Printable View
The PF is cool. Do you think it will be worth losing your comsat/MULE options? Do you think it will be essential at all non-natural expansions and gold mineral deposits? It tears up zealots, I know that much.
Have you thought of any unique uses for the PF? For example, building a PF with bunkers in a ring around it in the center of the map, while dozens of SCV's proxy mine from every deposit on the map, while you type "I AM THE CENTER OF CREATION" in all chat?
I think early game a PF may be better than having mules and comsat just incase of rushes depending on how the opponent plays. Though midgame people will probably stick to mules just for the economy advantages.
The center of creation seems like a good target for nukes :P
I think the planetary fortress is really cool.
But seriously, get mules first, then build another Command Center next to it, and upgrade that one to a PF. Defence and fast mining.
You CAN do that right?
You can, but its downright retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaKhan
I hate the PF.
My reasons are my own.
I don't have a good opinion on static defenses with very high HP and attack power. That doesn't encourages interesting gameplay.
Fine. I'm not a terran player, so i think it works =PQuote:
Originally Posted by newcomplex
Can planetary fortresses fly like other buildings?
no.........Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaKhan
Okay, Just making sure.
If it could fly, you would just be able to land it and fight where you need to.
It should be infestable... so much fun.
Would it help if the PF were to lose its guns, but be allowed to fly, and become a Bunker of sorts (no carrying units while flying though)?
Not in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
lol the Command Center can already fly while carrying units (SCVs)
It would be like letting a siege tank attack from inside the medivac while sieged.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
You can land CCs in their base then convert them to PFs. Then feel good.
Somehow, I get the feeling that the workers in that base alone could take it out before it's done upgrading. Of course, by taking a single worker and moving it around beneath the CC, you could prevent it from landing in the first place...
Think of the micro opportunities!
Except that the PF wouldn't be able to carry units while its flying (as I explicitly stated), and it would be restricted to holding infantry only, and that infantry does cost supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blade
My strat is going to be making lots of CC's and turning them into PF's. That way, who needs supply depots and bunkers full of marines! They're like depots that defend themselves.
The PF does have it's uses, like being used to defend against a rush, or defending a high yield expansion.
But I think it could be more than that. It could have more abilities revolving around combat/defense, while the OC focuses on economy.
Like say, if you got a PF, it can also be an eBay. Or it could be the pre-req to better bunkers or something. Even if you have to lower its attack power, I think making it useful in more situations would make it more worthy of the Terrans, and a better competitor against the OC.
But as of now, I think it's 'fine'.
What if we add a falling block of concrete or some chunks of neosteal that will block chokes instead of mules for the PF.
Seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blade
I like the PF. Basically, build OCs at your main and nat and maybe even your second expo, but then keep to PFs for further expos, especially those that are far away, on an island, or containing high yield minerals. Also, if chokes are tight enough, it might be worth building one at the entrance of your base for the lulz. Also:
— CCs can fly and carry SCVs
— OCs can fly but can't carry SCVs
— PFs can't fly but can carry SCVs
It does have a crippling weakness: it can't shoot at air units.Quote:
I don't have a good opinion on static defenses with very high HP and attack power.
Two problems with this, though. Zerg don't have decent AtG, not for something like the PF, until Tier 3. And the Terrans have the cheapest, recyclable GtA in the Turret. So...
It also doesn't have a particularly high attack power; the units in BR4 died more to enemy unit fire than to what the PF was dishing out. It's really the combination of the armor upgrade and the PF that can cause problems.
It deals 40 damage with splash at normal attack speed and 6 range. That qualifies as a lot of damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Considering it can be built pretty early and has 1500 HP with 3 Armor, it's obvious this will cause problems. How's the enemy supposed to counter this thing that early?
Your not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
See thats the point. Sacrificing economy for early game protection. Either can win you the game but you have to use them wisely.
Well its hard to tell that because the PF deals ~ 40 splash damage, so it wouldn't kill any zealots until the 3rd or 4th shot.... but after that it would be killing large numbers of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
I do agree the Armor upgrade is a big thing.
I see the benefits as
1. Armor stops it from easily being destroyed
2. Attack means that Workers aren't autotargeted by raiders It is
3. Attack weakens the enemy so they can more readily be finished off by forces
The attack is weak on an 'army' scale but it is about the same as a siege tank in siege mode without the disadvantages (siege mode=100 slow splash if v. armor, friendly damage.... PF=40 normal splash for all enemy only)
Its really good for stopping raids because raids usually include units that do damage in small packets (vulnerable to armor) and are numerous (vulnerable to splash)
That's not early game protection, that's early game immunity. It wouldn't be a huge economic sacrifice, if they rush to the high shield minerals, which the enemy would be unable to attack. Hell, they could probably just float there in some maps, and build a PF if they aren't already protected by destructible rocks. That problem was never addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
So far all of the high yields have been protected by rocks if I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
Also you are giving up MULEs/Comsats with that base.
and early game immunity is nice, but it is only early game immunity, and only for that expansion.
The other player can get more expansions and so let you turtle up while they expand (and while they harass your main with Blink, Reapers, etc.)
They end up being able to out produce or out tech you (because you did use 150 gas early on.)
It seems useful for a base where you expect a decent amount of fighting.
For your Natural it seems like a good either or choice... probably good if you want to tech slightly but not too much.
IIRC they changed that to 60 damage now. It's a shame really because they used to 2 shot Stalkers.Quote:
(siege mode=100 slow splash if v. armor, friendly damage....
Now they need 3, they're weaker than the SC1 siege tank against large targets (which the SC1 siege tank did full damage to). Although it's still better against smaller targets since apparently the SC2 siege tank does full 60 to everything.
Its Just 60? I thought it was 60+40 (for armor)... are they making it tougher?cheaper? was it actually imbalanced at 100?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
The damage change was also a boost vs weaker units. It can one-shot marines now, even if they have shields.
um.... it wouldn't be a boost v. weaker armor ... if all they did was remove the boost for armor than it was a nerf.... no positive to tank combat valueQuote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757
(unless they also made another change like higher rate of fire, higher hp, or decreased cost)
The original damage was 50 + 50 vs armored, and now it's just 60. Vs light units, it's 20% better. Probably an overall nerf, but 60 splash is very good vs light. It's like a baneling cannon, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkitone
Not all, some of them are just on difficult to defend positions. At least difficult to defend unless you build a PF there early game. If they're protected by rocks, and it's reasonably near your main, you can float a CC there and remain protected by the rocks. In a map, a Blizzard employee floated it's own main CC there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkitone
That depends a lot on the map. If the enemy must go tru your natural, building a PF there will stop early rushes, so you're safe until they get something that can attack your main directly, and allows you to bypass Marines, and tech earlier. It's just 150 gas, that won't impact your tech too much, considering that you quick-expanded. The enemy must get two expansions early just to out-expand you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkitone
well you can bypass marines, butQuote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
Barracks are still needed for Teching, the PF needs an engineering Bay which you could have bypassed otherwise
You can only bypass marines if the PF builds quickly enough... because you need to
1. Get enough minerals to start on a CC
2. Wait for the CC to finish while you start getting Gas and an Engineering Bay
3. Wait for the PF to finish (assume Engineering Bay+150 gas +150 minerals are ready by then)
The later 2 steps take 150 seconds
Compare that to the Protoss FE of
1. Get 150 minerals
2. Forge
3. Build Cannons
Total of 75 seconds for the later 2 steps.
Basically more risky than a Protoss FE
It probably will be a good idea, but the other player can contain you (Proxy Pylon+Cannons/Bunkers/Zerglings outside your natural)... Because for this to work, the Natural must also be the only way out.
Then as long as the other player can hold the contain, and expand themselves, they can out expand you.
It is a possible strategy, but far from fool proof.
Ok, it's not build-and-forget, but encourages bad gameplay. It's disgusting enough as it is when Terrans decide to turtle like hell in a high ground base.
Pre-req for PF should be more than just the Bay.
How is turtling like hell bad gameplay? It is bad if it is imbalanced, but it should allow you to out expand them and/or commit too many of their forces to defending multiple locations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
It should be a viable strategy, just like the early rush... Just make it a Balanced Strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkitone
Thank you. Turtling isnt bad as long as its not the only way to play the game. Turtling should have its advantages and its disadvantages.
Just an FYI, in preparation for the Beta Request Lounge... I believe I have a calculated build order for a Banshee Rush + FE involving a planetary fortress... It is possible but Risky. If my calculations look correct, It involves an 11 CC and dual refinery at 14 while abusing salvageable bunkers.