EPTDps per cost - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nihilnovi
Sweden696 Posts
| ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On September 02 2010 18:05 Nihilnovi wrote: lol at probes having more DPS / cost than stalkers, haha if you want to understand this chart, then its important that you compare the dps/cost with the durability and speed of the units also. protoss units have a shitload of HP+shields. their dps/cost is therefore very low in comparison. the only units that deal higher dps/cost have major downsides, like the slow marauder, the slow voidray that needs to charge and the slow colossus that can be hit by AtA and GtG. roaches, marauders and hydralisks have letz say medium durability, so they have average dps/cost. marines and lings have very low durability ->very high dps/cost. the chart also shows how powerfull stim is. the stimmed numbers really pop out. | ||
|
StupidFatHobbit
United States98 Posts
| ||
|
MalVortex
United States119 Posts
Banelings should not have DPS at all. I don't mean to sound condescending, but dps is damage over time. Depending on how you want to quantify the time in this instance, banelings either have 0.000r1 dps, or infinite dps. In either instance, the resulting number is meaningless in a DPS comparison scenario. Similarly, multiplying by "hits" for AoE/line attack units is pretty meaningless. A colossus with +2 upgrades that one-shots a line of zerglings didn't do less dps than a colossus with +3 upgrades in the same situation. In fact, in many instances it would be better to have that super-high "3-hit" dps with no AoE factor than distributed damage. This is the factor that makes charged voidrays so scary - high dps with no overkill. For later iterations, I would simply list their dps, with a note of its splash range, if any. You can make up obscene numbers for Colossus, Thors, etc. if you want them to be hitting 20 enemies with each attack, but that doesn't help anybody's comparison, and it has nothing to do with how fast it actually kills a unit. I would also recommend sorting the units alphabetically and separating by ground, air, and buildings/spawned units. The chart is pretty hard to read with a seemingly random ordering of everything. Getting more colors in there than greyscale would also help. If you wanted to expand this project, adding the impact of +1/2/3 weapon upgrades would also be quite useful. All that said, there are some definite uses for this. 8x stimmed marauders in a drop do an insane 160dps to a building, which means they could snipe a nexus in ~10 seconds, +2/3s more if you factor in unloading time. Simple calculations like that are quite handy to have a chart to assist with. I hope you continue to work on this project, I think a polished end result would have some excellent uses. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
Carriers work like this: Carriers fire Interceptors every 0.5 seconds and Interceptors make an attack every 3 seconds. The Interceptor deals 2 attacks each dealing 5 damage and there can be a maximum of 8 Interceptors. This results to the following: To fire all 8 Interceptors: 4 seconds. Attack CD of all 8 Interceptors on their "fire round": 3.5 seconds. (+0.5 second launch time) The first attack made by the Interceptors in a newly engaged battle, therefore, is 80 (total damage) / 4 (4 is larger than 3.5) = 20. The following attacks made by the Interceptors after they have been fired (assumes none are killed): 80 / 3 (no need for the additional +0.5 second launch time): 26.6777777r. Carriers do more damage if they'rekept alive than the moment they engage. Alternatively, you can attack some of your own units to launch the Interceptors and then engage, much like the Void Ray can charge it's Prismatic Beam on allied units. | ||
|
Pepe-
Germany87 Posts
Updated it and corrected Carriers data. | ||
|
Zanzabar Haberdasher
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
DoomSpirit
France46 Posts
 Edit : anyway, what's bothering me is how much terran units have a lot more versatilty (+ damage / ground-air / spash ) | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
On September 02 2010 05:56 Grummler wrote: So, you have read my last sentence. Awesome. Or maybe you read the rest too, but dont want to discuss about it, cause trolling is so much easier. This. You don't say! Just because it isn't the end all be all of analyses doesn't mean that it cant be helpful. I don't recall reading the OP say that this is the only thing you need to look at to completely understand SC2. There's a whole lot more going on, of course, but this analysis can help to put things into perspective. There's a whole lot of unfounded negative sentiment to "theorycraft". How do you think your computer is engineered? How do you think the car which you drive is designed? It starts with a whole lot of theory. Don't take the theory as gospel, realize that there are simplifying assumptions which must be made, but that doesn't invalidate theory completely. | ||
|
Zips
United States146 Posts
I'm a zerg player, who has been having a lot of difficulty figuring out how to win in economy/army, and failing game after game after game. I could not figure out how to keep my economy competitive, while having an army that can handle both harass and timing pushes. After seeing this chart, I feel a lot more confident, and my game play has actually improved! My very simple and stupid conclusion was to build cost effective units which have high dps -- that just happens to be zerglings/hydra, and holy shit does it work well. I open with 14 gas 14 pool, zerg speed + queen, then when queen finishes I lair, add a second gas, max out at 22 drones per base, pump more lings, then transition into hydras. Holy hell am I impressed with this build.. Those hydras absolutely MELT everything toss throws at me, and the zerglings seem to be more cost effective tanks than roaches. Again, thanks for this thread! I'm so happy :D /edit Build works fine against terran, as well, except use upgraded banelings + muta instead of hydras :D | ||
|
Pepe-
Germany87 Posts
On September 02 2010 06:19 ShadowReaver wrote: Nice work here, some stats are interesting. Would be cool to add hp analysis to this as well. I tried to add hp, range and armor. So I created the value dps effectiveness, calculated by dps * sqrt(range). I did this because the difference between 1 and 2 is much bigger than 8 and 9. So this should work approximately. But this doesnt punish Zerglings more than Zealots for being melee. In addition I created the value health effectiveness depending on how much an attack is reduced by 1 armor. but Im not sure if I should just add protoss shields to their normal life. In the end I wanted to add dps effectiveness and health effectiveness to one value like: dps eff. + (health eff. / x) and divided this by the units cost. But hard to say which value x should have. Maybe 10? | ||
|
whateversclever
United States197 Posts
On September 02 2010 18:17 clickrush wrote: if you want to understand this chart, then its important that you compare the dps/cost with the durability and speed of the units also. protoss units have a shitload of HP+shields. their dps/cost is therefore very low in comparison. the only units that deal higher dps/cost have major downsides, like the slow marauder, the slow voidray that needs to charge and the slow colossus that can be hit by AtA and GtG. roaches, marauders and hydralisks have letz say medium durability, so they have average dps/cost. marines and lings have very low durability ->very high dps/cost. the chart also shows how powerfull stim is. the stimmed numbers really pop out. SHITLOAD OF HP+SHIELDS!? LOLZ. Probe is 50/0 for 20/20. Stalker is 125/50 for 80/80. 4 Probes have the same same HP + Shields as 1 Stalker (80/80). 4 Probes cost 200 Minerals and 0 Gas. 1 Stalker costs 125 Minerals and 50 Gas. This means that at a valuation of 1 Gas as 1.5 Minerals Probes give you the SAME HP and SHIELDS and MORE DAMAGE. Now, I'm not saying this is proof of Stalkers sucking. Because, hey you can kite those 4 Probes all day long and never take any damage so Stalkers win. But of course, there is something seriously wrong with the fact that I HAVE TO KITE PROBES WITH MY BASIC RANGE UNIT OR ELSE I LOSE. The truth is Protoss don't have a stable basic range unit. They have a cutesy harass ranged unit (Stalker) and a cutesy spell casting ranged unit (Sentry). And this is fine against ground, because hey just Zealot/Templar it up. It doesn't really matter, because it's designed to be melee heavy, so cutsey stuff for ranged is fine. But it is a serious issue against air units that Protoss's ground to air unit is almost worse than flying Probes. And it's only worse if there is +2 armor and they are armored. | ||
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
| ||
|
kckkryptonite
1126 Posts
| ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On September 03 2010 05:22 whateversclever wrote: SHITLOAD OF HP+SHIELDS!? LOLZ. Probe is 50/0 for 20/20. Stalker is 125/50 for 80/80. 4 Probes have the same same HP + Shields as 1 Stalker (80/80). 4 Probes cost 200 Minerals and 0 Gas. 1 Stalker costs 125 Minerals and 50 Gas. This means that at a valuation of 1 Gas as 1.5 Minerals Probes give you the SAME HP and SHIELDS and MORE DAMAGE. Now, I'm not saying this is proof of Stalkers sucking. Because, hey you can kite those 4 Probes all day long and never take any damage so Stalkers win. But of course, there is something seriously wrong with the fact that I HAVE TO KITE PROBES WITH MY BASIC RANGE UNIT OR ELSE I LOSE. The truth is Protoss don't have a stable basic range unit. They have a cutesy harass ranged unit (Stalker) and a cutesy spell casting ranged unit (Sentry). And this is fine against ground, because hey just Zealot/Templar it up. It doesn't really matter, because it's designed to be melee heavy, so cutsey stuff for ranged is fine. But it is a serious issue against air units that Protoss's ground to air unit is almost worse than flying Probes. And it's only worse if there is +2 armor and they are armored. Use your damn Pheonixes. They can hurt a lot, if you don't believe me watch Socke. ( Or was it Nani...) HuK also transitions to Void Rays with +1 attack in the late game from standard play, which turns out to be a pretty effective strategy as Void Rays do massive damages and become nearly unstable in a mass. You're complaining that Toss have no stable ranged unit? You're trying to weigh the Stalker by comparing it to probes? I'm sorry that the Stalker is nothing like the marine, I sincerely apologize. | ||
|
whateversclever
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
whateversclever
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
Pepe-
Germany87 Posts
Better compare the Stalker with the Marine and / or Marauder. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:12 dybydx wrote: 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. The SC1 upgrade is a 33.(3)% attack speed increase(8 to 6 frames). The SC2 upgrade is a ~18.6% attack speed increase(0.696 to 0.587 seconds). | ||
| ||
