EPTDps per cost - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
| ||
|
Nub4ever
Canada1981 Posts
 | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:00 Nub4ever wrote: Hmm I've heard banshees are really high dps/cost but maybe I'm readin this wrong as it doesn't seem that high well, they are ranged and flying - thats worth a lot. | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
You want to know which unit has the highest dps per food in game? It's the phoenix, guess what, phoenix aren't actually the best unit in game. | ||
|
HardcoreBilly
United States222 Posts
Kickinhead: No zerglings do not need a huge damage buff. They have the ability to surround and are very quick. Not to mention using that logic we would have to buff just about every unit as 5 zerglings can easily take down a Zealot upon surround. The only thing real thing I'm disappointed by in the DPS chart is the spore crawler. Why is it that Terran gets such a great anti-air with high DPS and ability to repair while Zerg gets the measly Spore Crawler? Terran barely has trouble with air early tech with Marines and late tech with Vikings. Zerg, however, can easily get screwed by a single void ray or 2 banshees. No tech switch there, if you couldn't get a scout in because of Terran wall or Protoss wall (with zealot on hold) and have not gotten a den or spire. That's simply stupid in my opinion. At least make Spore Crawler buildable with Spawning Pool. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On September 02 2010 05:35 Buddhist wrote: holy shit @ carriers twice the dps of fully charged void rays against armored targets, and they do that much damage vs. any target, AND they can kite every ground unit in the game, and they do 60% more dps with 3 weapon upgrades. At 3 weapon ups, it's 128 dps for carrier vs. about 52 dps for charged VR on armored target. Like, wow. I need to start making some viable into-carriers builds. Socke | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:00 Nub4ever wrote: Hmm I've heard banshees are really high dps/cost but maybe I'm readin this wrong as it doesn't seem that high Almost twice as high as Mutalisks and Void Rays so I'd say that pretty good, especially considering they can cloak. Did I miss the sarcasm? | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:03 ZlaSHeR wrote: This is one of those statistics like in sports that you can look at all day and it won't actually show that much. You want to know which unit has the highest dps per food in game? It's the phoenix, guess what, phoenix aren't actually the best unit in game. Eh sarcasm noted but it's not like ignoring the statistics completely is any good. Obviously we can't make a whole lot from this other then some theories, but it's not like theories are jack shit. If anything we should be glad that this chart is up, it might give some people interesting ideas or things to talk about. Like the most glaring thing to note in this chart to me is the Rocket Turret, why the fuck is the DPS for it so high compared to the Spore Crawler rofl. | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
WHY CARRIERS AREN'T AS RAPE AS THEY SEEM FROM THIS CHART: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vELMT.jpg) not really. They are not NEARLY as impressive as it looks. Each carrier has 8 interceptors, each fires 2 shots per attack. You could say they attack in 16 attacks of 5(+upgrades)=128dmg maxed...in 16 attacks....So while their attack gets up to crazy levels, each ENEMY armor upgrade also reduces their attack power by 16. So maxed carrier vs no armor marine=128damage(per volley) Maxed carrier vs 3 armor marine =only 80 damage(per volley) Maxed carrier vs unupped corruptor= 96 damage(per volley) Maxed carrier vs 3 armor Corruptor= only 48 damage (per volley) Thats why carriers aren't as rape as they seem TLDR: Carriers attack in SIXTEEN attacks of 5 damage, each weapon upgrade therefore buffs their damage 16pts, but each ENEMY ARMOR UPGRADE reduces it by 16pts as well. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On September 02 2010 05:13 Pepe- wrote: http://yfrog.com/4jdpspercostj Click on the picture to make it bigger. I think its too big to include directly :D Tell me if you find any false data. Divided cost by 100... looks much better :D Unsure how to get better data involving thors, tanks and ultralisks splash damage. Carriers value just shows the dps while interceptors are attacking. Baneling´s value is more like damage instead of dps. Kinda surpised how effective rocket turrets are :D Took an average of each race´s relevant data (1gas = 1,5mins): excluded each splash, zergling, baneling, PF, carrier (4) etc. Terran: 7,48 (normal) 8,21 (armored) 8,31 (light) Protoss: 5,77 (normal) 6,37 (armored) 6,47 (light) Zerg: 5,64 (normal) 6,01 (armored) 5,64 (light) Would you say this is compensated by health, buildings and upgrades? Totally irrelevant and ridiculous post IMO. You cant calculate dps and then compare it and still have it mean anything. Zealots deal X dps, but they still cant kill a Banshee. Terrain features, having a good unit composition and so on all ... tons of things that have a much bigger impact than statistical data. Sure a Thor is a "hard counter" to Mutas, but in reality that doesnt work anymore. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
On September 02 2010 16:49 Rabiator wrote: Totally irrelevant and ridiculous post IMO. You cant calculate dps and then compare it and still have it mean anything. wtf. its completely valid. rocket turrets do much more damage then spore crawlers. thats a fair and direct comparison yeah ? | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
And banelings may do lots of damage when they catch something but without extreme micro you lose like 5 in the same spot lol. Not to mention Zerg T1 units are have 3 or less range which further reduces the dps per second of nearly 3/4 of them in any given chokepoint/wall. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On September 02 2010 05:45 Buddhist wrote: Adrenal should increase dps by 20%. I think it's bugged or something though, according to some post on TL. cracklings arnt bugged in SC2. but.. in BW, the upgrade increase attack speed by 45%, where as in SC2, its only 20% increase. the tooltip description did not lie, just ppl assume the upgrades were the same, since the costs were same. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:11 HardcoreBilly wrote: Kickinhead: No zerglings do not need a huge damage buff. They have the ability to surround and are very quick. Not to mention using that logic we would have to buff just about every unit as 5 zerglings can easily take down a Zealot upon surround. Next to everyone who has ever played SCBW agrees that Lings do extremely low Damage in SC2 and it's not like their special in any other way: - They have low health/armor - They don't have a ranged attack - They need the Upgrade to even keep up with most of the early Units of the Terran - Yeah - they can Surround Units, but this is a double-edged sword: Zerglings need surface to attack and because they often are used in large numbers, many of them will simply not be able to hit the target. Also, the opponent can attack in a choke or stand next to a wall so the Lings won't be able to surround the Unit etc. Lings are totally underpowered in SC2. They may be fast, but in all other aspects, they pretty much suck. This also includes their T3-Upgrade, which won't help too much because they die so fast to the incredibly powerful AoE every race has to hardcounter them. Just play Zerg for a while, I didn't really notice it by just looking at replays, but after about 150+ games with Zerg at around 1000 Points in Diamond I've noticed that they just don't do any DMG. it's always easy to say that Unit's aren't THAT bad and things are pretty balanced when you didn't actually have to play with those Units or against certain Strategies yourself. *Edit: Btw. It simply won't get into my head why Turrets do sooo much more DPS per Minerals spent than Spore Crawlers... Okay, you can uproot them, but the difference is HUGE. Besides, Turrets are basically the only Anti-Air Structure that can be used effectively against an Air-Unit, which is the Mutalisk. In every other MU, Turrets/Cannons/Spore Crawlers are just not worth the money spent, but exactly the one Structure you can actually use in a MU is soooo overpowered - WTF? -.-°+ | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
ultralisk zealot and thor would be way higher in those charts | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:16 Jameser wrote: attack surface area matters for the melee units too not just cost ultralisk zealot and thor would be way higher in those charts Exactly that's why Zerglings suck even more... | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:18 kickinhead wrote: Exactly that's why Zerglings suck even more... How so? The Zergling is so small, that when he is fully surrounded much less units can attack it simultaneoulsy than an Ultralisk for instance. For all units (even ranged ones) smaller size is better. This being said, Zerglings certainly feel much weaker in SC2. | ||
|
Jarmam
Denmark140 Posts
On September 02 2010 08:07 TSL-Lore wrote: Keep in mind that the way a carrier deals damage is through small, 5 damage attacks. Meaning, if the target had 1 armor, the total damage dealt by the carrier would be reduced by 20%. If it had 2 armor (like buildings) it would be reduced by 40%. Corruptors have 2 armor i believe, reducing carrier damage significantly. I am well aware of that. It just underlines my problem with the chart that the Carrier *attacking a 2 armor anti-massive unit* would fare so ridiculously well against it if the chart is correct. The Carrier would be absurdly, absurdly, absurdly overpowered if it dealt almost twice the damage of a charged Void Ray against *any unit* in the game that doesnt have the luxury of having 2 (or 3) armor. Now I went and tested it, and apart from discovering that my initial game-speed->real-time conversion is slightly wrong, it is very, very evident that Interceptors *do not* shoot once per second *per interceptor*. If this was the case, they'd destroy a pylon in about 5,5 seconds game-time (apart from cluttering the screen in laser) - it takes more than 13 with the interceptors already launched. If the chart is correct, the initial burst of a catapult-Carrier (the deadly part that almost instantkills a Viking if the Carrier has +1 attack) would be dealt every second game-time. Someone wrote that the Interceptor shoots once (twice for 5 dmg if you will) per 3 seconds game-time, which seems significantly more accurate. Even if this isnt entirely accurate, its definitely much closer to what appears to be happening than the chart is. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:25 MiraMax wrote: How so? The Zergling is so small, that when he is fully surrounded much less units can attack it simultaneoulsy than an Ultralisk for instance. For all units (even ranged ones) smaller size is better. This being said, Zerglings certainly feel much weaker in SC2. Its not the zergling size, its the marine ball. In SC2 its really easy to keep your marines in a tight ball which means lings can't get a surround on any one marine, and many will just scurry around trying to get a hit. This causes a snowball effect because lings will die but marines will get damaged evenly across the group causing the dps difference to grow larger and larger. | ||
| ||
