|
On September 29 2011 02:08 thobel wrote:
Why is everyone saying that +1 weapons lets marines kill lings faster? It does *nothing*. Marines kill lings in 6 shots, either way.
If +1 weapons made marines take one fewer shot reliably, then fine -- there would be an argument to be made. But it's completely ineffectual against 0/0 lings.
Marines with 1/0 vs lings with 0/0 is one shot less (5 instead of 6). But apart from that, you often will have different units engaging at the same time (together with siege tanks for example etc).
|
May be helpful for bronze to diamond who idle their units and don't bother to micro. Even 0/0 will have better results with micro compared to upgrades.
|
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).
The amount of fail in that logic is so painful it hurts.
If everyone "assumed" what people did before was the correct and the most efficient way of doing things, there would never be any growth in strategies at all.
For example, I haven't seen anyone mention that it might actually be more efficient for bronze and silver-level players to get +1 armor instead of +1 weapons; after all, they're at the level where their micro is hardly going to be stellar. (wow, talk about ninja reply one post above -_-)
|
On September 29 2011 02:52 Fairwell wrote:
Marines with 1/0 vs lings with 0/0 is one shot less (5 instead of 6). But apart from that, you often will have different units engaging at the same time (together with siege tanks for example etc).
No, its 6 and 6. The lings regen just a little health in the almost nonexistent time between shots. On occasion, you'll be able to get it in 5.
Go grab five marines with +1, point them at a ling, and notice that it tends to not die in one volley.
This appears to be a common misconception.
The second point, however, is valid.
|
Just because the +1 armor marines survive better (and effectively kill zergling packs better) doesn't mean it's always the better decision to research. Marines attack a bunch of things, not just zerglings. A Terran player who wants to multitask and use drop play would probably rather get +1 weapons instead. An early timing push where marines' dps needs to be increased in order to kill structures faster would probably favor weapons too.
Interesting results though it isn't too surprising considering how low powered a zergling's attack is; +1 armor makes a huge difference against unupgraded lings.
|
With micro the total damage of the marines goes way up so the +1 attack becomes much more threatening, this is assuming stim is used of course, the armor is good i suppose if you're completely incapable of kiting. and you're just going to let the marines get hit.
Also, marines don't typically engage a flock of zergling w/o some sort of support, most often tanks and in that situation the zerglings are not the threat to your marines; the banelings are. And in that situation you'd rather have +attack considering +armor doesn't help much vs banes.
|
Attack upgrades scale with stim, armor upgrades do not.
In an engagement, only a few marines in a group will reap the benefits of an armor upgrade at any given time (ie, only a few marines would be getting attacked by lings). On the other hand, all marines will be attacking lings at any given time, meaning all the marines in the group reap the benefits of an attack upgrade during the entirety of the engagement.
Proper stutter-step micro allows marines to deal the same DPS while taking less damage.
Look at the big picture: marines are the core DPS units in a terran army. Why would you forgo an increase in DPS for an increase in survivability? It makes no sense. To make an analogy, would you prefer your ultras to have armor upgrades or attack upgrades? Additional armor upgrades would obviously scale much better since ultras already have high armor.
Of course, the scenario presented by the OP is extremely situational. If you add in banes, mutas and medivacs into the mix, +1 attack is clearly advantageous--armor upgrades don't do shit against banes. As for the mutas, there's a general consensus in the BW community that +1 weapon is better than +1 armor. The logic behind this carries over to SC2 as well: mutas are harassment units, not DPS units. Your marines should try to kill mutas, not survive against them (killing mutas mitigate harassment potential whereas surviving against mutas do nothing to mitigate future harass). Besides, mutas aren't supposed to fight marines anyway.
|
And +1 attack doesn't stack with combat shields, while +1 armor does.
Context is important. If you're thinking about doing an early marine timing, where you're mostly going to have zerglings as a response, the +1 armor is better. If you're going bio heavy, you're going to be getting double ups at the latest starting with 2/2.
If you're talking marine-tank push, +1 weapons will be better.
Also +1 weapons does reduce the # of marine shots to kill a baneling from 7 to 5, for what its worth.
|
On September 29 2011 05:09 thobel wrote:
And +1 attack doesn't stack with combat shields, while +1 armor does.
Context is important. If you're thinking about doing an early marine timing, where you're mostly going to have zerglings as a response, the +1 armor is better. If you're going bio heavy, you're going to be getting double ups at the latest starting with 2/2.
If you're talking marine-tank push, +1 weapons will be better.
Also +1 weapons does reduce the # of marine shots to kill a baneling from 7 to 5, for what its worth.
Read my post in the page before this. I tested out a small army of marines and tanks against a much larger army of mutas, lings, and banelings. The terran won in only one of 5 situations; the one where he had stim and +1 armor.
|
On September 29 2011 05:15 SheffiTB wrote:
Read my post in the page before this. I tested out a small army of marines and tanks against a much larger army of mutas, lings, and banelings. The terran won in only one of 5 situations; the one where he had stim and +1 armor.
Yeah it makes more sense in that context even, since the +1 armor is great vs mutalisks, and you need the stim to stop lings from getting in range of the tanks.
|
I fail to see how uber micro somehow offsets the effectiveness of the test. If we start with the assumption that armor marines > attack marines vs lings...we see that the only reason this could be possible is that the increase in armor buys enough time for the marines to make more attacks. This is unchanged in a highly micro'd situation. At some point the zerglings will catch the marines and attack them. These attacks are then mitigated by the increase in armor as already posited by our OP and SheffiTB. Therefore, micro would not somehow bypass armor's effectiveness, instead it just extends the time duration of our test.
On a different manner, I can see armor upgrades being very effective not only against lings but hydra and mutas as well.
|
Against a Ling/Muta army this definitely makes sense, but against a more roach-centric army or if you want to utilize drops, then I think that +1 attack makes more sense.
|
with +3 amor your mariens are still alive after 2 fungual growth
fungual do 30 dmg now vs them
your marines have 55 hp with shield
so in order words fungual do 2x 27dmg since you have 3 armor
that means marines dont die but
have only with 1 hp then
so you need 3 fungual or if you are lucky you can pull them back and let them heal
|
On September 29 2011 07:24 perser84 wrote:
with +3 amor your mariens are still alive after 2 fungual growth
fungual do 30 dmg now vs them
your marines have 55 hp with shield
so in order words fungual do 2x 27dmg since you have 3 armor
that means marines dont die but
have only with 1 hp then
so you need 3 fungual or if you are lucky you can pull them back and let them heal
Armor does not reduce the effects of fungal growth.
|
On September 29 2011 07:27 thobel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 07:24 perser84 wrote:
with +3 amor your mariens are still alive after 2 fungual growth
fungual do 30 dmg now vs them
your marines have 55 hp with shield
so in order words fungual do 2x 27dmg since you have 3 armor
that means marines dont die but
have only with 1 hp then
so you need 3 fungual or if you are lucky you can pull them back and let them heal
Armor does not reduce the effects of fungal growth.
yeah i just retest it
it dont
but would be nice if it do
|
Well the point is you dont want your marines being attacked at all, and you want to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible with your marine/tank/medivac. The marines arent meant to tank dmg... They're meant to snipe down hatcheries from drops, pick off mutalisks andkite zerglings through tank seige fire. Yes this seems like a more logical response if you're doing a marine/medivac mkp style though. So cool finding ^^
|
On September 23 2011 16:47 michaelhasanalias wrote:Show nested quote +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 ++1 armor+ Show Spoiler +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
Yes. I do think that. There are many, many things in this game like that.
|
If properly kited, lings should hardly ever be attacking the marines. That argument has already been made, and I hope you believe it by now.
Plus in ball vs. ball fights, all of the marines will always be shooting, and only the front line will be taking damage, unless something went horribly wrong. Assuming you have a ball of 24 marines, and the front 8 are getting hit by lings, your +1 weapon is use 3x as much as your +1 armor. This would, of course, diminish as your marines die, but will never be as important as that up-front burst damage is (again, if you kill the lings before they get to you, you take no damage, so the faster you kill them the better off you are)
If you REALLY need more proof, it was in style for a long while (and I still see it quite often) to get a fast +1 carapace, which takes you from 6 shots to kill a zergling to 8 (including the regen). A 33% difference. A quick +1 weapon counteracts that huge difference.
|
It has been stated before, but I want to give the numbers why. A 0/0 mraine does 6 damage. A 1/0 marine does 7 damage. A zergling has 35 hit points, but almost instantly regens 1 hitpoint when hit. Therefore you should treat him like 36 hp except for weapons that one shot him. A 0/0 marine needs 6 shots to kill a zergling. A 1/0 marine cannot kill a zergling in 5 shots due to regeneration 1 lifepoint stays. So the +1 attack is useless for pure marine vs zergling/speedling.
About the micro. Micro will change notinh because of 2 /(3) reasons.
1. The reason that +1 attack is useless in this scenario
2. An increase in efficiency with micro would impact both cases in the same way. You may be able to deal out more attacks per atack recieved (same with the ball vs ball situation were some do not get hit),. but this ratio increases the same way independant of the upgrades. And both upgrades can make the same use of it. It might me intuitive that this favours heavy attack but it does not.
If you can get 50% more shots of before you die, you can kill 50% more lings, but when two numbers get increased by a percentage the larger number stays the larger number.
(3). Once the zerg has speed he might suround you anyway,
|
Thats incredibly interesting. I will be getting +1 armor as a primary upgrade in a few of my upcoming matches to see how it fairs, I almost always got +1 weap because of the DPS increase with stim. But it seems maybe thats the incorrect tech for early game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yUeBy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7FSl4.jpg)
