|
I trust that you all remember this video, in which one fully upgraded Ultralisk kills an absurd amount of Zerglings.
+ Show Spoiler +
When I watched that, it made me wonder how damage is calculated in terms of weapon damage vs. armor. A zergling without upgrades does 5 damage, and the Ultra in that video has 6 armor, and yet it's still taking damage...
Also, I watched an interview from Artosis recently in which he said that he usually gets 2/1 upgrades for his Mutalisks... and I thought of those Zerglings again.
Anyway, I've just done some tests with +1 Mutaliks... here are the results:
with 0 weapon upgrades and no armor on the targets:
1st target takes 9 damage
2nd target takes 3 damage
3rd target takes 1 damage
with +1 upgrade on the Mutas:
1st takes 10
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
with +2
1st takes 11
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
and with +3
1st takes 12
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
SO, it seems as if damage is rounded up to the first whole number, and therefore no amount of armor will reduce damage to zero.
Also, it's clear that the first attack upgrade for Mutalisks is definitely the most important, as well at the cheapest, and the fastest.
Finally, if someone could provide me with some numbers on how Guardian Shield works with respect to this I would much appreciate it...
EDIT: Fail embed, srry 
|
Youtube links will auto-embed if you just post the URL.
|
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
|
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice.
|
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
I did, and it simply detracted 1 from the rounded up value every single time. None of the splash from the Muta is ever reduced to 0.
|
On September 14 2010 10:55 Grachuus wrote:
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
Ya, if you made a spreadsheet showing the damage with different upgrades against varying armor values I would love you long time. Then we could see which mutalisk upgrades are most efficient given that ZvZ often times comes down to a mutalisk battle of some sort.
Maybe do some math on corrupters vs mutalisks since they are also a part of that matchup when mutalisks come into the equation.
|
Not 100% related, but am I the only person who thinks it's weird that workers don't get extra damage from attack upgrades?
Not that anybody should be attacking with workers as some sort of DPS force, but because their damage doesn't scale with upgrades, the usefulness of pulling workers to defend in an emergency is less and less as you approach the late game.
I remember HD cast a TvZ recently where at the very end like 5 Marauders killed a Hatchery with 71 Drones on it, and HD commented that if the Zerg player had pulled Drones, he may have won the game.
But in a 3/3 situation, I think 5 Marauders would actually beat 71 Drones.
|
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit
You actually may be right about this... I'm going to do additional testing and edit my OP if it proves that way.
|
I think anything less than armor does 0.5 damage a hit. so 1st does damage, second doesn't third does and so on.
|
There was an old post that sounded authoritative that suggested that .5 was the lowest possible damage in SC2, and all damage below 1 was officially .5 (irregardless of rounding apparently?)
I don't know where the post is or how this can be verified but there it is
|
I've made very extensive testing on this before using corruption and frenzy (while it was in the game) to force weird % of whole damage.
The conclusion was: SC2 works with fractional (non-integer) damage and HP. If your damage is 0.7, then if you repeat it 10 times it deals exactly 7 HP damage. Moreover - the HP showed by a unit is rounded (floored) downwards to the highest integer which is lower or equal to the real HP.
Example1: Battlecruiser taking 0.5 damage shows 549HP, but in fact it really has 549.5 HP.
Example2 (exception): If your unit shows 1HP, it actually has anything in the range 0 < x < 2 (* - see below)
On top of that, there's engine minimum for dealing damage, which is 0.5, so even with the weakest unit vs the highest armor, every hit will deal 0.5 damage. That means, if you ever face a unit with imba high armor, attack it with the fastest attack-rate unit.
+ Show Spoiler [Some of my brief notes during testing] +proof of internal fractional HP: fully upgraded Ultra vs lings. the regeneration is faster if you stop it right after it shows lower HP, instead of the next hit, which still shows the same HP.
sentry (6) vs +3 armor BC (6) - deals 0.5 , but with corruption it deals 6.20% = 1.2 + 0.5 = 1.7 , and indeed after 10 attacks the BC health is 550 - 17 = 533
+1 attack Ghost with Frenzy deals 11+2.75 = 13.75 - 6 = 7.75 and indeed, after 4 attacks the result is 519 = 550 - 31 = 7.75x4
+1 attack Ghost vs Corrupted BC deals 11x0.2 = 2.2 + 11 - 6 = 7.2 , and indeed, after 5 attacks, the result is 514
...etc
(*) similar to the 0.5 damage minimum, there's actually a non-zero HP minimum too, which is also 0.5 . The internal HP does not allow your unit to have 0.2 HP. If after the last attack it has 0 < x < 0.5 , then the engine puts it at 0.5 HP. You can check this with regeneration rates again.
|
On September 14 2010 10:58 TedJustice wrote:
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice.
This is how it worked in BW. I imagine it remained the same in SC2 though I never checked.
Two points of interest:
- Units with double/triple attacks get reduced by armor on each attack. So a Zealot does 14 vs 1 armor and not 15.
- Mutalisks (in BW at least) did 9, 9/3 = 3, 3/3 = 1 damage. With 3attack they did 12, 12/3 = 4, 4/3 = 1.3333 (so first 2-3 attacks would do 1 damage rounded down while they accumulate decimals and then 4th attack would do 2damage).
|
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote:
Great post with proper testing.
Thank you.
That does mean that muta upgrades are all just as important as the value of 4 is in fact 3.33, 3.66 and 4.00. Anyone feel like confirming this?
|
On September 14 2010 11:59 PTZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 10:58 TedJustice wrote:
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice. This is how it worked in BW. I imagine it remained the same in SC2 though I never checked. Two points of interest: - Units with double/triple attacks get reduced by armor on each attack. So a Zealot does 14 vs 1 armor and not 15. - Mutalisks (in BW at least) did 9, 9/3 = 3, 3/3 = 1 damage. With 3attack they did 12, 12/3 = 4, 4/3 = 1.3333 (so first 2-3 attacks would do 1 damage rounded down while they accumulate decimals and then 4th attack would do 2damage).
Interesting.
Can anyone confirm the behaviour of mutalisks in sc2 regarding whether that 1-0 upgrade makes the third glaive constantly do 2 dmg over 1 or just their first attack and then once in a while due to round up.
So far I believe that the 0-1 carapace is still more valuable than the 1-0 attack in muta vs muta fights until someone can confirm whether their dps upgrade of the two bounces are permanently upped by 1 with the 1-0 attack.
|
That's very interesting - it makes it look as though getting +2 attack for Muta isn't too important even if you're going fairly heavy on them.
Are there any tests to see what the effect of Muta upgrades are vs 1 armour, 2 armour, 3 armour, and 4 armour targets are? That's something that'd be very useful to know  .
|
Really, 5 damage against 6 armor is 0.5 damage? I thought it was 1. Something new every day...
|
What I wonder is, are you sure the first upgrade actually does +1/+1/+1 and not +1/+0,66/+0,33 and you simply tested with just the one attack?
Edit: Also, this still doesn't change the fact that once your opponent has +2 armor to their main unit, muta splash is more or less a moot point. Getting the upgrades just for the initial attack is still good if you are a heavy muta user however.
Edit2: Actually, expanding on what figq said, does anyone know about how guardian shield works? Can that spell reduce damage to 0 where armor can only reduce it to .5 or are the mechanics the same?
|
this is pretty cool.
useful just to know how important that +1 attack is above all else, thanks for this
|
I've personally only been getting +1 attack myself also, For no real reason other than the +1 ties with heavy muta play, but doesn't overly commit my spire for upgrades in favor of broodlords. I also told myself that +1 was really good because the third glaive would hugely benefit, and this math proves my theory. Nice to know I was doing it right all along
|
Bit lost
For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
