EPTThe Zerg Swarm and its Composition - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Chill
Calgary25986 Posts
| ||
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
Marines are an example of a unit that soaks slightly less damage and does less DPS (than 2 zerglings even with stim I think) but the range allows them to become ridiculously good, that's a good indicator for the potential of the zergling if you can use it to get good damage out as well. | ||
|
NJO
27 Posts
also voids fair well against corrupters. corrupters only gain bonus damage to massive units not armored, muta are the better air counter to voids. also dont think making void rays makes you a cheesey player. it doesnt, most people will say its "cheese" because they just dont want to have to deal with them. | ||
|
Malminos
United States321 Posts
" If one can use a t1 unit the entire game as a part of their army, their defiantly (Definitely?) is something wrong either with the unit, or how blizzard envisioned the counter of the unit to look like." What about zealots, marines, stalkers, and marauders? Those are either the same tier as roach or lower and are seen the entire game. If anything needs balance it's marines but even then, every race has a decent counter to them. Pointless QQ is pointless... | ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
| ||
|
Tristy
Norway172 Posts
But seriously after like half a year of 4warp-gate all-ins being quite effective, you complain after a few weeks of roach not sucking anymore? rant over. To be fair, yes roach might be a bit strong, yes there are already a TON of threads about it, use search function + reply instead of making another thread, and yes it is still way to soon to know if it actually is OP or if P simply need to reevaluate most of the openers in PvZ. | ||
|
ThE_ShiZ
United States143 Posts
I wanted to revisit how incredibly wrong these thoughts are with some numbers now that I have the time. In BW, zerglings attacked. 1.875x per marine attack In SC2, zerglings attack 1.23x per marine attack In BW, stim cost 25% of a marines hp, was a 100% attack speed increase, this got marines up to 1.06 shots per ling attack In SC2, stim costs 22 or 18% of a marines hp, is a much smaller % increase, but still gets marines shooting 1.2x per ling attack In BW, cracklings made a comeback, attacking 1.25x per stimmed marine attack In SC2, cracklings just don't make the cut. 0.97x per stimmed marine attack Cry all you want about SC and SC2 being different games, but 2 things are for sure. 1) marines are FAR better than they were in BW 2) zerglings are slightly worse than they were in BW There's plenty of reason for people to whine about the marine in SC2 Edit: some other fun facts In BW, it took 1 non-stimmed marine nearly 1.5x as long to kill a zergling as it took a zergling to kill a marine In SC2, those numbers have flipped to where zerglings now take 20% longer to kill the marine. Bunker blocking ramps wasn't an option in broodwar as zerglings could fit between two bunkers that were touching. he was using an example of how certain t1 units in bw were strong throughout thew game and that that is how sc works as compared to toehr RTS. hes not saying lings are THAT unit in sc2. That whole rant u gave was pointless because u strawmanned the entire argument. basically, you created an argument that the poster did not make and shot it down. | ||
|
Toxigen
United States390 Posts
On November 24 2010 09:58 pfods wrote: ...did you just describe zerglings as DPS? they're cannon fodder, even late game their role is simply cannon fodder and distraction for actual DPS units... Zerglings are DPS. Let's look at the stats: Damage: 5; Cooldown: .696; DPS: 7.18; Zergling DPS per mineral: .287 Compared to the roach: DPS per mineral (no accounting for gas cost): .107 How about the hydralisk, which is considered to be a support unit gotten for it's DPS? DPS per mineral (no accounting for gas cost): .144 In terms of mineral cost, zerglings do TWICE the amount of raw DPS that those minerals would do when spent on hydralisks, a DPS unit, without even considering the resource investment of gas. EDIT: If you want to consider food as the determinant instead of minerals, it changes to: Zerglings (2 food worth): 28.72 DPS Hydralisk (2 food worth): 14.45 DPS Of course, this isn't considering upgrades, but zerglings actually scale well with upgrades (including adrenal glands, since you mentioned late game) considering their cost. It's also not considering the fact that in some cases (like against siege tanks), zerglings can actually cause more DPS through friendly-fire splash or badly placed storms. It's just another thing to consider. Again, it's also true that roach & hydra have higher DPS uptime due to range, but it's hard to quantify that. I just wanted to dispel the notion that zerglings are only there to take hits -- it's not true, since once they're actually in range (and being the fastest ground unit in the game, that's not TOO hard), they do more DPS than most other "DPS" units. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On November 25 2010 06:25 Toxigen wrote: Zerglings are DPS. Let's look at the stats: Damage: 5; Cooldown: .696; DPS: 7.18; Zergling DPS per mineral: .287 Compared to the roach: DPS per mineral (no accounting for gas cost): .107 How about the hydralisk, which is considered to be a support unit gotten for it's DPS? DPS per mineral (no accounting for gas cost): .144 In terms of mineral cost, zerglings do TWICE the amount of raw DPS that those minerals would do when spent on hydralisks, a DPS unit, without even considering the resource investment of gas. Of course, this isn't considering upgrades, but zerglings actually scale well with upgrades (including adrenal glands, since you mentioned late game) considering their cost. It's also not considering the fact that in some cases (like against siege tanks), zerglings can actually cause more DPS through friendly-fire splash or badly placed storms. It's just another thing to consider. Well I agree that lings are the dps units, but in reallity their damage per minerals is really low cause they die to everything so easily, especially in late game. | ||
|
Nycaloth
147 Posts
even though lings may do a lot of DPS or per mineral or per food or whatever, but: 1.- comparing units in a vacuum does not mean anything, in real situations zerglings may be powerful damage dealers in low food battles, but they dont scale well with army size since their damage dealing potential is limited by the surface area that the enemy exposes to them and 2.- even though they may deal good damage, many players dont get lings for the purpose of dealing damage but rather for swamping the enemy army and diverting attention from the more expensive units. can we either get back on topic or lock the thread? | ||
|
DavasiaN
United States37 Posts
I just think your decision to go HT when you scouted my mass roaches was questionable. It would be the equivalent of me going mass roaches when I scout you go mass immortal. And while I agree I played relatively sloppy, I don't think roaches are "OP" since the zerg really has to have a huge economy (and tons of larva) to execute this. Additionally, I maintained a superior economy for the entire game, which doesn't help your case. | ||
| ||
