|
Some damage stats, numbers in brackets means DPS when fully upgraded.
Battlecruiser ground DPS
Pre-patch: 43.5 [57.8] Post-patch: 35.6 [48.9]
Siege Tank siege DPS vs non-armored
Pre-patch: 16.7 [21.7] Post-patch: 11.7 [14.7] vs armored unchanged (16.7 [21.7])
Ultralisk DPS
vs armored Pre-patch: 46.5 [60.4] vs armored Post-patch: 40.7 [54.6]
vs structures Pre-patch: 45 [54] vs structures Post-patch: 40.7 [54.6]
Top 4 ground DPS
Pre-patch: Thor 46.9 [60.9] (2 attacks) (vs all) Ultralisk 46.5 [60.4] (vs armored) Battlecruiser 43.5 [57.8] (vs all) Immortal 34.5 [44.8] (vs armored)
Post-patch: Thor 46.9 [60.9] (2 attacks) (vs all) Ultralisk 40.7 [54.6] (vs armored) Battlecruiser 35.6 [48.9] (vs all) Immortal 34.5 [44.8] (vs armored)
As you can see Top 4 is still the same Post-patch, strongest vs armored is Ultralisk since it does splash damage but in average Thor and Battlecruisers are still the strongest.
|
I wonder if the immortal overcomes the BC against high armored targets after the patch.
Well, it probably does, what I mean is how much +armor it is.
|
Seeing as Thor is thought of mostly as an anti-air unit, those figures are pretty crazy o_O
|
Yea I never realised the thor ground damage was THAT good. Thought it was good but not amazing. Seems rather strange that thor is meant to be the air counter in your mech army yet has best since target ground dps?
|
On September 23 2010 00:03 Shikyo wrote: Seeing as Thor is thought of mostly as an anti-air unit, those figures are pretty crazy o_O cause they totaly ingore movement speed, size, mineral and gas cost?
|
Thors have always had riddiculous performance against everything except for heavy air units, and even then they hold their ground decently. All the more revolting considering they are an easily spammed t2.5 unit.
|
you cant say Thor is mostly an anti-air unit, just because it has 9 range and splash damage. It doesnt do much damage to armored air, so its only good vs mutas and banshees, and for 300/200 you should expect it to do more then just hit air somewhat good I say this as a zerg only player who hates losing to Terrans alot, and i think the Thor needs some work, but i dunno what exactly (maybe make its damage +x/+x like siegetanks, so hydras become even more viable, or rework neural parasite once again)
|
6 supply worth of Marines out DPS's a Thor on ground targets.
6 supply worth of Zealots or Zerglings out DPS's a Thor on ground targets too.
When you look at the numbers by unit, it's obvious higher tech stuff will be on top. When you look at DPS per resources or DPS per supply count, things get different.
|
Wow, looking at those numbers makes me realize just how lack luster of a unit the carrier is. It costs 50 minerals more then a bc, 50 gas less, and does less then half the damage(350+100 4 interceptors, 250gas) a fully loaded, un-upgraded carrier does 26.5 DPS. fully upgraded it almost comes on par with the BC at 42 dps. When you factor in yamato cannon, more base armor, and more base hp, and the fact that the fleet beacon costs almost twice as much as a fusion core(300/200 vs 150/150) its pretty clear that the carrier doesn't stack up.
|
On September 23 2010 00:10 Ketara wrote: 6 supply worth of Marines out DPS's a Thor on ground targets.
6 supply worth of Zealots or Zerglings out DPS's a Thor on ground targets too.
When you look at the numbers by unit, it's obvious higher tech stuff will be on top. When you look at DPS per resources or DPS per supply count, things get different.
T1 units always have ridiculous DPS/cost, because of damage consolidation. The problem with 6 supply of Lings (or 300 minerals, or whatever) is that every time you take 35 damage, you lose 1 Ling's DPS. With a Thor, every time you take 35 damage, you just have 35 less health. Splash and AoE are also far better against them. So those numbers don't really work either.
|
On September 23 2010 00:07 Sueco wrote: Thors have always had riddiculous performance against everything except for heavy air units, and even then they hold their ground decently. All the more revolting considering they are an easily spammed t2.5 unit.
Blast that easily spammed T 2.5 unit that has so much DPS that gets owned by Z and P's most basic units!
|
On September 23 2010 00:07 Sueco wrote: Thors have always had riddiculous performance against everything except for heavy air units, and even then they hold their ground decently. All the more revolting considering they are an easily spammed t2.5 unit. Thors are about as easily spammed as immortals. -_-If you could reactor them, or they weren't insanely expensive, or they didn't require an additional building above factory, or did they didnt take a fairly long time to build, you might have a point.
|
Nice numbers, I do like throwing a Thor in my army but not for the DPS.
It acts as a mental priority target for most people, so I can use it to draw the enemy in closer (getting me a few extra shots from my bio or lesser mech) while I move the thor back.
If they don't attack the Thor, it'll easily make up for not being targeted by having such huge DPS :D
<3 Arnies
|
The thing with Thor damage is the vast amount of Overkill. They deal huge damage every whack but a group of Thors will lose a lot of battles for a few reasons.
First, they stagger their two shots - you notice the Thor goes "boom-bang"? If a target dies on the "boom" the bang is wasted. If you're fighting something that'd take two booms to kill, two Thors will target it, do their boom, and lose their second shot. Even in a one-vs-many scenario, the Thor overkill is insane. Let's take a marine without combat shields. It takes one "boom-bang" to kill one marine, and you're looking at, what, 15 wasted damage? It becomes incredibly hard to bring that high DPS to bare against targets, unlike a Battlecruiser which kills with almost no overkill.
I call what Thors do "Sledgehammering" - Roaches and Immortals do similar. A group of roaches will "sledgehammer" an army on that first hit, but because the second comes so slow roaches are less effective. This is why burrow with roaches is so effective, it makes it hard for the enemy to use higher attack speed/DPS against the roaches big, slow hits.
Of course, Thors are the kings against larger targets. Just a shame they're slower and clunkier than the Protoss larger target (Colossi) and die incredibly fast to the zerg's large friends (Ultras)
|
On September 23 2010 00:00 Zozo wrote: I wonder if the immortal overcomes the BC against high armored targets after the patch.
Well, it probably does, what I mean is how much +armor it is.
Actually, since this does not account for the random attack delay(and BCs even have higher than normal average attack delay), BC's ground DPS is lower than Immortal's. Otherwise it's roughly 6 times more affected by armor, since BC ground damage is rougly 6 times lower than Immortal damage, so every point of armor would tilt it very much in favor of immortals.
|
6 Supply of marines outdpses almost everything in the game with stim. Bad argument. 6 supply of zealots out dpses 6 supply of stalkers and costs less. Zealots>Stalkers?
Thors are still amazing anti ground, no real weakness to splash like marines.
|
On September 23 2010 00:16 NukeTheBunnys wrote: Wow, looking at those numbers makes me realize just how lack luster of a unit the carrier is. It costs 50 minerals more then a bc, 50 gas less, and does less then half the damage(350+100 4 interceptors, 250gas) a fully loaded, un-upgraded carrier does 26.5 DPS. fully upgraded it almost comes on par with the BC at 42 dps. When you factor in yamato cannon, more base armor, and more base hp, and the fact that the fleet beacon costs almost twice as much as a fusion core(300/200 vs 150/150) its pretty clear that the carrier doesn't stack up.
While I can certainly see where you are coming from (and tend to agree), you are forgetting one key ability that the carriers have: the ability to attack and move at the same time. Admittedly, this advantage is essentially nullified by strictly anti air units (thinking the viking specifically).
|
On September 23 2010 00:07 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 00:03 Shikyo wrote: Seeing as Thor is thought of mostly as an anti-air unit, those figures are pretty crazy o_O cause they totaly ingore movement speed, size, mineral and gas cost? and ground splash
|
On September 23 2010 00:41 Lglow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2010 00:16 NukeTheBunnys wrote: Wow, looking at those numbers makes me realize just how lack luster of a unit the carrier is. It costs 50 minerals more then a bc, 50 gas less, and does less then half the damage(350+100 4 interceptors, 250gas) a fully loaded, un-upgraded carrier does 26.5 DPS. fully upgraded it almost comes on par with the BC at 42 dps. When you factor in yamato cannon, more base armor, and more base hp, and the fact that the fleet beacon costs almost twice as much as a fusion core(300/200 vs 150/150) its pretty clear that the carrier doesn't stack up.
While I can certainly see where you are coming from (and tend to agree), you are forgetting one key ability that the carriers have: the ability to attack and move at the same time. Admittedly, this advantage is essentially nullified by strictly anti air units (thinking the viking specifically).
Carrier can't release interceptors while moving
|
this comparison is deceiving as it doesnt factor in armor. by the time u can get bcs out, the opponent should have some armor upgrades. on a high frequency, low damage attack like that of bcs, armor and the patch nerf will have a bigger effect on the actual dps change in reality than on a high dam low frequency unit like ultras or thors. therefore the nerf for bcs is much bigger in reality than what these numbers would indicate.
|
|
|
|