Unit "Critical Mass" Discussion

I've been watching a lot of commentaries recently and a couple commentators have mentioned a units "critical mass". The idea is that certain (maybe all) units become much more effective if you have a certain number of them.

For example, two collosi aren't going to do much, but once you get 6 they become a major power.

I'd like to get some discussion about this idea of critical mass going on this thread. Is critical mass real, or just perceived? What causes critical mass? Is critical mass a static number, or does it change by situation, Etc.

I believe critical mass is real, I believe it is caused by different things depending on which unit one is massing. For example, the colossus start being very powerful when you have 6 of them because they can one shot smaller units. Meanwhile, it takes them too long to kill units if there's only two of them.

Meanwhile, I believe critical mass for massed ranged units (MM, hydra/roach, etc) get critical mass according to their range. The usefulness of such balls of units reaches a peak when there is a balance of units. You don't have too many, so that units in the back can't shoot but not so little you could fit in more units without that problem.

Obviously, more units are better, but you are at a disadvantage if some of your units aren't being utilized while your opponent has all his forces in action. He'll kill you faster.

Do these ideas sound reasonable? Does anyone have any criticism or other ideas on critical mass?

 

It IS real. A simple example can illustrate it better..
Imagine a single siege tank unsieged vs 1 hydralisk. It will probably take the tank 3 shots to kill it, and it will take considerable damage (say 60).
If you had 2 tanks vs 1 hydra, the hydra would die much faster and your tank would take less damage (i'd say about 33% less)
If you had 3 tanks vs 1 hydra, you could say you achieved 'critical mass' for that specific scenario, because you can now oneshot a hydralisk, and because tanks outrange hydras, you don't take any damage (or very little) so you exponentially improve the survibability and damage output of those 3 tanks compared to the same tanks when not massed.
Melee units don't apply to critical mass because they can always be outranged, and so, can potentially be killed without the opponent taking damage regardless of how many you have.
So when people speak of 'critical mass' they usually refer to ranged units (hydras, siege tanks, dragoons, collosi, etc)

 

Also consider the splash of immortals/colossi/tanks. Critical mass for these would mean that anything within range dies pretty much instantly. Consider tanks, if you have a critical mass seiged, then any ground battle within range of them is going to be won by the tanks... even if your opponent has 2x - 3x the units.
________
GS parallel-twin

 

Very good thread to discuss about.

 

In StarCraft I, carrier critical mass was quite powerful vs the AI. A single carrier would draw a lot of fire, but a bunch of them had so many swarming interceptors, only deliberate focus firing would kill carriers quickly.

 

Do people have an idea of how many units it takes to hit critical mass for some of the more common strategies, such as MM?

To Maelstrom: I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.

One could argue that your example has nothing to do with critical mass. To my mind, critical mass means that the units become better by quite a bit once they hit a certain number.

For example: If you have two colossi, they could do a certain amount of damage. Meanwhile, if you have four, they could do twice as much as two. But once you hit six (assuming this is the unit's critical mass) they could deal four times as much damage as two could.

Your example doesn't necessarily show this, all it shows is that having two tanks is better than one, and three is better than two.

 

Critical mass to me means even if you have built a few of the counter units it wont matter because the clutter F**k of units is dealing so much damage at one time anything will lose.

 

If that was the case, then there would no 'critical mass' because, using your example:

12 collosi are twice as strong as 6, and 4 times stronger than 3... so you could say 12 is the critical mass BUT
24 collosi are twice as strong as 12, and 4 times stronger than 6... so you could say 24 is the critical mass BUT

ad infinitum.

Against non-AI enemies, critical mass is always a number of units COMPARED to a different units.
Example: 1 zealot needs 3 stabs to kill a zergling.
3 zealots kill a zergling almost instantly.

Therefore, the 'critical mass' of zealots vs zerglings earlygame is 3.

Carriers have a similar relation with other units such as Goliaths. When you hit an X number of Carriers that allows you to one-shot a Goliath, you can say you achieved 'critical mass' against Goliaths.
With this what I'm trying to say is that there is no ultimate 'critical mass', it varies on the type and amount of units
you're facing.

My previous example shows that given the right amount of tanks, you can exponentially increase their survivability and damage output vs hydras. Having more tanks than that would not make any difference, since you can't kill a unit faster than 'instantly'.

 

When I think about critical mass I see it as a graph. It starts out linearly, a straight line as each added unit adds the same amount of effectiveness. When the unit count hits critical mass, the effectiveness jumps up suddenly.

Sure you could get more units and make your force more effective but the point where those extra couple of units make all the difference has passed.

Does this make my idea more clear? I feel this addresses your quote.

I do like the idea that critical mass has to deal with one-shotting enemies. But how does this fit into MM where players don't FF as much?

 

Well, yes, that's what I'm saying lol.

In the Collosi vs MM example, you'd want to hit X amount of collosi, X being the number which allows you to kill any marine standing in the way of the lasers instantly.
As you said, you can add more collosi, but it wouldn't make much of a difference. At best, they'd be 'backup' units, so that if you lose some collosi, you still keep critical mass.

 

So we are in agreement, excellent. So do you think the way we figure out critical mass changes if we are massing ranged units like in MMM?

 

different units have different "critical masses" and also depends on what you're up against.

for example, 3 reapers is the "critical mass" when assaulting a worker line, as it allows you to 1-shot workers. this is essential because reapers are fragile- even with only 2 reapers, targeting the same worker for the 2nd shot is pretty difficult if you're running around dodging his early defenses, and how the workers stack.

marines have a fairly large "critical mass" against melee units- a tight marine ball will decimate zealots and zerglings, simply because they have range and all of them can attack, while melee units can only hit the ones at the front. this is why M&M&M balls are such an effective strategy.

phoenixes with graviton beam- one will obviously do nothing for assaulting ground units. 4 is usually considered effective for raids (1 to lift, 3 to attack), 8+ is better for mass assaults.

different unit mechanics also come into play: 1 roach vs 1 stalker, roach wins easily, and by a landslide if they have the regeneration upgrade. 10 roaches vs 10 stalkers, stalkers win due to range and focus fire. regeneration has almost no time to kick in. throw in blink and you've got stalkers by a landslide.

other obvious examples: any unit with splash damage. you can kind of spread out your units if you're up against a splashing unit, but against multiple splash units it's almost impossible. you can also talk about a critical mass of upgrades as well- a single upgrade might not do much, but that 2nd weapons upgrade might allow this unit to kill this other unit in only 2 hits instead of 3... etc.

 

critical mass = the amount of units needed to destroy the opponent's army without taking any significant damage.

NOTE: critical mass DOES NOT include micro.
Example: 1 reaper needs to take around 12 shots to kill a zealot
and you can micro the reaper to kill the zealot without getting hit at all
to achieve critical mass, you would need 12 reapers

lesson learned? kthx

 

Critical Mass: Noun - an amount necessary or sufficient to have a significant effect or to achieve a result. i.e. when the whole is exponentially greater than the sum of its parts. We need a sc2 dictionary
________
starcraft II replays

 

I would disagree. Say your opponent is massing Hydralisks. I would think 6 Colossi would be at or over the critical mass for the Colossi vs Hydralisk. Could the 6 Colossi kill the massed Hydras? It depends on how many there are. But regardless to whether there at 10 Hydras or 100 I feel the 6 Colossi have hit critical mass because they can one shot swarms of Hydralisks.

What about range? Lets say the Reapers could get three shots off before the Zealot gets to them. Would that reduce the critical mass to 4 then?

BTW: How do you say whom you quote? I can't figure it out.

 

To VampireBob

6 colossi could take out a big mass of hydras, but if at the end of the fight, there is only 1 colossus left, you have not achieved Critical Mass

yes, that's right, i was just making an example.

ya dig?

kthx

 

just wondering, chow, do you say "kthx" in a jerk kind of way or is it just what you do?

 

cuz im a cocky person when it comes to video games

i know my sh!t, when i say kthx

I've beaten LzGamer and inControL

K THX !

i'll sign your mousepad some other time. jk <3

 

My initial reaction was to disagree with the idea that critical mass is the number of units required to defeat an army without taking significant damage. But the more I thought about it the more it seemed that was right more or less. We've discussed critical mass being the ability to one shot a unit, which would fit. The units gain a great advantage once they can one shot a unit instead of two shotting it.

I'm still not completely bought by the idea though. I'd definitely change the wording to defeat an army without taking a crippling amount of damage. I feel "without taking significant damage" is somewhat vague and restricting. Significant is a very fluid term. Although it is fluid, the general sense I get is that you can't lose a lot of units, so you'd have to have an overwhelming advantage, which I don't think critical mass is about. I feel critical mass is about having an edge, not a large advantage.

Meanwhile, crippling isn't as fluid as in my mind. An army is either big enough to do damage or not to some degree. There's at least less of a grey area than significant. Meanwhile I feel crippled is a better definer than significant because it's more important. Whether an army took significant losses or not isn't very important, it could be useful, or it could not be useful. It's hard to tell. Meanwhile, if an army is crippled, then it's lost use. I consider a battle a win for me if I can destroy their army, or make it retreat, while still having something that is useful and could do damage.

 

@VampireBob

your definition to crippled is no different. significant damage is just as descriptive as crippled, if you take significant damage, you clearly cannot continue to attack...

you don't need to overwhelm your opponent, you have reached critical mass, if you have 2 colossi vs 12 zerglings.