EPTUltralisk attack AoE
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
Synk
United States297 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Is this the one? Data - Radius : 1 "Radius at which the unit can interact with other units" ? EDIT: This was under the general ultra data, not effects, so probably wrong. | ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
Also, I wouldn't immediately call it a nerf. Depending on the intermediate damage distribution, it could be a buff. That said, the problem of "dead upon arrival" is still not fixed. Edit: I believe so. I think the new one, if I'm not reading wrong, is 33% for radius of 2. Meaning that the ultra does full dmg to main target, and 33% to all other units within a radius of 2. This looks crappy at first glance. | ||
|
ChaosShadow
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
http://yfrog.com/5nultraxp Gotta sleep, maybe you can see what you need there. | ||
|
EZjijy
United States1039 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2urmjva.png) | ||
|
ChaosShadow
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
wdge
60 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 22 2010 08:03 wdge wrote: Just tested this out in-game, they do indeed do less damage to surrounding units then their main target. thats sorta how cleave works | ||
|
wdge
60 Posts
| ||
|
ChaosShadow
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
Gnarg
Netherlands165 Posts
| ||
|
Turbo.Tactics
Germany675 Posts
| ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
Against a small ball, patch 12 ultra did amazingly well because they can kill all the units very quickly, while not dying due to the ball not being critical mass. So they actually did have limited usefulness. In patch 13, ultras will be worse against a smaller ball (can't utilize the full effect of AoE of 2), and they are still worthless against a large ball because they just die. Basically, ultras now do more damage slower, which is a problem because they die even faster than before. My brain hurts. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8uED.gif) | ||
|
Wings
United States999 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
| ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
Basically, the suck keeps piling on. | ||
|
IrT4nkz
229 Posts
| ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
i figured people would be micro'ing ultras to only attack marauders/armored units so the splash damage would be huge (splash from a marauder being attacked would probably be more than the marine directly being hit) i guess this is why they actually have it reduced to 33% anyway. but just seems more boring | ||
|
fffxc2
United States8 Posts
edit: Before the change number of units dmg to primary dmg to secondaries total dmg 1 25 25*0 25 2 25 25*1 50 3 25 25*2 75 4 25 25*3 100 5 25 25*4 125 6 25 25*5 150 Damage changed from 25 to 15 (+25 Armored). +Stealth 100%->33% splash and 1->2 radius change - This was changed in the editor (just tested), remains to be seen for normal play After the change Before the change number of units dmg to primary dmg to secondaries total dmg 1 40 40*.333=13.3*0 40 2 40 13.3*1 53.3 3 40 13.3*2 66.6 4 40 13.3*3 79.9 5 40 13.3*4 93.2 6 40 13.3*5 106.5 So for anything more than 2 units that you are hitting (1+1 splashed) this is a dps nerf. And this is assuming it is against armored, against light the numbers are going to be even worse (a quick run is showing that it is a flat out nerf in all cases 25+25x=5x+15 has a solution of x=-1/2). | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
If the terran ball is bunched up and ultras (by some magic) are in it's face, it could still be taking a similar amount of damage, if not more. | ||
|
fffxc2
United States8 Posts
On May 22 2010 10:03 phyvo wrote: The one thing you're missing is that in 13 it covers more area so you really shouldn't be comparing equal numbers of targets vs equal numbers of targets. Do we have exact numbers of what the area changed from -> to? Math with those numbers if I didn't fail: (Assuming 9 in radius of 1 gives you 225 dmg total. 225-40=185 (damage divided by the rest to break even) 185/13.3=13.9 (damaged needed to break even divided by the new splash damage)) It does mean that for smaller numbers that still fit in the radius 1 (as in the table I made) it is still a dps nerf, but for larger numbers it is most likely a buff. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
roark
United States187 Posts
| ||
|
AmstAff
Germany949 Posts
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) | ||
|
Rictusjames
United States11 Posts
The only concrete buff I'm seeing is that it kills single armored units like Tanks and Thors better than before -- if it can reach them in the first place with it's reduced health. So what I'm wondering is, why does the Ultra have cleave at all? It's better than not having cleave, sure, but it doesn't seem to mesh with the Ultra's role at all anymore. If it's best at killing Thors and Tanks, give it something that lets it reach the Thors and Tanks reliably, and remove cleave? | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
I'm just gonna mass up MM and kill people under 5 minutes. Plan B, SIEGE MODE lololol | ||
|
baeracaed
United States604 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
On May 22 2010 10:20 AmstAff wrote: why is it a nerf, if the AoE is 2 times bigger now? I don't necessarily think it is a nerf. We have lower DPS over a larger area now. It could very well be a buff. We need objective calculations that take into account how many units fit into this new AOE size and if the larger aoe with less damage does in fact deal less, or more overall DPS. One thing is for sure, the ultralisk got a huge buff against large armored units. | ||
|
Rictusjames
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
fffxc2
United States8 Posts
On May 22 2010 10:25 Wr3k wrote: I don't necessarily think it is a nerf. We have lower DPS over a larger area now. It could very well be a buff. We need objective calculations that take into account how many units fit into this new AOE size and if the larger aoe with less damage does in fact deal less, or more overall DPS. One thing is for sure, the ultralisk got a huge buff against large armored units. I don't think you can call it a huge buff with the 25% reduction in hp. Though if it can actually engage larger balls is definitely a buff. edit: also, as someone noticed on the first page, the damage that is splashed is not calculated by the damage dealt to the primary target, it is instead calculated by each unit taking damage individually, so against light units this probably does makes the damage only break even if that. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
It does worse vs marines and meh-ish vs hellions. Outside of that the DPS is just a significant buff just because you can hit 4 times the number of units you could hit before, and when there are fewer units that extra 15 damage to the initial target makes a bigger difference. Basically, the old ultra was better vs marines, hellions, 3 marauders, and 3 vikings. The new ultra is better vs everything else. Ultras should do about 2.5 X as much damage vs marauder balls, tank balls, thor balls, 2 X damage vs viking balls, 0.75 X damage vs marine balls. I kinda only approximated the number of possible units that could fit into the area of effect, but the way I approximated it should only have helped the old ultralisk compared to the new one I believe. I kinda don't have to go and find some place to upload the spreadsheet on this, so... sorry. I guess if someone wants to they can just verify this themselves. Finally, all this was based on the assumption that the old ultra had AoE of 1. | ||
|
Occas
Australia18 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
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.  | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
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... | ||
|
DaggerRage
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
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. | ||
|
MasterAsia
United States170 Posts
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? | ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
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. | ||
|
Tyrannon
Germany113 Posts
At least check the Stats idiots... | ||
|
NoNoNoNoNyoron
United States78 Posts
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. | ||
|
Tyrannon
Germany113 Posts
Patchnotes are WROOOONG Edit: ok sorry for the "idiots", i´m just tired of all the people complaining about Ultras without even playing them. | ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
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. | ||
|
NoNoNoNoNyoron
United States78 Posts
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. | ||
|
Tyrannon
Germany113 Posts
| ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
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. | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
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 | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
<CEffectDamage id="UltraliskCleave" parent="DU_WEAP"> 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 ? | ||
|
Nafaltar
Germany302 Posts
| ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
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. | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
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 | ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
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. | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
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. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 22 2010 12:51 phyvo wrote: 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. | ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
 | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
- 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. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
| ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
On May 23 2010 02:08 sylverfyre wrote: 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. I looked around in the MPQs for a while and found the following: Before version 15097 the AoE was a circle with radius 1.5. From version 15097 to version 15392 it was changed to what i believe is a semicircle with radius 2, centred at the front of the ultra. That's my interpretation of + Show Spoiler + - <CEffectEnumArea id="UltraliskSearch"> UltraliskSet was the effect used by the ultras main weapon Finally in version 15449 they changed the AoE to a circle with radius 2 and midpoint in the target unit. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
On May 23 2010 02:08 sylverfyre wrote: 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. Before patch After patch ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UIu8f.jpg) | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On May 23 2010 06:26 Kupo wrote: I looked around in the MPQs for a while and found the following: Before version 15097 the AoE was a circle with radius 1.5. From version 15097 to version 15392 it was changed to what i believe is a semicircle with radius 2, centred at the front of the ultra. That's my interpretation of + Show Spoiler + - <CEffectEnumArea id="UltraliskSearch"> UltraliskSet was the effect used by the ultras main weapon Finally in version 15449 they changed the AoE to a circle with radius 2 and midpoint in the target unit. Actually I have technically different old values. These would be from patch 2, which i guess is version 14133: + Show Spoiler +
As you can see, there is an area effect called cleavesearch, which was probably always 180°, and also is a radius of 2. The actual damage effect though only has a radius of 1.5. I'm thinking this discrepancy might be because cleavesearch is centered on the ultralisk and ultraliskcleave is based off the impact location (which was in front of the unit, and is now maybe in the center of the unit? patches notes didn't mention a change for the ultralisk, but they might have change the mechanic for all splash instead of just unit-based). I think based off the current information, we can say that the cleave damage is 67% less obviously, but the screenshot indicates something else, very likely the combination of 0.5 radius increased AoE, as well as possibly the splash starting from the center. Lastly though, or on another topic: I thought Ultralisk's cleave attack only affected 3 other units, not all units in the AoE due to the <MaxCount value="3"/> and <TargetSorts RequestCount="3">. Based off those screenshots, it looks like the attack affects an infinite number of units in the area of effect, is this possibly a bug or what? | ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
The first ultra version (before 15097) looks like your copy. The strange thing is that if you look at WeaponData.xml, it seems like it only uses UltraliskU, which looks like a single target attack to me. Then there is the CleaveSearch-thing with the validator CleaveResearched that makes me believe it's set up for a resarchable AoE but I haven't found where it actually makes use of the cleaves. Edit: With some more thinking, I assume it uses the effect with the same name as the weapon if it doesn't give a new "Effect value". Because of this I believe it never uses UltraliskCleave: Instead it would then use CleaveSearch to determine the AoE. Which would imply radius 2 since the first day of beta. Then there is the (15097-15392)-versions where they use UltraliskSet as the effect, which involves both UltraliskCleave and UltraliskSearch. The UltraliskCleave is however changed so that it no longer contains any information about the area. Finally in the last patch they changed the effect to UltraliskCleave and gave it all the AoE-information. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
On May 23 2010 08:47 arb wrote: so basically the cleave got bigger but it does less damage to the targets it cleaves? Yup, it basically made ultras way better single target vs armored and as far as total damage output goes I figure its roughly the same not including frenzy. I honestly think this is an improvement, because in combination with effects like fungal and baneling explosions ultras will be way more efficient at cleaning up large groups of units. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 23 2010 09:00 Shiladie wrote: overall, we can decide that is ANYTHING, the ultra is in fact not significantly better the in the previous patch, where it was never a viable option to be used in a fight. honestly i think if they put ultra hp back to 600 and let it walk over units or hell, kept it at 450 but made it unarmored + able to walk over units it'd be worthy of being used. sadly i dont think blizz will ever listen | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On May 23 2010 09:05 arb wrote: honestly i think if they put ultra hp back to 600 and let it walk over units or hell, kept it at 450 but made it unarmored + able to walk over units it'd be worthy of being used. sadly i dont think blizz will ever listen So basically, you want a super-unit you can a-move. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On May 23 2010 09:31 kajeus wrote: So basically, you want a super-unit you can a-move. Alternatively you can keep at as a 450 hp armored unit which gets raped by everything because ti all has +armored damage, gets stuck behind zerglings who are smaller than it anyway and is generally useless besides spending money. So you decide? In terms of super units Protoss has the Colossus / Terran the Marauder // and zerg has ??? | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
I still miss dark swarm, but it'd never fit in a game without spidermines, etc. | ||
|
afirlortwo
United States161 Posts
| ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
the only way it could be a buff is if the ultra is fighting against large size units like thors and ultra where they couldnt cluster into a radius of 1 but can cluster in a radius of 2. but correct me if i'm wrong, ultras and thors are larger than radius 2? not absolutely positive though. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
On May 23 2010 15:40 eScaper-tsunami wrote: simple mathematics.... third of the damage with twice the aoe.... multiply... voila, 2/3 a nerf. the only way it could be a buff is if the ultra is fighting against large size units like thors and ultra where they couldnt cluster into a radius of 1 but can cluster in a radius of 2. but correct me if i'm wrong, ultras and thors are larger than radius 2? not absolutely positive though. except Area is squared so it is x4 or 4/3 :D | ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 Posts
On May 23 2010 15:16 afirlortwo wrote: seems like blizz wants ultras more as damage dealers, while the players want ultras more as tanks. Wonder who's version ultras will end up being.... if they are going to be damage dealers, they need to be cheaper | ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
On May 23 2010 15:54 FragKrag wrote: except Area is squared so it is x4 or 4/3 :D twice AOE or twice the RADIUS? i thought it was AOE o_o | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
I'm not sure though | ||
|
AmstAff
Germany949 Posts
On May 23 2010 16:11 eScaper-tsunami wrote: twice AOE or twice the RADIUS? i thought it was AOE o_o for changing AoE they always change the radius. 1,5² * 3,14159265 = 7,0685834705770347865409476123789 2² * 3,14159265 = 12,566370614359172953850573533118 so 7 AoE vs 12,5 AoE seems like a good deal. edit if the old Radius was 1 1² * 3,14159265 = 3,14159265 even better deal =) | ||
|
ProoM
Lithuania1741 Posts
On May 23 2010 16:11 eScaper-tsunami wrote: twice AOE or twice the RADIUS? i thought it was AOE o_o Radius changed from 1.5 to 2, which means AOE changed from 2.25pi to 4pi. | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
patch12: 10*25 = 250 splash damage per hit patch13: 25*5 = 125 splash damage per hit HOWEVER this does not take into account the ultralisk bonus damage. with stalker/marauder replacing the light zerglings, and trying to accomodate for the less effective splash range due to larger unit size. i estimate the new setup would yield something like: patch12: 5*25 = 100 splash damage per hit patch13: 12*13 = 156 splash damage per hit in conclusion, the real big hitters were -25% health versus +60% damage to armored. whether it makes the ultra useful by giving it the 'armor killer' role is yet to be seen, but it's a nice idea and definately worth a try. i'd like to see the new ultra given a chance before they start pulling other tricks like increased speed or being able to hop over smaller units etc. i've got a feeling that an ultra which can run as fast/faster than stimpack marauders would be totally unbalanced and terran wouldn't be able to stop them. | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
zerglings are 0.375 in radius or 0.75 in diameter ofc. however, in Lobo's picture up there, even a forth row is affected.... yet the forth row would begin at minimum 2.25 (!) from the ultra.... ?!? | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
On May 23 2010 17:17 roemy wrote: actually... it might still be buggy.... zerglings are 0.375 in radius or 0.75 in diameter ofc. however, in Lobo's picture up there, even a forth row is affected.... yet the forth row would begin at minimum 2.25 (!) from the ultra.... ?!? the centre of the splash damage is the centre of the unit being hit, not the actual attacking unit. | ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
What they did do was to move the centre of the splash damage and that explains the earlier picture. If you instead moved the ultralisk closer to the zerglings you hit more lings since the ultra has a range of 1. This gives the following AoE ![[image loading]](http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8597/screenshot029d.jpg) which proves that the diameter is at least 7 lings, which happens to be the same diameter as on the post patch picture. | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
On May 23 2010 19:00 Kupo wrote: Where does everyone keep getting the information that the radius was 1 or 1.5? If you look at the MPQs it was always 2. They had an unused cleave ability with radius 1.5 that could only hit 3 targets, but it was removed well before patch 11. What they did do was to move the centre of the splash damage and that explains the earlier picture. If you instead moved the ultralisk closer to the zerglings you hit more lings since the ultra has a range of 1. This gives the following AoE which proves that the diameter is at least 7 lings, which happens to be the same diameter as on the post patch picture. you're correct there... to answer the big question; has the splash damage improved in patch 13? no, it is in fact worse. however, the splash damage is situational and shouldn't be detremental to the ultralisk's new role as an anti-armor unit with +60% damage and about +50% more against buildings... reverting the previous damage buff against non-armored units (15 damage down from 25), coupled with the weakened splash damage, the ultra is a lot less effective against swarms of light units. but this makes sense because that was the task of the baneling. | ||
|
EMail
Spain4 Posts
If u test on editor and dont put lings at rangue 0 in both version u will see the same splash ratio i think. Maybe im wrong and they change the ratio from 1,5 to 2, anyway you must consider that differences between loosing splash couse u have 1 range and splash starts at range 0 and now that starts where he is atacking. As someone post b4 Head atack is totally failed, doing less damage than Blades. . . . . They must change it soon. -150 hp its a really big nerf!! and 33% cleave atack instead of 100% . . . . maybe with this better splash against ranged it should be 50% cleave atack, 1/3 seems to be so weak. The one real bluff of all is to destroy force fields, but if u have your creatures bloked with ff u cant move the ultralisk in front to destroy it, so, ultil they make ultralisk to walk over units, it will be failed again. In conclusion, Good change of splash Making it as he should be from the begining, 2 big nerfs and 2 fails | ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
| ||
|
arto
United States59 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:43 eScaper-tsunami wrote: suppose your ultra is attacking a marauder dealing 15+25 damage, would the surrounding marines beside the marauder receive a fraction of 15 damage as aoe damage or 15+25? I think this is important as well, anybody knows? It does a percent of the 15 damage according to Xeken on page one. | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
there's really no more a hard counter in the entire game. | ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
Case 1: Marauder main target, marauder and marine within AoE Main marauder takes 39 dmg (40-1), marauders within AoE takes 13 dmg (39/3), marine within AoE takes 5 dmg (15/3) Case 2 Marine main target Main marine takes 15 dmg, marauder within AoE takes 13 dmg, marine within AoE takes 5 dmg. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
On May 24 2010 08:05 PrinceXizor wrote: People have said that logically it makes sense for ultras not to deal full damage outside of the main target. that isn't true. picture the attack animation. large curved blades swinging inward at the target. those are the same blades moving at roughly the same speed all the way through the motion. that should deal as much damage. it's not like a tank where you have the explosion of the shell on the main target, and then only partial exposure + shrapnel on the outsides. true, but a dropped ultra killing ~10 scv's in 1.5 seconds was kind of overpowered... slash - slash - scv's dead with 0 reaction time. | ||
|
Xeken
United States77 Posts
On May 24 2010 08:07 tarsier wrote:true, but a dropped ultra killing ~10 scv's in 1.5 seconds was kind of overpowered... slash - slash - scv's dead with 0 reaction time. Keep in mind that baneling carpet bomb does the same thing even more effectively. Ultras can only gets about 4-5 SCVs within each of its attack if the mineral lines is saturated correctly. | ||
|
stinger_x
Switzerland2 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On May 24 2010 08:07 tarsier wrote: true, but a dropped ultra killing ~10 scv's in 1.5 seconds was kind of overpowered... slash - slash - scv's dead with 0 reaction time. It now takes about 3.0 seconds not stopping me dropping ultras on your mineral line is it? | ||
| ||
erg" /> 
