EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3yBgy.png)
Percentage increase in attack upgrades
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Spammish
United Kingdom42 Posts
| ||
|
Dont Panic
United States194 Posts
| ||
|
ElusoryX
Singapore2047 Posts
| ||
|
Lunchador
United States776 Posts
Zergling going from 5-6 damage is a 20% increase, is it not? | ||
|
Spammish
United Kingdom42 Posts
On April 12 2011 12:01 Lunchador wrote: Are these... accurate? Zergling going from 5-6 damage is a 20% increase, is it not? It's DPS not attack damage. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
can you give some more detail?(or maybe im just being stupid) | ||
|
Nevy
Canada169 Posts
poor guy. | ||
|
nodule
Canada931 Posts
Unless upgrades also change the fabric of time, 20% increase in damage == 20% increase in DPS. | ||
|
Severian
Australia2052 Posts
Attack speed remains constant so it doesn't make a difference. 7.2 DPS -> 8.6 DPS is a 20% increase as well. It looks like you're calculating it as a percentage of the new value (ie 16.67% of 8.6 DPS), which is a bit counter-intuitive. | ||
|
Jombozeus
China1014 Posts
| ||
|
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation484 Posts
Zergling DPS at +1: 6 / 0.696 = 8.6207 DPS increase = 8.6207 / 7.1839 = 1.2000027840031180834922535113239 = 20% increase. Sry, you suck at math. | ||
|
nodule
Canada931 Posts
On April 12 2011 12:01 Lunchador wrote: Are these... accurate? Zergling going from 5-6 damage is a 20% increase, is it not? Looks like he's calculating it as percentage of new attack value instead of old. (1/6 instead of 1/5 in this case, which is wrong). | ||
|
Spammish
United Kingdom42 Posts
| ||
|
nodule
Canada931 Posts
| ||
|
chuDr3t4
Russian Federation484 Posts
Ling - 1/5, 1/6, 1/7. Marauder - 2/20 or 1/10 , 2/22 or 1/11 and 2/24 or 1/12. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
On April 12 2011 12:43 chuDr3t4 wrote: Oh and by the way if you think that to realise that "damage increase" is attack number addition divided by attack number you need some kind of spreadsheet, that's very sad, because it is very obvious and intuitive. It's also obvious that attack gain diminishes in damage gain per additional upgrade. Ling - 1/5, 1/6, 1/7. Marauder - 2/20 or 1/10 , 2/22 or 1/11 and 2/24 or 1/12. I can't speak for what the OP is trying to do since he's edited his post out for now. But the gain from attack upgrades isn't as obvious as those numbers you pulled out when you take armor into account. | ||
|
Spammish
United Kingdom42 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On April 12 2011 13:07 Spammish wrote: Everything should be fine now. ... and still it doesnt matter, because you need to manage your units on the battlefield and can waste the awesome upgrades. Also offensively upgrading big hits is only important if you need less hits to kill your opponents stuff with that (Thor needs 3 shots of 30*2 for Zealots and Stalkers no matter what) and could get a lot of overkill. Percentages simply dont matter in SC2, only the real values. | ||
|
nodule
Canada931 Posts
On April 12 2011 13:22 Rabiator wrote: ... and still it doesnt matter, because you need to manage your units on the battlefield and can waste the awesome upgrades. Also offensively upgrading big hits is only important if you need less hits to kill your opponents stuff with that (Thor needs 3 shots of 30*2 for Zealots and Stalkers no matter what) and could get a lot of overkill. Percentages simply dont matter in SC2, only the real values. Sure they matter. It's useful to know which units scale well with upgrades and which ones don't, even if they don't tell you the whole story. There will always be important edge cases that this kind of analysis doesn't cover. Percentages as also useful because they give you a rough idea how powerful the upgrade is (e.g., you can assume your army fights like it is ~10% bigger if you have a 10% attack up). One interesting thing that this reminded me is that attack upgrades scale worse as they get higher and more expensive (less % increase in damage), while armour ups scale better the higher they are (more % damage reduction for each level). | ||
|
village_idiot
2436 Posts
On April 12 2011 12:07 Nevy wrote: Corruptor dead last. poor guy. He has corruption, though. | ||
| ||
