|
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.
|
well if you consider pp used/total pp as the cost. so fireblast is 1/5, while flamethrower is 1/20
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.
|
Yeah the accuracy is a big deal. I would always choose surf over hydro pump cause the latter would miss at the worst times. So yeah in a single fight it doesn't really come into play, but in a series of fights (Elite four, gyms, mount moon, etc.) flamethrower is much more efficient.
|
true true, utility is situational in this case
|
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)
|
cost of 20 lings = cost of 10 rines
20 lings surrounding 10 rines = effective
20 lings funneled into 10 rines on a ramp = not effective
|
On March 03 2010 23:58 Purind wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +On March 03 2010 22:18 MaD.pYrO wrote: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
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.
|
|
|
Well, 10 zerglings cost 250 mins, while 3 firebats cost 150/75. For them to win, at least one will survive = 225 mins (at least - lower if more survive). 225 mins is definitely less then 150/75 (as gas is more important - worth more), so they are in fact efficient as well.
edit: higher -> lower
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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).
|
On March 04 2010 16:10 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img186.yfrog.com/img186/7656/79880782.jpg)
