|
On June 02 2010 05:27 gdroxor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 05:24 AddictedDwarf wrote:
Well, as a diamond player i've never used HT ever. Always collossi. Archive tech is useless. I've never seen a player get HT vs me either. I'm also pretty high % and rank every patch so bash if you want, i just think that HT are utterly useless. Well between all matchups, using templar PvP is far less effective given Protoss units' much higher base health. Also robotics builds are just way too popular right now and people are sticking to what works.
Ofc. I'd love to use templar effectively because they are some of my favorite units but i just feel that they're very fragile and die easy and with the split gas in sc2 gas is harder to get ( or more expensive i should say ). Also splitting the HT/DT really just made it a one or the other choice so you're stuck with a t1 force + ht or a t1 force + dt. You get screwed over either way IMO. I was thinking maybe late game u can use prism/warp to templar own the drones and run off assuming you get the +25 extra templar energy upg so they'd warp in w 75 energy. Prob with that is lasting to that point on a templar tech.
|
^ to what i just said, was thinking...
Maybe cannon expand for more gas.
U go archive tech so u get stalkers + blink cuz he will try and counter w/ muta
He wont be able to do much so he'll expand more cuz ur limited mobility w/ stalker + cannon.
Then you use warps/templars w the energy upg to constantly kill his drone/larva count and use blink for key attacks.
Just a thought.
|
Well, are we forgetting that for HT you have to research he storm?
|
im a plat toss player and ive been trying to incorporate HTs into my army comp against terran, simply because ive been having a LOT of trouble beating the good old MMM 1-A move win. a small group of vikings simply destory the colossi before they can deal any kind of significant damage. if it wernt for them i feel like HTs are pretty useless. any player with decent micro will take minimal damage from the actual storm. against P n Z i always go colossi, theyre just so much more viable.
one more point i want to make is that HTs need an upgrade to be able to do decent damage while colossi come out with their normal damage, just with a smaller range. HTs need 2 upgrades to be able to be used easily while the colossi only need 1
|
Even though you have to research storm & energy for HTs you can reinforce them from then on faster than colossi (55s vs 74s + warpgates are cheaper + it's spawn then wait).
I think with HTs you need to win relatively soon after getting them as they don't scale and don't have a critical mass effect. Meanwhile colossi scale better and have critical mass, but are more vulnerable to being sniped.
|
Alot of the time I find using the traditional Stalker Colo, my stalkers have blink so if I have those pesky antiair I canmicro my colo back and focus down the the air. After that colo rips through ground in mass very effectively. Plus with the ranged upgrade I'm pretty sure Colo have better range than storm which is also an advantage
|
To those who are interested, Day9's Daily for 1st June 2010 fields a question about HT vs Colossus. Colossus are slower to produce and very expensive per unit, plus can't attack air.
|
as a terran player, i'd much rather see HTs because landing a good EMP is a lot easier and more cost-effective than viking sniping
in PvZ i believe HTs are considerably stronger. the ability to warp them in for defense will save you a lot, and zerg air kills colossi even worse than terran air. colossi are still GOOD, and you can certainly win most of your games with them, but there are just more zerg answers to them. and the mobility of zerg on forward creep tends to punish their slow movement speed and the necessity of keeping them together. but that's just based on observation since i don't play the matchup myself.
|
From a general perspective I guess you could say Colossi and HT (or more specifically, Psi Storm) serve the same purpose, but in reality it plays out a lot differently.
Both have their pros and cons as people have listed, but I've only been able to justify using HT over Colossi in PvZ. Psi Storm/Feedback/Archons is pretty much effective vs nearly all Zerg unit compositions and not countered nearly as hard as Colossi.
PvT nowadays however it's been very hard for me to use HT effectively since from what I've seen a lot of T are utilizing ghosts more and more. And while at that point it can become an emp/feedback twitch war, it is much easier to land emp and much harder to find ghosts in the bio blob making this a very risky proposition. Plus w/ the strength of bio as of late you almost, and the threat of banshees and now ghosts, getting observers early is also critical.
For PvP well HT is not too useful and never has been so not much to discuss here.
|
On June 09 2010 03:38 Skyro wrote:
From a general perspective I guess you could say Colossi and HT (or more specifically, Psi Storm) serve the same purpose, but in reality it plays out a lot differently.
Both have their pros and cons as people have listed, but I've only been able to justify using HT over Colossi in PvZ. Psi Storm/Feedback/Archons is pretty much effective vs nearly all Zerg unit compositions and not countered nearly as hard as Colossi.
PvT nowadays however it's been very hard for me to use HT effectively since from what I've seen a lot of T are utilizing ghosts more and more. And while at that point it can become an emp/feedback twitch war, it is much easier to land emp and much harder to find ghosts in the bio blob making this a very risky proposition. Plus w/ the strength of bio as of late you almost, and the threat of banshees and now ghosts, getting observers early is also critical.
For PvP well HT is not too useful and never has been so not much to discuss here.
I'm the exact opposite. I can't find a way to justify NOT getting HTs versus Terran. It destroys the Marines in the blob very quickly and you can instagib Medivacs, Ghosts, Ravens, Banshees and nullify Thors and Battlecruisers. If the game goes into a big macrofest (which is very common), Psi Storm can utterly obliterate all Marines and Vikings in the area, leaving a wad of Void Rays free to tear everything to shreds in complete safety (just FF the Thors and weakened Vikings first).
As for Zerg, they move too quick, one Psi Storm isn't enough to kill a Hydra (they always regen 1 health), Hydras are too large to hit many of them in a single Psi Storm and HTs are generally slow and unwieldy to move around the map relative to Zerg mobility. Even Collossi can be a royal PITA when they start using Infestors to prevent your ability to kite or mind control, or Corruptors who can happily run into your wad of Sentries/Stalkers and rape your Collossi before you can kill a single one.
I'm starting to favour scrapping HTs and Collossi altogether against Zerg and just spamming the fuck out of Sentries for Hallucination tanks and an absurd number of Force Fields to split the army in two along with tons of Gateway units. Gives you a lot of mobility when you can respawn half of your standing army in 5 seconds. There's just no room to screw around with things like HTs and Collossi against Zerg. You've gotta disable that Hydra ball, NOW, or you're gonna get utterly fucked. And neither unit seems to be particularly good at it.
|
|
|
On June 09 2010 03:59 Bibdy wrote:
I'm the exact opposite. I can't find a way to justify NOT getting HTs versus Terran. It destroys the Marines in the blob very quickly and you can instagib Medivacs, Ghosts, Ravens, Banshees and nullify Thors and Battlecruisers. If the game goes into a big macrofest (which is very common), Psi Storm can utterly obliterate all Marines and Vikings in the area, leaving a wad of Void Rays free to tear everything to shreds in complete safety (just FF the Thors and weakened Vikings first).
As for Zerg, they move too quick, one Psi Storm isn't enough to kill a Hydra (they always regen 1 health), Hydras are too large to hit many of them in a single Psi Storm and HTs are generally slow and unwieldy to move around the map relative to Zerg mobility. Even Collossi can be a royal PITA when they start using Infestors to prevent your ability to kite or mind control, or Corruptors who can happily run into your wad of Sentries/Stalkers and rape your Collossi before you can kill a single one.
I'm starting to favour scrapping HTs and Collossi altogether against Zerg and just spamming the fuck out of Sentries for Hallucination tanks and an absurd number of Force Fields to split the army in two along with tons of Gateway units. Gives you a lot of mobility when you can respawn half of your standing army in 5 seconds. There's just no room to screw around with things like HTs and Collossi against Zerg. You've gotta disable that Hydra ball, NOW, or you're gonna get utterly fucked. And neither unit seems to be particularly good at it.
I agree on the Terran points. However, I must respectfully disagree with the Zerg points. At first, I couldn't quite find a reason I disagreed, and as a result almost did not respond. My first reaction was the thought that maybe my love of High Templar in PvZ was just a biased opinion with no logical ground (because I just really like storming shit!).
But then I reread your post and found this:
On June 09 2010 03:59 Bibdy wrote:
As for Zerg, they move too quick, one Psi Storm isn't enough to kill a Hydra (they always regen 1 health), Hydras are too large to hit many of them in a single Psi Storm and HTs are generally slow and unwieldy to move around the map relative to Zerg mobility.
This quote highlights a mindset that I find to be completely incorrect. Don't take this the wrong way; I still think you make some valid points, but I disagree on this one key point.
Yours is a mindset that a lot of people share and I think it's what spawns all the High Templar hate. I'm not saying you're hating on High Templar, but people that hate HTs have that mindset.
Let me clarify:
The mindset I'm referring to is the idea that a Psi Storm's goal is to annihilate all units in its range. It's an ideology that probably comes from Brood War's storm, which was absurdly powerful. But Starcraft 2 storm is slightly less powerful, but, I would argue, no less useful.
I feel like the proper mindset to have is to look at storm as a support ability, the utility of which is not to kill everything in its wake. You noted that a storm won't kill a Hydralisk because it will regenerate 1 hp. You're correct. However, your statement dismisses the fact that that Hydralisk is left with 1 hp, allowing anything else to one-shot kill it. Imagine You have an army of 10 Stalkers vs. 10 Hydralisks. The Hydralisks will probably die, but the Stalkers will take quite a beating (or maybe the stalkers would lose? I haven't done the math on that one). But the Stalkers would, in a best case scenario, take heavy losses.
Now imagine you added on a roughly equal resources-worth of units. The Hydralisks boost their ranks with, say, 4 more Hydralisks. The Stalkers get 2 High Templar. Now, the Stalkers can one-shot (as opposed to 8-shot) every Hydra caught in a full storm. Now the Stalkers can clean up the Hydralisks with 1-2 losses at most. Even 1 tier of damage removes 2 attack rounds of Stalker shots, allowing the Stalkers to come out well ahead.
The idea behind storm, I think, is not so much that it needs to be killing everything in range. My goal when using storm is to weaken the enemy's units so that the rest of my army gains a huge advantage. That way, High Templar, while not very cost-effective in terms of money/kills ratio, will make the rest of your army significantly more efficient.
And Archons rape face against Zerg. They may die fairly quickly, but if you can put a small Zealot wall in front of them, they are beastly. Also they are blue blobs of crazy Psionic energy so that makes them cool in book, even if they did, like, one damage. :D
|
I suppose high templar are more veratile in that they can mass hit air units as well as land units. The problem is that storms are so god awful to micro correctly. One or two useless storms and it's gg for your army. That situation is even more true for an air mobile army (banchee viking muta) because it's hard to storm anything in the air. Collosis on the otherhand, while it can't hit air, you'd be a fool not to pair collosis with Stalker/sentry. So in a sense, the units come to you instead of you chasing them which makes killing them easier on your part. However, keeping those towers alive is a huge hassle to deal with. If they're constantly running away from vikings and corrupters, they can't really hit the ground army.
PvT mech...I don't think that HT can do very much here. Everything out ranges HT. Even though they probably don't have ghosts, while feedback on thors is a good thing, they're clumped next to tanks anyways. I would think that the range of Collosis is much better in dealing with tanks (with having high ground advantage). Plus, if you were to approach this static army of tanks, hallucinate an army of immortals and attack.
PvZ hydraballs, HT should be very effective here, especially if you trap them and storm. It makes chasing their army down much better. Since almost nothing zerg has is uberly far ranged, save for the brood lords, storm is highly viable. Infestors will melt vs HT army. The only real issue against zerg vs HT is that if they go ultras, you really have nothing to respond.
-my 2cents
|
If I play against zerg they mass their units like crazy. I want a DPS machine that kills stuff left and right without me telling it to. With Colossi you can just march over an enemy and abuse their range, while Templar require insane amounts of micro and die quickly.
Yes, 2-3 well placed storms do a lot of damage. But over time Colossi are much more efficient and not as risky to use.
|
Zerg player here.
Against Protoss I find if they go collosi its rather easy to transition into corruptors and kill off their collosi. However, when they then transition into high templar, I now have about 10 useless corruptors, no real counter for the high templar, and a big hydraball without an umbrella.
To go into high templar directly, eh, I'm not sure. I know nothing of protoss, but I think they come too late to stop my hydra ball.
So I have a tip for the protoss players, Collosi for the crisp, then high templar for the roasting. Bon apetit.
|
Over the last few weeks of beta I purposefully tried to go templar tech over colossi every time because I find colossi a lot more boring to use. Here are my thoughts on it per match-up:
PvP: In PvP it used to be all about colossi but towards the end I found that in every PvP I played, if you are able to get to colossi or templar you or your opponent are probably doing something wrong. PvP is insanely low-econ and most games never last more tahn 12 minutes and almost never get more than 1 mining base up (usually you cant afford to expand to your nat ever and only do when your main is almost dried up lol), at least from my experience. Basically 1base 4warpgate strats are just insanely strong in PvP. If a safer way to tech/expand is found then I think it will go back to colossi, but right now I feel that it's like talking about hivetech units in BW ZvZ lol
PvZ: my favorite build in PvZ is the gate-forge-nexus expand, and I think it's absolutely necessary to get colossi out immediately to be able to defend vs all-ins (it's a lot safer/faster than waiting for templars/storm). I feel that in the later stages of the game colossi become stronger and stronger as you get more and more of them, but they also are much easier to counter as the zerg gets more resources (corruptors and NP). I want to look into mixing in hallucinated colossi more which I think will be AMAZING in keeping colossi alive during battles, but pretty much you need to transition into a lot of templars in the later stages of the game as they are harder to kill (and they also mix with colossi very very very well). Plus it's so great for base defense to be able to warp in a few HTs with a storm ready if one of your expansions is being attacked.
PvT: if the terran is going primarily bio, I think templar tech is much better. I hate how in PvT you NEED to get a robo though (no option of skipping it like vs P or Z) to make sure you dont die to banshees, but you pretty much need the twilight council up ASAP any way to get charge. I feel that HTs are a really good follow-up to that compared to colossi since generally a terran can very easily make a lot of vikings to kill colossi very fast. The only problem is that ghosts counter HTs very well also so you need to be on your toes as to whether or not to get HTs or Colossi (fast starport = HTs, ghosts = colossi). PvT is probably the only matchup where DTs are almost as good as HTs in the early-mid game as you can keep a terran pretty well contained with just a few DTs as he cannot move out. Overall DTs are pretty much only good in the late game where you can afford to make the dark shrine and do some really good late-game harass with them.
basically it's a lot like templar tech vs robo tech in BW PvZ. you eventually need it all, and each has it's own advantages/disadvantages. I think right now colossi have the edge over templars, which are a lot more situational than before (especially since you dont even get DTs at the same time :\).
|
One thing that I had trouble w/ when learning to use HTs and I suspect others are too, is that they just don't make enough of them. You can't just make 2 HTs and think you're set. If you've spent the tech and research costs, abuse them. Make 6+ and continue making them as they die or get morphed into archons. Getting the energy upgrade is also crucial for HTs.
People always say Colossi can reach a critical mass. It's the same case with HTs, once you get a sizable number there is no more "they are too quick and walk out of storms" or "missing 1 or 2 storms gg" as you can storm the entire battlefield.
Also HTs aren't something you quick tech too. It's strictly a late-game, 2+ base option.
And in regards to HT, vs a straight MMM ball HTs are great. I use to use them to great effect when MMM balls were popular. But like I said as more and more terrans are switching over to ghost and mech play it became hard to justify HTs over stargate. Feedbacking thors is nice, but you probably could've just used immortals or void rays to greater effect. Besides at the stage of the game you even contemplate using HTs, you'd probably need a robo for cloak detection anyway.
Also I don't think I've ever worried about ultras vs zerg. I remember one game I was "surprised" by some ultras but by the time they came out I had so many archons they were dispatched of fairly easily. That's why for me personally it hasn't been hard to justify a lot of HT use, it's simply because HTs and archons are awesome vs nearly any zerg unit composition. That's not the case vs Terran.
|
I rarely use HT, which is something I'm going to have to work on when the next beta phase comes out.
It's hard to get HT when you really need a Robo Bay for your Observers - one of the most useful units in the game IMO.
PvZ - Collossi roast Hydralisks, which seems to be pretty standard zerg play nowadays. If they have Corruptors it never seems to be a game changer in my experience. IF they take down the Collossi it's too late and stalkers seem to do the job decently against Corruptors. If they put down their spire at their expansion I like engaging their army with a decoy while I tear down the spire to limit the number of Corruptors (and Mutas, I fucking hate Mutalisks)
PvP - Collossi do the trick again. Storm just doesn't do enough against Protoss units. Maybe if you were playing a 2v2 with a Terran ally you could try some EMP/Storm action but that's a real niche use of High Templars.
PvT - This seems to be the matchup that High Templars were designed for. You can have some real fun Storm vs EMP battles. I generally open with a Stargate and VR (like another poster said) to force them to make more Marines cause Marauders are a huge pain. If they go Mech you're going to want the Stargate anyways to pump some Phoenixes and no storms. =(
Only problem here is that you're already building the Stargate so you have to tech a lot for Templars. And you're really going to want to get an Observer at some point or else you're just relying on hallucinated Phoenix scouting.
|
I have great beef with Hts they infuriate me, so I prefer collosi.
HTs move too slow meaning they are always out of position.
Example A: you move your army up ready to engage the enemy army, you troops move up and suffer heavy losses while your slow templar move up to cast storm late.
Expample B: you move your army up ready to engage the enemy army, you troops move up and suffer an EMP while your slow templar move up to cast feedback.
Example C: you move up realize the situation is unfavorable and order your troops back the high templar lag behind your army and get picked off.
Psyonic storm is negate-able.
example: you cast psystorm on mass hydras, using creep they immediately move out taking minimal damage. (zerg rarely engage full scale off creep)
HTs don't grant sight up cliffs.
HTs don't intimidate the enemy.
HTs don't reach critical mass, at least not permanently. (out of energy)
HTs can't reach siege tanks safely as opposed to collosi who can relatively.
HT tech tree does not provide access to observers, knowledge is power. (observer is posted twice because this line provides emphasis on scouting and the one below on number of options)
HT tech tree ops up only 2.5 units(HT DT archon), robo tree opens up four units(prisim, obs, immo, colloi)
HT do not synergize well with chareglots (aside from cost) as they hurt your chargelots with psystorm when they rush in.
So I highly recommend robo first and HTs as an after thought.
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
in my experience it depends on how you transition out of your opening.
If you go 1-gate-robo then obviously transition into colossus. But there are other opening, for example PvT I've been playing with stargate four phoenix opening -> chargelots -> templars. In contrast, if I transition from phoenix -> colossus I find that I leave open a timing window for an MMM push.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
