| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On August 14 2011 03:18 CecilSunkure wrote: I heard Day9 say it quite a few times, and same with Nony. On the latest SotG Day9 says that he thinks armor is better, but Tyler says attack is better because your aim is to break their Gateway units ASAP so you can attack the vulnerable Colossi, has Tyler changed his opinion since then? | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On August 14 2011 11:19 ZAiNs wrote: On the latest SotG Day9 says that he thinks armor is better, but Tyler says attack is better because your aim is to break their Gateway units ASAP so you can attack the vulnerable Colossi, has Tyler changed his opinion since then? I think he said that attack is better in the long run once you start getting more upgrades. | ||
|
Janders
Mexico222 Posts
| ||
|
Janders
Mexico222 Posts
On August 14 2011 11:19 ZAiNs wrote: On the latest SotG Day9 says that he thinks armor is better, but Tyler says attack is better because your aim is to break their Gateway units ASAP so you can attack the vulnerable Colossi, has Tyler changed his opinion since then? i think it depends on the army composition tyler goes for zelot archon and attack is so much better for that because if you let the colossus attack the zelots for enough times they will evaporate and zelots and archons both get a lot of damage for every damage upgrade | ||
|
AxelTVx
Canada916 Posts
| ||
|
Fairwell
Austria195 Posts
On August 14 2011 11:15 Volka wrote: Well, if you do the math, you'll find that armor gives you the most benefit (just a little bit at first, but it snowballs with +2A and +3A). However, this is considering NO SHIELDS, which is kinda of unrealistc. So yeah, I'm leaning towards +1 Weapons first. Stil still, there should be some exceptional cases in which you'd prefer to have +1A, for example Zealot vs Zealot battles. Here is a chart with the math: http://www.starsite.com.ar/foro/download/file.php?id=56 This chart only takes hp (no shields) into account. So again since several people here like to quite day9 as well as LiquidTyler as a reference what they said (i heard them say it for myself), the best way to approach something like that is either doing the maths (which I did, so unless I made a mistake I should be right) or you can just go to the unit tester and just test it (like zealot with armor vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with attack vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with armor vs zealot with damage upgrade). In the case stated above (zealot vs zealot), yes getting the first armor upgrade would be better (because your zealots survive 1/6 longer -> 16.66% longer instead of donig 1/7 more damage ->14.28% more damage) if you only take hp into account, but once you calculate shields into that equation attack always win. However, if you start comparing this with other units like stalkers or sentries attack gets even stronger in comparison as well as for power units like immortals/archons/colossus). In our small example of letting one zealot with +1 attack fight one zealot with +1 armor, the zealot with the attack upgrade wins and has 4hp left. Attack starts to scale tremendously well with more units and especially for your other units that have more shields compared to the zealot in comparision to armor upgrades. In order to cancel the effect of +1 attack in pvp your opponent needs to get +1armor AND +1 shields or even +2/+2 or more (for units like colossus etc). ad snowball effect: This so-called "snowball-effect" of course this has to be taken care of if you think about which upgrades to get after getting any +1 upgrade (quite popular here is the big influence of the +2armor upgrade instead of +1 attack in pvt vs marines right after your +1 armor finished, especially when your opponent didn't get +1 attack for his marines yet since those percentages decrease way more ever time you get another upgrade ahead). Despite all these observations, I was sitting down and thought a while about what day9/tyler might have been referring to and I think that I may have found that point. If (and only if) you could play a pvp match with mostly zealots on both sides and you get up to +3armor and your opponent does not get any attack upgrades at all (not really an advantage for +2 here, pretty small one), then your units are better in the fight in comparision to +3 attack for about 16% (side note: You need to calculate the amount of hits it takes for both units without and with those upgrades, derive their percentages of effectiveness increase and then compare these numbers again; attention: these numbers may change slightly if you just do the math with pure numbers instead of calculating hits, then it might not be 16%). But, and this is the really important thing: +1 armor instead of getting +1 attack is always worth (just to to the unit tester and try it out for yourself if you don't bother to do that much math). So this scenario from above is extremely unlikely. It would require a long enough pvp match in order to provide you with enough time to get up to +3 armor AND your opponent is not getting attack upgrades himself to cancel out your armor upgrades at all (+1 would cancel basically this whole effect already until you reach +3 armor) AND you only use zealots (for stalkers/sentries attack is way way more effective and if we talk about power units like archons/immortals/colossus it's really far from being close). Conclusion: If one of these conditions is not met, get attack upgrades. However, if you out of whatever reason do find yourself in such a situation ever, feel free and go ahead and get those armor upgrades. I personally would not recommend them ever before getting attack in pvp though. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On August 15 2011 00:32 Fairwell wrote: This chart only takes hp (no shields) into account. So again since several people here like to quite day9 as well as LiquidTyler as a reference what they said (i heard them say it for myself), the best way to approach something like that is either doing the maths (which I did, so unless I made a mistake I should be right) or you can just go to the unit tester and just test it (like zealot with armor vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with attack vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with armor vs zealot with damage upgrade). In the case stated above (zealot vs zealot), yes getting the first armor upgrade would be better (because your zealots survive 1/6 longer -> 16.66% longer instead of donig 1/7 more damage ->14.28% more damage) if you only take hp into account, but once you calculate shields into that equation attack always win. However, if you start comparing this with other units like stalkers or sentries attack gets even stronger in comparison as well as for power units like immortals/archons/colossus). In our small example of letting one zealot with +1 attack fight one zealot with +1 armor, the zealot with the attack upgrade wins and has 4hp left. Attack starts to scale tremendously well with more units and especially for your other units that have more shields compared to the zealot in comparision to armor upgrades. In order to cancel the effect of +1 attack in pvp your opponent needs to get +1armor AND +1 shields or even +2/+2 or more (for units like colossus etc). ad snowball effect: This so-called "snowball-effect" of course this has to be taken care of if you think about which upgrades to get after getting any +1 upgrade (quite popular here is the big influence of the +2armor upgrade instead of +1 attack in pvt vs marines right after your +1 armor finished, especially when your opponent didn't get +1 attack for his marines yet since those percentages decrease way more ever time you get another upgrade ahead). Despite all these observations, I was sitting down and thought a while about what day9/tyler might have been referring to and I think that I may have found that point. If (and only if) you could play a pvp match with mostly zealots on both sides and you get up to +3armor and your opponent does not get any attack upgrades at all (not really an advantage for +2 here, pretty small one), then your units are better in the fight in comparision to +3 attack for about 16% (side note: You need to calculate the amount of hits it takes for both units without and with those upgrades, derive their percentages of effectiveness increase and then compare these numbers again; attention: these numbers may change slightly if you just do the math with pure numbers instead of calculating hits, then it might not be 16%). But, and this is the really important thing: +1 armor instead of getting +1 attack is always worth (just to to the unit tester and try it out for yourself if you don't bother to do that much math). So this scenario from above is extremely unlikely. It would require a long enough pvp match in order to provide you with enough time to get up to +3 armor AND your opponent is not getting attack upgrades himself to cancel out your armor upgrades at all (+1 would cancel basically this whole effect already until you reach +3 armor) AND you only use zealots (for stalkers/sentries attack is way way more effective and if we talk about power units like archons/immortals/colossus it's really far from being close). Conclusion: If one of these conditions is not met, get attack upgrades. However, if you out of whatever reason do find yourself in such a situation ever, feel free and go ahead and get those armor upgrades. I personally would not recommend them ever before getting attack in pvp though. Not sure exactly what conditions you were talking about. It was my understanding that Day9/Tyler were under the consensus that a +1 armor while the other guy has no upgrades is best if you plan to end the game right there. Attack however is better if you plan on playing long enough to have +2/+3 attack in there as well. | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
|
Fairwell
Austria195 Posts
On August 16 2011 01:07 CecilSunkure wrote: Not sure exactly what conditions you were talking about. It was my understanding that Day9/Tyler were under the consensus that a +1 armor while the other guy has no upgrades is best if you plan to end the game right there. Attack however is better if you plan on playing long enough to have +2/+3 attack in there as well. I did understand exactly what you were referring to. However, my testing and maths on this subject did conform however, that in exactly this circumstance you had just described +1 attack is better. No matter how much I love day9 for myself, I think he is simply is simply wrong in this regard. I recommend you go into unit tester and test it out for yourself. :-) | ||
|
Volka
Argentina408 Posts
| ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On August 16 2011 04:44 Fairwell wrote: I did understand exactly what you were referring to. However, my testing and maths on this subject did conform however, that in exactly this circumstance you had just described +1 attack is better. No matter how much I love day9 for myself, I think he is simply is simply wrong in this regard. I recommend you go into unit tester and test it out for yourself. :-) I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying your post was confusing. You said "under these conditions", and I said I don't know what conditions you're referring to o.o | ||
|
Fairwell
Austria195 Posts
On August 16 2011 05:52 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying your post was confusing. You said "under these conditions", and I said I don't know what conditions you're referring to o.o Ah haha, thought it was obvious that i was referring to the paragraph right above my sentence, namely this part: "It would require a long enough pvp match in order to provide you with enough time to get up to +3 armor AND your opponent is not getting attack upgrades himself to cancel out your armor upgrades at all (+1 would cancel basically this whole effect already until you reach +3 armor) AND you only use zealots (for stalkers/sentries attack is way way more effective and if we talk about power units like archons/immortals/colossus it's really far from being close). " | ||
|
Fairwell
Austria195 Posts
On August 16 2011 05:37 Volka wrote: Yeah, testing with the unit tester map, the only scenario which +1A is better than +1W is Stalkers vs Stalkers battles. What exactly did you test? A single stalker with +1 attack vs another single stalker with +1 armor is an equal trade (although before they kill each other with the last shot the one with +1 attack has 12 hp compared to the other one with only 7hp left). In bigger numbers it's the same here. However, once you add in other units as well the number of shots is not the only thing counting any more, and these 7hp can be finished of easier with any other unit than 12hp. If you put testing aside and just think about it, it makes totally sense as well. As long as both sides still have shields left, the stalkers with +1 attack are favored, because they do +1 dmg each shot. On the other hand, once the shields are gone, both take/deal the same amount of dmg each shot, because one has +1 bonus to attack (which is negated by the +1 armor of the other stalker) and vice versa (the other one gets one less dmg each shot but also deals one less). Since in most matches it's not pure zealots vs zealots or pure stalkers vs stalkers and so on we also have to take into account the percentage increase and not only the number of hits left (like I had mentioned above already). For instance, in a pvz pure zealots with +1 attack 2shot lings without upgrades, 50% faster than without any upgrades. Once you add in some sentries into the back of the zealots though, the difference is way less than 50%, because in many cases those sentries do the last and 3rd shot necessary to finish of lings, which had been hit twice by a zealot beforehand. i.e. lings with only 3 hp left (and sentries do 6dmg a shot). | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
http://drop.sc/26984 | ||
|
Animostas
United States568 Posts
| ||
|
AnibalEsmit
Spain9 Posts
On August 15 2011 00:32 Fairwell wrote: This chart only takes hp (no shields) into account. So again since several people here like to quite day9 as well as LiquidTyler as a reference what they said (i heard them say it for myself), the best way to approach something like that is either doing the maths (which I did, so unless I made a mistake I should be right) or you can just go to the unit tester and just test it (like zealot with armor vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with attack vs zealot without upgrades, zealot with armor vs zealot with damage upgrade). In the case stated above (zealot vs zealot), yes getting the first armor upgrade would be better (because your zealots survive 1/6 longer -> 16.66% longer instead of donig 1/7 more damage ->14.28% more damage) if you only take hp into account, but once you calculate shields into that equation attack always win. However, if you start comparing this with other units like stalkers or sentries attack gets even stronger in comparison as well as for power units like immortals/archons/colossus). In our small example of letting one zealot with +1 attack fight one zealot with +1 armor, the zealot with the attack upgrade wins and has 4hp left. Attack starts to scale tremendously well with more units and especially for your other units that have more shields compared to the zealot in comparision to armor upgrades. In order to cancel the effect of +1 attack in pvp your opponent needs to get +1armor AND +1 shields or even +2/+2 or more (for units like colossus etc). ad snowball effect: This so-called "snowball-effect" of course this has to be taken care of if you think about which upgrades to get after getting any +1 upgrade (quite popular here is the big influence of the +2armor upgrade instead of +1 attack in pvt vs marines right after your +1 armor finished, especially when your opponent didn't get +1 attack for his marines yet since those percentages decrease way more ever time you get another upgrade ahead). Despite all these observations, I was sitting down and thought a while about what day9/tyler might have been referring to and I think that I may have found that point. If (and only if) you could play a pvp match with mostly zealots on both sides and you get up to +3armor and your opponent does not get any attack upgrades at all (not really an advantage for +2 here, pretty small one), then your units are better in the fight in comparision to +3 attack for about 16% (side note: You need to calculate the amount of hits it takes for both units without and with those upgrades, derive their percentages of effectiveness increase and then compare these numbers again; attention: these numbers may change slightly if you just do the math with pure numbers instead of calculating hits, then it might not be 16%). But, and this is the really important thing: +1 armor instead of getting +1 attack is always worth (just to to the unit tester and try it out for yourself if you don't bother to do that much math). So this scenario from above is extremely unlikely. It would require a long enough pvp match in order to provide you with enough time to get up to +3 armor AND your opponent is not getting attack upgrades himself to cancel out your armor upgrades at all (+1 would cancel basically this whole effect already until you reach +3 armor) AND you only use zealots (for stalkers/sentries attack is way way more effective and if we talk about power units like archons/immortals/colossus it's really far from being close). Conclusion: If one of these conditions is not met, get attack upgrades. However, if you out of whatever reason do find yourself in such a situation ever, feel free and go ahead and get those armor upgrades. I personally would not recommend them ever before getting attack in pvp though. Yeah most casters say +1 armor is better than +1 weapons, mainly because Day9 said so, but I don't think this is right. This calculations tend to forget the shields (they assume +1 armor applies to all hp of the units, thus equaling +1 armor to +1 armor and shields) and they don't think about other implications: - Range units (Anything except zealots) benefit more from +1 weapons, specially blink stalkers since you don't want to tank with them, just blink the injured ones behind. - AoE units (Archons and Collosi) benefit much more from +1 weapons. +1 armor doesn't improve the archon at all (only 10 hull points). - Inmortals get's a huge bonus in damage with the +1 weapons, while +1 armor has only marginal effect. - Zealots do +1 +1 damage with +1 damage (+2 but with 2 different attacks). +1 armor cancels this when hits are dealing with the hull of the enemy, but the shields are still getting melted faster. So in MOST situations and unit compositions, I think +1 weapons is just better than +1 armor and is my upgrade of choice. Please let me know where I'm wrong if I am (giving a reasoning, not just stating "Day9 said so", I also love Day9 but he can make mistakes like everyone else). | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
Mainly because the armor only takes effect if shields are already down. Your +1 damage shows results with the first shot, for the +1 armor to matter you have to "allow" your units to get shields removed in the first place. Now when I play blink stalkers, my goal is actually to have as few stalkers "injured" as possible. Obviously I'm never able to pull it off perfectly, but ideally I don't want anything else but shield damage when blinking my ball around. By that logic, shield-upgrade would be the best upgrade in PvP. | ||
|
rsvp
United States2266 Posts
Just get attack. | ||
|
Artisian
United States115 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:01 sleepingdog wrote: I don't buy this +1 armor is better either. Mainly because the armor only takes effect if shields are already down. Your +1 damage shows results with the first shot, for the +1 armor to matter you have to "allow" your units to get shields removed in the first place. Armor is better in the sense that your units all take 1 more hit to kill. zeals take 11 attacks to kill a stalker at 0/0 for each, but if the stalker has +1 armor it takes 12 attacks. zeals take 11 shots to kill zealots, and 12 with +1 armor defender stalkers take 12 shots to kill a stalker, and 13 with +1 armor defender stalkers take 16 shots to kill a zealot, and 17 with +1 armor defender while with +1 attack, thanks to shield mechanics it doesn't effect stalker vs stalker, which i believe is the most common fight in gateway heavy pvp. Naturally this does assume stuff will die, I suppose if you could win the game with no units taking health damage +1 attack would be better, but since stalkers scale so badly in attack, armor is better for gateway on gateway battles. | ||
|
rsvp
United States2266 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:05 Artisian wrote: while with +1 attack, thanks to shield mechanics it doesn't effect stalker vs stalker What? Please think before you post. That makes no sense at all. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Gorgc14920 Counter-Strikesingsing3433 qojqva2709 Dendi1444 420jenkins178 Pyrionflax106 NeuroSwarm36 ODPixel22 LuMiX1 Heroes of the Storm Other Games ScreaM4181 Grubby3523 FrodaN1951 Beastyqt1163 B2W.Neo699 elazer265 ArmadaUGS148 C9.Mang0129 RotterdaM111 Trikslyr55 SteadfastSC22 ZombieGrub22 trigger1 |
|
Replay Cast
ReBellioN vs HonMonO
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
