Should depot submerge be a research?

[Pandonetho]

No one has yet addressed the fact that Terrans have been walling for a decade already, whether there's submerging depots or not. And you're all also forgetting the fact that in every game we've seen so far, every Terran HAS walled with a Barracks, so what's making it researchable going to do? Nothing. Killing 1000 HP barracks > Killing a 350 HP supply depot.

Making building lift off researched will also add complications such as, wow, now I can't tech switch to a Tech lab to a reactor.

Last but not least, new pathing solves ALL infantry pathing issues. Tanks might have a problem, but then if you make it researched past the tank stage, you're going to have to face the issue that I pointed out in the point before this one. Tech switching.

The whole idea of making any already innate Terran ability researched is complete fail.

[mr. peasant]

No one has yet addressed the fact that Terrans have been walling for a decade already, whether there's submerging depots or not. And you're all also forgetting the fact that in every game we've seen so far, every Terran HAS walled with a Barracks, so what's making it researchable going to do? Nothing. Killing 1000 HP barracks > Killing a 350 HP supply depot.

If what you're inferring is true (i.e. walling with Barracks is superior early game vs Depots and there is no trade-off when using the Barracks as a gate), then why even have Depots that can be submerged? The overlap between the two would render the latter pointless and unused.

[Pandonetho]

I didn't say it's better. I'm saying making it researched is not solving anything, people already wall with barracks so any point claiming that walling with 3 depots straight off the bat is moot.

Second of all, submerging depots have more functions than just walling a choke. It can wall SMALLER chokes for one, it also conveniences the player. It is also weaker than SC1 supply depots. It can be used to set up a siege where if a player has sufficient funds may set up a wall defense for his attack, submerge and continue his siege.

It also helps conserve space because fact it, supply depots do nothing but take up space. Letting them submerge allows your forces to move to where you got dropped faster and more easily.

[Blazur]

If what you're inferring is true (i.e. walling with Barracks is superior early game vs Depots and there is no trade-off when using the Barracks as a gate), then why even have Depots that can be submerged? The overlap between the two would render the latter pointless and unused.

Because you don't have have to continue to build barracks, but depots you do. Plus if you want to wall in a choke it's much cheaper to do so using multiple depots over a combination of rax's and factories.

[PsiWarp]

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if the Planetary Fortress unlocks Salvage and Submerge/Raise?

It could create tactical tension between choosing an Orbital Command for "quick cash, vision, emergency supply" and a Planetary Fortress for "base security, mobility via gates/walls, emergency refund"?


-Psi

[sandwich_bird]

Huh no. It's not because they wall in that you can't scout them. Just send a miner early and voilà! Problem solved. Wall in is pretty much the only way a noob can deal with 2 gate zeal rush and I don't see that changing in SC2. Plus, making this ability a research is pretty useless because by the time you'll have it researched, you'll have more than enough units to defend your base without walling in.

[Josue]

Are you guys considering that in SC1 supply depots used to have 500 hp and now they only have 350? Maybe it's due to them being able to submerge. Terran have used this kind of techniques for ten years and they will still do so in SC2, that's what gives terran their "flavor".
I personally agree with the people who says that making it require research is not the solution and won't solve anything.
However, since a trade-off seems to be needed to get the ability better balanced I hereby suggest there is a difference between submerged and non submerged depots.
Submerged depots are better protected from enemy fire than non submerged ones, right? Right. then, a non submerged depot being used as a wall should have less HP and/or armor than one that is submerged. it's quite logical, a non submerged depot is exposed to fire, while a submerged one can be barely hit at the top!

[n00bonicPlague]

And along the lines of what S_bird said, the main reason P couldn't get in was because of the unlucky choice in how to scout the map. Had he gone the right way, I'm sure he would've made it in before any wall was established. He just made the choice to scout a certain way, and it ended up being the wrong one, so he "wasted" valuable time.

EDIT: I think Josue has an interesting idea. It would make sense for submerged Supply Depots to take less damage since they have less area exposed and because they are firmly planted in the ground. On another note, does anyone know if submerged Depots are invisible (kinda like a burrowed zerg unit)?

[Pandonetho]

No, they are not invisible. There is virtually no difference between submerged and merged depots besides allowing units to path over them.

[trace wm]

EDIT: I think Josue has an interesting idea. It would make sense for submerged Supply Depots to take less damage since they have less area exposed and because they are firmly planted in the ground. On another note, does anyone know if submerged Depots are invisible (kinda like a burrowed zerg unit)?

It would make sense maybe, but it wouldn't be intuitive to a new player, and why would you stick around to kill such a low priority target when the base will be open to you then? I'm 99% sure they're still visible while dropped.


I didn't know depots have only 350 hp now, that makes me worry about depot killing runs :\