|
**EDIT:
**This guy did a great job putting everything into a google doc. Has more info than me, void ray vs massive for example.
Check it out.
**Fixed Interceptor attack speed
**Added Protoss + Zerg + all races combined.
All of these are with 0 upgrades, might do others later.
No icons, kept it simple xD
Plz msg if there are any errors and I'll fix and edit.
**
First post. Made some dps charts for the terran units using my limited paint skills.
Dps per supply was multiplied by 6 to scale everything up to the regular dps tables.
Some values may be slightly off, as the attack speed values shown in-game are
rounded up/down. Also, the numbers don't factor in aoe / armor / health / cost / random delay etc.
Sorry if the images are too big. Thanks all, gl & hf ~
Terran:
DPS, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/if4rM.jpg?1
DPS per 6 supply, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/Q03YU.jpg?1
DPS, +3 attack - http://i.imgur.com/N9LUL.jpg?1
DPS per 6 supply, +3 attack - http://i.imgur.com/xmOtS.jpg?1
original spreadsheet - http://i.imgur.com/fSPhi.jpg?1
+3 attack spreadsheet - http://i.imgur.com/QYsyb.jpg?1
Protoss:
Protoss units, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/LXscp.jpg?1
Zerg:
Zerg units, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/kll9k.jpg?1
All together:
DPS comparison, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/flhHP.jpg?1
DPS per 6 supply comparison, no upgrades - http://i.imgur.com/cb6IC.jpg?1
|
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.
|
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.
|
Wow, really nice charts. Thank you.
|
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.
|
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health)
|
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.
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.
|
On June 23 2012 10:51 Ghoststrikes wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Don't forget they have the same build time as a siege tank.
|
Do zerg now :D
Seriously, I want to know Zerg ):
|
How do reapers fare against a planetary fortress (with repairing SCVs) ... I wonder.
|
Wow awesome! Well organized and looks great :D
Thanks for making!
|
On June 23 2012 10:51 Ghoststrikes wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
They only have 5 less HP than a Marine, which is nullified once they stim.
The real issue here is the build time, but I have to say I'm really surprised Reaper's non-light damage still hit the top 5 with +3 Atk.
|
On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health)
plz make these vs my bls ;o
|
I'd be very interested to see this for Z and P aswell, do you have any plans to make those chats?
|
On June 23 2012 11:13 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health) plz make these vs my bls ;o
hm maybe add vikings? But i don't think reapers is a good idea in TvZ. Reapers can harass (*can*) or like in a drop, but marine drops are much less expensive and can kill both drones and hatches/tech. Also you're better off saving your gas for those medivacs. Lately they've been making ultralisks vs MMM tank so you need that high medivac count to keep your [small MMM numbers] alive and abuse the weakness of Ultralisks in small numbers since you can just keep kiting and he won't have enough fungals (seen often in MKP's games).
Reapers reinforce a lot slower than marines too, and it would probably be better to make less Rax and make more OCs. Also obviously reapers will only be useful against light units in battle... meaning lings and banelings. What if he goes ultralisks or roach (likely)? Suddenly your army is much less flexible and there are more opportunities for the zerg to punish your composition.
|
On June 23 2012 11:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 11:13 HeavOnEarth wrote:On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health) plz make these vs my bls ;o hm maybe add vikings? But i don't think reapers is a good idea in TvZ. Reapers can harass (*can*) or like in a drop, but marine drops are much less expensive and can kill both drones and hatches/tech. Also you're better off saving your gas for those medivacs. Reapers reinforce a lot slower than marines too, and it would probably be better to make less Rax and make more OCs. Also obviously reapers will only be useful against light units in battle... meaning lings and banelings. What if he goes ultralisks or roach (likely)? Suddenly your army is much less flexible and there are more opportunities for the zerg to punish your composition.
Banelings aren't light units.
And I would naturally agree with Reapers vs Armored, but it seems Reaper's DPS increases dramatically at higher supply, to the point where they're about equal to a Marauder. Of course, a Marauder has higher damage per hit (which makes them more valuable in smaller numbers and in shorter engagements), but Reapers are smaller and with Nitro-packs, much faster.
I'd say it's worth experimenting with.
EDIT: Also, Terran really doesn't have a gas problem at all in the lategame if you aren't significantly behind. In fact, we have a gas surplus most of the time. Getting Reapers out wouldn't be a problem at all.
|
very nice, when you said limited paint skills i pictured some horrible hand/mouse scrawled graph on a white background, not the case. But to be honest Marauders are so rediculus i mean yeah its been said to death but they are so good.
|
I suppose it doesn't take armor into account, the reaper hits twice so it's less awesome than it seems.
Still, reapers hit squads in lieu of drops late game would be sexy, qxc style.
|
On June 23 2012 11:15 Monochromatic wrote:
I'd be very interested to see this for Z and P aswell, do you have any plans to make those chats?
Don't PLEASE don't. It will become the largest balance whine thread since the last patch.... DPS charts for the other races will just incite insanity....
|
The reaper's range is important to take into account. When you're talking huge numbers of units, their dps is pretty irrelevant when most of them are retarding around in the back.
I'd obviously like to see P/Z of this, but also dps/cost, adjusted for gas and +100 minerals/supply.
|
Nor does it take into account splash damage. I find that blue flame hellions tend to deal better with the front line of zealots simply due to their splash.
|
On June 23 2012 11:27 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 11:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On June 23 2012 11:13 HeavOnEarth wrote:On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health) plz make these vs my bls ;o hm maybe add vikings? But i don't think reapers is a good idea in TvZ. Reapers can harass (*can*) or like in a drop, but marine drops are much less expensive and can kill both drones and hatches/tech. Also you're better off saving your gas for those medivacs. Reapers reinforce a lot slower than marines too, and it would probably be better to make less Rax and make more OCs. Also obviously reapers will only be useful against light units in battle... meaning lings and banelings. What if he goes ultralisks or roach (likely)? Suddenly your army is much less flexible and there are more opportunities for the zerg to punish your composition. Banelings aren't light units. And I would naturally agree with Reapers vs Armored, but it seems Reaper's DPS increases dramatically at higher supply, to the point where they're about equal to a Marauder. Of course, a Marauder has higher damage per hit (which makes them more valuable in smaller numbers and in shorter engagements), but Reapers are smaller and with Nitro-packs, much faster. I'd say it's worth experimenting with. EDIT: Also, Terran really doesn't have a gas problem at all in the lategame if you aren't significantly behind. In fact, we have a gas surplus most of the time. Getting Reapers out wouldn't be a problem at all.
Oh, I see... 2 reapers does slightly more dps than a marauder.
|
On June 23 2012 11:48 Belisarius wrote:
The reaper's range is important to take into account. When you're talking huge numbers of units, their dps is pretty irrelevant when most of them are retarding around in the back.
I'd obviously like to see P/Z of this, but also dps/cost, adjusted for gas and +100 minerals/supply.
Don't ask for the supremely subjective and generally impossible, "adjusting for gas and... minerals/supply".
It's a brawl waiting to happen. Mostly because such comparisons become meaningless with different styles of play.
Lategame Terran in normal PvT could care less about how much any unit costs in gas, so adjustments would have to be made for earlygame/lategame?
Zerg nowadays tend to take bases for purely gas and skew their mineral/gas ration from the normal 4/1 in arbitrary ways when the game gets to that point. Zerg also has to think about larvae per unit...
Protoss only really think about gas when it comes to units that aren't zealots anyways... except early game?
Please, think before asking for something that's both already been done, poorly in this case, and completely variable according to a dozen normal situations and quirks.
SC2 is not WoW or D3, number crunching doesn't really work out to be even marginally applicable.
|
On June 23 2012 11:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 11:48 Belisarius wrote:
The reaper's range is important to take into account. When you're talking huge numbers of units, their dps is pretty irrelevant when most of them are retarding around in the back.
I'd obviously like to see P/Z of this, but also dps/cost, adjusted for gas and +100 minerals/supply. Don't ask for the supremely subjective and generally impossible, "adjusting for gas and... minerals/supply". It's a brawl waiting to happen. Mostly because such comparisons become meaningless with different styles of play.
This entire thing is meaningless with different styles of play, though. I mean, seriously, the top unit per supply is the reaper, and tanks are miles down the list. It ignores range, splash, armour and a ton of other things.
If you care about this thread enough to post in it, you obviously think this kind of stuff is at least an idle distraction worth pursuing for interest's sake. There's no harm in adding other metrics just to see what happens.
|
There's a guy here, fencer710, who suggests making reapers late game against protoss. There was also a pro who said that. Was it thorzain? doesnt seem like a bad idea if you have enough medivacs. and who doesn't bank thousands of gas after 3/3 is done? gas cost seems irrelevant.
The thing is the biggest struggle for terran late game is unit build time after fighting a huge 200 for 200 battle against zergs and protoss. If there were some kind of expensive research tech that let you build faster in the late game then we'd really be able to see the potential of terran units.
|
Does this account for stim-pack usage?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 23 2012 12:06 Perception wrote:
Does this account for stim-pack usage?
I am sorry for being so blunt but if you would bother to look at the first image, you would see he lists stim and non stim DPS as different categories and numbers on the actual chart.
|
On June 23 2012 11:59 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 11:55 ShatterZer0 wrote:On June 23 2012 11:48 Belisarius wrote:
The reaper's range is important to take into account. When you're talking huge numbers of units, their dps is pretty irrelevant when most of them are retarding around in the back.
I'd obviously like to see P/Z of this, but also dps/cost, adjusted for gas and +100 minerals/supply. Don't ask for the supremely subjective and generally impossible, "adjusting for gas and... minerals/supply". It's a brawl waiting to happen. Mostly because such comparisons become meaningless with different styles of play. This entire thing is meaningless with different styles of play, though. I mean, seriously, the top unit per supply is the reaper, and tanks are miles down the list. It ignores range, splash, armour and a ton of other things. If you care about this thread enough to post in it, you obviously think this kind of stuff is at least an idle distraction worth pursuing for interest's sake. There's no harm in adding other metrics just to see what happens.
If you say so... I guess that's enough backseat modding for me hahahaha
I just can't think of any way it could turn out okay for Protoss players to see that landed vikings have nearly double the DPS of stalkers, or that DPS/Supply immortals are somehow actually intensely pathetic...
|
On June 23 2012 11:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 11:13 HeavOnEarth wrote:On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health) plz make these vs my bls ;o hm maybe add vikings? But i don't think reapers is a good idea in TvZ. Reapers can harass (*can*) or like in a drop, but marine drops are much less expensive and can kill both drones and hatches/tech. Also you're better off saving your gas for those medivacs. Lately they've been making ultralisks vs MMM tank so you need that high medivac count to keep your [small MMM numbers] alive and abuse the weakness of Ultralisks in small numbers since you can just keep kiting and he won't have enough fungals (seen often in MKP's games). Reapers reinforce a lot slower than marines too, and it would probably be better to make less Rax and make more OCs. Also obviously reapers will only be useful against light units in battle... meaning lings and banelings. What if he goes ultralisks or roach (likely)? Suddenly your army is much less flexible and there are more opportunities for the zerg to punish your composition.
If I saw RMM+V I would just go balls to the wall infestor brood lord. Just fungal pew pew fungal pew pew fungal pew pew. Did you see the IPL China matches with XiGua today? His opponent used mech+viking on Metropolis and his solution was 26 corruptors, 12 brood lords and some infestors for fun-gals. It was not pretty.
That's how I imagine Reaper Marauder Medivac going. I'm not saying reapers aren't great. They are. Find me suggesting them about 2 weeks ago in the TLPD May Win Rates thread. Late/Mid game 8 reapers jumping/being dropped in your main, bye pool, bye tech, bye spines, bye everything I don't want you to kill 
|
dude can you put in something that compares DPS the fragility of the unit? That would be really great
|
Wow, these are some excellent cgarts. I hope we see this inspire someone to try something new as Terran soon, especially vZ, what terrans are doing right now isn't working.
Maybe it'll be mass reaper. I'd be happy.
|
On June 23 2012 12:00 Snoodles wrote:
There's a guy here, fencer710, who suggests making reapers late game against protoss. There was also a pro who said that. Was it thorzain? doesnt seem like a bad idea if you have enough medivacs. and who doesn't bank thousands of gas after 3/3 is done? gas cost seems irrelevant.
The thing is the biggest struggle for terran late game is unit build time after fighting a huge 200 for 200 battle against zergs and protoss. If there were some kind of expensive research tech that let you build faster in the late game then we'd really be able to see the potential of terran units.
For a great example of Tzain doing this, and one of my all time favourite TvPs, watch him in the EG MC SL 7 in his ace match against SlatersCrank.
|
red = edit
I created a Google Spreadsheet with all units from all races. It is currently sorted by unit name. I don't know how to let you sort it by other columns, but you can download into excel format.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhF0txvUsTAGdFdwOU1Zb0pqRGVxM05vcERROTU4MVE
I also added columns for vs 3 armor (I may change this to a variable sometime later) and +3 weapons vs 3 armor.
I now have variables for weapon upgrade and vs X armor. So you can adjust those as you see fit. The sloppiness of my original coding hurt my nerdy heart.
May also create some columns for DPS by cost effectiveness later, too late for me tonight.
Added DPS / 500 resources. Following along with the original creator, we're normalizing to a colossus/ultralisk/thor. This column treats minerals and gas as equals... your results may vary.
Woah, yeah, in-game info is wrong. I pulled that value directly from the in-game data, but it turns out the interceptors fly around for 3 seconds.
|
This has been done previously, and with all the races, and it also had information on the "tankiness" of each unit (depending on hp and armor etc). Again, this is not WoW, this information is not really practical, especially considering how hard some units are countered in this game. Try to do away with focusing on what units are better "dps" or "tanks" and concentrate on improving altogether instead.
|
|
|
On June 23 2012 10:49 killerdog wrote:
Huh, I wonder if super lategame tvp/tvz the terran is better off just making 25 rax with techlabs and going reaper marauder medivac instead of marines... If you get into a situation where cost is irrelevant and you have enough rax, then reapers just seem objectively better in every way (except 5 less health)
note the dps is vs light... and with marines is vs anything also its 50/50 so theyre pretty expensive and they take 45 seconds instead of 25(or 30 not sure)
|
The cooldown on an interceptor is 3, not 1. If the carrier had 80 DPS people would actually use them.
The real advantage of the interceptors, besides the range, is that you get 8 of them with 80 hit points and building more only costs 25 minerals.
With no upgrades, 4 marines without stim have a higher DPS than a carrier costing 450/250!
|
This is so wrong.
Carrier has like 26dps really.
All workers dont have same dps.
As a stataholic. I could not watch more. These numbers are so wrong and make me cry.
|
Gah... I kinda appreciate the effort generally - but the carrier should be a whole lot better according to the stats provided as ppl already mentioned. And that really devalues the effort...
|
Did you factor in the glaive worm dmg, when calculating the Mutalisk dps?
|
On June 23 2012 15:59 Doublemint wrote:
Gah... I kinda appreciate the effort generally - but the carrier should be a whole lot better according to the stats provided as ppl already mentioned. And that really devalues the effort...
Fixed carrier! Any more errors plz mention guys.
|
What's with the extra multiplication? Why is DPS per Supply not just DPS/Supply? Do you think people can't handle decimal points?
|
On June 23 2012 16:12 Mentor wrote:
Did you factor in the glaive worm dmg, when calculating the Mutalisk dps?
Nope, all the numbers ignore aoe. You can't read too much into these stats, mutas deal a lot of damage for sure xD
|
Zerglings are better than Stalkers.
|
I made some major updates to the google spreadsheet as noted by the edits in the initial post. Fixed the carrier thing, made a note next to mutas (doesn't count splash). Should help clear up some of the reasoning for why I used 500 resources or why the initial creator used 6 supply (and I followed suit).
|
I appreciate the effort. But this is going to turn into a huge balance whine thread.
|
You did not take splash damage into account (at least not for the thor air missiles). Potentially it can deal a lot more damage.
|
Interesting and nicely done.
The Reaper is missleading. It has low hp so it dies fast without doing it's impresive dmg and builds slow so it's not massable. It's a bad combat unit regardless of dps
The sieged up tank also stands out as pretty bad untill you have full upgrades and a lot of them. No wander they are rarely used against protoss.
|
what i really want to see is dps per resource cost. and dps based of how many u can make in a certain amount of time. This is still cool and stuff, but basing it on cost will just put the marine where it belongs, the highest dps per cost. :D
|
What about Void Rays vs Massive/Massive+Armored?
|
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?
|
Pretty obvious why the carrier is not used that much, as much DPS as a voidray yet costs waay more, and interceptors don't start dealing damage instantly. :/
Nice stats though thanks for posting.
|
Really well done.
If you are looking to make your workf more popular, I would suggest making it more accessible. For example you could put it into a google doc file (if it wasn't how you made it to begin with), and make it public to view, but not edit. Hell you can recruit people to edit or contribute, so you don't have to do all the work.
I'd bookmark something like that just to have it available, especially if you continued to add more content and information.
Again, nice work.
|
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 should stop viewing these charts. If I read too much into them it will make me too biased in-game.
|
Interesting Reaper scores ~33% higher than stim marine vs light. Hm maybe lategame TvP I'll make some.
|
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?
You clearly failed to see that you are looking at stalkers dps against everything but armored (which it has a dmg bonus against). Against armored targets it does infact quite alot more dmg than the units you listed. And it can shoot up compared to the roach.
|
On June 23 2012 18:56 Krejven wrote:Show nested quote +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? You clearly failed to see that you are looking at stalkers dps against everything but armored (which it has a dmg bonus against). Against armored targets it does infact quite alot more dmg than the units you listed. And it can shoot up compared to the roach.
But a stalker vs armored is still worse than a single stimmed marine, and as he stated vs non armored it is worse than a single unstimmed marine. Now think about the supply and mineral/gas cost of these units. I'm beginning to think that avoiding making stalkers will actually make a toss army better in the early/mid game. Zealot, sentry, immortal is just so much more powerful for the cost.
|
Reapers have been put to use by some terrans in TvP. It's not the DPS that was the issue with the unit ever, it was getting to them was hard. But on maps where you can delay or play split map it's always better to switch your marines with reapers if you can max out safely on that, and your army will be a lot stronger and also more useful for various things.
|
reaper build time too long, needs to cut by 1/3
|
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.
|
Here's some important ones, though a little outdated for basic stats. You aren't the first to compile these ones, but with a little work in excel, you can be the best.
Really the first good one to get published
Shurafa's, though slow and missing some comparisons
Shurafa's TeamLiquid thread
What these other ones include that are useful is dps gains per upgrade, dps versus their bonus damage type compared to normal, dps per cost, and dps per hp.
In-game usefulness of these numbers are low, excepting an explanation to why your army died to thors so fast (Highest DPS unit in the game) or ultralisks. Also, the gains per upgrade invested is useful to see how the investment pays off lategame, in such situations as building upgrade-boosted stalkers against battlecruisers (lose out in a dps perspective compared to every upgrade the battlecruisers get). The modeling of broodlord dps is a fun one as well. What is the average broodlings on the ground dps + the broodlord initial launch dps equal to?
|
is there a similar list for broodwar? would be nice to compare both games unit dps
|
On June 24 2012 01:54 -Kira wrote:Show nested quote +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.
All workers have the same attack damage. A drone will recover enough health to kill an scv and I can't remember probe, I think the probe wins?
|
On June 24 2012 02:05 -Kira wrote:
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.
One of my points was along the lines that the OP chart isn't even particularly good or accuate even as far as DPS goes.
If you have a chart that's supposed to be about DPS, you really can't ignore armor or splash.
(edit) - Again, not that I'm trying to hate on the OP or the effort.
|
It's really hard to derive any real meaningful data from these charts but they are cool nonetheless.
|
so you're telling me to use reapers to kill chargelots with a small maurader wall?
|
|
|
Too bad reapers take forever to build.
|
One of the things i love about the SC2 comunity is you can always count on someone to go properly anal and analyze everything.
Brilliant job, keep it up. Much love from me and the other lazy fuckers in the SC2 scene who like to have this stuff bottlefed to us.
|
One thing to keep in mind for carriers is that for every plus 1 air attack upgrade, you get +2 dmg PER fighter (they do 2 attacks per volley). I believe that would be +16 dmg per volley for each upgrade (when you count 8 fighters per carrier).
|
On June 24 2012 04:27 Reborn8u wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for carriers is that for every plus 1 air attack upgrade, you get +2 dmg PER fighter (they do 2 attacks per volley). I believe that would be +16 dmg per volley for each upgrade (when you count 8 fighters per carrier).
same thing can be said of armor upgrades against the carrier. 1 armor upgrade is essential 16 less damage per volley. Thats why carrier isnt effective along with other things( crappy kiting ability)
|
For those comparing the reaper dps with marine's keep in mind how much marines are cheaper, easier and faster to produce.
Does it take into account stim btw?
|
On June 24 2012 02:30 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 01:54 -Kira wrote: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. All workers have the same attack damage. A drone will recover enough health to kill an scv and I can't remember probe, I think the probe wins?
The probe wins if it's microed around, as shields regenerate faster than the drone's life. However the drone wins against both SCVs and probes if you're a-moving without micro.
On June 24 2012 04:42 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 04:27 Reborn8u wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for carriers is that for every plus 1 air attack upgrade, you get +2 dmg PER fighter (they do 2 attacks per volley). I believe that would be +16 dmg per volley for each upgrade (when you count 8 fighters per carrier). same thing can be said of armor upgrades against the carrier. 1 armor upgrade is essential 16 less damage per volley. Thats why carrier isnt effective along with other things( crappy kiting ability)
No. The carrier has the best dps in the game. I'm pretty sure about that. It does twice as much damage as it did in brood war, and was arguably the best late game unit there.
The weakness of the carrier is that units clump up much more in SC2, so the interceptors just melt under clumped anti air units.
The other reason that it's bad is of course that it's so slow, and the fact that you can't really kite with it like you could in BW.
|
[/QUOTE]
All workers have the same attack damage. A drone will recover enough health to kill an scv and I can't remember probe, I think the probe wins?[/QUOTE]
The probe wins if it's microed around, as shields regenerate faster than the drone's life. However the drone wins against both SCVs and probes if you're a-moving without micro.
Not true. The first one to get a hit wins between a drone and an SCV. Probes loses against both the SCV and drone, even though it gets the first attack.
|
vikings have higher dps vs zerglings than vs mutas? now I know!
|
On June 23 2012 18:56 Krejven wrote:Show nested quote +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? You clearly failed to see that you are looking at stalkers dps against everything but armored (which it has a dmg bonus against). Against armored targets it does infact quite alot more dmg than the units you listed. And it can shoot up compared to the roach.
No, I defintely realized it. I did it purposely because that is it's BASE damage, and because vs. Armored Protoss should have Immortals. Other than when fighting Roaches (combined with Immortals), in all matchups pretty much everything you get Stalkers to target are light, except PvP when they are just shooting at each other so DPS could be whatever it wants. I know DPS is everything, but having less damage than an unstimmed marine or a single zergling is mind-boggling. Same with Infested Terrans. You're telling me if I blink stalker harass, I'm paying 125/50 per unit and paying for blink upgrade for units that I am going to be risking to deal some damage, while Zerg can throw up FREE units from infestors in infested Terrans that do more dps? That can't be right.
|
Pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing  .
|
I wished the chart also mentionned the medivac's healing rate, because I ran the following test: A stimmed marauder cannot kill a non-armored unit being healed by a medivac, and the marauder with stim is higher dps than half of the units in that chart... meaning that over half the units in the game (at 2 supply worth) cannot kill a unit that is supported by a medivac... it just feels wrong to me :S
|
The dps chart is it vs 0 Armor? I assume so? Because armor also plays a role in dps scaling, you probably have a huge project ahead of yourself because of it =o.
I hope to see the finished product.
|
What about dps*range per supply*space. This gives an idea of how much damage a group of such units will put out if clumped together. Would be tricky-- melee would need to be handled separately than range.
|
Most of took you a while to collect the data + make the charts.
Well done.
|
its funny cuz an infested marine deals more dmg than a normal one :>
|
I remember checking out the data on liquiapedia and being pretty surprised at the figures. I noted that DT's are really high on dps. I mean, i figured dt's did alot of damage, but didnt realize that they and photon cannons are actually around the top dps. Since then iv been adding in a couple of dark templars with my chargelots and with/without detection they do pretty well. I think they may even be low priority on the AI even with detection. Great job on compiling all of this.
|
On June 24 2012 06:42 Euronyme wrote:
No. The carrier has the best dps in the game. I'm pretty sure about that. It does twice as much damage as it did in brood war, and was arguably the best late game unit there.
The weakness of the carrier is that units clump up much more in SC2, so the interceptors just melt under clumped anti air units.
The other reason that it's bad is of course that it's so slow, and the fact that you can't really kite with it like you could in BW.
It's just not true. You can't just blindly say that it has the best dps in the game and then ignore the fact that it doesn't. An interceptor does 10 (5x2) damage (ignoring armor and upgrades) per attack every 3 seconds, so 3.3* dps. A fully stocked carrier has 8 interceptors, so 26.6* dps. This is not immensely high. Thors and Battlecruisers do more dps to ground units, Battlecruisers do the same dps to air units, Void Rays do the same dps once charged if the unit is armored and more if it's also massive, Immortals and Ultralisks do more dps to armored ground units. If you take it per supply, then stimmed marines do well over twice the dps, while Zerglings do over three times the dps. If you take it per resource spent, then Adrenal Glands zerglings do over eight times the dps.
They do not have the best dps in the game based on anything. The absolute best you can do is for a single unit vs air, and even then it's only equal to the battlecruiser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
