|
Disclaimer: Although I have spent a good amount of time watching streams and replays of the SC2 beta since it came out, I have not ever played it myself.
So after poring over any mentions of 'archon' in the SC2 strategy forum, I've found that whenever someone talks of archons in SC2 it's either when:
a. Theorycrafting, e.g.:
- "I guess that means recomendation p vs z is sentry hold out tech to archons with stalker (...) I do not have a beta key";
- "Do archons really counter muta all that well any more?", or
b. They've used the unit, and are disappointed by it:
- "I played PvZ when he went like all mutas and I went full Archons and they don't do counter it well. Their attack is so slow.";
- "Archons are surprisingly bad vs mutalisks, especially if you have to cover 2 bases.";
- "Also is it just me or do cannons seem pretty weak in sc2? Storm+archons do as well.."
Watching the Archons' stats, they seem more or less similar to those of SC1, maybe a bit better: it deals a little more damage to biological units (most of the stuff you wanted to attack with them in SC1 anyway), and a little less damage to non-biological units. Its splash AoE seems weaker to the naked eye, however. Additionally, the archon doesn't seem to be as effective in SC2 in those areas in which it excelled at in SC1 (splash damage on zealots in PvP, killing zerglings and mutas in PvZ, as part of a timing attack in PvZ, lategame plaguuuuu-immune unit in PvZ).
My hypothesis is that archons are kinda weak right now in SC2, and I'd like people who've seen the unit in action firsthand to share their thoughts on this unit:
- When using the archon, has it been effective at countering particular threats? Effective as a general support unit in a specific matchup? Useful as part of a particular build order / strategy? Under which circumstances do you think making archons is a good idea?
- When an enemy Protoss player has used archons against you, have they been a significant threat to your forces? Which units would you not want to use to fight off archons? Which units have been effective at fighting off archons?
|
I've used archons several times, and they dont seem to do AoE damage. either that or the AoE is ridiculously minuscule in its range
|
definitely not the same as archons from sc1.
I really only use them as damage takers so my zealots/stalkers/immortals can get some free shots.
I would make archons when I made templars without upgrading storm, but I've been trying to use phase shift on key enemy spellcasters or brute units
|
On February 24 2010 04:48 TheAntZ wrote:
I've used archons several times, and they dont seem to do AoE damage. either that or the AoE is ridiculously minuscule in its range
I can't test it myself, but after watching a replay at the slowest speed, I can confirm archons do have splash damage, although the splash AoE seems really really small- you need units with a small collision size practically hugging one another to see it in action.
|
I think you quoted me: - "Archons are surprisingly bad vs mutalisks, especially if you have to cover 2 bases."
After playing more, they aren't bad vs small numbers, but because large numbers spread out so much and, as theantz has pointed out, the splash is so freaking tiny you can't really use 1 archon vs 11 mutas like you can in sc1.
They still fare pretty well vs lings, but not nearly as well as in sc1.
I have yet to use templar tech in a pvp, robo/stargate are much faster and safer vs the zealot horde.
|
I recently used one against 6 Marines, its splash radius isn't too bad, it seems around the size of a Pylon (maybe a little smaller). By the time I killed one Marine, three marines around him were in the red and easily one shotted shortly thereafter. It does seem to attack pretty slow considering how expensive it is.
|
On February 24 2010 05:01 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 04:48 TheAntZ wrote:
I've used archons several times, and they dont seem to do AoE damage. either that or the AoE is ridiculously minuscule in its range I can't test it myself, but after watching a replay at the slowest speed, I can confirm archons do have splash damage, although the splash AoE seems really really small- you need units with a small collision size practically hugging one another to see it in action.
So zerglings and marines though they'll rarely get into melee range with marines.
|
On February 24 2010 05:03 Malambis wrote:
I recently used one against 6 Marines, its splash radius isn't too bad, it seems around the size of a Pylon (maybe a little smaller). By the time I killed one Marine, three marines around him were in the red and easily one shotted shortly thereafter. It does seem to attack pretty slow considering how expensive it is.
I'd trust this assessment on their splash radius better than my own, since I cannot actually playtest the Archon's AoE.
Could any other beta testers spare some time to give us your take on the archon? 
|
They probably tried to nerf it because of the fact that units clump much more now. Maybe they went too much overboard on that?
|
On February 24 2010 05:03 Malambis wrote:
I recently used one against 6 Marines, its splash radius isn't too bad, it seems around the size of a Pylon (maybe a little smaller). By the time I killed one Marine, three marines around him were in the red and easily one shotted shortly thereafter. It does seem to attack pretty slow considering how expensive it is.
im sorry but this is just wrong
i tested against 2 lings, with 1 ling distance seperating them, and the 2nd ling never took any damage
i'll post screenshot when im back home
|
I've managed to use a few archons against zerg, and they are quite powerful. However, the splash is significantly smaller than SC1, as many have said.
|
On February 24 2010 05:58 chocoed wrote:
I've managed to use a few archons against zerg, and they are quite powerful. However, the splash is significantly smaller than SC1, as many have said.
Which units have they been effective against?
|
Well, i'd theorycraft since i have no beta key but they probably don't countner lings too well now, since lings surround so well, so the same goes for countering zealots in PnP, they obviously don't counter mutas that hard anymore since mutas don't stack (or they don't stack to the point where it is very effective?) and fighting improved ultras with them may not be that good since you have other counters to ultras (immortals i guess are very good vs them?)
|
On February 24 2010 06:07 Kaniol wrote:
Well, i'd theorycraft since i have no beta key but they probably don't countner lings too well now, since lings surround so well, so the same goes for countering zealots in PnP, they obviously don't counter mutas that hard anymore since mutas don't stack (or they don't stack to the point where it is very effective?) and fighting improved ultras with them may not be that good since you have other counters to ultras (immortals i guess are very good vs them?)
Indeed, as far as theorycrafting goes Archons shouldn't be terribly effective in SC2 unless their stats were significantly improved in some way.
I remember reading archons hit for 25x2 at some point, but they only seem to hit once now. The damage boost seemed like a decent way of getting archons up to date to SC2, but in beta they don't have this anymore- which is why some playtesting experience would be nice to be able to confirm that the unit does indeed suck as it stands right now. If we can establish that the archon isn't worth making under most circumstances, then we can move on to make balance suggestions to make the unit more attractive.
For now, though, additional playtesting feedback on this unit is much appreciated
|
United States4991 Posts
I make a few Archons late game PvZ when my minerals are running low but I have lots of gas. They actually are quite good vs Roaches and do very good damage to anything they hit (in fact, they're one of the units that seems to cut down Brood Lords quite quickly if they reach them...).
Overall they don't seem great, and they definitely don't play the anti-Muta role well in my experience (nor do they need to--Stalker/Sentry/Phoenix just kills Muta). They seem a bit overshadowed perhaps, but I think they are workable... the main issue is that things like Colossus are so good, Archons seem less worthwhile getting
|
I think the the templars merge faster the only way I've seen them used is in fights after the opponent ran out of mana to cast storms... This only happened 3 games out of wich i've won 1 and lost 2 in that particular fight.
|
I hate Archon attack animation.Range is a lot bigger now, but attack with 1 hand looks so weak...
I love how they used to "hug" enemy units.
|
Actually I'm in the same boat as you OP(watched many Hs of streams and many replays). I wanted to make a thread about this too, but was too afraid of getting flamed to death :|. Anyway, I was quite surprised that the archon wasn't as deadly in Sc2 as they are in SC1, even vs lings (maybe they don't need to be - I don't know haven't played it so bare with my theorycrafting)
Seemed to do decent damage to 1 target, has decent range, good attack speed, but I think it really needs a splash that is worthwhile. Now I see 2 things wrong:
Basically to counter mass mutas you need phenixes (don't get me wrong - when you do have them, they do very good damage since mutas are lightly armoured and take the +6 dmg which is more than enough to rape them in +/- equal numbers) or a lot of sentries/stalkers.
I dunno maybe I have the image of a strong ground protoss army from sc1 that can take on virtually anything too far ingrained into my brain to actually acknowledge it being any different right now =( - it just doesn't seem right =(.
The other thing I wanted to point out is teching to robotics bay is much more rewarding and safe - you get obs, collosi and immortals which are all solid units. If you go templar archives/dark obelisk you need to get 3 buildings just to get templars. Now HTs and DTs don't seem as rewarding as collosi and obs. Granted storms are a lot easier to cast now, and DTs do 50 base damage which is insane  , but for the storm to do 80 damage, it needs to hit for 4 full seconds.
I think the nerf to the storm is justified by how much easier it is to cast it, but not the archon nerf.
There needs to be a solid unit at the end of this part of the tech tree - a unit that can rival the collosus in terms of usefulness. This is where the archon should shine.
I dunno what to do with it - I'm not a balance designer nor am I playing the beta but, it needs to shine in games just like the colossus is right now, or it won't be worth teching this way, because gas is hard to come by. Maybe give the archon feedback? maelstrom? a new spell - just make it worth teching this way aside from a nerfed storm and DTs.
|
I used zealot/archon to own up on my zerg opponent in one game. He was going roaches/hydras, so I went speed zs/high templar. Storm is very in SC2, seemingly smaller area and much less damage, but it can sometimes help against mass hydra which don't have a lot of health compared to roaches. The reason I converted my high templar to archons was because he got ultralisks/lings. The high damage of Archons coupled with some splash worked. The ol: Zealot wall with archons behind is still in effect in SC2. I think Zealot Wall + Archons behind is actually better than SC1 because there are no lurkers to tear up the zealots.
|
On February 24 2010 05:58 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 05:58 chocoed wrote:
I've managed to use a few archons against zerg, and they are quite powerful. However, the splash is significantly smaller than SC1, as many have said. Which units have they been effective against?
Very effective on all the ground units since they're biological, but archons don't work too well against mutas. Lings get shredded.
Edit: Other units are more effective than the archon since it's so far down, but when you're low on minerals and abundant on gas, it only makes sense to create archons to keep up with your opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
