| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Korn
United Kingdom10 Posts
is it just me, or are Zerglings substantially weaker vs Zealots than in SC1 despite that fact that the stats for both are the same? What do you guys think is the reason for this? Also, do you think it's intentional or rather an inintended consequence of the new engine? | ||
|
Puosu
6985 Posts
edit: ohhh im stupid and cant read | ||
|
disco
Netherlands1667 Posts
On March 01 2010 21:48 Puosu wrote: AI is better so zerglings split around the zealots much better and don't stay behind eachother, its like the zerg player microing perfectly all the time. This would make the zerglings stronger, not weaker. | ||
|
Ftrunkz
Australia2474 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
I wouldn't say it's intentional, it's just a result of better pathing. | ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
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. | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
 I think they might just attack slower | ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
It might also depend on the terrain. If the zealots manage to wall off a choke, they'll defend it much better than in an open field since lings wouldn't be able to surround as easily as in an open field. | ||
|
rkarhu
Finland570 Posts
On March 01 2010 21:58 Latham wrote: Nazgul is correct about faster shield regen, but as far as I know, it works only when the units are "out of battle", that means when they don't receive any damage for 6-8 consecutive seconds. It might also depend on the terrain. If the zealots manage to wall off a choke, they'll defend it much better than in an open field since lings wouldn't be able to surround as easily as in an open field. Breaking news just in! | ||
|
osten
Sweden316 Posts
Blizzard often do that, just throws things in, never tests them. They did not even try to balance, just gave a model some stats and crossed their fingers. I think the two are exactly like blizzard wants them to. Why don't you discuss balance or anything else rather than "if it's intentional". jesus. --------------------------------------------------------- User was warned for a continuous negativity throughout his posts. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
His play was profound zerg constantly surround one two three or four, KHB would wipe the floor you gotta be smart don't stop and start everytime you lose you're breakin my heart | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On March 01 2010 21:45 Korn wrote: Hi all, is it just me, or are Zerglings substantially weaker vs Zealots than in SC1 despite that fact that the stats for both are the same? What do you guys think is the reason for this? Also, do you think it's intentional or rather an inintended consequence of the new engine? idk wth u guys are doing wrong but zerglings are alot stronger vs zealots they they ever were in sc1. if lings somehow seem weaker to u vs zealots then ur either not massing enought of them or the toss got early upgrades. but ur obviously doing something wrong cuz nothing is wrong with zerglings in sc2. there perfect and couldnt be any better. | ||
|
WhyDontYouTry.
Germany2 Posts
http://starcraft2.ingame.de/content.php?c=99577&s=958 (It's german, but most Pictures. Fight with Attack-Move without Micro.) | ||
|
inReacH
Sweden1612 Posts
On March 01 2010 22:36 Ballistixz wrote: idk wth u guys are doing wrong but zerglings are alot stronger vs zealots they they ever were in sc1. if lings somehow seem weaker to u vs zealots then ur either not massing enought of them or the toss got early upgrades. but ur obviously doing something wrong cuz nothing is wrong with zerglings in sc2. there perfect and couldnt be any better. You are mistaken. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
Its probably more important to get to certain critical masses to be effective as the zealots find there targets very easily as they can move in a tighter group and make that wall so effectively whereas in SC1 they took a wall almost unnaturally in contrast. | ||
|
XaraCoS
Australia45 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
It seems like if there's at least a certain number of zealots, then when they move, they form a tight ball or clump. So just having a certain number of zealots and moving them somewhere, you are already minimizing the amount of damage zerglings can do. In BW, zealot clumps are never perfectly tight, and their formations always have cracks in them. /edit - wanted to make this more clear. Even if they don't move in a clump (for example they start in a line formation), they converge rapidly towards the target (i.e. they move closer to each other on the way to the target). Since they tend to form tight walls without any extra micro, it makes them very strong against other melee units. | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
| ||
|
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
| ||
|
Gedrah
465 Posts
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. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 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 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! | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
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. | ||
|
Piousflea
United States259 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. 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. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Maybe the better ling AI counterbalanced the attack cooldown issues somewhat. | ||
|
CynanMachae
Canada1459 Posts
| ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
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. | ||
|
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
On March 02 2010 07:17 RPGabe wrote: 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. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
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. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
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. | ||
|
Tef
Sweden443 Posts
 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? | ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On March 01 2010 23:51 Drunken.Jedi wrote: 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 | ||
|
Flexis
Sweden235 Posts
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. | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
DaveTesta Events
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
