has their brute force. Either way, it won't be until tier 1.5 before you do anything of significance against your army.
Holy crap I just wrote a novel. Gifted would be proud of my wall of text...
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Furthermore, the tightness afforded by multiple depots may not be as easily reproduced when you involve a larger building.
I'm pretty sure that the arbitrary and ridiculous "tightness rules" that SC1 had have not been reproduced in SC2. If two buildings are directly adjacent, units can't pass through.
Quote:
If you envisioned anything other than what David Kim just demonstrated
Watch the game again. David Kim's wall-in did use a Barracks. Initially. He moved it elsewhere pretty early on and replaced it with depots. But it was the Barracks + Depot that kept the Probe out.
Terran players are not going to 3-Depot before a Barracks.
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
2depot+rax wall-ins are not complicated, regardless of how much you write :P
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Watch the game again. David Kim's wall-in did use a Barracks. Initially. He moved it elsewhere pretty early on and replaced it with depots. But it was the Barracks + Depot that kept the Probe out.
No need to reiterate...I'm fully aware of that. Just as I'm fully prepared to emulate that exact same build every single time I play on Lost Temple as Terrans, and any other map that's similar. And you too, along with just about every other person on this forum.
Cookie cutter builds FTW!
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
A 2-depot and rax wall vs. a 3 depot wall has many more variables involved.
This is a moot point Blazur, why, whether submerge is researched or not, would you make 3 supply depot walls for your choke?
Quote:
No need to reiterate...I'm fully aware of that. Just as I'm fully prepared to emulate that exact same build every single time I play on Lost Temple as Terrans, and any other map that's similar. And you too, along with just about every other person on this forum.
We've been doing it the whole time in SC1, second of all, whether depots can submerge or whether submerge doesn't exist at all won't change the fact that it's still going to happen. Hell, remove supply depots and we'll find a different building to do it. If you want to change this, you're going to change the entire Terran race.
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
We've been doing it the whole time in SC1, second of all, whether depots can submerge or whether submerge doesn't exist at all won't change the fact that it's still going to happen. Hell, remove supply depots and we'll find a different building to do it. If you want to change this, you're going to change the entire Terran race.
Understood, and that doesn't bother me in the least. It's a staple of the game and makes building a base an artform. But like I said above, at least when unit production buildings are used in the mix it adds variables to the equation that requires thought and timing...much less than the 3 depot wall which will inevitable be used by all Terran players (after the rax is used initially).
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Understood, and that doesn't bother me in the least. It's a staple of the game and makes building a base an artform. But like I said above, at least when unit production buildings are used in the mix it adds variables to the equation that requires thought and timing...much less than the 3 depot wall which will inevitable be used by all Terran players (after the rax is used initially).
Well then how do you suppose we change the entire race to "fix" this? Terrans are weak individually, and to defend themselves they need a barrier between themselves and their ranged attacked especially early game. Maybe we should just change the marine to a melee unit, that would be fun.
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
Well then how do you suppose we change the entire race to "fix" this? Terrans are weak individually, and to defend themselves they need a barrier between themselves and their ranged attacked especially early game. Maybe we should just change the marine to a melee unit, that would be fun.
My solution is simple: we introduce the need to upgrade this at some point in the meta game so it's not common practice. It becomes one minor choice Terran players need to make that could add a seconds variance to a build. If they forget about it during a worker fight or scouting mission their wall is impassible for longer than they planned.
Never have I proposed removing floating buildings or sunken depots...I think they're both great actions for Terran players. I just want them to not be innate if balance proves it's a hindrance or irritation for others. The potential to cheese these depending on map circumstances is too great...especially early on in the game when every mineral being accounted for is so crucial.
Re: Should depot submerge be a research?
Again, we can COMPLETELY remove submerging depots, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference guys. The supplies are inert.
