5 ms·
As an admittedly lower-mid level player, when it comes to the ranged barracks at least, I suspect there's actually some value in attacking them over the melee r
by Crespyl 8y ago
As an admittedly lower-mid level player, when it comes to the ranged barracks at least, I suspect there's actually some value in attacking them over the melee racks simply because the ranged ones do not regenerate their HP, unlike the melee racks.
Whenever my team is pushing high-ground and we're not certain we have the time and strength to completely 100-0 the melee racks, we always try to hit the ranged one first, otherwise we'll just get pushed back off the high ground and all the damage we did will just be regenerated, negating the value of all the resources we expended in the push.
Ideally, we prefer to take the melee if we know we can, since there's more melee creeps in a wave, the buff is worth more, but if we're not sure we'd rather do damage we know won't evaporate in a few minutes.
- delusional 8y agoThat's exactly why pros do it too. If you aren't sure you'll take it, you go for the ranged. The strange thing is that the AI always goes for the ranged, even if it's sure it can take it.
- Ntrails 8y ago> since there's more melee creeps in a wave, the buff is worth more This is true - but not the whole story. Since ranged creeps do significantly more damage taking the ranged rax means that your lane still pushes a bit and importantly it accumulates ranged creeps as it goes along. So if the lane is left, when it hits their base it will do hella damage to buildings if they don't address it. (Bonus melee supers would last longer and do more base damage over their lifespan - but what you want is damage in the time it takes them to TP). (also trash tier player, so just my thoughts)