|
Hi!
I was wondering when it would be a good idea to build a reactor.
I can understand a reactor on factory, or starport, as the building is expensive, but on barrack I'm not sure.
teh 50 gaz and high building time of a reacto seems, in most case more expensive than just another barrack to which you'll later be able to add a technical center.
On the other hand, if you want a reactor on a barrack, it means you want a lot of marines.
And marines gost only mineral so... May be you want to save those 100 minerals for 2 more marines?
What are your thoughs?
|
2 barracks > Barrack + Reactor
300 > 200:50
You only make reactor on barracks to switch out with other buildings
|
Imo id go Barrack + Reactor, only because i am going bio with 2 racks with TL and 1 racks with Reactor.
|
I disagree with 300 > 200-50
Certain builds have the gas to spend(Trump's 3Rax build). In cases such as that, giving up minerals for gas that you will not need anyway is simply a waste. You could use those 100 minerals to expand earlier. Plus I'm not sure you're considering the time factor. Even if the resources were equivalent, it takes longer to build an additional barracks than it does to build a reactor.
I'd even stand ground against the adding tech lab later argument. You could just as easily build a barracks later too if you wanted. You have to use the same time resources microing the SCV to build it earlier as you would later, so it really offers no benefit to either side here.
I think that in many cases a reactor would be a favorable choice simply because of the difference in minerals.
|
I only get the reactors when i'm transitioning in to a midgame. With your initial army, as you push, remember to put down the reactors cos a lot of your attention will be focused on your push so you've got to micro, this will give you time to get those reactors down in time. Idk, just what I do. Works for me.
|
imo reactor is a priviledge to make. Only make it if you have a window where he cannot attack you. thats why you see people making reactor in tvp after first tech lab rax because marauder gives you control long enough for that reactor to finish.
|
Oh and one other thing to consider is that a barracks requires an SCV to construct. It takes a minute(?) to build a barracks so that's about 50 minerals in opportunity cost right there. It actually is costing you 200 minerals to build that extra barracks rather than the 50-50 of the reactor. Does that deal still sound as sweet now?
|
It's quite close and it quite depends on the timings in the build order and the valuation of gas versus minerals. Many people say gas is twice to three times as valuable as minerals deduced from for example the archon cost out of 2 HT or 2 DT or relative incomes on 1 base.
The fact is that the relative value depends more on what strategy you use and what you need both for, gas only collects slightly slower then minerals per scv (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140055) so you could as well say gas is only 1,5 worth it's cost in minerals for example. The relative valuation just depends on the matchup alot, in PvT where MMM is the basic strat minerals are almost as valuable as gas later on imo as marines are a fantastic mineral outlet. In TvT minerals are nearly useless later on as gas is way more valuable. So in PvT i'd go a reactor faster and in TvT i'd never go a reactor for rines.
Another thing to note is that a reactor costs 2 marine cycles to make and a extra barracks costs 60 scv seconds to make. It really depends on the build which you favor most.
On most occasions I think a extra barracks is better, though alot of pro's seem to favor their reactor. I prefer to save the 50 gas from the reactor and getting upgrades like stim just a bit faster.
Barracks without addons also allow a switch to full marauder much easier while on reactored rax you are stuck making marines. It's not often you want only marauder armies but against stalker/colossi all marauder is definately better then marine/marauder for example.
A very tiny difference which I prefer by delaying my reactors is that adding the reactors later is easier on the macro on my opinion. If you have 4 'naked' barracks you can just add some reactors if you are supply blocked or if your focus is somewhere else you can easily use hotkeys to reactor up while not looking at your base.
|
Interesting points
I was quite sure that the answer would be something like "it depends" 
But I think savageslayer and Markwerf are right saying that it depends on the build you are trying to accomplish, is it gaz heavy, or not
thanks a lot!
|
If im playing bio ill always go for reactors since I have all the gas in the world.
|
On September 03 2010 22:18 ChickenLips wrote:
If im playing bio ill always go for reactors since I have all the gas in the world.
Why not just get more barracks and mine less gas?
|
Minerals and gas are not the only resources in Starcraft.
Time is imho the most important resource.
2 rax:
--------------
cost: 300 mins and 2 scv off mining
b. time: 60 sec
1 rax reactor:
------------------
cost: 200 mins + 50 gas and 1 scv off mining
b. time: 110 sec (60 + 50)
by the time 1 rax reactor finishes 2 rax already has 4 rines ... (25 sec build time)
beeing 4 rines ahead is worth the extra mineral cost ...
This fact multiplies the more rax u build at the same time ... hence the terran 6rax cheese ...
*** update ***
2 rax are harder to kill (more hp) and can be used to block ....
|
On September 03 2010 23:42 volkar wrote:
Minerals and gas are not the only resources in Starcraft.
Time is imho the most important resource.
2 rax:
--------------
cost: 300 mins and 2 scv off mining
b. time: 60 sec
1 rax reactor:
------------------
cost: 200 mins + 50 gas and 1 scv off mining
b. time: 110 sec (60 + 50)
by the time 1 rax reactor finishes 2 rax already has 4 rines ... (25 sec build time)
beeing 4 rines ahead is worth the extra mineral cost ...
This fact multiplies the more rax u build at the same time ... hence the terran 6rax cheese ...
Really depends on when you plan on attacking. Also you don't always have the minerals to build both barracks at the same time so the time to build 2 rax is usually 120 seconds with one of them building marines while the 2nd builds.
|
i feel like its more the build time that is discouraging rather than the resource cost.
But terran always has tons of minerals because of mules. gas not so much.
One of the first things i'll snipe if doing any kind of harass is the reactor because i know it takes forever to build. It's not like anyone ever tries to snipe a barracks though 
|
if u are referring to the beginning u can go 11rax/13rax or 12rax/14rax
Its a 34 second delay (2 x 17 seconds scv build time) ... so 60 + 34 = 94 seconds .... 110 - 94 = 24 seconds ..
so ur still 1 production cycle ahead (2 rines)
Also if u want to go down the price tag road ... u should also add the cost for refinery and the scvs on gas and not on minerals for the reactor version ...
Ofc it all depends on ur build and how the rax does fit in, but in a direct comparison 2rax wins hands down imho.
|
Reactors are definitely late game if simply due to the build time. Also with 2 barracks you have the option of going up to techlab. You definitely need marauders in any matchup.
|
I would absolutely not advise building reactors, almost ever, for Barracks. There are no matchups where you dont occasionally need to 'panic' and mass marauders and the build cycle loss on marines is not worth it early on.
TvP, one or two extra Marines can absolutely turn the tide of early pushes, and TvZ, you need all the extra oomph right away to fight off Roaches.
|
The 2Rax is also very frontloaded mineral-wise. You have to have the 300 minerals to even start the 2Rax, whereas you need only 150 to start Rax-Reac. Having to save the extra 150 will eat into the supposed time-gain that 2rax boasts.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Don't use them if I plan on pushing in the near future but it works out quite well if I'm expanding or attacking quite a bit later. Also, getting 1 reactor is good for fast viking or medivac production as situation demands.
|
United States4126 Posts
I almost never get a reactor on my barracks unless it's to switch it off with a factory/starport. The plus side of having 2 rax to 1 reactor'd rax is that when it gets to late game, you have the option of adding techlab addons to them. You really need all the gas you can get when you're going bio for all the other gas-intensive support units like medivacs/tanks/vikings/ghosts etc.
|
Reactors are mainly for fact/port, I rarely see any reason to get it on the rax since 300/0 is really cheaper than 250/50 for terran. Not to mention the the amount of time you aren't producing marines due to the building of the reactor.
|
You should have reactors for flexibility to swap into Starports or Factories. The barracks is the cheapest Terran production structure, so it's good to have it build the reactor. And if the reactor isn't in use, there's no reason not to use it to pump marines.
But you probably don't ever want to build a reactor JUST to pump marines. Another barracks is much more versatile (it can fly, it's tougher, it can add a tech lab), and the 50/50/50 build time on the reactor is rather stifling.
|
700+ diamond T
In the early game, my infantry opening was 1 tech lab and two normal rax. I tried to change it to two rax with 1 tech and 1 reactor. After a long losing streak (around 30 games 80% loss) I figured out that build change was costing me a lot of games.
In the early game the Reactor slows down your early attack timing. I forget how many but I think it takes 3-4 rounds of marines for the Reactor to produce as many as you would have with 1 Rax if you spend the time making marines instead of a reactor. Reactors take a long time to build. With two Rax no addons, the Reactor really won't be helping you at all early game.
Reactors can be a liability if you get pressured during the time that it's building early game. A reactor is quite easy to pick off in an early push. A rax is not so much.
Now, late game I think that reactors are perfectly fine. Usually that is the time that your base is getting cramped and having 1 building instead of two is good in my book.
|
It might take longer to build a 2nd rax, but in the time the reactor is being put down you could have made 2 marines so the time difference is completely nullified.
A better argument for the reactor is the scv making the rax is not mining so it's more than just 150 vs. 50/50.
Early game I don't think it's ever worth it to make a reactor due to the opportunity cost of not making out of the barracks you already had down. The achievement to make 20 marines in the first X minutes showcases that you should actually go for more barracks as opposed to reactors.
|
I like reactors even on barracks in the very early game when the minerals spent are less front loaded. It smooths out many build orders.
|
Im guessing when you take your expo its a decent time to add on a reactor... But in general I'm against reactors on barracks, takes soooo long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
