|
|
Interesting read, disturbing too though ..
|
he biggest change is the removal of explosive damage, which dealt 50% base damage to small units. In the original Starcraft, this made units like Photon Cannons and Missile Turrets easy enough to knock down with nine to eleven mutalisks Photon Cannons don't deal explosive dmg, they deal normal
|
I believe he spoke of the mutalisks doing explosive
|
cannons and turrets are units?
|
On September 02 2009 21:18 Jobbies wrote:I believe he spoke of the mutalisks doing explosive But they dont do explosive, they do normal. However, they are small size, hence recieve 50% dmg from turrets
Corruptors and Brood Lords were not used much. Air units did not come up much, and those that did were either Vikings, which mutalisks dispatch easily, or phoenixes, which come out too early for corruptors to matter Were Medivacs and Ravens no longer that powerful as in previous builds or what?
|
I mostly played ZvP, and the ZvT games I played focused on Hellions. Ravens were used in one game where I fast teched to Lurkers, rendering them somewhat moot. I never saw Medivacs.
As for the explosive damage turret thing, I just checked, my mistake there. At any rate, the point is that Photon cannons, either by dint of some other damage setup or by firing speed, are a lot more effective than in SC against Zerglings, Hydralisks and Mutalisks.
|
This was a good write-up and I feel the same way about many of the things he pointed out.
|
On September 03 2009 00:56 Shadowfury333 wrote: I mostly played ZvP, and the ZvT games I played focused on Hellions. Ravens were used in one game where I fast teched to Lurkers, rendering them somewhat moot. I never saw Medivacs.
As for the explosive damage turret thing, I just checked, my mistake there. At any rate, the point is that Photon cannons, either by dint of some other damage setup or by firing speed, are a lot more effective than in SC against Zerglings, Hydralisks and Mutalisks. I don't know about cooldown or missile speed for the SC2 Photon Cannon vs. it's SC1 predecessor, but I do believe that Cannons are more sturdy in SC2 (125 health 125 shields 1 armor, whereas they had 100 health 100 shields 0 armor in SC1).
The flipside is, Pylons are more fragile than in SC1 (200 health 200 shields, vs. 300 health 300 shields in SC1), which might make sniping pylons to power down an array of cannons more worthwhile.
|
what about banelings? were they removed?
|
This really does sound disappointing, with the zergling nerf being the worst part of it. Does everyone who tried the zerg out at Blizzcon agree with this? I certainly hope that quite a bit of this will be reversed in some way, as it sounds like the zerg are turning into less of the mass units/map control race and becoming more like the other races in terms of expansion-related decision making.
|
Ok, read the article. I honestly don't know what to make of it, it's wrong on several accounts.
It makes a big deal about explosive damage being removed, when it's not a big deal at all- it was replaced by a downright better system (better in the sense that it's more flexible- units are not forced into dealing exactly half damage vs. small). As far as I can tell, however, units that deal bonus damage vs. armored (the SC2 equivalent of explosive damage) tend to deal more than 50% of their full damage vs. Light units (the SC2 equivalent of small units).
Eight Zerglings to kill a Zealot? I haven't played any version of SC2, and I can still tell this is BS. Unless the Zealot is one weapon upgrade ahead of the Zerglings' armor upgrades, I'm pretty sure 4 zerglings will kill a zealot in an open field (i.e. not fighting one zergling at a time through a narrow choke).
There's also the fact that, as has been mentioned above, Cannons don't deal explosive damage in Brood Wars.
So yeah. Given the above inaccuracies, I don't know how much to trust the rest of the article, which deals with matters I don't know first hand.
|
Look, I'm sorry about the explosive thing. I'll look into getting that fixed. The point is that Mutalisks, Zerglings and Hydralisks seemed to die a lot faster to them.
As for the 8 Zerglings to a Zealot, that is not a crock. If you haven't played it, it does seem unbelievable, but this is what many of us found. I honestly thought it was 6, but I talked to iCCup.Cold and he insisted it was 8.
|
It's true. You need 8 lings. That's how it felt to me anyways. They just seem incredibly powerful. You can ask Machine and Ret. They felt that zerglings weren't strong either.
|
Maybe Blizzard should solve that by making zerglings spawn by 3 instead of 2. It does seem kinda strange that lings have better pathing and the same stats, but get ripped apart by their counterparts.
|
Why would you need more lings to kill a zealot now? As far as I can tell, Zergling HP and damage per attack remain the same (35 HP, 5 damage), and Zealot stats are also largely unchanged (100 health / 60 shields / 16 damage).
Did you notice significant changes in their attack rates? Zealots have 22 cooldown between attack (I assume that's 22 game cycles), while Zerglings have 8 cooldown, which means a zergling can get in roughly 3 attacks for every 1 attack from a zealot.
Running some numbers, in order for a zealot to kill 7 lings by itself (assuming all the lings are hitting the zealot all the time, which is a big assumption), the cooldown values would have to be reversed- a zealot would have to attack 3 times for every time a zergling attacks. I find this to be farfetched, but as I said, I haven't played SC2.
What are your impressions of zealot attack rate vs. zergling attack rate?
EDIT: Was a little off with Zealot Shield values.
|
Belgium9942 Posts
On September 03 2009 03:13 Zato-1 wrote:Why would you need more lings to kill a zealot now? As far as I can tell, Zergling HP and damage per attack remain the same (35 HP, 5 damage), and Zealot damage is the same while shields are down (100 health / 50 shields / 16 damage, down from 100 health / 60 shields / 16 damage). Did you notice significant changes in their attack rates? Zealots have 22 cooldown between attack (I assume that's 22 game cycles), while Zerglings have 8 cooldown, which means a zergling can get in roughly 3 attacks for every 1 attack from a zealot. Running some numbers, in order for a zealot to kill 7 lings by itself (assuming all the lings are hitting the zealot all the time, which is a big assumption), the cooldown values would have to be reversed- a zealot would have to attack 3 times for every time a zergling attacks. I find this to be farfetched, but as I said, I haven't played SC2. What are your impressions of zealot attack rate vs. zergling attack rate? Maybe shield regeneration got faster, our damage calculations changed?
Dunno
|
On September 03 2009 03:16 RaGe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2009 03:13 Zato-1 wrote:Why would you need more lings to kill a zealot now? As far as I can tell, Zergling HP and damage per attack remain the same (35 HP, 5 damage), and Zealot damage is the same while shields are down (100 health / 50 shields / 16 damage, down from 100 health / 60 shields / 16 damage). Did you notice significant changes in their attack rates? Zealots have 22 cooldown between attack (I assume that's 22 game cycles), while Zerglings have 8 cooldown, which means a zergling can get in roughly 3 attacks for every 1 attack from a zealot. Running some numbers, in order for a zealot to kill 7 lings by itself (assuming all the lings are hitting the zealot all the time, which is a big assumption), the cooldown values would have to be reversed- a zealot would have to attack 3 times for every time a zergling attacks. I find this to be farfetched, but as I said, I haven't played SC2. What are your impressions of zealot attack rate vs. zergling attack rate? Maybe shield regeneration got faster, our damage calculations changed? Dunno Shield regeneration rate is indeed faster, but it doesn't kick in while the unit is taking damage- there's a waiting period during which you can take no damage before you can regenerate anything at all.
As to damage calculations... I'm basing my numbers from this data, which was updated after Blizzcon '09 (I just noticed Zealot shields were bumped back up to 60). If anyone has more accurate numbers, I'd love it if these could be revealed.
|
United States7166 Posts
this is exactly what i've been worried about with the goddamned 2 gas mechanic.. zerg gets fucked over because of their smaller worker count
combine this with the lack of a strong midgame ground unit, zerg seems to be in a rough position right now
and what he meant by the "removal of explosive damage" problem is that mutalisks in sc1 would take half damage from many units/buildings, which is now gone
|
I guess 3lings are about as strong as a zealot in bw. I agree with zato's information. Also factor in the 1 armour the zealot has. Maybe they aquire a new target faster in SC2 after a kill in group battles. A zealot starts staring at the sun for half a second after a kill, then close in on the next in BW. Zerglings seem to be very fast now and better at surrounding. It will help vs marines with their extra hp but it seems not so usefull vs zealots just duking it out.
I am a bit worried about the lurker now. Tier 3 expensive. By the time lurkers get into play the battlefield is full of enemy detectors.
|
|
|
|