(Failed) Range/dps research

As we all know dps is the most important aspect to decide whether a unit is cost efficient. However there is a lack of standard to compare how different unit type perform in terms of dps per supply and dps per cost. This is a research on how much range and being air units has an effect on a unit dps effiency. So I decided to make a table to compare the range and dps in order to create a ‘range index’ coefficient:

  1. Only ranged unit are considered, melee units are known for their unreliability in dps
  2. Only units that can attack air and ground considered, primal guardian for example has amazing group dps but requires you to spend extra resources on anti air to function well.
  3. Splash damage unit not consider, for simplicity’s sake
  4. Units that has very different range and damage on ground and air attack like goliath and thor not considered, as it is very difficult to draw a fair conclusion by averaging their range
  5. Units that deal bonus damage to armoured take the middle between bonus and non bonus attack, units that deal bonus to light take the weaker one, since most units and most dangerous units are armored, but armor bonus unit still struggle against light units like immortal, it is fairer to just consider half their bonuses
  6. All other properties like spawning , shapeshifting, immobilising itself etc, are excluded, for simplicity sake
  7. Only those commander with a normal mechanic considered, like without charge cooldown, 100 supply, those units usually have other abliity to support them, like Nova’s unit will be extreme cost inefficient because she has a lot of ability to support, Asteria Wraith will be extremely cost efficient per dps, but they are very difficult to rebuild due to charge cooldown. I don’t want these factor to mess up the data
  8. Only gas cost is considered, as it is usually the bottleneck resources affecting the mass production of most units, and there is a lack of consensus on how much mineral equal to 1 gas, esspecially across many different commanders, so pure mineral unit and unit that cost 25 gas will be out of the discuss
  9. 0 0 upgrade against 0 0 armor so I don’t need to do extra math, unit related upgrade assumed taken because we take it almost 100% of the time.
  10. I will stop being clumsy and end here, all the above rules are written before I gather the data so to make least bias possible, the general rule of thumb is generic, practical and fair
Read more:  End week amateur tournaments for week 50


UNIT NAME DPS RANGE COST(dps per 10) SUPPLY(dps per)

Stalker 11 6 50(2) 2(5.5)

Adept 11 5 50(2) 2(5.5)

Wrathwalker** 40 10 200(2) 6(6.6)

Hydralisk 14 6 50(3) 2(7)

Dragoon* 14 8 50(3) 2(7)


Pheonix** 13 5 100(1.3) 2(6.5)

Carrier 27 8 250(1.1) 6(4.5)

BC** 35. 7 300(1.2) 6(5.8)

Mutalisk(Abathur)* 21 3 100(2) 2(10.5)

Destroyer 16 6 75(2.1) 3(5.3)

Voidray* 20 9. 150 (1.3) 4(5)

I did thought about unit collusion, but I don’t want to ruin the perfect number of 10 rules lolz, I think unit collusion is so hard to quantify numerically, same idea with splash damage, and it is kinda the most important advantage air units have over ground, which is the purpose of this research exactly, that’s why I separate air and ground units to show how much has unit collusion affected dps. SC2 is a meticulously designed game so the unit cost and supply cost has been tested by developers and players to justify itself, this is the major assumption of this research.

* units that has a significant difference in bonus damage

**move and shoot


I regret setting Byzantine rules, but I guess it is neccessary because I don’t think I can eliminate those factors effective with math. Now the data size is smaller than I thought I am too lazy to do an except and graph, nothing rewarding will come out with that data size. I hope someone will be inspired and go deeper in this research than I ever could. The ‘range index’ research is a bit of a failure so far.

Read more:  All Starcraft 2 Community caster

  1. Air units generally are 50% more expensive in gas than ground units, if we take away Mutalisk and destroyer in which both can be counted as a special case(Muta bounces and destroyer being too cost efficient, supply inefficient and vunerable). So unit collusion and being able to bypass ground fire power and collusion actually matters
  2. The relation to dps and range is not significant particularly on ground units(see dragoon vs adept), it seems to matter more on air units, I guess air that can out range turrent are very powerful
  3. There seem to be so many other factors, like survivability, movement speed and other supporting ability, eg. in practice I don’t find pheonix carrier and bc weak at all, pheonix insane speed plus move and shoot gives needed mobility for karax army and boost its practical dps , disable all ground units, and Karax’s heal them constantly despite their low health so its much stronger than vikings and scout in practice. BC and carrier has significantly more survivability than other units. But survivability is so hard to quantify.
  4. Alarak units op. You can see wrathwalker and destroyer is particularly strong among their kin, especially think about wrathwalker is a extra long range(+2 havoc on top of that) move and shoot unit , +75% damage to structures (In fact I stopped using ascendents in p3 once I discover using wrathwalker move and shoot to kite the AI, mothership and destroyers bring down small rush down units and protect warthwalker, Alarak knock back if they get too close. The p3 synergy between wrathwalker destroyer mothership and Alarak is amazing)
Read more:  Analysis on top terrans' playstyles


Similar Guides

More about StarCraft

Post: "(Failed) Range/dps research" specifically for the game StarCraft. Other useful information about this game:

Top 7 NEW Games of February 2021

Looking for something new to play on PC, PS5, PS4, Xbox, or Nintendo Switch in February 2021? Here are the notable video game releases.

Top 20 NEW Open World Games of 2021

2021 will bring us tons of open world games for PC, PS5, Xbox Series X, PS4, Switch, and beyond. Here's what we're looking forward to.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *