Detectorific?

Discussion in 'StarCraft 2 Strategy Discussion' started by ItzaHexGor, Oct 8, 2008.

Detectorific?

  1. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    with decent micro, the marines can defeat a zealot. Also, I rarely ever see pros use photon cannons except for the forge fast expand against zerg or to counter mutas, the later which is what the turrets do for terrans

    for early game, all 3 races have 1 form of detection, thier static defence. By that, the zerg has the weakest static detection, the cannon can hit all units, and the scv's can repair a turret much faster than the spore's regen rate. Also, the zerg has to sacrifice economy to build them, yet the other 2 dont.

    cept that obs and sv dont count toward your supply, so losing them won't hurt unit production. And as zerg units are weaker, they need the advantage of numbers to survive any map.

    the supply depot and pylons are always in your main base, and thus have heavy defense. If your losing them, then your main base is practically lost. Also, the overseer/overlord is an air unit, so fast anti-air fighters can go in and pick 1 or 2 off before leaving, especially if they are in your expos to provide detection.

    By saying that, you contradicted your previous statement that EVERY ability or spell has to be researched. And if you want to get technical, the ghost has no free ability, as the nuke takes minerals, gas, and supply to use.
     
  2. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    With decent micro the zealots can kill the 2 marines. Zealots are faster and marines damage do little harm to zealots. Most likely the zealot will win. And if u go and use scvs to protect ur marines, u are slowing down ur enonomy. The fact that photon canons can attack air and ground proves they are more valuable than missile turrets.

    Terrans also sacrifice their economy by building turrets. Their scv cannot mine minerals. Considering that spore crawlers can move, they are better than the other races. Since they can move, u dun need as much spore crawlers. In fact with equal numbers with other races, u r more detectorific.

    If they lose their observers and nighthawks, they lose their detection too. And nighthawks cost more gas than overseers. If they lose the nighthawk, they would have lost more gas. Anyway the issue of losing overlords is similar to SC1. If SC1 can be balanced by having vulnerability of overlords, then SC2 can be the same.

    Overlords and Overseers are mean to be the strength and weakness of the swarm. U save alot of cost by having a transporter, detector and supply provider compare to other races. And u can also move ur "supply provider" unlike Terrans and Protoss. So this has to be balanced out with the vulnerability of Overseers. Its simple. U save cost by having them multipurpose and u have more vulnerability in them getting killed. And be glad they know how to fly.

    It didn't matter Eonmaster. The fact is that it is LAME that u r complaining that overseers need to research spells even if those spells are powerful.
     
  3. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    Um...Ive seen zeals fight marines, they have the same speed until the zeal gets the leg enhancement. It's hard, but 2 rines can kill 1 zeal, as I've seen it happen.

    Yes terrans do sacrifice some economy, but only temporarily, the zerg lose it permanently. Also, they need larve to rebuild drones, when they could have used them to build an army. While the queen's new ability counters that, it's still annoying having to limit army production for more drones.

    Even if the terran lose thier Nighthawks, that doesnt mean they lost detection, as any smart terran player would have an orbital command, which can scan. So it makes sence that it's the most expencive because the terrans dont need a mobile detector quite as much as the other 2 races.

    How was I complaining about researching upgrades? Cuz I wasn't, only stating a fact. I really dont care if it requires research or not.
     
  4. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    It is going to be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for it to happen. And most likely u will have to hide benind some depots and scvs to do that. With scvs yes, it can be done. But u are slowing down ur own economy to stop the zealots. Hence photon canon will always be more reliable.

    With the new queens' mechanic, u can spawn more larvae. Therefore not only can u mine faster but u can spam more spore crawlers. If u have issues abt wasting drones, dun bother building too many spore crawlers. But build a few. They can move so if u micro, u dun need to build as many as terrans or protoss.

    Its true that Terrans rely less on mobile detectors compare to others. But having a mobile detector is the best form of detection. U oredi save alot of cost by having an equivalent of terran supply depot, terran nighthawks and medivac dropship inside the overlords/overseers. Since u can save more cost, therefore it is balanced out by having them being vulnerable. U only see the bad points but u didn't see the good points. Plus compare to pylons and supply depots, they can move.

    This is ur complain. In fact nighthawks face similar situation. Not only that. They cost more gas too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  5. Gasmaskguy

    Gasmaskguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Sweden
    Uh, yeah, of course it's more useful than a Turret, since it has both GtG and GtA capabilities. But what Terran player has Turrets only...? My point by pulling in the Siege Tank and Bunker was to demonstrate how many option you have when on the defensive as a Terran.
    As a Protoss all you can do is mass Cannons. If the opponent has anything but 50% air and 50% ground in his attack the Cannons will in fact be wasting potential damage on being allround.
    A Terran player on the other hand can increase his Turret count if the enemy goes air, or get more Siege Tanks or Bunkers if the other player goes ground. Not to mention the always-present Supply Depots that can wall everything in.
    On the same note, a Zerg player can adjust his Sunken : Spore ratio to adapt his defenses to the current situation. Nothing a Protoss player can do.

    Also, since Photon Cannons are Protoss' only defensive structure a LOT of detection will stack in vain. That detection is wasted, just like the minerals the Cannons' detecion cost, since you only need 2 - 3 of your 4 - 10 Cannons to have it. Terran on the other hand will only face a similar situation if the enemy goes heavy air. Bunkers and Siege Tanks waste no resources on detection. All the resources they cost goes straight to attack power and hp, meaning they are more cost effective than Photon Cannons.

    The early game Turret + 2 Marines vs Zealot + Photon Cannon you're discussing with Eon is a stalemate, basically (and that's anything but unfair). The two Marines can obviously not enter the Protoss base, but a Zealot can in no way kill 2 Marines behind Supply Depots. In SC2 Building Supply depots next to each other won't let Zerglings or Zealots pass through anymore.


    Was that ever a problem for you in SC1? Do you realize that Marines / Marauders / Reapers / Ghosts (inside Bunkers) and Siege Tanks are versatile, as in when you're done defending they can, unlike Photon Cannons, go to attack? Saying Siege Tanks and infantry is a waste of minerals and supply is like saying Zealots and Stalkers are a waste of minerals and psi.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  6. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Since u agreed that Phase canons are more useful, then there isn't any problems. The Protoss can also choose to defend their base with Collosus or Zealots in their base. Its not a must for the Protoss to mass canons.

    When it comes to 50% air and 50% ground there is no wastage at all. The photon canons can do their job by being ATG and ATA. Of coz if u compare with missile turrets, in this way ur missile turrets will be saving cost. But the point is in early game, ground units are common while air units are very limited. So ur logic is not quite right. Even if the Protoss did "waste" on phase canons, they stil do not need to worry abt ground attack compare to their Terran peers. And can u even tell what ur opponent is going to build b4 u decide whether missile turrets or phase canons can save u more cost? Dun let the cost blind u.

    When I was discussing with Eonmaster, the comparison made is just to point out that phase canons are "stronger" than 2 marines. Of coz being able to wall in is a great Terran advantage no doubt. All the while I am only comparing missile turrets and phase canons. But u all go and add in foreign things like marines and now the ability to wall in. If u want to wall in, I will bring stalkers with blink or Collosus inside the equation. Then it will become 1 phase canon vs 1 stalker or 2 marines + 1 missile turret vs 1 stalker. So no wall in since stalker can blink through wall in. The point is phase canons have better damage and can last longer than 2 marines.

    When pro players play, they seldom turtle their base with siege tanks and bunkers. They adopt a more aggresive approach and their map awareness is far greater than normal players. Thats why they dare to play with hardly any defence left in their base. For Protoss will be phase canons while Terrans would be missile turrets. So what I am saying is that u are wasting ur resources and supplies by having Siege Tank + bunkers which could have been used to attack instead of SITTING in ur base while being unable to contribute in the main battle. For the Protoss is so simple. They have GTA and GTG defence at base and they can fully use their units for the offensive. In short what I am saying is that it is not wise to let some of ur supply sitting in ur base just to have GTG to equalize with Protoss photon canons. Most pro Terran players hardly has any defence in their main base except for missile turrets.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  7. Gasmaskguy

    Gasmaskguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Sweden
    I agreed that Photon (stop calling them Phase Cannons, that's incorrect) Cannons are better than Turrets alone, don't you follow? The lower cost for Turrets balances it out, since not only are they cheaper, but you also need about 33% less Turrets than Cannons (when countering air, mind you. When countering ground you just make Bunkers and/or Siege Tanks) because of their higher damage and equal detection while being cheaper.
    It all balances out since Siege Tanks and Bunkers cover the GtG hole.



    That clashes with:

    You're contradicting yourself. So the Terran player is wasting resoures and supplies by defending with units while the Protoss is not? Yeah right. Any decent player would know when to be defending with his main army of Zealots/Colossi or Marines/Tanks, or when to be on the offensive.



    According to your horror scenarios that would get you overpowered by a couple Dark Templars or Lurkers that focus on the few Cannons/Pylons or something.

    And on that note, As a Terran I don't have to mass Turrets either. I just make as many as I need.



    There is indeed a wastage. For example, Siege Tanks alone offer a better GtG defense than Photon Cannons do. Turrets offer a better GtA defense than Photon Cannons do. Mix Siege Tanks with Turrets and it all balances out.
    And don't come and say that the Siege Tank isn't tier 1 and my argument is void. Before you get Siege Tanks, you don't really need other GtG defenses than Bunkers and Supply Depots in the front.



    Don't you realize that since air units early game are limited (or nonexistant as I would've put it. Overlords don't matter since a lone Marine could deal with that), the need for early GtA defenses is nonexistant as well? Simple logic.
    So: You won't be wasting resources on Turrets and missing out on GtG defenses since early Terran defenses consist of Bunkers and Supply Depots.
    The Protoss, on the other hand, is wasting the Cannons' GtA damage early in the game, since GtA is not needed.



    Yeah, and it's not magic, it's scouting. Are you familiar with it?Just send an SCV, or a Probe or a Drone. Well, for the Protoss there's only the Probe, but a Terran can throw a scan if the worker fails, so the Terran is at an advantage.

    Oh, and I understood what you were trying to say, but there's never a choice between Turrets and Cannons since they belong to different races.



    That's not a fair comparison. You obviously need to take in more factors than that...

    See, that's like comparing Observers with Nighthawks and go "omg NHs can place Turrets and Mines but the Observer has no attack at all!11" (seriously, that's what you're doing, but with two structures), but to be fair you need to include other units, and by doing that you'll realize that the Observer doesn't need any indirect attacks (like Turrets and Mines) because other units can attack instead of it, which is the case for the Turret: other defenses around it can defend the ground.




    It's not the same. Marines and Supply Depots aren't foreign, they would obviously be there in a match at tier 1. Neither Colossi nor Stalkers would though, since they're tier 1.5 or higher. By that time Terran Terran will have advanced to new tech.



    When they are sitting in your base, they are sitting there for a reason: the other player is attacking, or about to. That means that they are already at the main battle.

    When the battle is at home, Marines and Siege Tanks are at home. When the battle is at the enemy, the Marines and Siege Tanks are at the enemy. Is it that hard? It's the same for Protoss, they can't defend a base with just Photon Cannons, that would be ridiculous. They back them up with their ground forces, and believe me, those forces are not sitting in your opponents base unable to contribute to some battle.



    Same for Terran: Turrets at home, forces wherever they're needed.




    Well doesn't that just prove that you don't always need GtG defenses at home? Thanks.

    Basically, it's like this: Protoss will always have their Photon Cannons at home, NOT getting ANY use out of them when on the offensive. All while Terran's mobile GtG defenses are useful both defending and attacking.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  8. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    You call that complaining? I call it pointing out a fact.

    Even if I was originally to be a complaint, I would use it as an arguement point, which are 2 different things, and which you allowed me to make of it. You seem to think that anyone who argues against the overseer is a zerg fanboy, which I can tell you I'm not, as the zerg is my worst race in the game.

    To get this thread back on track, I'll say this: while the overseer is good, it doesn't make much sense lore-wise that the overlord would lose its detection, or that the zerg would sacrifice its universal detection ability if favor for a creep making ability.

    and BTW, I don't see argueing/complaining as LAME, as this is a forum meant for pointing out your ideas and agrue your case aganst others.
     
  9. Michael_Liberty

    Michael_Liberty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Denver
    Alright,
    A) That didn't answer or respond to anything I said, you just dodged it.
    B) Of course the Overlord is extremely powerful and useful, it can provide supplies, detection and transport. What a sweet unit you might say but no, no it really isn't while it's a little more economical (which the zerg need to boost their numbers to stand a chance really) it also pins them as the most crippling unit in the game, just by detection your putting your food on the line, just to transport your putting your food on the line, you swing into a zerg base with a bunch of wraiths/scouts and you can demolish a zerg base and economy because now they have limited detection, no way to transport units and no food to make more units to back up their forces. It's a serious hamper on the zerg player but it's also very effective for different stratagies. Again every choice you get in starcraft is an advantage to you. When going up against a zerg player I don't curse the fact that they have overlords I relish in the fact that they have to use that unit for so many things. With no defense they are constantly on the front line for some reason or another. No other race can complain about such a crippling blow that can come that easily. Pylons, perhaps but they have a hell of a lot more health then overlords do and they aren't being pushed to the front lines either.
     
  10. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    I often see overlords as the achilles heel of the zerg race. Once they get killed when on the front lines, the zerg army cant rebuild to its former strength until they are remade.

    No other race has that kind of cripling unit, as it is weak, slow unit an upgrade is done, and is a 3-in-1 purpose unit, in which 2 of those 3 are almost worthless until said speed upgrade is done, and 1 needs another upgrade to use.

    Sure it works economicly, but that can easily be countered by it's vulnerability in combat.
     
  11. overmind

    overmind Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    38
    From:
    New Zealand
    That's like saying dropships aren't necessarily useful, you could be caught before you drop units and lose a great portion of your army, does that mean that dropships should be scrapped?

    To be frank, that doesn't matter. It's a zerg unit. A non-terran player might have no issue with a terran general that has marine health that you lose the game if you die, does that mean you should have that massive venerability and horrible unit?

    Hypocrite. You've been arguing that terran need this and that buffed while playing the 'blizzard knows best' card whenever anything is argued for an improvement to the other races, you've been arguing that terran needs more detection choices even though they already have the most.


    No, the most important thing blizzard should care about is keeping it balanced.

    The current solution solves one problem by building on another, now zerg no longer have more detection but now there detector unit is even more important to the zerg player just as easy to snipe and is an even more serious blow to lose one, how is that balanced? You've been complaining about having the added venerability of missile turret while turning around and dismissing this, much, much more serious weakness.
     
  12. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Yes canons are more useful than turrets. And that has been my point all the while. I dun see the need to add foreign things like bunkers and siege tank into the equation. If u were to add in siege tank and bunkers, the extra vespense gas is oredi more than the resources needed to mass canons. In short to compensate for the GTG canons, u have wasted gas for the tanks. Hence ur post is illogical. Anyway all the while I have always been stressing canons > turrets.

    U were saying Protoss only have once choice to defend their base which is mass canons while Terrans have more choices. That is not true as the Protoss player CAN choose to defend them with Zealots and etc. What I am implying is that while it is UNWISE to do so, they can CHOOSE to do so.

    The reason why I throw out the siege tanks and bunkers out if becoz very seldom pros do that. They will only do so when they are aware that their base is under heavy attack. And even some resorted to build bunkers in the middle of the invasion. My point is while they provide good defence, they are not static defence especially tanks. Some pros lose the game becoz they mobilize their tanks too far away from their base until there is hardly any GTG defence in the Terran base. The Protoss with canons will be better than the Terrans in this aspect.

    Dun put words into my mouth. The scenarios I have been referring to were only Terrans! The Protoss will face lesser problems since their canons is GTG and GTA while turrets are only GTA. So while the canon can attack the dark templars, the turrets could not.

    If u are referring to SC1 u are wrong. Missile turrets deal explosive damage while photon canons deal normal damage. So on targets like mutalisk, photon canons will deal more damage. And they have same amount of damage. So u r wrong abt missile turrets > canons in terms of GTA. And siege tank cost gas while photon canons do not. Therefore ur defence is more costly than the Protoss. Besides if u want to add in siege tanks, the Protoss should be given high templars /reavers/ collosus to compliment the canons. Ur scenario is totally unfair. One of them is becoz the Terran side cost gas while the Protoss did not fork out any gas at all. U definetely lose in terms of cost.

    When u need detection there is hardly any choice. In SC1 u have the luxury of turrets, spider mines and scanning in early game. So in SC1 there isn't any problems as u can place ur spider mines at strategic place. Scan will consume too much energy while turrets gta is quite a waste.

    But in SC2, there will only be turrets and scanner sweep for detection purpose in early game. To provide better detection for massable cloaking units, turrets will prevail over scanner sweep. U can choose both but turrets are better. So in other words the Terrans have no choice but to waste the GTA early game when there are hardly any air units becoz of cloaked units. The Protoss do not suffer from this problem. If there aren't any cloaked units between early game and middle game, only then u r right.

    The Protoss will nvr be wasting their GTA attack as they can not only fend of dark templars but others like zerglings to banshees. There is no waste at all. Can turrets attack dark templar? They need other troops to defend them while canons can defend themselves very nicely.

    The protoss can also scout by using dark templars (permenant cloaking is awesome). Anyway even if the enemies going for heavy air so what? Are u going to tell Blizzard hey it is unfair for the Protoss to have more expensive canons rather than missile turrets since the enemies go for 100% air? U are just being ridiculous. In fact most fo the time, the harassment will come from ground units. Therefore having GTA and GTG is a big advantage. U just build this structure and u dun have to worry abt having enemy ground or air units. In fact in SC1 canons are better GTA since missile turrets deal explosive damage.

    I have been comparing only turrets and canon. And I have nvr said it is unfair for turrets to only have GTA. And I have never requested for turrets to have GTG as well as GTA? Did I? So I am only saying canons > turrets and I have no problems with it. Every race is different and in this part Terran has a weakness. And Terrans will have other advantages as well. Which is Terrans definetely have better siege units compare to other races. Get my point? While I acknowledge that canons > turrets, I didn't say its unfair either.

    Again u r wrong. Having GTG is a bonus apart from having GTA. Why? Thats becoz in the event that some enemies manage to sneak into ur base without u knowing, the Terrans can't do anything but with canons, the Protoss can repel the attack with less effort as long as they are not outrange. Many pro players in fact lose tthe game this way. Having turrets only in the main base while there is too few units in the base which is just produced in the game. And their main forces are not fast enough to return. So in the event of a sneak in, the canons will always be more advantageous than the turrets. And dun tell me craps like u will nvr fall preys to enemies sneaking inside ur base. It will be bull*** since pros also has lose this way b4. U are only right if truly the enemies nvr manage to sneak inside ur base. Again I would like to repeat that I have never felt that turrets should be given improvement even though they are weaker than canons.

    @Eonmaster

    Look at the word expensive, invest even more and need to be researched. That is complaining. Nighthawks are even more expensive than overseers. So please u shouldn't point it out in the first place becoz other races has equivalent expensive detector especially Terrans.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  13. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    @Michael Liberty

    I didn't dodge ur question. Tell me exactly what I am avoiding. I said Overseers are useful to the swarm. It is ur own perception abt the degree of their usefulness.

    Like I said while overlords are the strength and weakness of the swarm. U only see the negative but fail to see the good side. U save alot of cost by having 3 functions in 1 unit. Of coz that makes it more vulnerable but u have to protect them with ur army. If u are complaining abt this crippiling effect, by all means u can play other races. Take note that Terrans and Protoss requires 3 units / structures to get the effect of 1 Overlord. And if truly if is is such crippling unit, why was SC1 balance in the first place? Hunting down overlords is part of the game strategy. U can even hunt down ur enemies supply depot and pylon. Good players know how to minimize the loss of overlords.

    @Overmind

    1. Thats becoz most of the time when u decide to land the unit, u should have forseen whether the enemies are capable to destroy the dropships. The fact is all races has the equivalent of "dropships" anyway. So there is no problem. But radar towers are only for Terrans, so ur analogy is not right. Plus dropship can transport u to an area free of the enemies. So the chances for it to back fire to u is slimmer than radar towers. A poor analogy I would say. U should have get a better example. For me its better off to be scrap. But I have no problems with it. I may just opt not to use it.

    2. Losing overseers not necessarily will lose u the game. Sure u will have to spawn overseers first if ur max supply is less than ur current supply. But after ur overlords are hatch, u can still spawn more units faster than other races thanks to the larvae system and the new queen mechanics.

    In a fair game, if they attack ur overlords / overseers until they die, u can kill their offensive units. So while ur "useless" units are dead, they have less offensive power than u becoz u aim their attacking units. As such although u lose ur supporting unit until u can't breed more zergs temporarily, ur offence is now stronger than ur enemy. U can now kill most of the enemies unit becoz of that and in turn attack their base. So where is the unbalance issue? Both sides will also suffer heavy damage. Also zergs can recover their forces faster than Terrans or Protoss.

    3. I nvr said I am not bias on my own favourite race. Chances are I am bias. And that include zerg players like u. Thats why luckily we are not developers of the game. I am quite confident if u made the game, Zerg will have minimal weakness. The terran choices are based on early game. Basically the choice is still the same after my suggestion. It is just that the choice will be push down to a lower tier. I propose spider mines to be moved to a lower tier so that in early game, terran players have more choices. That is to allow different players with different taste to combat cloaked units in the way they like. As such I am not ruining the balance but giving Terran players with different preference to combat cloaked units.

    4. Where is ur proof that the game is unbalanced given that Overseers need to be evolved and easily sniped? That is just what u think in ur mind. U have no proof at all! The game can be balanced with the current overseer system. However I may not have problems if Overseers are removed and all mechanics are returned back to overlords. That u have to complain to Blizzard. And I wish u good luck.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  14. EonMaster

    EonMaster Eeveelution Master

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,154
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Black City, Unova
    complain:
    1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.
    2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

    argue:
    1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate
    2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend
    3. To give evidence of; indicate
    4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons
    1. To put forth reasons for or against something
    2. To engage in a quarrel; dispute

    Hence, in no way was I complaining, as I do not feel dissatisfaction or resentment against having to upgrade it's abilities as most abilities require upgrades, even in sc1, you had to upgrade transport, nor am I accusing anyone/anything. I brought it up to provide evidence against it and evidence to prove my point.

    Also, as the overseer has abilities, it's even more worthwhile to kill than in sc2, as it is supply, detection, transport, and ability caster. So unlike sc1 where it was a 3-in-1 unit, in sc2, the overseer is actually a 4-in-1 unit.

    Look up a defenition next time before accusing people.


    Also, the turret only costs half as much as a cannon, so if it were to have a GtG and GtA attack, it would be overpowered unless it's GtA and GtG was reduced to half of the cannon's, which then people would complain about it being horrible at GtA defense.
     
  15. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    When I read ur post, I can feel ur dissatisfaction. In fact when I post similar quotes, many ppl claim it is a complain.

    The only real person that knows that is u urself. I can feel it as I read ur post. For me its quite clear it is a complain anyway. Like I said, only u will know exactly what u think. But it will be hard for me to believe it is not ur complain abt Overseers.

    Anyway its quite normal. I have similar post and ppl claim that I "complained" although I just state some facts. Conclusion : Dun be offended if u are truly not complaining. In fact u can just ignore what I say even if my accusations were right. I couldn't be bothered with ppl complaining that I am complaining. Anyway I am sorry if it offended u.
     
  16. Gasmaskguy

    Gasmaskguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Sweden
    OK, good for you. That doesn't prove that Terran detection is worse off or something though, since you discard so many other factors. A three year old could come to the conclusion that Turrets alone are inferior to Cannons alone. Cannons are multi-purpose, simple as that.



    They are part of the Terran defense, that's not very foreign IMO. Again, if all you wanna do is compare nothing but Turrets with nothing but Cannons, nobody cares. Obviously the Cannon is generally more useful, since it does both the Bunker's and Turret's job at the same time. Anybody could figure that out. In the end it all balances out and Terran is not really inferior early game. IMO they are superior. Scan + Supply Depot offer superior scouting, and superior early to mid game base defending.

    And don't get stuck on the Siege Tank while ignoring the Bunker. If a sieged Siege Tank doesn't count as a defensive structure to you, the Bunker still will, and it covers GtG way better than the Cannon, so it balances out. A Bunker's longevity is ridiculous thanks to SCV repair. You need a lot less Bunkers than Photon Cannons, which balances out the extra cost.



    Since when did Bunkers with Marines cost gas?... Again, if you're gonna discard Siege Tanks because they don't suit your aguement, you can't discard Bunkers + Marines and Supply Depots as all they cost is minerals.



    You're just choosing to ignore Bunkers + Marines and Supply Depots, which will only cost you minerals.



    But it doesn't stop there. You're not just saying Cannons > Turrets, you actually think that Terran detection is worse of because of that. Ridiculous. You can't compare only two things if the point you wanna make includes a lot of other things (DTs and whatnot).



    Only when discussing defensive structures. Terran have Turrets and Bunkers as their gas free defenses, with support from Supply Depots. What I am saying is that you can't compare Cannons with Turrets and say "oh, lack of Terran GtG." You'd have to compare Cannons with Bunkers + Marines, Supply Depots and Turrets.



    How is it unwise to back up your Cannons with Zealots etc? And let's not go around in circles here, let your next argument be something else but how you're wasting supplies just idly standing there. I already adressed that in one of my earlier posts.



    That's what I am saying dude. If they are under attack, Marines in Bunkers and Siege Tank serve great as GtG defenses. And if it happens as seldom as you say: great. That means that the Marines and Tanks can be used offensively.


    When in siege mode they're static. But wait: are you agreeing that they provide good defense, but dismissing that by saying I labeled them wrong or something? Who cares if they are called "static defenses" or not? In the end of the day they provide a good defense as you said.



    OMG iz dat tru?! Teh Terran playr lost cuz he didn't have any defenses in his base?! Wut a surprise!


    ...You don't realize that's how Starcraft should play? A player leaves his base unprotected: his base is vulnerable.

    And if you think Cannons are the ultimate defense, able to stop any attack to the base you're wrong. I've seen so many games where Cannons get crushed in a matter of seconds by an army of Tanks + Vultures or in ZvP Zerglings + Ultras. Cannons never suffice. They just stall the attacker. It all comes down to the Protoss player returning to his base with his own army.



    How is being forced to do something better than having an option? Cannons will always be in the base because they have no other choice, lol. Siege Tanks and Marines have a choice of staying or not though.
    The Terran player could pretend to have no choice and leave a couple of his Siege Tanks and Marines at home to achieve the same feeling of 'them always being there, always being useful'.
    The freedom of choice definitely balances out the supply they cost. And it's not wasting the supply, as they are there for a very important purpose: to protect the base.



    Lol! The Protoss will not face less problems because of that. That's like me saying Terran players will face less problems since Nighthawks can both detect DTs and place Turrets and Mines to kill them while an Observer has no attack, just like Turrets.



    How is it that you have the brains to figure out damage types such as explosive damage, while being completely oblivious to other things such as attack cooldowns and costs? How is that? It always helps your arguement, that's for sure (until someone points out what's so obviously wrong about it, undermining your credibility, that is).

    You are wrong. What you said supposedly proves that Cannons > Turrets vs Mutalisks, but you use it to prove that Cannons > Turrets IN GENERAL. WTH? That's what I am talking about: You always compare stuff to prove unrelated stuff. Your statement "So u r wrong abt missile turrets > canons in terms of GTA" suggests that Cannons are on par with, or even better at countering air units in general. How can you even suggest such a thing? It's ridiculous. Everybody here knows that Turrets are better vs BCs than Cannons are, for example. The Mutalisk just so happens to be, together with the Scourge which has no business next to a Turret/Cannon, the ONLY small air unit. All other air units are medium or more likely large.


    Here's a lesson for you.

    Turret damage per cooldown per minerals

    Vs small: 0.009
    Vs medium: 0.013
    Vs large: 0.018


    Cannon damage per cooldown per minerals

    Vs small: 0.006
    Vs medium: 0.006
    Vs large: 0.006

    The Cannon isn't even better against small units, and against large units it's a joke! Lol! That's the price it has to pay for being general purpose.

    Now tell me which one is better vs air... Stop making up facts, it damages your credibility.



    Bunkers with Marines and Supply Depots don't cost gas.



    And also better... It all balances out. Besides, if the Protoss player has Cannons for 1000 mins, the Terran only needs Turrets and Bunkers with Marines for about 1000 mins to make their defenses even.

    It doesn't matter if the Siege Tanks makes the Terran defense costlier, because when attacking, the Siege Tanks can assist just like a Zealot can, while the Cannon is stuck in the base. You seem to forget that the Siege Tank is multi-purpose.



    Let's just say that I don't want to add in Siege Tanks then, but only Bunkers with Marines. Nullifies your arguement. The Siege Tanks are not a must, they are just an option: something the Terrans have a lot of, the scan being one example.



    There aren't any cloaked attackers either haha...



    Oh, I guess I am right then. Neat-o.
    You see, Lurkers and DTs and Banshees and Motherships are tier 3. So if the opponent has time to get one of them, you yourself will have time to get Nighthawks (which will give you Mines to detect with, too).
     
  17. Gasmaskguy

    Gasmaskguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Sweden
    Hahaha, hilarious! Why are you bringing in tier 3? If that's allowed, then: Terran can also scout with Banshees. Their non-permanent cloaking is balanced since they are air units which is much better when scouting.

    The Orbital Command is tier 1, that's what's so amazing. if the early SCVs fail to scout, you can scan just a few moments later. What use is there to scout the enemy's base with a tier 3 unit? Your opponent will already have made all the structures and units his strategy revolved around. Scouting your opponents tech route is supposed to be done tier 1 or 2, something Terran have an edge on as I said.


    No. Everything I am arguing for is how SC1/SC2 in the end is very balanced, while you argue for it's unbalance.
    You bring up something that you claim makes the game unbalanced, and I bring something up that balances it out. That's what we've been doing all this time.



    It's a two-way street man. What makes the Cannon weaker vs mass air makes it weaker vs mass ground too. If the opponent goes mass ground the GtA capability of the Cannon is wasted. Very simple.



    Simplicity and superiority is not the same. It's simpler to you because it's only one structure. Well I have no hard times buidling both Bunkers and Turrets to achieve the same as massing Cannons does. Maybe you should play Protoss.



    I already steamroll'd you about this. Turrets deal more GtA damage against any unit size.



    Wow. So you agree? Each race is indeed very different and have different strengths and weaknesses, but it all balances out in the end, and Terran detection is fine. Case closed? :p



    Same for a Terran with Turrets and Bunkers, I'd say.



    I've seen pro's lose by having too few Cannons in their base, too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  18. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    @Gasmaskguy

    1. Like I said becoz canons are more multipurpose = versatile = more useful than turrets. If u agree with me then its fine.

    2. Yes I couldn't care less if u add in foreign things as well. I only said canons > turrets. And I nvr said it is unfair. In fact I have no problems with it.

    Nobody is denying that bunkers are more powerful than canons in terms of defence. My point is that u clearly said that Protoss can ONLY mass canons as defence. That is wrong. If u want to add in siege tanks the Protoss can be allowed to add in other units as well. And bunkers dun contribute to detection. In fact 1 photon canon is still cheaper than 1 bunker + 1 missile turret. U can't deny that.

    3. I discard siege tanks becoz not only the cost gas but they cost supply as well. If u want to add in bunkers, then its fair to me. But take note that 1 photon canon is still cheaper than 1 bunker + 1 missile turret. And the units inside ur bunker cost supplies. Therefore canons are still more versatile.

    4. Yes Terran detection for static defence is not as good as the Protoss one since canons > turrets. But there is nothing wrong with that. Terran has other advantages as well to compensate such weakness. Besides as long as turrets and other form of counter against cloaked units are adequate, it didn't matter as the game is still balanced. It is just like SC1 Overlords which is detectorific. But the game is still balance. I am just pointing out that building turrets for Terrans in early game is quite wasteful if there aren't much air units as well. Building photon canons is much better than missile turrets if you wanted to solely build it for EXCLUSIVELY for detection purpose. Though they are double the cost of turrets, the gtg made up for the cost. In fact it is proven that if u add in foreign things, the canons will still come out cheaper and better.

    5. As long as no siege tank there then it is fine. But again I am saying ur setup is more costly than just massing canons.

    6. I am saying it is stupid to leave ur zealots there 24/7 to defend ur base with ur canons. Since they are mobile, they are better off doing more useful things instead of turtling. Again I am only comparing static defences. If u add rubbish like siege tanks. dun blame me if I add in more rubbish like Carriers.

    7. Of coz those tanks and marines can be put to greater use for offense. But what happen if ur base is left without any tanks when ur enemies manage to sneak in? Many pro players lose when their opponents manage to sneak in when there are only turrets left in the base. Protoss players will suffer less problem becoz at least they can repel some of the ground attack.

    8. Siege tanks cost supplies just as other units do. Photon canons do not cost any supply at all. If u add tanks in, then I can add collosus/ high templars/ reavers and etc. Adding a unit inside the static defence equaltion is RIDICULOUS!

    9. I nvr said canons are the ultimate defence. I said at least they are better than turrets. At least they can repel some of the ground attacks but of coz not all. A player who let his base defenceless (except for static defence) deserves to lose the game if he is unable to mobilize his troops. But at least the photon canons can be more effective than turrets by repelling some ground troops. That is good as they can BUY more time for the Protoss army to return to their main base to destroy the invaders. Can the Terran buy more time like the Protoss? No...

    10. If u leave ur siege tanks and marines in the defence 24/7 turtling, then u have oredi wasted some amount of troops for offense and other purposes. In this sense, u are being inefficient. And that could cost u the game. Only if its necessary u can put the tanks there to protect ur base from a heavy attack. U won't be able to win the game by turtling. That is why u seldom see pro players turtle. And it is very normal for them to lose the game if they could not mobilize their forces back to their base.

    11. That is true. Nighthawks can potentially to kill dts unlike observers. They are spellcasters while observers aren't. What I am saying is that observers are better than nighthawks in terms of being a scout and a detector.

    12. Now I have to give u a lesson in hand. In T vs Z games the Zerg opponent use mutalisk commonly to harass their enemies. In T vs P games, who uses scouts to harass their enemy can kiss their game good bye. Do u get my point? U cannot see things in general but u have to see it from competetive game of point.

    Zerg flyers consist of mutalisks, scourges, overlords, queens and Guardians. Protoss has shuttle, observers, scouts, carriers, corsairs and arbiters.

    For T vs Z since turrets deal explosive damage, it means that their 20 damage is cut into half which means 10. U can argue that for 150 minerals, both races have 20 damage each. Are u sure that the 2 turrets MUST be placed so close to each other that they can attack the mutalisk at the same time? They can be placed so far to each other that only one can attack at a time. Therefore turrets are the worse counter to mutalisk compare to other GTA defence. And also becoz of explosive damage they are oso inefficient against scourge.

    Why mutalisk is a big concern is that they are the most reliable air harasser in the game during the middle game. Others like guardians, carriers and battlecruisers can easily destroy canons or turrets. In fact both are bad choices to counter capital ships. So therefore from a practical point of view, players will usually mass canons / turrets for the purpose to counter mutalisk. Do u see anyone mass canons / turrets to counter guardians/carriers/scouts/corsairs and etc? In conclusion, u are just being impractical. And u are the one making up facts. Aside from this canons oso provide GTG. So u tell me which is better? Think carefully next time.

    13. There are cloaked units early to mid game which is dark templars and lurkers. U definetely can bring out dts and lurkers b4 nighthawks. Stop spouting nonsense.

    14. Scouting not only can be done to discover tech purposes. But to discover the opponents surroundings. Tats where u r wrong, my fren. And banshees need energy to cloaked unlike observers and dts.

    15. SC2 has yet to come out and yet u can say it is balanced. U r just being ridiculous. I nvr said it is unbalanced anyway. I only said that canons > turrets. Stop putting words inside my mouth. Thats what u enjoy doing.

    16. If the opponents go for all ground, by all means ur canons can attack them too. They are so valuable that they have GTA and GTG. There r no wastages.

    17. Not only u need bunkers but u need to train marines to have the same GTG as me. Isn't that wasting cost? 1 canon is always cheaper than 1 bunker + missile turret. Do ur math. And its worse when u need to add in the marines as well hahahah.

    18. Terran detection is fine . But they are not as good as Protoss. End of story.

    19. At least those canons can buy some time for the player to retun their troops. Turrets couldn't do anything to ground units.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  19. Gasmaskguy

    Gasmaskguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes received:
    4
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Sweden
    Nope. Turrets are half the price for the same area of detection. Turrets are twice as good as Photon Cannons when it comes EXCLUSIVELY to detection as you said.



    The Terran Sensor Tower will serve the same way. Before the opponent has reached his base, he starts going back.


    Oh I do see, you're the one who doesn't. You either missed, or dismissed my Turret and Cannon damage chart. It doesn't matter what unit size the opponent air unit has.



    Again, how is it that you have the brains to figure out damage types such as explosive damage, while being completely oblivious to other things such as attack cooldowns? How is that?



    LOL! You're asking me which one's generally better? Who cares? We're talking about which one is better at GtA.
    You said:

    We have been talking about GtA all this time! Rofl.


    And really, you need to take another look at my damage chart below:

    Turret damage per cooldown per mineral

    Vs small: 0.009
    Vs medium: 0.013
    Vs large: 0.018


    Cannon damage per cooldown per mineral

    Vs small: 0.006
    Vs medium: 0.006
    Vs large: 0.006


    Cannons are not as good vs Scourges and Mutas as Turrets are. And vs medium and large targets Cannons suck even MORE. Simple facts that you're ignoring so you can keep trolling, it seems.

    You think carefully next time.



    Stop making me roll over the floor laughing, will ya? Lurkers and DTs, early game? Everybody's gonna get a good laugh out of that. If Lurkers and DTs are early, so are Night Hawks.

    You don't seem to understand each unit's requirement, thus thinking like you do.


    Barracks > Factory > Starport = Nighthawk. A Tech Lab will already be ready, attached to a Barracks or Factory. Just switch places with the Starport. A noob could pull that off.

    Spawning Pool > Lair > Nydus Network > Hive > Deep Warren > Lurker.

    Gateway > Cybernetics Core > Twilight Counsil > Dark Obelisk > Dark Templar


    The Nighthawk is the earliest. How can you fail to see that?



    What surroundings? Unlike in SC1, SC2s minimap is not black where you have not scouted, but darkish. All the terrain is there for you to look at, 24/7.



    Stop trolling. You completely butchered my fine reply. :p Not only did I already note the lack of permanent cloaking, I also said that since the Banshee is air that is balanced out, if not in the Banshees favor.
    A Banshee woul'd scout way better, both traveling and seeing over cliffs. No way could a DT sneak into a base since there should be a static detector at the ramp. The Banshee can approach the enemy base from all directions instead of one or two.


    Ew... :p I enjoy other things. And if telling me what I enjoy isn't putting words in my mouth...



    I already explained this to you twice, yet you still don't get it... Well I won't lose my hope in you! :p
    Let me ask you this: Do you think an Ultralisk that also could attack air with its ground attack would warrant some kind of nerf to balance it out, such as decreasing its damage output?


    Oh no, multitasking needed. Save me, I am a noob.



    You tell me to do my math? That's a laugh. Who cares if the Cannon is cheaper? It's also suckier. If all that mattered was the price then Zerglings would pwn everything.



    Sensor Towers. They will buy Terran players time to return to the base.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2009
  20. Charmed

    Charmed New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    89
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    1. The GTG made up for the double cost. In fact with the GTG they are better off in terms of being able to survive better. 1 photon canon vs 2 missile turrets. U only need 25 minerals = 1 zergling to crush 2 turrets while u definetely need more than 1 zergling to bring down the canon. And as I say in early game since missile turrets do not have GTG, canons will be a better option to mass.LOL!

    2. I was talking abt SC1 and now u talk abt SC2. U are really funny anyway.

    3. Yeah right unit size doesn't matter in SC1. So I suppose u would like to use dragoons to counter muta and zerglings ah? Hahahaha...Whatever.

    4. The size of the target is more relevant than the attack cooldown. U can try to use canons and turrets vs mutas. The turrets are definetely less effective.

    5. In general canons are better. In GTA canons are better since they are not penalized against mutas while turrets are penalized since they are explosive.



    Hahahaha. See the word null shield and the word invisible for a short period of time. And I caught YOU posting abt cloaking Zealots and you got the nerve to TELL me there are no cloaked units early to mid games. Is Zealot a late game unit? Hahahahaha..You have just ruined ur own credibility..I can accept if u are ill informed abt the latest development of SC2 since not everyone is free enuf to catch the latest development. So SHAME on you. I have to be harsh on u since I have strong evidence that u have knowledge abt it.

    The nighthawk is not the the earliest. Their gas cost is double compare to dark templars. Obviously becoz of the gas the Protoss can warp in dark templars first. Cost is one reason why Terrans has the poorest mobile detector.

    6. Surroundings = the fog of war which u could not see. Scouting must be done 24/7 not just to discover enemies tech but to know where ur enemies are mobilizing their troops. No wonder why some of u like sensor towers. It seems like u think u can afford not to scout should u get sensor towers. Sigh.

    7. Now I am telling u that permanent cloaking > the ability to fly with energy requirement. If u want to discount dts, the observers are flying and permenantly cloaked! Beat that! U are the one trolling.

    8. U still dun get it that the GTG made up for the cost. I oredi said GTG > the ability to have at a cheaper price.

    9. Ur bunker formation with missile turrets costing 175 minerals does not have a GTG attack becoz there are no marines inside. And u call it suckier. U are too bias.

    10. Like I said I was talking abt SC1.​
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009