|
On June 23 2012 18:38 Masvidal wrote:
ROFL I just noticed how hilariously terrible stalkers are at doing damage.
Silly things a Stalker does less damage than:
A Zergling
A Marine
An Infested Terran
A Roach
And Stalkers do only .3 more dps than 2 probes attacking, and .9 more dps than a Sentry. I knew it wasn't just me thinking Stalkers just tickle stuff. Notice that all 4 things I listed cost far less than a Stalker. But even though they don't do a lot of damage, that still seems wrong that they do less damage than a marine or a roach. Is that number actually correct, or did you get something wrong?
Why are you talking about DAMAGE when the charts are for DAMAGE PER SECOND. And when has starcraft been about DPS? Well, never. Stalkers do less dps than marines, so fucking what?
|
The Queen dps stats for vs air and ground are switched in the zerg table!
|
On June 23 2012 18:18 m!DniGhT wrote:
erm That Protoss chart i looked over seems really wrong.
Like Dmg per supply should be DMG/supply and not DMG*supply i.e. DT has 45dmg and costs 2 supply so it would be 22.5 dmg per supply. That way you can calculate the real dmg per supply and compare the units. If you multiplicate it like you did teh dmg per supply of units with higher supply costs are allways higher as them of the one with lower supply costs and that is somewhat wrong..
With the DPS im not sure. acutally the Attack speed means it (example Immo) 1.45 = everye 1.45 seconds one attack or 1.45 (nearly 1 1/2) attacks per second?
this. I kept looking at the DPS per supply and couldnt tell where the numbers came from - i still cant
EDIT: i just saw the terran one where its explained - so nevermind, it adds up.
|
On June 23 2012 18:38 Masvidal wrote:
ROFL I just noticed how hilariously terrible stalkers are at doing damage.
Silly things a Stalker does less damage than:
A Zergling
A Marine
An Infested Terran
A Roach
And Stalkers do only .3 more dps than 2 probes attacking, and .9 more dps than a Sentry. I knew it wasn't just me thinking Stalkers just tickle stuff. Notice that all 4 things I listed cost far less than a Stalker. But even though they don't do a lot of damage, that still seems wrong that they do less damage than a marine or a roach. Is that number actually correct, or did you get something wrong?
I can do that, too.
Silly thing how a hellion does less DPS than a worker. 2 workers over double the dps. ; )
Both these units have something in common to use for cost effectiveness: movement speed. I'm not taking into account splash/blink or utility, for obvious reasons.
|
Can someone tell Artosis that Carrier is not the highest DPS unit in the game -_-;;
|
So the question is; can less supply of reapers do the same job as a marine/medivac drop which costs more supply?
|
Doesnt Tastosis always say carriers have the highest DPS?
|
On June 23 2012 22:55 Zrana wrote:
So the question is; can less supply of reapers do the same job as a marine/medivac drop which costs more supply?
Reapers suck massive dick. Nobody argued that their damage versus light is great, but their production time is absolutely fucking retarded for a 1 supply unit that requires a tech lab.
|
Dayum Ultralisk represent.
|
meh lousy information. Not even all sheets are formatted in the same way properly. For example why is DPS per supply without and with upgrades for terran based on a different formula?
Anyways information isn't too useful on it's own anyway, liquipedia unit stats already show all this stuff and much more so this was a 100% useless task to assemble..
|
On June 23 2012 10:22 ShaneFeit wrote:
Nice post!
This really makes me want to incorporate reapers into my bio army. Maybe if I keep them on follow command behind marauders or medivacs they might survive long enough to deal some damage.
with the speed upgrade they work quiet easy. You simply start kiting and then stim. That way Reapers will always be the farthest away from the opponent and because of their range will target mostly melee units. Zealot and ling grinder you could say.
On June 23 2012 10:41 Glockateer wrote:
Maybe reapers will be used more in HOTS considering it seems to have 60 hp now (+10) and hp regen based on the battle report.
the speed upgrade seems gone in hots, atleast for now. Means they are to slow to kite what they do damage against.
On June 23 2012 10:51 Ghoststrikes wrote:
What the charts don't show is unit health, so I really don't think massing reapers should be an answer for terran at any point due to their squishyness.
more hp then a marine after the first stim. Superior to the marine in any way, except damage to non light and building and cost of course.
The only issue with the reaper is producing them. You need time, or 40 barracks.
Nice to get them against Toss in the lategame. Zerg has fungal, so not a good idea (they have to survive because of the long production time, so anything hindering their movement is a no go). But a toss can't protect their base against a swarm of reapers, if cliffs allow it.
That being said, if the maps have cliffs reapers in the lategame are a bit OP. (lategame TvP is a free win on shakuras thanks to reapers.)
|
On June 23 2012 23:06 waspen94 wrote:
Doesnt Tastosis always say carriers have the highest DPS?
They've been saying that for... well, a long time, and it's always been pretty clear that they're wrong. Even absolutely (not per supply or per resource spent), and not conditionally (like vs armored, etc), the Thor & the Battlecruiser is higher. Even specifically vs air, it's only equal with the Battlecruiser. If you then consider it per supply or per resource spent... things like Marines and a lot of other units dominate it.
I really have no idea how they came to thinking that the carrier had high dps, it's dps is rather low for it's cost.
On June 23 2012 23:36 FeyFey wrote:
more hp then a marine after the first stim. Superior to the marine in any way, except damage to non light and building and cost of course.
Superior in every way except not being able to shoot up, costing twice (or more, if you consider gas to be more valuable) as much, doing less damage against most units and taking effectively more than triple the amount of time to build. Not... not sure that's superior.
|
i think a graph should be made, the numbers by themselves are a bit harder to digest.
|
1. Why does the "dps per supply formula" have a *6 multiplier in it? That gives us "dps per 6 supply"; we are on TL here and can handle small fractions.
2. As an additional column you might want to add one attack sequence, because it matters - for figuring out the efficiency - if one attack sequence is 100 damage or just 10 damage, because the first one will be a lot of overkill. Thors are a prime example of why their seemingly high dps isnt as useful as lower dps of other units.
|
Very nice post! Extremely interesting.
I find it pretty comical that stalkers do so little damage.
|
On June 23 2012 16:30 Skamtet wrote:
Zerglings are better than Stalkers.
4 drones beat a stalker, but you need to factor alot more things into that. Still even most progamers don't think about unit stats when playing and they lose when they build stalkers for combat or roaches vs maxed enemy army.
|
On June 23 2012 15:35 Sea_Food wrote:
All workers dont have same dps.
As a stataholic. I could not watch more. These numbers are so wrong and make me cry.
Show some proof, liquipedia stats say 3.3 for all workers.
|
On June 23 2012 10:49 RenSC2 wrote:
Yeah, Reapers seem like the big surprise from those charts. I wonder what a well protected pack of reapers could do against chargelots in bio terran vs protoss deathball fights. I always thought that better usage of ghosts or blueflame hellions might be the answer, but those numbers say that terrans should try out reapers first. Just gotta control them extremely well.
Wow, you know all this time I was trying different things as Terran and you came on here and made me realize everything that I had not tried. Thank you.
|
Ignores splash damage. Ignores health. Ignores armor. Ignores prerequisites, flexibility of use. Ignores so many things. It's hardly even useful for realistic damage calculations. It's extreme, but imagine fully upgraded Ultralisk versus 4 unupgraded Marines. Where is the accuracy of your DPS then?
I won't mock the OP, because it's natural that players with an interest will come up with basic analyses. But I do want to emphasize that an elementary DPS chart as set forth in the OP is completely insufficient to even beginning to understanding how to play the game well.
For example, if you're going PvP, you often want an archon - not for DPS, but simply because archons can break through sentry force fields. You really can't ignore that sort of thing, but it's not at all covered in a DPS chart - and there are so MANY such things to consider.
|
On June 24 2012 01:58 redruMBunny wrote:
Ignores splash damage. Ignores health. Ignores armor. Ignores prerequisites, flexibility of use. Ignores so many things. It's hardly even useful for realistic damage calculations. It's extreme, but imagine fully upgraded Ultralisk versus 4 unupgraded Marines. Where is the accuracy of your DPS then?
I won't mock the OP, because it's natural that players with an interest will come up with basic analyses. But I do want to emphasize that an elementary DPS chart as set forth in the OP is completely insufficient to even beginning to understanding how to play the game well.
For example, if you're going PvP, you often want an archon - not for DPS, but simply because archons can break through sentry force fields. You really can't ignore that sort of thing, but it's not at all covered in a DPS chart - and there are so MANY such things to consider.
Noone claims that. It's just a dps chart for the people so they can see dps, nothing else. Wanna see all stats - go to liquipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
