EPTZerglings vs Zealots - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Luca
United Kingdom47 Posts
| ||
|
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
On March 01 2010 22:39 WhyDontYouTry. wrote: A little experiment with Zerlings and Zealots: http://starcraft2.ingame.de/content.php?c=99577&s=958 (It's german, but most Pictures. Fight with Attack-Move without Micro.) He says because Zealots have 1 armor it now takes more hits to take them down. (Tbh I wouldn't have known if bw zealots had armor or not). 12 for shields (also 12 in bw) and 25 for hp (20 in bw). edit: apparently that's a mistake because zealots in bw also had 1 armor. Btw my initial explanation would be that zealots stand tighter together in SC2. This means they deal more dmg/surface and there will be less zerglings/surface so less dmg-taken/surface for the protoss. Now that I think about it, this also tells us how to position zealots optimally. You want them to stand next to each other in shape that's as concave as possible from your point of view (so with the ends of the shape pointing towards the enemy and the middle towards you) however only as long as there aren't enough zergling to surround the zealots at the ends. If that happens, you should change the form from concave->straight->convex (all the while increasing fight surface) and if the zerglings are numerous enough you will have to go to a circle (let the ends touch), obviously as big as possible (so no zealots trapped inside) but without holes. Practically this is all pretty pointless, because you can't achieve it, but at least you should try not get leave holes in the middle or get surrounded as a straight line. | ||
|
wut_wut3
United States221 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 01 2010 23:42 SubtleArt wrote: Again, I don't think shields take full damage anymore. This is probably why Ok, man. What you're saying is almost nonsensical. There is no 'full' or 'half' or '.25x' damage in this game. Shields take the damage that is done to them. If a unit does X damage (no bonuses or anything), shields will take X damage. The only exception to this is the Immortal. If people are nice enough to ignore such a glaring mistake, you shouldn't push your luck by posting it a second time in the same thread. | ||
|
Drunken.Jedi
Germany446 Posts
On March 01 2010 23:42 SubtleArt wrote: Again, I don't think shields take full damage anymore. This is probably why That makes no sense whatsoever. Zerlings deal normal damage in broodwar, which does full damage against everything anyway. So in both games, neither unit gets any attack extra damage or reduced damage against the other. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
On March 01 2010 22:39 WhyDontYouTry. wrote: A little experiment with Zerlings and Zealots: http://starcraft2.ingame.de/content.php?c=99577&s=958 (It's german, but most Pictures. Fight with Attack-Move without Micro.) Hm VERY interesting test results. In every test where the zergling : zealot ratio was 4:1, the zerglings won. If every test where it was less, the zerglings lost. This makes sense, since zealots are 2 supply each, and zerglings are .5 supply each. So just make sure you engage zealots with equal supply of zerglings and you should be ok. | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
however in-games it often doesnt seem to work this way probably because the zealot count is often higher than zerglings (costwise) and if you have even just a few zerglings less to turn the battle from a win to a loss, the margin of zealots left over is large.. they just dont die and win with such a huge margin when they win. this is w/o microing thoguh | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
onmach
United States1241 Posts
| ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 02 2010 01:50 spinesheath wrote: Does anyone have precise data on the cooldowns of the zealot's/zergling's attack in SC2? I haven't seen any information about that yet. You got to the core of the issue before I did: On the surface, the unit's stats appear to be the same, but looking at the hidden cooldown values: On Normal speed (scales up percentage wise), Zergling cooldown without adrenal is .696. Zealot cooldown is 1.2. For comparison, in SC1, the cooldown for the Zealot was 22 (whatever that means) and for the Zergling it was 8. In other words, while the Zergling/Zeaot attack ratio was ~3:1 in SC1, it's dropped to ~2:1 in SC2. That's why Zealots require 4 Zerglings to properly kill. In other words, 2 Gate rushes against early Hatches are that much more dangerous  | ||
|
Asta
Germany3491 Posts
On March 02 2010 01:48 Zelniq wrote: and if you have even just a few zerglings less to turn the battle from a win to a loss, the margin of zealots left over is large.. they just dont die and win with such a huge margin when they win. this is w/o microing thoguh This is very easy to explain: when melee units form curve in a fight, the more the ends of the curve point towards your own side, the more you are at a disadvantage. And if both players position their units right - the new ai helps a lot here - in the way I outlined in the other post (without getting surrounded), the player with a larger group of units will tend to have the curve bend away from him (at the ends). If there is an equilibrium between zerglings and zealots, at which they are breaking equal, this also corresponds to a certain curvature. And if one side has a larger number than the equilibrium, in addition to the normal advantage of outnumbering (more dps -> enemies die quicker -> enemies deal less dps quicker -> more own units survive -> etc) which even ranged units experience, melee units also gain an advantage by having a better curvature. So in melee fights, being at an advantage pays off twice! Oh and generally, when you have a bigger number of units, you might also profit from the mistake of the opponent to let you surround him. Protoss players beware! ^^;; | ||
|
z]Benny
Romania253 Posts
On March 02 2010 02:33 Mystlord wrote: You got to the core of the issue before I did: On the surface, the unit's stats appear to be the same, but looking at the hidden cooldown values: On Normal speed (scales up percentage wise), Zergling cooldown without adrenal is .696. Zealot cooldown is 1.2. For comparison, in SC1, the cooldown for the Zealot was 22 (whatever that means) and for the Zergling it was 8. In other words, while the Zergling/Zeaot attack ratio was ~3:1 in SC1, it's dropped to ~2:1 in SC2. That's why Zealots require 4 Zerglings to properly kill. In other words, 2 Gate rushes against early Hatches are that much more dangerous Wow... Math wins. | ||
|
ed21x
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
RPGabe
United States192 Posts
On March 01 2010 23:42 SubtleArt wrote: Again, I don't think shields take full damage anymore. This is probably why This doesn't influence Zergling vs. Zealot, but it's kinda true. Shields used to take full damage regardless of what damage type was being thrown at them (concussive, normal or explosive). A dragoon being hit by a vulture grenade would still lose 20 shields, even though it was large. In SC2, units that do extra against "Light" or "Armored" types only do that extra damage to Protoss shields if the Protoss unit is "Light" or "Armored". An Immortal firing on a Zealot does not get the benefit of the +damage vs armored against the Zelaots shields. A Helion firing on a Zealot does get the benefit of +damage vs the zealot's shields. This is a little different than BW, if you think of "Concussive" damage as being "+ damage vs. small/light" and explosive damage being "+ damage vs armored/large" | ||
Korn
United Kingdom10 Posts
I wasn't saying this was a problem, I think it's just important to know that it's the case. I think it's impossible to expand as zerg and aim to defend with lings only if toss does 2-3 gates. However, now Zerg has roaches. Anyways, it's important to know that lings suck early on, vs zealots but also vs marines, at least compared to SC1 | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
Korn
United Kingdom10 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
| ||
