PsY discussed this a bit in his latest vid, and I thought it would be interesting to hear your preference on this.

Would you agree that the range upgrade does not scale as well for Zerg compared to the armor upgrade? I guess his point was that the range upgrade gives a too small percentage increase in damage, when you rather could have all your units survive a little bit longer.

Up until now I have always gone for the range upgrade, without really investigating the numbers that much, so I think I will try to give armor priority in the nearest future.

nayyr

United States23 Posts

August 15 2010 21:57 GMT

I'm pretty sure you posted this in the wrong forum.

KwarK

United States43348 Posts

August 15 2010 22:02 GMT

On August 16 2010 06:57 nayyr wrote:
I'm pretty sure you posted this in the wrong forum.

Thanks. Moved.

Nightbiscuit

Sweden179 Posts

August 15 2010 22:08 GMT

It depends on my unit comp. If I have combined range/melee I go for armor first. If I'm up against units with large range like colossi and Siege Tanks, I go armor first. If I'm up against a ball of units, I go armor first.

The only time I would consider going attack first would be if I'm sniping stuff or if I have the range advantage.

Chaosvuistje

Netherlands2581 Posts

August 15 2010 22:10 GMT

I ALWAYS pick carapace over range upgrades. Range upgrades only provide extra damage on infested terrans, hydra's and roaches. While carapace upgrades all your ground units.

The most important thing being that without propper upgrade preparation, Ultra's get a fair bit weaker. Marines against unupgraded ultras actually do quite well. You need the armour upgrades to get the best out of your ultra's.

I prefer melee upgrades over range upgrades too. As zerglings deal a fair amount of damage when they get to attack. I want my zerglings to deal as much damage and they can before the opponents army returns home.

On air attack and air carapace. I only get air attack in ZvZ, as you want your muta's to hit as much as possible . And carapace does not reduce the opponents muta's attacks by all that much.

While in the other matchups, broodlords and corruptors benefit greatly from staying alive longer. 3 air carapace broodlords are prettymuch the most scary thing I can churn out against both terrans and protoss'.

Glacius0

Netherlands66 Posts

August 15 2010 22:13 GMT

If you don't want to think about it I would say attack upgrade is better. Two simple reasons:
- It's cheaper (though not for every unit, so this kinda assumes you get either ranged or melee units mostly)
- It gives some units +2 which is more than +1 (roach +1 def loses to roach +2 attack)

Reality is a bit more complicated though. Sometimes armor can make a huge difference. The most famous example being +1 attack zealots vs lings without the armor upgrade. Lings die in 2 hits instead of 3.

My personal preference is attack upgrades (as you might have guessed). Especially for melee, since +1 makes every ling 20% stronger (huge difference). But I do definitely get the armor upgrade if I see protoss upgrading attack.

This reminds me. Why is armor for flying units more expensive than attack? With ground units it makes sense since you have two upgrades (range/melee). For flying it's kinda silly.

Edit: a mistake in my logic^^;;

Sixes

Canada1123 Posts

August 15 2010 22:42 GMT

I always take carapace over ranged and usually melee as well. I love my lings to death and with their attack speed (and ultra's) the attack bonus makes a huge difference.

Stegosaur

Netherlands1231 Posts

August 15 2010 22:48 GMT

I usually take attack. In case of lings its a whopping 20% of their damage that gets added and they hit so fast it quickly adds up, and hydralisks are so squishy I´d rather have them actually kill anything before they get waxed.

In ZvZ I get mutalisk armour since (I think) it reduces the bounces as well, so it's basically -3 damage across the board with each hit your dudes take.

Slayer91

Ireland23335 Posts

August 15 2010 22:54 GMT

On August 16 2010 06:56 Ghad wrote:
PsY discussed this a bit in his latest vid, and I thought it would be interesting to hear your preference on this.

Would you agree that the range upgrade does not scale as well for Zerg compared to the armor upgrade? I guess his point was that the range upgrade gives a too small percentage increase in damage, when you rather could have all your units survive a little bit longer.

Up until now I have always gone for the range upgrade, without really investigating the numbers that much, so I think I will try to give armor priority in the nearest future.

No. Don't overthink it. Hydras vs Hydras in zvz (should never happen)

I get +1 attack you get +1 armour, better for you right?
No.
+1 armour nullfies +1 attack so they are the same.

HOWEVER, if we're talking hydra vs marines, reducing damage taken from 6 per hit to 5 per hit IS better than going from 12 to 13 damage per shot, percentage thing applies here.

What about vs mech? Well the percentage is tiny so attack upgrades are better.

Units surviving longer is most relevant in melee vs ranged because you want to minimize units lost getting into range so I think armour>attack with melee vs ranged in general. Ranged vs melee you want attack upgrade for the converse reason.

ZvT:
vs mech: attack
vs bio: armour
vs bio/mech: normally attack because tanks really don't care about armour and attack helps to take down as much as possible before tanks siege.

ZvP:
Really, it depends. vs stalkers you want attack and vs zealots/sentries it depends on his upgrades (lot vs ling is lot has higher weapon than your armour he 2 shots). Sentries and zealots do 8x2 and 6 damage so armour is okay but normally attack upgrades are better. vs colossus I'd go with attack though armour will still help.

ZvZ: armour for ling/baneling and attack for roach vs ling/baneling or roach vs roach (+1 roach 2 shot ling, otherwise go for armour because ling only do 5 damage/hit) armour for muta vs muta because it reduces splash more than attack increases it.

OH BTW:
getting both attack upgrades: 200/200 + extra evo
getting armour: 150/150 -125 initial cost.
It scales in the same way, so you want armouor if you use both melee and ranged units unless he's going mech or colossus or something that makes double attack upgrades much more useful.

Stegosaur

Netherlands1231 Posts

August 15 2010 23:05 GMT

#10

I'd also like to add that once you hit the 3rd base there's no shame in adding another evo chamber to upgrade attack and armor back-to-back, since it's going to be a longer game anyway those 2 extra hydras don't really matter compared to having them all 3-2

Ghad

Norway2551 Posts

August 15 2010 23:41 GMT

#11

Yeah sure once you get that far into the game i dont see much reason to not get any upgrade that is at all relevant, but I guess I was asking about that <100 supply mark where you need to be really strict with your spending.

Also I sometimes build some extra evo chambers to do some basic walling.

Sorry for misposting tho, I believed I had clicked on strategy, thanks for moving the thread.

raph

United States204 Posts

August 16 2010 00:05 GMT

#12

carapace

Encrypto

United States442 Posts

August 16 2010 00:49 GMT

#13

Think of it this way: it's a ZvZ... we both get zergling / hydra, the same amount of units with the exact same micro / positioning. I get carapace, you get ranged attack upgrade. Who is gonna win? Me obviously... Only half of your army is counteracting my attacks. Your hydras will fair evenly against my hydras because +1 attack cancels out my +1 armor, but my armored lings will chew through your 0/0 lings. Overall, armor will upgrade all ur army, whereas attack upgrade only does half.

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh