EPTspells are very important. ghost EMP craps on any toss army. especially if it has immortals
Starcraft 2 units: a cost-effectiveness analysis. - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
spells are very important. ghost EMP craps on any toss army. especially if it has immortals | ||
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
| ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
(for example, in BW, there are nine mineral patches and one/two gas patches per main base. A weighted ratio could be 1 gas = 9 minerals?) | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
On July 24 2010 14:37 Gnarwhal wrote: You changed your point by saying in the end that one vespene is more useful than one mineral. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable. Perhaps a resource's value manifests from the time one invests into accumulating it: the time it takes a worker to go back and forth; that time reinvested into a new worker; and so on. If the inherent nature of the game forces players to wait more time to collect gas than minerals, then each unit of gas takes more time, respectively. In this case, gas holds more value since it represents more time. On July 24 2010 14:45 Sadistx wrote: Your inferences were made ignoring factors that are crucial to the cost effectiveness of units in any particular game. I listed those factors in my previous post. If this is true, then you should take no difficulty in refuting my inferences, as I've asked. I know I have been unable to implement such things as range and splash damage. You keep throwing this red herring at me--saying nothing of my actual inferences (the thing I'm asking you to refute). On July 24 2010 14:57 Calamity wrote: [/url]These values, they can help a lot but some of your conclusions about each units based on this data is just not accurate. For example, Battlecruisers are amazing but you need a fusion core, time to build the battlecruiser, and the upgrades you would have for air units at the time. If you transition from bio or mech to battlecruisers, you wouldn't have 3 / 3 upgrades for air while your enemy most likely would. Thors are strong units that do tons of damage to air and ground units, yet again time and the slow movement of Thors make them weak in some situations compared to a Bio army. Hellions are great for killing workers. You're values don't factor in speed, and ability to micro them via kiting. Hellions under micro can kill an entire expo full of drones with the pre-igniter upgrade. As for spine crawlers, they might be cost effective, IF they moved and attacked. They can only attack while static which would explain why they're so strong. They are also limited by creep I think? Phoenixes might be slightly better against air units than the stalker, but stalkers are from warpgates which can be easily produce since you don't need make stargate. It's also easier to transition from stalker to phoenix. Some do make sense though, like how facing a bunch of armored units immortals and void rays will crush all. Massed voids will probably crushed every Terran armored unit except for a bunch of Yamato Cannon Battlecruisers (even then you'll need a crapload of BCs). But if Terran had a Marauder + Ghost army. Sure there's a bunch of armored units so i must use Immortals. You will get killed since Ghosts will just emp you're immortals and they're basically dead meat (dead metal) to the marauders. This reminds me, spells of several casters in this game would make me to believe that they are more effective than this data would suggest. AoE, how many units are caught in the spell, the cooldown, the energy per damage ratio, number of times attack can be used, if it does any damage at all (sentries) etc. This makes sense. I'm learning so much about Starcraft 2 tonight! Updating... | ||
|
imyzhang
Canada809 Posts
if you're gonna try to write something analytical, why say shit that isn't true/ambiguous. lame can mean that you hate them because they're too great or that they're shitty. | ||
|
psion
106 Posts
On July 24 2010 14:37 Gnarwhal wrote: You changed your point by saying in the end that one vespene is more useful than one mineral. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable. He didn't say useful, he said valuable. Besides, that's like saying one supply equals one gas. One resource is one resource, equally valuable, right? On that note, I'd suggest adding supply costs to the total resources: (supplycost / 8) * 100 = mineral costs for supply. On July 24 2010 15:06 carwashguy wrote: This makes sense. I'm learning so much about Starcraft 2 tonight! Updating... I wouldn't listen to him. You can't infer any of what he suggests without creating a SC2 model identical to the game and players involved, which would be a ridiculous undertaking, not to mention completely pointless. Just stick to the units-in-a-vacuum if you want to extract useful data. | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
1. it is very fast, which is one of its main strengths 2. it has line splash, effective both when harassing and in battle, especially now that they auto target at 6 range 3. it relies heavily on the pre-ignite upgrade, whereas you stated data comes pre-upgrade | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
Skillet-Master
United States34 Posts
However, looking at units from a pure DPS standpoint leaves out some very important factors. Seems pretty lame.Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. Of course, phoenixes are very fast and maneuverable and also have the levitation spell. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? The hellion is a mineral only unit, and terran players often have a surplus. Additionally they have line of fire and are fast. Despite their deceptive placement in your table for DPS, top players like qxc and TLO use these units very often in both TvZ and TvP. So again, the data is useful. But what is great about sc2 is that DPS isn't everything, there are many variables. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On July 24 2010 15:06 carwashguy wrote: If this is true, then you should take no difficulty in refuting my inferences, as I've asked. I know I have been unable to implement such things as range and splash damage. You keep throwing this red herring at me--saying nothing of my actual inferences (the thing I'm asking you to refute). Actually no, you're the one under burden of proof here. The very fact that you're making blanket statements from simple dps/R values shows that you don't understand the dynamics of the game, which include other factors that I've listed. Your conclusions do not take them into account. You also did not implement things like unit abilities such as cliffwalking, flying, burrowing or just speed, all of which are crucial to giving recommendation regarding counters. Your inferences are wrong because they were made using incomplete information, and if you still don't understand that refutes several of them, you're either trolling me or haven't played a game of SC2 in your life. | ||
|
ZomgTossRush
United States1041 Posts
Take it easy on the guy.  | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: [...]Which include other factors that I've listed. Your conclusions do not take them into account. Thank you again for reiterating this helpful point. I've recruited the help of other forum members and have revised my inferences to take these other factors into account. Hopefully, with time, I can strengthen them further. On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: You also did not implement things like unit abilities such as cliffwalking, flying, burrowing or just speed, all of which are crucial to giving recommendation regarding counters. You seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. Please do me the honor of reading my original post. Perhaps you can contribute even more, when not using points that I have already conceded in my original post. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On July 24 2010 15:33 carwashguy wrote: Thank you again for reiterating this helpful point. I've recruited the help of other forum members and have revised my inferences to take these other factors into account. Hopefully, with time, I can strengthen them further. You seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. Please do me the honor of reading my original post. Perhaps you can contribute even more, when not using points that I have already conceded in my original post. Thanks, I'm glad we got on the same page  | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Also, dps should be two collumns: vs 0 armor and vs 1 armor, that way you can see the effect of 1 armor difference. | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
But still fun to read, thanks Are some of the units missing btw? | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
On July 24 2010 15:34 Jermstuddog wrote: Perhaps the biggest number I would like to see in a chart like this is HP/resources. Also, dps should be two collumns: vs 0 armor and vs 1 armor, that way you can see the effect of 1 armor difference. Funny, I originally had HP/resources, but removed it for simplicity. I'll add it tomorrow as well as look at armor (I still don't fully understand armor). Thanks. On July 24 2010 15:35 Piski wrote: Are some of the units missing btw? Yes, if I have time, or if someone else comes up with reliable ways to compute tricky units like Carriers, I'd love to add them. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
This chart doesn't need to cover every little possibility in the game, but there should be a small, but notable difference between roach dps and queen dps vs ground. Queens hitting 4x as fast as roaches to do the same damage makes armor 4x as effective. That is a big thing to miss IMO. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
1 armor = -1 damage. So a roach hits a zealot for 15, not 16, while a queen hits for 2x3, not 2x4. | ||
|
TriniMasta
United States1323 Posts
u ever have a situation where you would trade 500 gas for 500 minerals? I never o.0 I did have situations where I would trade 1k min for 1k gas... (fucking high templars...) | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
| ||
