| 1 |
I have earlier expressed the opinion that the raw HP and HP/Cost, same as DPS and DPS/cost, are meaningless because the /Cost is the one that matters.
|
1 |
I have earlier expressed the opinion that the raw HP and HP/Cost, same as DPS and DPS/cost, are meaningless because the /Cost is the one that matters.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
There are some general cases where they don't match in your tables above, but generally i think this agrees with that opinion. Most units stay within 1 score point difference between those respective metrics. The only exceptions are some cases in DPS vs DPS/Cost:
|
3 |
There are some general cases where they don't match in your tables above, but generally i think this agrees with that opinion. Most units stay within 1 score point difference between those respective metrics. The only exceptions are some cases in DPS vs DPS/Cost:
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Raiders: 2 vs 5
|
5 |
Raiders: 2 vs 5
|
| 6 |
Scouts: 1 vs 5
|
6 |
Scouts: 1 vs 5
|
| 7 |
Artillery: 3 vs 1
|
7 |
Artillery: 3 vs 1
|
| 8 |
Assault: 4 vs 2
|
8 |
Assault: 4 vs 2
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
I don't think it makes sense, for example, to say that DPS is an artillery class virtue, something that exemplifies that class. Rather, the disparities for Artillery and Assault are factors of their comparably higher weight, and the [tooltip=hi, my name is the]the[/tooltip] ones for Raiders and Scouts are because of their lower average weight.
|
10 |
I don't think it makes sense, for example, to say that DPS is an artillery class virtue, something that exemplifies that class. Rather, the disparities for Artillery and Assault are factors of their comparably higher weight, and the [tooltip=hi, my name is the]the[/tooltip] ones for Raiders and Scouts are because of their lower average weight.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
You could move this parameter to a separate metric, Weight. But i think that barely tells one anything about the class and what its archetype is.
|
12 |
You could move this parameter to a separate metric, Weight. But i think that barely tells one anything about the class and what its archetype is.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Also
i
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
keep
separate
Mobility
(
which
i'd
call
maneuverability)
and
Velocity
(
Which
i
would
just
call
speed)
.
Maneuverability
is
quite
rigidly
split
between
factories,
with
bots
uniformly
more
maneuevrable
than
rovers/hovers/tanks.
Speed
is
much
less
informative.
|
14 |
Also
i
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
keep
separate
Mobility
(
which
i'd
call
maneuverability)
and
Velocity
(
Which
i
would
just
call
speed)
.
Maneuverability
is
quite
rigidly
split
between
factories,
with
bots
uniformly
more
maneuevrable
than
rovers/hovers/tanks.
Speed
is
much
less
segregated.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
Note that i'm not saying that these are bad e.g. to plug into a classifier; and it still matters for choices like "should i spam skirmishers against these particular units". However, i think it would be good to remove as much noise from the loading screen infographic as possible.
|
16 |
Note that i'm not saying that these are bad e.g. to plug into a classifier; and it still matters for choices like "should i spam skirmishers against these particular units". However, i think it would be good to remove as much noise from the loading screen infographic as possible.
|
Units archetypes - statistical analysis