Printable View
I'd like to hear some arguments about which upgrade people feel is more important to get first. I hear so many people argue that weapons are more worthwhile, but I've always felt that armor is better. Reason being is not every unit attacks. You have your workers, spell casters like the Templar and Raven, all of which would benefit from an armor upgrade. Upgrading your weapons will affect a smaller pool of units.
What are your thoughts, and which do you usually choose first?
its all situational. for example, if your fighting against mutalisks, armor ugprades are quite wortwhile since they reduce not only the primary attacks damage but also the glave-worm-bounce's attack. similarly, armor is of great value vs low-damage-per-cycle dealing untis such as marines, zerglings sentries & even workers.. if you are the one using those units its the other way around; upping a zerglings attack from 5 to 6 is a big deal!
a typical argument for weapon upgrades is that if you deal more damage, you'll kill more enemies quicker and hence limit the damage you are taking.
also remember that some unit vs unit matchups are greatly affected by differences in upgrades, in taht it just barely takes one hit more or less for the kill. i remember this from sc/bw where zealots only take 2 hits to kill a zergling if they have an upgrade advantage, but 3 hits if they dont.. zergling hP and zealot damage is the same in sc2 so the same rule should apply here.
I've thought about this argument (if you deal more damage, then you'll take less damage), but you could say the same thing in reverse: if you take less damage, then you'll live longer and deal more damage. So I'm not sure I buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todie
I suspect that if Blizzard balanced things correctly, armor and weapons upgrades would be of roughly equal value (I mean this generally. As Todie points out, whether you should upgrade one or the other can depend on particular situations). How exactly you would test this I'm not quite sure.
Personally, I tend to favor weapons upgrades. Why? In literally any engagement, weapons upgrades will help your units. There is no situation in which weapons upgrades don't make your army stronger. But the same isn't true of armor, because when fighting your units will not always be taking fire. If you tech to banshees and your opponent only has zealots, for instance, your weapons upgrades will still help you kill faster (hopefully before he can get some anti-air), but your armor upgrades won't be put to use at all.
Really depends. If you go mass roaches for example, it would be better go get armor first, since they already deal a lot of damage, they also have survivability, but +1 armor against marines and marauders is huge. They also have a slow attack, so +1 to attack won't benefit them much.
On the other hand upgrading attack on zealots for example is a lot more valuable than armor, especially against zerglings and marines.
And also, its very situational so there is no simple choice like weapons or armor is better upgrade.
I think that if your build is aggressive as hell, or you want to do a timing push using a higher tier unit in the mix of lower tiered units, +1 attack makes a huge difference! Armor would not benefit this build as much.
However, if you intend to macro and defend/harass, armor upps are prolly best (or shield upps, for Protoss). So far, this is what I have noticed.
When I get +1 attack, I am making more immortal/Colossus (whose attack is GREATLY augmented by the upp), and these units cause chaos vs an unupped opponent, or puts an armor upped opponent on the defensive.
If I go Zeal/Stalker/HT, then usually getting armor upps is more important as I find that build and unit mix more defensive, as you will need to have good scouting and timing on your attacks. If you attack with that army and he counters an expo, having the extra armor helps your probes, and warping-in units, just so that they survive to deal a hit and allow time for more reinforcements aka ur army to return.
Like others have said, it's situational and also depends on the matchup :p.
In ZvZ, you want to get the lvl 1 Missile Attack upgrade first, since your whole army is Roaches for a good part of the game, and +2 damage wins out over +1 armour when both sides have only Roaches :p.
In ZvP, I actually like going lvl1 Missile Attack upgrade, as well. This is because I favour a Roach/Hydra composition in the early-midgame. I think that the +1 carapace has a bigger effect in a more Zergling-heavy build, but I don't use Zerglings a whole lot unless my opponent over-produces Immortals and Stalkers. +1 Carapace is especially good against Zealots, now that they don't get +2 damage from their Weapons upgrade, but 2x +1. However, once Colossi enter the field, it doesn't matter whether my Hydras have +1 or +2 Carapace - as long as the Protoss has +1 weapons, Colossi will still two-shot Hydralisks :p. Another reason why I prefer +1 missile attack.
Against Terrans, I always get the Carapace upgrade first :p. I'm not sure how the math works out, but I think because the Terrans do their damage through the cumulative effect of lots of 'little' damage dealers (namely Marines), it's more beneficial to get Carapace than Missile Attacks first.
on a side note, zerg melee upgrades feel weak, even though banelings and broodlings are affected, and zerglings adrenal glands upgrade acutally works by now, ranged upps affect hydra, roach and even infested terrans.. it just seems to give you more bang for the buck.
having said that, i am yet to witness true mid-lategame zergling-massing, that might will benefit from melee 'grades. but it feels quite situational across teh matchups, in any case.
i think its extremely situational
if your opponent has rolled out +1 weapons and you have nothing, roll out +1 armor and if you can do +1 weapons at the same time
but ideally i would typically do like +2 weapons, and depending how my opponent responds get +3 or get a +1 to armor
If your main army is mostly low tier then an armor upgrade is usefull, or for timing pushes. In all other cases you should go damage upgrades first.
Lategame an damage upgrade is far more usefull than an armor one. A +3 damage upgraded units will always win against an +3 armor one. ( a +6 damage marauders, zealot, roach will easily win against similar units with +3 armor.
So far i noticed, that it's only usefull to research armor upgrades if you are a zerg, since it's for all your ground units, and if you are a protoss then the shields upgrades pay of.
But for terran you are bether of researching only damage ones.
In short geting damage upgrades first is bether for about 80% of all units. ( all units that get more than +1 damage per weapon upgrade.)
[QUOTE=Perfecttear;73195]
Lategame an damage upgrade is far more usefull than an armor one. A +3 damage upgraded units will always win against an +3 armor one. ( a +6 damage marauders, zealot, roach will easily win against similar units with +3 armor.
[QUOTE]
You can skip the zealot,armor aplies per attack,and zealots get 1 damage per attack(2 attacks)...
you are making too big unbased generalisations tear:
its all sitautional: low tier units will not benefit much from armor upgrades in the face of ani mass units such as colossi, ST's or banelings - its really the oposite, as they are so fragile to those thigsn (+aoe spells) regardless of armor - tehrefor its often better to have attack ups on them, to let them deal significant damge before whiped out.
secondly, your detail-examples are partialyl plain wrong: a zealot deals 8 dmg +1 per upgrade, x2 .. that means armor counts twice, meaning armor ugprades for the zealots oponent is exactly of equal value as the zealots attack 'grade.. further, presume zealot vs roach where the roach gets benefit of one attack 'grade or one armor 'grade. 18 damage per attack or reducing zealots damage from 8-2x2 to 8-3 x2 ... this is by no means an obvious call, it may even favour armor, considering that would bye roaches some time to micro (move away or burrow) when running low on HP.
Yeah but you need to have both level 3 shields and level 3 ground armor to compensate the level 3 weapon upgrade, which is not very likely or eficient ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by arthas
Faction definitely plays into this as well... with zerg, armor seems to be a generally better choice early on as it effects all of their ground units (while your weapon choice only effects ~half) and most of your units have short or melee range until higher tiers so you aren't as likely to get extra use out of weapon upgrades when your opponent is approaching/retreating, terran i would go with weapons since, as others have mentioned, early game at least they have a lot of smaller damage dealers and upgrading the weapon on all of your marines/marauders is certainly going to mean more than upgrading armor (especially considering that they are all ranged units and thus are likely to get hit less than they fire since they will fire at approaching and fleeing units, same applies to tanks though armor could be better for thors). Protoss really could go either way, but, at least in sc1, i go weapons first due to zlots 2 hitting lings then and possibilities of goon micro (presumably the zlot thing is similar in sc2 looking at stats), though i suppose ideally shields would actually be the best upgrade since they effect everything (though sc1 shields didn't seem nearly as improved as weapons or armor and certainly cost more so there was reason against it, no idea how that works in sc2).
As to which to go first.. probably weapons on all but zerg since weapons will help every t1/1.5 unit you have with terran and toss while armor will help every unit you have at that time with zerg (since with weapons you'd have to pick between improving ling or roach).
Wow typed a lot more than i thought i would.... so in short, yeah its situational, but faction plays into it as well.
it depends on the unit. i dont have the beta so im gonna go by broodwar. look at the siege tank for example you could up its armor by +1 or you could up its damage by +5. seems like a no brainer which is better
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todie
Yeah i said that armor upgrades are only usefull early game and in timing atacks. They are almost useless lategame compared to damage ones as you even stated ;)
Why would you want to invest in geting an +1 armor when you can get +2 damage or more in most cases.
I only upgrade armor upgrades when i alredy upgraded the damage ones, and it's far more cheaper to upgrade armor ones. ( tier 3 upgrades cost almost twice as much as tier 1) As a terran when playing bio i upgrade tier 1 and tier 2 damage upgrades first and only then i usuly research tier 1 armor, since it takes some time before you have acess to tier 3 upgrades :p
Weapons! DPS faster. Or at least that's my logic, probably not the soundest.
To me, I would think, at least for earlier on (which games don't seem to last too incredibly long, from all the replays I've seen), armor keeps a unit alive longer, which might allow them to get a few extra attacks out. A Zergling that can attack 2 extra times is more worthwhile than a a weapon upgrade that increases their damage from 5 attacks by +1.
It really is hugely situational, though. My thought is early on, melee units would gain more total damage benefit from living longer, and ranged units would benefit from the attack bonus more.
Im not as mathematicly oriented as the others but here's my opinion:
I always go with casters, especialy with protoss, sentry and HT. And it always starts with some Zealots so I tend to go more with Armor (shield first of course) at start. Zealot benefit from shield armor upgrade in starting games against other tier 1 units. So I just go with this. IMO
Not realy. A +1 weapon upgrade is much bether choice for zerglings that an armor upgrade , zerglings are dps units. A zergling that can kill his target in 3-4 atacks faster is more worthwile than an armor upgrade that increases it's armor by 1. Zerglings die by 2-3 atacks to most units, regardless of their armor. And if you kill your enemy faster he does less damage in return to you. (see what i did here ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by ManjiSanji
An +1 armor upgrade would only pay of more for zerglings compared to an damage one if you would be atacking workers only, who also have only 5 damage. And only in that case the upgrades would be comparable, since an +1 damage upgrade would increase their dps by 20% and and an +1 armor upgrade would decrease the damage taken by 20%. :p
again: in ling vs zealot, not lagging behind in armor compared to protoss attack 'grades is important, else they'll kill you in 2 hits instead of 3
Yeah they are exceptions, but still zerglings are dps units, you don't build them becasuse of their survivability, but because of the damage output they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todie
SC1: as Terran, weapons first in every case save when I suspect DT or Lurker rushes, where the +1 armor makes a huge difference.
SC2: I haven't played beta yet, but with many units getting more than 1 damage increase per weapon level, this will always outstrip armor upgrades.
You should always get both, though. I love my upgrades.
As i do it:
-When playing terran damage upgrade always first , completely ignoring all armor upgrades (never researching them)
-When playing protoss damage upgrades first , completely ignoring all hp armor upgrades , and researching shields upgrades when macro gaming.
-When playing zerg , armor first -only if i'm massing roaches with the zerg (90% of my zerg games :p) , else weapon upgrades.
I wonder, as the metagame evolves, whether Protoss strategy will involve getting shields first and abusing the new faster recharge mechanics.
In SC1BW ('cause I'm not in Beta...) I usually play Terran, and I always get armor first for marines (against static defenses it is particularly useful) After the first upgrade, I alternate between attack and armor. Once I get to the factory, and consequently the armory, I get attack first so my tanks can do max damage.
something i tried against the AI was to prioritize shield 'grades and go heavy on my stalkers with semi-early blink: the shield upgrades buy some time to blink back teh front row as they take damage, especialy if you have guardian shield going nearby.Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
also, once you have those shield upgrades, warping archons & mixing in air units feels a bit more worthwhile. its cool, but i havnt tried it on the ladder yet; i dont play much protoss.
As many have said in the thread, upgrades are quite situational, and most of my decisions regarding upgrades are based on my army composition. You will never use the same upgrade for all of your strategies.
As an example:
I'm harrassing my oponent with reapers, I'll rather go damage and speed upgrade than getting an armor upgrade. Why? because reapers could actually benefit from an armor upgrade but the grade of this benefit is quite low because of the reapers health.
If I'm going for imortals I would rather uprade my shields unless I'm facing ghosts with EMP.
Why would you want to upgrade the armor for immortals?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blade
The armor is counted before the hardened shields, so it's useless to research armor for immortals in most cases, and immortal is a high damage unit, so an damage upgrade pays of more.
Depends on matchup -
Zealots vs Lings/Roaches - Weapons
Range units in general - Weapons (If you can kill something before it gets to use, thats better then +5 armor)
Roaches vs Marines(Armor) Reasoning: Marines take 3 hits from a roach before dying, regardless if the roach has 0,1,2,3 upgrades BUT getting 1 additional point of armor reduces the damage from a 0/0 marine by 25% (4->3)
You need to study the match ups before you ask a question like that.
After consideration, as Zerg I always go for armor first. Not only does it benefit all of my ground units, but it allows my zerglings and (especially) banelings to reach melee while fighting. It's also great for roaches, especially versus the units it's supposed to counter.
The only time I go for +ranged is when I commit fully to hydra, but that's rarely a good idea...
Well, I think that the very core of the game, is to deal more damage to your enemy than the damage you are taking. So I think that in general terms, damage upgrade is always better, because if you want to win, you have to destroy your enemy.
Of course as I said, this is a very general way of viewing it.
i didnt know it was counted before hardened shield (are you sure?) but even so, shield 'grades on immortals are great becasue tehy make that hardned shield last longer, even when under stress from low-tier / low-dmg-per-attack units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfecttear
Simple Rule:
Value of +Weapon depends on the units you are upgrading
Value of +Armor depends on the units Your Opponent is using
Generally +Weapon upgrades amount to somewhere between 7-20% boost in effectiveness
+Armor upgrades range from
20% boost v. Zerglings
down to
2% boost v. Thors
So if your opponent is using
Thors
Siege Tanks,
Colossi
Brood Lords
Roaches
Immortals
Dark Templars
Void Rays (and your units are Armored)
Vikings v. air
Marauders v. Armored
Hellions v. Light
Banelings
Or Psi storms, etc.
Then Armor << Weapons
But if your opponent is using a lot of
Zerglings
Marines
Zealots
BCs
Carriers
Mutalisks
Reapers
Then Armor >> Weapons
Yes that's pretty much what I said in the last thread about armor vs weapons Krikkitone, and I still agree with it.
But the thing is, in game you have more control on what you're making than on what your opponent is making, and anyways all armies are mixed, so you can't always think like that imo.
You have to think more about how the upgrade is generally helping your gameplan (not your immediate army).
Here are some exampes that go against the basic reasonning:
-If you're making marines against muta: you should get damage, because the muta will melt if they attack you head on anyways, but with more damage you can pick them off when they get mis-microed. And he won't be confronting you directly anyways until it's over. And besides, you definitely need +damage anyways if you want to keep those blinglings away.
-When going bling/ling against a zealot heavy army (meaning not only zealots are fighting), it makes sense to get a quick +1damage since my banelings will take out the zealots easy anyways, and the extra armor would be worthless against the stalkers anyways. Zerglings might get owned by +1 zealots, but honestly zealots are no threat when you have banelings. The +1damage will be very helpful while taking down other tech units such as immortals and stalkers anyways.
-You put marines and marauders in opposite boxes, but they're actually always used together. How many marines should add up to a marauder? When fighting against M&M, I just get armor because it boosts my whole ground army and helps my army get into range.
Hell, +armor might also help set up a good concave in some scenarios. If ling/hydra is in play, the longer your zerglings survive the better surround your hydra will have because the M&M won't be positionning themselves while fighting your melee.
I'm just saying, this is true:
but the upgrades you should be getting can't really be summed up so quickly.Quote:
Simple Rule:
Value of +Weapon depends on the units you are upgrading
Value of +Armor depends on the units Your Opponent is using
I'll drop by tomorrow to elaborate more.