|
On June 18 2011 04:25 Teoita wrote:
When playing pvz against ling baneling, what should my gateway units be? Against roaches zealots obviously suck so it's better to go mas stalker (with colossi/templar/stalkers/whatever else), does it still hold true against ling/baneling (eventually with either infestors, ultras or roaches)?
Blink stalkers & sentry (early) then templar when you can (if you're strictly gateway).
Watch for bling drops on your ball - FF fast and focus on those overlords, or micro back the sentries at least.
Cute trick against a-movers: blink 1 stalker into the oncoming baneling ball, and watch 9 banelings wasted on one stalker.
|
In ZvZ what is the best way to deal with an evo chamber in the mineral line? Should I leave it alone for as long as possible?
|
In PvZ, why doesnt anyone open 2 or 3 gate robo anymore?? Most ppl want to get Colossus so doesnt it make more sense than 3 gate sentry?
Is there a better opening build to 3 gate sentry expand that allows map control and easy 3rd base expand opportunity?? I find DT expand later and more gimmicky, and stargate expands to be hard to micro with.
Thanks!
|
I guess you can still make stalkers if you had a finished cyber core but it's killed? Can you still make starports if your factory was made but it gets killed.
|
On June 18 2011 23:18 guitarizt wrote:
I guess you can still make stalkers if you had a finished cyber core but it's killed? Can you still make starports if your factory was made but it gets killed.
You can't make stalkers if you have no core when you're trying to warp them in. Same goes for starports without a factory. You CAN start warping them in, so that they're warping while the core dies. Same goes with a starport being built when your factory is killed.
|
What is the reasoning behind Zergs getting air attack upgrades over air armor upgrades? This is mostly for ZvT, as I am a terran player. Is there some threshold where the number of hits required to kill something drops after a certain attack upgrade that makes it worth it or is this just as simple as an "offense > defense" mentality?
I'm curious mostly because basically all of the terran's anti-air attacks are either quick small damage attacks (marines) or multiple attack (thors/vikings/turrets) and the increased armor can make the mutalisk ball much more durable while also transferring to the broodlords (from which most of their damage is from broodlings, which are upgraded with melee attacks not air attacks) making them much more difficult to deal with.
Edit: Woo! 1000th post!
|
On June 19 2011 00:00 STS17 wrote:
What is the reasoning behind Zergs getting air attack upgrades over air armor upgrades? This is mostly for ZvT, as I am a terran player. Is there some threshold where the number of hits required to kill something drops after a certain attack upgrade that makes it worth it or is this just as simple as an "offense > defense" mentality?
I'm curious mostly because basically all of the terran's anti-air attacks are either quick small damage attacks (marines) or multiple attack (thors/vikings/turrets) and the increased armor can make the mutalisk ball much more durable while also transferring to the broodlords (from which most of their damage is from broodlings, which are upgraded with melee attacks not air attacks) making them much more difficult to deal with.
Edit: Woo! 1000th post!
Theoretically mutas are meant to be dealing damage via harass rather than tanking since you should be flying them away when marines or thors come. Therefore it makes more sense to amplify their attack rather than armor.
In reality, neither upgrade matters that much for the purposes of unit vs. unit combat: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187603
+1 Air Damage:
vs Bio: does not affect Muta vs Marines or Muta vs SCVs
vs Mech: Amount of shots for a Thor drop from 50 to 45
+1 Air Carapace:
vs Bio: Mutas take 25 instead of 21 hits from Marines
vs Mech: no effects on Thor hits (Sidenote: +2 Carapace against +0 Damage lets Mutas survive one more volley)
|
On June 19 2011 00:27 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 00:00 STS17 wrote:
What is the reasoning behind Zergs getting air attack upgrades over air armor upgrades? This is mostly for ZvT, as I am a terran player. Is there some threshold where the number of hits required to kill something drops after a certain attack upgrade that makes it worth it or is this just as simple as an "offense > defense" mentality?
I'm curious mostly because basically all of the terran's anti-air attacks are either quick small damage attacks (marines) or multiple attack (thors/vikings/turrets) and the increased armor can make the mutalisk ball much more durable while also transferring to the broodlords (from which most of their damage is from broodlings, which are upgraded with melee attacks not air attacks) making them much more difficult to deal with.
Edit: Woo! 1000th post! Theoretically mutas are meant to be dealing damage via harass rather than tanking since you should be flying them away when marines or thors come. Therefore it makes more sense to amplify their attack rather than armor. In reality, neither upgrade matters that much for the purposes of unit vs. unit combat: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187603Show nested quote +
+1 Air Damage:
vs Bio: does not affect Muta vs Marines or Muta vs SCVs
vs Mech: Amount of shots for a Thor drop from 50 to 45
+1 Air Carapace:
vs Bio: Mutas take 25 instead of 21 hits from Marines
vs Mech: no effects on Thor hits (Sidenote: +2 Carapace against +0 Damage lets Mutas survive one more volley)
You are right, mutas should not be tanking damage, but they do and eventually most zergs who are investing in air upgrades want broodlords, which I believe (though I am a terran player, so I may be completely off base) benefits much more from extra armor then from air attacks.
Barring major mistakes, marines usually can't engage broodlords and thors do approximately zero damage to them with their attacks (further amplified by the armor ups) while the vikings will likely be unupgraded when they come out since the armory would be focusing on getting vehicle upgrades for the siege tanks and thors.
|
Hi, I'm really glad the last Inside the Game mentioned macro hatcheries. So the question is, at 200/200 and 2k+ resources, would there be any logic in not building macro hatcheries if you don't plan an immediate huge attack? I've seen several high level zergs GG out with a lot of resources late game, so is this just something players forget?
Thanks  .
|
On June 19 2011 00:36 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 00:27 Kambing wrote:On June 19 2011 00:00 STS17 wrote:
What is the reasoning behind Zergs getting air attack upgrades over air armor upgrades? This is mostly for ZvT, as I am a terran player. Is there some threshold where the number of hits required to kill something drops after a certain attack upgrade that makes it worth it or is this just as simple as an "offense > defense" mentality?
I'm curious mostly because basically all of the terran's anti-air attacks are either quick small damage attacks (marines) or multiple attack (thors/vikings/turrets) and the increased armor can make the mutalisk ball much more durable while also transferring to the broodlords (from which most of their damage is from broodlings, which are upgraded with melee attacks not air attacks) making them much more difficult to deal with.
Edit: Woo! 1000th post! Theoretically mutas are meant to be dealing damage via harass rather than tanking since you should be flying them away when marines or thors come. Therefore it makes more sense to amplify their attack rather than armor. In reality, neither upgrade matters that much for the purposes of unit vs. unit combat: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187603
+1 Air Damage:
vs Bio: does not affect Muta vs Marines or Muta vs SCVs
vs Mech: Amount of shots for a Thor drop from 50 to 45
+1 Air Carapace:
vs Bio: Mutas take 25 instead of 21 hits from Marines
vs Mech: no effects on Thor hits (Sidenote: +2 Carapace against +0 Damage lets Mutas survive one more volley)
You are right, mutas should not be tanking damage, but they do and eventually most zergs who are investing in air upgrades want broodlords, which I believe (though I am a terran player, so I may be completely off base) benefits much more from extra armor then from air attacks. Barring major mistakes, marines usually can't engage broodlords and thors do approximately zero damage to them with their attacks (further amplified by the armor ups) while the vikings will likely be unupgraded when they come out since the armory would be focusing on getting vehicle upgrades for the siege tanks and thors.
With respect to mutas, it's true that they will take incidental damage, but ultimately, that should pale in comparison to the amount of damage they'll be dealing to undefended buildings, addons, reinforcement lines, etc. If you want to maximize the utility of the muta as a mid-game harassment unit, you should be upgrading attack.
Broodlords are a more interesting point and one that isn't adressed in the post I cited above because broods were not in style back then. As you point out, upgrading attack is relatively uninteresting for broods because it only affects their broodling thwacks (and not the broodlings themselves which benefit from melee upgrades). Having +1 air carapace for broods, on the other hand, let's them barely survive one more viking hit and 11 more marine hits (although it is unlikely broods will ever be +1 ahead of marines). So with respect to broods, carapace makes more sense.
Which one do you choose? From this, it seems like "it depends". If you're going Idra-style ling/bling/muta, you are putting a large investment into mutas and thus should maximize that by prioritize attack. If you're going Sen-style ling/bling/roach into broods or Destiny-style ling/infestor into broods, then upgrading carapace makes more sense.
On June 19 2011 01:16 Zax19 wrote:Hi, I'm really glad the last Inside the Game mentioned macro hatcheries. So the question is, at 200/200 and 2k+ resources, would there be any logic in not building macro hatcheries if you don't plan an immediate huge attack? I've seen several high level zergs GG out with a lot of resources late game, so is this just something players forget? Thanks .
This is something that a lot of pro zergs skimp on, yes. However, it is not as cut and dry as simply throwing down as many additional macro hatches as you can afford.
- In the limit, you need to build enough production to match your surplus.
- Bare hatches are not necessary cost-efficient for the purposes of remaxing as they can only bank 3 larva. Queen-injected hatches are where zerg gets their re-supplying power since injects allow you to bank 19 larva.
- Adding a queen per macro hatch is a tricky proposition since that 2 supply per queen could be in your army instead.
Because of this, it makes sense to add one additional macro hatch at each location where you have a queen. That way the hatch can benefit from a pre-existing queen (which probably has lots of banked energy that you can use up). Beyond that, the trade-off is more vague:
- 1 hatch + 1 queen = 450+50 minerals, 2 supply, 19 maximum larva, 1/15+4/40 = 0.167 larva/second
- 6 hatches = 2100 minerals, 0 supply, 18 maximum larva, 1/15*6 = 0.4 larva/second
(Also, incidentally, another problem is that deathballs can simply catch you in places where it is extremely difficult to apply your production advantage, e.g., in a spot that cuts your reinforcement lines in half.)
|
Do all units with mana gain at the same rate? i.e. Ghosts, Infestors, Sentries etc.
|
On June 19 2011 02:29 SeanBean wrote:
Do all units with mana gain at the same rate? i.e. Ghosts, Infestors, Sentries etc.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Energy
Every unit type has a fixed maximum energy value of 0 or 200 and a natural energy regeneration of 0.5625 energy per game second. Newly created units start out with 50 energy, but for many units an upgrade can be researched to increase this value by 25 (e.g. Moebius Reactor).
The three exceptions from the above are the Nexus which starts at 0 energy and has a maximum energy of 100, the Queen which starts out at 25 energy, and the Point Defense Drone which starts at 200 energy and has an energy regeneration of 1 energy per game second.
|
ive been playing protoss, and im getting to be pretty good (almost out of bronz league)
but i watch professionals (like naniwa) and they can warp about eg. 7 units in at the same time. im aware its because of having 7 warp gates, but i dont understand how they physically lay them all down at once. with my hotkeys i have all gates selected with stalkers on "c" for warp in stalker. when i warp them in i do it pretty fast but not all at the same time. i just c click c click c click etc. untill my warp gates begin their cool down. so my question is this: how do you warp units in at once? hope thats not too complicated.
also i see they can lay down litterally a WALL of shields with sentries. and again I can only do one shield at a time so how do they do that as well?(note im talking about the shields you can place on the ground)
thanks
|
On June 19 2011 03:12 TenurialDroid wrote:
ive been playing protoss, and im getting to be pretty good (almost out of bronz league)
but i watch professionals (like naniwa) and they can warp about eg. 7 units in at the same time. im aware its because of having 7 warp gates, but i dont understand how they physically lay them all down at once. with my hotkeys i have all gates selected with stalkers on "c" for warp in stalker. when i warp them in i do it pretty fast but not all at the same time. i just c click c click c click etc. untill my warp gates begin their cool down. so my question is this: how do you warp units in at once? hope thats not too complicated.
also i see they can lay down litterally a WALL of shields with sentries. and again I can only do one shield at a time so how do they do that as well?(note im talking about the shields you can place on the ground)
thanks
1) Hold down the hotkey for the ability (e.g., warp in stalker or force field). Then spam click where you want the ability to go down. Holding down the key spams it, so you end up in the following loop:
Units selected -> ability selected -> ability cast -> ability selected -> ability cast -> ...
2) Hold down the hotkey for the ability + shift. Then spam click where you want the ability to go down. Shift+hotkey queues up subsequent mouse clicks without having to go re-click the hotkey.
There are pros and cons to both that you can find in my earlier posts in this thread. Most people these days opt for (1), so as a starting point, you should try that.
|
On June 19 2011 01:16 Zax19 wrote:Hi, I'm really glad the last Inside the Game mentioned macro hatcheries. So the question is, at 200/200 and 2k+ resources, would there be any logic in not building macro hatcheries if you don't plan an immediate huge attack? I've seen several high level zergs GG out with a lot of resources late game, so is this just something players forget? Thanks .
Both yes and no, it is very situational on when to build macro hatches. It's kind of a short term profit vs long term sustainability question. Those macro hatches will give you a good generic burst of unit power after the first wave. But eventually those minerals do run dry in the late game after two or three pushes, and you're gonna be wishing you had those minerals back by then, as you won't be able to support as many hatcheries as you have.
Hope I helped.
|
If i want to buy a korean copy of sc2 and play on their ladder from north America, what is required to do that? I know I need a korean battle.net account and that requires a name and a kssn, but do I need anything else? I think I remember someone mentioning a phone number.
|
On June 19 2011 01:41 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 01:16 Zax19 wrote:Hi, I'm really glad the last Inside the Game mentioned macro hatcheries. So the question is, at 200/200 and 2k+ resources, would there be any logic in not building macro hatcheries if you don't plan an immediate huge attack? I've seen several high level zergs GG out with a lot of resources late game, so is this just something players forget? Thanks . This is something that a lot of pro zergs skimp on, yes. However, it is not as cut and dry as simply throwing down as many additional macro hatches as you can afford. - In the limit, you need to build enough production to match your surplus.
- Bare hatches are not necessary cost-efficient for the purposes of remaxing as they can only bank 3 larva. Queen-injected hatches are where zerg gets their re-supplying power since injects allow you to bank 19 larva.
- Adding a queen per macro hatch is a tricky proposition since that 2 supply per queen could be in your army instead.
Because of this, it makes sense to add one additional macro hatch at each location where you have a queen. That way the hatch can benefit from a pre-existing queen (which probably has lots of banked energy that you can use up). Beyond that, the trade-off is more vague: - 1 hatch + 1 queen = 450+50 minerals, 2 supply, 19 maximum larva, 1/15+4/40 = 0.167 larva/second
- 6 hatches = 2100 minerals, 0 supply, 18 maximum larva, 1/15*6 = 0.4 larva/second
(Also, incidentally, another problem is that deathballs can simply catch you in places where it is extremely difficult to apply your production advantage, e.g., in a spot that cuts your reinforcement lines in half.)
It's fairly visible that queen makes a lot of difference. On the other hand one hatchery can produce 4 units every minute, that's relatively similar to 1-2 barracks/warpgates. So when a protoss adds 4 gateways at max food, not adding 2 hatcheries to combat to reinforcing power seem a bit risky (but this comes from the power of warpgates and depends on the situation - money/larva available).
And having 1-2 more queens doesn't seem like such a food problem, I'd say that 200/200 zerg army is weak anyway that having 2 queens more and 38 more larva saved up seems like a good idea for zerg, so I'd go with 1 queen 1 hatchery ratio anyway.
Since this strikes me usually when the zerg is under attack, food is plummeting and still floats above 2k minerals, this is probably an issue only for well expanding zergs x). Thanks for the replies.
PS: Oh, I may have misunderstood what's generally considered a macro hatch - I understand it as any hatch other than those in regular expand positions, even with queens. In that case I'd probably never put up extra hatches just without queens, but with high minerals I'd say adding hatcheries + queens is better than having not enough larva when you need it, despite the food deficit.
|
On June 19 2011 05:19 Zax19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 01:41 Kambing wrote:On June 19 2011 01:16 Zax19 wrote:Hi, I'm really glad the last Inside the Game mentioned macro hatcheries. So the question is, at 200/200 and 2k+ resources, would there be any logic in not building macro hatcheries if you don't plan an immediate huge attack? I've seen several high level zergs GG out with a lot of resources late game, so is this just something players forget? Thanks . This is something that a lot of pro zergs skimp on, yes. However, it is not as cut and dry as simply throwing down as many additional macro hatches as you can afford. - In the limit, you need to build enough production to match your surplus.
- Bare hatches are not necessary cost-efficient for the purposes of remaxing as they can only bank 3 larva. Queen-injected hatches are where zerg gets their re-supplying power since injects allow you to bank 19 larva.
- Adding a queen per macro hatch is a tricky proposition since that 2 supply per queen could be in your army instead.
Because of this, it makes sense to add one additional macro hatch at each location where you have a queen. That way the hatch can benefit from a pre-existing queen (which probably has lots of banked energy that you can use up). Beyond that, the trade-off is more vague: - 1 hatch + 1 queen = 450+50 minerals, 2 supply, 19 maximum larva, 1/15+4/40 = 0.167 larva/second
- 6 hatches = 2100 minerals, 0 supply, 18 maximum larva, 1/15*6 = 0.4 larva/second
(Also, incidentally, another problem is that deathballs can simply catch you in places where it is extremely difficult to apply your production advantage, e.g., in a spot that cuts your reinforcement lines in half.) It's fairly visible that queen makes a lot of difference. On the other hand one hatchery can produce 4 units every minute, that's relatively similar to 1-2 barracks/warpgates. So when a protoss adds 4 gateways at max food, not adding 2 hatcheries to combat to reinforcing power seem a bit risky (but this comes from the power of warpgates and depends on the situation - money/larva available). And having 1-2 more queens doesn't seem like such a food problem, I'd say that 200/200 zerg army is weak anyway that having 2 queens more and 38 more larva saved up seems like a good idea for zerg, so I'd go with 1 queen 1 hatchery ratio anyway. Since this strikes me usually when the zerg is under attack, food is plummeting and still floats above 2k minerals, this is probably an issue only for well expanding zergs x). Thanks for the replies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that in addition to the food tax for having excessive queens, there's also a logistical tax as well. Some injection styles (in particular binding 1 queen per hotkey) have trouble dealing with large numbers of queens. Not an issue that makes it an impossibility, but something to keep in mind as well.
|
On June 19 2011 00:27 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 00:00 STS17 wrote:
What is the reasoning behind Zergs getting air attack upgrades over air armor upgrades? This is mostly for ZvT, as I am a terran player. Is there some threshold where the number of hits required to kill something drops after a certain attack upgrade that makes it worth it or is this just as simple as an "offense > defense" mentality?
I'm curious mostly because basically all of the terran's anti-air attacks are either quick small damage attacks (marines) or multiple attack (thors/vikings/turrets) and the increased armor can make the mutalisk ball much more durable while also transferring to the broodlords (from which most of their damage is from broodlings, which are upgraded with melee attacks not air attacks) making them much more difficult to deal with.
Edit: Woo! 1000th post! Theoretically mutas are meant to be dealing damage via harass rather than tanking since you should be flying them away when marines or thors come. Therefore it makes more sense to amplify their attack rather than armor. In reality, neither upgrade matters that much for the purposes of unit vs. unit combat: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187603Show nested quote +
+1 Air Damage:
vs Bio: does not affect Muta vs Marines or Muta vs SCVs
vs Mech: Amount of shots for a Thor drop from 50 to 45
+1 Air Carapace:
vs Bio: Mutas take 25 instead of 21 hits from Marines
vs Mech: no effects on Thor hits (Sidenote: +2 Carapace against +0 Damage lets Mutas survive one more volley)
Mutas aren't always fighting full hp marines or scvs, their bounces soften up targets and they are used to pick off tanks or damaged marines, etc.
100/100 is just one extra muta, so if you make more than 9, the extra dps from the upgrade will be higher than adding an extra mutalisk(and more than 18 for better overall effectiveness, and not just dps).
|
I don't know if it is possible, but how do I make more than one larva into units at the same time? I believe I saw IdrA doing it on stream, but might just have been incredibly fast finger movement, but it looked like he did 6 at a time orso. Is it possible? Would sure save some time when spamming zerglings for reinforcement. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
