|
On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
Cost, survivability, damage output quotient. v0.0.1
(((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type[see below]/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
A light ground unit would take the most bonus damage from banelings (15 bonus damage), so you'd use their damage bonus. They'd take the least from Reapers (9.1, I think). So it would be 15/9.1
Using his gas equation:
Zealot (no charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.25) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.4368
Zealot (charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.533866667
Zealot (full upgrades, including shields armor) ((1.6 / (20 / 7)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.934266667 (Flawed, applies shield armor to health even when shields are up)
Zergling (no glands, no speed, no creep) ((1.4 / (11.4 / 3)) * 2.953) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.660021404
Zergling (full upgrades, creep) ((1.4 / (13.6 / 3)) * 6.10800) / (15 / 9.1) = 1.1443517
Aside from a couple flaws, does this appease you?
For units with +light/etc, average the vs, +light and vs. everything else for general effectiveness
+ Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/((maximum upgraded dps with armor type bonus/maximum upgraded dps without armor type bonus)/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
Or
+ Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps vs. bonus armor type/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
For maximum damage vs. target with bonused armor type.
You can adjust the DPS section to account for specific unit armor, and get the effectiveness of a zealot vs. a zergling or a zealot vs. an ultralisk
|
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
|
On March 04 2012 15:19 Warpath wrote:
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
∞ health / 0 cost =
:D
|
On March 04 2012 15:19 Warpath wrote:
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
Well the Planetary costs 550/150 (400 for the cc 150/150 for the PF upgrade) and using his calculation the gas cost is 537 (3.58 times 150) so we're looking at a total of 1087 cost for 1500 hp which is 1.38 health per cost if you are using the 2:1 ratio than the total cost is 850 and it has a health per cost of 1.76.
Both numbers rounded for significant figures.
|
Counting gas 4 times the value of minerals is completely wrong.
The fact that gas is 4 times more rare then minerals is irrelevant if you dont have a use for the gas , (and no race has a use for gas in 1-1 ratio with minerals)
You should look at opportunity costs and then you see that gas is exactly as valuable as minerals, with exception of the 1 time building of the geyser (1 suv mines gas at the same speed as it mines minerals)
gas=minerals
Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient
|
On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
but DPS doesnt mean anything unless you factor in range and unit speed...
obviously it's too rough to be conclusive, but it's consistent with almost everything we'd expect to see from 'tanky' units.
the numbers show that zealots are the cheapest damage sponge in the game, and let's not forget they also have 1 base armour and a chrono'd production cycle of 18.7 seconds, which is 25% faster than a marine.
|
On March 04 2012 19:11 Rassy wrote:Counting gas 4 times the value of minerals is completely wrong. The fact that gas is 4 times more rare then minerals is irrelevant if you dont have a use for the gas , (and no race has a use for gas in 1-1 ratio with minerals) You should look at opportunity costs and then you see that gas is exactly as valuable as minerals, with exception of the 1 time building of the geyser (1 suv mines gas at the same speed as it mines minerals) gas=minerals Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient
but that's bad macro.
if you don't need the gas, ideally you should expand earlier to keep your optimal mineral saturation without mining gas...
|
nice info, apart from the 3.58 conversion rate
|
On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Archon .31 (cost is variable, but surprisingly any way you do it comes out to about .31 health per cost)
This is why I'd take 3.58 over any other ratio - but anyway only it's more and more accurate as game progresses and has a real reason to be here, unlike other completely random ones like 2:1.
|
2:1 is better, because things tend to cost more minerals than gas. Maybe 3:1 at highest.
|
The way I see it being done is taking a specific matchup and having different mineral to gas values depending on the the gas heavy units being used and what their mineral/gas ratios are and how often you make them on a scale as it'll give the worth of gas rather than just the mining rate of it.
|
Would be interesting with health pr. dps.
|
On March 04 2012 19:33 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
2:1 is better, because things tend to cost more minerals than gas. Maybe 3:1 at highest.
What's the logic in this ?
|
Maybe bringing overlords to tank damage (like how Terrans with Factories) can work?
|
What in the world gave you the idea to use this 3.58 figure? Why would you believe that the ratio at which gas is mined compared to minerals has anything to do with their respective values?
To see the flaw of this line of thinking, let's consider a slightly altered version of Starcraft 2 where the gas cost of each unit, building and upgrade except for reactors, extractors and assimilators is increased by its current mineral cost. So for instance, a worker now costs 50/50, a Nexus costs 400/400, a Roach costs 75/100, etc.
In this game, the value of gas compared to minerals would obviously rise dramatically. Gas would become the main resource and minerals just a minor side resource that does not play that big of a role in the grand scheme of things, somewhat similar to lumber in Warcraft 3. However, in this game, the ratio of mineral income to gas income per saturated base would not change at all and in practice the mineral/gas ratio would even decrease as players would simply make less workers because they wouldn't need as many minerals.
So clearly income ratio is not the only factor that determines the relative value of resources. The other two main factors are demand and cost of harvesting.
Demand depends on what you want to do in a game. If you want to get a Broodlord Infestor army, you have a very high demand for gas and a relatively low demand for minerals, whereas a Marine Tank army does not need as much gas. Generally speaking, ratio of the demand for minerals to demand for gas is somewhere between roughly 1 (e.g. Infestor Broodlord) and infinity (strategy which does not require any minerals, e.g. an SCV Marine all in).
Cost of harvesting obviously also affects the relative value of resources. If a gas geyser gave the same income, but needed 10 workers to saturate, gas would become more valuable compared to minerals.
Taking all that into account, there's no simple exchange rate that is always applicable, but if you do want to get a sort of average, I'd say that it would probably be around 1.7. You get less income per worker mining gas and gas is overall much scarcer, but then you also have to take into account that the demand for minerals is usually much higher, especially in the early game and that minerals can always be used in some way, whereas if you have excess gas, there's nothing in the game which costs just gas.
That's why I find 2:1 to be a bit too much and 3.58:1 is just outrageous.
|
i think you use 'obviously' way too much. other than that, i thought 'whore armour' when reading lol :
On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Stalkers have the worst durability for cost by a considerable margin, and thats not even including their wore armor
|
the OP has been updated with more data for different assumptions about gas to mineral value ratio, also copied below
If we’re instead looking at optimally saturated bases rather than fully saturated bases, gas is worth more like 3 times as much as minerals (3.12 if you’ve got 2 workers per mineral patch and 3 per gas, 2.9 if you put 4 on gas, I’m splitting the difference and just using 3). Then here are the numbers
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .58
Immortal .55
Mothership .44
Carrier .41
Phoenix .4
Void Ray .36
Colossus .39
Archon .36
Observer .24
Dark Templar .24
Sentry .23
High Templar .16
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .97
Drone .8
Overseer .67
Utralisk .56
Nydus Worm .5
Corruptor .44
Hydralisk .32
Mutalisk .3
Baneling .24
Brood Lord .21
Infestor .16
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .71
Thor .44
Battlecruiser .42
Medivac .38
Viking .33
Tank .3
Banshee .31
Reaper .25
Ghost .2
Raven .2
Now, some people have requested I use a 2:1 ratio for gas value to minerals. I think in many situations this undervalues gas, but I could see how in some situations this might be closer to the truth, so here are the numbers run at a 2:1 ratio
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .71
Immortal .67
Mothership .58
Carrier .53
Phoenix .51
Void Ray .45
Colossus .5
Archon .51 (variable, with DTs its more like .48)
Observer .34
Dark Templar .32
Sentry .32
High Templar .23
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach 1.16
Drone .8
Overseer .8
Utralisk .71
Nydus Worm .67
Corruptor .57
Hydralisk .53
Mutalisk .4
Baneling .3
Brood Lord .28
Infestor .23
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .83
Thor .57
Battlecruiser .55
Medivac .5
Viking .42
Tank .4
Banshee .4
Reaper .33
Raven .28
Ghost .25
If we’re instead looking at optimally saturated bases rather than fully saturated bases, gas is worth more like 3 times as much as minerals (3.12 if you’ve got 2 workers per mineral patch and 3 per gas, 2.9 if you put 4 on gas, I’m splitting the difference and just using 3). Then here are the numbers
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .58
Immortal .55
Mothership .44
Carrier .41
Phoenix .4
Void Ray .36
Colossus .39
Archon .36
Observer .24
Dark Templar .24
Sentry .23
High Templar .16
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .97
Drone .8
Overseer .67
Utralisk .56
Nydus Worm .5
Corruptor .44
Hydralisk .32
Mutalisk .3
Baneling .24
Brood Lord .21
Infestor .16
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .71
Thor .44
Battlecruiser .42
Medivac .38
Viking .33
Tank .3
Banshee .31
Reaper .25
Ghost .2
Raven .2
Now, some people have requested I use a 2:1 ratio for gas value to minerals. I think in many situations this undervalues gas, but I could see how in some situations this might be closer to the truth, so here are the numbers run at a 2:1 ratio
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .71
Immortal .67
Mothership .58
Carrier .53
Phoenix .51
Void Ray .45
Colossus .5
Archon .51 (variable, with DTs its more like .48)
Observer .34
Dark Templar .32
Sentry .32
High Templar .23
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach 1.16
Drone .8
Overseer .8
Utralisk .71
Nydus Worm .67
Corruptor .57
Hydralisk .53
Mutalisk .4
Baneling .3
Brood Lord .28
Infestor .23
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .83
Thor .57
Battlecruiser .55
Medivac .5
Viking .42
Tank .4
Banshee .4
Reaper .33
Raven .28
Ghost .25
|
On March 05 2012 00:44 imyzhang wrote:i think you use 'obviously' way too much. other than that, i thought 'whore armour' when reading lol : Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Stalkers have the worst durability for cost by a considerable margin, and thats not even including their wore armor
Whore armor is similar to medium armor, in that it reduces damage from piercing attacks.
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all night.
|
Whats interesting when you look at it, even with radically scaled down assumptions for value of gas to minerals, is that while the values for health per cost for units which cost gas obviously alter, relatively speaking, very little has changed at all.
That is, no matter what, when you look at Protoss units for example, the ranking for health per cost will always be something very close to:
Zealot
Warp Prism
Probe
Stalker
Immortal
Mothership
Carrier
Phoenix
Colossus
Archon
Void Ray
Observer
Dark Templar
Sentry
High Templar
There are minor shifts in ranking (e.g. at a 2:1 ratio ravens are slightly more health per cost than ghosts, while the reverse is true at a higher ratio, but either way the differences are infinitesimal), but by and large, these rankings are remarkably consistent. For tier 1.5 armored units, Stalkers are still the worst health per cost compared to Marauders and Roaches.
Other things that stay consistent:
Zealots are the best health for cost in the game
Medivacs are waaay less health for cost than other drop tech.
Corruptors are the really, really good health for cost for air combat units, and Brood Lords are awful health for cost
Saccing two overseers will always be more cost efficient than saccing one overseer if you can get the same scouting info either way.
|
Cost vs hp vs dps of units is interesting, especially on similar types of units.
Been thinking about hp/dps ratios since I bought it, what would happen if dps was cut by 40% and hp got increased by 40% on some units for example to give people more time for micro.
No change like that would probably work well without other changes, units that are bad at taking damage anyway like siege tanks, infestors and colossus would perhaps just get worse, but been wondering if some hp buffs/dps decreases would make the game better or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
