|
I think I have figured dragoons vs hydralisks. Dragoons are one sixth more survivable vs hydralisks. The zerg can counter this with fast missile attack upgrade. +1 spines negate this. Dragoons are now only an eighteenth more survivable than hydralisks, down three times less than a sixth.
+1 protoss armor is again 50% favoured to go to the zerg. If the zerg can research +2 missile during this time, however, hydralisks are equal to +1 armor dragoons. Zerg is in a huge advantage. Protoss should NEVER upgrade armor, weapons upgrade is a must for the protoss. Weapons upgrade is how protoss reaps back the investment cost of dragoons since dragoons are twice as expensive as hydralisks. That is what you want to achieve in upgrades in order to counter hydralisks with dragoons favourably.
Is this possible: the ideal 2 times more survivability versus hydralisks? Theoretically, it is. +2/+3/+1/ and up, protoss upgrades against 0/0 zerg is indeed twice more survivable, but this is never in practice. A single carapace upgrade completely nullifies any attack advantage protoss has. Therefore zerg has a huge lead until protoss has +2/+3/+1. They can throw hydralisks around the map with zero upgrades and still outmacro the protoss. Let's face it that is 975/975 in upgrades vs zero and still favourable to zerg. +2/+3/+1 vs +3/+2, in other words one less upgrade, and the zerg hydralisk is actually 5% stronger than a dragoon.
PS: let's compare the best upgrade path for both races, so that we can trace how the upgrade mini game progresses between the dragoon and the hydralisk;
First upgrades: Protoss attack & zerg missile attack upgrades: 1.1875 (dragoon is up!),
Second upgrades: protoss armor & zerg carapace upgrades: 1.11 (dragoon is down),
Third upgrades: Protoss +2 attack & zerg +2 missile attack upgrades: 1.125 (dragoon is slightly down),
Fourth upgrades: protoss +2 armor & zerg +2 carapace upgrades: 1.055 (we are back at square one and even down one upgrade 0/0/0 protoss vs +1 missile attack),
Fifth upgrades: Protoss +3 attack & zerg +3 missile attack upgrades: 1.125 (same slight disadvantage as 2/1/0 protoss vs 2/1 zerg),
Sixth upgrades: protoss +3 armor & zerg +3 carapace upgrades: 1.055 (we are again at the 0/0/0 dragoons vs +1/0 hydralisks starting point!).
That is just how cut and dry it is with pvz upgrades. One thing to note, upgrading shields at +2 armor doesn't even tip the scale versus +3 missile attack hydralisks! 3/2/1 dragoons are even less durable than 3/3/0 dragoons. Hydralisks have 1:1 evened out the dragoon's survivability.
There is one way to keep ahead of zerg however that depends on zerg not double upgrading like yourself. If you can keep 1 upgrade ahead you go from 1.16 to 1.25(1/1/0 vs 1/0), 1.25 to 1.357(2/2/0 vs 2/0), then no change (3/3/0 vs 3/0 is also 1.357) to 1.357 once again(3/3/1 vs 3/1), 3/3/2 vs 3/2 we start to lose the effectiveness of the upgrades at 1.25 and last, 3/3/3 vs 3/3 fully upgraded hydralisks is back at square one and we just lost 750/750 in order to end up in the same spot as the protoss spending 1875/1875 while it cost zerg only 1125/1125.
|
Without diving into the content, that is the most atrocious English I have read in this forum. Can't understand a damn sentence.
|
I'm trying to coach Best in order to win the gf. We have a saying, the ground have ears.
|
Game theory might say that Protoss does not benefit from armor or shields upgrades as much because it generally has less units in total. Especially early game when you have the best success in quick, small skirmishes. Everything is already expensive as it is. +1 armor is good, but +2 should come later in the game after you've amassed a army with presence and HTs. Shield upgrades should be skipped more or less entirely unless it's late game and you have 1500+ minerals.
|
It gets crazier. If zerg can accept 7.14% loss in the first upgrade cycle by letting protoss double upgrade while zerg only upgrades the missile attack, zerg gets a 100/100 advantage. This goes for 100+175+250+50+75+100 and zerg ends up making up what percentage in attack upgrades it lost to protoss in the end over an 18 minute scale. For 18 minutes, if zerg can play with 16.3% weaker than normal hydralisks - that is to say 19 hydralisks matching 14 dragoons in the field which is still economical to the zerg anyway instead of 7:6 the usual - zerg economy is boosted and ends up not losing anything, but saving 750/750. That is right, for 18 minutes you can churn 19 hydralisks every minute(just over 3.99 hatcheries, so 4) and keep protoss at bay. An 8 gateway protoss will have zero progress against zerg making 19 hydralisks at the expense of 1425/475 while protoss spends 1750/700 every minute and has to come up with 100+175+250+50+75+100 on top of that every 3 minutes. That is the definition of a build order advantage.
I'm not even mentioning what happens when zerg can develop the defiler tech tree with plague...
PS: 8 gate protoss can spend 5700/4800 more in total for 18 minutes and still not make any progress if upgrading at double forge vs single evolution chamber zerg with 4 hatcheries.
PS: what instead favours protoss is upgrading 2/1/0 after +2 attack. Ironically, +3 attack does not make dragoons kill hydralisks any faster. This way protoss is still slightly favoured while keeping balance.
|
Netherlands4892 Posts
No one but you can (or should) read that shit. Either way goons fucking suck vs hydralisks and it's useless to theorize anything in isolation like that, because it will never happen in practice.
|
Yeah, but you don't call the winner like I do. Don't expect too much from yourself. Protoss should go attack>attack>armor>attack>armor>armor>shield>shield>shield. Protoss attack upgrades should follow zerg carapace upgrades, two up but never three.
The zerg will go 3 missile and 3 carapace upgrades consecutively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
