EPTflamethrower has 4 times less cost in term of pp, but fireblast doesn't deal 4x more damage, and with the lack of accuracy of fireblast, it is much less efficient. i see what you mean also, but i guess it semi makes sense.
Efficiency vs Effectiveness - Page 2
| Blogs > MaD.pYrO |
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
flamethrower has 4 times less cost in term of pp, but fireblast doesn't deal 4x more damage, and with the lack of accuracy of fireblast, it is much less efficient. i see what you mean also, but i guess it semi makes sense. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
| ||
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
On March 03 2010 21:25 NovaTheFeared wrote: I think 20 zerglings are both effective and efficient vs. 5 marines. early game they are efficient because of their low cost and 1/2 larva requirements. speed->crackling upgrade brings up their effectiveness throughout the game, in turn making them more efficient, because you don't need that many to tear down a building. Efficiency is also applied to unit composition. When you think about it, any RTS game is about making the least amount of units with only the most necessary upgrades to do the most amount of damage while losing the least amount of units. Example: 3 ultralists + 8 cracklings + 1 defiler is essentially the most effective single control group army a zerg can have if you're considering standard play. This is because the ultralisks will be taking most of the damage, leaving your zerglings alive to deal their damage(most painful unit in the game imo), and with the protection of a single to two dark swarms, they all live much much longer and an expo could easily fall to this single control group(that only relies on 17 supply i believe) | ||
|
SkylineSC
United States564 Posts
20 lings surrounding 10 rines = effective 20 lings funneled into 10 rines on a ramp = not effective | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On March 03 2010 23:58 Purind wrote: 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 Go read what efficient means again man, that was sort of the point. 20 zerglings are effective against 5 marines, and 20 zealots are effective against one ultralisk. No matter what you're trying to say here you can't say that using 500 minerals to kill 250 is efficient. The example you mention with corsairs here's a better one. Corsairs are efficient against mutalisk but inefficient against battlecruisers allthough 20 corsairs are effective against a battlecruiser. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
edit: | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
Unfortunately it's hard to draw the line in RTS games because what usually works well, also works, and what usually works, also works well. It is much easier to find examples to counteract the second case (i.e. something that's effective but not efficient) -- consider scouts versus ultralisks. scouts are quite effective at killing ultras, but it takes forever and they cost a billion, aka not efficient. Now finding an example of something that's efficient but not effective is quite difficult, especially because in sc stuff that is cheap at what it does is usually also good at what it does (consider lings and vults). But a somewhat appropriate example would probably be a zergling with swarm versus a +3armor tank. It's very efficient as it costs nothing (let's assume swarm is a given) but it's pretty damn terrible at killing a tank if it's got no ups and tank has +3 armor Most of the time though, units are both effective and efficient or just effective. Efficiency without effectiveness is hard to show in sc. | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On March 04 2010 11:15 JeeJee wrote: it basically boils down to "works well" and "works" Unfortunately it's hard to draw the line in RTS games because what usually works well, also works, and what usually works, also works well. It is much easier to find examples to counteract the second case (i.e. something that's effective but not efficient) -- consider scouts versus ultralisks. scouts are quite effective at killing ultras, but it takes forever and they cost a billion, aka not efficient. Now finding an example of something that's efficient but not effective is quite difficult, especially because in sc stuff that is cheap at what it does is usually also good at what it does (consider lings and vults). But a somewhat appropriate example would probably be a zergling with swarm versus a +3armor tank. It's very efficient as it costs nothing (let's assume swarm is a given) but it's pretty damn terrible at killing a tank if it's got no ups and tank has +3 armor Most of the time though, units are both effective and efficient or just effective. Efficiency without effectiveness is hard to show in sc. Imo, basically it boils down to: Being effective through pure brute macro force Being efficient through making a perfect unit mix BW example: A Dragoon is more efficient against Tanks than Marines, because it deals less damage to marines at the same price. A more efficient unit against a marine is a zealot because it costs less and deals more damage to it. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
ef·fec·tive adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace. but steel is more effective because it is tougher.... Your example doesn't match your definition. Wood and steel are both effective at building houses, because they can both build houses...? (I think the above definition is efficacy, but I've now confused myself =_=) Efficiency without effectiveness is hard to show in sc. An efficient army can still lose (be ineffective) if you don't build enough units. | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 04 2010 11:15 JeeJee wrote: it basically boils down to "works well" and "works" Unfortunately it's hard to draw the line in RTS games because what usually works well, also works, and what usually works, also works well. It is much easier to find examples to counteract the second case (i.e. something that's effective but not efficient) -- consider scouts versus ultralisks. scouts are quite effective at killing ultras, but it takes forever and they cost a billion, aka not efficient. Now finding an example of something that's efficient but not effective is quite difficult, especially because in sc stuff that is cheap at what it does is usually also good at what it does (consider lings and vults). But a somewhat appropriate example would probably be a zergling with swarm versus a +3armor tank. It's very efficient as it costs nothing (let's assume swarm is a given) but it's pretty damn terrible at killing a tank if it's got no ups and tank has +3 armor Most of the time though, units are both effective and efficient or just effective. Efficiency without effectiveness is hard to show in sc. 1 High Templar guarding a base that is getting crackling/swarmed kills 30 lings with 2 storms (or 1 awesome one), but the nexus still dies. He is being efficient (killing more then he is worth) without being effective (nexus still dies). | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
On March 04 2010 16:10 seppolevne wrote: 1 High Templar guarding a base that is getting crackling/swarmed kills 30 lings with 2 storms (or 1 awesome one), but the nexus still dies. He is being efficient (killing more then he is worth) without being effective (nexus still dies). not necessarily true, it depends if his purpose is to kill lings or to save the nexus. i would argue his purpose is to kill the zerg, in which case he is also being effective it's a hard (and i would also argue pointless) line to draw in starcraft though | ||
| ||
