EPTZero is a whole number.
How damage is calculated, and +1 Mutalisks - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
Zero is a whole number. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On September 14 2010 13:25 ktimekiller wrote: Displayed HP is rounded (down), damage is precise, and internal HP is precise.Bit lost For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote: 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. OTL | ||
|
ktimekiller
United States690 Posts
On September 14 2010 13:32 figq wrote: Displayed HP is rounded (down), damage is precise, and internal HP is precise. And the minimum damage is apparently .5? | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On September 14 2010 13:36 ktimekiller wrote: Yes.And the minimum damage is apparently .5? Correct me if something is wrong please, because this testing was done a few months ago, and there could be a mistake. | ||
|
Stewie
Germany17 Posts
On September 14 2010 13:17 Alsn wrote: 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? This is exactly what I was wondering about, just that he stated it better. This is a pretty important kind of information to find out. In case someone figures out that it is a constant +1/+1/+1 - it will be a huge discovery. | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
mutalisk bounce also sucks imo with weapon upgrades 2nd bounce gets 0.6666 dmg instead of 1 3rd bounce gets 0.3333 dmg instead of 1. | ||
|
SevenSpirits
United States12 Posts
Attack upgrade gives +1 + 2/3 + 1/3 damage per shot (+2) Armor upgrade gives -1 - 1 - .5 (at worst) per enemy shot (-2.5) Easy example, if you get armor and your opponent gets attack: their Mutas do 9 + 2.66 + .5 = 12.16 per shot yours do 9 + 3 + 1 = 13 per shot Of course, against non-mutas, you'd probably rather have attack. (And other units against your mutas would probably like to have armor.) | ||
|
ktimekiller
United States690 Posts
Considering the low damage per shot, but frequent hits from Terran AA, the +1 armor would be far more valuable than damage. I am leaning towards +1 damage against Protoss because of Guardian shield and the lack of fast but low damage hits that will ward Mutalisks away. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On September 14 2010 13:17 Alsn wrote: The 0.5 correction is applied last of all calculations, to prevent the situation of unit attacking and dealing 0 damage. (Blizzard doesn't like it apparently ^^) So under GS you still take at least the minimum damage in all attack-defense matchups.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? On September 14 2010 13:53 MavercK wrote: Otherwise the upgrades would benefit the bounces more than the main attack (in % of increase), which would be unreasonable.mutalisk bounce also sucks imo with weapon upgrades 2nd bounce gets 0.6666 dmg instead of 1 3rd bounce gets 0.3333 dmg instead of 1. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
And why are people suggesting it upgrades at +1 +.66 and +.33? fail at math, or another reason? It should be +1 +.33 +.11 if it follows the attack. Edit: OK I tested it. The +1 attack upgrades +1, +.33 and +.11 as one would expect. It's only the first shot (then alternating every 3 or 9 times) that "deals" extra damage. Makes me glad whenever I went mutas I wasn't ever getting the attack instead of armor. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On September 14 2010 14:42 Barrin wrote: I'm not sure exactly how the extra armor is calculated in SC2, but in SC1 it was more complicated than just rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a unit had 255 armor and a unit attacking it only did 1 damage, then that unit attacking it would have to hit it several times before 1 damage was dealt. I am 100% sure on this btw. Yeah I'm pretty sure of that too. SC1's was weird, not sure exactly how it worked. When it comes to SC2thoguh, as people mentioned, I think it's minimum 0.5 damage. Someone even said this is an attribute configurable in the editor, so that's as much proof as anyone would need to be certain that it's true. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On September 14 2010 14:42 Barrin wrote: I know, that's why I did those tests, to confirm or disprove that this works similarly in SC2 - and in SC2 it is with fractional internal HP instead. I read people claiming every second ling attack deals 1 whole damage - that is not true in SC2.I'm not sure exactly how the extra armor is calculated in SC2, but in SC1 it was more complicated than just rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a unit had 255 armor and a unit attacking it only did 1 damage, then that unit attacking it would have to hit it several times before 1 damage was dealt. I am 100% sure on this btw. My guess about BW is that they optimized the engine by using integers, so they used a formula to solve any rational number equation and deal 1 whole damage on every n hits (with some incrementor). In SC2 they don't care about such petty optimizations anymore | ||
|
dbizzle
United States395 Posts
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote: 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. Yea that seems to make sense on how intricate blizzard is; it would be alot easier on the eyes to see whole numbers instead of day9 screaming that he got away with 2.756 health | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
+1 is great since it gives the bonus bounce damage against units such as marines, sentries, hellions, etc. However, against units with base +1 armor, it will NOT give that bonus bounce damage. Marauders, zealots, stalkers, and many other units have +1 armor already...thus, to get the mutalisk bounce bonus damage against them, you would need...thats right...+2 attack. | ||
|
onionchowder
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
EggPuppet
26 Posts
If a 9-3-1 mutalisk fires at a 100 armor target and it bounces to a 0 armor target, does the secondary target take 3 damage or 0.5? | ||
|
baconbits
United States419 Posts
On September 14 2010 16:46 EggPuppet wrote: Are the glaive bounces each 1/3 of the previous stage's damage vs. unarmored, or the damage it actually dealt in practice? If a 9-3-1 mutalisk fires at a 100 armor target and it bounces to a 0 armor target, does the secondary target take 3 damage or 0.5? 3 | ||
| ||
