carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts Last Edited: 2010-07-26 14:31:41 #1 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).



Linkage:

Data separated by race



Overall unit comparison



Definitions

HP+Shield = combined for practicality and consistency. Keep in mind the drawbacks: Protoss remains slightly stronger than the data suggests.





= 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.





= minerals + gas, combined for practicality and consistency. Total damage = what the unit inflicts, in total, after each cooldown





= what the unit inflicts, in total, after each cooldown Cooldown = the time between "hits"





= 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.





= (total damage/cooldown), or , 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. 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." 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.





= (Damage/cooldown)/(minerals+gas), or " ." 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. 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.





= (HP + Shields)/(Minerals + Gas), or " ." This simply says how much health you're getting per resource. ((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).





=(((Damage/cooldown)/(minerals+gas))*((HP+shields)/(minerals+gas)))*1000, or : 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.



7/26/10 - Added High Templar values. Added upper bound figure Colossus.



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.). : this data serves only as a bird's eye view of the SC2 units.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).Linkage: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.7/26/10 - Added High Templar values. Added upper bound figure Colossus.

Backpack Profile Blog Joined March 2010 United States 1760 Posts #2 The first thing that stands out to me is combined resources.



1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral. "You people need to just generally care a lot less about everything." -Zatic

Mr_LOL Profile Joined July 2010 Israel 21 Posts #3



User was banned for this post. 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

carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts Last Edited: 2010-07-24 16:36:26 #4 On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:

1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.

Do tell. Why? Do tell. Why?

Nadir Profile Joined May 2010 Australia 114 Posts #5 With spine and spore crawlers, did you include the 50 mineral cost of the drone? TLOwnage Victim :D

Cyanure Profile Joined June 2009 France 50 Posts Last Edited: 2010-07-24 04:44:48 #6 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.



carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts #7 On July 24 2010 13:41 Cyanure wrote:

You didn't take into account the 50 mineral of the drone you loose for crawlers

Thanks! Fixing right now... Thanks! Fixing right now...

orgolove Profile Blog Joined April 2009 Vatican City State 1650 Posts #8 AOE damage, range, speed into account please. 초대 갓, 이영호 | First God, Lee Young Ho

carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts #9 On July 24 2010 13:46 orgolove wrote:

AOE damage, range, speed into account please.

Please suggest methods of implementation. Please suggest methods of implementation.

Nadir Profile Joined May 2010 Australia 114 Posts #10 On July 24 2010 13:40 carwashguy wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.

Do tell. Why? 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. 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. TLOwnage Victim :D

youngminii Profile Blog Joined May 2010 Australia 7380 Posts #11 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. lalala

carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts Last Edited: 2010-07-24 04:55:16 #12 On July 24 2010 13:49 Nadir wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 24 2010 13:40 carwashguy wrote:

On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.

Do tell. Why? 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. 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.



Edit: I've changed the post to reflect this. Thanks. I'll add this in my post. If someone conceives a method to "weigh" gas accurately against minerals, let me know.Edit: I've changed the post to reflect this.

AssuredVacancy Profile Blog Joined September 2008 United States 1143 Posts #13 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. We spend our youth attaining wealth, and our wealth attaining youth.

Backpack Profile Blog Joined March 2010 United States 1760 Posts #14 On July 24 2010 13:40 carwashguy wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 24 2010 13:39 Backpack wrote:1 gas is much more valuable than 1 mineral.

Do tell. Why? Do tell. Why?

1. You can mine minerals much faster than gas.

2. The amount of minerals in each expo (and the map as a whole) is higher than the amount of gas.

1. You can mine minerals much faster than gas.2. The amount of minerals in each expo (and the map as a whole) is higher than the amount of gas. "You people need to just generally care a lot less about everything." -Zatic

youngminii Profile Blog Joined May 2010 Australia 7380 Posts #15 Pretty dumb how strong BCs are. Looks like TLO realised the potential OP of the BCs already. lalala

PlaGuE_R Profile Blog Joined February 2010 France 1150 Posts #16 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. 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. TLO FIGHTING | me all in, he drone drone drone, me win - SK.MC | JINROLLED! | KraToss for the win

carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts Last Edited: 2010-07-24 04:59:04 #17 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.



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.



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.

I can't think of a way to quantify splash damage, but I'll definitely change the inferences section to reflect this.

Sadistx Profile Blog Joined February 2009 Zimbabwe 5497 Posts #18 Protoss



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.

You should probably avoid making conclusions from comparing simple dps/R values in a vacuum. Most of those are either wrong or too simplistic.

carwashguy Profile Joined June 2009 United States 175 Posts #19 On July 24 2010 13:59 Sadistx wrote:

Show nested quote +

Protoss



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.

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.

I need more convincing. Please show evidence.

Tozar Profile Blog Joined March 2007 United States 245 Posts #20 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next All