|
On May 22 2010 13:29 Xeken wrote:
Ultra does more damage, but it's more spread out. Prior to this patch, ultras took out 4-5 units at a time very quickly. In patch 13, it's significantly slower, which mean each enemy unit has much higher potential damage.
Me and my friend ran simulations against 80 supply MMM ball (1/1 ratio marine marauder + 6 medivacs), followed by a MM ball (marauder 6 medivacs). A trigger for stim was implemented. The only problem is we couldn't find a way to cause focus firing. Although that problem isn't as major in the choke tests because only 2 units were available for choosing at a time.
The following were tested.
Patch 13 ultras-
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
Patch 12 ultras (with 450 hp)-
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
Custom ultras (1 AoE, 100% cleave, 15+25 dmg)
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
For ultras, the custom ultra yielded the best results, the patch 12 ultras being second (not far behind), and the patch 13 ultras being the worst (most of the time having none left alive).
For army composition, a 10-12 supply of enemy to 1 ultra ratio appears to be the most efficient. In this case, 7 ultras yielded the best efficiency (least units lost and least amount of resource difference between the 2 armies). This was true for all ultra cases.
Basically, while more damage is being dealt, things are dying slower, so ultras (along with their 450 hp) are actually not killing things as fast over the course of a fight. It's much better to kill 2 small groups of units quickly then to kill 1 group of units slowly.
Also, the overall effect of frenzy was marginal due to the AoE change. 125% of 33% is not much. It's a much better 25 energy skill for the infestor, but you would never build infestors just for frenzy. The gas is better spent elsewhere, and frenzy is only after you have used all the NP/FG that is necessary, and happen to have energy left.
how dare they call it a buff?
|
What's all this about AoE-radius going from 1 to 2?.
Before the patch, the AoE looked like
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8597/screenshot029d.jpg
if you moved the ultra as close to the lings as possible, the AoE hits less lings if you just send the ultra to attack.
After the patch, the AoE looks like (2 attacks to make the health bars yellow)
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4066/screenshot030u.jpg
No difference if you just sent it to attack or if you moved it as close to the lings as possible.
Judging from this, it only looks like they moved the AoE-centre from the front of the ultra to the middle of the target. Of course this can be considered a buff in many situations, but I can also think of situations where it hits less targets than it used to do.
|
Its 15+40Armored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least check the Stats idiots...
|
On May 22 2010 18:53 Tyrannon wrote:
Its 15+40Armored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least check the Stats idiots...
I don't even know where to begin with how wrong you are. Please look over the patch notes and never spread falsified information again.
|
And i just said , start the game and LOOK AT THE FUCKING UNIT.
Patchnotes are WROOOONG
Edit: ok sorry for the "idiots", i´m just tired of all the people complaining about Ultras without even playing them.
|
On May 22 2010 19:29 Tyrannon wrote:
And i just said , start the game and LOOK AT THE FUCKING UNIT.
Patchnotes are WROOOONG
Edit: ok sorry for the "idiots", i´m just tired of all the people complaining about Ultras without even playing them.
They changed how the bonus damage is written in the UI, now it show how much damage it does to x instead of how much bonus damage it gets against x.
|
On May 22 2010 19:29 Tyrannon wrote:
And i just said , start the game and LOOK AT THE FUCKING UNIT.
Patchnotes are WROOOONG
Edit: ok sorry for the "idiots", i´m just tired of all the peaple complaining about Ultras without even playing them.
Okay just listen to me.
1)Make just one Ultralisk, just ONE FUCKING ULTRALISK.
2)Make it attack an armored unit
3)Stare in awe as the armored unit now has 40 hp less sans any armor deduction
4)Really now, what the hell do you think the chances of you being correct when every other poster on this entire forum knows what the damage is? What do you think the chances of you being correct and blizzard's patch notes being wrong are? You don't think it would have been noticed earlier?
FUCKING READ.
|
Ok, i´ll accept that. Sry for all that rage then.
|
On May 22 2010 13:29 Xeken wrote:
Ultra does more damage, but it's more spread out. Prior to this patch, ultras took out 4-5 units at a time very quickly. In patch 13, it's significantly slower, which mean each enemy unit has much higher potential damage.
Me and my friend ran simulations against 80 supply MMM ball (1/1 ratio marine marauder + 6 medivacs), followed by a MM ball (marauder 6 medivacs). A trigger for stim was implemented. The only problem is we couldn't find a way to cause focus firing. Although that problem isn't as major in the choke tests because only 2 units were available for choosing at a time.
The following were tested.
Patch 13 ultras-
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
Patch 12 ultras (with 450 hp)-
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
Custom ultras (1 AoE, 100% cleave, 15+25 dmg)
6 ultras, rest in hydra
7 ultras, rest in hydra
8 ultras, rest in hydra
all of the above were tested with open field and choke point (able to fit 2-3 ultras).
For ultras, the custom ultra yielded the best results, the patch 12 ultras being second (not far behind), and the patch 13 ultras being the worst (most of the time having none left alive).
For army composition, a 10-12 supply of enemy to 1 ultra ratio appears to be the most efficient. In this case, 7 ultras yielded the best efficiency (least units lost and least amount of resource difference between the 2 armies). This was true for all ultra cases.
Basically, while more damage is being dealt, things are dying slower, so ultras (along with their 450 hp) are actually not killing things as fast over the course of a fight. It's much better to kill 2 small groups of units quickly then to kill 1 group of units slowly.
Also, the overall effect of frenzy was marginal due to the AoE change. 125% of 33% is not much. It's a much better 25 energy skill for the infestor, but you would never build infestors just for frenzy. The gas is better spent elsewhere, and frenzy is only after you have used all the NP/FG that is necessary, and happen to have energy left.
clearly the change has made marines more of a counter to ultralisks. since the ultra's will get stuck on marines and do only 5 splash per 0.8 second hit.
therefore please could you run a rest using an ultra + baneling composition versus marauder/marine/medivac ball.
|
here's the post patch chart assuming it's against armored units with frenzy being used. As in seeing frenzy was the reason that the ultras health and damage were somewhat nerfed.
number of units......dmg to primary...............dmg to secondaries......................total dmg
1 ...............................40................................40*.333=13.3*0............................50
2 ...............................40................................13.3*1.....................................68.625
3 ...............................40................................13.3*2......................................83.25
4 ...............................40................................13.3*3......................................99.3
5 ...............................40................................13.3*4......................................116.5
6 ...............................40................................13.3*5......................................106.5
|
from the MPQ:
<CEffectDamage id="UltraliskCleave" parent="DU_WEAP">
<Amount value="15"/>
<AreaArray Arc="180" Radius="2" Fraction="0.33"/>
<ExcludeArray Value="Target"/>
...
<AttributeBonus index="Armored" value="25"/>
AoE used to be 1.5 before, but at least it dealt 100%....
this new version sounds quite crap to me 
edit: my bad... i just started txt-comparing old and new MPQ content...
when did they bump AoE up to 2? o.O
slightly confused though: technically, it may apply AoE dmg twice...  :
*must investigate once i don't get dropped*
edit2: also, since when do ultras have a /cheer ?
|
Seems like damage upgrades for Ultras are also being wonky, you get +3 damage to both the normal damage and the vs armored damage for each upgrade (instead of the expected +2/+5), banelings still get +2/+4 so it doesn't look like an overall mechanics change. They do seem to move a bit less randomly though, or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
|
Something else that makes ultralisks worthless as tank is this:
Zergling, Attack Target Priority: 20
Ultralisk, Attack Target Priority: 20
This means that the AI will simply attack zerglings as often as the ultra, while obviously it wouldve been better if they forced the AI to attack ultras, allowing zerglings to get in.
Someone else rumored that the attack speed was nerfed in patch 13:
Head
Patch 12
1.6665 period
1 range
0.6665 damage
Patch 13
75 damage
1.6665 period
1 range
Kaiser
Patch 12
0.861 period
0.3332 damage
1 range
Patch 13:
15+25 damage
0.861 period
1 range
i.e. cant find it in the data editor.
|
On May 22 2010 20:32 slowmanrunning wrote:
here's the post patch chart assuming it's against armored units with frenzy being used. As in seeing frenzy was the reason that the ultras health and damage were somewhat nerfed.
number of units......dmg to primary...............dmg to secondaries......................total dmg
1 ...............................40................................40*.333=13.3*0............................50
2 ...............................40................................13.3*1.....................................68.625
3 ...............................40................................13.3*2......................................83.25
4 ...............................40................................13.3*3......................................99.3
5 ...............................40................................13.3*4......................................116.5
6 ...............................40................................13.3*5......................................106.5
Eh, how do you get from (40+13.3*1)*1.25 to 68.625? I get 66.625.
50
66.625
83.25
99.875
116.5
133.125
|
On May 22 2010 20:01 tarsier wrote:
clearly the change has made marines more of a counter to ultralisks. since the ultra's will get stuck on marines and do only 5 splash per 0.8 second hit.
therefore please could you run a rest using an ultra + baneling composition versus marauder/marine/medivac ball.
Well, this is why I also ran the all marauder+6 medivacs tests (still from 50-80 supply). The ultra effectiveness still ranks from custom, patch 12, and patch 13. The unit composition ratio is closer to 10:1 for enemy supply:ultra. The only big difference is that when engaging at a choke (same size), it's better to just have all ultras (with a handful of hydras, just enough to form one small line at the choke) rather than more hydras than ultras even though most ultras don't get to attack for awhile.
Banelings are a bit harder to work in here because the limitation on baneling is generally gas cost, not supply cost. It's pretty obvious if I replace an ultra worth with banelings that the fight would be much better for the Z, but the cost efficiency would be terrible (costing more and you just lose the banelings). I think regardless of army composition, just have 4-6 banelings in OL for a carpet bomb for any fight.
To be on topic though, my point is I believe that patch 12 ultra is superior to patch 13 ultra in all situations. Keep in mind I didn't even bring the patch 12 ultra to 600 hp during the test (a nerf ultra had to take for the new "buff"), and they still outperformed patch 13 ultras. This is very similar to the change to thor and collossi (less spike dmg, same dps) that made hydra better against them because they get more potential damage (ie not dying instantly), just as how the ultras, while doing more total damage, are still killing things slower, giving each unit more potential damage.
Just one more note, ultras regular attack actually does more dps to building with the new armored bonus, yet ultra still has to use the headbutt attack rather than just kaiser blade. The dps is greater for all upgrade stages (40,43,46,49 compared to 75,80,85,90) and also with frenzy taken into account (makes sense because it's linear relation). Basically, there is no reason for the building specific attack to exist. Great job at balancing that shit, blizzard.
|
On May 22 2010 23:11 Xeken wrote:
Just one more note, ultras regular attack actually does more dps to building with the new armored bonus, yet ultra still has to use the headbutt attack rather than just kaiser blade. The dps is greater for all upgrade stages (40,43,46,49 compared to 75,80,85,90) and also with frenzy taken into account (makes sense because it's linear relation). Basically, there is no reason for the building specific attack to exist. Great job at balancing that shit, blizzard.
So:
The dps of the kaiser is 40/0.861=46.46, while for head it is 75/1.6665=45?
That would indeed mean you are better off attacking with kaiser than head Oo
Even with the increase of damage on upgrades doesnt seem to change:
49.91 vs 48.00
53.43 vs 51.01
56.91 vs 54.01
Makes sense as the speed for kaiser is almost twice as low, while the dmg bonus is +3 for kaiser and +5 for head.
Obviously those calcs are incorrect if the cooldowns are longer (couldnt find anything but period and range @ combat tab) or damage changes. But still, from this it indeed seems that kaiser > head. Makes you wonder whether blizz actually thought this change through.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 22 2010 12:51 phyvo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2010 12:25 synapse wrote:On May 22 2010 10:20 AmstAff wrote:
why is it a nerf, if the AoE is 2 times bigger now?
edit
ok i saw the other post
editedt
i think they changed it because it was messed up anyway (like HSM or PF), i mean a AoE attack that does deal full damage Oo seriously cant be and must be reduced by logic (even if it wasnt OP or something) Storm?  Blizzard just hates ultralisks. Blizzard doesn't hate ultralisks. As I pointed out (by calculation), their DPS has been buffed vs everything except hellions and marines. For armored units there isn't really a situation where you'd want the old ultralisk instead of the new ultralisk, at least ZvT in terms of DPS. Still, the real weird thing was the HP nerf. Maybe Blizzard is more like love/hate with ultras...
I think the problem is that from the start they wanted to design the ultra as a damage dealer, and not as a tank (hence why they gave it cleave to begin with). The problem is that it's large size precludes it from being able to do that in an efficient manner when mixed with other close range units.
|
Well they should have really buffed Ultras because no one used them and then they do this -.- I'm losing trust in blizzard 
|
in simple terms:
- ultra lost 25% hp
- ultra lost 40% DPS versus non-armored
- ultra gained 60% DPS versus armored
- ultra gained frenzy
the splash damage was the super ninja nerf, but i do feel that it was pretty overpowering after watching several replays with zerg players dropping a single ultralisk onto enemy mineral line, the ultralisk's were killing about >10 workers in 1.5 seconds (2 swipes).... ultralisk's snuggling safely inside an overlord with 40+ worker kills.... it's just not right.
|
Are we sure that the aoe size actaully increased? It looks to me like it's another instance of the broad change where AoE damage now radiates from the target of the initial attack rather than from the attack animation spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
