StarCraft® II

Reactors on Barracks.

Posts: 4,155
I've seen this many times, and often it's on the first barracks, or even the 2nd barracks.

However, I know it's absolutely moronic, because it wastes their gas, and creates 50 lag-time when the barracks could be making marines or a tech lab.

Why do people do it? It's quicker and cheaper to make a 2nd barracks, and you don't waste time building your reactor.

Is it because the majority of Terran players have been dropped on their head as a baby? Please tell me!
Reply Quote
Posts: 634
Because you need an SCV to build a Barracks, and you lose minerals doing that.

Also, a reactor takes less space and they could be building it to switch to hellion/medivac reactor later.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,155
Either you're making plenty of SCVs so that won't be a problem or you're MULing, either way you won't miss 1 SCVs work of mining. It's still cheaper than potential time you've wasted reclaiming that 50 gas in the early game.

Reactor taking up less space is useful in later game when space is a premium and your entrance is closed up tight unlike in early game.

Switching it to a factory is okay, but my problem is those that build them on barracks, just to make marines.
Edited by Quirriff on 3/5/2013 7:40 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 634
IDK then do you know if the people doing this are any good?
Reply Quote
Posts: 150
YEA TELL THAT TO ALL THOSE MORON GSL WINNERS WHO MAKE REACTORS!!!!!
Reply Quote
Posts: 241
Why do Zergs make drones instead of 6 pooling every game? Who needs the extra drones that early!?
Reply Quote
Posts: 121
if you want to be cost efficient what i like to do is do one add on at a time so at least my other rax are still producing units usually tech lab then reactor reactor... reactors are good b/c i like to swap out for double medivac
Reply Quote
Posts: 195
reactors don't only make marines. they could, but generally when I make one that early its for hellions.
Reply Quote
Posts: 556
It costs less minerals to build the reactor so if you are making a lot of marines that is more money that you will have. Also it takes longer to build a barracks then a reactor.
Reply Quote
Posts: 774
Can't tell if troll or that big of a scrub.
Reply Quote
Posts: 259
Sir, it took you 15 games to figure it out. Congrats!! You clearly know better then people who play for hours on end.
Reply Quote
Posts: 10,506
Here are some numbers for you:

Barracks build time: 65 seconds

Reactor build time: 50 seconds

Either have those 3 workers working gas or have those same workers working minerals for 3x the time to make a second barracks (not to mention lost mining time with the scv building).
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,340
Why make warp gates when that 10 seconds of time for the transformation could be time spent chronoing it out units? Were Protoss players dropped on their heads as babies or something?
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,155
03/06/2013 07:13 AMPosted by Rtsprog
It costs less minerals to build the reactor so if you are making a lot of marines that is more money that you will have. Also it takes longer to build a barracks then a reactor.


But you're also not making marines, which means the lower time is pointless.

It also takes longer to gain 50 vespene gas than 100 minerals, especially if there's only 1 refinery. It's always more efficient, especially for timings to go 2nd Barracks.

Reactor straight after 1st barracks just makes me want to put a hand my forehead every time I see an ally do it. For some reason it makes them think they'll get troops quicker, when it in truth delays their army build-up.
Reply Quote
Posts: 218
03/06/2013 09:49 PMPosted by Quirriff
It costs less minerals to build the reactor so if you are making a lot of marines that is more money that you will have. Also it takes longer to build a barracks then a reactor.


But you're also not making marines, which means the lower time is pointless.

It also takes longer to gain 50 vespene gas than 100 minerals, especially if there's only 1 refinery. It's always more efficient, especially for timings to go 2nd Barracks.

Reactor straight after 1st barracks just makes me want to put a hand my forehead every time I see an ally do it. For some reason it makes them think they'll get troops quicker, when it in truth delays their army build-up.


the reactor takes 50 seconds to build, so in two rounds of marines, you've already made up the difference

also, you can switch the reactor to other buildings......
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,155
03/06/2013 09:51 PMPosted by underGenkai
the reactor takes 50 seconds to build, so in two rounds of marines, you've already made up the difference


If you're making a barracks while making marines you've got 2 marines, and a 3rd at 60%. once the 2nd barracks is complete, assuming you start immediately after the 1st one.

If you go reactor, you would have 2 marines after 75 seconds, and any queued marines would be at 0%.

If you go for a 2nd barracks instead, And the same time mark, You'd have 3 marines and a fourth at 40%. And that's assuming you begin constructing the 2nd barracks after the first one is finished.....Which you don't need to do, you can even make it earlier.

A delay is a delay no matter how you spin it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,659
trollin guys....
Reply Quote
Posts: 10,506
03/06/2013 09:49 PMPosted by Quirriff
It also takes longer to gain 50 vespene gas than 100 minerals,


You only get to compare the rate of those 3 scvs in the gas; think about it, 3 scvs can gather 100 resources (reactor) or 150 (barracks), I think it is quite obvious which one is more appealing.

03/06/2013 10:59 PMPosted by nomufftotuff
trollin guys....


And ya I see now...
Edited by fingrknitter on 3/6/2013 11:56 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,039
1) A Reactor can later be switched onto another building (Factory, Starport). The tradeoff is that you tie up the production of a Tier 1 unit to later have increased production of Tier 2/Tier 3 units, for example the TvZ Reactor Hellion opener.

2) Only 16 SCVs can optimally mine minerals from a single base. If you already have the early Refinery built (as part of a 1 base play), it is actually cheaper to get the add-ons than throw down more Barracks. The reason being is because those 3 "extra" SCVs mine gas at a faster rate than if they were put back to collecting minerals.

3) It costs less minerals than another Barracks, which can be used for things such as a faster expansion (which in the long run gives you more mineral income, etc. etc.).

4) It takes up less space, which allows more of your buildings to stay in better defensible positions (i.e. the main base). 2 Barracks take up 18 squares while a Barracks with an add-on only takes 13.

Also, it's pretty rude to be coming out and calling Terran players morons. Just because you don't understand the reasoning behind something doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid. Most of the posters here are above your skill level.
Edited by Axiom on 3/7/2013 12:05 AM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]