|
On March 01 2010 21:50 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The zeals seem to get their first hit off faster as a result of the engine. If this is the case it is huge for early zealot vs ling fights. It also seems like shields regenerate fasters. Neither of these are facts I have looked up just possible explanations that feel like they might be the case.
Once the numbers get a bit higher than 1-2-3 zealots it becomes harder and harder because of one zealot wanders around it is quickly surrounded and stuck. Or it doesn't even need to wander off just the zealot at the side of your line can quickly fall victim to surrounds as well. When the ling numbers are still low the auto-surround is obviously not yet useful and zealots are exceptionally strong at that stage.
My earliest realization with Zots vs Lings was that Zerglings aren't meant to fight Zealots. They are a deterrent, ONLY. Something to buy you time if you went for fast roaches and suddenly have a number of Zealots in your main, so he can't just kill your Warren and lololol his way to victory. Lings are far too inefficient vs Zealots, it takes 32 Ling bites to kill a Zealot's 100 HP and 60 Shields and that's ignoring Shield Regen, e.g. meaning you killed him quickly and efficiently. Only 6 Lings can ever hit 1 Zealot due to pathing radius (maybe 7 sometimes, but I commonly see 6) and usually fewer, which means 30 damage per bite, which means 6 bites from 6 lings to kill the Zealot, ideally. The Zealot kills a 35-hp Zergling in 2 and a half swings of 8+8, by himself... That's 8-16, 24-32, dead. That's a single Zealot. Which means that each Zealot is going to kill 1 and perhaps 2 lings before being killed, at a minimum. The reality is that lings take a moment to surround and begin attacking so the Zealot ususally kills 3 Lings. If 3 Zealots are standing together to reduce their total surface area they can kill an obscene number of Lings, even if they are cripples afterward. Worse, if Zealots hide in corners or the cracks between minerals, they can be practically immune to anything but an overwhelming number of Zerglings.
Despite how weak Lings are vs. Zealots, their purpose is to make it so Zealots can't freely attack a building. If left alone, they all converge on a structure and murder it. If Lings run up as soon as they do this and bite their flanks, they have to stop and fight the Zerglings. If Z keeps those lings alive they can regenerate a usable amount of HP fairly quickly and this is where early-game micro can be huge. Needless to say, Z must macro hard with the time this buys him, because if more Zealots show up they will split up and kill the Lings and structure at the same time. Anyway, if you've ever seen a game where 3 Zealots killed 5 or 6 attacking Zealots in SC2 it can be pretty exciting. Usually the rushing player is macroing and doesnt even realize he's getting outplayed, and then looks back to realize he's gone from 5 zots vs 2 zots, to 2 damaged zots vs 3 who are only missing shields... I love that shit.
|
On March 02 2010 02:33 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +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 
On one hand, I feel bad for zerg in the early game, on the other hand, being able 'swarm' with lings later makes me feel unbad!
|
Is there any hard data that zerglings and zealots do in fact have the same dps in sc2 compared to sc1?
It seems to me zerglings attack a lot slower in sc2 even with adrenal upgrade, like 3.5 attacks per second when in sc1 it was like 5.
edit: not reading before posting ftw
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 02 2010 08:32 Yurebis wrote:
Is there any hard data that zerglings and zealots do in fact have the same dps in sc2 compared to sc1?
It seems to me zerglings attack a lot slower in sc2 even with adrenal upgrade, like 3.5 attacks per second when in sc1 it was like 5.
Look at my previous post. Absolute DPS doesn't matter in this case, what matters is relative DPS, of which it's now 2:1 instead of 3:1.
And since you brought up the Adrenal upgrade:
SC1:
Normal Zergling Cooldown - 8
Normal Zealot Cooldown - 22
Adrenal Zergling Cooldown - 6
Ratio w/o Adrenal - 2.75:1
Ratio w/ Adrenal - 3.6667
SC2:
Normal Zergling Cooldown - .696
Normal Zealot Cooldown - 1.2
Adrenal Zergling Cooldown - .587
Ratio w/o Adrenal - 1.724:1
Ratio w/ Adrenal - 2.044
So yes, Zerglings suck relative balls against Zealots now. Your primary damage dealers should come from other sources.
If you want hard DPS numbers, take the damage values for Zerglings and Zealot, divide them by the cooldowns I just gave you, and tada~. I reiterate that ling DPS decreases dramatically compared to Zealots since losing 1 ling is pretty big.
|
On March 02 2010 08:32 Yurebis wrote:
Is there any hard data that zerglings and zealots do in fact have the same dps in sc2 compared to sc1?
It seems to me zerglings attack a lot slower in sc2 even with adrenal upgrade, like 3.5 attacks per second when in sc1 it was like 5.
edit: not reading before posting ftw
I don't even have the beta but I got this sense also. It seems like lings have a slower base attack speed, and SC2 cracklings seem to have a slower attackspeed than SC1 cracklings.
In sufficiently large numbers, the better clumping and auto-surround should make up for lower attack speed. In fact, huge swarms of SC2 lings should do considerably more DPS than the same number of SC1 lings. However, in small numbers the slower attack speed will make them straight up weaker.
|
Haven't noticed a change myself in their relative goodness. 2 gate has always been hard for me to defend.
Maybe the better ling AI counterbalanced the attack cooldown issues somewhat.
|
Ah, I thought my bro was crazy when he told me, "is that me or zerlings sucks against zealots now"
|
On March 02 2010 07:22 Korn wrote:
Hi wintergt,
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
Yeah I didn't want to critique your post just add to it by saying that the place of the zealot in the game has generally changed. Without charge, a bunch of early units can really do a number on zealots.
Hellions aka racecars for example really run circles around them. Check out this replay for a laugh:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zmdmnezaujm/LOL_ZEALRUSH.SC2Replay
At the start of this game zerg gets roaches and FE, while protoss half blocks his ramp and gets zealots to defend. 6 roaches steamroll the 4 defending zealots with no losses and destroy most of the protoss base.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zmdmnezaujm/LOL_ZEALRUSH.SC2Replay
So zealots doing better vs lings is balancing. Ofcourse very good to know for zerg that this has changed.
|
On March 02 2010 07:17 RPGabe wrote:Show nested quote +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"
I don't think this is correct. Units only do their base damage to shields, regardless of unit size / damage bonuses. Shields no longer regenerate in battle, so units don't get that "extra hit" required to kill them. I'm not sure if zerg units regenerate in battle, haven't paid attention to that side.
|
I think it might have something to do with lings ai trying to auto surround.
When you have say 16 lings and go surround 3-4 zeals some will instantly wrap the zeals, they target whatever is closest to them. And the remaining will run around in a circle looking for an opening. The problem is that they won't acquire targets as far as they did in bw, and they get stuck behind walls much easier.
So normally in SCBW, lings would kinda bunch up and twitch around in place and acquire targets from pretty good distance away. And normally in SCBW it was up to the player to run lings around the zeals and press attack when they felt they had a good position/wrap.
Since the way units kinda speed up when they auto wrap most players aren't doing these wraps anymore (it's arguably inferior and a waste of micro).
It seems like the lings will equally spread on the zealots, instead of like 6 on 1st, 2 on 2nd, 3 on 3rd, 5 on 4th. It's more like 4, 4, 4, 4.
That's just my take on it, I could be wrong.
Also it seems a lot harder to micro out lings who took 1 or 2 hits away and back in.
|
I think Blizzard intentionally weakened the Zergling (Just check cooldowns >.> Can't accidentally do that, unless it's a typo) because the Zerg have many more low tier units to use in their stead. Getting a some Lings will only stop the enemy from sneaking a couple Marines or a Zealot into your base in the early game; and only that, in the early game. Lings shouldn't be used as your main army, anyways; they are biologically weaker than the other zerg, and fairly fragile. If you want to REALLY do damage to light targets, Banes and Roaches are the way to go (Baneroach ftw).
Not to say Zerglings are useless; they aren't. Immortals are terrible against light targets, and Zerglings are the cheapest, most efficient way to quickly dispatch them. Colossi are terrible at taking down smaller units when they are surrounded in close range, so Lings can be used against those, as well.
I went off on a tangent, but yeah. I think Blizzard weakened the Zergling to bring some life into the other units (although the Roach doesn't need much more life :D).
Oh, and the biggest reason for Zerglings being weaker (at least against Zealots) is due to their slower relative attack speed; pathing and all the other general engine stuff probably doesn't contribute as much.
|
I don't mind this change. The tactic is a bit different as you have to be sure to overwhelm the P force, otherwise it is just a waste of minerals. However, I have noticed that the rally-attack-move can really hurt Z players early on since it's almost impossible to rally up the zerglings in a clump if P puts on pressure on your hatcheries. But I guess we got ourself some more micro and isn't that what we wanted?  My conclusion is that it's less forgiving to just throw zerglings into battle against P in SC2.
Has anyone calculated the difference with full upgrades?
|
On March 01 2010 23:51 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In BW they had damage types which did different amounts of damage. Lets take siege tank for example.
Type: Explosive. It does full damage to large units like ultras and goons, and much less damage to small units like zealots. HOWEVER. Everything does the same damage to protoss shields in BW, regardless of unit and damage type. For example vultures do almost no damage to goon hp, but will still do their full damage to shield. Hence why archons suck against anything that isnt a ling or muta.
In Sc2 the shield is included as part of the unit type, so for example a tank would do as much damage to a zealot shield as it would to zealots health
|
I really feel that, when i play zerg, my zerglings vs the zealots gets eaten. In sc1 i could kill a zealot with 3 lings, but now i absolutely need 4 lings to kill 1 zealot, and if i add on more zealots i need even more lings to match 1 zealot. As a standard and first tier, aswell as most-used zerg unit, i feel like the zergling is too weak atm
Btw im sorry that i refreshed this old old topic, i thought i should do a new one then i realized this one existed.
Do anyone else feel like the zerglings should get a little buff? for example 5 more hp, or -hmm- 1 more damage?
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On May 07 2010 21:37 Flexis wrote:
Do anyone else feel like the zerglings should get a little buff? for example 5 more hp, or -hmm- 1 more damage?
No, because roaches kill zealots.
|
Belgium8305 Posts
just because it's not like in SC:BW, doesn't mean there's automatically a problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
