|
On April 20 2010 02:32 Everyday wrote:
I am not in the beta, but i think phoenixes could be good if you take them with your ground army to snipe medivacs, but also for their gravity blast thing.
They could easily snipe ghosts, queens, sentries and other annoying units.
Never saw them used like that...
I saw a plat replay with graviton beam being used on ghosts: http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/replays.php?game=33&show=details&id=120002
The pheonixes die, but so do the ghosts, and before they can emp the ground army. Seems a good trade.
|
they should make it so that 5 phoenix's be able to use graviton beam on one thor and levitate it, itd be hilarious
|
I always keep adding phoenixes in PvZ midgame. I gem map and cover my base while I attack. Its more like a tool than a base unit. Anyway, is very build dependant, doing it fast could give you some games, but it often limits your chances of a good mid/late unless you FEed. I find fast inmortal way stronger, in every MU, but I open with phoenix/vr sometimes.
I think its a great unit with a lot of potential. We need just to figure out how to make them while being in good shape, just as the old good fellow corsair. Still want to see some ridiculous colossi/phoenix build... I think I am totally working on that tomorrow.
|
till now i am trying to avoid the use of phoenix since i think of it as reaver corsair in BW, require too much apm and would be roll over if the enemy has a soild ground force.
what i am thinking is that this unit might give us a suprise in PvP in the close future since toss anti air is not that great 
|
I open Stargate PvZ when I fast expand, but it's usually just to force them into defending against air and killing OLs, while just preparing for my true attack. However, I find it nice to have the Stargate for later if they start adding air units of any kind. With good scouting, you can know ahead of time and add your Phoenix before you need them. They're pretty cheap and easy to fit in. If he's going mass muta I will typically add a second Stargate.
|
i like everydays idea of using a phoenix with a ground army to snipe medivacs and graviton beam ghosts..not sure if it would work but deffinitely cant hurt to try it out
|
Canada11379 Posts
Does anyone know if using phoenixes to counter medivac/drop ship play is very effective? I recently got destroyed by a terran abusing cliffs with two tanks and a medivac. I tried using blink to get up the cliffs, but I usually didn't have enough observers (and then didn't have enough stalkers). Also took too long to destroy the rocks to get up some of the cliffs, plus he just gave me the run around as soon as I was close.
|
Ok I figured I should play some different tactics and went for 4 phoenix against Zerg and then pumped out Rays. The phoenixes got a few OLords, and scouted a roach heavy army.
I'm not so good at macro yet and usually try to pwn zerg with immortals before they can expand or I get pwned.
I figured now would be a good time to send in 6 rays- I took out what turned out to be a 2nd expansion, then got a gas geyser and was heading for the main hatchery but lost them all to hydras and a queen.
I stupidly stuck to air and went for carriers, still on my first base- put down an expand at the natural, but I knew I was screwed when I scouted another expansion next to me (high ground on BS). I got the carriers into his rebuilt 2nd expand and took out the gas but then had hydras and queens all over the map. There was no way I was coming back from that. I put down two robo bays and a ton of cannons but they didn't live for long...
I think I'd have been better going for robo-bay then immortals and templars. Storm and blast them, grab an expansion or two early and keep pumping them out, throw in some DTs when the money gets up and rush them to the main to take out his tech buildings.
|
Phoenixes are great units, but I find that to use them effectively in the long run is too APM intensive for me :[
It feels kinda like sair+reaver from BW. Awesome build, but sooo hard to pull off.
|
So I like the phoenix, the concept the ability and everything and I try and throw it in almost always when playing against zerg for scout/harrass/mental bias them to not get muta, but lets really be honest here. Lets just take the phoenix, corruptor, and viking as pure Air-superiority fighters and ignore their abilities and the associated tech to be able to produce them(of which I think the phoenix is by far the worst to transition to AND I find its ability to be the worst of the 3, though i still love using it).
Lets look at non-attack related specs first:
All cost 2 supply.
A phoenix costs 150/100, a viking 150/75, and a corruptor 150/100
A phoenix has a build time of 45, a viking of 42, and a corruptor of 40
A phoenix has a total of 180 hp(only 60 can regen), a viking 125(all can be repaired), and a corruptor 200(all can regen)
A phoenix has 0 armor, a viking 0 armor, and a corruptor 2 armor
A phoenix has a fast movement speed, viking is normal, corruptor is normal
A phoenix has a range of 4, a viking 9, a corruptor 6
A phoenix gets a simple +1 base attack for each upgrade, a viking gets a +1 base and +1 vs armored, a corruptor gets a +1 base and a +1 vs massive
I believe all have normal(not sure of exact #'s) attack speeds.
Clearly by just looking at this the phoenix shines in 1 aspect, speed, besides that and some moderate HP, the phoenix is simply the flat out worst unit of the 3. So with these stats in mind one would assume the phoenix would have the best attack of the 3 to make up for its lackluster stats/cost ratio.
Lets assume we have 3 units with 0 armor: Unit A is an armored unit, whereas Unit B is a massive unit and Unit C is a light unit.
Now a phoenix does 2x (5 + 5 vs light)
A viking does 2 x (10 +4 vs armored)
A corruptor does 12 + 10 vs massive
Attacking Unit A(armored) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 28, and a corruptor 12.
Attacking Unit B(massive) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 20, a corruptor 22.
Attacking Unit C(light) a phoenix will do 20 damage, a viking 20, and a corruptor 12.
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject.
|
I found hit and run tactics to be quite useful. I go I gate cyber to stargate, and then pump phoenix from 1 stargate and zealots from 3 gates. A zerg going mutas will easily beat my phoenixes just out of sheer numbers, but since phoenixes are fast, I just keep doing hit and runs on the mutas while my zealots attack. If the zerg focuses on my phoenixes, then my phoenixes will be able to stall long enough for my zealots to do significant damage. Last game I had 4 phoenixes and a large handful of zealots vs over a dozen mutas and and large blob on lings. When the mutas were finally able to kill my phoenixes, I had already destroyed both the natural and the main. Once corrupters and/or hydras come out, it's a different story.
|
On April 22 2010 07:03 Silver777 wrote:
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject.
You're not including attack speed in your calculations, thats like me compaing siege tanks to collosi and saying its bs cos siege tank does 60 whilst collosi only does 40 when costing 300/200 and 6 food compared to 150/125 and 3 food (or w/e siege tank is nowadays)....
That being said, i agree with your analysis and phoenexes do suck  just pointing it out.
|
On April 22 2010 07:15 Ftrunkz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 07:03 Silver777 wrote:
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject. You're not including attack speed in your calculations, thats like me compaing siege tanks to collosi and saying its bs cos siege tank does 60 whilst collosi only does 40 when costing 300/200 and 6 food compared to 150/125 and 3 food (or w/e siege tank is nowadays).... That being said, i agree with your analysis and phoenexes do suck just pointing it out.
If you look at what I said in the upper section, all have "normal" attack speeds, the exact numbers I don't know, but they are fairly similar(though I I think the phoenix's is slightly faster IDK though).
|
Assuming the opponents scouting has failed, a five phoenix push can utterly decimate Zerg and to a lesser extent Terran. Pheoni (plural? lol) destroy light ground units. So if the zerg hasn't tech to hydra's or the terran wasn't massing marines you stand a great chance of holding his base down with proper micro until a void ray or two can come in to finish off the buildings or a small land army can come over. Hydras are very easy to lift and snipe as they pop out of eggs. Marines are alittle more tricky if he has multiple raxs particularly with reactors. However, terrans if caught with no static AA are royally screwed as you can almost infinitely lift and snipe his constructing units.
|
Nice math silver. I totally agree with you. The phoenix either needs to be a lot tougher, do much more dmg vs light (whcih would make it even mroe viable vs hydras or rines or just be way cheaper & faster to build.
Personally i think the phoenix should actaully have mroe shields than hp. That would synergize well with its use. Hit & run. Since shields regen if there was more shields on it you could get in do some worker harrass and take a few hits then get out without all of your phoenix's getting into the red from 1 spore crawler or a few hydras. I also think it works well with its ability which basically vs a ground army means they have to lift only part of a force. 5 phoenix's vs 5 hydras for example or vs 10 marines. If you could fly in and lift a few off and kill them and fly out let your shields regen while HP stays in the green phoenix's would be much better but still require TONS of apm.
|
On April 22 2010 07:03 Silver777 wrote:
So I like the phoenix, the concept the ability and everything and I try and throw it in almost always when playing against zerg for scout/harrass/mental bias them to not get muta, but lets really be honest here. Lets just take the phoenix, corruptor, and viking as pure Air-superiority fighters and ignore their abilities and the associated tech to be able to produce them(of which I think the phoenix is by far the worst to transition to AND I find its ability to be the worst of the 3, though i still love using it).
Lets look at non-attack related specs first:
All cost 2 supply.
A phoenix costs 150/100, a viking 150/75, and a corruptor 150/100
A phoenix has a build time of 45, a viking of 42, and a corruptor of 40
A phoenix has a total of 180 hp(only 60 can regen), a viking 125(all can be repaired), and a corruptor 200(all can regen)
A phoenix has 0 armor, a viking 0 armor, and a corruptor 2 armor
A phoenix has a fast movement speed, viking is normal, corruptor is normal
A phoenix has a range of 4, a viking 9, a corruptor 6
A phoenix gets a simple +1 base attack for each upgrade, a viking gets a +1 base and +1 vs armored, a corruptor gets a +1 base and a +1 vs massive
I believe all have normal(not sure of exact #'s) attack speeds.
Clearly by just looking at this the phoenix shines in 1 aspect, speed, besides that and some moderate HP, the phoenix is simply the flat out worst unit of the 3. So with these stats in mind one would assume the phoenix would have the best attack of the 3 to make up for its lackluster stats/cost ratio.
Lets assume we have 3 units with 0 armor: Unit A is an armored unit, whereas Unit B is a massive unit and Unit C is a light unit.
Now a phoenix does 2x (5 + 5 vs light)
A viking does 2 x (10 +4 vs armored)
A corruptor does 12 + 10 vs massive
Attacking Unit A(armored) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 28, and a corruptor 12.
Attacking Unit B(massive) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 20, a corruptor 22.
Attacking Unit C(light) a phoenix will do 20 damage, a viking 20, and a corruptor 12.
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject.
Phoenix definitely shoots faster than Viking and Corruptor so it's stronger against Light.
On the other hand math against massive targets isn't correct - all of them are Armored and many Armored units have base armor so it's even worse: Phoenix deals 6 damage to Corruptors, Broodlords and Carriers (no shields obv); 4 to BCs.
Considering it's speed and that from Light flyers only Mutas can hit it back while Banshees and Nomads can't it's range doesn't matter as much.
Since it's so fast it can rely less on your other forces and be used more independent, get in and out of fights faster, chase down enemy flyers - Mutas are faster than Vikings and Corrupters so they can escape them but can't do this as easily when fighting Pheonixes.
I think Banshees and definitely Nomads are slower than Phoenixes.
I think that Phoenixes are easier to use against ground units but it depends on target if they do this better than Vikings.
IMO Corruptor is the worst in comparison to Viking and Phoenix - the only unit they are really good and used against frequently is Colossus. Corruptors aren't specialized against anything else.
They deflect Phoenixes but the only thing Protoss player has to do is to avoid them - keeping Mutas away and/or in lower numbers once Zerg gets more Corruptors instead of Mutas should buy Protoss enough time to prepare better AA, for example get Blink and Storm.
We don't know if Carriers are viable enough in the PvZ late game; BCs may end not being viable at all in any other mu than TvT.
Corruptors have range and DPS about the same and Hydras, aren't noticeably faster (especially counting in +30% speed creep gives Hydras) and are much more expensive.
If the other player can keep Hydras away but doesn't have enough AA it's probably better to get more Mutas in most cases anyway. Not all though, since they morph into Broodlords but that's still limited use?
The math that really interests me is how good are Void Rays against Corruptors and Vikings, treating fully charged and/or speed upgraded Rays as sort of defferent cases.
I wonder if Protoss players will keep Warp Prisms with their Void Rays to warp in some units or buildings Rays can use to charge their beams before getting into fight.
|
On April 22 2010 09:39 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 07:03 Silver777 wrote:
So I like the phoenix, the concept the ability and everything and I try and throw it in almost always when playing against zerg for scout/harrass/mental bias them to not get muta, but lets really be honest here. Lets just take the phoenix, corruptor, and viking as pure Air-superiority fighters and ignore their abilities and the associated tech to be able to produce them(of which I think the phoenix is by far the worst to transition to AND I find its ability to be the worst of the 3, though i still love using it).
Lets look at non-attack related specs first:
All cost 2 supply.
A phoenix costs 150/100, a viking 150/75, and a corruptor 150/100
A phoenix has a build time of 45, a viking of 42, and a corruptor of 40
A phoenix has a total of 180 hp(only 60 can regen), a viking 125(all can be repaired), and a corruptor 200(all can regen)
A phoenix has 0 armor, a viking 0 armor, and a corruptor 2 armor
A phoenix has a fast movement speed, viking is normal, corruptor is normal
A phoenix has a range of 4, a viking 9, a corruptor 6
A phoenix gets a simple +1 base attack for each upgrade, a viking gets a +1 base and +1 vs armored, a corruptor gets a +1 base and a +1 vs massive
I believe all have normal(not sure of exact #'s) attack speeds.
Clearly by just looking at this the phoenix shines in 1 aspect, speed, besides that and some moderate HP, the phoenix is simply the flat out worst unit of the 3. So with these stats in mind one would assume the phoenix would have the best attack of the 3 to make up for its lackluster stats/cost ratio.
Lets assume we have 3 units with 0 armor: Unit A is an armored unit, whereas Unit B is a massive unit and Unit C is a light unit.
Now a phoenix does 2x (5 + 5 vs light)
A viking does 2 x (10 +4 vs armored)
A corruptor does 12 + 10 vs massive
Attacking Unit A(armored) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 28, and a corruptor 12.
Attacking Unit B(massive) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 20, a corruptor 22.
Attacking Unit C(light) a phoenix will do 20 damage, a viking 20, and a corruptor 12.
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject. Phoenix definitely shoots faster than Viking and Corruptor so it's stronger against Light. On the other hand math against massive targets isn't correct - all of them are Armored and many Armored units have base armor so it's even worse: Phoenix deals 6 damage to Corruptors, Broodlords and Carriers (no shields obv); 4 to BCs. Considering it's speed and that from Light flyers only Mutas can hit it back while Banshees and Nomads can't it's range doesn't matter as much. Since it's so fast it can rely less on your other forces and be used more independent, get in and out of fights faster, chase down enemy flyers - Mutas are faster than Vikings and Corrupters so they can escape them but can't do this as easily when fighting Pheonixes. I think Banshees and definitely Nomads are slower than Phoenixes. I think that Phoenixes are easier to use against ground units but it depends on target if they do this better than Vikings. IMO Corruptor is the worst in comparison to Viking and Phoenix - the only unit they are really good and used against frequently is Colossus. Corruptors aren't specialized against anything else. They deflect Phoenixes but the only thing Protoss player has to do is to avoid them - keeping Mutas away and/or in lower numbers once Zerg gets more Corruptors instead of Mutas should buy Protoss enough time to prepare better AA, for example get Blink and Storm. We don't know if Carriers are viable enough in the PvZ late game; BCs may end not being viable at all in any other mu than TvT. Corruptors have range and DPS about the same and Hydras, aren't noticeably faster (especially counting in +30% speed creep gives Hydras) and are much more expensive. If the other player can keep Hydras away but doesn't have enough AA it's probably better to get more Mutas in most cases anyway. Not all though, since they morph into Broodlords but that's still limited use? The math that really interests me is how good are Void Rays against Corruptors and Vikings, treating fully charged and/or speed upgraded Rays as sort of defferent cases. I wonder if Protoss players will keep Warp Prisms with their Void Rays to warp in some units or buildings Rays can use to charge their beams before getting into fight.
Whats a nomad? a Raven?
As for my math, that was an example of units if they only had that armor type, and in reality yes units can have multiple(armored, massive, or a combination) thereby increasing the uses of viking/corruptors, but this still leaves the phoenix only useful vs muta(and getting phoenix's is pretty far out of the way(150/150 for a building to produce 4-6 150/100 units that will be used to counter 4-6 100/100 units for a building zerg ARE just going to use later for corruptor/broodlord combo's whereas your stargate is fairly worthless after stopping the initial muta harass and totally unable to counter the zerg corruptors). As for phoenix to counter banshee's well the phoenix have to BEAT the vikings first and that generally won't happen unless the terran is bad.
As for Corrupters they are actually pretty good imo, their 2 armor makes them great vs muta and they work well vs BC/carriers(2 armor once again very helpful). Overall i find carriers to be garbage as they die to easily to corruptors/vikings/BC since there is no viable AA support for toss AND there is no real transition possible to them. They also dominate phoenix's and are viable vs vikings. The range issues make them(6 vs col 9) not ideal against colossus(use broodlords instead as they can range colossus and stay in the back of your army as well), but they're decent. BY FAR the best thing about them is their natural transition into broodlords, thus making them 10x more viable then phoenix's already as they're a PERFECT natural transition and you will always have AA( for against vikings/phoenixs) for your flying juggernauts.
And "better" AA is just so subjective as toss AA is simply so bad. I mean sure blinking stalkers are great to deal with air units, but the cost(of stalkers lost) to kill a single broodlord ratio is just ridic for stalker usage and storming them can be pretty hard with broodlings spawning and roach ground support, LET ALONE if they take a full storm its not even 1/3 of a broodlords life......
As for voidrays, I've used them against colossus and zerg, but they really really get reamed by ANY(air or ground) anti-air unit that focus them and for 250/150, 3 supply, AND the lack of transitionable units its simply to expensive to make for anything but a cheese build. I mean unless you plan to cheese a zerg with voidrays then transition to a mothership rush(aka super cheesing it).
|
On April 22 2010 10:14 Silver777 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2010 09:39 beetlelisk wrote:On April 22 2010 07:03 Silver777 wrote:
So I like the phoenix, the concept the ability and everything and I try and throw it in almost always when playing against zerg for scout/harrass/mental bias them to not get muta, but lets really be honest here. Lets just take the phoenix, corruptor, and viking as pure Air-superiority fighters and ignore their abilities and the associated tech to be able to produce them(of which I think the phoenix is by far the worst to transition to AND I find its ability to be the worst of the 3, though i still love using it).
Lets look at non-attack related specs first:
All cost 2 supply.
A phoenix costs 150/100, a viking 150/75, and a corruptor 150/100
A phoenix has a build time of 45, a viking of 42, and a corruptor of 40
A phoenix has a total of 180 hp(only 60 can regen), a viking 125(all can be repaired), and a corruptor 200(all can regen)
A phoenix has 0 armor, a viking 0 armor, and a corruptor 2 armor
A phoenix has a fast movement speed, viking is normal, corruptor is normal
A phoenix has a range of 4, a viking 9, a corruptor 6
A phoenix gets a simple +1 base attack for each upgrade, a viking gets a +1 base and +1 vs armored, a corruptor gets a +1 base and a +1 vs massive
I believe all have normal(not sure of exact #'s) attack speeds.
Clearly by just looking at this the phoenix shines in 1 aspect, speed, besides that and some moderate HP, the phoenix is simply the flat out worst unit of the 3. So with these stats in mind one would assume the phoenix would have the best attack of the 3 to make up for its lackluster stats/cost ratio.
Lets assume we have 3 units with 0 armor: Unit A is an armored unit, whereas Unit B is a massive unit and Unit C is a light unit.
Now a phoenix does 2x (5 + 5 vs light)
A viking does 2 x (10 +4 vs armored)
A corruptor does 12 + 10 vs massive
Attacking Unit A(armored) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 28, and a corruptor 12.
Attacking Unit B(massive) a phoenix will do 10 damage, a viking 20, a corruptor 22.
Attacking Unit C(light) a phoenix will do 20 damage, a viking 20, and a corruptor 12.
So against armored units the viking is obviously the best, against massive units the corruptor slightly edges out the viking and is the best, and against light units.....the phoenix ties with the viking. NOW WAIT A MINUTE, wasn't it fairly obvious(the non-attack stats) above that phoenix's were the worst unit? So WHY does the unit that is supposed to be the best against light units do the same damage as a viking which has MORE then double its range?
Overall I feel that corruptors are well balanced(cost/stats wise), vikings are too good costs/stats wise, and the phoenix is so horribly unbalanced(ONLY looking at it as an Air-superiority fighter and no abilities considered) compared to the other 2 cost/stats wise its a joke!
Well thats my spiel on the subject. Phoenix definitely shoots faster than Viking and Corruptor so it's stronger against Light. On the other hand math against massive targets isn't correct - all of them are Armored and many Armored units have base armor so it's even worse: Phoenix deals 6 damage to Corruptors, Broodlords and Carriers (no shields obv); 4 to BCs. Considering it's speed and that from Light flyers only Mutas can hit it back while Banshees and Nomads can't it's range doesn't matter as much. Since it's so fast it can rely less on your other forces and be used more independent, get in and out of fights faster, chase down enemy flyers - Mutas are faster than Vikings and Corrupters so they can escape them but can't do this as easily when fighting Pheonixes. I think Banshees and definitely Nomads are slower than Phoenixes. I think that Phoenixes are easier to use against ground units but it depends on target if they do this better than Vikings. IMO Corruptor is the worst in comparison to Viking and Phoenix - the only unit they are really good and used against frequently is Colossus. Corruptors aren't specialized against anything else. They deflect Phoenixes but the only thing Protoss player has to do is to avoid them - keeping Mutas away and/or in lower numbers once Zerg gets more Corruptors instead of Mutas should buy Protoss enough time to prepare better AA, for example get Blink and Storm. We don't know if Carriers are viable enough in the PvZ late game; BCs may end not being viable at all in any other mu than TvT. Corruptors have range and DPS about the same and Hydras, aren't noticeably faster (especially counting in +30% speed creep gives Hydras) and are much more expensive. If the other player can keep Hydras away but doesn't have enough AA it's probably better to get more Mutas in most cases anyway. Not all though, since they morph into Broodlords but that's still limited use? The math that really interests me is how good are Void Rays against Corruptors and Vikings, treating fully charged and/or speed upgraded Rays as sort of defferent cases. I wonder if Protoss players will keep Warp Prisms with their Void Rays to warp in some units or buildings Rays can use to charge their beams before getting into fight. Whats a nomad? a Raven? As for my math, that was an example of units if they only had that armor type, and in reality yes units can have multiple(armored, massive, or a combination) thereby increasing the uses of viking/corruptors, but this still leaves the phoenix only useful vs muta(and getting phoenix's is pretty far out of the way(150/150 for a building to produce 4-6 150/100 units that will be used to counter 4-6 100/100 units for a building zerg ARE just going to use later for corruptor/broodlord combo's whereas your stargate is fairly worthless after stopping the initial muta harass and totally unable to counter the zerg corruptors).
Yes, I meant Raven, sorry.
I don't think it's only 4-6 Mutas that cause problems big enough for Protoss for it to be mentioned even in interviews with high ranked Koreans that Waxangel translated.
If Zerg makes Corruptors for the sole reason of countering Phoenixes than Phoenixes role is already fulfilled IMO. Just look at BW ZvT - Mutas aren't really meant to deal damage themselves, most of damage is done when Terran makes Turrets; here Zerg makes Corruptors.
Does it mean those Corruptors need to be engaged with Phoenixes?
As for phoenix to counter banshee's well the phoenix have to BEAT the vikings first and that generally won't happen unless the terran is bad.
I think that always keeping Vikings with your Banshees just to deflect Phoenixes works in similar way here. It means either less Banshees for the same resources or quite heavy commiting into air units which means that whatever ground forces Terran has, they are significantly weaker.
TBH I wonder how much stronger Vikings are than Phoenixes or are they even stronger?
According to a chart from this thread Phoenixes deal ~9DPS while Vikings 10 (without bonus) but Phoenixes have almost 50% more health and are fast enough to allow Vikings get only 1-2 free hits before they fly in range.
If Terran starts with Banshees and then makes Vikings to escort them and Protoss scouts that Banshees fast enough he can get enough Phoenixes (quite fast thanks to Chrono Boost) to make those Vikings not matter that much and that's only if Terran doesn't lose too many Banshhes during that period and wants to stick to air even though he can't get even close enough.
If Terran starts from making Vikings (against Colossi for example) and then decides to throw some Banshees then yea no point in Stargate if Stalkers (with Blink) can be warped in.
As for Corrupters they are actually pretty good imo, their 2 armor makes them great vs muta and they work well vs BC/carriers(2 armor once again very helpful). Overall i find carriers to be garbage as they die to easily to corruptors/vikings/BC since there is no viable AA support for toss AND there is no real transition possible to them. They also dominate phoenix's and are viable vs vikings. The range issues make them(6 vs col 9) not ideal against colossus(use broodlords instead as they can range colossus and stay in the back of your army as well), but they're decent. BY FAR the best thing about them is their natural transition into broodlords, thus making them 10x more viable then phoenix's already as they're a PERFECT natural transition and you will always have AA( for against vikings/phoenixs) for your flying juggernauts.
And "better" AA is just so subjective as toss AA is simply so bad. I mean sure blinking stalkers are great to deal with air units, but the cost(of stalkers lost) to kill a single broodlord ratio is just ridic for stalker usage and storming them can be pretty hard with broodlings spawning and roach ground support, LET ALONE if they take a full storm its not even 1/3 of a broodlords life......
As for voidrays, I've used them against colossus and zerg, but they really really get reamed by ANY(air or ground) anti-air unit that focus them and for 250/150, 3 supply, AND the lack of transitionable units its simply to expensive to make for anything but a cheese build. I mean unless you plan to cheese a zerg with voidrays then transition to a mothership rush(aka super cheesing it).
Void Rays are the counter to Broodlords and reason this Stargate made initially to make Phoenixes is more useful later.
As of now (fresh patch #9) when charged they deal nearly the same damage as Immortals for only 50 gas and 5 seconds to produce more. Like I wrote, Rays not charged and Rays charged are almost separate cases and there are easy ways to make them charged before battles, all you need to know is when attack is coming.
With more health and DPS of 25 against armored they should fare pretty well against Corruptors with DPS of ~11,5 and each Broodlord you make is 1 Corruptor less and less resurces to make another one - basically 1 Broodlord is as expensive as 2 Corruptors, which makes Void Rays even more viable.
If there are possible transitions into Carriers then Rays also gain from this because they have speed upgrade at Fleet Beacon and they are really fast after getting it which makes kiting every AA Zerg has possible... well except Queens and Infestor's Fungal Growth.
|
Proper phoenix use:
- do not build a stargate
- build a bunch of robo units
- steamroll opponent
- if he doesn't leave => build (a) phoenix(es) to humilate him
|
On April 23 2010 11:21 ggrrg wrote:
Proper phoenix use:
- do not build a stargate
- build a bunch of robo units
- steamroll opponent
- if he doesn't leave => build (a) phoenix(es) to humilate him
What if opponent opens with or masses units Phoenixes counter? You just gg? Turtle and then gg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
