Some of the discussion about collision size and the "ball of death" aspect of SC2 armies in the game design thread got me thinking about the effectiveness of melee units, in light of this. Melee units are at a natural disadvantage compared to ranged units in practically any RTS, irrespective of the actual mechanics, for fairly obvious reasons. Hence, melee units are typically compensated in some other way, be it through raw combat strength (lower cost, higher damage or durability), higher mobility (hello Zergling) or some sort of special ability. Now, in Brood War, Zerglings, Zealots and Ultras were quite fearsome; their power, however somewhat diminished in SC2. This can easily be seen just looking at the numbers, with Zerglings in particular taking a huge dps hit, demoting them from a primary late game damage dealer to something of a throw-away distraction. Additionally, the way they clump up together makes them significantly more vulnerable to aoe, with Siege Tanks in particular absolutely decimating the little buggers.
The thing that bugs me about this, is, completely disregarding the reasoning behind these changes - melee units are a lot worse off in SC2, compared to BW. To put it simply, with the way ranged units nicely ball up in a relatively small space, you can have a 100 supply ranged army attacking at the same time, if you put something close enough to it. I think the easiest way to see this in action is trying to make a lot of Zealots vs Roach/Hydra in PvZ. I once had this notion: "Well, in PvT I can make a lot of Zealots to tank for my Colossus ball, and they even do decent damage with some Forcefields. Why can't I do this in PvZ?". Well, as it turns out, the reason Zealots are pretty decent vs Terran, is that Marauder-heavy compositions which are so prevalent in that matchup, simply take forever to kill them. However, put a Zealot in front of a Roach/Hydra ball, and it practically evaporates instantly, with every single Roach and Hydra being able to attack them.
Another place where this is easy to identify, is Ultralisks vs a Stalker/Sentry/Colossus ball. On paper, they seem like the perfect counter. They walk over forcefields, do bonus damage to armored, and are huge and beefy - and therefore not affected by Colossus splash. Alas, in actual games, we almost always see the ball of death triumph anyway, which seems to go directly against the game logic. The reason this happens, is simply because a maximum of 3-4 ultras can attack the Protoss ball at the same time, while every single Stalker and Colossus can shower laser and death upon them.
I don't think I need to elaborate upon lings vs marines or tanks, not to mention Forcefield.
In summation, I want to ask: Are the melee units in SC2 too weak, given the huge mechanical disadvantage they're at in any given engagement? If so, would it be possible to buff Zerglings and Zealots in the mid to late game somehow, without making early rushes too good? Should the Ultralisk be made smaller, or should it perhaps walk over other Zerg units like the Colossus?
I remember reading that zerglings are actually weaker than they were in Brood War. It's really noticeable with adrenal glands: in Brood War they became cracklings while in SC2 I hardly see a difference in attack speed. I think Blizzard may have nerfed them because of the stronger AI such as in surrounding.
I think Zerg would really benefit if zerglings were buffed in that they would have more strategic options. I also find it weird that ultralisks are a main damaging unit in SC2. They should just tank the damage while other units like zerglings and hydralisks actually deal the damage.
yeah zerg players that do runbys are very scary. a lot of protoss players have neglected warp prism drops, but imagine having 6 warp gates worth of units being dropped in an enemy mineral line. zealots would kick butt!
In SC1, area damage is much stronger. In PvT, mines and tank splash do a lot of friendly damage. In PvZ, storm is much much stronger in SC1 and any zerg in a ball gets slaughtered. Defiler is actually needed for zerg to buff their melee units (it casts dark swarm which is a cloud that sits on the map for a while and any units in it don't take damage from ranged attacks)
SC2 PvZ is balanced around force fields a lot. When you force field to split an army in half, zealots have nothing to do. If they attack, then the army isn't split in half because the army behind the force fields kills the zealots.
But the problem with Zergling/Zealot is that those are really hard to balance units, not to say quite impossible. I would suggest to slightly improve their attack speed while also improving Helion dmg/attack speed.
On March 08 2011 02:29 parn wrote: I agree with OP.
But the problem with Zergling/Zealot is that those are really hard to balance units. I would suggest to slightly improve their attack speed while also improving Helion dmg/attack speed.
Zerglings definitely seem a lot weaker in SC2 than BW. Zealots are getting an interesting buff next patch which may make them much stronger.
On March 08 2011 02:19 Umbrella wrote: I also find it weird that ultralisks are a main damaging unit in SC2. They should just tank the damage while other units like zerglings and hydralisks actually deal the damage.
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Just sounds like you want every unit to work like they did in BW, but this is a different game and melee units behave nothing like they did in BW. Going back to BW dynamics probably wouldnt work.
ultralisks still arent worth their weight in bronze, but zerglings and zealots seem fine, just pick your confrontations well and prefer to avoid the deathball
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Scary, good unit spread and kiting? Ultra's in sc2 are just crap. Units like stalkers tear them apart while ultras do bonus damage and splash to stalkers making them a seeming 'counter'. How is it interesting that they just get demolished by protoss/terran balls. You don't even need unit spread since the splash is so nonexistant you can just kite all day almost nullifying the ultralisk completely.
I do believe the zergling is too weak. Not the zealot. Zerglings in SC1 beat zealots 3 vs 1 and marines 1 on1.
In SC2 zealots beat 3 zerglings and 1 marine beats 1 zergling. Zerglings played a big role in the ability for zerg to pressure early.
In starcraft 1, zerglings would beat terran and protoss units in small numbers, but lose in large numbers. As more units appeared on the field, there would be less surface area for the zerglings to melee in. More marines = better ball. more zealots = better wall and no surround.
In starcraft 2, zerglings lose to terran and protoss units in both small and large numbers.
On March 08 2011 02:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote: When you force field to split an army in half, zealots have nothing to do. If they attack, then the army isn't split in half because the army behind the force fields kills the zealots.
The zealots still kill the units in front of the forcefields. This fact is way too significant to ignore, especially in PvT. And doubly so in the early game.
On March 08 2011 02:29 parn wrote: I agree with OP.
But the problem with Zergling/Zealot is that those are really hard to balance units. I would suggest to slightly improve their attack speed while also improving Helion dmg/attack speed.
Zerglings definitely seem a lot weaker in SC2 than BW. Zealots are getting an interesting buff next patch which may make them much stronger.
wait, what buff are the zealot getting next patch? oO'
On March 08 2011 02:29 parn wrote: I agree with OP.
But the problem with Zergling/Zealot is that those are really hard to balance units. I would suggest to slightly improve their attack speed while also improving Helion dmg/attack speed.
Zerglings definitely seem a lot weaker in SC2 than BW. Zealots are getting an interesting buff next patch which may make them much stronger.
wait, what buff are the zealot getting next patch? oO'
Is this the same patch that's removing amulet?
When a stimmed bioball is kiting a zealot force, and a zealot charges, it is now basically guarenteed to get at least 1 hit off.
Stimmed shelled marauders could kite zealots without ever being hit before, even with charge.
On March 08 2011 02:50 Cyber_Cheese wrote: ultralisks still arent worth their weight in bronze, but zerglings and zealots seem fine, just pick your confrontations well and prefer to avoid the deathball
If you take for example good ball of stimmed marines vs zerglings then you need million of zerglings to kill that and I am not exaggerating here.
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Scary, good unit spread and kiting? Ultra's in sc2 are just crap. Units like stalkers tear them apart while ultras do bonus damage and splash to stalkers making them a seeming 'counter'. How is it interesting that they just get demolished by protoss/terran balls. You don't even need unit spread since the splash is so nonexistant you can just kite all day almost nullifying the ultralisk completely.
Thats odd, because I see ultralisks all the time in the lategame ZvT. In fact, I've lost to them twice today at 3400 masters. Smart tech switches between ling/bling, ultras, mutas and even broodlords can totally screw over any terran player in the lategame.
But yeah, I guess they are a terrible unit if all you do with them is A-move them into 10+ tanks.
On March 08 2011 02:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote: When you force field to split an army in half, zealots have nothing to do. If they attack, then the army isn't split in half because the army behind the force fields kills the zealots.
The zealots still kill the units in front of the forcefields. This fact is way too significant to ignore, especially in PvT. And doubly so in the early game.
forcefields play a different role in pvt than they do in pvz most of the time. in pvt forcefields are used to keep the terran army from kiting as well as split the armies depending on the situation. in pvz force fields are used almost exclusively to split the army in half, where tyler's explanation comes into play.
Melee mechanics are something that have concerned me for a while. I'm not sure I've come up with any good answers, though. I understand that, as a general rule, lower range units become less effective as army size increases, due to discrepancies in available attack surface. The problem is that you can't simultaneously balance melee units for small engagements and large ones. Even if you go with some kind of tiered upgrade approach to help melee units as the game progresses and army size tend to get larger, if at any point I can force engagement in smaller numbers (say, a significant army trade with Speedling reinforcement), then my melee units are now at a very significant advantage.
Rather than try to make melee units particularly effective in large engagements, I think we need to consider if large engagements need to happen with melee units. It's a fairly basic principle of military tactics that if your opponent has a number of vulnerable points, you can split your army up to attack multiple vulnerabilities, thus forcing your opponent to either split up their forces as well or concede the loss of whatever you are attacking. Effective use of multi-pronged attacks is a fairly potent way to attempt to dictate engagement size. So, it's reasonable, in theory, that a player with a lot of units good in small engagements (like melee units) could attempt to force their opponent into smaller engagements, rather than crashing deathballs into each other.
The important question that I think needs to be answered here is why this kind of play isn't more common. Maybe it's just me, but things like Speedling counters or warping in a few Zealots for harassment aren't nearly as prevalent as I would expect. It could just be that the best players in the world are doing it wrong, but my instincts tell me that there are some complications, on the surface at least.
One complication that comes to mind immediately is building placement. Good sim city can be a huge deterrent to any kind of melee-based offense. This also has huge implications on early game aggression with melee units, but I guess that's a topic for another day. Interestingly enough, the kind of multi-pronged aggression that does occur most commonly (drop play with MMM) isn't particularly deterred by good building placement.
The availability of base defense is likely a factor as well. The ability to throw down a Planetary Fortress, warp in a round of units wherever you need them, or the like drastically reduce susceptibility to small aggressions.
Of course, I think the biggest point is the number and criticaliy of vulnerable locations. Both good building placement and available defense help restrict which locations can be considered vulnerable, of course, but it goes further than that. Games are starting to get bigger and longer, but for much of Starcraft 2's brief existence, games didn't get big and spread out. That probably hasn't helped encourage the idea of melee-based counter play in the current meta-game, but I don't think games getting bigger is going to be some kind of magical solution. Players may wind up typically having 5 or 6 expansions in future games, but If you're not making many more than 75 ish workers, you don't need to be mining more than 3 or so for minerals at any given time, so the amount of active high-value targets isn't going to change much. You can harass an expo being used just for gas, but that really lacks the oomph to be critical. Of course, the tech structures are perhaps the most critical vulnerability, but those don't necessarily have to be very spread out. Your opponent can always consolidate most of their vulnerability to one location and the use most of their army to defend it, which invalidates the idea of small melee-based aggression.
Of course, the flip-side of the previous point is that the majority of YOUR vulnerabilities are likely to be consolidated to a relatively small number of locations. If your opponent is capable of pushing towards the majority of your tech structures with a single large army, you don't really have the luxury of splitting your army, unless you can win the base race. How you win the base race against a few Planetaries at mining bases and some Barracks floating to disparate corners of the map, I'm not really sure.
So, again, to reiterate, I'm not sure how to fix melee units. There are a lot of factors in play that touch some pretty fundamental aspects of the game. If someone has the answer, though, I'd love to hear it.
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Scary, good unit spread and kiting? Ultra's in sc2 are just crap. Units like stalkers tear them apart while ultras do bonus damage and splash to stalkers making them a seeming 'counter'. How is it interesting that they just get demolished by protoss/terran balls. You don't even need unit spread since the splash is so nonexistant you can just kite all day almost nullifying the ultralisk completely.
Thats odd, because I see ultralisks all the time in the lategame ZvT. In fact, I've lost to them twice today at 3400 masters. Smart tech switches between ling/bling, ultras, mutas and even broodlords can totally screw over any terran player in the lategame.
But yeah, I guess they are a terrible unit if all you do with them is A-move them into 10+ tanks.
Yeah, I'm a zerg at 3k1 master in eu and I use them a lot against terran, but it does not mean that they are good. The terran can crush them so hard with some marauders, and marine actually do decent against them if you have upgraded the attack. But most of the time, a good zerg will switch between broodlord, to force vikings, and ultra. Most of the terran player out there just don't do marauders, they make some tanks, and a marine ball. You also have to take into consideration that ultralisk is more or less the only unit that can take down a planetary fortress in the entire zerg arsenal, and taking PF down take a huge part in ZvT late game.
I think zealot are good, just lack some durability mid/end game (not early because lol 4gate), and zergling need a dps upgrade (lower cost adrenaline gland in Lair would be good) because they do absolutly NO damage at some point against medivac marine, while ultra need, I think, something to help them hit more and being less useless on 75% of the maps.
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Scary, good unit spread and kiting? Ultra's in sc2 are just crap. Units like stalkers tear them apart while ultras do bonus damage and splash to stalkers making them a seeming 'counter'. How is it interesting that they just get demolished by protoss/terran balls. You don't even need unit spread since the splash is so nonexistant you can just kite all day almost nullifying the ultralisk completely.
Thats odd, because I see ultralisks all the time in the lategame ZvT. In fact, I've lost to them twice today at 3400 masters. Smart tech switches between ling/bling, ultras, mutas and even broodlords can totally screw over any terran player in the lategame.
But yeah, I guess they are a terrible unit if all you do with them is A-move them into 10+ tanks.
Yeah, I'm a zerg at 3k1 master in eu and I use them a lot against terran, but it does not mean that they are good. The terran can crush them so hard with some marauders, and marine actually do decent against them if you have upgraded the attack. But most of the time, a good zerg will switch between broodlord, to force vikings, and ultra. Most of the terran player out there just don't do marauders, they make some tanks, and a marine ball. You also have to take into consideration that ultralisk is more or less the only unit that can take down a planetary fortress in the entire zerg arsenal, and taking PF down take a huge part in ZvT late game.
Thats pretty much the problem with marauders, they can be rendered completely useless with a tech switch. If the zerg has upgraded armor, even 3-3 marines cannot scratch ultras, you have to rely on tanks to kill them. Then it becomes a game of "did I build enough tanks and protect them well enough from mutas". And even if you have enough, bad positioning or getting caught even partially unsieged can really screw the terran over.
Ultras rarely turn the game around, but they can be a good tool to punish the terran for going too marine-heavy, or built too many vikings against brood lords, etc etc. I think they are in a good place in this matchup, perhaps a bit too lackluster against protoss.
What comes to killing a PF I think broodlords do a pretty good job there.
Zerglings are so weak now. You used to be able to slam a dozen cracklings into a marine drop. Now rine drops consist of 8 combat shield stimmed rines against weaker cracklings; it's an ugly sight.
I know blizz nerfed melee/buffed range because they thought pathing would improve the melee a lot, but that's totally not true. The clump effect really makes melee a lot worse.
Also they made everything a wall in this game, which weakens them even more.
Interesting post. To me at least, +1/+1 lings vs. 0/0 marines in SC2 actually looks a lot like a BW engagement. Looking at the stats, this is probably about right. Marines have gotten stronger while zerglings and zealots have almost identical stats.
From BW to SC2, zerglings have the same hit points and damage, while marines have gained 5 hit points, 1 range, and I believe their cooldown has also decreased relative to the zergling.
I mean, its pretty obvious looking at BW that zerglings were meant to be strong. They start out super effective, then they get a bit worse as the balls get bigger, and then dark swarm and crack makes them good again in the lategame.
While in SC2, they start off bad, get decent with speed, then get bad again as the ball grows larger. And then in the lategame, adrenal glands doesnt really help, since instead of greatly buffing the dps of a dps unit that could be protected by ultras and defilers, it now slightly buffs the dps of a unit that isnt really used for dps much, and cant really survive in the lategame.
So well yeah, they are way way worse now, but looking at it objectively, it seems that they werent intended to actually be good at anything else than being fast units in SC2. If the designers had intended for them to actually be good dps unit, the iconic units of the zerg swarm race, then they would have actually made them good at least at some point of the game.
Marines have gotten stronger while zerglings and zealots have almost identical stats.
And thats wrong. Marines have gotten way way stronger, with the extra life, the combat shields, the better stutterstep, the smart firing that never overkills, and better support with medivacs that can both heal and transport, and so on. Meanwhile, lings have not been kept identical, their dps was nerfed, speed research time was nerfed, adrenal glands were nerfed, dark swarm doesnt exist anymore, and so on and so on.
On March 08 2011 03:39 dave333 wrote: Zerglings are so weak now. You used to be able to slam a dozen cracklings into a marine drop. Now rine drops consist of 8 combat shield stimmed rines against weaker cracklings; it's an ugly sight.
I know blizz nerfed melee/buffed range because they thought pathing would improve the melee a lot, but that's totally not true. The clump effect really makes melee a lot worse.
Also they made everything a wall in this game, which weakens them even more.
How can you say a unit that does around 15 dps fully upgraded at .5 supply cost is "weak"
3/3 cracklings are just as good, if not better than 3/3 marines
Marines have gotten stronger while zerglings and zealots have almost identical stats.
And thats wrong. Marines have gotten way way stronger, with the extra life, the combat shields, the better stutterstep, the smart firing that never overkills, and better support with medivacs that can both heal and transport, and so on. Meanwhile, lings have not been kept identical, their dps was nerfed, speed research time was nerfed, adrenal glands were nerfed, dark swarm doesnt exist anymore, and so on and so on.
I'm talking about base stats only. If you look at base stats, the zergling is the same, and the zealot is very nearly the same (10 less shields in SC2). There has been some rescaling of attack rate:
Cooldowns (BW -> SC2, normalized by dividing by zergling's cooldown)
Zergling: 1 -> 1
Zealot: 2.8 - > 1.7
Marine: 1.9 -> 1.2
N.B. Searching through previous threads I haven't been able to verify whether cooldown includes attack animation duration in BW. If anyone is sure, it would be nice to know.
ultralisks are definitely fine and will cut through any protoss cound composition without heavy immortal play and most important as they knock down forcefield they open the way for full damage of lings and other zerg units
in zvp none uses more than a few zealots and as 20 zerglings wont do shit vs protoss forces even without forcefields 5 zealots will fail against roaches and hydras immediately and most of all its the nature of those zerg units which do the same damage against everything unlike marauders
if they would receive buffs they would be quite overpowered as they cost mineral only and i think one overpowered mineral unit is enough in this game
But why? I think ultralisks are a lot more interesting the way they are in SC2, and a much scarier unit to fight, requiring good unit spread and kiting. You say that zerglings should get more strategic options, yet want to take options away from the ultralisk. Doesnt really make sense to me.
Scary, good unit spread and kiting? Ultra's in sc2 are just crap. Units like stalkers tear them apart while ultras do bonus damage and splash to stalkers making them a seeming 'counter'. How is it interesting that they just get demolished by protoss/terran balls. You don't even need unit spread since the splash is so nonexistant you can just kite all day almost nullifying the ultralisk completely.
Thats odd, because I see ultralisks all the time in the lategame ZvT. In fact, I've lost to them twice today at 3400 masters. Smart tech switches between ling/bling, ultras, mutas and even broodlords can totally screw over any terran player in the lategame.
But yeah, I guess they are a terrible unit if all you do with them is A-move them into 10+ tanks.
Yeah, I'm a zerg at 3k1 master in eu and I use them a lot against terran, but it does not mean that they are good. The terran can crush them so hard with some marauders, and marine actually do decent against them if you have upgraded the attack. But most of the time, a good zerg will switch between broodlord, to force vikings, and ultra. Most of the terran player out there just don't do marauders, they make some tanks, and a marine ball. You also have to take into consideration that ultralisk is more or less the only unit that can take down a planetary fortress in the entire zerg arsenal, and taking PF down take a huge part in ZvT late game.
I think zealot are good, just lack some durability mid/end game (not early because lol 4gate), and zergling need a dps upgrade (lower cost adrenaline gland in Lair would be good) because they do absolutly NO damage at some point against medivac marine, while ultra need, I think, something to help them hit more and being less useless on 75% of the maps.
They aren't supposed to do high dps. It is same as broodwar if you are still doing zergling only when medics came out of course lings aren't cost effective. The key in both games is baneling and lurkers. Both force terran to split his ball increase surface area thats when the lings are supposed to do damage.
I definitely believe ultralisks need some kind of buff. Not necessarily a straight up stats buff, but something that makes them easier to engage with. Or maybe a cost decrease. As they are now, they're definitely not worth their price.
It's also very clear that Zerglings received a significant attack speed nerf relative to BW. I'm actually having some trouble figuring out what their exact dps was in BW, but the relative cooldown numbers do not lie.
On March 08 2011 03:50 chonkyfire wrote:
How can you say a unit that does around 15 dps fully upgraded at .5 supply cost is "weak"
3/3 cracklings are just as good, if not better than 3/3 marines
Any unit is good when it has +3 attack against a target with no armor upgrades. Well, any unit except the Stalker, but your argument is terrible. A 3/3 Zergling with adrenal does 13.5 dps vs a 0/0 marine. A 3/3 Zergling does 8.5 dps vs a 3/3 Marine, while the Marine does around 10 dps in return. Considering the limitations of melee I've outlined in the opening post, the marine is strictly superior.
On March 08 2011 04:09 Alphasquad wrote: ultralisks are definitely fine and will cut through any protoss cound composition without heavy immortal play and most important as they knock down forcefield they open the way for full damage of lings and other zerg units
in zvp none uses more than a few zealots and as 20 zerglings wont do shit vs protoss forces even without forcefields 5 zealots will fail against roaches and hydras immediately and most of all its the nature of those zerg units which do the same damage against everything unlike marauders
if they would receive buffs they would be quite overpowered as they cost mineral only and i think one overpowered mineral unit is enough in this game
I play Protoss, and whenever Ultras are used against me, they absolutely fail unless the Zerg has a huge advantage and just runs me over with superior numbers. They're not very fast off creep, can be kited pretty well, especially with Blink, and Colossi just nullify them by walking up cliffs. I also don't even remember the last time I've seen them used to any success in a high-level game.
Emphasized the last sentence of your post for entertainment value though.
On March 08 2011 02:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote: When you force field to split an army in half, zealots have nothing to do. If they attack, then the army isn't split in half because the army behind the force fields kills the zealots.
The zealots still kill the units in front of the forcefields. This fact is way too significant to ignore, especially in PvT. And doubly so in the early game.
The zealots usually don't kill anything in front of the force fields. They mostly just absorb damage and maybe do a little bit of damage. Absorbing damage done by units behind the force fields is a waste. It's almost always better to get gas sooner and build a composition that is heavier on gas. Extra minerals can go to cannons, probes, and new expansions to get more gas. All ranged units + force fields just has way way more synergy against zerg than zealots + force fields. And I clearly wasn't talking about PvT. Marauders change that dynamic.
Well the thing is with Zergling if they were buffed at all they'd be OP hands down. Reason: Spawn Larva. Zerg can have like 74 Zerglings off a 14 hatch so incredibly early that if Zergling were actually effective and destroyed stuff on their own all Zerg would have to do is Ling rush off an FE every game.
It would be way too easy for Zerg to just seal a game by using 28 larva after a battle and just rally zerglings. You could only have 3 larva at a time per Hatch in SC1 you can have 7+ now in SC2.
And since forcefields take the place of zealots PvZ, gas units (sentries) are used to tank for other gas units... stalkers, colossus, and high templar. Kinda weird, but I suspect easier to balance. [edit: beat to the punch pretty much]
think compared to bw melee units are damn strong now. never had so much problems in bw with lings then i have here hehe, always so painfull to see a group of marines dieing to lings even with micro. While in bw i simple could let my marines fight and they did the job pretty easily. And since they are way faster the range advantage isn't that big anymore. So all in all Blizzard balanced out balled ranged units pretty good against meeles, but aoes had to be made so weak that you don't die because the opponent has aoe and melee.
So even if people dislike this damage shifts, its more balanced then it was in bw hehe.
it's a weird hole we're in. In bw I think units are stronger but you need better micro. Here units are weaker but there's no micro, so in a sense if you buff them then they'd become hurp derp strong.
Zergligns are fine I think... Ultras need a speed buff, in bw they move as fast as zergling and the point of ultra/ling is mobility which I don't see here... get rid of the splash, bring back the speed.
I'm no pro but I think Ultras are hugely overrated.
To me, they're the unit you make to either:
a) win a game you've already won b) delay a loss when you're already losing
I've been watching a lot of "top player" streams lately and I have yet to see Ultras be used so effectively that they're worth the investment. They're easy to kite, easy to block, and a handful of Archons or Immortals can make a wall that superior numbers of Ultras just hit and die.
I get the whole "Oh, but they tank so much damage" argument but with all the "+dmg to armored" in the Protoss or Terran balls of doom - I wonder how much extra damage they're really tanking. Besides, do we really want a unit that costs so many resources just to "tank damage?"
Usually I see players react to Ultras like this:
"Oh, Ultralisk... here it comes!" Scoot and shoot until the Ultra is 50% or less hp and they can run no further - at which point they hold and kill it.
On March 08 2011 02:52 GhostFall wrote: I do believe the zergling is too weak. Not the zealot. Zerglings in SC1 beat zealots 3 vs 1 and marines 1 on1.
In SC2 zealots beat 3 zerglings and 1 marine beats 1 zergling. Zerglings played a big role in the ability for zerg to pressure early.
In starcraft 1, zerglings would beat terran and protoss units in small numbers, but lose in large numbers. As more units appeared on the field, there would be less surface area for the zerglings to melee in. More marines = better ball. more zealots = better wall and no surround.
In starcraft 2, zerglings lose to terran and protoss units in both small and large numbers.
Speedlings in SC2 are pretty damn good against everything except for zealots in small numbers.
30 speedlings vs 15 marines, the lings win.
I'm not sure how higher numbers are, but at those numbers, the lings are still stronger.
On March 08 2011 04:41 FeyFey wrote: think compared to bw melee units are damn strong now. never had so much problems in bw with lings then i have here hehe, always so painfull to see a group of marines dieing to lings even with micro. While in bw i simple could let my marines fight and they did the job pretty easily. And since they are way faster the range advantage isn't that big anymore. So all in all Blizzard balanced out balled ranged units pretty good against meeles, but aoes had to be made so weak that you don't die because the opponent has aoe and melee.
So even if people dislike this damage shifts, its more balanced then it was in bw hehe.
No, it isn't. The only thing melee units can do in star2 is absorb enough damage that the enemy won't hit that thing that's really going to damage them. Once a Terran has a significant amount of marines and stim, I can send a 200 food army of zerglings at them and I might kill a few marines. The only thing zerglings are good for vs marines (in large numbers) is distracting bullets long enough for some banelings to roll into them. Now, not only do we have worse melee units, but we have no way of engaging ranged units cost effectively (swarm).
On March 08 2011 03:39 dave333 wrote: Zerglings are so weak now. You used to be able to slam a dozen cracklings into a marine drop. Now rine drops consist of 8 combat shield stimmed rines against weaker cracklings; it's an ugly sight.
I know blizz nerfed melee/buffed range because they thought pathing would improve the melee a lot, but that's totally not true. The clump effect really makes melee a lot worse.
Also they made everything a wall in this game, which weakens them even more.
How can you say a unit that does around 15 dps fully upgraded at .5 supply cost is "weak"
3/3 cracklings are just as good, if not better than 3/3 marines
Everything is relative. If you look at their rate of attack in BW vs. cannons, rines, dragoons/stalkers, zealots, etc. vs. those same units now, the other units basically got stronger while the ling stayed the same=weaker. Add in unit clumping, smart tanks, and all that jazz and zerglings are way weaker relative to brood war.
On March 08 2011 04:52 Dalavita wrote: Speedlings in SC2 are pretty damn good against everything except for zealots in small numbers.
30 speedlings vs 15 marines, the lings win.
I'm not sure how higher numbers are, but at those numbers, the lings are still stronger.
Its a very very fine line where lings are actually good nowdays. Slowlings suck against pretty much anything. Speedlings to decently against small numbers of units. Directly after that, larger balls, stim, combat shield, sentry critical mass, and so on completely negates speedlings, or at least makes them ineffective.
But yeah, I guess they are a terrible unit if all you do with them is A-move them into 10+ tanks.
Yet at the other end of the spectrum you have terran's that spend the majority of their early , mid , and late game simply stim A-moving bio and it is obscenely effective.
I'm not saying lings need a buff or anything needs a nerf , but I find the amount of damaging units that toss and terran can fit into such a small surface area substantially different than that of zerg.
From a balanced unit point of view, personally I think lings aren't so bad off. They are certainly more effective for rushes than rines or zeals... plus they got this one special ability that's pretty important: morph to baneling.
It is agreeable though that lategame they are generally worthless.
I think Ultras are best used as forcefield breakers to get banelings on a big Protoss ball. Not so much to kill Protoss unless they are fighting in the open... so map dependent I guess.
SC2 does feel a little less micro intensive, but maybe it's just the stage the game is in. I dearly hope so anyway.
Overall, I always miss melee being effective. Even BW was a little saddening compared to Warcraft 2. Ranged units... I dunno, design-wise they just seem too easy to suddenly become critical mass game over. But Blizzard has done a good job with BW... I think with an expansion SC2 will just get better and better. It's a pretty awesome and tight game even now, despite Terran having all the early game kill options with so few on the other sides.
On March 07 2011 23:48 Toadvine wrote: In summation, I want to ask: Are the melee units in SC2 too weak, given the huge mechanical disadvantage they're at in any given engagement? If so, would it be possible to buff Zerglings and Zealots in the mid to late game somehow, without making early rushes too good? Should the Ultralisk be made smaller, or should it perhaps walk over other Zerg units like the Colossus?
You and everyone else in this thread compares them to BW units and completely ignore the 1 control group factor, which effects zerglings the most. Having 60 units in 1 key while you required 5 keys not so long ago is not something you can overlook in your "balance equation".
On March 08 2011 02:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote: In SC1, area damage is much stronger. In PvT, mines and tank splash do a lot of friendly damage. In PvZ, storm is much much stronger in SC1 and any zerg in a ball gets slaughtered. Defiler is actually needed for zerg to buff their melee units (it casts dark swarm which is a cloud that sits on the map for a while and any units in it don't take damage from ranged attacks)
SC2 PvZ is balanced around force fields a lot. When you force field to split an army in half, zealots have nothing to do. If they attack, then the army isn't split in half because the army behind the force fields kills the zealots.
This covers more reasons to why changes made to melee units are logical and not some random change that happened when they made the game. Also explains why ultralisks are less effective even after so many buffs as they were directly linked to dark swarm which Blizzard completely removed.
Its not so much about the stats of the units regarding the zergling being worse, its the new pathing. While they may have thought that the new ai would allow for better surrounds and flanks, i don't think they understood how big of an effect the tightness of these army balls would have on melee units, the zergling in particular. Zerglings, while their dps per cost is very high, have a very low dps per surface area. Comparing to zealots, 24 lings can fit around a hatchery to attack at once for a total of 171.4 dps while 18 zealots can fit around the same hatchery for a total of 240 dps.
Because the new pathing creates such tight formations that are impenetrable by melee units, at a certain point their effectiveness starts to drop. Plus to add in a little geometry, a group of units tend to be in a circular formation (hence we call it a ball) and circles have the highest ratio of area to surface area.
As the size of the ball grows the surface area grows linearly (2 pi r) while the volume (number of units it contains) grows exponentially (pi r ^2, or do i mean quadratically?) so they literally get exponentially worse as the armies grow. Its all about the pathing, no amount of buffing or nerfing of unit damage can change geometry.
The only changes that could begin to effect this are collision size. Making zerglings smaller could be a huge buff for later in the game without having too much of an effect earlier.
On March 08 2011 06:11 Tyler214365 wrote: Its not so much about the stats of the units regarding the zergling being worse, its the new pathing. While they may have thought that the new ai would allow for better surrounds and flanks, i don't think they understood how big of an effect the tightness of these army balls would have on melee units, the zergling in particular. Zerglings, while their dps per cost is very high, have a very low dps per surface area. Comparing to zealots, 24 lings can fit around a hatchery to attack at once for a total of 171.4 dps while 18 zealots can fit around the same hatchery for a total of 240 dps.
Because the new pathing creates such tight formations that are impenetrable by melee units, at a certain point their effectiveness starts to drop. Plus to add in a little geometry, a group of units tend to be in a circular formation (hence we call it a ball) and circles have the highest ratio of area to surface area.
As the size of the ball grows the surface area grows linearly (2 pi r) while the volume (number of units it contains) grows exponentially (pi r ^2, or do i mean quadratically?) so they get exponentially worse as the armies grow. Its all about the pathing, no amount of buffing or nerfing of unit damage can change geometry.
The only changes that could begin to effect this are collision size. Making zerglings smaller could be a huge buff for later in the game without having too much of an effect earlier.
But Zerg has an interesting dynamic as well. They have very effective AoE damage in Banelings and Infestors. So "deathballs" will be forced to spread because of Zerg AoE, but spreading out increases Zergling effectiveness.
For lings, you also have to consider the limit in getting them: larva. In BW, to get extra larva production for lings you would have to build a new hatch. Now, just throw a queen on a hatch and that hatch now becomes 2.33 hatches for larva production. Sure, in terms of minerals and supply, lings are less effective in SC2, but you can get more of them easier and faster. If lings were just as powerful in SC2 as BW, you'd see every Zv* game start off with a 6-10 pool into super aggression/contain with speedlings. Zerg would still have the larva to drone while making zerglings which easily overpower any small force already. By the time the other races got out their door to expand, zerg would be on 3 bases with 2x the workers.
Intentionally make zerg slightly OP to make all the zergies buy the expansion. In all seriousness it's a combination of factors that make melee units worse.
They've largely been unchanged while marines were buffed and perform really well in a tight ball. Ball = less surface are to attack and more ranged units can attack at once. As others have said the 1 control group syndome has a lot to do with this. No longer are 12 marines in 1 group, making them are easier to surround, plus they won't move in 8 directions anymore but can move 360 degrees, so less collisions occur and less "limbo line" when moving units around.
Marines are a little too good. Higher dps, combat shields, medivacs are much better than medics, ai changes, "ball" formation, double production with add on, pre upgraded range, "free" bunkers.. I'd change any number of these, instead blizzard balance is +building health.
If melee units actually got to do their damage, they'd be better off. It's nice that zealots are partially being addressed with the patch, so hopefully that helps.
The zealot buff should make them a little less weak, but IMO the T3 upgrade for lines should make them just as insanely strong as it did in BW. One of my favorite parts of that game was the dynamic between ultras and lings. Sure, ultras were strong, but ultimately what killed all of your units and raised your base was the cracklings. While your marines were busy trying to burn down the ultra, it was the cracklings that were mangling your marines.
This dynamic has been completely lost in SC2, where ultras are simultaneously the tank and the damage dealer, except they don't do either particularly well. Meanwhile, zerglings are fairly stagnant throughout the game. The 20% increase they get in DPS at T3 is equivalent to the increase in damage marines get from their +1 attack upgrade. IMO, reverting lings and ultras to their BW functionality would go a long way towards making TvZ a better matchup.
I get where you're coming from, but it's tricky to buff lings and zealots in particular for the lategame without imbalancing the early game, as both units are quite amazing for their cost in small army situations. That said, I still use chargelots lategame a good amount of the time in all matchups. Even against roach/hydra, they absorb a lot of dps for 0 gas investment, and fairly gas-heavy units like Colossus and Void Ray are very important to keep alive in this situation. Even if the Zealots don't do any damage, if they absorb a couple rounds of Roach/Hydra attacks while my Colossi rain down aoe damage, my Stalkers pick off a few units, my Void Rays charge up, etc., I'd call that a mineral dump well spent.
On March 08 2011 03:39 dave333 wrote: Zerglings are so weak now. You used to be able to slam a dozen cracklings into a marine drop. Now rine drops consist of 8 combat shield stimmed rines against weaker cracklings; it's an ugly sight.
I know blizz nerfed melee/buffed range because they thought pathing would improve the melee a lot, but that's totally not true. The clump effect really makes melee a lot worse.
Also they made everything a wall in this game, which weakens them even more.
How can you say a unit that does around 15 dps fully upgraded at .5 supply cost is "weak"
3/3 cracklings are just as good, if not better than 3/3 marines
Everything is relative. If you look at their rate of attack in BW vs. cannons, rines, dragoons/stalkers, zealots, etc. vs. those same units now, the other units basically got stronger while the ling stayed the same=weaker. Add in unit clumping, smart tanks, and all that jazz and zerglings are way weaker relative to brood war.
This. I remember Blizzard talking about how the new unit pathing would help melee units which is why Marines were buffed compared to Zerglings. The truth is that Blizzard were wrong - stutter micro and units clumping together more than in BW have buffed Marines against Zerglings.
Thus Blizzard were wrong and buffed the wrong unit.
Thus Blizzard were wrong and buffed the wrong unit.
That seems highly unlikely. Blizzard isnt perfect, and they do make mistakes in balance/design. But everything points towards them wanting to make melee units weaker, and not keeping the BW balance. From the easy walloffs, to the supply depots lift and raise, to ling dps nerf, to removal of dark swarm, to adrenal gland nerf, to the easier unit clumping, and so on, absolutely everything except from the slightly better surrounds when attack moving, shows a pretty clear design decision towards making lings much much weaker than they were in BW.
Why they would want to nerf the iconic zerg unit so badly, and why they think it was a good idea, I dont know. But saying that they nerfed every single aspect of lings while massively buffing ranged units, "by mistak", seems a little far fetched.
If they did intend for lings to remain a strong unit used for its high dps, then they would have reverted their changes in the first build of alpha They aint perfect, and I think the decision to put lings on the backside was a terrible one, but hey, you gotta give them at least a tiny bit of credit. Every single aspect of lings were nerfed, and roaches were at 1 supply 2 armor when the beta was launched. If their intent was to make lings the backbone of the zerg army, youd think theyd have noticed the problem before the beta even came out. Design decisions seem to indicate that instead, they wanted the roach to be the new backbone of the zerg army, instead of the lings and the hydras.
The point of melee units are to tank. They have can take damage, but it has to be right next to a unit to attack it. Ranged units have less health, though they have a ranged advantage. This is why there is micro in RTS's.
And is everyone neglecting that lings are far more faster than their SC1 versions? That in itself lends them to be more like harassment units. That a T or P has to wall off nice and tight to be safe from them.
I know I built a ton of chargelots vs a giant roach/hydra ball. They just evaporate and are a waste of resources. Zealots are better in smaller engagements.
On March 08 2011 09:07 Ownos wrote: It's the critical mass effect.
And is everyone neglecting that lings are far more faster than their SC1 versions? That in itself lends them to be more like harassment units. That a T or P has to wall off nice and tight to be safe from them.
I know I built a ton of chargelots vs a giant roach/hydra ball. They just evaporate and are a waste of resources. Zealots are better in smaller engagements.
That's not true. All units have become quicker, but the relative speeds are almost identical.
Normalized speeds (dividing by base zergling speed), with upgraded speeds in brackets:
On March 08 2011 09:07 Ownos wrote: It's the critical mass effect.
And is everyone neglecting that lings are far more faster than their SC1 versions? That in itself lends them to be more like harassment units. That a T or P has to wall off nice and tight to be safe from them.
I know I built a ton of chargelots vs a giant roach/hydra ball. They just evaporate and are a waste of resources. Zealots are better in smaller engagements.
That's not true. All units have become quicker, but the relative speeds are almost identical.
Normalized speeds (dividing by base zergling speed), with upgraded speeds in brackets:
On March 08 2011 09:07 Ownos wrote: It's the critical mass effect.
And is everyone neglecting that lings are far more faster than their SC1 versions? That in itself lends them to be more like harassment units. That a T or P has to wall off nice and tight to be safe from them.
I know I built a ton of chargelots vs a giant roach/hydra ball. They just evaporate and are a waste of resources. Zealots are better in smaller engagements.
That's not true. All units have become quicker, but the relative speeds are almost identical.
Normalized speeds (dividing by base zergling speed), with upgraded speeds in brackets:
Different game engine. Trying to pick up speed values from BW and trying to translate it SC2 doesn't work. Fire up BW yourself. Lings are slower.
I think you misunderstand. It doesn't matter that lings are slower in BW as compared to SC2, because the same goes for all units. Speeds here are normalized by zergling speed in each game. Nowhere am I directly comparing speed values between games. BW marines move at 79% the speed of BW zerglings; SC2 marines move at 76% the speed of SC2 zerglings.
Zerglings move so quick on creep that they could kill The Flash. Adrenal Gland is a little too weak for a Tier 3 upgrade though, and the AI is stupid. Zerglings in big numbers swarm around pointlessly too much and you have to babysit them to make them acquire targets properly.
Upgraded Chargelots kill stuff and they make tanks friendly fire.
I find ultras far from cost efficient - for a unit that takes SO long to tech to and to hatch, it is ridiculously helpless against way too many units. I miss the BW days when ultras came out and you knew one of them was damn scary and was definitely gonna get some good job done. Now it's like, only when the zerg has over half the map and is outmacroing the other guy already can they be of some use, but they're so far from cost efficient, really :/
A deathball of colossi vs a "big ball" of ultras - from my experience, colossi will absolutely rape them if micro'ed a little bit and supported by a few units. The problem in comparison to BW is that Z has no spell or proper way to help engage an army with a strong ranged damage. Therefore Z purely has to rely on map and positionning, not on units balance itself.
Usually when a zerg gets a chance to position his army right and attacks from 2-3 locations at the same time, the fight turns out really even imo. If T/P microes his units better, he wins, if Z manages to micro better, he wins. But it's still a too situational thing imo as zergs often find themselves contained a bit and in that case, they just have to pull off something amazing to be able to do anything. It's not impossible, but it's a lot harder than it should be - there are simply too many really small chokes that make it easy to contain a zerg seeing how they lack range.
On March 08 2011 08:29 morimacil wrote: Design decisions seem to indicate that instead, they wanted the roach to be the new backbone of the zerg army, instead of the lings and the hydras.
If blizzard wanted roach to be the backbone of the zerg army they failed quite epicly. Look at TvZ, roaches are completely useless against common terran builds, they are decent against pure mech but other than that...Nothing
EDIT: Melee units should be able to stack while attacking, like workers do while mining.
On March 08 2011 08:29 morimacil wrote: Design decisions seem to indicate that instead, they wanted the roach to be the new backbone of the zerg army, instead of the lings and the hydras.
If blizzard wanted roach to be the backbone of the zerg army they failed quite epicly. Look at TvZ, roaches are completely useless against common terran builds, they are decent against pure mech but other than that...Nothing
EDIT: Melee units should be able to stack while attacking, like workers do while mining.
I'd prefer if ranged critical mass wouldnt be as effective as it is now. Stacking is really a disadvantage considering how much it compliments splash damage and makes melee die even faster.
On March 08 2011 08:29 morimacil wrote: Design decisions seem to indicate that instead, they wanted the roach to be the new backbone of the zerg army, instead of the lings and the hydras.
If blizzard wanted roach to be the backbone of the zerg army they failed quite epicly. Look at TvZ, roaches are completely useless against common terran builds, they are decent against pure mech but other than that...Nothing
EDIT: Melee units should be able to stack while attacking, like workers do while mining.
I'd prefer if ranged critical mass wouldnt be as effective as it is now. Stacking is really a disadvantage considering how much it compliments splash damage and makes melee die even faster.
I guess, imagine 100 lings destroying buildings though;)
The problem with Zealots is that concussive shells works on light units. The problem with Zerglings is that they scale horribly once the mid-game hits. Their hard counters in starcraft 2 are far far more effective against lings than BW ever was. Part of it is just due to them clumping up so much more, but Colossus and Hellion attacks just annihilate an almost infinite number of lings. In BW you'd be hard pressed to find a unit you can make 2 or 3 of and be able to negate dozens and dozens of zerglings. Their synergy with Ultralisks in the late-game in BW also really helped, but those damn ultras just take up so much of the precious attack surface area now. If they just made charge/adrenal glands cheaper and/or easier to tech to, you'd actually see these units used as more than a mineral dump.
On March 09 2011 03:31 Psychlone wrote: Ultras have splash and crush forcefields.
Ultralisks might crush forcefields, but they are big forcefields themselves.
There isnt all that much of a difference between your whole army blocked by FF or by Ultralisk. Both works basically same.
On March 09 2011 04:22 Ksi wrote: The problem with Zealots is that concussive shells works on light units. The problem with Zerglings is that they scale horribly once the mid-game hits. Their hard counters in starcraft 2 are far far more effective against lings than BW ever was. Part of it is just due to them clumping up so much more, but Colossus and Hellion attacks just annihilate an almost infinite number of lings. In BW you'd be hard pressed to find a unit you can make 2 or 3 of and be able to negate dozens and dozens of zerglings. If they just made charge/adrenal glands cheaper and/or easier to tech to, you'd actually see these units used as more than a mineral dump.
I remember Firebats + Medic working well. It just feels to me kinda strange, that Zergling with Adrenalin Glands attack slower than Stimmed Marine
EPT
