|
On March 04 2012 15:13 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +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
so what about range and splash?
|
4713 Posts
I didn't read it in your post or any replies here, so I'll assume you haven't done it, but I'll ask none the less.
Did you factor stim into the DPS per cost ratio? While marines and marauders do lose health to stim, you always have to assume they are stimed because they deal substantially more DPS and they have medivac support to heal them and balance out the health costs.
Edit: Also, I feel these numbers are only relevant to armies that just collide into one another and stop micro-ing. Things like stutter stepping, focus fire, kiting, focus fire and armor vulnerabilities can increase the DPS/health ratio of a unit by a lot, especially for the T1 units.
|
I thought this thread was about how to live healthier spending less money. But this is fine too.
I find the steadiness of the ratios between each unit interesting despite how you weight gas... Certain units are always the highest. I guess if these info gets popular enough we'd be like "I need more health, make cheap units".
|
One thing this does make clear is that if it weren't for vulnerability to splash, Zealots are the best damage tanks in the game...which means that charge, by reducing vulnerability to splash by spreading out Zealots, is perhaps even better than is widely known.
|
i don't know why people are focused on the gas cost... 3:1 is a good ratio, because optimal saturation = 16 scvs on minerals and 6 scvs on gas which provide 650/210 per minute. arguably with full saturation of 20 scvs on minerals then it could be >3:1, but people usually avoid that less efficient over saturation.
there is no such thing as 'spare' gas. essentially, 'spare' gas means your build is haphazard because you've been mining gas which could have been minerals instead.
this information is pretty interesting, and i'm certainly going to use bunkers more often.
another thing of note is that bunkers are immune to fungal growth and psi storm, and with upgrade have 3 armour.
|
Since people asked, here's the info on Bunkers, Planetaries, and other static defense
Bunker 4 (technically it can be much, much higher due to salvage)
Missile Turret 2.5
Planetary 1.03 (for optimally saturated base), 1.3 (for 2:1 gas to mineral value ratio). Obviously this ignores opportunity cost of not having mules.
Repair health per cost is just normal health per cost times 4. So a repaired bunker has a ridiculously high health per cost of 16.
Photon Cannon 2
Spore Crawler 5.3
Spine Crawler 3
|
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.
You have to consider both. What does the DPS apply to? It applies to health. Obviously Combat Shields is a good upgrade because health per cost matters.
And yes, in order to truly analyze every little thing, you would have to go down to the number of shots each unit takes against each unit, which someone has done. They even included upgrades. Try searching for it.
Technically, you would also have to include unit speed, range, size, and number of units in question, which turns it into a crazy list of separate 4-d graphs with rainbow gradients and shit. I guess it's a complicated game.
|
Interesting numbers. Not sure if these would ever be part of an in-depth strategical analysis, but it may still be useful information at some point. Thanks!
|
That's completely irrelevant. Health per cost? Are you joking? When does that matter?
|
On March 06 2012 06:41 Jinsho wrote:
That's completely irrelevant. Health per cost? Are you joking? When does that matter?
"i have this backbone of insanely high dps hydras and the protoss has no aoe, i want to get the most health out of my 'front line' as possible to keep the hydras alive"
the answer is infact to have a front line of zerglings with maybe some roaches due to surface area problems. lings are the most tanky unit in the zerg army if theres no aoe. so people talking about roaches being tanky have been wrong for a year. in essence having atleast some zerglings is never a bad choice. these pure roach hydra balls are actually not as effective as they could be.
|
Not sure 3.58:1 gas:mineral ratio is the best one to use, but anyone advocating using 1:1 is insane.
Mid game, there's not a single player in the world that wouldn't trade mineral income for gas income on a 1:1 basis (in fact, that's pretty much what you do when you build a refinery/assimilator/extractor). Gas is the bottleneck for nearly every mid/late game composition, with a few exceptions. (TvP is the main one).
2:1 is closer to the truth, but obviously any single ratio isn't going to be accurate enough to capture the functional exchange rate.
|
On March 04 2012 19:11 Rassy wrote:Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient 
Well, the actual cost of a bunker that does anything is 100 min + 200 mins for marines or 200 mins 50 gas for marauders, so the actual cost per health of a bunker and its units, using 2:1 gas ratio, is:
4 Marines, 180 HP +400 = 580 HP, 580/300 cost= 1.93
4 Combat Shield Marines, 220 HP + 400 = 620 HP, 620/300(+) cost = 2.06
2 Marauders, 250 HP + 400 = 650 HP. 650/400 cost= 1.625, similar to zealots
So it's not an astronomical 4, it's more like a planetary fortress or other static defense.
Photon Cannon, 300 HP/150 cost = 2
Spore Crawler, 300 HP/ 100 cost +50 drone cost = 2
So the cost effectiveness straddles the Photon Cannon and Spine Crawler depending on upgrades. You might want to add 50 minerals for the supply depot cost of 4 supply, and 40 or whatever it is for a minute of mining time, as well as ~25 for drone replacement and 10 for probe mining time, which makes the filled bunker more like a tad under 1.5 or 1.6, about the same as a zealot. Photon Cannon would be about 1.875 and spine crawler would be 1.7.
|
This chart is really interesting, although I can't take away much from this because of the fact that you didn't factor in armor, although I admit that it would be a royal pain to make those estimates. I'd advise you put in the units base defense as a reference, even if you don't factor it in.
The conclusive note about how stalkers aren't worth the resources in terms of hp is interesting, because, as you put it extremely well, it is a great testament to how the warp-in, speed, and range is factored in for combat.
I'd suggest you make another comparison by using a high yield (gold) base, to see what the comparison there would be.
|
thus, the term meat shield. seriously though, its amusing that marines are so damn high....
|
You overvalued gas way too much.
It's like saying "You need 6 workers to saturate gas, 18 to saturate minerals, therefore minerals are 3 times as valuable as gas"; which is also bullshit, but leads to a better placing for Archons!
|
And to think ghosts used to be 100/200. those bottom two charts would be even more fucked up if it weren't for that for ghosts.
|
On March 06 2012 12:45 Lord Zeya wrote:
This chart is really interesting, although I can't take away much from this because of the fact that you didn't factor in armor, although I admit that it would be a royal pain to make those estimates. I'd advise you put in the units base defense as a reference, even if you don't factor it in.
The conclusive note about how stalkers aren't worth the resources in terms of hp is interesting, because, as you put it extremely well, it is a great testament to how the warp-in, speed, and range is factored in for combat.
I'd suggest you make another comparison by using a high yield (gold) base, to see what the comparison there would be.
The other part of stalkers is that half their HP is shields, so half their HP will regen after combat. only a 3rd of zealot hp will regen after combat. Also the final piece of the puzzle regarding stalkers is how few options protoss has as an alternative. Protoss ground units that can shoot up: Sentry, Stalker, Archon. Did I miss anything? Nope, that's it. If you don't want to build air units your anti-air is stalkers. I've been tossing around (get it?) the idea of getting a couple of phoenix late game instead of stalkers since they are tougher, faster and do more damage to air units than stalkers do. So if I swap my stalker supply into immortals and phoenix I get a stronger army...maybe.
Worth playing with the idea anyway.
All Terran bio will regen after combat once medivacs are on the field, which changes things dramatically.
On March 06 2012 12:58 Zlasher wrote:
And to think ghosts used to be 100/200. those bottom two charts would be even more fucked up if it weren't for that for ghosts.
Only in Beta. They were 150/150 since release.
|
Meh, isn't interesting. There's tons of statistics like this, you have to provide some sort of analysis that makes your statistics especially influential, or there's nothing to take away from this. DPS per cost seems intuitively to be an important statistic, especially when it comes to something like drops where raw dps outweighs defensive stats. You never evaluate a unit based on its health independently though...
|
Surprising stalkers are so terrible.
|
On March 06 2012 13:13 Beakyboo wrote:
Meh, isn't interesting. There's tons of statistics like this, you have to provide some sort of analysis that makes your statistics especially influential, or there's nothing to take away from this. DPS per cost seems intuitively to be an important statistic, especially when it comes to something like drops where raw dps outweighs defensive stats. You never evaluate a unit based on its health independently though...
Never? May I direct you to The Toulmin Model, where you will find that generalizations such as the one you have made above are in fact quite wrong.
(May I also point out that he is isn't evaluating units independently based on health, but on cost too).
If you had bothered to read the posts above you, you would have noticed that there was already speculation on pure roach/hydra balls not actually being as effective as a roach/hydra/ling ball (with proportions that wouldn't be determined in a thread like this).
I believe that the point of a thread like this differs from a blog in the fact that is up to us, the community to take this information and interesting new point of view and expand on the ideas that were offered in the first place. To smash someone's ideas while offering comments such as "dps is intuitively an important statistic" and "you never evaluate a unit based on its health independently" shows that you yourself are lacking information and have no more information to add to this thread than many of the others who have posted before you.
To the OP, any chance we can get some pretty graphs? I think that would help a lot with the understanding and flow of the article!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
