EPT[D] 1000 tips - Page 58
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
hersenen
Belize176 Posts
On July 19 2012 01:09 monkybone wrote: But for a variety of situations it's not worth to spend 50 minerals and 25 gas extra for something which does less dps than a marine and also does not shoot air, and so it isn't correct to categorically state that a marauder is "roughly" 2 marines. The bottom line is that you don't get marauders unless you need them, and 1 marauder is not roughly 2 marines. This is heuristics obviously I cant describe every scenario and you saying "don't get marauders unless you need them" isn't helpful at all. Also I encourage you to try a battle of 2 marines vs 1 marauder in a custom map. (the marauder actually beats two marines with 5HP left, this is a-move vs a-move no micro) | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
hersenen
Belize176 Posts
On July 19 2012 07:28 monkybone wrote: You have to understand that when you have marines and marauders in a fight, you can't assume the marauders to be focused down first. Suppose in a TvT you both have 3 rax, 2 with reactors and one with tech lab. One of you are making marines and marauders out of tech lab, and the other is making pure marines. What's going to happen is that the marauder guy will spend more money on lower dps army, and if the marauders are in the back (which they probably will be), you will handily lose that fight if the numbers are big enough, or at the very least trade cost inefficiently. So, for a standard dps/ cost and even supply, saying that a marauder is roughly 2 marines is dead wrong. In many situations 1 marine outperforms the marauder, and in others (where you really need them), the marauders are better, but not for their dps. The bottom line is that 1 marauder = 2 marines is more wrong than it is right. And the "don't get marauders unless you need them" wasn't a general argument, it's for the specific circumstance where you have the choice of producing marauders or marines out of your barracks. Oh ok maybe you can explain to me why players like MKP, Polt, and MMA constantly produce marauders out of their techlab rax instead of marines in TvZ. Your argument of "marauders won't get focused first" is ridiculous. Nobody target fires each individual marine before they focus down the marauders, that's just silly and physically impossible. Marauders get stuck behind marines? lol what they have 1 more range than marines and move roughly at the same speed I don't know what you're talking about. 1 marine never outperforms 1 marauder in any fight unless it's verse an air unit. By your flawed logic you could say 1 stimmed marine outperforms a siege tank because it has more DPS right? Just plain silly, not everthing is about DPS. Keep in mind the context we're using here is TvZ not TvT. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
hersenen
Belize176 Posts
On July 19 2012 23:02 monkybone wrote: <_< Because they tank baneling hits. Not because they are roughly 2 marines. And I didn't say anyone focused down marines. I'm saying that you can't assume the marauders will tank all the damage before the marines do. And yes, the extra range implies that the marauders will usually stand behind the marines in a battle. Which makes it even less likely that you will benefit from their HP. You seem to simply forget that the marauder is more than twice as costly as a marine in your ramblings. 100 minerals is more than twice as costly as 50 minerals? Is it because you're factoring in the 25 gas? You do realize minerals are far more important than gas to terrans in TvZ right? Well I'm done "arguing" with you anyways and am beginning to think you're just a troll (lol arguing over the word optimal two pages back). Bottom line: you get it because it makes use of the tech lab, adds diversity to your composition, and kills more than one marine would if you were producing a marine from that tech lab barracks instead. Also helps deal with roach busts far better. | ||
|
Millet
Sweden143 Posts
610. Scouting a pool and unsure of when they built it? Look at the health bar of the spawning pool, it's basically a 60 second timer. If it's at 50% you know they built it 30 seconds ago. This translates back to the time when the pool was built. 611. Some approximate pool timings and an easy to memorize "rule": Pool ; Time 6 pool; 0.40 7 Pool; 0.50 9 pool; 1.10 10 pool; 1.20 14 pool; 2.00 The "rule" is thus: 0.04 + 0.10*X , where X is the number of drones subsequently built after spawning. In leymans terms it would be: add 10 seconds for each additional drone built. | ||
|
BrickSquadTV
9 Posts
| ||
|
nick00bot
326 Posts
and to the marauder debate: as zerg i definitely target marines ( as in right click on a clump of marines) with banelings specifically because marauders will just tank bane shots and be way too cost effective On July 20 2012 00:04 hersenen wrote: 100 minerals is more than twice as costly as 50 minerals? Is it because you're factoring in the 25 gas? You do realize minerals are far more important than gas to terrans in TvZ right? Well I'm done "arguing" with you anyways and am beginning to think you're just a troll (lol arguing over the word optimal two pages back). Bottom line: you get it because it makes use of the tech lab, adds diversity to your composition, and kills more than one marine would if you were producing a marine from that tech lab barracks instead. Also helps deal with roach busts far better. you can't just ignore the fact that they cost 25 gas, as if terrans never teched or got upgrades that would be sped up if the gas isn't spent on marauders. i do agree that terrans should make 1 marauder blindly just in case of roach all ins but otherwise you get them for tanking banes, sniiping infestors, sniping buildings, or figthing against ultras. also i I'm pretty sure that due to marine's higher dps and lower build time your bolded part is wrong, especially because when you factor in that stim does more for marines than for marauders | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
| ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2589 Posts
On July 20 2012 08:54 Millet wrote: 611. Some approximate pool timings and an easy to memorize "rule": Pool ; Time 6 pool; 0.40 7 Pool; 0.50 9 pool; 1.10 10 pool; 1.20 14 pool; 2.00 That's not quite accurate. If you see a pool start at exactly 2:00, it's a 15 pool. | ||
|
Firesilver
United Kingdom1190 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:13 LegionAir wrote: 170 is wrong. That got patched. Yeah was just about to post this also. Also "171. (P) DTs that are warping are cloaked." I believe this is incorrect. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2589 Posts
On July 21 2012 00:04 Firesilver wrote: Yeah was just about to post this also. Also "171. (P) DTs that are warping are cloaked." I believe this is incorrect. Why do you think that? I'm almost 100% sure that they're cloaked during warp-in. | ||
|
hersenen
Belize176 Posts
On July 20 2012 16:07 nick00bot wrote: you can't just ignore the fact that they cost 25 gas, as if terrans never teched or got upgrades that would be sped up if the gas isn't spent on marauders. i do agree that terrans should make 1 marauder blindly just in case of roach all ins but otherwise you get them for tanking banes, sniiping infestors, sniping buildings, or figthing against ultras. also i I'm pretty sure that due to marine's higher dps and lower build time your bolded part is wrong, especially because when you factor in that stim does more for marines than for marauders A marauder costs 5 more ingame seconds to build than a marine, hardly significant. The DPS of a marine is 8.2, the ground dps of a marauder is 7.4 which is not a significant amount less, and made up by the fact marauders do way more to armored and have nearly x3 the amount of HP of a marine and they start with 1 armor. So yes a marauder is roughly equal to 2 marines (actually more like 2.5x) in the amount of stuff they will kill and how long they'll last. As far as I'm concerned this isn't even worth talking about anymore considering all top korean terrans do it vs zerg and you cant provide an example where they don't or why they wouldn't. If you have a barracks with a techlab you might as well utilize it to the full extent. The 25 gas investiment doesn't cut into your tech in a noticeable amount at all, 4 geysers can comfortably support everything you need and 6 is overkill. | ||
|
nick00bot
326 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:18 hersenen wrote: A marauder costs 5 more ingame seconds to build than a marine, hardly significant. The DPS of a marine is 8.2, the ground dps of a marauder is 7.4 which is not a significant amount less, and made up by the fact marauders do way more to armored and have nearly x3 the amount of HP of a marine and they start with 1 armor. So yes a marauder is roughly equal to 2 marines (actually more like 2.5x) in the amount of stuff they will kill and how long they'll last. As far as I'm concerned this isn't even worth talking about anymore considering all top korean terrans do it vs zerg and you cant provide an example where they don't or why they wouldn't. If you have a barracks with a techlab you might as well utilize it to the full extent. The 25 gas investiment doesn't cut into your tech in a noticeable amount at all, 4 geysers can comfortably support everything you need and 6 is overkill. okay man, you're making it hard to explain because you think you know everything. what you have to understand is that you can't treat any variable in starcraft as independant, a 25 gas investment can be many things besides marauders that aren't quite as obvious. for example, say you want to hit a timing with +1, stim, and a bunch of bio. its stupid to say that "4 geysers is enough in general so gas doesn't matter" because instead of getting 4 geysers, you could just get 2 and very carefully manage what little gas you have to get your +1 and stim, which would get delayed if it was spent on marauders. like instead of having 3 geysers with 9 svcs on them you can have 2 geysers with 6 scvs on them ( or 2 with 4 even) and you can invest the extra 75 minerals + 3svcs worth on mining time on another rax to make more marines. basicially what I'm saying is that the actual resource cost does not include the opportunity cost of investing. That being said, yes I agree that marauders are good vs zerg (as I already said) and you are right in that people should invest in them, but your reasoning behind that is flawed and you are misguiding people into using a situational unit all the time based on your blanket statements. @ monkeybone: you aren't helping with your obsession over being right with the optimized thing. the point they made was that PER PROBE, you get a higher gas mining rate with 2 on each gas. I dont think this is misleading or anything, and plenty of people open up with 2 gas 4 probes (naniwa & sase come to mind). this is also a very useful tip to know for when you have already built all your gases and take severe economic damage, putting only 2 probes on each gas is a great way to temporarily boost your mineral income while getting more workers. either way its uselesss to argue about the semantics of what the said, but i think everyone else got the impression that this is what the tip meant and i can vouch that it is certainly helpfuk | ||
|
nayc
Germany42 Posts
Google Doc Spreadsheet (~575 first entries) by UrinalPoop who reads after this happens | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
boomudead1
United States186 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
613. Faster way to move workers into geysers while transferring to a new base: With all of the probes being transferred selected, send them to a geyser, shift click 3 probes out of the group, repeat for second geyser, then send them all to mine. | ||
| ||
