<!--QuoteBegin-SaltzBad+Nov 15 2004, 05:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SaltzBad @ Nov 15 2004, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The timedifference between 3 bites and 2 focusbites is actually not that large - its miniscule even, and you still have an advantage since its un-meddable. The reason? The first bite is instant, meaning we're actually comparing the time for TWO bites (non-focus) vs that of ONE bite (focus) - which is a really, really short time difference now, considering you have one less knockback to worry about and its unmeddable, its pretty sweet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've thought about this and the way I see it as:
It takes two focus skulks to kill armor 1, rather than three non-focus skulks.
Just remember the times you've played as skulk, it's not always a 1v1 situation. Most of the time I'm deliberately attacking some place is when there is more than one of me. I'm not going to rush marine start alone. All the skulks are going to attack the closest marine. -_-
Comments
I've thought about this and the way I see it as:
It takes two focus skulks to kill armor 1, rather than three non-focus skulks.
Just remember the times you've played as skulk, it's not always a 1v1 situation. Most of the time I'm deliberately attacking some place is when there is more than one of me. I'm not going to rush marine start alone. All the skulks are going to attack the closest marine. -_-