|
Now I am by no means a bad Protoss nor am I a great Protoss. But lately I find myself watching a lot of PvZ and notice Archons more frequently before the Templar throw out a storm. Bisu does this quite frequently, but why?
Now I realize that in the game vs yarnc recently that he uses a goon/templar/archon build closer to the end and it worked quite well. Many call this the NonY build but meh. Goons>Hydras(with support) Archons>lings Goons>Lurks. Okay so we got that down.
What i'm trying to figure out is WHY he made the archons instead of adding a few zeals throw the storms and make the Archons than.
Possible Reason #1. So far ahead doesn't matter
Possible Reason #2. He knew zerglings were on the way but storm eats them like cake anyways. Instead of Zeals he wanted a bigger meatshield?
This just baffles my mind. I can think of quite a few reasons why just not one that I think is the most logical because of their cost. Any thoughts?
|
Calgary25963 Posts
Please name your thread properly.
|
It was more on Archons I'm still thinking of more to add and wanted a discussion on Archons in general... wait I didn't clarify that did i sorry >_<
|
maybe he was he expecting ultras?
against ultras, i find archons to be more effective than storm
|
You are definitely right about Bisu turning his first temps into archons, usually before even storming. IMO it could be that he wants to pressure the zerg but temps are slow as fuck and take forever to get anywhere AND that archons are very good in the low economy of the beginning-midgame.
|
I use archons against melee units, and storms against ranged units, especially when I have zealots.
If you use storms against melee units, you're likely to storm your own units, while archon splash damage doesn't hurt friendly units. Also, using archons means less hassle than storming, and they're more difficult to dodge than storms (think archons vs mutalisks).
On the other hand, archons suck against ranged units, like hydralisks or lurkers. In those cases, storms fare obviously better.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
sometimes you just dont have the time and micro to use up all your storm and then you might storm your own units. in those cases you can make archons and still be cost effective. leave say 1 or 2 templars for storm would be a good idea. anyway thats how i see it cuz a lot of games i cant use up my storms properly and then when i morph archons they get sniped while morphing.
|
It's pretty simple.
Basic Logic :
1 zealot vs 2 hydras = zealot most probably wins
10 zealots vs 20 hydras = hydras most probably win
One group of hydras - can dodge storms pretty easily and snipe templars
One archon backed by zealots can increase potential dramatically because A-move hydras attack zealots and archon range allows attack from behind.
Concusion is small battles -> archons
Large battles -> templars + storm
|
On December 05 2008 03:49 Fontong wrote:
You are definitely right about Bisu turning his first temps into archons, usually before even storming. IMO it could be that he wants to pressure the zerg but temps are slow as fuck and take forever to get anywhere AND that archons are very good in the low economy of the beginning-midgame.
This sounds plausible, archons are quick and give a much better mobility to your early-mid game army.
|
This thread confuses me... But I'll try to be helpful anyway.
There are several reasons to why you'd make archons from your first templars instead of saving the energy.
1. To help protect against muta harass. This has been less common after sair was more popular as opening and because muta micro got better, but archons with first 2 or 4 is a 'safe' way of opening if you don't have scouted his build with sairs.
2. To be aggressive early on. As Fontong mentioned templars are vulnerable in small scale armies without goons for support (because of their slow speed, they are easily sniped by hydras and mutas), archons are actually more helpful in some situations, even against hydras. Archon works as a good support unit to zealots early on. If you start out with templars, you'll usually have to wait a while in your base to grow your energy + goon number + range.
3. In the heat of a battle, you can't always expect to get an archon out just because the templars have already casted their storms. If zerg wins the battle and you're retreating, merging templars will stay behind and die. In smaller scale battles, merging templars are also often focused upon. Even if you are winning and hunting his army the merging archon will be left behind...
4. Sometimes, you don't want to have more than a couple of templars in your army. I often even merge templars with full energy toward lategame because having an army that consist of too many templars will only backfire. Better bring more archons against hive tech.
|
To point a few things out:
1. Archons are NOT meatshields by any means, they are damage dealers. Yes, they have 350 shield points, but still, the plasma shield does not have any basic armor and takes 100% damage of everything. The amazing thing about archons is their damage output. A full-upgraded 39 damage, combined with an extremly high attack speed, is no joke. Zealots are the actual meatshields, please remember this.
2. Taking the high damage output into account, archons are one of the few units that can acutally damage ultralisks. Assuming full upgrades on both sides, a zealot will do a pitiful 10 points of damage against an ultraliks, while an archon will do 33 damage with higher attack speed.
3. A standard goon/zealot army, supported by templars, will be completely obliterated by ultra/ling (or even just masslings if flanked), because neither zealots nor dragoons are really effective against ultralisks and cracklings and storms do not really bother ultralisks. But a combination of zealots (as meatshields) and archons with their high splash damage will easily take care of cracklings and will be able to stand up toe-to-toe with the dreaded ultra/ling army...
4. In small-scale armies, archons tend to be more effective as storms can be dodged and Templars are vulnerable. Archons, however, can be used aggressivle in an early zealot attack.
5. Of course, you would prefer to use the energy for psi storms before merging the archon... but especially if you encounter massive amounts of lings and/or ultralisks, the battle will be over before the archon is even finished... and remember, the archon is meant to deal the damage.
|
On December 05 2008 04:55 Final_Judicator wrote:
To point a few things out:
1. Archons are NOT meatshields by any means, they are damage dealers. Yes, they have 350 shield points, but still, the plasma shield does not have any basic armor and takes 100% damage of everything. The amazing thing about archons is their damage output. A full-upgraded 39 damage, combined with an extremly high attack speed, is no joke. Zealots are the actual meatshields, please remember this.
It's kind of a yes and no. 350 shields, despite taking full damage from everything under the sun, is still 350 hitpoints. If you were to take the damage reduction + armor upgrade from a zealot, how much hit points would they have compared to an archon?
The downside where you don't really want to use archons as meatshields is, obviously, the fact that they cost 300 gas each. That's almost an arbiter right there.
|
On December 05 2008 04:43 LastWish wrote:
It's pretty simple.
Basic Logic :
1 zealot vs 2 hydras = zealot most probably wins
10 zealots vs 20 hydras = hydras most probably win
One group of hydras - can dodge storms pretty easily and snipe templars
One archon backed by zealots can increase potential dramatically because A-move hydras attack zealots and archon range allows attack from behind.
Concusion is small battles -> archons
Large battles -> templars + storm
Hydras are the best archon-counter Zerg has, so they're not the best example.
|
1 archon = 360 hp + shields
8 probes = 320
4 zealots = 640
This doesn't even account for armor and that gas is more valuable than minerals, so no, archons aren't meat shields at all.
|
On December 05 2008 06:05 lololol wrote:
1 archon = 360 hp + shields
8 probes = 320
4 zealots = 640
This doesn't even account for armor and that gas is more valuable than minerals, so no, archons aren't meat shields at all.
I didn't say they were cost effective. But once they're on the battlefield, they can absorb quite a bit of damage (whilst outputting a lot, too). Good zerg players will focus fire an archon, which means that's shots not being taken on your zealots, which are doing the real damage to hydras as they can more effectively get in range of them than archons can.
|
On December 05 2008 06:05 lololol wrote:
1 archon = 360 hp + shields
8 probes = 320
4 zealots = 640
This doesn't even account for armor and that gas is more valuable than minerals, so no, archons aren't meat shields at all.
So this comparison is based on cost rather than supply? I don't play protoss, but I'm pretty sure an archon is 4 supply, so it would look like
1 archon = 360+shield regen
4 probes = 160+shield regen
2 zeals = 320+shield regen
I'd say that, using this comparison (supply rather than cost) zeals are still better imo because they'll have armor to give them more bonus hits.
IMO, vs anything but ultra/ling with many ultras and few lings, storms would be better. Of course you'll want both by that time anyway, but mostly you need archons to deal with ultras, although mass goon works okay too.
Mutas are a special case. They can get owned by storm, but they're also awesome templar snipers. They can get owned by archon hits, but they also can outmaneuver them.
edit: to be clear, the comparison is just an hp/supply comparison. I'm not saying 2 zeals are better than an archon.
|
United States41984 Posts
On December 05 2008 07:22 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2008 06:05 lololol wrote:
1 archon = 360 hp + shields
8 probes = 320
4 zealots = 640
This doesn't even account for armor and that gas is more valuable than minerals, so no, archons aren't meat shields at all. So this comparison is based on cost rather than supply? I don't play protoss, but I'm pretty sure an archon is 4 supply, so it would look like 1 archon = 360+shield regen 4 probes = 160+shield regen 2 zeals = 320+shield regen I'd say that, using this comparison (supply rather than cost) zeals are still better imo because they'll have armor to give them more bonus hits. IMO, vs anything but ultra/ling with many ultras and few lings, storms would be better. Of course you'll want both by that time anyway, but mostly you need archons to deal with ultras, although mass goon works okay too. Mutas are a special case. They can get owned by storm, but they're also awesome templar snipers. They can get owned by archon hits, but they also can outmaneuver them.
Comparing it by supply is absurd. Cost is the way to compare.
|
Well is early/mid-game cost is usually the limiting factor but once it gets to late game often times P can get in trouble in PvZ (and all match-ups) when they are maxed with too many zealots. Zealots take up a lot of supply and when compared to other, more gas heavy units they are not worth having too many of. I think any protoss player would of course agree that when supply is getting near to being capped you want to limit your zeal production and fill up your supply with reaver/archon/sair/arb type units
|
If you get an early archon it can effectively make you invulnerable to mutalisks, that way you don't have to waste a ton of minerals getting 3/4 cannons at your main and nat's mineral line. Maybe that's not the reason he's doing it, but I like doing that personally since usually the zerg gets the spire for scourge anyways, so they can switch tech and get a couple mutalisks at any point, and it helps to have a unit you can defend with rather than being fucked when your minerals have 1/no cannons and you end up not mining for a while until you get an archon.
|
As a Z player, it seems archons are better than templars in aspects:
vs ultras or lings storms are a lot riskier than archons (can be dodged, hurt your own units)
templars can be sniped somewhat easily
t button is very far away on the keyboard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
