|
After reading these,
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223282
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210874
I wanted to talk about getting building armor over Infantry armor early game versus zerg and even other races, but I mainly talk about zerg in this.
+1 armor vs +2 building armor
I been doing some thinking about these upgrades. I am sure
that everyone knows about both of these upgrades for terran.
1 gets used all the time, the other...never? I have been doing
some experiments on which upgrade is better for early/mid/late
game and here is what I came up with. +1 armor is 100/100/160
+2 building armor is 150/150/140. Both help you stay alive
longer, but one of them gives you 1, the other 2 armor. So
why have we been so fouced on +1 armor vs +2 with shorter
build time...
The simple answer is we build units to attack, they need to be
the strongest they can be and not die as fast. Plus, these
units can move and run away or kill things, buildings cannot.
What do buildings do early/mid/late for a Terran??? They protect
us from mass runs in, they allow us to deny scouting from the
opponent, they form a wall for our units to stand behind and get some
free shots in, and they protect us from certain units when we cannot
be in 3 places at once(missile turrets). So why are they so
un loved they don't get a buff to help them survive??? Short answer
they don't help us win the game. What if we had it all wrong,
what if these buildings were the only reason why we win and
lose some games. Think about it, you put down a PF or a bunker
at the front and then it gets overrun by ling, roach, muta,
banes and you say man I need to build more units vs that
build or you complain that zerg is op...(which they are lol).
So without writing more I want to just get into the details of
+1 armor vs +2 builing armor
Marines:
HP: 45
Armor: 0
Cost: 50
Attack: 6
Speed: 0.8608
Bunker:
HP: 400
Armor: 1
Cost: 100
There are the basic units we will be taking about, now lets see
some zerg units.
Zerling:
HP: 35
Armor: 0
Cost: 25
Attack: 5
Speed: 0.696
Roach:
HP: 125
Armor: 1
Cost: 75/25
Attack: 16
Speed: 2
Muta;
HP: 120
Armor: 0
Cost: 100/100
Attack: 9/6/3
Speed: 1.5246
Ling vs Marine
M dies in 9 hits
Ling vs +1 armor Marine
M dies in 12 hits
+4 extra hits, pretty nice that is an extra 2.784 seconds of time
alive. That is an extra 3 shots or 18 damage, Then once upgrades hit, its back to even. Now lets look
at Lings vs bunkers.
Ling vs Bunker
B dies in 100 hits
Ling vs +2 armor Bunker
B dies in 200 hits
+100 hits, a 100% upgrade versus a 33% upgrade that is an extra 70 seconds of life. Now I get it, bunkers
don't move, they just sit there, but how often do you play verus
a zerg and the just go in and surround your bunker and then
they kill it off and your marines are left to defend them selves
if the bunker can stay up extra time, then they can defend from
the safety of the bunker. Now I know that 1 ling is never going to
be attacking at a time. So I did the math on if 20 lings were attack your
bunker.
20 lings vs Bunker
B will last 3.48 seconds, marines will fire ~16 times
16 shots will effectivly kill 2-3 lings
20 lings vs +2 armor Bunker
B will last 6.96 seconds, marines will fire ~32 times
32 shots will effectivly kill 5-6 lings
20 lings vs 10 Marines
10 marines die in 3.132 seconds
20 lings vs +1 armor Marines
10 marines die in 3.915 seconds
Now bunkers get double the amount of time verus the marine which get an extra 0.8 seconds.
So verus lings armor upgrades to either units or buildings is good, but the building
armor upgrade will help you defend yourself better early on since you can use buildings to your
atvantage. +1 armor is very essential but, I feel early on armor upgrades are the way to get your
tech up and not have to invest in such a huge army.
Let's look at armor upgrades verus roachs and mutas.
Roach vs Marine
M dies in 3 shots
Roach vs +1 Marine
M dies in 3 shots
So no difference verus Roach.
Roach vs Bunker
B dies in 27 shots
Roach vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 31 shots
That is an extra 4 shots. 4 shots may not seem like a lot, but when you can have some scvs repairing
it will take an extra volly from a 5 roach push to kill your bunker, giving you a little
more time to repair and keep it alive. Not to mention if you have a supply depo wall off,
it will take that much longer to kill of your depo wall.
Muta vs Marine
M dies in 5 hits
Muta vs +1 Marine
M dies in 6 hits
This is a nice bouns for marines getting to take another hit.
Muta vs Bunker
B dies in 50 hits
Muta vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 67 hits
Wow an extra 17 hits from mutas. That is a huge bouns. You figure 15 muta coming into your mineral
line with a bunker in place, it would take...
15 Muta vs Bunker
B dies in 5.07-6.09 seconds
15 Muta vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 6.76-7.62 seconds, giving your marines an extra two or three shots(48-72 damage) on the mutas.
Just for fun,
15 muta vs Missile Turret
T dies in 3.04 seconds
15 muta vs +2 Missile Turret
T dies in 4.57 seconds, 1-2 extra shots(24-48 damage)
So by upgrading your building armor you are effectivly double the amount of damage you get from
that builing weather it is a bunker, turret or even supply depo that is walling you
off. You are getting more time to shoot at the target while remaining safe. You can get this upgrade
faster in time, depending on your income if you have 3 on gas you can get
the extra 50 in just under 30 seconds, so the timing isn't any different. I would say if you
are going for quick expos and defeding, I would use armor defense, since they give you a nice
bouns to PF and Orbital armor and help those from being taken down as well.
Thanks for the read, kind of long but wanted to share.
|
Forgot to mention, scouting raxs will also living longer so you can see more of the base,
5 queens vs floating rax
R dies in 25 shots, which is 25 seconds
5 queens vs +2 floating rax
R dies in in 34 shots, which is 34 seconds for an extra 9 seconds of scouting
|
Interesting, highly interesting. Lets wait for SCV s coming with attack to built bunkers.
Hell, neosteel frame, +2 infantry and building armor combined to make a massive defense at the Zergs front, even with rax in there, and depots, to contain Zerg like he's never been contained before!
|
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.
|
Any sort of common combo of roach ling baneling will come far before either of the upgrades finishes. I feel that after 3-3 is done, it is very good to get it but as for staying alive, it won't be done in time. In the 3 base muta ling bane all-in style that is commonly seen on Antiga typically destroys the bunkers with banes, and 80-2 (or even more than 80 with upgrades as the zerg could have up to 2-2) is not a huge reduction in damage.
|
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.
|
Getting building armor delays you from getting +3 bio armor which means that later in the game so if you want to push with 3/3 bio then that push is going to come even later.
|
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.
As for the topic, I think it's very hard to just do the math like this and let it stand for what it is... a lot of the scenarios are just plain unrealistic (one zergling vs one marine... bio armour upgrade shouldn't matter) and aren't perhaps true unless the whole scenario is fleshed out. For example, in a situation where the zerg is opting for some sort of non-baneling all-in and you have the time to scout it and get building armour beforehand, it would be more beneficial than a bio upgrade because not only would it effectively increase the value of repair on that bunker, it would also increase the duration of the wall itself, allowing your ranged units more time to kill stuff.
However, if the zerg is just pressuring, the building armour upgrade directly hurts any pressure you plan to do afterwards while helping you more readily defend a pressure you probably had no problem defending anyways. It would take some pretty strong (yet somehow not all-in) pressure for a zerg to attempt to break a normal bunker, much less an armoured one.
Overall, I think adding building armor late game is smart, because why not. Adding it earlier at the sacrifice of something else? Unless you've got some 2 base or 3 base strange all in planned, I don't see the point of locking yourself in your base and hurting your ability to do stuff to his base.
Oh, and math-wise... if you have 25 marines and a bunker, bio armor will give you just as many more "zergling hits" as a bunker with armor upgrade. The positives for armor is that it unlocks the option to go to +2 armour (no follow up upgrade on building armour) and still functions on the offensive, where creep prevents a bunker/building armor from being useful (again while benefitting from repair more, and allowing your units more time to attack).
|
i tend to get +2 buildings before +1 armor, mostly against toss though, because bunkers take 4 damage less from zealots. Against Zerg its nice as well if they stay ling heavy, with it you can basically go 4 base on alot of maps, involving not to much risk. And the upgrade negates muta harassment pretty effective unless they commit heavily into mutas.
Was thinking about going tripple ebay for a while, but right now going air is so much better.
But right now with all those ling runbys +2 armor and nothing is to fear, when you move out with your whole army. And have noticed that very few check for the upgrade and suddenly the things don't die as fast as they are supposed to. Best example was xel naga cavern times, when Zerg baneling bombed your pf with the perfect amount of banelings, well on a pf without armor.
|
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade?
|
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.
This, unless you're bronze, this is a stupid strategy--if you turtle like this, Zerg will out macro you; period. Worst strategy post in a while.
edit- grammar
|
Not sure what OP is trying to promote here.
Going for early + building armor is unthinkable. Resources are extremely tight and having that extra +1 armor (weapons if you are good at microing dem marines) makes your early aggression against zerg stronger. +armor for building wont finish in time against any 1-2 base rushes, and the gas is so tight that if you went building armor you'd have no tanks to defend, and since the upgrade wont finish in time, you'll just die.
You did NOT include calculations for banelings either, which is THE main bunker killer early on.
Going for late game High Sec Track (whatever the fuck you call it, increase range for turret and PF)+building armor is quite common I think?
So now its the mid game
Going for early-mid game +building armor is rather pointless too. At worse you are still on 2 base, and if you are turtling on two base because you got hit pretty badly, tanks are all you need. At best you are fucking up the zerg so bad that its better to get faster upgrades for units so you can further pull in your advantage.
Now you are looking for the middle ground - 3 - 4, bases are a bit far apart to protect properly therefore usage of PF, even ground. A zerg already needs to commit a shit ton of units to take down a PF, and if it is even ground it would be a complete waste and bad move on the zergs part. So now we are down to turret vs muta. The upgrade is 100/100 i think? Building another turret is only 100 minerals, and personally I prefer the +range upgrade first if it really comes down to it.
But really, leave 4-6 well upgraded marines with the turret and the mutas will leave you alone.
In TvP, its a macro race matchup already. Fast upgrades for units is so essential many builds have a bunch of timings revolving around them. Not much needed to say about late game.
TvT - I can see this working in a mech vs bio situation, as +2 armor screws marines over really badly and PFs become unkillable with mm alone, but its pretty common knowledge for good players to fit in the two upgrades for PFs once the 4th is getting secured.
Appreciate the numbers you have given but at the end of the day unit upgrades always come first unless you are doing some really cute strategy, in which I prefer +1 armor thor rushes.
|
On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade?
I find it quite useful sometimes, along with turret range, when muta play is afoot. Really helps cut down on the harassment if you have good turret lines, allowing you to focus on making a strong push army that a muta ball won't be able to handle.
I generally only get it when I see MASS muta, though. Like, when the Zerg's overcommitting to it as they're sometimes wont to do to keep you from ever pushing out.
Good to note that the +2 armour effectively brings building armour up to 3. In short, that means mutas without attack upgrades do zero ricochet damage vs. buildings, on top of their initial attack being reduced down to 6. That's equivalent to marine base damage, but with a ~1.5 second cooldown. Really helps out turrets that are close by each other, as the lack of ricochet damage makes it a lot harder for mutas to take down successive turrets. Add in the turret range like I mentioned, and you have mutas taking a tonne more damage than they normally would in order to destroy the same amount of turrets -- to the point that sometimes they won't even be able to break through a decent turret line. That's not even considering SCV repair.
|
when going pure mech vs zerg i think building armor is essential for turrets vs early muta timings.
|
The_Sanjuro you seem to be focused on the building armor upgrade mainly vs zerg. Now mass repair a bunker will practically negate any ling attacks - the problem is banelings, and baneling dmg ignores armor completely. In the same fashion I´d like to point out that repairing a bunker vs mutas or roaches is preferable to investing in early building armor as well - this is because either you want an addition ebay to upgrade building armor, or delay your unit armor upgrade. An extra ebay+ extra upgrade during early game is too expensive early on. If you delay armor unit upgrade, you have to take into consideration that it also impacts the medivac combination. Not only will medivacs deplete their energy faster, but the units will be more fragile and more easily die before healed. So if you want a more full picture, try to include armor bonuses vs various unit with medivac support.
Another thing to take into consideration is taht during an entire game you may have made maybe 3 bunkers and 8 turrets - so your building armor is effective on a total of 11 buildings (rest doesnt really matter except any planetaries you may have built) - however in that same game you may have made 200 marines, a huge difference of cost effective upgrade. While i like the building armor upgrade vs smaller amount of mutas - big stack of mutas will still 1 shot a turret regardless of armor upgrade, and the real difference is practically non existant, vs a mass muta play i´d rather have turret range than armor or invested in another thor.
There are other things to take into consideration, most have been mentioned, but i think it´s clear why nobody opts for a fast building armor upgrade among progamers
|
good for mech bad for bio imo
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade?
I think the upgrade itself is a quite usefull one as well as turret range, which inreases your defence while you are out on the map with your units. However for terran the "aggresive" part is way more important than the "defensive" part in the midgame. So it´s only normal that the upgrades for units are preferred to make your aggresion stronger. It just don´t makes sense at all to research those upgrades, because when you are "defensive" all your units are at home to help with the defense. Unless you use them to tech like crazy for example fast 3 base bc and skip your unit production really hard. But the problem here is that bcs aren´t scary at all.
|
I get buidling armor every game, and agree with your assesment.
It is ALWAYS good for your bunkers/turrets to take a stronger beating, for your wall to survive that extra hit, and for your Planetaries to lob a few more shots.
The fact that it ALSO works on PDD and auto turrets is a huge plus.
|
turret range is aswome, building armor meh not so much.
|
OP - there are so many spelling errors and typos in your original post... 
I feel that there are a lot of cool strategies available from the three under-used ebay upgrades. Of course, you talk about the Building Armour upgrade. This is an upgrade I always get after 3-3 finishes. At this stage, I am normally on three base, probably taking a fourth and can easily afford it. Against a zerg player going Muta, I have been experimenting with getting Hi-Sec Auto Tracking quite early as it gives turrets more range in fending them off.
I also distinctly remember a game on Calm Before The Storm where a terran player rushed to Neosteel Frame and did a wonky late upgraded bunker rush. It was really cool at the time, but was crushed.
|
cost to much and takes to long to upgrade, if it cost same resourses and time as building range upgrade then mby it would be worth it, to get in early game.
Lets say toss does some kind of 6-7gate push at 8.20 , you would need to start upgrading and have 150gas at about 6min. Which would be pretty steep to incorporate into normal expand builds. Later on in the game only terran is the aggressive, while the other races are defending, it would still be pretty useless. Ofcourse after getting 3-3, continue upgrading building armor and range is good idea, since you will have extra gas anyway, and you will spread out your bases, so having better building defence is always welcome.
|
Highly advocate this upgrade. I use it in my build (which I have posted, look up post history if interested TvZ) wHich rushes it under 8 minutes. It up grades in 60 seconds! And makes planetaries so hard to crack. I've seen many zergs make the mistake of trying to rush me.
For replay list:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6079712501
|
This certainly is an idea worth exploring. After reading the OP, I must say I am not as excited about its possible usage in TvZ as I am in TvP. Imagine if your first upgrade out of eng bay was +2 armor instead of +1 attack. Now imagine all the different busts the gateway units do...except zealot damage is reduced by 25%!. Definitely worth looking into.
|
Personally I would like to see all those Defensive upgrades be dropped to 50/50 and with a fast upgrade time. But, 100/100 for each + the Ebay time is simply 2 much. If you want to beat a Zerg these days you have to be hyper aggressive, which means Infantry armor over Building.
|
On July 22 2012 21:34 GinDo wrote:
Personally I would like to see all those Defensive upgrades be dropped to 50/50 and with a fast upgrade time. But, 100/100 for each + the Ebay time is simply 2 much. If you want to beat a Zerg these days you have to be hyper aggressive, which means Infantry armor over Building.
What? Its fine man, just leave it until after your 3/3 infantry is done.
|
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.
This. While it's a cute idea for defense, it's not practical and you aren't going to be at optimal strength at normal timings for pushes. Maybe as a strat with a fast third as PF but even then, you're just gimping yourself.
|
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 
|
No.
Building armour is something you get late late late game when you've already got 3/3 infantry and you have more money then you know what to do with. You can never finish it in time to prevent an aggressive zerg timing from hitting, even if you did if you are being attacked by banes it's completely pointless, and +1 armour is more important in more situations, like when you're actually attacking.
You've spent a lot of time writing and thinking about something that seems completely pointless.
|
WOW! Man this got more attention than I ever thought it would. First of all sorry for the spelling errors, wrote it in notepad and when I pasted it in forgot to spell check it so sorry for that. Second, you all bring up good points about building armor slowing down your bio upgrades...why just just drop a 3rd eBay and upgrade armor while +1 is going on? Then once that is done you can wait and upgrade high sec auto track, then your upgrade times won't be sacrificed and you can get the upgrade in place of 1 tank, or a couple of bio units? As for against protoss I think that this building armor should come early and even before +1 attack since if you early expanding, you going to need extra defense. And thanks to whoever called me math wiz! I try lol. But I did it for zerg just because that's who I picked. Protoss would be even better and I will just make a couple of calculations and see what a zealot, stalker, sentry would do versus +2 building armor.
Zealot vs Bunker
B dies in 34.8 seconds
Zealot vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 48 seconds
Zealot vs Marine
M dies in 3.6 seconds
Zealot vs +1 Marine
M dies in 4.8 seconds
Stalker vs Bunker
B dies in 44.64 seconds
Stalker vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 53.28 seconds
Stalker vs Marine
M dies in 7.2 seconds
Stalker vs +1 Marine
M dies in 7.2 seconds
Sentry vs Bunker
B dies in 80 seconds
Sentry vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 134 seconds
Sentry vs Marine
M dies in 8 seconds
Sentry vs +1 Marine
M dies in 9 seconds
I know that this is not realistic to say 1 Marine vs 1 of anything, but think about when your ball meets another ball(lol), you don't focus fire on 1 unit(most of the time) you let your units attack you split them or whatever, but if you look it a lot of the time is a 1 on 1 engagement for individual units. Armor in my option should be taken first before attack just because your units live longer giving you more time to attack and stay alive.
Combat shields and +1 armor timing is pretty beast you should try it. I don't know if there is a build for it, but ill look and if not I will try and come up with one, sounds like it would be pretty effective...maybe.
|
On July 22 2012 22:10 The_Sanjuro wrote:
WOW! Man this got more attention than I ever thought it would. First of all sorry for the spelling errors, wrote it in notepad and when I pasted it in forgot to spell check it so sorry for that. Second, you all bring up good points about building armor slowing down your bio upgrades...why just just drop a 3rd eBay and upgrade armor while +1 is going on? Then once that is done you can wait and upgrade high sec auto track, then your upgrade times won't be sacrificed and you can get the upgrade in place of 1 tank, or a couple of bio units? As for against protoss I think that this building armor should come early and even before +1 attack since if you early expanding, you going to need extra defense. And thanks to whoever called me math wiz! I try lol. But I did it for zerg just because that's who I picked. Protoss would be even better and I will just make a couple of calculations and see what a zealot, stalker, sentry would do versus +2 building armor.
Zealot vs Bunker
B dies in 34.8 seconds
Zealot vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 48 seconds
Zealot vs Marine
M dies in 3.6 seconds
Zealot vs +1 Marine
M dies in 4.8 seconds
Stalker vs Bunker
B dies in 44.64 seconds
Stalker vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 53.28 seconds
Stalker vs Marine
M dies in 7.2 seconds
Stalker vs +1 Marine
M dies in 7.2 seconds
Sentry vs Bunker
B dies in 80 seconds
Sentry vs +2 Bunker
B dies in 134 seconds
Sentry vs Marine
M dies in 8 seconds
Sentry vs +1 Marine
M dies in 9 seconds
I know that this is not realistic to say 1 Marine vs 1 of anything, but think about when your ball meets another ball(lol), you don't focus fire on 1 unit(most of the time) you let your units attack you split them or whatever, but if you look it a lot of the time is a 1 on 1 engagement for individual units. Armor in my option should be taken first before attack just because your units live longer giving you more time to attack and stay alive.
Combat shields and +1 armor timing is pretty beast you should try it. I don't know if there is a build for it, but ill look and if not I will try and come up with one, sounds like it would be pretty effective...maybe.
Wheres the Marine vs Marine comparison!?!?!?!
|
never understood why Terran never get building armour VS Zerg and let mutas fly around picking things off so easily
|
On July 22 2012 22:16 Forikorder wrote:
never understood why Terran never get building armour VS Zerg and let mutas fly around picking things off so easily
Either Zerg went two-base mutas (in which case a few turrets + a handful of marines is enough unless they're going mass mass mutas) and Terran is still working on infantry upgrades, or they forgot it exists. +building armor and +turret range are amazing against mutalisks and Terrans should get it against a mutalisk strategy, just not at the expense of upgrades for their marines.
|
I think the biggest issue with this idea is just that it's using valuable ebay time on something which isn't infantry weapons or armour. Getting the upgrade doesn't unlock any timings for you (short of flying a CC into the opponents base and turning it into a planetary lol), it just makes timings against you a little less powerful. Once you've completed your bio upgrades, or if you're playing mech / sky, then yeah it's definitely a good upgrade to get, but i wouldn't value it more than your early / midgame infrastructure and unit upgrades.
|
Second, you all bring up good points about building armor slowing down your bio upgrades...why just just drop a 3rd eBay and upgrade armor while +1 is going on?
Or just make 1-3 more bunkers since that's how much it'll cost anyway not even counting gas. You're assuming terrans have enough money to just throw down all these additional things well we don't. It's inefficient, expensive and doesn't help you in situations where the opponent is not attacking.
Consider these 2 completely realistic scenarios:
1) scenario 1, tvp 1 gate FE vs 1 rax FE. I make a bunker and keep a few dudes around the map in case he does a gateway timing. I notice a probe move up, few protoss units heading towards me and a pylon about to start. I can make 2-3 more bunkers and deflect his gateway timing with ease and on time. Not how I've not even finished +1 weapons with my lone ebay at this point. Anyone who plays TvP at a mid masters or above level can tell you this is what a tvp early to midgame looks like. If the protoss doesn't do anything aggressive that's fine because I only made 1 bunker which I need to make anyway unless I like being pulled apart by stalkers early game.
2) scenario 2. 1 gate fe vs 1 rax FE. I make an ebay, and instead of getting +1 weapons or +1 armour I start building armour. The protoss does not do a gateway timing. I look like a fucking moron when I try to be aggressive with my +2 building upgrade instead of something useful.
TvZ: scenario:
1) Zerg does a ling bane roach timing that hits. banelings laugh themselves stupid at my +2 bunkers as they still kill them just as easily.
Getting it midgame instead of +2 armour from the ebay to help deal with mutas is maybe an option but a better one is just more turrets or a few marines patrolling. You don't need that many and you really don't need to be delaying upgrades.
|
Complete troll topic this must be.
You cherrypicked some ludicrous scenario where you have tons of bunkers and the zerg is busting you with lings only for some reason. Yes in that scenario the building armor would do more...
In any realistic scenario infantry armor is far better though. Infantry armor allows you to be aggresive as well. Even in defense the infantry armor is better as the zerg will use banes to bust the buildings and clean up with lings and/or you won't be having many bunkers. If you have 2 bunkers but 30ish marines that building armor suddenly isn't that great compared to infantry armor.
Finally infantry armor level 1 also means your lvl 2 and lvl 3 armor will be up quicker which is VERY important, building armor is something you get lategame when your ebay's are otherwise idle and even then it's not even mandatory.
So either the topic starter is a complete idiot or a troll, i hope for him it's the latter.
|
Nope just an idiot, thanks. No I am not trying to throw this as a build order win, if you have a build that requires a certain timing then by all means don't get building armor upgrade. I have found from playing games that it doesn't really cut into your times a lot if after you finish 1/1 to get it while your build your armory. From playing versus all races having that extra armor can be the difference in gate way bust from 8 gate, extra supply depos going down from medivac drops, turrets getting 1 shot by muta ball, banshee killing a reactor, building armor helps a lot. Maybe not early on for a 8 minute win, but when you start getting up extra bases and putting up turrets it is worth every mineral to upgrade it. I am just trying to get some more things we as Terran can do to stop being the worst race as of right now.
|
The problem I see is that you would need to build a 3rd eng bay for that... There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my money and time on a building upgrade when my guys can get bigger.
That being said - I usually get 1-1 very fast against zerg and sometimes I straight up forget to build an armory. In that dumbass mistake, I would take this into consideration.
|
On July 23 2012 01:18 MrRicewife wrote:
The problem I see is that you would need to build a 3rd eng bay for that... There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my money and time on a building upgrade when my guys can get bigger.
That being said - I usually get 1-1 very fast against zerg and sometimes I straight up forget to build an armory. In that dumbass mistake, I would take this into consideration.
Alternatively you could just build one of the engi bays earlier.
All that said, I take it you don't play mech. I've been thinking a lot about the new form of mech-marine hybrid style, and the building upgrade actually kind of makes a lot of sense in that context. Since you want to slow-push anyway, a la mech style siege tank/thor lines, why not bring a bunch of SCVs for auto-repairing and build a ton of bunkers while you're at it? You can sell them as your line moves forward, you don't need to get armor upgrades for marines inside bunkers, and missile turrets everywhere will plug the main deficiency in a mech army, mobility. Hell, for the cost of a missile turret you could even put a bunker with a single marine in it next to your mineral line, a full bunker for the cost of 2 missile turrets.
Dunno. Mech/marine hybrid play is pretty hard to begin with (mostly because no stim or medivacs until mid to late game), but methinks this might actually make it somewhat easier. You would just have to be stay low on barracks early on to get the requisite numbers of bunkers and orbitals necessary for mid-game mech play.
|
While I do agree with most of you that +1/+1 would be better (I love getting agressive with a good timing as much as the next guy) I think the uppgrade might have a place in a situation where you would like to get a safer fast third. Just tonight in the Alicia vs TaeJa game on Daybreak I think a +1 weapon and +1 building armor (or neosteel bunkers) might've have secured the natural against Alicia's two base 8-gate timing, since the SCV's are easily FF:ed and the zealots more or less are meatshields. Not really saying it's a better way to play but just that used the proper way it might have a place in a well thought out BO.
|
On July 23 2012 01:13 The_Sanjuro wrote:
Nope just an idiot, thanks. No I am not trying to throw this as a build order win, if you have a build that requires a certain timing then by all means don't get building armor upgrade. I have found from playing games that it doesn't really cut into your times a lot if after you finish 1/1 to get it while your build your armory. From playing versus all races having that extra armor can be the difference in gate way bust from 8 gate, extra supply depos going down from medivac drops, turrets getting 1 shot by muta ball, banshee killing a reactor, building armor helps a lot. Maybe not early on for a 8 minute win, but when you start getting up extra bases and putting up turrets it is worth every mineral to upgrade it. I am just trying to get some more things we as Terran can do to stop being the worst race as of right now.
Every Terran build should revolve around a timing or early pressure though. If you're letting any decent Zerg sit back and macro, you'll die no matter what. You also have to realize, delaying +1 armor also means you're delaying your +2 and +3 armor later on in the game as well.
|
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.
|
Early game you don't get building armor over infantry armor because you have to invest in the upgrade and the buildings themselves instead of army or expos. And you won't have a 2-2 timing mid game
|
On July 22 2012 04:14 a176 wrote:
I have a question.. Why does terran even have this upgrade?
Because the game is overdesigned.
|
On July 22 2012 19:59 gasmeter wrote:OP - there are so many spelling errors and typos in your original post... I feel that there are a lot of cool strategies available from the three under-used ebay upgrades. Of course, you talk about the Building Armour upgrade. This is an upgrade I always get after 3-3 finishes. At this stage, I am normally on three base, probably taking a fourth and can easily afford it. Against a zerg player going Muta, I have been experimenting with getting Hi-Sec Auto Tracking quite early as it gives turrets more range in fending them off. I also distinctly remember a game on Calm Before The Storm where a terran player rushed to Neosteel Frame and did a wonky late upgraded bunker rush. It was really cool at the time, but was crushed.
this was illusion doing that in a TvT iirc
|
engi bays arent expensive, if you really want it, but dont want to waste time that could be going into upgrades, just make another bay
|
baneling dont care, but this upgrade good when mid game and late. i prrfer plus 1def rather than atk in tvt, tvp helps scv survive longer against dt and banshee
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
