|
Opening+ Context of this discussion + Show Spoiler + 9 pylon 13 gate 14 gas 15 gas #2 16 pylon #2 =>rallying probes into gas as they finish 18 Core
21 pylon #3 21 MSC 23 stalker 25 sentry 26/27 natural nexus @ 4:30-4:45 in game time.
So from here, the next buildings added on are a forge and then a second gateway.
If the forge is added on at say 5 minutes into the game, the time to research +3 armor from this is 40+160+190+220 in game seconds which is 610 seconds. If there is constant cronoboost, (which I think is in fact possible),
the max amount of times that this can be cronoboosted is (610-40)/30 = 19. So 190 seconds faster.
Thus, with perfect cronoboosting, the amount of in game time to get +3 armor would be 610-190 = 420 in game seconds, which is 7 minutes,
Thus, plus 3 armor can be finished @ minute 12 in the game.
This build would transition into a templar based play style utilizing heavily upgraded charge zealots.
Anyways now that the prologue is out of the way, is it better to research +3 armor [after having finished researching +2 armor] or to research +1 weapons?
To put this in context, +3 armor cost 200/200 + 220 seconds while +1 attack cost only 100/100 and 160 seconds.
In other words, for a templar zealot style, is the benefit of +3 armor divided by its TOTAL COST [200/200+220 seconds] greater than, less than or equal to the benefit of +1 attack divided by its TOTAL COST[100/100+160 seconds]?
Replay of the build: http://ggtracker.com/matches/5680073
|
Mine would pretty much kill any style relying on armored zealots + storm. With the (maybe ?) upcoming balance patch, builds like this will probably know some resurgence though.
|
On December 23 2014 03:10 [PkF] Wire wrote: Mine would pretty much kill any style relying on armored zealots + storm. With the (maybe ?) upcoming balance patch, builds like this will probably know some resurgence though. i don't think you read the thread... he's asking a specific binary question about upgrade order not "are fast armor builds viable"
|
I read it but I indeed misunderstood.
I think in the end he means +1 attack instead of +1 armor.
To answer : +3 armor is FAR more important than +1 attack if you're playing a templar style, because zealots should just act as shields while the storms deal the damage -and this damage isn't affected by attack upgrades. But once again templar zealot styles aren't viable so the question is kinda pointless atm.
|
Here's an important fact:
With every attack upgrade, the next one has less relative increase in damage than the current one. With every armor upgrade, the next one has more relative increase in defense than the current one.
Armor is incredibly effective on chargelots who are an important bulk of every sane army composition whether that be with templar or with colossus. You never want to buffer with stalkers. Your buffer units are mostly zealots. They scale well with additional armor and especially vs lings and marines because they allready have base armor. In PvZ ppl often talk about how effective zealots are vs lings if they are ahead in attack over armor upgrade but the truth is that armour over Z attack has a very similarly strong effect. This is also true vs marines and even marauders.
So to compare +3 armor to +1 attack on specifically zealots you also have to know your opponents armor. If it is allready ahead of your attack upgrade then this increases the viability of your attack upgrade. In other words if you compare the armor to your attack upgrade in terms of costefficiency then you have to take their armor and their attacks into consideration else you can't calculate the increase in damage or defense you would get from either upgrade.
Then there is the increase in build time which is a factor that is not easy to calculate and can often only decided ingame. Generally a faster and cheaper that has a similar effect is valued over the slower and more expensive one because the former gives you more momentum.
In this particular replay I wouldn't say any of these considerations actually made a huge impact as both sides didn't spend 1.5k - 2.5k of their ressources anyways during long periods of 2 base play.
|
On December 23 2014 04:12 clickrush wrote: Here's an important fact:
With every attack upgrade, the next one has less relative increase in damage than the current one. With every armor upgrade, the next one has more relative increase in defense than the current one.
Armor is incredibly effective on chargelots who are an important bulk of every sane army composition whether that be with templar or with colossus. You never want to buffer with stalkers. Your buffer units are mostly zealots. They scale well with additional armor and especially vs lings and marines because they allready have base armor. In PvZ ppl often talk about how effective zealots are vs lings if they are ahead in attack over armor upgrade but the truth is that armour over Z attack has a very similarly strong effect. This is also true vs marines and even marauders.
So to compare +3 armor to +1 attack on specifically zealots you also have to know your opponents armor. If it is allready ahead of your attack upgrade then this increases the viability of your attack upgrade. In other words if you compare the armor to your attack upgrade in terms of costefficiency then you have to take their armor and their attacks into consideration else you can't calculate the increase in damage or defense you would get from either upgrade.
Then there is the increase in build time which is a factor that is not easy to calculate and can often only decided ingame. Generally a faster and cheaper that has a similar effect is valued over the slower and more expensive one because the former gives you more momentum.
In this particular replay I wouldn't say any of these considerations actually made a huge impact as both sides didn't spend 1.5k - 2.5k of their ressources anyways during long periods of 2 base play.
Yeah we did both play pretty horribly, but in my defense it was because I got caught with my pants down to a widow mine drop , and had to spend money building probes where I was about to add on production to be able to spend resources better.
In the case that the opponent is upgrading 1/1 and 2/2 into 3/3 evenly at the same time, but at a much later point, (meaning I will be ahead in overall upgrades, up until maybe 3/3 finishes) is +1 attack or +3 ground armor?
On December 23 2014 03:41 [PkF] Wire wrote: I read it but I indeed misunderstood.
I think in the end he means +1 attack instead of +1 armor.
To answer : +3 armor is FAR more important than +1 attack if you're playing a templar style, because zealots should just act as shields while the storms deal the damage -and this damage isn't affected by attack upgrades. But once again templar zealot styles aren't viable so the question is kinda pointless atm.
yeah I did mean +1 attack, I edited it.
|
On December 23 2014 04:12 clickrush wrote: Here's an important fact:
With every attack upgrade, the next one has less relative increase in damage than the current one. With every armor upgrade, the next one has more relative increase in defense than the current one.
Armor is incredibly effective on chargelots who are an important bulk of every sane army composition whether that be with templar or with colossus. You never want to buffer with stalkers. Your buffer units are mostly zealots. They scale well with additional armor and especially vs lings and marines because they allready have base armor. In PvZ ppl often talk about how effective zealots are vs lings if they are ahead in attack over armor upgrade but the truth is that armour over Z attack has a very similarly strong effect. This is also true vs marines and even marauders.
So to compare +3 armor to +1 attack on specifically zealots you also have to know your opponents armor. If it is allready ahead of your attack upgrade then this increases the viability of your attack upgrade. In other words if you compare the armor to your attack upgrade in terms of costefficiency then you have to take their armor and their attacks into consideration else you can't calculate the increase in damage or defense you would get from either upgrade.
Then there is the increase in build time which is a factor that is not easy to calculate and can often only decided ingame. Generally a faster and cheaper that has a similar effect is valued over the slower and more expensive one because the former gives you more momentum.
In this particular replay I wouldn't say any of these considerations actually made a huge impact as both sides didn't spend 1.5k - 2.5k of their ressources anyways during long periods of 2 base play.
basically this ^
if you diligently chronoboost your armor upgrades against a Terran that gets his initial +1+1 off one ebay, you can reach a +3 armor timing (given he has not killed you yet)
so in a Zealot vs Marine fight you have
7 dmg per shot per marine, -1 base armor -3 armor upgrades -2 guardianshield = 1 dmg per hit for the Base hitpoints
and 7 - 2 = 5 dmp per hit for the shields
so with your Zealots having 50 shields and 100 hp that means it takes 10+100 marine shots to kill a single Zealot.
Compared to only +2 armor with which it takes 10+50 hits to kill a Zealot.
so against marines the +3 compared to the +2 almost doubles the effective hp of your Zealots.
Yet this is only true if you manage to keep your Zealots within guardian shield. Thus, if you were to do some sort of Zealot Archon all in you have to make sure to keep some sentries around and you probably want to skip Charge in favor of more archons. Keep in mind that if you delay your timing to get Storm and templar with energy out, you might be up against a +2+2 Terran which greatly reduces your Zealots effectiveness. So chrono the crap outta that forge, get as many archons as possible, be at his front door when your +3 kicks in.
The benefits of your +1 attack are somewhat more difficult to calculate but in this special circumstance i highly doubt they would out weigh the +3 armor.
A pretty cool thing you could do is to try and sneak in a warpprism at some point. The general tankyness of your army tends to draw out the fights a lot, and forces Terran to stutterstep away from you to have any cost efficiency at all, leaving him unable to reliably micro elsewhere. So frontal pressure + Zealotbackstabs are really annoying to deal with.
|
Go for the quicker armour I presume
|
On December 23 2014 05:00 NeThZOR wrote: Go for the quicker armour I presume
ye speed up dat love!
|
you should get +1 attack because you should be transitioning into col which benefits more from the attack than thr armour and its cheaper allowing you to afford the other upgrades and units you need. blink/thermal lance/col
|
this forge first build used to be down a lot more comonly during the yeonsu days and before the wm buff into templar transitions
|
|
|
|