EPTRandom attack delay is also pretty terribad for Hellion micro, I really wonder if BW had this much delay/delay variance.
Bug with attack rate BC and reaper - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ciox
58 Posts
Random attack delay is also pretty terribad for Hellion micro, I really wonder if BW had this much delay/delay variance. | ||
|
Yoduh
United States216 Posts
On July 17 2012 20:10 Dephy wrote: well, previous you could theory craft with bc dps and shit like that, making it seem more pop efficent unit than it really is(in theory craft), and always falling flat in real games. theory crafting is for build orders. no pro is sitting around with pencil and paper working out the math of a BC vs nexus and banking their winning strategies on it. so the tooltip is wrong.. maybe, depends on if you think random delay should be included or not. but really everyone who plays this game at a competent level plays more by feel and experience than actually running a dps meter in their head. It's not like people have been underproducing BCs because of the false sense of security of a tooltip telling them they're better than they actually are. and another thing, people are buying into 1 off experiments way too easily. OP did 1 test, or at least only reported 1 test, with weird conditions like +3 shields and +2 armor, just unnecessary independent variables that didn't need to be included. and without anyone backing up his findings or anyone repeating his tests to be sure so many people immediately see the results and take it as truth immediately. it's the same witch hunt mentality that gets people going crazy whenever a new hacking accusation pops up. now we know the ~22dps difference can be attributed to random attack delays unique to BC and reaper. so everyone can just chilllll | ||
|
xTrim
472 Posts
At least 22% more attack... I'd love it! | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
| ||
|
Fym
United Kingdom189 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:45 emythrel wrote: My first and only question.... did you take shield regen in to account? 4-8 marauders kill a nexus so fast that regen rate doesn't really effect it much but BC's takin down a nexus in 58 seconds would allow for a fair bit of regen on the shields.... protoss shields doesnt regen inside battle, after 10 sec without taking dmg they reg 2 hp per sek is how it works some units, like reaper for example has random chance to gain a random cooldown (both very low so its barely noticeable). thats why results like this are unexpected when tested On July 17 2012 19:01 Andr3 wrote: Wow I didn't know about the random delay attacks, this is quite huge...it can decide games. Why would you have randomness in the game just so it can look "pretty", damnit Blizzard. i believe sc1 had random cooldowns on a few units aswell that were barely noticable. an easy way to test it is just by have a bunch of units attack a building the same time and watch how they desync after a few seconds this random delay has only been annoying for me when 5rax reaper was relevant. because optimal kiting would always be either include the random delay in your kiting timing making your kiting very reliable and stable but at the loss off potential dps while attacking discluding the random delay would result in 1-2 reapers not fire-ing at times because they were still on cooldown. but the d3 charge was abit more annoying cause that random felt bigger so when kiting queens while attacking buildings resulted in reapers not fireing at all at times because they had more delay than normal sometimes | ||
|
nocrA
Italy27 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:45 emythrel wrote: My first and only question.... did you take shield regen in to account? 4-8 marauders kill a nexus so fast that regen rate doesn't really effect it much but BC's takin down a nexus in 58 seconds would allow for a fair bit of regen on the shields.... Are you serious? this is sc2 not BW(where shields would recharge no matter what) if you keep attacking a protoss unit or structure it won't recharge shield. Shields start recharging again 10 seconds after the last time the protoss unit/ structure was hit. To those saying that there might be a problem with the testing the real rate of fire can by determined by theory knowing the average random delay and adding it to the nominal rate of fire(the tooltip one). for BC the random delay it's between -0.0625 and 0.1875 average random delay=(0.1875-0.0625)/2=0.0625 real rate of fire = 0.225 + 0.0625 = 0.2875 which is almost identical to the OP's results for the reaper the random delay it's between 0.1 and 0.5. Average delay it's 0.3 real rate of fire = 1.8 + 0.3 = 2.1 again almost identical the the OP's results Also Random delay it's actually on all units but it's barely noticeable: for all the units except reaper and BC the average random delay it's 0.03125.(the delay it's between -0.0625 and 0.125) | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:48 MorroW wrote: protoss shields doesnt regen inside battle, after 10 sec without taking dmg they reg 2 hp per sek is how it works some units, like reaper for example has random chance to gain a random cooldown (both very low so its barely noticeable). thats why results like this are unexpected when tested nice to know, personally the dps of units isn't important to me. I already knew not to make BCs or reapers (with a few exceptions) lol | ||
|
Mephyss
Brazil128 Posts
| ||
|
ne4aJIb
Russian Federation3209 Posts
User was warned for this post 3 warnings in a row, that's my fucking record.   | ||
|
Ender985
Spain910 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:50 nocrA wrote: Are you serious? this is sc2 not BW(where shields would recharge no matter what) if you keep attacking a protoss unit or structure it won't recharge shield. Shields start recharging again 10 seconds after the last time the protoss unit/ structure was hit. To those saying that there might be a problem with the testing the real rate of fire can by determined by theory knowing the average random delay and adding it to the nominal rate of fire(the tooltip one). for BC the random delay it's between -0.0625 and 0.1875 average random delay=(0.1875-0.0625)/2=0.0625 real rate of fire = 0.225 + 0.0625 = 0.2875 which is almost identical to the OP's results for the reaper the random delay it's between 0.1 and 0.5. Average delay it's 0.3 real rate of fire = 1.8 + 0.3 = 2.1 again almost identical the the OP's results Also Random delay it's actually on all units but it's barely noticeable: for all the units except reaper and BC the average random delay it's 0.03125.(the delay it's between -0.0625 and 0.125) Then this explains it. However the displayed dps in the tooltip is still wrong, since it should account for that random delay. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
What I mean is, why have two units doing significantly less DPS than stated, while other units do roughly the same? Why change the random delay on these units, while all other units are mostly equal? If it was a balance issue, then the attack speed should have been adjusted. If it was an aesthetics issues (with the BC) then the tooltip should reflect a more accurate expected DPS somehow. Though, now that you point it out, it did always feel to me like the BC fired its weapons at odd intervals. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
So it means, instead 1.5 atack speed you can get 1.6 sometimes. Why they're added that crappy random? wtf -_- | ||
|
DropTester
Australia608 Posts
On July 17 2012 19:54 MasterReY wrote: Guys, i dont understand why some of you are saying something like "omg the bc is so bad now, that this is discovered". No. If the attack speed would be 0.2875 without a random delay, nobody would complain in years. But now that it is 0.2875 with the random delay and the tooltip says 0.225 its a big deal? Its not like the BC got worse because this was discovered t-t its exactly as I thought when I was reading through the thread and people stating that this was the reason why the bc was so bad. No one's going to analyse the damage to such a fine point, if it is bad it can be changed accordingly but as for now the units are how blizzard wants to leave them | ||
|
Ahli
Germany355 Posts
On July 17 2012 21:50 nocrA wrote: for BC the random delay it's between -0.0625 and 0.1875 average random delay=(0.1875-0.0625)/2=0.0625 real rate of fire = 0.225 + 0.0625 = 0.2875 which is almost identical to the OP's results for the reaper the random delay it's between 0.1 and 0.5. Average delay it's 0.3 real rate of fire = 1.8 + 0.3 = 2.1 again almost identical the the OP's results I can confirm that the real attack speed is in that area. I've build a short test map to do some attack time tests which are more accurate than looking at the ingame timer. :D Have a screenshot of one test run: ![[image loading]](http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3338/screenshot2012071716004.jpg) - It records the time required between the first dealt damage and the killing blow and counts the attacks. -> time between the first damage and last damage. - attackSpeed = time / (attacks - 1) [first attack is subtracted as it starts the timer -> every attack has a cooldown in the time] - I've added 3 targets: one ground, one air, one ground structure with each 1k life, 0 armor, no health regeneration. - The attack speed is noted in the top left area of the screen. That small map I made was made in the 1.5 arcade beta, but the BC had no balance changes regarding its rate of fire. So this still applies. If people want me to make a usable test map on battle.net, just ask nicely and tell me features you would like to have like changeable unit type, repeatable tests, adjustable HP on the target test (or setting the amount of attacks that should be recorded), automated tests for all units, ...  | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
| ||
|
Ender985
Spain910 Posts
I have tested 1 BC firing against another, with +0 attack and +3 armor upgrades, repeated 9 times. Since BC AA damage is 6 and the max upgraded armor for the BC is 6, it means each attack was doing the minimum possible damage of 0.5 health. Since the BC has 550 health, it would take 1100 shots to destroy it. The mean time needed for the target to be destroyed was 317 seconds (varying from 315 to 320, most likely due to having +/- 1 second accuracy at best). Attacking 1100 times in 317 seconds gives a delay between attacks of 0.288s, in accordance with OP. I also tested 1 BC against a +3 armored Thor. The Thor has 400 health and a max armor of 4, BC AT attack has 8 damage, so each shot deals 4 damage. Tested it 18 times and the mean time for target destruction was 29s, varying between 28 and 30. The BC needs 100 shots to kill the Thor, and it is done in 29 seconds, with means a delay between attacks of 0.29, again in accordance with the OP. So yeah, the tooltip info is incorrect and they probably failed to take the random delay into account. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On July 17 2012 19:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I find it odd that you decided to add armor to the Nexus and Battle Cruiser when doing the damage test. My first reaction is you are trying to hide something, and my second after thinking about it is that it magnifies the results of your test. Because it takes longer (ie more shots) for the Battle Cruiser to do the stated damage you end up with more overall random delays, and thus you could find that the Battle Cruiser does less and less DPS over time. So I ran two tests in the unit test map. (The first test against the Hydra begins at 43 seconds and ends at 45, the second against the Nexus begins at 1:45 and ends at 2:21) Replay: http://drop.sc/223255 First, the BC against a Hydra (low hp and no armor) with no upgrades yields the following: It takes the BC 11 shots to kill the Hydra and it takes the BC 3 seconds to kill the Hydra (and there is actually one more shot on the way toward the Hydra when it does). So 3/11 = 0.2727 attack speed So in that case the BC actually does damage faster than stated! Second, lets look at the BC vs 1000 Nexus shields with no shield upgrades: It takes 125 shots to kill the Nexus shields and it takes the BC 36 seconds to do so (and again there is one more shot on the way to Nexus when 1000 damage is done). 36/125 = .288 attack Again the BC actually does damage faster than stated! So while in your scenario the BC does 22% less damage, in most real scenarios it will do much closer to it's stated DPS, and in some scenarios it even appears to do more damage, and thus I think you are misrepresenting the facts by picking unlikely scenarios. However, your tests and mine do show problems with the damage system in SC2. How is 0.2727 and 0.288 faster than 0.225 which is stated??! | ||
|
Schplyok
64 Posts
On July 17 2012 22:21 Existor wrote: Worker vs Worker battles have 0.1250 delay. So it means, instead 1.5 atack speed you can get 1.6 sometimes. Why they're added that crappy random? wtf -_- So we don't get a huge lag spike when our cpu/gpu tries to process 20 tank shot animations in the same millisecond. | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On July 17 2012 19:22 BronzeKnee wrote: I find it odd that you decided to add armor to the Nexus and Battle Cruiser when doing the damage test. My first reaction is you are trying to hide something, and my second after thinking about it is that it magnifies the results of your test. Because it takes longer (ie more shots) for the Battle Cruiser to do the stated damage you end up with more overall random delays, and thus you could find that the Battle Cruiser does less and less DPS over time. So I ran two tests in the unit test map. (The first test against the Hydra begins at 43 seconds and ends at 45, the second against the Nexus begins at 1:45 and ends at 2:21) Replay: http://drop.sc/223255 First, the BC against a Hydra (low hp and no armor) with no upgrades yields the following: It takes the BC 11 shots to kill the Hydra and it takes the BC 3 seconds to kill the Hydra (and there is actually one more shot on the way toward the Hydra when it does). So 3/11 = 0.2727 attack speed So in that case the BC actually does damage faster than stated! Second, lets look at the BC vs 1000 Nexus shields with no shield upgrades: It takes 125 shots to kill the Nexus shields and it takes the BC 36 seconds to do so (and again there is one more shot on the way to Nexus when 1000 damage is done). 36/125 = .288 attack Again the BC actually does damage faster than stated! So while in your scenario the BC does 22% less damage, in most real scenarios it will do much closer to it's stated DPS, and in some scenarios it even appears to do more damage, and thus I think you are misrepresenting the facts by picking unlikely scenarios. However, your tests and mine do show problems with the damage system in SC2. In 'real scenarios' you could just as easily get a much longer delay due to randomness just as easily as the shorter delay you found. Testing on large HP buildings is a better test for the effect of the delay. It averages out the randomness, which more than likely is like WC3 crit chance and isn't 'true' random, and better ignores overkill effects like your hydra test. There's nothing 'odd' about his choice. Choosing a Nexus or rock is the correct choice. In either case every test shows that the real dps is pretty off of the tooltip dps. | ||
| ||
