EPT[D] TvZ, better to get +1 armor first? - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On September 23 2011 15:41 KaiserJohan wrote: And that is pretty much completely irrelevant; look what azzur posted. Why would someone throw jusr mass splings against marines? that would be pretty dumb. There are builds that revolve around having a quick macro hatch and making a million upgraded zerglings; they can actually fight marines decently if you have the larva. But yeah, in any other situation I think it's better to go for +1 attack. ; | ||
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
| ||
|
Jacen88
74 Posts
Lings one example of that: They have 35hp, without regen, +1attack would be critical. Also Infestors currently dont die to 2snipes, because they regen 1hp between -.-. In a ling vs marine cenario, +1armor should be always better (micro however you want, not reducing the number of hits needed is not influencing the outcome). +1attack IS a critical upgrade vs banelings though (reduces hits from 6 to 5). So you might still want to get attack first, since banelings are more frightening. | ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
On September 23 2011 15:03 the p00n wrote: I have tested 32 speedlings with no other upgrades against 16 combat shield/stimpack marines, with +1 armor or with +1 weapons. In a 1v1 setting (2 zerglings against 1 marine), one zergling survives against the marine with +1 weapons, 21 health left. However, the marine survives against the 2 zerglings with 2 hp left when he is given +1 armor instead. In big fights, the results are even more dramatic: +1 weapons + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUeBy.jpg) +1 armor + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7FSl4.jpg) These results are without micro. When you stutter step back (allowing for slightly more attacks from the marine's side and slightly less from the speedling's side), the results are approximately the same. Against Mutalisks it gets a bit trickier, because most mutas aren't going to engage marines unless they are very small in number. Due to good players not engaging in muta/marine duels that make them lose (many) mutas, the upgrades seem to have a very small effect in a realistic battle, making +1 weapons slightly (although almost negligible) more effective as you will be taking a few shots at mutas when chasing them out of your base, resulting in more damage output. However, +3 armor proves to be more effective against mutalisks than +3 weapons, due to negating the bounce damage. Do you honestly think in the millions of games of sc2 that have been played that people would be getting +1 weapons first if +1 armor were more efficient? This kind of stuff was figured out in the first couple weeks of sc2 beta.... and one of the first posts explains your flaw in logic (no micro). And who pushes out with only marines and who defends that with only zerglings? I don't understand why this is open or in the strategy forum. edit: apparently this guy thinks its a good idea to only build marines: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268427 | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On September 23 2011 16:17 Jacen88 wrote: I feel like that 1hp instant regen of zergs should be removed. It really destroys a lot of the critical upgrade things that should be intended imo. Lings one example of that: They have 35hp, without regen, +1attack would be critical. Also Infestors currently dont die to 2snipes, because they regen 1hp between -.-. In a ling vs marine cenario, +1armor should be always better (micro however you want, not reducing the number of hits needed is not influencing the outcome). +1attack IS a critical upgrade vs banelings though (reduces hits from 6 to 5). So you might still want to get attack first, since banelings are more frightening. It isnt quite instant, just really quick. You can double snipe an infestor using shift queue with 2 ghosts and it will kill them. | ||
|
Cibron
Sweden253 Posts
| ||
|
Penatronic
150 Posts
[B]On September 23 2011 15:38 HwangjaeTerran wrote: I always thought that getting attack upgrades was always better because all races really splash marines and marauders to death with tanks banelings and colossorom, but recently zergs have been making mostly lings and fewer banelings so armor will probably do better right now. Also,lings are awesome. While lings are awesome, your use of Latin is awesorom. Colossus (singular), Colossi (plural). That's it, seriously. Let's stop making stuff up. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
Some get armor, but it all depends on your playstyle. Marines mostly aren't used as a straight pushing unit, their purpose is to be dropped and deal as much damage as possible. Medivacs can keep your marines alive regardless so all that counts at that point is their damage output (other than lings everything still dies faster). I've tried 9 minute mass marine pushes with +1 armor and CS and it's definitely lethal vs people that try pure unupgraded speedling defense. Against spinecrawlers and some banelings you're pretty much screwed though unless you have godly baneling focus firing and splitting micro with regular 'ol marines. | ||
|
Huggerz
Great Britain919 Posts
| ||
|
Tommie
China658 Posts
| ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
I think if you have over 25+ marine or around there, that when +1 attack starts to shine. Why? Simply cause the marine will be clumping up and shielding one another thus the need for the armor is lessen and being clump up, they can dish out more DPS in a concentrated area. This mean that if people are planning to do a stim combat shield timing and an ebay upgrade timing before mutas, then they should probably consider +1 armor over +1 attack simply cause +1 armor will scale better in smaller engagements. Of course if they go roaches then your +1 armor is pretty useless but roaches in TvZ are out of the norm :p | ||
|
whoopingchow
United States293 Posts
And did you stim the Marines when they were attacked by the lings? | ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
On September 23 2011 16:47 michaelhasanalias wrote: Do you honestly think in the millions of games of sc2 that have been played that people would be getting +1 weapons first if +1 armor were more efficient? This kind of stuff was figured out in the first couple weeks of sc2 beta.... and one of the first posts explains your flaw in logic (no micro). And who pushes out with only marines and who defends that with only zerglings? I don't understand why this is open or in the strategy forum. edit: apparently this guy thinks its a good idea to only build marines: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=268427 You'd be surprised. It took almost 8 months before people started realizing that it was much more effective to get Combat Shields before Stim in TvT. And for a long time people thought Hellions were worthless except for killing workers. Anaheim showed us that they were phenomenal units in general in TvT. And in BW, it took almost a year and a half for people to realize that Defilers and Science Vessels were actually really good. I think the OP's got a good point. I think I'll stick with the attack upgrades because +attack is more effective against all the units that my marines fear: Banelings, Roaches, Infestors, Ultras. But I can definitely see how +1 armor would be more effective for a one base infantry timing attack. I think the people arguing that +attack is better with more micro are silly. The more +armor you have, the *longer* you can stutter step as well, which is just as important. The same thing applies to a ball of marines sitting against a wall. Sure every marine gets the +1 attack, but the more armor the group has, the longer the +armor group will survive vs the +attack group. It doesn't matter if the marines in the back aren't getting hit; everything the zerglings are attacking has the +1 armor so it doesn't matter what the back unit's armor upgrades are. Its the exact same reason why you want Marauders in front of Marines vs Zerg I think this revelation especially important to the early game, where its often better to have hp than extra dps until medivacs pop. Now after medivacs pop, of course +attack is better because survivability isn't as important. But I think the OP has a good point that +armor first is better in certain situations. | ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
On September 24 2011 02:16 RoboBob wrote: You'd be surprised. It took almost 8 months before people started realizing that it was much more effective to get Combat Shields before Stim in TvT. And for a long time people thought Hellions were worthless except for killing workers. Anaheim showed us that they were phenomenal units in general in TvT. And in BW, it took almost a year and a half for people to realize that Defilers and Science Vessels were actually really good. I think the OP's got a good point. I think I'll stick with the attack upgrades because +attack is more effective against all the units that my marines fear: Banelings, Roaches, Infestors, Ultras. But I can definitely see how +1 armor would be more effective for a one base infantry timing attack. I think the people arguing that +attack is better with more micro are silly. The more +armor you have, the *longer* you can stutter step as well, which is just as important. The same thing applies to a ball of marines sitting against a wall. Sure every marine gets the +1 attack, but the more armor the group has, the longer the +armor group will survive vs the +attack group. It doesn't matter if the marines in the back aren't getting hit; everything the zerglings are attacking has the +1 armor so it doesn't matter what the back unit's armor upgrades are. Its the exact same reason why you want Marauders in front of Marines vs Zerg I think this revelation especially important to the early game, where its often better to have hp than extra dps until medivacs pop. Now after medivacs pop, of course +attack is better because survivability isn't as important. But I think the OP has a good point that +armor first is better in certain situations. stimmed stutter-stepping marines won't ever take a shot to slow lings, and who has only slow lings off creep vs terran at 9 minutes into the game? OP makes a sweeping generalization across the entire matchup based on a limited and inapplicable sample size. I can't think of a single game situation where it could possibly be useful to invest in +1 armor over +1 attack, given combat shields, stim, no creep, no zergling speed or upgrades, and no micro. Can you? Almost every unit and army composition in the game fares better with +1 armor over + 1 attack in a-move situations with no micro. Micro gives you the ability to maximize dps while minimizing damage taken, making the +1 attack more valuable in almost any situation where it's possible to micro. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
THEPPLsELBOW
United States190 Posts
Think of it this way. When you are 3/0, you wont insta lose to 2/2 or 3/3 ling/ultra. When you are 2/1, vs 2/2 or 3/3 zerg units, your marines are not going to be able to kill them before your tanks start splashing your own units. Armor is useless against the top 5 marine killers late game. Banelings Fungal Siege tank splash Ultras Cracklings with higher upgrades Unless you go double ebay, which is usually a bad idea. | ||
|
Perfect
United States322 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
There is a reason though why +1 armor can turn out horrible. That is if the opponent gets +1 armor. And from all the t1s marine are the only one ranged, so the longer the fight takes the longer you have to micro. And you don't want to micro all they time while the opponent just has to a click and push you further and further away from their base so they can macro up. Thats why you prefer +1 reduces the micro time by alot, so you can concentrate on macro. On a sidenote Bunker gets +2 armor for pretty much the same then +1 armor, turning them into pfs if the zerg goes for mass lings for defense and not get +1 fast. So both is viable and you are most of the time on 3/1 before the zerg reaches hive anyway. But the marines purpose generally midgame is to defend harassment, that means the opponent will not engage, making armor not necessary, but damage important. and since marines working as meatshields generally protecting gas units, and shields and +1 armor is a bit gas overkill for that sort of attack. so upgrades are also about what the opponent does. Thats why you want +1 armor against toss as zerg, because their +1 weapons are evil and you want to defend, so prolonged battle = yay. But if you know the zerg goes +1 armor, you want +1 armor yourself, so their +1 armor was pretty much useless, which means zergs should go for +1 weapons to be save the +1 armor, and not get destroyed totally by +1 attack. So many mind games with upgrades yay ! PS: as for tvp armor upgrades are awesome for marauder vs zealot. | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
About armour vs attack: Attack should favour marines in large numbers, shield should favour marines in small. Ultimately, marines start to win the marine vs speedling battle significantly when the available surface area for zerglings to attack is greatly outclassed by the damage being produced by the marines... who, being ranged, will have a lot more surface area to attack. Because of that, unless you're planning to make less than 25 marines, attack should favour you over shield in any situation where more of your marines are shooting them than they have zerglings hitting you. Marines are most efficient when they're not being attacked, and you should always as a terran player strive to position them where the fewest of them can be attacked. If you're doing this, attack should benefit you more than armour. | ||
| ||
