|
I have noticed several people here in TL.net seem to understand the new SC2 units (Roaches, Hellions, Stalkers, etc) better than some of the 'old' units- Zerglings and Tanks in particular, due to faulty assumptions that they are very similar to how they were in SC1, when in truth they suffered significant changes in the transition:
Zerglings-
You'd think they're almost identical to their SC1 version; same HP, same resource and psi cost, same armor, same damage. If you did, you'd be wrong.
First, let's compare the cooldown values for marines and zealots in SC1: 15 and 22, respectively. In SC2, they are .08608 and 1.2; you'll notice that in SC1, the zealot's attack cooldown is 46.6% slower than that of the marine, while in SC2, it is 39.4% slower; a bit of a buff for the zealot, but not a huge deal if you consider the Zealot's shield value went down while the marine's health value went up.
Now, let's compare the cooldown values for zerglings and zealots. In SC1, they are 8 and 22 respectively; in SC2, they are 0.696 and 1.2. In other words: In SC1, Zerglings delivered 2.75 attacks per every zealot attack; in SC2, this figure goes down to 1.72. This is a BIG DEAL.
Many people had noted how zealots seem harder to kill with zerglings in SC2. Well, there it is; they ARE harder to kill, because Zergling damage went down in SC2, in the form of a worse attack cooldown. Adrenal Glands also seem to be a weaker upgrade- the tooltip says it's a 20% attack speed upgrade, while it's a 33% attack speed upgrade in SC1. I guess the consolation prize for zerglings is that they are now the fastest-moving unit in the game, as well as the fact that the improved pathing when in SC2 is a huge buff to them when in large numbers. Bigger control groups is a plus, too.
Tanks-
Taken from a post I made recently:
Tanks in siege mode are a totally different unit from SC1:
- They deal lower damage against armored/large units (60, down from 70 in SC1)
- They deal much higher damage against light/small units (60, up from 70/2 = 35 in SC1)
- They have a greater AoE splash radius
- They're more expensive
Now, look at the consolidated effect of the changes:
Against armored/large targets, tanks are worse due to being more expensive, and worse still due to dealing less damage per attack.
Against light/small targets, tanks are slightly worse due to higher cost, hugely better due to dealing 70%+ more damage per shot, and better yet when shooting at tightly-packed groups of units thanks to their new and improved AoE splash radius (which is very significant because light/small targets clump up a lot more than armored/large units do, and more so in SC2).
Where tanks would melt dragoons in SC1, they seem much better suited to melting swarms of zerglings and banelings in SC2.
edit: cooldown values for SC2 taken from http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t8Z5bsJL0-2LyqHW1DWUAYA&output=html
|
Thanks for the info, I miss my BW zerglings ;;
|
Now, let's compare the cooldown values for zerglings and zealots. In SC1, they are 8 and 22 respectively; in SC2, they are 0.696 and 1.2. In other words: In SC1, Zerglings delivered 2.75 attacks per every zealot attack; in SC2, this figure goes down to 1.72. This is a BIG DEAL.
I knew Zlings were much worse vs Zealots now but that was a huge nerf on the zlings. I guess it would be better just to skip lings and go for straight Roach/Hydra
|
You're not really arguing that tanks are a counter to zerglings and banelings are you? Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Also Helions outclass tanks in dealing with melee units by a huge degree. Tanks are supposed to counter large groups of ranged units which they are currently not doing in a cost effective manner.
|
On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
You're not really arguing that tanks are a counter to zerglings and banelings are you? Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Also Helions outclass tanks in dealing with melee units by a huge degree. Tanks are supposed to counter large groups of ranged units which they are currently not doing in a cost effective manner.
When in a good defensive position (read: higher ground, melee has to take a detour to reach you), tanks are brutally effective against swarms of zerglings and banelings. They are obviously not a hard counter because they have trouble with units that get in melee range with them.
edit: Here's a game where this is demonstrated vividly http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114397
|
On March 21 2010 08:28 Phoenix32 wrote:Show nested quote +Now, let's compare the cooldown values for zerglings and zealots. In SC1, they are 8 and 22 respectively; in SC2, they are 0.696 and 1.2. In other words: In SC1, Zerglings delivered 2.75 attacks per every zealot attack; in SC2, this figure goes down to 1.72. This is a BIG DEAL.
I knew Zlings were much worse vs Zealots now but that was a huge nerf on the zlings. I guess it would be better just to skip lings and go for straight Roach/Hydra
Zerglings still have their place. I'd wager most people would rather counter a Protoss going heavy on immortals with zerglings than with roaches, for instance.
|
On March 21 2010 08:34 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 08:28 Phoenix32 wrote:Now, let's compare the cooldown values for zerglings and zealots. In SC1, they are 8 and 22 respectively; in SC2, they are 0.696 and 1.2. In other words: In SC1, Zerglings delivered 2.75 attacks per every zealot attack; in SC2, this figure goes down to 1.72. This is a BIG DEAL.
I knew Zlings were much worse vs Zealots now but that was a huge nerf on the zlings. I guess it would be better just to skip lings and go for straight Roach/Hydra Zerglings still have their place. I'd wager most people would rather counter a Protoss going heavy on immortals with zerglings than with roaches, for instance.
most people actually make 1-3 spine crawlers at their nat and go straight for muta if they see toss going for immortals.
But if you decide not to go muta, then yes speedlings would work well against an immortal-heavy army.
|
Zerglings still have their place. I'd wager most people would rather counter a Protoss going heavy on immortals with zerglings than with roaches, for instance.
Lings were a lot more well rounded in SC1 than in SC2. I think its funny how you say lings counter immortals better than roaches. When immortals are a hard counter for roaches,
|
On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
You're not really arguing that tanks are a counter to zerglings and banelings are you? Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Also Helions outclass tanks in dealing with melee units by a huge degree. Tanks are supposed to counter large groups of ranged units which they are currently not doing in a cost effective manner.
IIRC, tanks don't overkill anymore. I don't have it handy anymore, but there was a video of a clump of tanks attacking a building and a bunch of separated marines. As soon as the building was at around 50 health, rather than a bunch of tank shots being wasted on it, one tank shot hit the building and destroyed it. The other tanks fired on the marines, and instead of them absolutely demolishing one marine, they each fired on different marines.
|
tanks are horrible against melee because they will splash your own units and basically cancel out their damage a good percentage of the time. I played a TvT where the enemy went basically pure marauder and I went for a good amount of tanks to counter, and cost for cost (3 base vs 3 base) the marauders straight raped the shit out of the tanks. marauders cost way less and have almost the same hp, and each one actually has more dps than 1 tank with stim. Not to mention much more maneuverable. The current design of siege tanks is a very confused one.
|
On March 21 2010 09:26 TFlame wrote:
tanks are horrible against melee because they will splash your own units and basically cancel out their damage a good percentage of the time. I played a TvT where the enemy went basically pure marauder and I went for a good amount of tanks to counter, and cost for cost (3 base vs 3 base) the marauders straight raped the shit out of the tanks. marauders cost way less and have almost the same hp, and each one actually has more dps than 1 tank with stim. Not to mention much more maneuverable. The current design of siege tanks is a very confused one.
Tank > Rine > Rauder > Tank in straight up fights.
Seems to make sense to me.
|
Has anyone checked to compare a zergling's speed compared to a a zealot, zerglings to me feel a little faster than they were in SCI compared to other tier 1 units.
One thing that has gotten more complicated in SC2 is that both the economic and production capabilities of each race has gotten more distinctive, which makes them harder to compare.
Its one thing to say the ling has been weakened compared to the zealot. But factor in spawn larva, which allows you to build many more zerlings early on then was possible in SCI. Of course, zealots can also be built faster too with chrono boost, etc.
I will say that I went from thinking zerglings got nerfed too much in SCII to thinking they are just fine. I have found the speed and pathing of zerglings to be a real benefit against zealots. For one, I can dance zerglings away from zealots so much easier now...and there ability to push through cracks makes surrounding much easier.
|
IIRC, unsieged Tanks deal more damage against Armored targets than sieged Tanks, albeit without splash and at a lower range.
|
I agree with some of the skeptics who replied here. It's hard to precisely compare unit DPS between I and II. How much damage one zergling or one zealot in the old game vs now doesn't factor in the changes in unit speed, surround AI, expected damage from new unit combinations, changes to traditional target units, etc. Same with old tanks vs new: dps changes are affected by splash radius, target's collision radius, fire rate, unit speed, etc etc etc.
I doubt anyone would want SCII to be too similar to SCI. The only thing that matters now is balance among units in the new generation.
|
From the VODs that I've seen of SC2, it seems tanks don't have the "OMG I CAN'T WALK THAT WAY OR I'M BLUE GOO" feeling that SC1 tanks used to give to your opponents. And when I read the thread title as "Zerglings, tanks, and ass..." on the sidebar...
I rofled >.<.
|
You are forgetting a critical piece of info about Zerglings and Zealots.
Zealots now only attack targets directly in front of them. They have a fixed rotation speed.
Zerglings now attack while moving. Speedlings are fast enought to run behind zealots faster than they can turn around.
Sure, a-moving zerglings into zealots is now suicide, even with the improved AI.
However, with good micro you can kill zealots in a 2 to 1 speedlings-zealots ratio.
Just keep running around the zealots with 2 groups, one to bait and one to attack them from behind. This will more than negate the increased cooldown disadvantage.
|
United States4126 Posts
On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem.
Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now.
|
On March 21 2010 12:59 Kinky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now.
I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has.
A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling.
Just a guess though.
|
Sorry but I gotta say: lol @ "zerglings, tanks, and ass" in the sidebar
|
On March 21 2010 13:04 Bearigator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 12:59 Kinky wrote:On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now. I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has. A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling. Just a guess though.
Yup, exactly what I meant. Also saying tanks are good if the melee units have to run around and then up a ramp to get to the tanks is not really a solid argument. It's not unique. All ranged units are good against melee units that have to take 10 seconds to get to them, no? It's like saying marines are overpowered, two of them can kill 4 zealots, while not accounting for the fact you are attacking a wall-in.
|
But if you're going tanks you should also have a marine/marauder army backing them up. Think about using the tanks like in a sc1 tvz where you only get them in a support role while the core of your army will still be a bio marine/marauder force. Even two or three well positioned tanks in an engagement can tip a battle in your favor in tvz and tvp. The enemy will have to choose between getting wailed on by the tanks while engaging your main force, rushing down the tanks while the rest of your army gets free shots in on them, or retreating in which case you just keep leapfrogging tanks pushing outward.
|
Don't understand why so many Terrans ignore siege tanks vs Zerg balls of roach/hydra. even mixing 4-5 of them is so much more firepower. reasonably expensive but it definitely pays off imo
|
On March 21 2010 14:02 yomi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 13:04 Bearigator wrote:On March 21 2010 12:59 Kinky wrote:On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now. I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has. A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling. Just a guess though. Yup, exactly what I meant. Also saying tanks are good if the melee units have to run around and then up a ramp to get to the tanks is not really a solid argument. It's not unique. All ranged units are good against melee units that have to take 10 seconds to get to them, no? It's like saying marines are overpowered, two of them can kill 4 zealots, while not accounting for the fact you are attacking a wall-in.
Please watch the video I linked, specifically at about 14:50, and tell me if you still think tanks are as effective at killing zerglings as marines are at killing zealots behind a wall-in. Yes, the tanks have a very favorable positioning, but they didn't really need that big of a positional advantage- proper positioning on a good strategic location (on a ramp with a Xel'Naga watchtower or outside your opponent's choke point) could make them just as hard to reach, and just as deadly to tightly packed, low HP units.
|
On March 21 2010 13:04 Bearigator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 12:59 Kinky wrote:On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now. I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has. A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling. Just a guess though.
How about 10 tanks shooting at a zealot in SC1? Overkill too yes? At least the overkill is more predictable.
|
On March 21 2010 21:19 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 14:02 yomi wrote:On March 21 2010 13:04 Bearigator wrote:On March 21 2010 12:59 Kinky wrote:On March 21 2010 08:29 yomi wrote:
Firstly tanks are obviously weak to melee units and secondly they overkill a lot meaning their effective DPS is not as high as it would seem. Tanks don't overkill anymore. They're smart about spreading their fire out now. I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has. A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling. Just a guess though. Yup, exactly what I meant. Also saying tanks are good if the melee units have to run around and then up a ramp to get to the tanks is not really a solid argument. It's not unique. All ranged units are good against melee units that have to take 10 seconds to get to them, no? It's like saying marines are overpowered, two of them can kill 4 zealots, while not accounting for the fact you are attacking a wall-in. Please watch the video I linked, specifically at about 14:50, and tell me if you still think tanks are as effective at killing zerglings as marines are at killing zealots behind a wall-in. Yes, the tanks have a very favorable positioning, but they didn't really need that big of a positional advantage- proper positioning on a good strategic location (on a ramp with a Xel'Naga watchtower or outside your opponent's choke point) could make them just as hard to reach, and just as deadly to tightly packed, low HP units.
I'm not saying marines are as good at killing zealots behind a wall-in as tanks are at killing zerglings. It was an analogy, showing that perfectly positioned units vs worst possible scenario of positioning generally results in the well positioned units winning.
Also in your clip you realize that the CC has been upgraded to a planetary fortress right? And that is at most 40 zerglings fighting a Thor 3 siege tanks (a fourth tank gets a shot in at the end) and a fortress. That's 1000 minerals of tier 1 vs 1400 minerals 800 gas of tier 2 and 3. I'm not going to show a clip of 20 marines dying to 4 colossus on a hill and saying look how strong this colossus is when I know that vikings and emp could kill the colossus almost instantly.
Terran has no problems with Zerglings in the first place, that is not what we need from tanks.
We need them to win against Hydralisks and Roaches.
|
On March 21 2010 22:23 yomi wrote:
Terran has no problems with Zerglings in the first place, that is not what we need from tanks.
We need them to win against Hydralisks and Roaches.
Effectively making Z unable to win? Lots of gas or not, 2 tanks already instakill a hydra and thats without checking splash...
|
On March 21 2010 19:41 MelancholyMark wrote:
But if you're going tanks you should also have a marine/marauder army backing them up. Think about using the tanks like in a sc1 tvz where you only get them in a support role while the core of your army will still be a bio marine/marauder force. Even two or three well positioned tanks in an engagement can tip a battle in your favor in tvz and tvp. The enemy will have to choose between getting wailed on by the tanks while engaging your main force, rushing down the tanks while the rest of your army gets free shots in on them, or retreating in which case you just keep leapfrogging tanks pushing outward.
I completely agree that if you have 4 sieged tanks behind a marine/marauder army they'll help you out alot against roach/hydra (no splash on your units that way). I think the reason I and others don't go tanks is because if you invest in tanks and siege mode you HAVE to make good use of them. Currently it costs a crapton to crank out 4 siege tanks and it does 2 things for you:
Significantly reduces either your tech or your army size of other units, and makes it a requirement to BE in siege mode before the zerg engages you.
The fact that you die if you don't siege pre-emptively is nothing new, but the fact that all the races now have HUGE mobility and that there are almost always backdoors on all the maps means it's almost impossible to create a nice front line. Just throwing in 4 tanks reduces the mobility of your Bio army to nill. One nydus worm or any sort of dropship/warpin harass and you're faced with the problem of having to unsiege your tanks.
At least that's what I've always found. I can't just litter every place I want to protect with a few tanks, and in SC2 there are always tons of places you need to be able to get to quickly to defend drop-mechanics. That coupled with the fact that without a giant army wall between your tanks and the enemy the tanks die in a second makes it just not worth it to invest in a whopping 4 siege tanks. Tanks are either good in small numbers when nothing can get to them, or in huge numbers when they evaporate everything running at them. Currently neither of those seems feasible at least in my playstyle.
|
I find zerglings MUCH more fun to run around with but much less fun to use against zealots. =[ It feels like the counter to 2 gate zealot is just roach rushing now, lings seem to get annhiliated. Before you could beat zealots with less lings than in a 1v1 situation since lings tended to kinda focus fire a little bit like more than 3 lings hitting one zealot, so you'd get away with a good ratio, now you just need that 4:1 ratio i think, which is so difficult when he has chrono boost.
|
mmm plus a decent clump of tanks can shred even a fairly big mass of roach/hydra. I feel like it is to zerg's advantage to avoid engaging in head-to-head combat and instead harass with nydus worms and get tech.
It's annoying when they make a nydus worm in your main, you move back to defend, and then they hit your front t.t
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
