>It stricly has equal or better efficiency at anything.
Yes, my comment is that for a good chunk of them it doesn't matter.
netrunnerdb.com/find/?q=t:ICE s:Barrier
>Ashigaru (5 cards in HQ)
Paperclip saves 2c
>Curtain Wall (both inner and outer)
Paperclip saves 2c
>Eli 1.0
Paperclip saves 1c
>Hadrian's Wall
Paperclip saves 1c
>Heimdall 1.0
Paperclip saves 2c
>Heimdall 2.0
Paperclip saves 2c
>Hive (no agendas scored)
Paperclip saves 1c
>Markus 1.0
Paperclip saves 2c
>Orion
Paperclip saves 2c
>Pachinko
Paperclip saves 1c
>Tyrant (let's just be generous and give it 6 subs)
Paperclip saves 2c
>Wall of Thorns
Paperclip saves 1c
>Wotan
Paperclip saves 3c
There, I listed them all out. Of 33 barriers, 13 of them (so about a third) fall into the red zone of . That's why it's deceptive, because they've got inverse frequency in the game.
To limit this pool even more realistically, we have to consider which barriers are common in the meta. Eli, Hive, and Curtain Wall are extremely common in mine, so that's a big plus. Unfortunately that list is littered with super uncommon or situational ones, like Wall of Thorns, Pachinko, Tyrant, and Ashigaru.
To put the final analysis cherry on the top, frequency would also favor un-unique ice. Wotan and Orion are usually one-ofs in their decks, if they're used at all, and obviously due to their unique status there's only one on the board at the top. Thus, a card like Bailiff or Wraparound with 3 copies on the board is going to be a much more frequent runner-side occurrence. They'll be seeing them and breaking them far more frequently than an Orion or a Wotan.
So just to be clear, I'm enthusiastic about the possibilities here, but please don't be misled by bullshit charts. For STR/sub ratio Paperclip should be viewed as a "fuck you" to Eli, Curtain Wall, and Hive. For the heap recurrence, hell yeah, that's exciting no matter how you slice it unless you get Chronos'd