Disclaimer: this data serves only as a bird's eye view of the SC2 units. It takes into account only limited quantitative information. It does not attempt to be an "end-all, make only this unit" sort of thing. Many units have spells, range, are faster on foot, climb cliffs, can attack air, subject to tier, etc. Do not take this data at face value. A player needs to take this data for what it's worth, then judge the other factors accordingly. For example, Ghosts look terrible on the chart, but we actually know Ghosts have major benefits not accounted for here. Also, I'm human and make mistakes, and let me know when (but please do so politely).
HP+Shield = combined for practicality and consistency. Keep in mind the drawbacks: Protoss remains slightly stronger than the data suggests.
Total resources = minerals + gas, combined for practicality and consistency. youngminii points out that gas is actually more valuable than minerals since they take longer to harvest. So bear in mind, gas-dependent units are weaker than the data suggests.
Total damage = what the unit inflicts, in total, after each cooldown
Cooldown = the time between "hits"
Damage/second = (total damage/cooldown), or DPS, the average inflicted damage per second, over the long run. DPS is a very revealing statistic. A hit that does 60 damage may appear strong, but it is actually very weak if it must wait a whole minute before hitting again. DPS reconciles damage with cooldown, giving us a way to easily compare how fast each unit can kill. AssuredVacancy warns us not to overestimate DPS, "If there was a unit that did 1 damage at 20 hits per second, its dps would be quite high; realistically though its damage output is not high at all as most units in the game have armor." So: units who hit more frequently have an inflated DPS. tetracycloide says, "In a real world comparison the best conclusion to draw is that high damage slow refire rate units are the best damage dealers with only short windows do deal damage in while low damage high refire rate units with high DPS are best for sustained engagements."
Thors, Battlecruisers, Ultralisks, and Void Rays (long) (in that order), do the best. Hellions, all three workers, and Mutalisks do the worse, here.
DPS/R = (Damage/cooldown)/(minerals+gas), or "DPS per dollar." This is even more revealing than DPS. Say "Doodaas" inflict 40DPS and cost 80 in resources, and "Diddlies" inflict 20DPS and cost 30 in resources. Doodaas do 0.50 DPS per dollar and Diddlies do 0.67. That means even though Doodaas have a higher DPS, I'm better off buying Diddlies, since I can buy more and get higher overall damage throughput with them per dollar.
Missile Turrets and Spore Crawlers are a great value here. For units, Zerglings, Reapers, Marines, and Zealots rate the best (in that order). Ghost, Void Ray (short), Thor (vs air), and Mothership perform the worse here.
H/R = (HP + Shields)/(Minerals + Gas), or "brawn per buck." This simply says how much health you're getting per resource.
Stationary attackers (like Photon Cannons) get the best value here. For units, Zealots, Roaches, and Zerglings rate the highest, while Ghosts, Dark Templars, and Reapers rate the lowest.
((H/R)*(D/R))*1000 =(((Damage/cooldown)/(minerals+gas))*((HP+shields)/(minerals+gas)))*1000, or cost-effectiveness: DPS over the course of a battling unit's life per dollar. I multiply here because every unit of life means another unit of time that a unit can actuate DPS. I multiply it all by 1000 only to make the numbers more readable. This is the meat and gravy. It thoroughly reconciles the costs (resources) with the benefits (damage, cooldown, and health).
((H/(S+R))*(D/(S+R)))*1000 = (((Damage/cooldown)/((minerals+gas)+((supply cost/8)*100)))*((HP+shields)/((minerals+gas)+((supply cost/8)*100)))*1000, or cost-effectiveness which accounts for supply: This is useful in the early game. In the later game when in battle, players often simply need to replace units that die. In this case, a player needn't buy supply, and this formula wouldn't be appropriate. The values correlate almost perfectly anyway, with the exceptions of stationary attackers (Photon Cannon) that, of course, don't require supply.
Unaccounted-for costs and benefits
Things not included, nor would I like to attempt to include in a quantitative way.
Unit sizes
Splash
How well a unit is suited towards map elements
Tier restrictions and tech tree climbing costs
Spells
Range
Speed
Flight
Cliff-climbing
Able to attack air (or ground)
Observations and inferences
If you disagree with any of these, please post which ones specifically and a detailed explanation of why. I will update with your insight and credit you.
General
The archetypal starter units for each race are each extremely reasonably priced (Zealot, Zergling, and Marine). Chronocide adds, "never stop making tier 1 units. They're just too efficient to bypass completely."
"Counter" bonuses against armor are almost always an excellent bargain (Marauders, Immortals, and Ultralisks). This isn't to say that their non-bonus counterparts aren't any good, as Chronocide indicates, "this spreadsheet would lead people to believe that they shouldn't use a unit unless they intend to exploit it's bonus damage, which leads to patently false ideas such as "Colossi are bad against Marauders")."
Non-unit attackers (Missile Turrets, Photon cannon, Spore crawler, etc) are dirt cheap per DPS, likely because of their immobility.
You're an absolute sucker if you make casters and don't capitalize on their abilities. Some casters are incredibly cost-ineffective without them (namely Ghost, Sentry, Mothership, and Corruptor).
Protoss
Immortals and/or Void Rays are very worthwhile when many armored units are in play. Calamity reminds us to be wary of Ghosts' EMP.
Zealots have excellent cost-effectiveness, but, as Chronocide points out, "only if you can utilize them. Can they surround? Does your opponent have anti-light or AOE units?" Furthermore, you will increase their utility, and thus cost-effectiveness by upgrading to Charge.
When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Ryuu314 speculates that after full upgrades, this may not be true. Once I have time to calculate that, we'll find out for sure.
Stalkers appear like a much more reasonable answer to air than Pheonixes. Calamity adds that Stalkers don't require a Stargate and the player can warpgate them in--all an added benefit.
When range and mobility don't matter, consider the very cost-effective Zealots instead of Colossi. PlaGuE_R points out that Colossi do however have splash damage, which can wipe out armies faster.
Zerg
When not expecting an air threat, favor Roaches to Hydralisks? Meff adds that not only air, but also anti-armor units such as Marauders, Immortals or Ultralisks. Chronocide says, "Hydras have a much better range which means in ANY practical conflict they will do more damage than roaches. I think the conclusion to draw is that you might consider adding more roaches to your roach/hydra mix than you were expecting, but even that is dependent on factors well beyond the scope of this study."
Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise. Chronocide adds, "The strength of the muta lies in it's mobility."
Adrenal Glands boosts Zerglings' cost-effectiveness up almost 30%!
Terran
Missile Turrets, out of all the units, give you the best bang for your buck, by far. Perhaps this is because of their minuscule demand. Chronocide explains, "Most missle turrets never fire more than 1-2 shots in a game."
Marines are the most cost-effective mobile Terran unit. Despite this, Chronocide warn us of possible Banelings, Colossi, or Hellions.
Marauders pay off best against armored units. Elsewise, they're so-so.
Stim Pack is well worth the damage sacrifice. Marines get an 11% increase in cost-effectiveness. Marauders get a 20% increase (almost 30% when vs. armored).
Be very wary before introducing Thors into an air-dominated game.
When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. However, seven added DPS seems like a good enough incentive to me. Chronocide advices, "it takes 3.5417 seconds to change from siege mode to tank mode. But there are indeed situations where tank mode is the better route to go, but only very early when unit counts are low (such as one tank + a handful of marines vs a few stalkers or marauders)."
Revisions 7/24/10 - Updated formula to take into account its quadratic nature (thanks MasterOfChaos). Added Missile Turrets, Planetary Fortress, and updated a couple of stats (thanks lololol). H/R added. Changed how the formula is presented (same values different look) per d3_crescentia's advice. Modified observation section per Chronocide's post. Added stim pack info. Created a column which accounts for supply costs. Fixed the confusing Vikings.
7/25/10 - Updated with Meff's comment. Added a description of the "cost-effectiveness with supply" formula.
I'm pretty happy with my spreadsheet right now; however, if you would like something added, first calculate it yourself and I'll copy and paste it in and give you credit (e.g. Carriers, armor, upgrades, etc.).
You didn't take into account the 50 mineral of the drone you lose for crawlers.
I think it's a lot biased because you didn't take area damage, range (and other stuff like speed...), that's why it seems to show that unsieged tank are so poor against armored.
On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.
Do tell. Why?
Most tech armies gas limited (most notably zerg tech). This is because gas is slower to gather both in collection rate and the time investment when making extractors.
As gas prices go up substantially with each tier jump, you are generally limited by gas and not minerals.
Yes, 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral. Gas is limited to around 224~ mined per minute per base whereas minerals are mined at up to 800~ per minute per base not including mules which add a LOT of mineral mining. Lots of high tech units require a lot of gas and you can see that now 1 gas is a lot more useful than 1 mineral.
On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.
Do tell. Why?
Most tech armies gas limited (most notably zerg tech). This is because gas is slower to gather both in collection rate and the time investment when making extractors.
As gas prices go up substantially with each tier jump, you are generally limited by gas and not minerals.
Thanks. I'll add this in my post. If someone conceives a method to "weigh" gas accurately against minerals, let me know.
Dps is not a good measurement of damage output. If there was a unit that did 1 damage at 20 hits per second, its dps would be quite high; realistically though its damage output is not high at all as most units in the game have armor.
On July 24 2010 13:40 Mr_LOL wrote: as someone totally new to sc2 and rts games in general, this is extremely helpful. to bad your a noob and did a shitty job
if you don't like, don't bother posting here. He's trying to help people, and if it's such a shitty job then why don't you try constructive criticism so he can improve it?
I think that you should really take upgrades into consideration in this, tanks are great but the upgrade takes 100/100. And zealot in number are only better then colossi if u have a wide open area for a surround and if you have the legs upgrade which cost 200/200.
In my opinion stalkers are always better then phoenixes on certain maps, for anti-air. For example, dealing with banshees and Mutas on Desert Oasis, is easier with phoenixes, but blink stalkers on other maps can destroy air units very fast, especially things like mass VR which i found Stalkers in mass to be the only counter (mass VR vs mass VR ends up as who has the most VR)
also you need to take splash into consideration, 20 zealots is good, but if u have 10 zealots and 2 colossi u can box in the other army (with forcefields) and take advantage of a colossi's great AoE damage, same with siege tanks, with ball armies, having 5-6 tanks sieged up makes that army disappear very fast.
On July 24 2010 13:54 PlaGuE_R wrote: I think that you should really take upgrades into consideration in this, tanks are great but the upgrade takes 100/100.
I may do this tomorrow. If anyone would like, they can post data, and I'll copypasta it in.
On July 24 2010 13:54 PlaGuE_R wrote: And zealot in number are only better then colossi if u have a wide open area for a surround and if you have the legs upgrade which cost 200/200.
Thanks for the insight--adding this to my post.
On July 24 2010 13:54 PlaGuE_R wrote: also you need to take splash into consideration, 20 zealots is good, but if u have 10 zealots and 2 colossi u can box in the other army (with forcefields) and take advantage of a colossi's great AoE damage, same with siege tanks, with ball armies, having 5-6 tanks sieged up makes that army disappear very fast.
I can't think of a way to quantify splash damage, but I'll definitely change the inferences section to reflect this.
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I appreciate the number crunching but I firmly believe units are only as cost effective as you make them to be. It is interesting to see DPS in relation to resource value, but time, tech cost, armor, spells, and so much more factor into this that you can't accurately determine the value of a unit with a calculator.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence. [/QUOTE]
I think you forgot about the one attribute: attack range. A tank, when sieged up can attack from 13 distances away and a roach can only attack from the range of 3. Throw in a few meatshileds(like a Thor or a couple of marauders) in front of the tanks and all your roaches would die before they can get to the tanks.
Very interesting read, but most of the data is impractical at best. Most newer players will probably just understand this chart wrong. Like you said, there are tons of 3rd party variables that make most of this info useless.
Nonetheless, thanks for the charts as it can help more advanced players find interesting cost-effective unit compositions.
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence.
Your numbers are dps/R values in a vacuum. They ignore range, mineral/gas ratio, tech cost and usability on any given map.
The evidence is reality - it's how you made the table. And your conclusions are wrong because they don't take it into account.
Most Terran units have lower HP than those of Zerg, but far greater attack range. That's why in a ball vs ball fight without any spellcasters most the time the Terran would masacre the poor Zerg. Greater range also allows you to perform hit-and-run micros. However, I have no idea how to incoorperate this fact into your analysis.
In the end you will always find out what is cost effective after experiencing it.
For example, I've never looked on Liquipedia what is cost-effective against hydras, but after playing games I found out that a bunch of dragoons alone could not deal with a bunch of hydras. Then I had to add some zealots/ht/templar and the mix would make my goons very cost-effective.
I dont know if I made myself clear, or even If I am misunderstanding the concept of cost-effectiveness, but thats what I think.
Also, I think maybe it would be better to maybe have a separate column where gas is rated as more important as minerals. I'm not sure, but I think, from one base, you get 2.5 times the mineral income compared to the gas income.
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence.
Your numbers are dps/R values in a vacuum. They ignore range, mineral/gas ratio, tech cost and usability on any given map.
The evidence is reality - it's how you made the table. And your conclusions are wrong because they don't take it into account.
I think there's only so far that a calculation can do. But it's still helpful to explore how far numbers can take you.
For example, siege tanks have a range of 13. But they have a 4 second siege mode. And their vision is only 11 iirc. So how would someone take all that into account?
DPS, cost, dps/resource, these are things that are constant, whereas range etc are attributes that are influenced by the specific circumstances of a sitution a unit is used. Of course, this thread won't be the definitive end-all analysis for units, but I think these constant and quantified values are a good foothold to explore right now as we find a way to find more practical values for the units.
I think everyone will have a distinct subjective opinion on the cost effectiveness of units after looking at the tables. But as for the OP, instead of outright labeling him wrong, credit should be given to finding the numbers and the initial inferences, from which we can make further conclusions or form different opinions.
On July 24 2010 13:50 youngminii wrote: Yes, 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral. Gas is limited to around 224~ mined per minute per base whereas minerals are mined at up to 800~ per minute per base not including mules which add a LOT of mineral mining. Lots of high tech units require a lot of gas and you can see that now 1 gas is a lot more useful than 1 mineral.
You changed your point by saying in the end that one vespene is more useful than one mineral. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable.
On July 24 2010 13:50 youngminii wrote: Yes, 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral. Gas is limited to around 224~ mined per minute per base whereas minerals are mined at up to 800~ per minute per base not including mules which add a LOT of mineral mining. Lots of high tech units require a lot of gas and you can see that now 1 gas is a lot more useful than 1 mineral.
You changed your point by saying in the end that one mineral is more useful than one vespene gas. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable.
hrm? Where does he say 1 min is more useful than 1 gas?
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence.
Your numbers are dps/R values in a vacuum. They ignore range, mineral/gas ratio, tech cost and usability on any given map.
The evidence is reality - it's how you made the table. And your conclusions are wrong because they don't take it into account.
You misunderstood me. I meant: please show evidence which refutes my inferences. I will update accordingly.
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence.
Your numbers are dps/R values in a vacuum. They ignore range, mineral/gas ratio, tech cost and usability on any given map.
The evidence is reality - it's how you made the table. And your conclusions are wrong because they don't take it into account.
I think there's only so far that a calculation can do. But it's still helpful to explore how far numbers can take you.
For example, siege tanks have a range of 13. But they have a 4 second siege mode. And their vision is only 11 iirc. So how would someone take all that into account?
DPS, cost, dps/resource, these are things that are constant, whereas range etc are attributes that are influenced by the specific circumstances of a sitution a unit is used. Of course, this thread won't be the definitive end-all analysis for units, but I think these constant and quantified values are a good foothold to explore right now as we find a way to find more practical values for the units.
I think everyone will have a distinct subjective opinion on the cost effectiveness of units after looking at the tables. But as for the OP, instead of outright labeling him wrong, credit should be given to finding the numbers and the initial inferences, from which we can make further conclusions or form different opinions.
You misinterpreted my post. I never said his numbers are wrong, only the conclusions.
When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain.
lol...
On July 24 2010 14:41 carwashguy wrote: You misunderstood me. I meant: please show evidence which refutes my inferences. I will update accordingly.
Your inferences were made ignoring factors that are crucial to the cost effectiveness of units in any particular game. I listed those factors in my previous post.
ah. sir. you disregard hellions. TvZ, almost invaluable in early game if opponent uses zerglings, also EXTREMELY effective at harrassing mineral lines. Lame? afraid not xD good use of micro makes them pretty scary in PvT too, because they are so much faster than zealots. also FORCES opponent to make stalkers which are in turn eaten up by mauraders that you knew to produce BECAUSE you went hellion. its the only reason im good with all three races, or else i would never play terran, ever. ever. ever....
Immortals and/or Void Rays are a must when many armored units are in play. Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop. Even without its spells, Blizzard has made the Mothership well valued. When not exploiting Dark Templars' invisibility, they're basically over-priced Zealots. Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers. When range and mobility don't matter, favor Zealots heavily to Colossi.
Zerg
Blizzard possibly over-valued the insanely cost-effective Spore Crawlers... exploit them! When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks. Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
Terran
Blizzard must want us to build Battlecruisers in the late game. They're a great bargain. Same thing with Thors, to a lesser degree. When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame.
You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.
I need more convincing. Please show evidence.
These values, they can help a lot but some of your conclusions about each units based on this data is just not accurate. For example, Battlecruisers are amazing but you need a fusion core, time to build the battlecruiser, and the upgrades you would have for air units at the time. If you transition from bio or mech to battlecruisers, you wouldn't have 3 / 3 upgrades for air while your enemy most likely would.
Thors are strong units that do tons of damage to air and ground units, yet again time and the slow movement of Thors make them weak in some situations compared to a Bio army.
Hellions are great for killing workers. You're values don't factor in speed, and ability to micro them via kiting. Hellions under micro can kill an entire expo full of drones with the pre-igniter upgrade.
As for spine crawlers, they might be cost effective, IF they moved and attacked. They can only attack while static which would explain why they're so strong. They are also limited by creep I think?
Phoenixes might be slightly better against air units than the stalker, but stalkers are from warpgates which can be easily produce since you don't need make stargate. It's also easier to transition from stalker to phoenix.
Some do make sense though, like how facing a bunch of armored units immortals and void rays will crush all. Massed voids will probably crushed every Terran armored unit except for a bunch of Yamato Cannon Battlecruisers (even then you'll need a crapload of BCs). But if Terran had a Marauder + Ghost army. Sure there's a bunch of armored units so i must use Immortals. You will get killed since Ghosts will just emp you're immortals and they're basically dead meat (dead metal) to the marauders.
This reminds me, spells of several casters in this game would make me to believe that they are more effective than this data would suggest. AoE, how many units are caught in the spell, the cooldown, the energy per damage ratio, number of times attack can be used, if it does any damage at all (sentries) etc.
Hellions might not be cost effective by themselves, but they force an opponent to respond in a particular way (ie zerg getting speedlings and lots of lings instead of drones), are very fast and strong at harassing, and can cut apart light units, allowing your heavier units to be more cost effective.
Gas weighing could be done through a map availability analysis, or mine rate. (for example, in BW, there are nine mineral patches and one/two gas patches per main base. A weighted ratio could be 1 gas = 9 minerals?)
On July 24 2010 13:50 youngminii wrote: Yes, 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral. Gas is limited to around 224~ mined per minute per base whereas minerals are mined at up to 800~ per minute per base not including mules which add a LOT of mineral mining. Lots of high tech units require a lot of gas and you can see that now 1 gas is a lot more useful than 1 mineral.
You changed your point by saying in the end that one vespene is more useful than one mineral. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable.
Perhaps a resource's value manifests from the time one invests into accumulating it: the time it takes a worker to go back and forth; that time reinvested into a new worker; and so on. If the inherent nature of the game forces players to wait more time to collect gas than minerals, then each unit of gas takes more time, respectively. In this case, gas holds more value since it represents more time.
On July 24 2010 14:45 Sadistx wrote: Your inferences were made ignoring factors that are crucial to the cost effectiveness of units in any particular game. I listed those factors in my previous post.
If this is true, then you should take no difficulty in refuting my inferences, as I've asked. I know I have been unable to implement such things as range and splash damage. You keep throwing this red herring at me--saying nothing of my actual inferences (the thing I'm asking you to refute).
On July 24 2010 14:57 Calamity wrote: These values, they can help a lot but some of your conclusions about each units based on this data is just not accurate. For example, Battlecruisers are amazing but you need a fusion core, time to build the battlecruiser, and the upgrades you would have for air units at the time. If you transition from bio or mech to battlecruisers, you wouldn't have 3 / 3 upgrades for air while your enemy most likely would.
Thors are strong units that do tons of damage to air and ground units, yet again time and the slow movement of Thors make them weak in some situations compared to a Bio army.
Hellions are great for killing workers. You're values don't factor in speed, and ability to micro them via kiting. Hellions under micro can kill an entire expo full of drones with the pre-igniter upgrade.
As for spine crawlers, they might be cost effective, IF they moved and attacked. They can only attack while static which would explain why they're so strong. They are also limited by creep I think?
Phoenixes might be slightly better against air units than the stalker, but stalkers are from warpgates which can be easily produce since you don't need make stargate. It's also easier to transition from stalker to phoenix.
Some do make sense though, like how facing a bunch of armored units immortals and void rays will crush all. Massed voids will probably crushed every Terran armored unit except for a bunch of Yamato Cannon Battlecruisers (even then you'll need a crapload of BCs). But if Terran had a Marauder + Ghost army. Sure there's a bunch of armored units so i must use Immortals. You will get killed since Ghosts will just emp you're immortals and they're basically dead meat (dead metal) to the marauders.
This reminds me, spells of several casters in this game would make me to believe that they are more effective than this data would suggest. AoE, how many units are caught in the spell, the cooldown, the energy per damage ratio, number of times attack can be used, if it does any damage at all (sentries) etc.
[/url] This makes sense. I'm learning so much about Starcraft 2 tonight! Updating...
"I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion? Seems pretty lame."
if you're gonna try to write something analytical, why say shit that isn't true/ambiguous. lame can mean that you hate them because they're too great or that they're shitty.
On July 24 2010 14:37 Gnarwhal wrote: You changed your point by saying in the end that one vespene is more useful than one mineral. This may be true, but does not determine value. One resource is one resource, equally valueable.
He didn't say useful, he said valuable. Besides, that's like saying one supply equals one gas. One resource is one resource, equally valuable, right?
On that note, I'd suggest adding supply costs to the total resources: (supplycost / 8) * 100 = mineral costs for supply.
On July 24 2010 15:06 carwashguy wrote: This makes sense. I'm learning so much about Starcraft 2 tonight! Updating...
I wouldn't listen to him. You can't infer any of what he suggests without creating a SC2 model identical to the game and players involved, which would be a ridiculous undertaking, not to mention completely pointless. Just stick to the units-in-a-vacuum if you want to extract useful data.
on the topic of the hellion: 1. it is very fast, which is one of its main strengths 2. it has line splash, effective both when harassing and in battle, especially now that they auto target at 6 range 3. it relies heavily on the pre-ignite upgrade, whereas you stated data comes pre-upgrade
How do you factor in superior micro mechanics into cost effectiveness? A unit is as effective as the player makes it. It's nice to see all the numbers, but this isn't really useful as there is a large concept in Starcraft 2 called micro.
The chart has some nice info, I think a nice addition would be info on marauder+marines while stimmed.
However, looking at units from a pure DPS standpoint leaves out some very important factors.
Seems pretty lame.Except against light units, Phoenixes are only very slightly a better answer to air than Stalkers.
Of course, phoenixes are very fast and maneuverable and also have the levitation spell.
I don't play Terran, but what's up with the Hellion?
The hellion is a mineral only unit, and terran players often have a surplus. Additionally they have line of fire and are fast. Despite their deceptive placement in your table for DPS, top players like qxc and TLO use these units very often in both TvZ and TvP.
So again, the data is useful. But what is great about sc2 is that DPS isn't everything, there are many variables.
On July 24 2010 14:45 Sadistx wrote: Your inferences were made ignoring factors that are crucial to the cost effectiveness of units in any particular game. I listed those factors in my previous post.
If this is true, then you should take no difficulty in refuting my inferences, as I've asked. I know I have been unable to implement such things as range and splash damage. You keep throwing this red herring at me--saying nothing of my actual inferences (the thing I'm asking you to refute).
Actually no, you're the one under burden of proof here. The very fact that you're making blanket statements from simple dps/R values shows that you don't understand the dynamics of the game, which include other factors that I've listed. Your conclusions do not take them into account.
You also did not implement things like unit abilities such as cliffwalking, flying, burrowing or just speed, all of which are crucial to giving recommendation regarding counters.
Your inferences are wrong because they were made using incomplete information, and if you still don't understand that refutes several of them, you're either trolling me or haven't played a game of SC2 in your life.
I like how 60% of the the posts so far are people pointing out the 100's of varibles, even though the OP already stated this is a strictly number based chart and he/she understands that the varibles are impossible to account for.
On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: [...]Which include other factors that I've listed. Your conclusions do not take them into account.
Thank you again for reiterating this helpful point. I've recruited the help of other forum members and have revised my inferences to take these other factors into account. Hopefully, with time, I can strengthen them further.
On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: You also did not implement things like unit abilities such as cliffwalking, flying, burrowing or just speed, all of which are crucial to giving recommendation regarding counters.
You seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. Please do me the honor of reading my original post. Perhaps you can contribute even more, when not using points that I have already conceded in my original post.
On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: [...]Which include other factors that I've listed. Your conclusions do not take them into account.
Thank you again for reiterating this helpful point. I've recruited the help of other forum members and have revised my inferences to take these other factors into account. Hopefully, with time, I can strengthen them further.
On July 24 2010 15:14 Sadistx wrote: You also did not implement things like unit abilities such as cliffwalking, flying, burrowing or just speed, all of which are crucial to giving recommendation regarding counters.
You seem like a very intelligent and reasonable person. Please do me the honor of reading my original post. Perhaps you can contribute even more, when not using points that I have already conceded in my original post.
Very interesting read. Even though like you said this should not be considered as "do only this unit" as it doesn't take into account some battle limitations like ultralisk having huge problems actually inflicting that damage and mutalisk's harass ability due their speed. But still fun to read, thanks
On July 24 2010 15:34 Jermstuddog wrote: Perhaps the biggest number I would like to see in a chart like this is HP/resources.
Also, dps should be two collumns: vs 0 armor and vs 1 armor, that way you can see the effect of 1 armor difference.
Funny, I originally had HP/resources, but removed it for simplicity. I'll add it tomorrow as well as look at armor (I still don't fully understand armor). Thanks.
On July 24 2010 15:35 Piski wrote: Are some of the units missing btw?
Yes, if I have time, or if someone else comes up with reliable ways to compute tricky units like Carriers, I'd love to add them.
On resource comparison, I don't think saying 2.5min=1gas is wrong for such a generalized table, just make sure you state somewhere that is the conversion being used.
This chart doesn't need to cover every little possibility in the game, but there should be a small, but notable difference between roach dps and queen dps vs ground. Queens hitting 4x as fast as roaches to do the same damage makes armor 4x as effective. That is a big thing to miss IMO.
On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.
Do tell. Why?
u ever have a situation where you would trade 500 gas for 500 minerals? I never o.0 I did have situations where I would trade 1k min for 1k gas... (fucking high templars...)
I came across this nice google spreadsheet a month or so ago. It's slightly outdated, but most of it is still relevant. I think it's worth a look. This guy uses 1.25*gas cost to determine it's equivalence in minerals. It also has calculated the dps/cost, splash, upgades, armor types.
LOL Not to troll or anything, but with that analysis and unit comprehension i'm surprised that your gold. What race do you play, whatever it is, it's OP. You made horrible accusations on all the races.. .and only legit thing i saw what that Mutas are a bit pricey and they are in SC2... Every unit has its use in its given time...
I appreciate the effort, but this isnt worth the effor to pursue... There are mathmatical calculations for a lot of this stuff, check out this series...
UC Berkley course for Starcraft.. Check out 5:27, starts to mention the effectiveness mineral wise for Archons vs Zerglings.
Just a couple things i would like to point out:
IMO, VR are the only thing which doesn't have much of a weak point... Im not sure you calculated this, but the charged damage on the Void Ray... I have watched TONS of matches, and you dont see them getting charged up much... because in mass, they tend to kill stuff to fast to charge, but when they charge up, they are unbeatable...
Not know the uses of a Hellion, on top of a simple 1 to 1 ratio for everything is pointless.
SCV vs Probe. Scv 5 damage 45 HP.... Probe 5 damage 20hp 20 shield... SCV ALWAYS WINS!!!!!.... not really... if you attack 4x SCV is at 25hp and probe at 20/0... you pull the probe back for 10 seconds, and then SCV is at 25hp and Probe is at 20/20... All in all units with shield / regen have serious advantages for harassment.
Didnt take into for Possible Advantage of stealth... DT rock face when there is no detection... and actually less effective then a legs upgraded zelot... Burrowed roaches TEAR UP TANKS... but without burrow... they cant even hit them...
I was watching someones stream which was a TvT ... and his opponet went mass BC, something like 8 BC's on the attack... the player was worried for a second...but ended up making a bunch of Vikings he probably had around 14 of them... I cant quite remember the cost of everything, but i believe the BC was worth a lot more... well... the Vikings have 2 more range... he was able to kill all 8 bc's wihout losing a single Viking... With proper micro... Without the micro ... i bet the BC's would have won... I won a game going mass BC and beat Vikings because i would go in and kill a couple and repair. They never got a critical mass to 1 or 2 shot my BC's so they would go in and a couple would die and they would never kill any of mine, unless they are willing to lose 4-5.
On July 24 2010 15:58 Zev wrote: You made horrible accusations on all the races.. .and only legit thing i saw what that Mutas are a bit pricey and they are in SC2... Every unit has its use in its given time...
Really? Please point out which ones specifically and how. I'll update accordingly. Thank you so much for your insight.
On July 24 2010 15:58 Zev wrote: There are mathmatical calculations for a lot of this stuff, check out this series... [...] its the UC Berkley course for Starcraft..
Right you are. I remember when Sirlin posted reviews of each class. I especially found the flux statistic interesting.
On July 24 2010 15:58 Zev wrote: Im not sure you calculated this, but the charged damage on the Void Ray [...] but when they charge up, they are unbeatable...
Yeah, and yes I did calculate that.
On July 24 2010 15:58 Zev wrote: SCV vs Probe. Scv 5 damage 45 HP.... Probe 5 damage 20hp 20 shield... SCV ALWAYS WINS!!!!!.... not really... if you attack 4x SCV is at 25hp and probe at 20/0... you pull the probe back for 10 seconds, and then SCV is at 25hp and Probe is at 20/20... All in all units with shield / regen have serious advantages for harassment.
I accommodated this in my original post by saying Protoss is actually stronger than the data suggests.
On July 24 2010 15:58 Zev wrote: Didnt take into for Possible Advantage of stealth... DT rock face when there is no detection... and actually less effective then a legs upgraded zelot...
Wow a stalker has the same DPS as a marine.. that is so retarded and why its so hard to counter battlecruisers and air in general with them. Unstimmed even... atleast i learned that if im looking for damage dealers sentries almost equal stalkers
The most cost effective unit is the Missile Turrent and you didn't even include it in your tables. You also haven't taken into account vital upgrades/abilities, like stim pack.
Carriers are 450/250 total, 16 attacks by 5 damage every 3 seconds, so: Resources: 700; DPS = 16*5/3 = 26.(6); HP+Shields = 450 DPS*(HP+Shields)/Resources = 17
(DPS*H)/R = ((Damage/cooldown)*(HP+shield))/(minerals+gas), or cost-effectiveness: DPS over the course of a battling unit's life per dollar. I multiply here because every unit of life means another unit of time that a unit can actuate DPS. This is the meat and gravy. It thoroughly reconciles the costs (resources) with the benefits (damage, cooldown, and health).
Sorry, but this formula looks like nonsense to me. If you put in the value of two units the cost effectiveness suddenly doubles. This is because the strength of units grows quadratically with their number. So your formula puts expensive units as better than they are.
Use Sqrt(DPS*H)/R or DPS*H/R^2 instead. This formula is still not perfect, but at least it works at all.
Honestly, the people who "Noted hidden costs" on the Terran units are obviously not honest with themselves.
Terran units are easily the most cost effective units.
How could you tell? Just look at Thor and Siege tanks kill counts. Bust out some replays if you have to. They are far often WAY higher than all the other units. Anyone who says otherwise is just lying to themselves.
Even Marines - there are no starter-units for any of the other races that have the insane upgrades Marines do, and are so effective once reaching critical mass. Due to their small size and stim they easily do the highest focus-fire damage in game once reaching critical mass. Even charge Zealots cant compare due to their melee only, and Lings are far weaker in SC2 late game than they were in SC1. What could show a race to be more cost-effective than their basic 1-population 50mineral no gas unit?
Not to mention that Terran armies are usually much less gas-heavy for the damage they do. Look at the army resource counters in replays and you will find they destroy armies of far higher resource values, due to the lower gas costs.
On July 24 2010 19:00 Cerion wrote: Marines and marauders being in the bottom third of that list should really be a hint that the model oversimplifies combat.
Agreed. The chart does not account for things such as critical mass, focus firing, smart-aiming, and micro capabilities. So it's nowhere near accurate.
But as mentioned earlier, just open up some replays and look at the units kill counters, and it's simple to see who has the most efficient units.
This info is not very useful in terms of actual in game unit utility. This reminds of of bogus martial arts schools which teach you how to defend against a punch in some fancy way when you know exactly how its coming. The students then get their asses beat in a street fight and wonder what happened. The fact is, the model you are using is inaccurate compared to how actual games play out due to multiple variables that you are not accounting for (just like in the martial arts example).
Using DPS*HP/Cost is clearly biased against low cost units, so as MasterOfChaos suggested here's a spreadsheet with DPS*HP/Cost^2 used: link +Upg includes the bonus damage and maxed attack upgrades against a target with 3 armor.
Far more meaningful than DPS is the number of whole hits it takes to kill a particular unit and the time that takes. That would take a much bigger table though.
Oh, and certain results, like the Ultralisk and Zergling, don't take into account how so much of their HP is spent as they actually try to reach their targets.
Still, with this there's interesting results to be found.
Unfortunately for this analysis, Starcraft 2 is not a game where each player moves a single unit to the centre of the map, force-moves them up to melee range, and then attacks; then the loser replaces their solitary unit, they move to melee range again, and the fight continues... until one of them is mined out.
This analysis is almost entirely useless because it ignores spellcasting, range, splash damage, ground/air, armour and especially mobility. Pick any unit from near the top and any unit from near the bottom and some or all of these factors will explain why they're equivalent.
Mobility is the biggest one. It allows you to scout with combat units; retreat from losing battles; kite; choose your battles; abuse cliffs; get good arcs; do run-bys; hit mineral lines; harass bases; and generally gain map control. Note how lots of the units at the bottom of the lists (like sentries, stalkers, phoenixes, mutalisks, corruptors, hydralisks, hellions, reapers, marines) are extremely mobile, or in the case of the sentry allow you to control your enemy's mobility. It's that important.
The one interesting thing you've shown is how strong battlecruisers are if you can reach them. They rate highly on damage; they can abuse air mobility against a ground-heavy opponent; they're ranged; they have 3 armour even before upgrades; they can shoot air and ground; and they have a decent damage spell. However, note that rating highly on damage is only one of those factors, and might not be the most important. It's the whole package that matters.
Here's an example: Zealots alone can do very little against stalkers, phoenixes, void rays, colossi, dark templars, archons, motherships, mutalisks, corruptors, hydralisks on creep, zerglings, roaches, ultralisks, hellions, reapers, vikings, ghosts, marines, marauders with concussive shells, sieged siege tanks, and banshees. Those are all units they're more 'cost effective' than. That's 21 different units - almost all of the combat units in the game! - which your analysis is able to be hopelessly wrong for. They also lose to banelings, which don't fit into your model at all. These aren't minor issues! They utterly dominate the thing you're trying to measure. This is why your analysis is unhelpful, and its focus on DPS*H/R may even give new players the wrong idea and screw up their play until they learn better.
Except... even looking at the whole package isn't enough. Take marauders in PvT, for example. Marauders beat stalkers on your DPS*H/R measure; they beat zealots on mobility, which you ignore. But... a 50:50 mix of zealots and stalkers beats marauders.
A beats B, A beats C, but A loses to half of each. That kind of situation makes a mockery of the fundamental idea of singular unit comparisons.
It's such a nice idea in theory until you think, OBVIOUSLY the more expensive units do more damage, take more time to build. OBVIOUSLY 1 gas is more valuable than 1 mineral since you can have 24 workers mining 8 patches of minersals but only 6 workers getting you gas. In the end none of this is useful in practice since you wont use ANY of this data during a game, you still go by the situation and adapt accordingly.
On July 24 2010 17:08 MasterOfChaos wrote: Use Sqrt(DPS*H)/R or DPS*H/R^2 instead. This formula is still not perfect, but at least it works at all.
Ah, I see. I'm effectively squaring the first half, so I need to accommodate for that. Thank you for your help! I'll fix this.
On July 24 2010 22:14 randomnine wrote: This is why your analysis is unhelpful, and its focus on DPS*H/R may even give new players the wrong idea and screw up their play until they learn better.
Oh gosh I hope not, since that certainly wasn't my intention. Hopefully new players will have read the disclaimer which explains why not to take it at face value. One must bear in mind other factors and judge units accordingly, as you mention. But if people really think simply having objective data posted on Teamliquid hurts the community more than help, I won't hesitate to delete this post. It was more an exercise for my own better understanding of the game, anyway.
On July 24 2010 22:37 carwashguy wrote: One must bear in mind other factors and judge units accordingly, as you mention. But if people really think simply having objective data posted on Teamliquid hurts the community more than help, I won't hesitate to delete this post. It was more an exercise for my own better understanding of the game, anyway.
Sorry. I came on a bit strong.
I think this kind of approach is helpful, but that you're being a bit too reductionist. Weighting gas against minerals, for example? There is no correct weighting. Availability of gas and minerals fluctuates through a game, and there's no exchange rate for turning one into the other. You simply have to stop using it when it runs out. Even ignoring fluctuation in resources, the value of gas depends entirely on how badly you want or need specific gas-heavy units or tech; the value of minerals depends on how hard you want to power and add basic production buildings.
Great catch by MasterOfChaos on the quadratic scaling of units in numbers, actually. I admit, I'm curious how that'll shake things up.
There's not much 'analysis' in the OP at all. It's basically, cheap units are good and expensive ones are good with good micro or in correct conditions.
The only good way of doing a cost-effectiveness analysis is by using armies vs armies. Versatility is the key, not mass 1/2 unit types and die Idra-style.
perhaps you should make separate columns for cost-effectiveness when dealing full splash damage vs no splash, and cost-effectiveness vs armored vs light (for appropriate units)
also the disclaimer about shields isn't really necessary - shields aren't necessarily better than terran/zerg hp because of the way P upgrades work, T repair/medivac heal, and Z regeneration
I dont know if this will make any difference, but you could think about the food cost. 1 supply depot costs 100 minerals and gives 10 food. 1 marine costs one food, so thats a costs of ten minerals. 1 marauserd 2 food = 20 minerals 2 BC costs 6 food is 60 minerals.
On July 24 2010 23:04 palanq wrote: also the disclaimer about shields isn't really necessary - shields aren't necessarily better than terran/zerg hp because of the way P upgrades work, T repair/medivac heal, and Z regeneration
Protoss shields recharge fast outside of combat in SC2. That can be a big deal, particularly in early game.
On July 24 2010 23:12 Deckkie wrote: I dont know if this will make any difference, but you could think about the food cost. 1 supply depot costs 100 minerals and gives 10 food. 1 marine costs one food, so thats a costs of ten minerals. 1 marauserd 2 food = 20 minerals 2 BC costs 6 food is 60 minerals.
Except supply depots actually give 8 food. So marine=12.5 minerals marauder=25 minerals and 1 BC is 6 food=75 minerals.
While the critics are right that the numbers are misleading by themselves, these numbers are always still interesting and give some insight. One of the best uses for these numbers would be for base killing. It's much more simple and the things you need to keep in mind are (which is actually turning into a huge list... but it still seems simpler than a battle army to army):
- buildings usually have 1 armor, meaning subtract a little from your low dmg slow attack rate units. - can the units get into the enemy's base? Cloaked units like the dark templar or banshee for instance. Blink stalkers + observer. Quick hellion run by or reapers. Air units like phoenix. - how much movement do they need to kill workers or buildings (i.e. marines are way more effective than zealots due to range, focus fire, and later on stim + medivac)... demonstrated nicely by game 2 in TLO vs Tester in Day9's king of the beta. - how good the units are at killing static defenses, like photon cannons. Ranged is better due to less static defenses reaching you at any given time. Survivability is a big deal here, like zerglings vs photon cannons or a bunker being repaired. Planetary fortresses get repaired. But if you bring High Templar you can psi storm the workers or an Infester and you can stop them moving to go repair. - how easily the unit can escape when defensive units show up in numbers. Fast movement and cliff walk or hop as reapers and stalkers. Flight like banshees, voidrays, or vikings. Several fit into convenient transports like hydras in overlords or marines in dropships. Can the transport get away? That's easier with more vision, more units to scout, or ranged units to attack from a distance and put the transport less in harms way.
Hell, after all of that it's easier to just say harass with:
- reapers, hellions, dropship marines/marauders, siege tanks/thors/colossi/vikings on cliffs, vikings, banshees, auto-turrets - stalkers, dark templar, voidrays, phoenix, high templar drops on workers, immortal drops early on, forcefield drops (block ramp or mineral line) - mutas, infestor (infested terrans), burrowed roaches, baneling drops on workers, nydas, hydra drops
Kill buildings with: - marines, banshees, battlecruisers, marauders - voidrays, immortals) - hydras, zerglings, roaches, ultras, broodlords, banelings - whatever is convenient If you have your whole army in their base from a recall, use the whole army. Just hope you can get out alive or nearly finish them here.
---out of time sorry for any typos, incompleteness, etc.
@Nihility: Except that you only need to factor in the food cost fully when expanding your army at the start. If you're replacing stuff that's just been destroyed, which happens all the time after the first few units, the food is already there.
On July 24 2010 23:04 palanq wrote: perhaps you should make separate columns for cost-effectiveness when dealing full splash damage vs no splash, and cost-effectiveness vs armored vs light (for appropriate units)
I've done armored/light/etc already, but I'll look into splash.
On July 24 2010 23:25 randomnine wrote: Except that you only need to factor in the food cost fully when expanding your army at the start. If you're replacing stuff that's just been destroyed, which happens all the time after the first few units, the food is already there.
I'll make a totally separate chart to factor in supply.
Speedling refers to zerglings with move speed upgrade, crackling refers to a zergling with the attack speed upgrade. You could just list it as zergling with adrenal glands/attack speed upgrade, if you want it to be obvious. Viking air attack cooldown is 2 seconds, not 1. Hellion vs light is not 18 damage, it's 14 without the preigniter upgrade and 24 with. Thor ground attack cooldown is 1.28 You're rounding too much. For example: the SCV has 54 in the last field, but should have 60, which is more than 10% difference.
Marines/marauders with stim/shield are still missing.
On July 25 2010 00:20 lololol wrote: Speedling refers to zerglings with move speed upgrade. Hellion vs light is not 18 damage, it's 14 without the preigniter upgrade and 24 with. Thor ground attack cooldown is 1.28
Thanks, I confirmed this with Wikia. Apparently Liquipedia is slightly out of date.
On July 25 2010 00:20 lololol wrote: Viking air attack cooldown is 2 seconds, not 1.
You sure? Liquipedia and Wikia say otherwise.
On July 25 2010 00:20 lololol wrote: Marines/marauders with stim/shield are still missing
Adding to todo.
On July 25 2010 00:20 lololol wrote: You're rounding too much. For example: the SCV has 54 in the last field, but should have 60, which is more than 10% difference.
On July 25 2010 00:20 lololol wrote: Viking air attack cooldown is 2 seconds, not 1.
You sure? Liquipedia and Wikia say otherwise.
I just checked Liquipedia and it's correct? Cooldown: 1 (Ground) 2 (Air) Last edit was 19 July 2010
Haha, I actually made the same mistake at first, too: AM means “Assault Mode” (ground). FM means “Fighter Mode” (air).
I know; it's confusing.
They are switched(by "it's correct" I meant that liquipedia is correct, not the spreadsheet) Assault Mode/Ground/Machine guns should be 1 second(instead of 2). Fighter Mode/Air/Missiles should be 2 seconds(instead of 1).
I did something very similar to this in the early beta. I'm pleased that you and I used the exact same formula for unit performance, right down to the exponent!
My summary is also very similar to yours. Zealots are amazing, Tier1 units are by far the most cost-effective units. Terran units are squishy. Mutalisks are actually not good at all.
Of course these numbers are inherently meaningless because they ignore AoE, Armor, Micro, etc. But I still think there is solid value in at least understanding how good units are relative to one another.
One thing you might consider doing next is a more complicated analysis of performance based on HP of a unit. 10 Marines v. 1 Thor, for instance. Each Marine dies quickly, gradually lowering their output overtime. The thor, however, keeps shooting 'till it dies. If you visualize this on a graph, The marines' output over time would be a descending staircase. The thor, however, would be one big box. If you analysis 'performance' as a function of the area under the line, your numbers will start to favor high HP units (Thor, BC, Ultralisk) over Tier1 units - regardless of things like Armor and AoE.
On July 25 2010 02:03 Makh wrote: One thing you might consider doing next is a more complicated analysis of performance based on HP of a unit. 10 Marines v. 1 Thor, for instance. Each Marine dies quickly, gradually lowering their output overtime. The thor, however, keeps shooting 'till it dies. If you visualize this on a graph, The marines' output over time would be a descending staircase. The thor, however, would be one big box. If you analysis 'performance' as a function of the area under the line, your numbers will start to favor high HP units (Thor, BC, Ultralisk) over Tier1 units - regardless of things like Armor and AoE.
This makes less and less of a difference the bigger the armies are. For example: 1 carrier beats 3 vikings, but 2 carriers lose to 6 vikings, 3 lose to 9, e.t.c.
I'm not sure if I like your interpretation of cost-effectiveness.
Dividing by R^2 should come naturally as you're calculating each in terms of resources. I see the equation as (DPS/R) * (HP/R) - it seems more reasonable to think of it that way, but the problem is that in the end you get some nonsensical units. I'm uncomfortable with is articulating HP as "more time for the unit to actualize DPS," especially as the reasoning for multiplication. In the end you get some sort of Ambiguous HP^2 value (who knows what Damage*HP is supposed to mean) per second per R^2, that is: AHP^2/(S*R^2). I don't think this expression makes any sort of sense logically.
Here's my counterproposal: define unit HP in terms of time as well against some other unit X and determine individual cost-effectiveness unit versus unit. Then the equation should turn out to be D/R, where D is the damage it inflicts over its entire lifespan (continuous fire). There's a few more kinks in this system what with the inherent flaws of using DPS as a standard of measurement overall (damage is done in discrete chunks, etc.) but I think the numbers will be more accurate.
It should tell us certain things we already know (marauders bad against immortals, etc.) but in the end we can also do some analysis on the numbers as a whole for all of the different unit matchups to determine overall cost-effectiveness. It will take longer, but with the marvel of modern programming not too long. Let me see if I can't get started on this.
I really like these charts and great work, especially with listening to others to improve the charts.
I just have some suggestions. Since we are dealing with cost effectiveness of units maybe you can use a separate chart to compare the cost effectiveness of upgrades. For example, Stim Pack, Zealot Charge, Storm, and Hunter Seeker Missile(I especially want to see this one)
Should be pretty easy since you already have the data for units.
On July 25 2010 02:03 lololol wrote: They are switched(by "it's correct" I meant that liquipedia is correct, not the spreadsheet) Assault Mode/Ground/Machine guns should be 1 second(instead of 2). Fighter Mode/Air/Missiles should be 2 seconds(instead of 1).
So actually you didn't make a mistake at first :D
Eh, liquipedia says fm = 1 and am = 2. And I'll work on that rounding. Google's doing some weird stuff there.
On July 25 2010 02:08 d3_crescentia wrote: Dividing by R^2 should come naturally as you're calculating each in terms of resources. I see the equation as (DPS/R) * (HP/R) - it seems more reasonable to think of it that way
Agreed. Fixed.
On July 25 2010 02:08 d3_crescentia wrote: Here's my counterproposal: define unit HP in terms of time as well against some other unit X and determine individual cost-effectiveness unit versus unit. Then the equation should turn out to be D/R, where D is the damage it inflicts over its entire lifespan (continuous fire). There's a few more kinks in this system what with the inherent flaws of using DPS as a standard of measurement overall (damage is done in discrete chunks, etc.) but I think the numbers will be more accurate.
It should tell us certain things we already know (marauders bad against immortals, etc.) but in the end we can also do some analysis on the numbers as a whole for all of the different unit matchups to determine overall cost-effectiveness. It will take longer, but with the marvel of modern programming not too long. Let me see if I can't get started on this.
Personally, I don't have time for a project of that magnitude, but for you: I say go for it. That definitely sounds like a great way to evaluate units (on a matchup basis). I will have been glad to have prompted you into thinking about it. =]
On July 24 2010 13:35 carwashguy wrote: Observations and inferences
If you disagree with any of these, please post which ones specifically and a detailed explanation of why. I will update with your insight and credit you.
[*]Zealots have fantastic purchasing power when facing a ground troop.
This is misleading. There's no doubt that zealots are a great bang for the buck, but only if you can utilize them. Can they surround? Does your opponent have anti-light or AOE units? I think a better conclusion to draw from this is to underscore why zealot charge is such a great upgrade. You're increasing your ability to utilize this inexpensive and powerful unit. [*]When not expecting an air threat, heavily favor Roaches to Hydralisks.
Hydras have a much better range which means in ANY practical conflict they will do more damage than roaches. I think the conclusion to draw is that you might consider adding more roaches to your roach/hydra mix than you were expecting, but even that is dependent on factors well beyond the scope of this study.
[*]Mutalisks appear rather costly, throughput-wise.
The strength of the muta lies in it's mobility. again, not something you can calculate easily.
[*]Missile Turrets, out of all the units, give you the best bang for your buck, by far.
Most missle turrets never fire more than 1-2 shots in a game.
[*]Marines are a safe buy, Blizzard has valued them highly.
Again, comments like these are very misleading. They're a safe buy? When facing banelings, colossi, or hellions? Lets try it sometime and see how it goes
[*]Unless I'm missing something, Assault Mode Vikings seem only useful when fighting air-to-air units.
You're missing that they can't hit air in assault mode and again, the strength of assault mode lies in the mobility of fighter mode.
[*]When facing armored units at a closer range, get those tanks out of Seige? According to Cyanure, perhaps not since this does not take splash into account. However, seven added DPS seems like a good enough incentive to me.
You're missing that it takes 3.5417 seconds to change from siege mode to tank mode. But there are indeed situations where tank mode is the better route to go, but only very early when unit counts are low (such as one tank + a handful of marines vs a few stalkers or marauders).
Anyways I think this kind of theorycraft is only very vaguely useful, and I caution any new players reading this to draw completely erroneous conclusions from it. Efficiency has it's place in Starcraft, but there are so many factors involved that a study like this can't even hope to understand them all. Here are the conclusions I would draw from this (all prettymuch already established and no-brainers):
Never stop making tier 1 units. They're just too efficient to bypass completely
Some units must stay mobile to be effective. If your apm isn't high enough to keep them mobile while maintaining your macro, they will die against an equal-resource army.
Units that deal splash damage need to hit multiple units to be worth their cost.
Conversely, you can lower the effectiveness of enemy AOE units by not allowing them to hit multiple targets.
Bonus damage is good (although this spreadsheet would lead people to believe that they shouldn't use a unit unless they intend to exploit it's bonus damage, which leads to patently false ideas such as "Colossi are bad against Marauders")
On July 24 2010 13:40 Mr_LOL wrote: as someone totally new to sc2 and rts games in general, this is extremely helpful. to bad your a noob and did a shitty job
User was banned for this post.
this is really helpfull but you bash him? wtf is your probleme you dont complement someone then tell them to fuck off
You begin your OP as if you understand that paper logic only goes so far.
I look over the rest of the OP and I see the kinds of things you would expect from paper logic. And there's nothing wrong with that considering the disclaimer.
Then I read some of your comments, and, with all due respect, you seem decidedly closed-minded. Don't get me wrong, I am probably guilty of this sometimes.
However, I am a firm believer that this thread could go on for thousands of pages and there would still be stones left un-turned. For every new strategy, there are multiple ways to break it. Just like there are multiple ways to solve pretty much any math problem.
I see in the OP that you are indeed considering quite a few factors. But I think there are just too many to really be able to put down. Here are a few.
[...]
That said, <3
On the good side, I promise you that nobody knows everything about how potential any given unit can be.
So true. I agree that the post could go on for eons. That said, a good player may instinctively get a feel of what kind and how many units to make and when, either from trial and error or by imitation. I would like to know how certain units are more beneficial and when. I don't want to just take it on faith. The whole idea here is to have some sort of practical starting point for evaluating units. Then, I can fill in the blanks of why exactly a unit is more beneficial than this data would suggest. Once I've grasped that, I have a much better understanding of how the game works than just by trial/error and imitation. I can use this better understanding to make reliable decisions based on what I've verified to be true.
So yes, there's mountains upon mountains of complexity, far beyond the scope of this data, but at least I have an objective start. When something smells funny about the data, it means there's an unaccounted-for benefit. Once I've sniffed out that benefit, I'm better for it.
Disagree slightly with the bit about DTs being nothing more than expensive zealots when your opponent has detection.
DTs are meant to be cloaked harassers and at the beginning of the game, they really are nothing more than expensive zealots. They have an total hp value of 120 (80/40), while zealots have an hp value of 150 (50/100).
However, DTs get a enormous boost to their attack per upgrade. At +1, DT attack jumps almost 10%, from 45 to 50 damage. Once the late game is reached and upgrades are full, or near full, DTs will be doing a tremendous 55-60 damage per shot. Despite having a rather low attack rate (.67 hits a second), their DPS skyrockets tremendously by the time you upgrade the +2 weapons, even just +1 weapons greatly improves their dps.
Now for the resource cost. DTs are obviously an arm and a leg more expensive than a zealot. However, using the data you provided, at no upgrades, DTs already deal over twice the DPS as zealots. However, due to their lesser HP and absurdly high gas cost, they're still probably not really worth it. Again though, with upgrades, their DPS capabilities soar through the roof. At +3 upgrades, they rival the Immortal in dealing large packets of damage, except to all units, not just armored.
Conclusion? Yea, you shouldn't replace zealots with DTs. That's too prohibitively expensive because of the large gas cost per DT. However, relegating DTs to obscurity once your opponent gains detection probably isn't all that smart either. Once the investment has been made into DT tech, supplementing your forces with DTs could quite possibly work very well, especially in the late game.
I've thought about this for quite a while during the beta ever since I saw how much upgrades affected DTs. In the ongoing GGInvitation tourney, oGs.Cool played a game against an unknown named Andro during the ro64. During the third and final match, Andro used mass DTs to quite a good effect and pretty much won with it. Although, yes, there were a LOT of errors on both sides in terms of gameplay, it's still a pretty nice proof of concept as that game was definitely pretty high level as oGs and its members are among the very best SC2 players right now.
On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote: 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.
Do tell. Why?
There is only a set # of gas you can gather at one time. Take Terran mech for example - they are always starved for gas. You can only have a max of (in most cases) 6 workers grabbing gas from one base at a time, whereas you can have roughly 24-32 workers gathering minerals from the same base at the same time. While gas costs are not as intense as mineral costs, they are still very heavy.
On July 25 2010 02:03 lololol wrote: They are switched(by "it's correct" I meant that liquipedia is correct, not the spreadsheet) Assault Mode/Ground/Machine guns should be 1 second(instead of 2). Fighter Mode/Air/Missiles should be 2 seconds(instead of 1).
So actually you didn't make a mistake at first :D
Eh, liquipedia says fm = 1 and am = 2. And I'll work on that rounding. Google's doing some weird stuff there.
You got to be fucking kidding me. It's very clear here, it doesn't even use fm or am, it simply states Air and Ground -> http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Viking You can also very easily check with the editor or in game and it would be very obvious to you which one has a lower cooldown, if you have ever used vikings.
On July 24 2010 13:35 carwashguy wrote: On the other hand, to a much lesser effect, more frequently hitting attacks will more likely inflict finishing damage before a unit dies or moves away--"final cooldown waste," if you will.
This is not actually true. The DPS values listed by calculating damager per shot divided by time between shots are a minimum DPS value for any given engagement. They assume that for every shot a full cooldown is used but this is rarely the case. A unit that deals 1 damage 20 times a second would kill a unit that has 60 hit points in 2.95 seconds (the first shot having no cooldown). A unit that deals 20 damage 1 time a second would kill a unit that has 60 hit points in 2 seconds. Almost a full second before the unit that deals faster packets of damage with equal DPS. The effective DPS in this case is 20.34 for the first unit and 30 for the second.
So in a real world comparison the best conclusion to draw is that high damage slow refire rate units are the best damage dealers with only short windows do deal damage in while low damage high refire rate units with high DPS are best for sustained engagements. I'm sure this comes as a suprise to no one who has ever microed marauders or roaches in small scale engagements and aimed to get the best arc they could with hydras and marines in large scale engagements.
On July 25 2010 02:03 lololol wrote: They are switched(by "it's correct" I meant that liquipedia is correct, not the spreadsheet) Assault Mode/Ground/Machine guns should be 1 second(instead of 2). Fighter Mode/Air/Missiles should be 2 seconds(instead of 1).
So actually you didn't make a mistake at first :D
Eh, liquipedia says fm = 1 and am = 2. And I'll work on that rounding. Google's doing some weird stuff there.
You got to be fucking kidding me. It's very clear here, it doesn't even use fm or am, it simply states Air and Ground -> http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Viking You can also very easily check with the editor or in game and it would be very obvious to you which one has a lower cooldown, if you have ever used vikings.
Ah ha, this is the page I was referring to, which is apparently incorrect. Fixing...
On July 24 2010 13:35 carwashguy wrote: On the other hand, to a much lesser effect, more frequently hitting attacks will more likely inflict finishing damage before a unit dies or moves away--"final cooldown waste," if you will.
This is not actually true. The DPS values listed by calculating damager per shot divided by time between shots are a minimum DPS value for any given engagement.
Sorry, but these numbers are useless because they cannot account for ALL factors, they do not reflect how good units are in any form.
Because they can't take in account for splash, they can't account for how some units, like marines, die even faster, making the unit worse situationally.
The entire game is about situations and how to capitalize in them with spells, splash, direct DPS, etc. and therefore these numbers are not relevant to how good any specific unit is.
Zerg [*]When not expecting an air threat, favor Roaches to Hydralisks? Chronocide says, "Hydras have a much better range which means in ANY practical conflict they will do more damage than roaches. I think the conclusion to draw is that you might consider adding more roaches to your roach/hydra mix than you were expecting, but even that is dependent on factors well beyond the scope of this study."
Actually, on top of what Chronocide said... first off, you need to amend it to "when not expecting air, marauders, immortals or ultralisks", but that's sort of tangential to the type of analysis that you're carrying on here.
My methodology objection is that, in a roach+hydra mix, roaches withstand hits and hydras deal damage. As a result, DPS*HP is not a good measurement of the usefulness of either unit (and, in fact, this is supported by how pure roaches lose to a good composition of roach+hydra at equal cost). Hydralisks would be insanely overpowered if they morphed for 10 minerals and 5 gas each, had 8 hp each but dealt the same DPS (whereas your method "thinks" that they would be just as useful as they are now).
I love how there are all these critics in this thread who seem to be attacking the OP because they themselves are incapable of making intelligent conclusions about the data he presents.
As the OP said himself the data isn't perfect, there is absolutely no mathematical way to describe what's "best" in any given situation - that's why its a game played by a you sitting behind a computer and not a mathematical exercise. The point isn't "look at all these ways where the data are wrong" but rather "given these calculations, what informed conclusions can I draw?" Let's take something basic -- let's say that it had never dawned on us exactly how ridiculous Battlecruiser Air to Ground DPS was or just how much damage zealot can actually do all while not costing very much. From these we should ask ourselves, are there any ways in which I can take these newly found bits of information and put them into use? Maybe we see a late game situation and go "Ah ha! I remember that BCs rape ground and if I build a few, I bet I can exploit this when I attack his latest expansion" or "you know, with charge I've been able to get a lot of zealots to the fronline but I've been bringing so few, I haven't really be able to have them do any damage, I should build more before the next engagement!"
Of course the above examples are even still a bit simplified but the point remains the data in the OP are useful, you just need to sit back and think about when they'd be applicable. For instance, it never dawned on me that DTs do so much damage that even while detectable, they're not principally that awful, which now has been making me think if there would be some way to implement this in my actual games. Maybe after a few upgrades (which I don't need rigorous calculations to show me will greatly help DTs at +5/upgrade) and Zealot Charge to allow them to take the damage for the DTs, I can implement them into my late game army. But before I do, I am going to go check something for myself that the chart can't do for me, which is find out where Dark Templar lie on target priority because if they're higher than Zealots, even if Zealots go in first they'll get incinerated and thus not be useful.
I have to dissagree with what Chronocide says, because i am chronocide. I owned the bnet name for some time now.. and i own it now. Get your own name, You're making me look bad with your mumbo jumbo.
While you always have consider the attributes not covered by a purely mathematical analysis I do agree you have to increase the weighting of gas to make this useful. The big question is how do you weight it. Imo it's more than twice as valuable but probably not 3 times as valuable so you might want to try 250%.
On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote: 1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.
Do tell. Why?
At least because you have to build a refinary and you only get 4 gas per trip while you get 5 minerals. Also you can push the minerals income with more workers pretty much all the time, with gas you are limited by base number. Gas is at least 25% more valuable by mere numbers. The real difference is probably around 50% as far as my experience tells.
Is there a possibility to account for unit size vs battle group size and the effect it has on damage output over time in a battle?
lets say you compare a thor´s anti air vs the mineral/gas equivalent in marines. while the marines are more cost effective in the beginning of a battle, their damage output decreases over time when single marines die. the thor meanwhile keeps his entire firepower until his very last hitpoint.
So gas is 50% more valuable than minerals and armor is taken into account, but only with a simple calculation. Each armor point is 5% more HP. For Protoss this isn't exactly right but I can live with that.
sadly I think you need the last version of Excel to open it
Anyway, I've added some missing unit (Pre Igniter Hellion, Infested Terran, Baneling etc...), some number relative to upgrade (dps augmentation with each +1upgrade in %), a attempt for measuring the negative effect of armor on DPS : ([Damage] -1*[Attack number]) / [Cooldown] in % 1 is 1point of armor updated numbers with the 1.1 patch (for Ultra, Siege Tank en Battlecruiser) and some colors ^^
I think I may make another version with 1 gas = 1,2 minerals, as harvesters gather only 4 gas per trip...
Voilà ! I hope it can be usefull :D Please forgive me for my terrible english (I'm french xD), and my maths may be a bit awkward : I didnt do any maths since I finished HighScool ^^, so, please, feel free to correct me if some of my numbers are totally wrong x)
@Yoshi : I didn't ignore your work at all, your numbers relative to upgrades inspire me, but I thought the old presentation with, for instance [marauder vs light] and [marauder vs armor] on 2 separated lines, was more handy for comparaison
Sorry for bumping. Was searching for a good health*damage/cost chart, and this was the closest thing I found. Unfortunately, people in this thread somehow came around to the idea that the proper combat effectiveness formula should be health*damage/cost^2, and OP incorporated the change into the chart. I appreciate that the OP was willing to incorporate changes suggested in the comments, but ultimately, this makes the chart a whole lot less useful, and from my searching, it's the only similar chart I could find in the forums.
Here's why health*damage/cost is a more relevant statistic than health*damage/cost^2:
A unit costs a certain amount and will deal damage as long as it's alive. We'd like a measure of the total amount of damage a unit will produce before it dies per resource invested in that unit. This value will be directly proportional to the unit's health (doubling health doubles time before the unit dies, thereby doubling total damage the unit deals). It will also be directly proportional to the unit's DPS (double DPS doubles total damage the unit deals in a set time before it dies). The value is inversely proportional to the cost of the unit (doubling the cost of the unit means it deals half the 'total damage per resource invested' before it dies).
The argument in favor of squaring cost in the denominator was that using health*damage/cost as your measure of unit effectiveness has the seemingly odd result that if you plug in values for 2 units, you get double the cost effectiveness of one. For example, DPS of 2 zealots * health of 2 zealots / cost of 2 zealots == 2 * zealot DPS * zealot health / zealot cost.
This looks funny at first because doubling the number of units shouldn't increase the efficiency of each unit. The forumula doesn't work this way tho. It looks at a single unit. If you plug in the values of 2 zealots, the formula will spit out the cost effectiveness of a single super-zealot that has double health and double damage, but costs twice as much. Unsuprisingly, the formula tells us that super-zealots are twice as cost-effective as regular zealots because they'll survive twice as long while dealing damage twice as quickly, meaning they'll do FOUR times as much 'total damage' at a bargain price of only twice the cost.
Imagine the hypothetical super-zealot with double health and double DPS against 2 regular zealots (equal cost). The super-zealot would have half its health left after killing the first zealot and would have a quarter of its health left when it finished the second zealot. There's a reason it's harder to get more expensive units with higher health and damage--they're more effective.
If you want to test the chart, try matching equal effectiveness armies against eachother. For example, according to the chart, zerglings are roughly twice as cost-effective as zealots, so if I pit 50 resources in zerglings against 100 resources in zealots, it should be a roughly even fight. Of course, 1 zealot kills 2 zerglings without breaking a sweat. If you multiply the chart values by cost (translating them to health * DPS/cost instead of health * DPS/cost^2) you get results indicating that zealots are approximately equal in cost-effectiveness with zerglings. If you try matching 100 minerals in zerglings (4) against 100 minerals in zealots (1), you'll see that it's an even fight.
^ it took me a while to grasp the points in this last post, but I totally agree. There's no need to square the denominator. Health*dps/cost is the way to go.
HP * DPS/Cost doesn't really show anything and is very biased against cheap units. For example: stimmed marines place very low in that, yet they are obviously very cost effective units and will beat a lot of the units with better HP * DPS/Cost.
Your zealot vs zerglings comparison is flawed, because quantity does not increase effectiveness linearly. 2 zealots together are not twice as effective as a single zealot, they are actually 3 times as effective(since they are equal in strength to 3 zealots one at a time).
Additionally, armor effectiveness depends on the attack of the opposing units, and can be calculated only on a case by case basis, for example the 1 base armor of the zealot is very effective vs the 5 base damage of the zergling, so that's going to have a big effect on their matchup, while it won't matter much against the 47 damage attack of an upgraded archon.
Similarly, this does not take into account overkill, range, size, speed and other factors. Zealots fighting zergings in a choke are obviously going to fare better than in an open field, e.t.c.
On December 10 2010 07:43 lololol wrote: HP * DPS/Cost doesn't really show anything and is very biased against cheap units. For example: stimmed marines place very low in that, yet they are obviously very cost effective units and will beat a lot of the units with better HP * DPS/Cost.
Your zealot vs zerglings comparison is flawed, because quantity does not increase effectiveness linearly. 2 zealots together are not twice as effective as a single zealot, they are actually 3 times as effective(since they are equal in strength to 3 zealots one at a time).
Additionally, armor effectiveness depends on the attack of the opposing units, and can be calculated only on a case by case basis, for example the 1 base armor of the zealot is very effective vs the 5 base damage of the zergling, so that's going to have a big effect on their matchup, while it won't matter much against the 47 damage attack of an upgraded archon.
Similarly, this does not take into account overkill, range, size, speed and other factors. Zealots fighting zergings in a choke are obviously going to fare better than in an open field, e.t.c.
The fact that it doesn't tell you the units to play with if you want to win the game regardless of positioning and micro doesn't mean it's not a good metric - it just means you have to make an additional assumption:
"Assume that units are microed such that they can be as effective as if they were on top of each other in an open battlefield situation."
Sometimes this isn't possible, but that doesn't mean it's not worth examining - it just means you have to take what the numbers tell you in context.
Edit: Also, etc. stands for "et cetera", so e.t.c. is only a proper abbreviation if you meant one of the other phrases found at:
I am talking about using cost vs using cost^2. Using HP * DPS/Cost is pointless and doesn't show anything, while using HP * DPS/Cost^2 can give you an idea of the actual cost effectiveness in combat. The latter parts were all about his zealot vs zergling comparison and why actual ingame cost effectivness changes depending on multiple factors, which can't be considered in such a table and have to be looked at on a case by case basis to determine what would be the ingame end result.
I dont understand why this is calculated like this:
(dps/cost)*(hp/cost) ??
It should be:
dps*hp/cost !
I give you an example why this is better:
If you compare Zealots and Zerglings then the used formula suggests that Zerglings are more cost effective, which is completely wrong. The only szenario when Zerglings are better is when they get a nice surround and are on equal upgrades. The Zealots then need 3 shots to kill a Zergling because they overshoot with 13! damage that means 33% of his dps, that means he loses a shitton of dps in practice, despite the fact that he is more costeffective, so dont let that fool you! The Zealot being more costeffective on paper shows when you get the +1 attack because he completely dominates Zerglings then with only a slight dps increase of 14% (not counting in that he overshoots with 1 damage/kill). This chart however suggests that Zerglings are almost twice as costeffective than Zealots which should not be overcome by a 14%increase dont you think?
a more theoretical/simple example:
smurf: 10dps 100hp gargamel: 100dps 100hp
in this example you need 10smurfs to kill a gargamel. That means a gargamel is 10* better. So letz assume the game is balanced and a gargamel costs 10minerals while a smurf costs 1 mineral.
with the (wrong) formula in the OP you get the following:
the smurf suddenly seems to be 10* more costeffective despite the fact that we perfectly balanced the game...
I hope this shows that the used formula is completely wrong.
edit:
also 1gas is roughly 1.5 minerals and not 1 mineral.
you need to invest 75+50*3= 225mins for 1 assi/etc to mine 114gas/min if you invest the same amount of minerals into mineral mining then you get about 150mins/min
On December 10 2010 21:36 clickrush wrote: a more theoretical/simple example:
smurf: 10dps 100hp gargamel: 100dps 100hp
in this example you need 10smurfs to kill a gargamel. That means a gargamel is 10* better. So letz assume the game is balanced and a gargamel costs 10minerals while a smurf costs 1 mineral.
This is wrong, you would actually need 4 smurfs.
1st Second:
4 Smurfs dealing a total of 40 damage => Gargamel down to 60hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
2nd Second
3 Smurfs dealing a total of 30 damage => Gargamel down to 30hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
3rd Second
2 Smurfs dealing a total of 20 damage => Gargamel down to 10hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
4th Second
1 Smurf dealing 10 damage => Gargamel dead 1 Gargamel at the same time dealing 100 damage => Smurf dead
You should rethink your theory.
EDIT - Addition: In your example the Smurfs ARE 10 times more effective since they have 10 times as many HP for the same cost with the same DPS.
On December 10 2010 21:36 clickrush wrote: a more theoretical/simple example:
smurf: 10dps 100hp gargamel: 100dps 100hp
in this example you need 10smurfs to kill a gargamel. That means a gargamel is 10* better. So letz assume the game is balanced and a gargamel costs 10minerals while a smurf costs 1 mineral.
This is wrong, you would actually need 4 smurfs.
1st Second:
4 Smurfs dealing a total of 40 damage => Gargamel down to 60hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
2nd Second
3 Smurfs dealing a total of 30 damage => Gargamel down to 30hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
3rd Second
2 Smurfs dealing a total of 20 damage => Gargamel down to 10hp 1 Gargamel dealing 100 damage => 1 Smurf dead
4th Second
1 Smurf dealing 10 damage => Gargamel dead 1 Gargamel at the same time dealing 100 damage => Smurf dead
You should rethink your theory.
EDIT - Addition: In your example the Smurfs ARE 10 times more effective since they have 10 times as many HP for the same cost with the same DPS.
oh lol ok I can only agree. thx for educating me -.-
but then I do not understand how the lings are double as cost effective as zealots. can you also clear my zealot vs ling example up?
the main argument was that zealots tear up lings even with perfect surrounds when zealots have +1 attack which is only about 14% increase in dps.
This is really interesting, but there are simply way too many variables for it to be relevent.
If you take a quick look at the list though, it's easy to see why this doesn't really work.
First unit is the zerglings, which is true if you are fighting...other zerglings? Any sort of splash or armored units will greatly lower their efficiency since they die really easily, but this consideres health. However, if the lings can't get any shots off (ie vs collosi or tanks) they are not very cost effective. Also, you had to get the tech for adrenal gland, much like all units need tech that cost different. Same issue with the marine and Zealot. These units need to be more cost-effective or else we wouldn't see them past the extremely early game.
Then there's stim, the issue of micro...and so on. All units have their particularities that make them more cost effective than other.
What's interesting though, is that the Spine Crawler is only as cost effective as photon cannons when fighting armored...doesn't this seem to be an issue? It's okay if they want to make it better against armored, but maybe make the damage against armored a bit stronger than the photon cannon, and the damage against non-armored a little lower, so its balanced.
This fails to take into account unit speed, build time effect on cost, it size, effect of being lower cost and weaker making the unit less effective and several other factors
As a zerg player, I think unit speed is crucial, especially for melee units. You aren't allowed to ignore it stat-wise.
((H/R)*(D/R))*1000 = ((H * D)/R^2)*1000?? This is obviously a bad metric simply because as it has a inverse quadratic relationship to cost. And cost effectiveness should be based on Bang/Buck, not Bang/Buck^2.
Ok, I've thought through the differences between (H * D)/R vs (H * D)/R^2, and they both have significant shortcomings.
I like the Smurf (100 health, 10 DPS) vs Gargamel (100 health, 100 DPS) example clickrush gave, so we'll stick to that for examples. We'll assume that a Smurf costs 10 coins and a Gargamel costs 50 coins.
(H * D)/R approximates unit efficiency assuming each unit individually marches into battle in a line. Using this formula, you get that a Gargamel is 2 times as cost efficient as a Smurf. This would mean that in order to match 50 coins of Gargamels (1 Gargamel), we would need to have 100 coins worth of Smurfs (10 Smurfs). This is true in a sense--if the Smurfs line up and fight Gargamel one at a time, it will take 10 Smurfs to match Gargamel--but it does not reflect typical game scenarios. In a real game, the cheaper units will all fight at once, allowing the 10 Smurfs to easily beat one Gargamel. At best, this formula roughly reflect conditions where melee units fight one-another in a narrow choke.
(H * D)/R^2 has a different problem. Using this formula, you find the Smurf efficiency to be 10, while Gargamel's efficiency is 4, meaning that a Smurf is 2.5 times as efficient as a Gargamel. This would mean that in order to match a 50 coin Gargamel, we would only need 2 Smurfs valued at 20 coins. In fact, Gargamel would be left with 70/100 HP after dispatching the two Smurfs.
In an open field scenario where all units get to attack at once, Gargamel is equally matched against 4 Smurfs. Since 50 coins of Gargamel is equal in combat value to 40 coins of Smurfs, we'd like a formula that shows that a Gargamel is 80% as efficient as a Smurf.
With a little algebra, I came up with a quadratic that reflects the scenario we want:
Efficiency(Gargamel) = X * Efficiency(Smurf) * Cost(Smurf) / Cost(Gargamel)
Using the quadratic equation with these numbers, you can solve for X, finding that X=4, and Efficiency(Gargamel) = 0.8 Efficiency(Smurf).
This could pretty quickly be applied for all the units in SC2. Just set the zergling's efficiency equal to 1 and find the efficiency of every other unit relative to the zergling.
Ran numbers using that equation. The results look MUCH more reasonable than either of the other two options. For example, ignoring overkill, upgrades, micro and clumping, zealots are about 90% as cost efficient as zerglings in the open field which squares exactly with my expectations.
Outside of static defenses, adrenal zerglings are the most efficient units in the game. Zealots are by far P's most efficient unit followed by collosi (assuming 3 hits) and immortals (vs armored). Stimmed marauders (vs armored), stimmed marines, blue flame hellions (hitting 3 light targets) and sieged tanks hitting multiple targets are T's most efficient units. This might surprise some, but hellions hitting 3 lights targets per shot came in at #1 for T. Having played zealot + HT a lot against T, this doesn't surprise me.
About the gargamel vs 10 or 4 smurf problem (and eventually the 10 vs 9 smurf problem): -assumption 1: 100% service area of the weaker unit either when ranged or when in melee. -assumption 2: `n` is the amount of smurfs and `h` is the amount of seconds to kill 1 smurf, which is 1 in this case (1 killing hit in 1 second) In case many units fight vs one:
( sigma from 0 to n of { h* n} ) * {cost effectiveness of each individual unit} = cost effectiveness of 1 army.
For people who know nothing about mathematics. "Sigma" means "count up all the values of the function" in this case from 0 to n of the function 1*n. So in the "4 smurfs win example": {sigma 1 to 4 of 1*n} = 1+2+3+4=10 so yes 4 smurfs have 10 times as much potential as 1 individual smurf when fighting against 1 gargamel.
The easier formula to find this instead of adding everything together is: h*[(n^2+n)/2]
To give the same example: 1* [(4^2+4)/2]= 10
I have been thinking for hours what will happen if two groups of smurfs fight against eachother with their 10 dps and 100hp.. For instance:
Team blue :10 smurfs =>> (10^2+10)/2=55 times as effective vs gargamel then 1 smurf Team red: 9 smurfs=>> (9^2+9)/2=45 times as effective vs gargamel then 1 smurf But what happens mathematically when team blue fights team red?
I don't know how to mathematically proof this, but i do know for a fact that team blue should win here with a wider margin then 10 - 9 = 1 smurf. The problem is though, that if both groups would oneshot eachother you would have exactly 1 smurf left for team blue. But 10 smurfs would kill 1 smurf in the first second while 9 smurfs wouldn't kill one smurf during the first second. That 10hp smurf difference will keep adding up during the fight (because basically you have 10vs 8 dps-wise for a short time after the first second) and i wouldn't be surprised if team blue wins with 3, maybe even 4 or 5 smurfs left instead of 1. Ofcourse it all depends on the AI or micro of the units, but with perfect focusfire the dps of team red will diminish faster then that of team blue, especially if that 10 health smurf would keep doing dps during the rest of the fight for instance.
How on earth could you proof that theory mathematically? No matter how you proof it, it will show how important the supply lead is during the game.
Another idea: we should add an "micro potential parameter" for instance if there are perfect forcefields the micro potential of zerglings is 0, but if you have a perfect surround it might be close to 1 depending on the amount of zerglings you have and how many of them can do dps. What happens to cost effectiveness if only 50% of your zerglings can do dps in a chokepoint? etc.
On December 04 2014 10:50 brickrd wrote: i have no idea why this was necroed but some of the 2010 theorycrafting about how units work is absolutely hysterical and a 10/10 gold read
Well guess what.. Cost effectiveness of races and units will be the number one issue in legacy of the void... The economic changes ar huge: 12 workers to start with and there are 33% less minerals/ gas on the map.
On December 04 2014 10:50 brickrd wrote: i have no idea why this was necroed but some of the 2010 theorycrafting about how units work is absolutely hysterical and a 10/10 gold read
Well guess what.. Cost effectiveness of races and units will be the number one issue in legacy of the void... The economic changes ar huge: 12 workers to start with and there are 33% less minerals/ gas on the map.
So I understand the math and what you are saying here, but wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the beta / early release of the LotV game before actually trying to perform calculations?
On December 04 2014 10:50 brickrd wrote: i have no idea why this was necroed but some of the 2010 theorycrafting about how units work is absolutely hysterical and a 10/10 gold read
Well guess what.. Cost effectiveness of races and units will be the number one issue in legacy of the void... The economic changes ar huge: 12 workers to start with and there are 33% less minerals/ gas on the map.
So I understand the math and what you are saying here, but wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the beta / early release of the LotV game before actually trying to perform calculations?