|
Have to admit there seems to stem a lot of confusion from people when using words like efficiency, efficient, effective and so on.
I'd really love it if people could keep the differences between the two, and really leads to a lot of miscommunication.
Efficiency - Efficency deals with how effective something is in regards to the cost of it.
Crude example - Wood is more efficient for building houses, but steel is more effective because it is tougher. Nanogel is also far more effective but not efficient.
In the same manner you may say that 20 zerglings are quite effective against 5 marines - but this doesn't mean that zerglings are efficient against marines.
ef·fi·cien·cy
/ɪˈfɪʃənsi/ [ih-fish-uhn-see]
the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage.
ef·fec·tive
adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.
..
So when having these balance discussions i'd really like people to notice the difference between the two, because frankly my brain sometimes hurts when it's apparent that a lot of people don't 
Happy Gaming
-Mr.Pyro
 
|
you forgot to define efficacy
|
Don't introduce more things to confuse people =p
|
|
|
Wow, really effective blog. I learned somenthing today.(or at least I hope so) Make more of them!
|
I think 20 zerglings are both effective and efficient vs. 5 marines.
|
On March 03 2010 21:20 Sauron wrote:
Wow, really effective blog. I learned somenthing today.(or at least I hope so) Make more of them!
Ah but was it efficient? Could he have said the same thing with less words?
|
On March 03 2010 21:26 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2010 21:20 Sauron wrote:
Wow, really effective blog. I learned somenthing today.(or at least I hope so) Make more of them! Ah but was it efficient? Could he have said the same thing with less words?
Or could i have made the point more effectively by using DIFFERENT words? HMM...
|
so basically scouts are efficient, but not very effective for anti air?
|
effectively this is a very inefficient use of me time, i should rather improve my efficacy in other areas.
edit:yarrr, shiver me timbers
|
|
|
On March 03 2010 21:38 Ftrunkz wrote:
so basically scouts are efficient, but not very effective for anti air?
Basically 20 zealots are effective against 1 ultralisk, but Zealots aren't efficient against ultralisks.
|
|
|
On March 03 2010 22:18 MaD.pYrO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2010 21:38 Ftrunkz wrote:
so basically scouts are efficient, but not very effective for anti air? Basically 20 zealots are effective against 1 ultralisk, but Zealots aren't efficient against ultralisks.
TROLLLLLLLLED! YES!
|
On March 03 2010 21:38 Ftrunkz wrote:
so basically scouts are efficient, but not very effective for anti air?
basically no
|
On March 03 2010 20:42 MaD.pYrO wrote:
In the same manner you may say that 20 zerglings are quite effective against 5 marines - but this doesn't mean that zerglings are efficient against marines.
On March 03 2010 22:18 MaD.pYrO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2010 21:38 Ftrunkz wrote:
so basically scouts are efficient, but not very effective for anti air? Basically 20 zealots are effective against 1 ultralisk, but Zealots aren't efficient against ultralisks.
Bad examples. 20 zerglings are efficient against 5 marines, and 20 zealots are efficient against 1 ultralisk. If you meant ling vs marines in large numbers, or lots vs ultras in large numbers, then they are both ineffective and inefficient. Your examples don't outline anything. It's like me saying "Corsairs are effective against wraiths, but aren't efficient against goliaths." They are both effective and efficient against wraiths, but are both ineffective and inefficient against goliaths, which is along the lines of your examples. It doesn't illustrate anything
|
hm i think strategy and tactics are more often misused than efficiency/effectiveness
still, now i learned that there is the word "efficacy" and how it is pronounced, thanks Kashll, thanks leo <3
|
efficiency in starcraft can be described as
cost/benefit
cost is mineral, benefit is damage. so efficiency can only be applied to each unit.
unit a: 50 mineral/10 damage
unit b: 100 mineral/10 damage
unit a is more efficient.
however, the damage is modified by
a). matchup (large vs small unit, etc)
b). tactics (surround, splash damage, etc)
so then efficiency is varied across different matchup of units.
and effectiveness can mean many things. I'm pretty sure the scientific definition is just the gross effect. which means all the "benefit" or "damage" a unit deals. yamato cannon is very effective, scv's melee attack is not. but whether not they are efficient is depended on the cost.
also pokemon example ie. fireblast is super effective vs grass type because it deals most damage, however its 5pp hurt its efficiency compare to an attack like flame thrower.
/end nerdrant
|
|
|
On March 04 2010 00:23 SkylineSC wrote:
efficiency in starcraft can be described as
cost/benefit
cost is mineral, benefit is damage. so efficiency can only be applied to each unit.
unit a: 50 mineral/10 damage
unit b: 100 mineral/10 damage
unit a is more efficient.
however, the damage is modified by
a). matchup (large vs small unit, etc)
b). tactics (surround, splash damage, etc)
so then efficiency is varied across different matchup of units.
and effectiveness can mean many things. I'm pretty sure the scientific definition is just the gross effect. which means all the "benefit" or "damage" a unit deals. yamato cannon is very effective, scv's melee attack is not. but whether not they are efficient is depended on the cost.
also pokemon example ie. fireblast is super effective vs grass type because it deals most damage, however its 5pp hurt its efficiency compare to an attack like flame thrower.
/end nerdrant
pp isn't really the best measure for it's cost, as the cost of fireblast is still 1 -> 1pp, 1 turn. A better example would be something with varying mana cost or cast time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img186.yfrog.com/img186/7656/79880782.jpg)
