|
On July 22 2012 21:53 Nachtwind wrote:One thing also to note about upgrades -the more /units you have you want to upgrade the more cost efficient is the upgrade. Example: +1 melee for 100 zerglinge, + 1 range for 3 roachen So if you ever build more bunkers, rax, pf then marines let me know. EDIT: Not that i don´t like your idea. It would be really fun if that would work. Nontheless these upgrades have their place. Armor is really good in the lategame. Most people even doesn´t know that nanosteel frame gives your normal CC and PF 5 extra cargo space 
Actually, since I favor Sky Terran builds, I DO make more PF's and Bunkers than marines.
It isn't uncommon for me to have only 4-16 marines, depending on the number of bunkers I feel I need in teh early game, and the nI just keep moving the bunkers to the next expansion.
Not saying this is tourny-good, but it works on the ladder. And hey, having a random "WTF did he just do?!" build is a good idea, even in tourny play, yes?
|
I always get structure upgrades after 3-3 ; Its not that expensive lategame and If it helps me save some PF why not?
|
I tried a cute build with raven auto-turrets acting like the old missile turrets in BW and used them to push with tank/hellion/marine/medivac with the +2 armor buildings. Auto-turrets tanked his entire ling squad lol.
Then my ravens got fungal'd+muta'd and I cried.
|
Marines are mobile, Bunkers are not. Committing to building armor is saying I'm playing passive take 5 bases and kill me in 20 minutes. It's really good, I'm not taking away from that but your army is what needs to be upgraded so it can punish the opponent if they're being greedy, and to hit timings. It's only place is mid/lategame.
|
For me I always forget to build my armory at the perfect time when my 1/1 finishes, so then my eBay just sits there doing nothing so I feel I might as well get it. If you have 2 eBay's you can research it while your building your armory then once your armory is done, you can get +2, then your other +2 is only delayed 30 seconds or so. Someone mentioned auto turrets and using building armor with auto turrets is so AWESOME!!! I had 2 turrets dropped behind a mineral line and was able to effectively shut down mining at that base for a good minute or so, and the best thing about ravens is that they don't need to really be with your army unlike marine drops, unless you see cloak but for the most part you can have them be rouge assassins. I wish they would make them a little faster or give them an upgrade to be faster. Turrets are like super marines with no legs. Why do Ravens cost so MUCH!!! 200/100 would be fine like the ghost or reduce the cost on auto turrets to 25 and lower the length of time they stay up.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:01 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 02:16 rebotfc wrote:
I like building armor but principally because it helps vs muta run-ins on turrets.
Also Banelings are not affected by building armour upgrades AFAIK. I don't know why that would be true, I think it would be more that -2 damage on 80 (+5) damage would be hard to notice.
You are incorrect, and have spread misinformation. Please check your facts before making false statements like this. The baneling anti-building attack is unaffected by building armor, regardless as to why you would think or not think it to be the case. Any Zerg or Terran player who has ever fought against or used a baneling bust (the vast majority of which hit without using +1) will tell you that it's 5 banelings to kill a 400-hp depot. This is because the depot's 1 armor does NOT reduce baneling damage. If it did, it would take an extra baneling.
Liquipedia agrees with me and rebotfc: Baneling damage on buildings is not mitigated by armor, so that the 1 armor that most buildings possess and the Terran Building Armor upgrade that grants +2 armor does not affect Baneling damage.
|
On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade?
Protoss has Mass Recall / Warp-ins, Zerg has insane mobility (current TvZ allows a lot of creep), Terrans are kinda fucked when out of position so buildings esp static defences are all you got to defend at times.
On topic: Could be useful when going triple CC double eBay against 6 queen opening. Interesting.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On July 24 2012 01:51 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade? Protoss has Mass Recall / Warp-ins, Zerg has insane mobility (current TvZ allows a lot of creep), Terrans are kinda fucked when out of position so buildings esp static defences are all you got to defend at times. On topic: Could be useful when going triple CC double eBay against 6 queen opening. Interesting.
I also believe Protoss can upgrade their building's Shield armor with the forge upgrades, so the idea of getting armor upgrades for buildings isn't totally unprecedented.
|
On July 24 2012 01:53 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:51 S_SienZ wrote:On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade? Protoss has Mass Recall / Warp-ins, Zerg has insane mobility (current TvZ allows a lot of creep), Terrans are kinda fucked when out of position so buildings esp static defences are all you got to defend at times. On topic: Could be useful when going triple CC double eBay against 6 queen opening. Interesting. I also believe Protoss can upgrade their building's Shield armor with the forge upgrades, so the idea of getting armor upgrades for buildings isn't totally unprecedented.
This is true and correct. Skytoss builds will very often rely on plasma shield uprades, not only for the extra protection to the air units but also because Skytoss generally involves putting cannons everywhere and a half. Cannons w/ +3 shields survive for ever against speedlings.
|
On July 23 2012 11:02 D u o wrote:
Marines are mobile, Bunkers are not. Committing to building armor is saying I'm playing passive take 5 bases and kill me in 20 minutes. It's really good, I'm not taking away from that but your army is what needs to be upgraded so it can punish the opponent if they're being greedy, and to hit timings. It's only place is mid/lategame.
What if the terran did this? Zerg has invested in mutas which failed which puts them behind. Why not mass expand due to the ability to better defend your bases. If I can defend each base with half as many units as previously, how is the Zerg supposed to beat that?
|
On July 24 2012 03:22 BroodKingEXE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 11:02 D u o wrote:
Marines are mobile, Bunkers are not. Committing to building armor is saying I'm playing passive take 5 bases and kill me in 20 minutes. It's really good, I'm not taking away from that but your army is what needs to be upgraded so it can punish the opponent if they're being greedy, and to hit timings. It's only place is mid/lategame. What if the terran did this? Zerg has invested in mutas which failed which puts them behind. Why not mass expand due to the ability to better defend your bases. If I can defend each base with half as many units as previously, how is the Zerg supposed to beat that?
Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't really see a reason why Terran has to punish a greedy Zerg, as opposed to just being greedy yourself. People who say that Terran has to pressure or commit to timing attacks against a greedy Zerg just don't know how to macro, I guess.
|
On July 24 2012 04:22 HelioSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:22 BroodKingEXE wrote:On July 23 2012 11:02 D u o wrote:
Marines are mobile, Bunkers are not. Committing to building armor is saying I'm playing passive take 5 bases and kill me in 20 minutes. It's really good, I'm not taking away from that but your army is what needs to be upgraded so it can punish the opponent if they're being greedy, and to hit timings. It's only place is mid/lategame. What if the terran did this? Zerg has invested in mutas which failed which puts them behind. Why not mass expand due to the ability to better defend your bases. If I can defend each base with half as many units as previously, how is the Zerg supposed to beat that? Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't really see a reason why Terran has to punish a greedy Zerg, as opposed to just being greedy yourself. People who say that Terran has to pressure or commit to timing attacks against a greedy Zerg just don't know how to macro, I guess.
Actually, it tends to be the fact that Zerg can switch into full-on aggression at the tip of a hat that Terrans have a difficult time being greedy in response. Unlike Zerg, Terran isn't able to insta-make an army to defend. It can work, but it relies on the Zerg not scouting well, or not doing anything about it.
|
On July 23 2012 09:48 Ironsights wrote:Actually, since I favor Sky Terran builds, I DO make more PF's and Bunkers than marines.
Sorry nobody is going to believe that statement unless you´re low league. Sure it may happen on rare occasion where you can get away with just dumping excess minerals into hellions but in most sky-terran games regardless of what race youre up against, you need alot of marines - not only as a mineral dump, but also as cannonfodder. Furthermore there´s no point in making a bunker if you don´t make marines for it, so saying you´re making more bunkers (and pfs) than you make marines is either low league play or a lie.
On July 24 2012 04:22 HelioSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 03:22 BroodKingEXE wrote:
What if the terran did this? Zerg has invested in mutas which failed which puts them behind. Why not mass expand due to the ability to better defend your bases. If I can defend each base with half as many units as previously, how is the Zerg supposed to beat that? Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't really see a reason why Terran has to punish a greedy Zerg, as opposed to just being greedy yourself. People who say that Terran has to pressure or commit to timing attacks against a greedy Zerg just don't know how to macro, I guess.
There´s not really such a thing as a failed mutas simply because you have turrets up. If the mutas forced turrets they still did something, and they can always be used for map control, picking of tanks and denying drops - and a zerg isn´t forced to continue muta production just because he made 6-8.
The reason why most people say that terran have to punish a greedy zerg isn´t because terran can´t be greedy too. The reasons are:
1) Terran can´t be as greedy as zerg no matter how hard a terran tries. Zerg injection mechanics, cheaper hatchery combined with a more reactive and easier defence because of zerg mobility, queen, creep and ability to make as many units as resources and larva allows, makes zerg superior in terms of playing greedy.
2) If both zerg and terran plays greedy, they are both setting up for a longer game, and it´s quite commonly agreed upon that terran are at a disadvantage vs zerg the longer the game goes on. It becomes increasingly harder to expand for a terran and a 5+ base zerg with brood, infestor, ultra tech is difficult to deal with and the odds are against you.
3) Greedy terran openings (such as 1 rax double expand) are much easier to lose with than greedy zerg openings (such as a 4 queen opening into fast 3rd). You may very well die to a number of allins even if scouted while a zerg who scouts an all in may better defend it even if he opened greedy.
|
On July 24 2012 07:33 yoona2012 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 09:48 Ironsights wrote:Actually, since I favor Sky Terran builds, I DO make more PF's and Bunkers than marines. Sorry nobody is going to believe that statement unless you´re low league. Sure it may happen on rare occasion where you can get away with just dumping excess minerals into hellions but in most sky-terran games regardless of what race youre up against, you need alot of marines - not only as a mineral dump, but also as cannonfodder. Furthermore there´s no point in making a bunker if you don´t make marines for it, so saying you´re making more bunkers (and pfs) than you make marines is either low league play or a lie.
What about mech? What about mech with marines? No medivacs, no stim, no drops. With mech, you've got siege tank lines and turrets anyway, spend some mins on bunkers for the marines and get building armor instead of unit armor. With one ebay you can make mech much less vulnerable to air play (mutas included), and generally have a higher base dps against everything that isn't Light when using marines and bunkers as mineral dumps instead of hellions. Just food for thought.
Though personally, I agree with ironsights, skyterran occupies a somewhat niche place in current meta-game, but it does exist. Could help with that too, definitely.
|
Here, I used building armour against a protoss. When he attacked me, I couldn't repair because of sentries. One bunker stayed alive long enough to defend with minimal losses. Well worth the upgrade here. Mid-High masters level play.
http://drop.sc/227173
|
You guys would be very surprised to see what building armor does. I used to think Protoss Shield Armor would never work. Then I tried Asmodeus's PvZ build and saw how cannons with shield upgrades stood up to hydras ... ...
On paper it sounds bad. In practice, it might be very useful and we should definitely explore more terran builds that perhaps may even rely on getting BUILDING ARMOR instead of +1 armor for marines in early game and then rely on mech upgrades for late game.
|
In my mech gamestyle I always get building armor pretty quickly since I depend on walling off with PF's, turrets to keep me alive while teching hard and expanding pretty aggressively.
In short: I feel that for a turtle gamestyle building armor is absolutely an important upgrade while the "in your face"-aggressive terran will of course resent it.
|
On July 22 2012 01:45 Saechiis wrote:
You're overthinking this imo, you want to attack Zerg, not turtle up behind armor upgraded buildings. The scenario's where you don't die to a Zerg push because you have building armor are so scarce compared to your use of marines offensively and defensively. It's not worth getting building armor over infantry armor unless you're already on +3.
I agree with everything this man said, and I firmly believe this is why we never see armor upgrade for buildings.
But, super late game it's awesome when you're already 3-3 on bio.
|
Yeah +1 armor is still much better. It effects more things in your arsenal, and effects things that can move. How many bunkers do you plan on making? Sure total against seedlings you get 100 extra hits for a bunker. But when your army is big enough you will get more than that total with your overall marines. And for PF's sure there is no arguing it's good. But how often do a Zerg do an engagement into a PF. Almost never unless they are certain they are going to crush you. So pretty much the deal is the fact that when you leave your base. The upgrade does nothing for you. And if your going 1 E-bay your going to get attack first anyway as the main reason you die normally is because of banelings, not zerglings. Which aren't really effected by armor. And if 2 E-bay. Your planning on going upgrades fast so you wouldn't want to be 3-2 when you could be 3-3. So all in all. While it's a good thought, it's pretty bad comparatively.
|
On July 24 2012 07:33 yoona2012 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 09:48 Ironsights wrote:Actually, since I favor Sky Terran builds, I DO make more PF's and Bunkers than marines. Sorry nobody is going to believe that statement unless you´re low league. Sure it may happen on rare occasion where you can get away with just dumping excess minerals into hellions but in most sky-terran games regardless of what race youre up against, you need alot of marines - not only as a mineral dump, but also as cannonfodder. Furthermore there´s no point in making a bunker if you don´t make marines for it, so saying you´re making more bunkers (and pfs) than you make marines is either low league play or a lie. Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:22 HelioSeven wrote:On July 24 2012 03:22 BroodKingEXE wrote:
What if the terran did this? Zerg has invested in mutas which failed which puts them behind. Why not mass expand due to the ability to better defend your bases. If I can defend each base with half as many units as previously, how is the Zerg supposed to beat that? Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I don't really see a reason why Terran has to punish a greedy Zerg, as opposed to just being greedy yourself. People who say that Terran has to pressure or commit to timing attacks against a greedy Zerg just don't know how to macro, I guess. There´s not really such a thing as a failed mutas simply because you have turrets up. If the mutas forced turrets they still did something, and they can always be used for map control, picking of tanks and denying drops - and a zerg isn´t forced to continue muta production just because he made 6-8. The reason why most people say that terran have to punish a greedy zerg isn´t because terran can´t be greedy too. The reasons are: 1) Terran can´t be as greedy as zerg no matter how hard a terran tries. Zerg injection mechanics, cheaper hatchery combined with a more reactive and easier defence because of zerg mobility, queen, creep and ability to make as many units as resources and larva allows, makes zerg superior in terms of playing greedy. 2) If both zerg and terran plays greedy, they are both setting up for a longer game, and it´s quite commonly agreed upon that terran are at a disadvantage vs zerg the longer the game goes on. It becomes increasingly harder to expand for a terran and a 5+ base zerg with brood, infestor, ultra tech is difficult to deal with and the odds are against you. 3) Greedy terran openings (such as 1 rax double expand) are much easier to lose with than greedy zerg openings (such as a 4 queen opening into fast 3rd). You may very well die to a number of allins even if scouted while a zerg who scouts an all in may better defend it even if he opened greedy.
To keep up this mechanical lead Zerg needs to be 2-3 bases ahead of a late game terran. Building armour prevents Zerg from stopping the Terran from getting the expansions to keep toe to toe with a Zerg. Building armor is a one time cost and will not put Terran too far behind as those 6-8 mutas which cost 600/600 will offset the cost of a 150/150 upgrade plus a few turrets. The mutas also have contributed to a delayed army size of the Zerg allowing Terran to expand with greater defensive potential. Upgraded Buildings prevent crackling runbys which are the backbone of lategame Zerg's exapnsin control of terran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
