|
DPS for cost is something that gets brought up a lot, mainly in rants ending with "...and that's why marines are imba!!11!" (fun fact: Lings are actually the best dps for cost in the game even over marines--obviously the fact that marines have range lets them apply that dps in much larger numbers however). Obviously, it can be interesting to know these things to a point...but I got to wondering, what about the flip side? What units have the most health for cost?
Now obviously this is a complex question in practice--an armored unit may have substantially more health in theory, but also be much more vulnerable to damaging anti-armor attacks from Immortals or Tanks. Armor is also of variable importance depending on the attack--Ultralisk armor doesn't do a ton vs. Immortals, but is hugely important against marines. Zerg units have regen, and Protoss units tend to have more defense on health than they do on shields, except for the special case of Immortals.
I'm...not going to model any of that. Obviously its important, but there's no simple way to model it, short of breaking down how many shots every units can take from every other unit. If anyone feels like doing that, be my guest.
This is gonna be a much more simplified, reductive list. I'm not accounting for damage mitigation from armor, regen, etc. nor am I accounting for different bonus damage from different attacks. ALL I'm doing is looking at raw health totals vs. cost.
For cost, obviously minerals and gas are valuable for different reasons and open up different possibilities, so its not easy to simply say x amount of gas is worth x number of minerals. That said, we can do a very rough comparison by looking at how much gas a saturated base will harvest vs how many minerals a saturated base will harvest over the same period of time (for P and Z--MULEs screw this up of course). A fully saturated base will harvest 816 minerals and 228 gas per game minute. This means that gas will be roughly 3.58 times as rare as minerals. For purposes of making very broad generalizations, I'm therefore going to treat any gas cost as being equivalent to 3.58 that amount in minerals. For example, Stalkers are 125 minerals 50 gas, so 50*3.58 = 179, so total cost for these purposes would be 125+179, or 304. This is of course super crude, and if anyone has any better suggestions for making a broad generalization about how many minerals gas is "worth", I'm all ears.
Okay, with all the caveats/explanations out of the way, here's the list of health per cost. Numbers are just total health (counting shields as health for Protoss), divided by total cost using the gas to minerals equation outlined above.
Protoss units
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .52
Immortal .49
Mothership .38
Carrier .36 (not counting additional interceptor cost--Interceptor health per cost is a crazy high 3.2)
Phoenix .35
Colossus .34
Void Ray .32
Archon .31 (cost is variable, but surprisingly any way you do it comes out to about .31 health per cost)
Dark Templar .21
Observer .2
Sentry .19
High Templar .13
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .88
Drone .8
Overseer .6
Utralisk .49
Nydus Worm .44
Corruptor .39
Hydralisk .29
Mutalisk .26
Baneling .21
Brood Lord .19
Infestor .14
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .66
Thor .39
Battlecruiser .37
Medivac .33
Viking .3
Tank .27
Banshee .27
Reaper .21
Ghost .18
Raven .17
some interesting takeaways:
Among all combat units, Zealots have clearly the best hp for cost, and thats not even factoring in armor.
Corruptors have the best health for cost of any air unit in the game (except Interceptors, who are a niche case anyway, and Overseers who aren't really combat units). On the other hand, Brood Lord health for cost is awful--much more comparable to spellcasters rather than other capital ships.
Among the core armored tier 1.5 units (Stalkers, Marauders, Roaches), Stalkers have the worst durability for cost by a considerable margin, and thats not even including their wore armor (only half their hp is armored) or regen for Roaches or medivac support for Marauders. Considering they also have the worst dps for cost in the game, the fact that Stalkers are still such an integral unit is a testament to how powerful the combo of high range, high speed, warp-in and blink is.
Unsurprisingly, among T3 ground massive units, Colossi have pretty awful health for cost, and Ultras have the best.
Among drop tech, medivac health for cost is vastly worse than either Overlords or Prisms.
edit: some more numbers
If we’re instead looking at optimally saturated bases rather than fully saturated bases, gas is worth more like 3 times as much as minerals (3.12 if you’ve got 2 workers per mineral patch and 3 per gas, 2.9 if you put 4 on gas, I’m splitting the difference and just using 3). Then here are the numbers
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .58
Immortal .55
Mothership .44
Carrier .41
Phoenix .4
Void Ray .36
Colossus .39
Archon .36
Observer .24
Dark Templar .24
Sentry .23
High Templar .16
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .97
Drone .8
Overseer .67
Utralisk .56
Nydus Worm .5
Corruptor .44
Hydralisk .32
Mutalisk .3
Baneling .24
Brood Lord .21
Infestor .16
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .71
Thor .44
Battlecruiser .42
Medivac .38
Viking .33
Tank .3
Banshee .31
Reaper .25
Ghost .2
Raven .2
Now, some people have requested I use a 2:1 ratio for gas value to minerals. I think in many situations this undervalues gas, but I could see how in some situations this might be closer to the truth, so here are the numbers run at a 2:1 ratio
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .71
Immortal .67
Mothership .58
Carrier .53
Phoenix .51
Void Ray .45
Colossus .5
Archon .51 (variable, with DTs its more like .48)
Observer .34
Dark Templar .32
Sentry .32
High Templar .23
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach 1.16
Drone .8
Overseer .8
Utralisk .71
Nydus Worm .67
Corruptor .57
Hydralisk .53
Mutalisk .4
Baneling .3
Brood Lord .28
Infestor .23
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .83
Thor .57
Battlecruiser .55
Medivac .5
Viking .42
Tank .4
Banshee .4
Reaper .33
Raven .28
Ghost .25
|
Interesting numbers, I feel that most of them get overshadowed by things like range, armor type, speed, etc. too bad there isn't an easy way to factory those things in, at least I can't think of one. The Brood Lord health for cost does seem like it has some real world applications, I do feel like they can get sniped rather easily compared to Battlecruisers or Carriers, although we don't see those as much as we do Brood Lords, so it's a little harder to tell. Cool numbers nonetheless.
Go zealots I guess?? 
|
what's the point? I mean can we make up a new strategy or use a certain unit in a tactical maneuver now?
|
what's the point? I mean can we make up a new strategy or use a certain unit in a tactical maneuver now?
whats the point of any SC2 post outside the strat forum? to discuss aspects of SC2 we find interesting.
|
Interesting numbers but I don't see any corollary between this Heath/cost ratio and usefulness of the units. In fact I think many people would argue that the stalker is better than both the roach and the marauder due to its blink and, range, ability to shoot up and general mobility.
And it is pretty clear that in the current metagame BLs are far superior to the other capitol ships since the others are seen as suicide while refraining from Brood Lord play is also tantamount to Zergy masochism.
|
Good news everyone, I've made up an equation unrelated to the OP.
Cost per health per damage per second per armor (is that the way you'd say this: )
((Cost/health)/(maximum upgradable damage per second/maximum upgradable armor)) = My random just made up calculation for unit combat worth.
I guess this would work differently for casters and AoE units.
ps, cool list. I like to know this kind of stuff.
|
I dont like the way you did the gas vs mineral cost.
Is ridiculous high. You should disregard saturation per base, because while u can harvest 3.58 times more mineral you also have to use 3 times more harvesters to do that. Is not a question of rarity, and more a question of investiment u got make to get the resources. Extractors needs to be contructed and harverters take less gas per trip.
Almost everyone does comparison of cost using a 1gas=2minerals or 1gas=1.5minerals. Is way more conservative and give us way more information for analysis. Doing the way u did, only tells that minerals units alway have more health per cost.
|
Interesting facts. These numbers show how good a unit can tank damage.
But the gas mineral ratio is just ridiculous. I feel like it falsify the numbers. That's why Sentry .19 << Zealot 1.6. This is way too extreme.
I think 1:1 ratio would be better. Sure you don't get as much gas as minerals but why sdould that influence these numbers? The collecting rate per minute and probe is the same.
|
Interesting numbers but I don't see any corollary between this Heath/cost ratio and usefulness of the units.
Certainly the fact that a unit has poor health to cost ratio doesn't make it a bad unit. For example most spellcasters have terrible health to cost, but no one would claim that sentries or infestors are bad units because of that.
But I do think there are some interesting takeaways here. For example...
despite their reputation for flimsiness even post patch, Warp Prism health for cost is actually pretty damn good.
The "imba" nature of marine range and dps also has to consider that without medivac support, their health for cost is easily the worst of any T1 unit even with combat shield.
Overlords have nearly 3 times the health for cost of Overseers (of course overseers have armor and more speed, but still, thats a pretty big gap), which means that if you don't need detection, saccing multiple Overlords for scouting may well be more cost effective than losing an Overseer.
|
Almost everyone does comparison of cost using a 1gas=2minerals. Is way more conservative and give us way more information for analysis.
That seems off to me. Zerg, for example, tend to be hugely gas starved, whereas minerals don't mean very much to them. protoss are similar. Terran has more uses for minerals so theyre more valuable for them, but due to MULEs they can also harvest a higher proportion of minerals to gas.
|
3.58 is way too high. On a per harvester basis, gas is roughly equivalent to minerals. Mineral heavy units generally have less utility, but overall, a roughly equivalent power to gas heavy units.
|
Neat thread. I always like looking at numbers for different situations in the game.
Ignore the haters.
Though your means of getting the numbers could admittedly use some tweaking.
|
Warp Prism health for cost is actually pretty damn good
Compared to medivacs, which are goofed up because of the conversion rate.
Overlords have nearly 3 times the health for cost of Overseers (of course overseers have armor and more speed, but still, thats a pretty big gap), which means that if you're not hurting for detection, saccing multiple Overlords may well be more cost effective than just one Overseer. Again, because of the conversion rate.
Not saying what you did is bad, just that with some minor tweaking it could be a little better and more accurate. Obviously it's going to be different for all the races though.
|
I remain skeptical of a 2:1 gas to mineral ratio as I think it underestimates just how gas-starved both P and Z tend to be (and therefore how much value gas has), but if people are interested in seeing those numbers I'd be happy to run them.
|
On March 04 2012 14:42 GreenManalishi wrote:
3.58 is way too high. On a per harvester basis, gas is roughly equivalent to minerals. Mineral heavy units generally have less utility, but overall, a roughly equivalent power to gas heavy units.
On a saturated base basis, 3.58 seems pretty accurate.
|
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
|
I think basing the value of gas on a max saturated base isn't accurate. Take for example a zerg player on 4+ bases. You think all of those bases are fully saturated? Furthermore, how often are bases fully saturated (3 workers per patch) compared to optimally saturated (2 workers per patch)?
The flaw in this 3.58 figure should be extremely obvious when you get a unit like the roach (145hp) with cost 75/25 (3:1 min-gas ratio) being only .88, and the zealot (150hp) being 1.6....when for 25 more minerals the zealot has 5 more HP (shield + HP). I can understand gas being a more valuable resource, but to this extent is obviously wrong.
Or is the roach really that much lower/worse health for the cost than a unit like the zealot.
|
Gas is worth a little less than in your model in most games because when you aren't saturated, gas income will stay the same (assuming you want the gas, so you mine it) while mineral income will suffer. You can take an expansion just for the two gas with only 6 harvesters but you can't get a fully mineral-mining base as easily.
|
My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
DPS isn't standalone at all. It is hugely dependant on not only bonus damage (fairly easy to account for), but also the targetted unit's armor value. Marine dps, for example, goes waaay down when facing decent armor values, whereas Tanks are barely effected.
I'm not saying that what I've done isn't reductive, it clearly is and I freely admit it, I'm just saying that dps/cost charts tend to be equally reductive. They have to be because the nature of these things is that they're hugely variable based on what you're fighting.
|
Alright, I'm gonna head to bed, but tomorrow if people are interested I'll run the numbers again at a 2:1 ratio for value of gas to minerals. I think thats underestimating gas value, but perhaps the two sets of data, one for saturated bases and one a more generalized look, will together help paint a clearer picture.
edit: I will not however, that bases which are optimally saturated rather than completely saturated (only 2 workers per mineral patch, 3 on gas), you till get a ratio with gas being 3.12 times as valuable as minerals. Even with 2 workers per patch on minerals and 4 on gas, the ratio is about 2.9. Basically, once you take a new base, there may be a brief window in which you're harvesting, say, only twice as many minerals as gas, but thats going to fairly quickly going to change so that you're harvesting about 3 times as many minerals as gas, and potentially more. A 3:1 gas to mineral value ratio seems much more realistic than 2:1.
|
On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
Cost, survivability, damage output quotient. v0.0.1
(((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type[see below]/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
A light ground unit would take the most bonus damage from banelings (15 bonus damage), so you'd use their damage bonus. They'd take the least from Reapers (9.1, I think). So it would be 15/9.1
Using his gas equation:
Zealot (no charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.25) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.4368
Zealot (charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.533866667
Zealot (full upgrades, including shields armor) ((1.6 / (20 / 7)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.934266667 (Flawed, applies shield armor to health even when shields are up)
Zergling (no glands, no speed, no creep) ((1.4 / (11.4 / 3)) * 2.953) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.660021404
Zergling (full upgrades, creep) ((1.4 / (13.6 / 3)) * 6.10800) / (15 / 9.1) = 1.1443517
Aside from a couple flaws, does this appease you?
For units with +light/etc, average the vs, +light and vs. everything else for general effectiveness
+ Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/((maximum upgraded dps with armor type bonus/maximum upgraded dps without armor type bonus)/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
Or
+ Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps vs. bonus armor type/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type)
For maximum damage vs. target with bonused armor type.
You can adjust the DPS section to account for specific unit armor, and get the effectiveness of a zealot vs. a zergling or a zealot vs. an ultralisk
|
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
|
On March 04 2012 15:19 Warpath wrote:
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
∞ health / 0 cost =
:D
|
On March 04 2012 15:19 Warpath wrote:
How does a planetary fortress line up with other things?
I mean overlord got a calc .. :D
Well the Planetary costs 550/150 (400 for the cc 150/150 for the PF upgrade) and using his calculation the gas cost is 537 (3.58 times 150) so we're looking at a total of 1087 cost for 1500 hp which is 1.38 health per cost if you are using the 2:1 ratio than the total cost is 850 and it has a health per cost of 1.76.
Both numbers rounded for significant figures.
|
Counting gas 4 times the value of minerals is completely wrong.
The fact that gas is 4 times more rare then minerals is irrelevant if you dont have a use for the gas , (and no race has a use for gas in 1-1 ratio with minerals)
You should look at opportunity costs and then you see that gas is exactly as valuable as minerals, with exception of the 1 time building of the geyser (1 suv mines gas at the same speed as it mines minerals)
gas=minerals
Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient
|
On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question.
but DPS doesnt mean anything unless you factor in range and unit speed...
obviously it's too rough to be conclusive, but it's consistent with almost everything we'd expect to see from 'tanky' units.
the numbers show that zealots are the cheapest damage sponge in the game, and let's not forget they also have 1 base armour and a chrono'd production cycle of 18.7 seconds, which is 25% faster than a marine.
|
On March 04 2012 19:11 Rassy wrote:Counting gas 4 times the value of minerals is completely wrong. The fact that gas is 4 times more rare then minerals is irrelevant if you dont have a use for the gas , (and no race has a use for gas in 1-1 ratio with minerals) You should look at opportunity costs and then you see that gas is exactly as valuable as minerals, with exception of the 1 time building of the geyser (1 suv mines gas at the same speed as it mines minerals) gas=minerals Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient
but that's bad macro.
if you don't need the gas, ideally you should expand earlier to keep your optimal mineral saturation without mining gas...
|
nice info, apart from the 3.58 conversion rate
|
On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Archon .31 (cost is variable, but surprisingly any way you do it comes out to about .31 health per cost)
This is why I'd take 3.58 over any other ratio - but anyway only it's more and more accurate as game progresses and has a real reason to be here, unlike other completely random ones like 2:1.
|
2:1 is better, because things tend to cost more minerals than gas. Maybe 3:1 at highest.
|
The way I see it being done is taking a specific matchup and having different mineral to gas values depending on the the gas heavy units being used and what their mineral/gas ratios are and how often you make them on a scale as it'll give the worth of gas rather than just the mining rate of it.
|
Would be interesting with health pr. dps.
|
On March 04 2012 19:33 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
2:1 is better, because things tend to cost more minerals than gas. Maybe 3:1 at highest.
What's the logic in this ?
|
Maybe bringing overlords to tank damage (like how Terrans with Factories) can work?
|
What in the world gave you the idea to use this 3.58 figure? Why would you believe that the ratio at which gas is mined compared to minerals has anything to do with their respective values?
To see the flaw of this line of thinking, let's consider a slightly altered version of Starcraft 2 where the gas cost of each unit, building and upgrade except for reactors, extractors and assimilators is increased by its current mineral cost. So for instance, a worker now costs 50/50, a Nexus costs 400/400, a Roach costs 75/100, etc.
In this game, the value of gas compared to minerals would obviously rise dramatically. Gas would become the main resource and minerals just a minor side resource that does not play that big of a role in the grand scheme of things, somewhat similar to lumber in Warcraft 3. However, in this game, the ratio of mineral income to gas income per saturated base would not change at all and in practice the mineral/gas ratio would even decrease as players would simply make less workers because they wouldn't need as many minerals.
So clearly income ratio is not the only factor that determines the relative value of resources. The other two main factors are demand and cost of harvesting.
Demand depends on what you want to do in a game. If you want to get a Broodlord Infestor army, you have a very high demand for gas and a relatively low demand for minerals, whereas a Marine Tank army does not need as much gas. Generally speaking, ratio of the demand for minerals to demand for gas is somewhere between roughly 1 (e.g. Infestor Broodlord) and infinity (strategy which does not require any minerals, e.g. an SCV Marine all in).
Cost of harvesting obviously also affects the relative value of resources. If a gas geyser gave the same income, but needed 10 workers to saturate, gas would become more valuable compared to minerals.
Taking all that into account, there's no simple exchange rate that is always applicable, but if you do want to get a sort of average, I'd say that it would probably be around 1.7. You get less income per worker mining gas and gas is overall much scarcer, but then you also have to take into account that the demand for minerals is usually much higher, especially in the early game and that minerals can always be used in some way, whereas if you have excess gas, there's nothing in the game which costs just gas.
That's why I find 2:1 to be a bit too much and 3.58:1 is just outrageous.
|
i think you use 'obviously' way too much. other than that, i thought 'whore armour' when reading lol :
On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Stalkers have the worst durability for cost by a considerable margin, and thats not even including their wore armor
|
the OP has been updated with more data for different assumptions about gas to mineral value ratio, also copied below
If we’re instead looking at optimally saturated bases rather than fully saturated bases, gas is worth more like 3 times as much as minerals (3.12 if you’ve got 2 workers per mineral patch and 3 per gas, 2.9 if you put 4 on gas, I’m splitting the difference and just using 3). Then here are the numbers
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .58
Immortal .55
Mothership .44
Carrier .41
Phoenix .4
Void Ray .36
Colossus .39
Archon .36
Observer .24
Dark Templar .24
Sentry .23
High Templar .16
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .97
Drone .8
Overseer .67
Utralisk .56
Nydus Worm .5
Corruptor .44
Hydralisk .32
Mutalisk .3
Baneling .24
Brood Lord .21
Infestor .16
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .71
Thor .44
Battlecruiser .42
Medivac .38
Viking .33
Tank .3
Banshee .31
Reaper .25
Ghost .2
Raven .2
Now, some people have requested I use a 2:1 ratio for gas value to minerals. I think in many situations this undervalues gas, but I could see how in some situations this might be closer to the truth, so here are the numbers run at a 2:1 ratio
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .71
Immortal .67
Mothership .58
Carrier .53
Phoenix .51
Void Ray .45
Colossus .5
Archon .51 (variable, with DTs its more like .48)
Observer .34
Dark Templar .32
Sentry .32
High Templar .23
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach 1.16
Drone .8
Overseer .8
Utralisk .71
Nydus Worm .67
Corruptor .57
Hydralisk .53
Mutalisk .4
Baneling .3
Brood Lord .28
Infestor .23
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .83
Thor .57
Battlecruiser .55
Medivac .5
Viking .42
Tank .4
Banshee .4
Reaper .33
Raven .28
Ghost .25
If we’re instead looking at optimally saturated bases rather than fully saturated bases, gas is worth more like 3 times as much as minerals (3.12 if you’ve got 2 workers per mineral patch and 3 per gas, 2.9 if you put 4 on gas, I’m splitting the difference and just using 3). Then here are the numbers
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .58
Immortal .55
Mothership .44
Carrier .41
Phoenix .4
Void Ray .36
Colossus .39
Archon .36
Observer .24
Dark Templar .24
Sentry .23
High Templar .16
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach .97
Drone .8
Overseer .67
Utralisk .56
Nydus Worm .5
Corruptor .44
Hydralisk .32
Mutalisk .3
Baneling .24
Brood Lord .21
Infestor .16
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .71
Thor .44
Battlecruiser .42
Medivac .38
Viking .33
Tank .3
Banshee .31
Reaper .25
Ghost .2
Raven .2
Now, some people have requested I use a 2:1 ratio for gas value to minerals. I think in many situations this undervalues gas, but I could see how in some situations this might be closer to the truth, so here are the numbers run at a 2:1 ratio
Protoss
Zealot 1.6
Warp Prism 1
Probe .8
Stalker .71
Immortal .67
Mothership .58
Carrier .53
Phoenix .51
Void Ray .45
Colossus .5
Archon .51 (variable, with DTs its more like .48)
Observer .34
Dark Templar .32
Sentry .32
High Templar .23
Zerg
Overlord 2
Zergling 1.4
Queen 1.16
Roach 1.16
Drone .8
Overseer .8
Utralisk .71
Nydus Worm .67
Corruptor .57
Hydralisk .53
Mutalisk .4
Baneling .3
Brood Lord .28
Infestor .23
Terran
Marine.9 (1.1 with combat shield)
SCV .9
Hellion .9
Marauder .83
Thor .57
Battlecruiser .55
Medivac .5
Viking .42
Tank .4
Banshee .4
Reaper .33
Raven .28
Ghost .25
|
On March 05 2012 00:44 imyzhang wrote:i think you use 'obviously' way too much. other than that, i thought 'whore armour' when reading lol : Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Stalkers have the worst durability for cost by a considerable margin, and thats not even including their wore armor
Whore armor is similar to medium armor, in that it reduces damage from piercing attacks.
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all night.
|
Whats interesting when you look at it, even with radically scaled down assumptions for value of gas to minerals, is that while the values for health per cost for units which cost gas obviously alter, relatively speaking, very little has changed at all.
That is, no matter what, when you look at Protoss units for example, the ranking for health per cost will always be something very close to:
Zealot
Warp Prism
Probe
Stalker
Immortal
Mothership
Carrier
Phoenix
Colossus
Archon
Void Ray
Observer
Dark Templar
Sentry
High Templar
There are minor shifts in ranking (e.g. at a 2:1 ratio ravens are slightly more health per cost than ghosts, while the reverse is true at a higher ratio, but either way the differences are infinitesimal), but by and large, these rankings are remarkably consistent. For tier 1.5 armored units, Stalkers are still the worst health per cost compared to Marauders and Roaches.
Other things that stay consistent:
Zealots are the best health for cost in the game
Medivacs are waaay less health for cost than other drop tech.
Corruptors are the really, really good health for cost for air combat units, and Brood Lords are awful health for cost
Saccing two overseers will always be more cost efficient than saccing one overseer if you can get the same scouting info either way.
|
Cost vs hp vs dps of units is interesting, especially on similar types of units.
Been thinking about hp/dps ratios since I bought it, what would happen if dps was cut by 40% and hp got increased by 40% on some units for example to give people more time for micro.
No change like that would probably work well without other changes, units that are bad at taking damage anyway like siege tanks, infestors and colossus would perhaps just get worse, but been wondering if some hp buffs/dps decreases would make the game better or worse.
|
On March 04 2012 15:13 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed. The fact is that since there are so many types of damage take, i.e. + to light or +armored, its not helpful at all to show this data alone with nothing to accompany it like how many hits of what kill it vs the other tiers. My point is that DPS is a standalone kind of thing where as damage must be taken as a number in context of what is dealing the damage to the unit in question. Cost, survivability, damage output quotient. v0.0.1 (((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type[see below]/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type) A light ground unit would take the most bonus damage from banelings (15 bonus damage), so you'd use their damage bonus. They'd take the least from Reapers (9.1, I think). So it would be 15/9.1 Using his gas equation: Zealot (no charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.25) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.4368 Zealot (charge) ((1.6 / (20 / 4)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.533866667 Zealot (full upgrades, including shields armor) ((1.6 / (20 / 7)) * 2.75) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.934266667 (Flawed, applies shield armor to health even when shields are up)Zergling (no glands, no speed, no creep) ((1.4 / (11.4 / 3)) * 2.953) / (15 / 9.1) = 0.660021404 Zergling (full upgrades, creep) ((1.4 / (13.6 / 3)) * 6.10800) / (15 / 9.1) = 1.1443517 Aside from a couple flaws, does this appease you? For units with +light/etc, average the vs, +light and vs. everything else for general effectiveness + Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/((maximum upgraded dps with armor type bonus/maximum upgraded dps without armor type bonus)/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type) Or + Show Spoiler +(((health/cost)/(maximum upgraded dps vs. bonus armor type/maximum upgraded armor)*(movement speed))/((maximum damage intake from armor type*/minimum damage intake bonus from armor type) For maximum damage vs. target with bonused armor type. You can adjust the DPS section to account for specific unit armor, and get the effectiveness of a zealot vs. a zergling or a zealot vs. an ultralisk
so what about range and splash?
|
4713 Posts
I didn't read it in your post or any replies here, so I'll assume you haven't done it, but I'll ask none the less.
Did you factor stim into the DPS per cost ratio? While marines and marauders do lose health to stim, you always have to assume they are stimed because they deal substantially more DPS and they have medivac support to heal them and balance out the health costs.
Edit: Also, I feel these numbers are only relevant to armies that just collide into one another and stop micro-ing. Things like stutter stepping, focus fire, kiting, focus fire and armor vulnerabilities can increase the DPS/health ratio of a unit by a lot, especially for the T1 units.
|
I thought this thread was about how to live healthier spending less money. But this is fine too.
I find the steadiness of the ratios between each unit interesting despite how you weight gas... Certain units are always the highest. I guess if these info gets popular enough we'd be like "I need more health, make cheap units".
|
One thing this does make clear is that if it weren't for vulnerability to splash, Zealots are the best damage tanks in the game...which means that charge, by reducing vulnerability to splash by spreading out Zealots, is perhaps even better than is widely known.
|
i don't know why people are focused on the gas cost... 3:1 is a good ratio, because optimal saturation = 16 scvs on minerals and 6 scvs on gas which provide 650/210 per minute. arguably with full saturation of 20 scvs on minerals then it could be >3:1, but people usually avoid that less efficient over saturation.
there is no such thing as 'spare' gas. essentially, 'spare' gas means your build is haphazard because you've been mining gas which could have been minerals instead.
this information is pretty interesting, and i'm certainly going to use bunkers more often.
another thing of note is that bunkers are immune to fungal growth and psi storm, and with upgrade have 3 armour.
|
Since people asked, here's the info on Bunkers, Planetaries, and other static defense
Bunker 4 (technically it can be much, much higher due to salvage)
Missile Turret 2.5
Planetary 1.03 (for optimally saturated base), 1.3 (for 2:1 gas to mineral value ratio). Obviously this ignores opportunity cost of not having mules.
Repair health per cost is just normal health per cost times 4. So a repaired bunker has a ridiculously high health per cost of 16.
Photon Cannon 2
Spore Crawler 5.3
Spine Crawler 3
|
On March 04 2012 14:51 docvoc wrote:
I'd say this is a bit skewed, because DPS/cost is much more useful considering that is what deals damage, we see here that zealots are considerably better tanks than stalkers, but this info is skewed.
You have to consider both. What does the DPS apply to? It applies to health. Obviously Combat Shields is a good upgrade because health per cost matters.
And yes, in order to truly analyze every little thing, you would have to go down to the number of shots each unit takes against each unit, which someone has done. They even included upgrades. Try searching for it.
Technically, you would also have to include unit speed, range, size, and number of units in question, which turns it into a crazy list of separate 4-d graphs with rainbow gradients and shit. I guess it's a complicated game.
|
Interesting numbers. Not sure if these would ever be part of an in-depth strategical analysis, but it may still be useful information at some point. Thanks!
|
That's completely irrelevant. Health per cost? Are you joking? When does that matter?
|
On March 06 2012 06:41 Jinsho wrote:
That's completely irrelevant. Health per cost? Are you joking? When does that matter?
"i have this backbone of insanely high dps hydras and the protoss has no aoe, i want to get the most health out of my 'front line' as possible to keep the hydras alive"
the answer is infact to have a front line of zerglings with maybe some roaches due to surface area problems. lings are the most tanky unit in the zerg army if theres no aoe. so people talking about roaches being tanky have been wrong for a year. in essence having atleast some zerglings is never a bad choice. these pure roach hydra balls are actually not as effective as they could be.
|
Not sure 3.58:1 gas:mineral ratio is the best one to use, but anyone advocating using 1:1 is insane.
Mid game, there's not a single player in the world that wouldn't trade mineral income for gas income on a 1:1 basis (in fact, that's pretty much what you do when you build a refinery/assimilator/extractor). Gas is the bottleneck for nearly every mid/late game composition, with a few exceptions. (TvP is the main one).
2:1 is closer to the truth, but obviously any single ratio isn't going to be accurate enough to capture the functional exchange rate.
|
On March 04 2012 19:11 Rassy wrote:Interesting way to look at things though and it should be noted that the bunker with a ratio of 4 is verry cost efficient
Well, the actual cost of a bunker that does anything is 100 min + 200 mins for marines or 200 mins 50 gas for marauders, so the actual cost per health of a bunker and its units, using 2:1 gas ratio, is:
4 Marines, 180 HP +400 = 580 HP, 580/300 cost= 1.93
4 Combat Shield Marines, 220 HP + 400 = 620 HP, 620/300(+) cost = 2.06
2 Marauders, 250 HP + 400 = 650 HP. 650/400 cost= 1.625, similar to zealots
So it's not an astronomical 4, it's more like a planetary fortress or other static defense.
Photon Cannon, 300 HP/150 cost = 2
Spore Crawler, 300 HP/ 100 cost +50 drone cost = 2
So the cost effectiveness straddles the Photon Cannon and Spine Crawler depending on upgrades. You might want to add 50 minerals for the supply depot cost of 4 supply, and 40 or whatever it is for a minute of mining time, as well as ~25 for drone replacement and 10 for probe mining time, which makes the filled bunker more like a tad under 1.5 or 1.6, about the same as a zealot. Photon Cannon would be about 1.875 and spine crawler would be 1.7.
|
This chart is really interesting, although I can't take away much from this because of the fact that you didn't factor in armor, although I admit that it would be a royal pain to make those estimates. I'd advise you put in the units base defense as a reference, even if you don't factor it in.
The conclusive note about how stalkers aren't worth the resources in terms of hp is interesting, because, as you put it extremely well, it is a great testament to how the warp-in, speed, and range is factored in for combat.
I'd suggest you make another comparison by using a high yield (gold) base, to see what the comparison there would be.
|
thus, the term meat shield. seriously though, its amusing that marines are so damn high....
|
You overvalued gas way too much.
It's like saying "You need 6 workers to saturate gas, 18 to saturate minerals, therefore minerals are 3 times as valuable as gas"; which is also bullshit, but leads to a better placing for Archons!
|
And to think ghosts used to be 100/200. those bottom two charts would be even more fucked up if it weren't for that for ghosts.
|
On March 06 2012 12:45 Lord Zeya wrote:
This chart is really interesting, although I can't take away much from this because of the fact that you didn't factor in armor, although I admit that it would be a royal pain to make those estimates. I'd advise you put in the units base defense as a reference, even if you don't factor it in.
The conclusive note about how stalkers aren't worth the resources in terms of hp is interesting, because, as you put it extremely well, it is a great testament to how the warp-in, speed, and range is factored in for combat.
I'd suggest you make another comparison by using a high yield (gold) base, to see what the comparison there would be.
The other part of stalkers is that half their HP is shields, so half their HP will regen after combat. only a 3rd of zealot hp will regen after combat. Also the final piece of the puzzle regarding stalkers is how few options protoss has as an alternative. Protoss ground units that can shoot up: Sentry, Stalker, Archon. Did I miss anything? Nope, that's it. If you don't want to build air units your anti-air is stalkers. I've been tossing around (get it?) the idea of getting a couple of phoenix late game instead of stalkers since they are tougher, faster and do more damage to air units than stalkers do. So if I swap my stalker supply into immortals and phoenix I get a stronger army...maybe.
Worth playing with the idea anyway.
All Terran bio will regen after combat once medivacs are on the field, which changes things dramatically.
On March 06 2012 12:58 Zlasher wrote:
And to think ghosts used to be 100/200. those bottom two charts would be even more fucked up if it weren't for that for ghosts.
Only in Beta. They were 150/150 since release.
|
Meh, isn't interesting. There's tons of statistics like this, you have to provide some sort of analysis that makes your statistics especially influential, or there's nothing to take away from this. DPS per cost seems intuitively to be an important statistic, especially when it comes to something like drops where raw dps outweighs defensive stats. You never evaluate a unit based on its health independently though...
|
Surprising stalkers are so terrible.
|
On March 06 2012 13:13 Beakyboo wrote:
Meh, isn't interesting. There's tons of statistics like this, you have to provide some sort of analysis that makes your statistics especially influential, or there's nothing to take away from this. DPS per cost seems intuitively to be an important statistic, especially when it comes to something like drops where raw dps outweighs defensive stats. You never evaluate a unit based on its health independently though...
Never? May I direct you to The Toulmin Model, where you will find that generalizations such as the one you have made above are in fact quite wrong.
(May I also point out that he is isn't evaluating units independently based on health, but on cost too).
If you had bothered to read the posts above you, you would have noticed that there was already speculation on pure roach/hydra balls not actually being as effective as a roach/hydra/ling ball (with proportions that wouldn't be determined in a thread like this).
I believe that the point of a thread like this differs from a blog in the fact that is up to us, the community to take this information and interesting new point of view and expand on the ideas that were offered in the first place. To smash someone's ideas while offering comments such as "dps is intuitively an important statistic" and "you never evaluate a unit based on its health independently" shows that you yourself are lacking information and have no more information to add to this thread than many of the others who have posted before you.
To the OP, any chance we can get some pretty graphs? I think that would help a lot with the understanding and flow of the article!
|
On March 04 2012 14:13 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Zealot 1.6
Why am I not surprised? And then when Charge, armor, and shield upgrades kick in... *shudders*
|
I'll chime in and say that I think the original ~3.6X valueation of gas to minerals is an under valuation of Protoss and maybe zerg; It's derived from how much you can harvest on one base, and protoss tend to be incredibly gas starved on that income. As a protoss I'd personally rate gas as at minimum 5 times as valuable as minerals.
|
I think the Ultralisk's number is deceptive. Sure 500 health might not seem like a lot for the cost, but 6 armour makes that 500 health go a long, long way. And then there's Transfusion!
|
funny that ghosts are so bad at health per cost, while at the same time being so good tanks, against bonus damage heavy armies. That being said, its a bit to basic in my opinion, but trying to figure out a value for armored and light would take some real effort.
Hope you considered that zerg units in general have 1 more health then shown atleast if they can't get one shotted. Most of the time the ling will be more a 1.44 instead of a 1.4 that way, though they are one hit some times.
About the gas cost ... its a different resource so trying to translate gas into minerals is quiet difficult. You can take a base just for mining gas, I do that quiet often. So using the base mining per minute on max or optimal saturation is something easy, but not really accurate. (also you would have to add a mule mining for terran per base as it works independent of workers and increases the mineral income, making gas even more valuable)
|
marine, scv, marauder, hellion, thor, all units I hate the most and are the top 5 for terran
|
3:1 gas to minerals usually seemed to give the fairest estimations when I've done such things before, so I recommend it.
I'm interested in the same health per cost table for all buildings in the game too.
Awesome idea for research, props and thanks a lot!
One variation is to add the supply costs:
Zealot costs 1/4 Pylon supply = +25 minerals
Zergling costs 1/16 Overlord supply = +6.25 minerals
Another note is that the hull damage of Protoss has no way of being restored by a Protoss, so that means their HP+Shield scores are supposed to be cheaper than the HP scores of the other races, which have ways to restore back to 100%, whereas Protoss only restores the Shield part.
EDIT: Alright, I made the table for buildings' "health per cost":
(3g+1m cost; toss hp+shields; zerg +50 cost for a drone)
12.00 Assimilator
7.33 Cybernetics Core
6.80 Engineering Bay
6.67 Gateway
6.67 Extractor
6.67 Refinery
6.67 Barracks
6.00 Evolution Chamber
5.33 Forge
5.00 Nexus
4.29 Hatchery
4.25 Roach Warren
4.17 Ghost Academy
4.00 Pylon
4.00 Spawning Pool
4.00 Supply Depot
4.00 Bunker
3.75 Command Center
3.20 Spore Crawler
3.20 Tech Lab
2.89 Starport
2.83 Baneling Nest
2.78 Factory
2.50 Missile Turret
2.22 Twilight Council
2.00 Photon Cannon
2.00 Stargate
2.00 Spine Crawler
2.00 Reactor
1.89 Hydralisk Den
1.89 Infestation Pit
1.80 Robotics Facility
1.67 Armory
1.33 Templar Archives
1.25 Robotics Bay
1.25 Fusion Core
1.18 Dark Shrine
1.11 Fleet Beacon
1.06 Nydus Network
1.06 Ultralisk Cavern
1.00 Spire
0.47 Sensor Tower
|
On March 06 2012 12:59 Kharnage wrote:
The other part of stalkers is that half their HP is shields, so half their HP will regen after combat. only a 3rd of zealot hp will regen after combat. Also the final piece of the puzzle regarding stalkers is how few options protoss has as an alternative. Protoss ground units that can shoot up: Sentry, Stalker, Archon. Did I miss anything? Nope, that's it. If you don't want to build air units your anti-air is stalkers. I've been tossing around (get it?) the idea of getting a couple of phoenix late game instead of stalkers since they are tougher, faster and do more damage to air units than stalkers do. So if I swap my stalker supply into immortals and phoenix I get a stronger army...maybe.
Worth playing with the idea anyway.
All Terran bio will regen after combat once medivacs are on the field, which changes things dramatically.
(emphasis added)
You say that as if it's something unusual. However, no other race has more GtA units. Terran has Marines, Thors and Ghosts and Zerg only gets up to three if you count Queens and Infested Terrans.
|
Cool numbers but I feel like "health per cost" is essentially a useless statistic. I mean, if you need "meaty" units, each race knows what they have to use for that, it doesn't really matter the cost. And looking purely at cost per hp doesn't tell you anything about the unit's other properties. Again, interesting read just to compare units of similar roles (Like how infestors and high templar both have no HP basically) but I can't say knowing these numbers will influence my play at all.
|
On March 07 2012 04:51 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 12:59 Kharnage wrote:
The other part of stalkers is that half their HP is shields, so half their HP will regen after combat. only a 3rd of zealot hp will regen after combat. Also the final piece of the puzzle regarding stalkers is how few options protoss has as an alternative. Protoss ground units that can shoot up: Sentry, Stalker, Archon. Did I miss anything? Nope, that's it. If you don't want to build air units your anti-air is stalkers. I've been tossing around (get it?) the idea of getting a couple of phoenix late game instead of stalkers since they are tougher, faster and do more damage to air units than stalkers do. So if I swap my stalker supply into immortals and phoenix I get a stronger army...maybe.
Worth playing with the idea anyway.
All Terran bio will regen after combat once medivacs are on the field, which changes things dramatically.
(emphasis added)You say that as if it's something unusual. However, no other race has more GtA units. Terran has Marines, Thors and Ghosts and Zerg only gets up to three if you count Queens and Infested Terrans.
That's not my point at all.
Protoss MUST protect their colossus from flying AA and the only unit that is capable of doing that is the stalker. The Archon doesn't have the range and the Sentry doesn't have the dps or the range.
A zerg going BL has the same issue, however they will have corruptors (unless they over make BL and then they have only themselves to blame)
A terran has to protect their ... umm ... medivacs? *shrug*
|
BEEFY QUEENS
gotta love em
|
As a Protoss player, I would have considered Roaches to have a higher health per cost ratio. I hate when my PvZ's reach that mid-game stage when Zerg just decides to shit out a billion Roaches. Such an army takes forever to kill. Sure I can Forcefield the Roaches, make engagements favorable with Immortals or Void Rays, but the sheer time it takes to clean up a fully Roach army just seems ridiculous sometimes. I guess that's more of a match-up discussion than pure ratio numbers.
|
On March 07 2012 09:27 TheToaster wrote:
As a Protoss player, I would have considered Roaches to have a higher health per cost ratio. I hate when my PvZ's reach that mid-game stage when Zerg just decides to shit out a billion Roaches. Such an army takes forever to kill. Sure I can Forcefield the Roaches, make engagements favorable with Immortals or Void Rays, but the sheer time it takes to clean up a fully Roach army just seems ridiculous sometimes. I guess that's more of a match-up discussion than pure ratio numbers.
I think Roaches fall in the sweet spot where they're tanky enough to not be obliterated by splash and are yet cheap enough to be mass produced. Then you throw in things like their (albeit small) ranged attack, burrow-move and burrow-regen, and it makes for truly fearsome little critters.
Man, I still remember beta roaches. Delicious.
Of course, they do have their disadvantages. The high supply cost is one of the main ones, I think. (And since that isn't much of a factor mid-game, it explains what you observe, while still being a big limitation once Zerg nears max)
|
On March 07 2012 09:41 archon256 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 09:27 TheToaster wrote:
As a Protoss player, I would have considered Roaches to have a higher health per cost ratio. I hate when my PvZ's reach that mid-game stage when Zerg just decides to shit out a billion Roaches. Such an army takes forever to kill. Sure I can Forcefield the Roaches, make engagements favorable with Immortals or Void Rays, but the sheer time it takes to clean up a fully Roach army just seems ridiculous sometimes. I guess that's more of a match-up discussion than pure ratio numbers. I think Roaches fall in the sweet spot where they're tanky enough to not be obliterated by splash and are yet cheap enough to be mass produced. Then you throw in things like their (albeit small) ranged attack, burrow-move and burrow-regen, and it makes for truly fearsome little critters. Man, I still remember beta roaches. Delicious. Of course, they do have their disadvantages. The high supply cost is one of the main ones, I think. (And since that isn't much of a factor mid-game, it explains what you observe, while still being a big limitation once Zerg nears max)
Standard Gold level ZvP:
Zerg opens roach and maxes out, prepares to composition switch. 1A's mass roach army to clear up supply for remax into better composition into Protoss army who messes up FF. Zerg wins.
|
On March 07 2012 09:17 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 04:51 Drunken.Jedi wrote:On March 06 2012 12:59 Kharnage wrote:
The other part of stalkers is that half their HP is shields, so half their HP will regen after combat. only a 3rd of zealot hp will regen after combat. Also the final piece of the puzzle regarding stalkers is how few options protoss has as an alternative. Protoss ground units that can shoot up: Sentry, Stalker, Archon. Did I miss anything? Nope, that's it. If you don't want to build air units your anti-air is stalkers. I've been tossing around (get it?) the idea of getting a couple of phoenix late game instead of stalkers since they are tougher, faster and do more damage to air units than stalkers do. So if I swap my stalker supply into immortals and phoenix I get a stronger army...maybe.
Worth playing with the idea anyway.
All Terran bio will regen after combat once medivacs are on the field, which changes things dramatically.
(emphasis added)You say that as if it's something unusual. However, no other race has more GtA units. Terran has Marines, Thors and Ghosts and Zerg only gets up to three if you count Queens and Infested Terrans. That's not my point at all. Protoss MUST protect their colossus from flying AA and the only unit that is capable of doing that is the stalker. The Archon doesn't have the range and the Sentry doesn't have the dps or the range. A zerg going BL has the same issue, however they will have corruptors (unless they over make BL and then they have only themselves to blame) A terran has to protect their ... umm ... medivacs? *shrug*
No, I did not miss your point as that was not a point you were making. Your post didn't even mention Collossi or the need to protect them from AtA units. All you were talking about was general anti air, which is about as important for the other races.
Also, Protoss does not have to use Collossi as there are enough viable builds in any matchup that do not involve Collossi.
|
ocdscale United States. March 06 2012 07:36. Posts 61
PM Profile Report Quote #
Not sure 3.58:1 gas:mineral ratio is the best one to use, but anyone advocating using 1:1 is insane.
1-1 ratio is the only reasonable one to use,
people only value one more then the other once their needs dont come in the 3 to 1 ratio the standard base provides.
The opportunity costs are the same (3 suv,s mine gas as fast as they mine minerals) as long as you mine them in a 3 to 1 ratio and 3 to 1 is a decent ratio,
if you would want to mine in a 4 to1 or 2 to 1 ratio the opportunity costs go up , this goes for both the gas and the minerals!
Terran in lategame situations often have no use for gas at all,and would rather have only minerals, wich is one reason terrans dont hesitate to make reactors instead of baracks. gas is even worth less then minerals here.
i still stand by the ratio of 4 for the bunker btw, you do get 400 hp for 100 minerals, and you can give them to a bio unit of your choise
A bunker has manny other disadvantages, like beeing highly immobile but i realy think its great value for monney when it comes to simply adding hp
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
