|
I have been tossing this around to my toss friends and even they aren't 100% sure on this so I put the tag up there open for discussion if this isn't set in stone at all.
So in their basic sense, High Templar and Colossi both sort-of fill the same niche as the big splash, area of effect damage units. They require very different tech paths as well. Any thoughts on what situations call for either one or what builds would transition easier to one or the other would be appreciated
some basic considerations:
1. Feedback: High Templar have Feedback which burns energy and does damage.
2. Energy: High Templar have a limited use for their abilities as they are limited by energy, colossi do not
3. Counters: Colossi have some very hard counters like vikings or corrupters that can be a pain.
4. Robo tech vs Twilight council: In long enough games you usually end up with both, but the one you get first will make a large effect on the unit of choice.
so Protoss players, what circumstances do you use Colossi or High Templar?
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
I generally prefer storm over colossi. Because colossi makes my opponent to go anti air and subsequently hard counter my stuff. My storm however is rarely ever hard counterd: i can still spread my storms versus ghosts, for example. And the ability to warp them in is just so crucial to defending multiple bases. Another reason is that I really, really enjoy speed zealots. They are highly effective, and cheap. And you have the additional possibility of storm harass [well, you need a robo for that, but no full tech at least]. U truly feel that the hightemplar (cq storm) is underappreciated in this game.
The only time I favor colossi might be in PvP, but that's not always the case either. Depends a bit what my opponent goes.
|
Against Zerg I prefer HT build because Robo pushes aren't very effective against them. They rarely mass roaches and even if they did, 4 gate would work better. Also warp in storm after upgrades is a life saver for expos. Even more, I honestly have had great success with archons vs zerg as well.
Against Terran it is tricky, so far I favor HT. I still make robo for counter drops etc, but again I feel like storm has won more fights than colossi in this matchup. I also like them to snipe ravens to prevent pdd. That things just nullifies stalkers completely.
Against Protoss I think colossi are better. There are less Air to Air threats to it in this matchup, and the access to the max range is very strong. They work like siege tanks to force a fight if they do not have colossi. Oddly enough though, I think ht/archons is good versus colossi build.
Overall I favor HT, but colossi are easier to use until you get the hang of it.
|
I hardly ever go strom colossi just seems to work much better for me
|
I play both toss and zerg, and I find storm harder to deal with as zerg unless I have very good positioning before the fight begins. Against collossi, I can usually pick off a couple with corruptors before even engaging with my ground forces, which can ruin the toss player's push.
I don't honestly run into HT tech too often, which might be part of the reason I don't deal with it as well. Definitely seems viable though...
Edit: Wanted to add that I absolutely crush any protoss that go archons. imho, you are much better served only doing that when your HTs are oom. They just don't seem to do enough to justify morphing them before the fight even begins.
|
Sorry, don't mean to sound dickish, but I wrote up basically this exact thread not 2 days ago (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128582). That being said, all of my thoughts can be found in that thread.
However, to sum them up, I find that High Templar tend to take more of a support role, allowing the rest of your forces to become more efficient, while Colossi take the role of the linchpin of your army, to be supported by the rest of your units, and, while Colossi themselves can be quite cost effective, they do not very well serve to support your army (as your army is actually supporting the Colossi). For me, this differentiation makes High Templar more favored in PvT matchups, while Colossi tend to have more use in PvZ.
|
Why not both? Maybe one before the other, but with an extended game and your opponent possibly getting anti-air to handle colossi, throwing a HT or four into your army composition can't hurt.
|
I believe colossi are much more safe because they dont rely on perfect micro. Too many times i have lost a game because i went HTs and my storms failed to kill all I should have killed with em, maybe because they dont do enough damage. (marauders refuse to die to storms XD)
But having both colossi and storm makes your army almost unstoppable. So it might be very good option to consider if the game goes to late game and you are afraid to lose your army if you go on offensive.
What works great in PvZ is going collosi while taking your natural and go HTs while taking your third. If you happen to saturate your third, you'll have a deadly force almost impossible for the zerg to stop, and HTs can help protect your colossi against corrupters with feedback.
|
On June 02 2010 03:46 gdroxor wrote:
Why not both?
The tech to Colossi:
Gateway (150)
Cybernetics Core (150)
Robotic's Facility (200/100)
Robotic's Bay (200/200)
Total: 700/300
The tech to High Templar:
Gateway (150)
Cybernetics Core (150)
Twilight Council (150/100)
Templar Archives (150/200)
Total: 600/300
Combined Total: (subtracting cost of double Core/Gateway): 1000/600
Not to mention the time to build all of that.
Unless you're not planning on making any units until around 10 minutes into the game, I think you'd better pick a tech to start first.
EDIT: Ah, just read your edit.
Yes, in the late-late game, both High Templar and Colossi can be quite an effective composition, as High Templar make other units more cost effective (playing a support role), and Colossi are incredibly cost effective as a focal point of your army. But when you factor in all the tech required (plus the upgrades/research), it's only really viable if you're mining 3 bases. You might be able to pull two-basing this, but only if you're willing to take a fairly high risk and cut quite significantly into your gateway-produced forces.
Again, I have this all written up in the other thread, but I'll briefly explain my build and why I feel it is useful (and relevant to this discussion)>.
A Gateway-produced army (Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries) can be incredibly mobile, versatile, and powerful. When Charge or Blink (or both) is researched, your army becomes even more powerful, and even more mobile. For that reason, I typically choose to go from 3gate+robo (for observers, and immortals are made only as I feel absolutely necessary), and either push, or leave them to defend and safely expand. When on 2 bases, I start producing for 4 gates and get a Twilight Council. By then, I am typically 1-1 on upgrades, and the council lets me start my second attack upgrade. Also by then, I have had a few Observers out doing quite a lot of scouting. It is at this point that I decide which tech path I want to take: High Templar or Colossi.
I have run into the argument that I am vulnerable to certain pushes, since I get my third-tier tech so late, but with Charge and/or Blink and numerous upgrades for my ground units, I feel like I am fairly secure. Additionally, the mobility of a full-gateway army allows me to expand somewhat safely.
The other thing I like about my build is that if, by the time I get a third base, I decide to get both Colossi and High Templar, I am more than equipped to do so. I need only to get one tech building and one upgrade.
|
I prefer Colossi for the sole reason they are just more consistent. Two hits from a colossus does about as much damage as a storm would do(not absolute obviously, but its rare a storm does the full 80). I think a buff to archons would push me to favor templar but right now i believe colossi just have the slight edge.
They are also cheaper to tech to and you get observers.
|
On June 02 2010 03:50 Seltsam wrote:The tech to Colossi: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Robotic's Facility (200/100) Robotic's Bay (200/200) Total: 700/300 The tech to High Templar: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Twilight Council (150/100) Templar Archives (150/200) Total: 600/300 Combined Total: 1300/600 .
Don't have to build two cyber cores. Unless you're going to also build stargates and get double upgrades for air!
|
On June 02 2010 03:53 WhistlingMtn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 03:50 Seltsam wrote:On June 02 2010 03:46 gdroxor wrote:
Why not both? The tech to Colossi: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Robotic's Facility (200/100) Robotic's Bay (200/200) Total: 700/300 The tech to High Templar: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Twilight Council (150/100) Templar Archives (150/200) Total: 600/300 Combined Total: 1300/600 . Don't have to build two cyber cores. Unless you're going to also build stargates and get double upgrades for air!
Ah ha!
Good catch!
My apologies; the post has been modified to incorporate the corrections Mr. WhistlingMtn has so kindly provided.
|
Colos better to start then when they get AA go HT's and they will mass a bunch of units that are worthless. then later in game switch back to a few Colos. But colos first into HT's
|
On June 02 2010 03:50 Seltsam wrote:The tech to Colossi: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Robotic's Facility (200/100) Robotic's Bay (200/200) Total: 700/300 The tech to High Templar: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Twilight Council (150/100) Templar Archives (150/200) Total: 600/300 Combined Total: (subtracting cost of double Core/Gateway): 1000/600 Not to mention the time to build all of that. Unless you're not planning on making any units until around 10 minutes into the game, I think you'd better pick a tech to start first. EDIT: Ah, just read your edit. Yes, in the late-late game, both High Templar and Colossi can be quite an effective composition, as High Templar make other units more cost effective (playing a support role), and Colossi are incredibly cost effective as a focal point of your army. But when you factor in all the tech required (plus the upgrades/research), it's only really viable if you're mining 3 bases. You might be able to pull two-basing this, but only if you're willing to take a fairly high risk and cut quite significantly into your gateway-produced forces. Again, I have this all written up in the other thread, but I'll briefly explain my build and why I feel it is useful (and relevant to this discussion)>. A Gateway-produced army (Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries) can be incredibly mobile, versatile, and powerful. When Charge or Blink (or both) is researched, your army becomes even more powerful, and even more mobile. For that reason, I typically choose to go from 3gate+robo (for observers, and immortals are made only as I feel absolutely necessary), and either push, or leave them to defend and safely expand. When on 2 bases, I start producing for 4 gates and get a Twilight Council. By then, I am typically 1-1 on upgrades, and the council lets me start my second attack upgrade. Also by then, I have had a few Observers out doing quite a lot of scouting. It is at this point that I decide which tech path I want to take: High Templar or Colossi. I have run into the argument that I am vulnerable to certain pushes, since I get my third-tier tech so late, but with Charge and/or Blink and numerous upgrades for my ground units, I feel like I am fairly secure. Additionally, the mobility of a full-gateway army allows me to expand somewhat safely. The other thing I like about my build is that if, by the time I get a third base, I decide to get both Colossi and High Templar, I am more than equipped to do so. I need only to get one tech building and one upgrade.
What I like about transitioning from one to both is how well the tech trees compliment each other. There are very few games where I don't get Charge and at least a couple observers and/or an early-ish Immortal, so I always end up one building away from getting either, anyway. But my playstyle is similar, I end up teching just slightly later than usual as well.
|
On June 02 2010 04:06 gdroxor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 03:50 Seltsam wrote:On June 02 2010 03:46 gdroxor wrote:
Why not both? The tech to Colossi: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Robotic's Facility (200/100) Robotic's Bay (200/200) Total: 700/300 The tech to High Templar: Gateway (150) Cybernetics Core (150) Twilight Council (150/100) Templar Archives (150/200) Total: 600/300 Combined Total: (subtracting cost of double Core/Gateway): 1000/600 Not to mention the time to build all of that. Unless you're not planning on making any units until around 10 minutes into the game, I think you'd better pick a tech to start first. EDIT: Ah, just read your edit. Yes, in the late-late game, both High Templar and Colossi can be quite an effective composition, as High Templar make other units more cost effective (playing a support role), and Colossi are incredibly cost effective as a focal point of your army. But when you factor in all the tech required (plus the upgrades/research), it's only really viable if you're mining 3 bases. You might be able to pull two-basing this, but only if you're willing to take a fairly high risk and cut quite significantly into your gateway-produced forces. Again, I have this all written up in the other thread, but I'll briefly explain my build and why I feel it is useful (and relevant to this discussion)>. A Gateway-produced army (Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries) can be incredibly mobile, versatile, and powerful. When Charge or Blink (or both) is researched, your army becomes even more powerful, and even more mobile. For that reason, I typically choose to go from 3gate+robo (for observers, and immortals are made only as I feel absolutely necessary), and either push, or leave them to defend and safely expand. When on 2 bases, I start producing for 4 gates and get a Twilight Council. By then, I am typically 1-1 on upgrades, and the council lets me start my second attack upgrade. Also by then, I have had a few Observers out doing quite a lot of scouting. It is at this point that I decide which tech path I want to take: High Templar or Colossi. I have run into the argument that I am vulnerable to certain pushes, since I get my third-tier tech so late, but with Charge and/or Blink and numerous upgrades for my ground units, I feel like I am fairly secure. Additionally, the mobility of a full-gateway army allows me to expand somewhat safely. The other thing I like about my build is that if, by the time I get a third base, I decide to get both Colossi and High Templar, I am more than equipped to do so. I need only to get one tech building and one upgrade. What I like about transitioning from one to both is how well the tech trees compliment each other. There are very few games where I don't get Charge and at least a couple observers and/or an early-ish Immortal, so I always end up one building away from getting either, anyway. But my playstyle is similar, I end up teching just slightly later than usual as well.
Yes. Clearly we are in total agreement!
As long as you're comfortable working with just tier 1/1.5 units for a slightly extended period (and if you play Protoss, I feel like you should definitely be comfortable doing that), then the slightly later tech offers no actual disadvantage.
And I also tend to favor Charge (and the second level of upgrades), particularly in macro games. Even in games that focus heavily on harassment, I really like having Blink. So I completely agree that they complement each other nicely.
|
It really depends on what you're trying to do with the rest of your build. IMO, the biggest consideration in collosi vs HT is how soon you need observers.
In PvP, it's generally best to go for collosi. Storm isn't as effective against high-HP P units, storm hits your zealots, and you need robo fairly early or you'll risk losing to mid-game DT's.
In PvT, it really depends how you get there. I often like to open with void rays which forces marines and vikings, and slows ghost tech. Against this composition, HT are an obvious choice. If you prefer to open with an immortal push or like to make a lot of sentries (prime ghost-bait), collosi might be a better choice.
In PvZ, they're both good options. I usually open with a lot of zealots for early pressure, so I tend to open robo so I can deal with a roach push and so I don't have to worry about storming my zealots. If you're worried about mutas, HT might be a better choice. Storms hit air, but more importantly, HT tech opens up blink which is critical against mutas.
|
ht AND dts require more skill to beat, cauz muta sniping isnt that easy as colossi targetting with corrupter, and also keeping overseer alive is harder for Z, trust me :D
|
On June 02 2010 04:52 graphene wrote:
ht AND dts require more skill to beat, cauz muta sniping isnt that easy as colossi targetting with corrupter, and also keeping overseer alive is harder for Z, trust me :D
also takes more skill for the toss to pull off well
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
If protoss makes colossus vs T, then they have to make stalkers to defend against vikings.
And we all know stalkers are the most inefficient fighting unit in Sc2, almost as bad as mutas.
|
I use HT in every PvZ / PvT but that's just because they're fun as hell, they're my favorite unit. As for PvP I'm not sure, never tried it, might be interesting.
But as for strategically, I like a style that I think inka was doing, which was DT drops into HT. But as for straight up HT builds, it can be kind of nice not building out of a Robo constantly because that can allow you to typically afford 1-2 extra gateways instead, which makes an army a bit more mobile. The twilight council has some nice upgrades, so you can easily deviate a build for whatever reason early on. Like aiming for HT's and just swapping your build to mass blink stalkers instead at the last minute before you put down that templar archives. Also you could rush out weapon upgrades a bit smoother as well if that makes a difference. Feedback is what I would say is the most underrated skill in the game. Seems like I've hardly ever seen it used, but it's hilarious the amount of clutch things you can do with a good feedback (like destroying a medivac drop, banshee, etc). I've never had a problem with "HT are so slow wahh" Because really, if you move any army long distances it's going to limbo-line and you have to wait up a bit for it anyways. Just get out of the 1 control group syndrome and these 'problems' are far less apparent.
Whenever I went HT's in games, it always felt like I surprised the opponent, which is admittedly gimmicky, but also kind of good. Seems like HT is the road less taken, so it's less expected. With a real early game HT storm push, having an archon or two in low supply battles is actually pretty amazing. Archons are not nearly as terrible as they're made out to be. Sure they're clumsy (if you don't micro) but they do pretty respectable damage to certain units, and have a decent enough chunk of HP. Now you might not go out of your way to build archons, but they are just a cherry-on-top to HT's. But usually a couple good storms and feedback is all HT need to do to pay for themselves, so having an archon or two around after a small battle to supplement your army a bit is a nice bonus. Plus they're Nal_Ra's favorite unit, can't argue with him, he cooks rice like a beast.
Of course none of this is to say colossus is a bad path either, really they're both great. It's actually surprising how flexible it is, having multiple very solid paths like that.
|
The units are not mutually exclusive just because they both deal area of effect damage though they do overlap in parts.
The colossus is better early on in general because the robo bay is generally better then the council early on, it's less gas intensive and much better in small to medium sized battle's as well as attrition battle's. The colossus has some harder counters in anti-air units but doesn't do friendly damage.
The real use offcourse relies on the matchups:
PvP: colossi have no real counter here (like corruptors and vikings) and are way more effective then templar in zealot vs zealot fights, colossi is definately best and thus colossi are better then templar in this mu as long as it's ground based.
PvZ: colossi excel against lings but can be countered quite hard by corruptors or infestors. HT are great against hydra and decent against roaches AND help to feedback the corruptors and infestors that counter your colossi. Archons are also at their best in this Mu as everything is biological and there is no EMP or anything to weaken your archons. A mix of both is best in this matchup imo as they compliment eachother, only colossi is really weak against infestors / corruptors and only HT is weak against lings. Colossi range is not that crucial in this matchup imo as in other matchups by the way.
PvT: colossi are great against bio as they outrange it and stop the kiting. Immortals and robo tech are also really good to get fast in this matchup making colossi even better as it's a smooth transition (whereas PvZ or PvP often have more pure gateway play early on). Vikings are a decent counter but they are easier to counter then corruptors are. HT are a bit lacking in this matchup imo, EMP counters it quite well and bio armies are way faster then hydra's so that storming them forces you to run your own zealots through the storm often. Archons are quite crap as well in this MU as they are slow to reach bio and suck vs mech.
Colossi are good in all three matchups whereas HT are only really good against zerg imo. Against zerg colossi are also at their worst as zerg has the hardest counter to them in the corruptor and infestor. Against terran and protoss im quite confident that investing in colossi is almost always better then in HT.
Corruptor
150m 100g
(14+6) * 1.2 - 1 = 23 dmg per hit against colossi (assuming corruption is applied)
resulting in 12.1 DPS at range 6
200 hitpoints with 2 armor
Viking
150m 75g
(10+4) * 2 -2 = 26 dmg per volley against colossi
resulting in 13 DPS at range 9
125 hitpoints with no armor
Vikings slightly outdamage corruptors but though this evens out if the colossi gets armor upgrades. Corruptors outdo vikings because they got alot more hitpoints though meaning it is hardly effective for protoss to focus them in a battle whereas vikings are quite easily sniped. Guardian shield also cuts the viking DPS more then it does corruptors.
|
On June 09 2010 07:51 Anon06 wrote:
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.
1- Yea, colossus go up cliffs. This is completely awesome.
2- HTs DO intimidate the enemy. They will be moving around more than usual like mexican jumping beans expecting to try and dodge storms
3- HTs DO reach critical mass, but a different kind. They instead reach a point where when you have like 6+ of them, their storms are not dodgeable, and they are literally hitting the ENTIRE enemy ball with 80 dmg storms
4- HTs nor Collosi can reach siege tanks that easily. But ya I'd give a slight edge to collosi here
5- While the HT tech tree doenst give access to observers, it also allows for blink + charge which will bolster up your army. Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs. However I will agree that this is the MAIN weakness of a non-robo build
6- This is sort of pointless as we are discussing HTs, not the amount of other units you can make (not to mention obs + prism cannot attack, and collosi require another building)
7- The chargelots problem is true, but also keep in mind that chargelots dont really synergize with sentry/collosi armies as well. I can't tell you how many times I've FFd my chargelots behind the enemy line that I want to keep from reaching my Collosi. Also, with a collosus-centered build you want more stalkers to combat the inevitable anti air, so chargelots arent even used that much there anyways.
I think that HTs are really underused right now, and are going to see ALOT more use in Phase 2 of the beta. Their high cost and lack of scouting (no obs) are really limiting them right now, but I'm really hoping people find a better use for them that is more viable other than incorporating them in an already critical mass army..
|
As T, HT's are a piece of cake, I just bring along 3-4 ghosts (which I prolly would anyway)
As Z, however....you have no super-counter like EMP. You have no counter to it besides trying to snipe them of (gl with that, the tossball will make it cost dearly). Sure roaches can survive a storm but damned they are dmged and easly finished of.
But the worst part is hydras. Hydras are slow as HELL when not on creep, and unless you are defending don't assume you'll have creep. And then if you have to get them all out of a storm..
1) They'll take alot of dmg before they are out of the storm due to slow speed.
2) His army will snipe them of OR slay your roach tanks since they lack support.
If you have a good number of HT's, Z ground is just screwed because he can't micro away all his units a hundred times and think he'll have an army left .
Colossi are a piece of cake compared to HT's. Left-over mutas+corruptors+broods handle them just fine. The only hard part about colossi is that your air must suicide into them and kill them or they will faceroll hydras when they enter battle. T's vikings counter colossi easly, it's rediculous, with their 9 range. Corruptors just suck in comparison to the viking. Tbh buff corruptor range, it costs more than a viking but is inferior in every single way.
|
While I agree with the above, what do you do to bolster your army against zerg when you are using HT? Do you go mainly stalkers to counter the air units or zealots to do more damage upfront to zerg bio? If you DO go stalkers, (which is what I see most people using besides the oh so needed sentries), do you have a problem killing off the low hp units?
I played a PvT the other night where I stormed like 5 times, got the other guys army down REALLY low, but his army actually was able to stim and still rip through my incredibly weak blink stalkers. Even with proper micro I still got eaten up, as stalkers just cant "clean up" like colossi can.
Zealots seem to be out of the picture to me. Even chargelots get eaten alive before even getting there. I feel like stalkers are a better meat shield. More HP, and can actually ATTACK the bio ball terran usually has.
The only thing I can think of to combat these problems is to do a TOTAL SURROUND with FF, where you literally "box in" a good portion of the other army and use all your storms there, literally just killing them all with storm upon storm upon..storm..
EMP is always a concern, but its not really that hard to micro your HTs in a separate control group and avoid getting hit by it. Almost like a surprise cavalry.
|
For those Protoss players who go fast HT against Terran bioballs, how do you exactly determine for sure there isn't a banshee rush coming? Like say you send a stalker or two to poke at the walled up Terran ramp and you see a few marines/mauraders there fending you off. But that doesn't mean he's committing to MMM right? You can't go for HT and Robo observers because you'll obviously have insufficient troops to deal with a early mid game push.
Only way I can think of is to get a quick stargate phoenix to scout - but is there any better way? I prefer not to get cannons (unless you are absolutely sure theres a banshee rush coming) because they can severely hinder your ability to push and be aggressive. Some say hallucinated phoenix scout, but I find that to be way too late to start deciding on what tech path to choose.
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
For those Protoss players who go fast HT against Terran bioballs, how do you exactly determine for sure there isn't a banshee rush coming? Like say you send a stalker or two to poke at the walled up Terran ramp and you see a few marines/mauraders there fending you off. But that doesn't mean he's committing to MMM right? You can't go for HT and Robo observers because you'll obviously have insufficient troops to deal with a early mid game push.
Only way I can think of is to get a quick stargate phoenix to scout - but is there any better way? I prefer not to get cannons (unless you are absolutely sure theres a banshee rush coming) because they can severely hinder your ability to push and be aggressive. Some say hallucinated phoenix scout, but I find that to be way too late to start deciding on what tech path to choose.
Either stargate->phoenix or robo->obs. Maybe someone has a straight up TC build which works; I don't.
Because of banshee range, static defense is a poor investment.
|
it really depends on how you play and what your up against
1. say your up against a zerg with mass hydra roach, colussus would help more because of the vast contities of units but HTs would be more effective versus a hydra ling army because they are light
2. Colussus are not hard to protect if you keep your army togther and being one of the units that can walk over other units its stay safe with your stalkers
HTS give you more option but really Colussus are the easyier way to go
BONUS: you can get obs out faster with the robos
|
Straight up HT just has a crap ton of problems against terran that I don't think its viable.
Without robo tech banshee's can be a problem.
You can't really prevent bio stimkiting you without colossi.
Well placed EMP's can screw you over, especially as you might lack proper scouting without obs
HT aren't so great against mech really, with the range on storm being too short.
HT being gas heavy forces them to be paired with zealots basically which is 'ok' with fast legs i guess but can be problematic early game.
HT can work occasionally against terran if you opened starport as you will have scouting, a banshee counter and mobility then already. But otherwise colossi are way better and probably still are.
|
I prefer HT against Zerg and Terran infantry. Mostly because I like to open with heavy blink stalker.
|
On June 09 2010 09:19 Surrealz wrote:
1- Yea, colossus go up cliffs. This is completely awesome.
2- HTs DO intimidate the enemy. They will be moving around more than usual like mexican jumping beans expecting to try and dodge storms
3- HTs DO reach critical mass, but a different kind. They instead reach a point where when you have like 6+ of them, their storms are not dodgeable, and they are literally hitting the ENTIRE enemy ball with 80 dmg storms
4- HTs nor Collosi can reach siege tanks that easily. But ya I'd give a slight edge to collosi here
5- While the HT tech tree doenst give access to observers, it also allows for blink + charge which will bolster up your army. Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs. However I will agree that this is the MAIN weakness of a non-robo build
6- This is sort of pointless as we are discussing HTs, not the amount of other units you can make (not to mention obs + prism cannot attack, and collosi require another building)
7- The chargelots problem is true, but also keep in mind that chargelots dont really synergize with sentry/collosi armies as well. I can't tell you how many times I've FFd my chargelots behind the enemy line that I want to keep from reaching my Collosi. Also, with a collosus-centered build you want more stalkers to combat the inevitable anti air, so chargelots arent even used that much there anyways.
I think that HTs are really underused right now, and are going to see ALOT more use in Phase 2 of the beta. Their high cost and lack of scouting (no obs) are really limiting them right now, but I'm really hoping people find a better use for them that is more viable other than incorporating them in an already critical mass army..
1: they don't even need to go up the cliff, they have sight range as flying meaning you can have it on low ground and blink stalkers up to high ground as if you had an observer/phoenix around.
2: arguable i suppose, but i see high level players FF behind the enemy forces so they cant run from collosi and chargelots.
3:they are, unless in a horrible horrible location, and can be preemptively countered with ghost emps, where as lances can't be avoided ever and even with emp can still deal damage.
4:siege tanks have attack priority on HTs and longer range, where collosi have equal range and no priority I've seen, could be wrong.
5:"Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs." also you can always throw a council for upgrade, now ask yourself which is better to have first? i vote information to affect any other decisions from that point on.
6:Its completely relevant op asks which tree is important to go first as he realizes you can have both. here's his quote: "4. Robo tech vs Twilight council: In long enough games you usually end up with both, but the one you get first will make a large effect on the unit of choice."
7: that seems to be caused by your own mistake, you're supposed to force field behind the enemy forces so they cant retreat from your chargelots and collosi, which synergizes way better then blowing up your own units.
they ARE underused and that's because they are limited and underwhelming.
also a point i missed earlier HT needs an upgrade to be functional, collosi need and upgrade to do their job better, but they can be used w/o the upgrade at least.
|
I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training).
This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away.
Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units...
|
On June 09 2010 14:29 DEVIANT wrote:
I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training).
This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away.
Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units...
Yeah morphing Archons when your HT have energy for storms is retarded, but if you have a few HTs that are out of energy and are out of position, throw them into an Archon. A lot of times, HTs die only after 1-2 storms, and if you get off those storms then morph them. It's just about knowing when your HTs' usefulness has reached a point where its likelihood of death outweighs its likelihood of gaining more energy for storms. Used correctly, Archons are essentially free.
I feel like a main issue with HTs atm is that they aren't as easy to use. That's true, but I think HT are a much less dangerous unit.
Think about how much they do to allow the rest of your forces to rip through everything significantly faster. It's true that a High Templar vs. a Colossus would show that a Colossus will get significantly more kills than a High Templar, but I would argue that that data would be skewed, as you have to see them working separately in different situations. I have become more and more enamored with this HT + Stalker/Blink combination that allows me to severely cripple their units with 2-3 well-placed storms, after which my Stalkers Blink into strategic positions (as in, I don't click 1 control group and blink all my stalkers in one place; I form a good concave or surround), and they proceed to tear up just about everything.
I don't think anyone here would be surprised when I said that ~20 Stalkers can rip through ~20 Hydralisks at 1 HP. I might lose my High Templar, but their storms typically allow all but just a tiny few of my Stalkers (or whatever units I happen to have) to live. The key is to have an extremely mobile army so that you can engage your opponent's at an area of your choosing -- specifically, where you've placed some High Templar on an overlooking cliff. In tandem with that, I usually put 1-2 HT in my main army as backups. My HT die pretty fast, unless I can get them to an Archon before it happens, but a good storm or two ends up sparing so many other units that the investment is well worth it.
And, while I am of the mindset that the Archon is really not that bad at all, if I were to propose a change, it wouldn't be an attack/shield upgrade. It would just be the ability to morph an Archon back into 2 High Templar. Then the Archon could act as a sort of "these Templar are useless but will die, so this way they can maybe live for a bit longer" way.
|
On June 09 2010 14:29 DEVIANT wrote:
I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training).
This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away.
Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units...
Yeah it's posts like this that are just hilarious to me. You'd actually rather just throw away energy-less HTs at your enemy for free kills, than warp them into a unit that can at least take some damage, and do some damage. Right. If you think people are just making HTs and immediately morphing them into archons, then you're completely missing the point of them and doing it wrong. We get that archons aren't the best unit, but they're a lot better than a complete dead weight.
|
Yeah you never morph archons with the idea of actually wanting archons, with possibly the exception of needing some help dealing with mass mutas or something. You morph your HTs when you think they are either going to die or they run out of energy and you need some extra firepower.
I remember one game my opponent snuck a bunch of lings around the back of my army while he engaged with his hydras from the front. I simply stormed on top of the HTs he was targetting with his zerglings and morphed them into archons. You have to remember that the instant HTs morph they get the archon's shields so they can tank quite a bit. The same goes for if they try to snipe your HTs w/ mutas as I've seen zerg players try to do.
Also just to repeat nobody is recommending to go quick HTs. It's strictly a 2+ base, late game option.
|
On June 09 2010 11:54 Anon06 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 09:19 Surrealz wrote:
1- Yea, colossus go up cliffs. This is completely awesome.
2- HTs DO intimidate the enemy. They will be moving around more than usual like mexican jumping beans expecting to try and dodge storms
3- HTs DO reach critical mass, but a different kind. They instead reach a point where when you have like 6+ of them, their storms are not dodgeable, and they are literally hitting the ENTIRE enemy ball with 80 dmg storms
4- HTs nor Collosi can reach siege tanks that easily. But ya I'd give a slight edge to collosi here
5- While the HT tech tree doenst give access to observers, it also allows for blink + charge which will bolster up your army. Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs. However I will agree that this is the MAIN weakness of a non-robo build
6- This is sort of pointless as we are discussing HTs, not the amount of other units you can make (not to mention obs + prism cannot attack, and collosi require another building)
7- The chargelots problem is true, but also keep in mind that chargelots dont really synergize with sentry/collosi armies as well. I can't tell you how many times I've FFd my chargelots behind the enemy line that I want to keep from reaching my Collosi. Also, with a collosus-centered build you want more stalkers to combat the inevitable anti air, so chargelots arent even used that much there anyways.
I think that HTs are really underused right now, and are going to see ALOT more use in Phase 2 of the beta. Their high cost and lack of scouting (no obs) are really limiting them right now, but I'm really hoping people find a better use for them that is more viable other than incorporating them in an already critical mass army..
1: they don't even need to go up the cliff, they have sight range as flying meaning you can have it on low ground and blink stalkers up to high ground as if you had an observer/phoenix around. 2: arguable i suppose, but i see high level players FF behind the enemy forces so they cant run from collosi and chargelots. 3:they are, unless in a horrible horrible location, and can be preemptively countered with ghost emps, where as lances can't be avoided ever and even with emp can still deal damage. 4:siege tanks have attack priority on HTs and longer range, where collosi have equal range and no priority I've seen, could be wrong. 5:"Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs." also you can always throw a council for upgrade, now ask yourself which is better to have first? i vote information to affect any other decisions from that point on. 6:Its completely relevant op asks which tree is important to go first as he realizes you can have both. here's his quote: "4. Robo tech vs Twilight council: In long enough games you usually end up with both, but the one you get first will make a large effect on the unit of choice." 7: that seems to be caused by your own mistake, you're supposed to force field behind the enemy forces so they cant retreat from your chargelots and collosi, which synergizes way better then blowing up your own units. they ARE underused and that's because they are limited and underwhelming. also a point i missed earlier HT needs an upgrade to be functional, collosi need and upgrade to do their job better, but they can be used w/o the upgrade at least.
1. Very useful I agree. The rub here is they can be hard countered like air units though.
2. Not a great arguement TBH. You can't expect in every army engagement you ever get into you'll have enough sentries w/ enough energy, and in a small enough corridor where you can FF their retreat. Just b/c you saw a pro player do it a here or there doesn't mean much.
3. There are ways to micro around to an extent, but I agree because it becomes too risky to use HTs when ghosts are involved. My HT usage has gone down dramatically as more terran players have started using ghosts.
4. Same as #3, as more players have moved from MMM balls into mech and ghosts, less HT usage in this matchup for me. Agree completely.
5 & 6. Again it's pretty much consensus at this point you don't go quick HTs. Speaking in terms of late game options the early/mid-game tech choices become irrelevant.
7. Zealots synergize great with HTs, not sure what you're talking about here. I tend to go more stalker/sentry with colossi. Remember that zealots have the most cost effective DPS in the game. It may not seem like it at times since they can't focus fire and die fast from being in the front lines but if they are allowed free rein to dps they rip things up. That's why they synergize so well w/ HTs as w/ psi storms you don't need to focus fire and w/ the opposing army continually trying to move out of storms they aren't dps'ing your zealots who chase them down and rip them up.
Colossi OTOH synergize better with stalker/sentry heavy armies since you want to abuse the colossi's range with FFs so you need stalker/sentries for that.
|
On June 10 2010 01:11 Skyro wrote:
1. Very useful I agree. The rub here is they can be hard countered like air units though.
2. Not a great arguement TBH. You can't expect in every army engagement you ever get into you'll have enough sentries w/ enough energy, and in a small enough corridor where you can FF their retreat. Just b/c you saw a pro player do it a here or there doesn't mean much.
3. There are ways to micro around to an extent, but I agree because it becomes too risky to use HTs when ghosts are involved. My HT usage has gone down dramatically as more terran players have started using ghosts.
4. Same as #3, as more players have moved from MMM balls into mech and ghosts, less HT usage in this matchup for me. Agree completely.
5 & 6. Again it's pretty much consensus at this point you don't go quick HTs. Speaking in terms of late game options the early/mid-game tech choices become irrelevant.
7. Zealots synergize great with HTs, not sure what you're talking about here. I tend to go more stalker/sentry with colossi. Remember that zealots have the most cost effective DPS in the game. It may not seem like it at times since they can't focus fire and die fast from being in the front lines but if they are allowed free rein to dps they rip things up. That's why they synergize so well w/ HTs as w/ psi storms you don't need to focus fire and w/ the opposing army continually trying to move out of storms they aren't dps'ing your zealots who chase them down and rip them up.
Colossi OTOH synergize better with stalker/sentry heavy armies since you want to abuse the colossi's range with FFs so you need stalker/sentries for that.
sigh... you should read the original before responding to a response...
2. Uh sentries can cast more than 1 force field, so all it takes is 2 early sentries to cast 4 force fields which is large enough to shut wide ramps and other choke points.
7. Storm hurts your zealots which charge into it.
|
going hts i feel allows me to be way more aggresive, and there's viritually no threat of being hard countered. by going all warp gate units, you can replish your army instantly and keep up the pressure later on. it suits my playing style better.
macro hard (off 2 base)-> gain map control (either by attacking or having more shit and getting map control)->macro hard->pound down on opponent non stop
|
On June 10 2010 02:36 Anon06 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 01:11 Skyro wrote:
1. Very useful I agree. The rub here is they can be hard countered like air units though.
2. Not a great arguement TBH. You can't expect in every army engagement you ever get into you'll have enough sentries w/ enough energy, and in a small enough corridor where you can FF their retreat. Just b/c you saw a pro player do it a here or there doesn't mean much.
3. There are ways to micro around to an extent, but I agree because it becomes too risky to use HTs when ghosts are involved. My HT usage has gone down dramatically as more terran players have started using ghosts.
4. Same as #3, as more players have moved from MMM balls into mech and ghosts, less HT usage in this matchup for me. Agree completely.
5 & 6. Again it's pretty much consensus at this point you don't go quick HTs. Speaking in terms of late game options the early/mid-game tech choices become irrelevant.
7. Zealots synergize great with HTs, not sure what you're talking about here. I tend to go more stalker/sentry with colossi. Remember that zealots have the most cost effective DPS in the game. It may not seem like it at times since they can't focus fire and die fast from being in the front lines but if they are allowed free rein to dps they rip things up. That's why they synergize so well w/ HTs as w/ psi storms you don't need to focus fire and w/ the opposing army continually trying to move out of storms they aren't dps'ing your zealots who chase them down and rip them up.
Colossi OTOH synergize better with stalker/sentry heavy armies since you want to abuse the colossi's range with FFs so you need stalker/sentries for that. sigh... you should read the original before responding to a response... 2. Uh sentries can cast more than 1 force field, so all it takes is 2 early sentries to cast 4 force fields which is large enough to shut wide ramps and other choke points. 7. Storm hurts your zealots which charge into it.
2. Not sure you even read my response. So you're saying your sentries always have enough energy, you never use guardian shield, and all your battles happen where you're defending your ramp?
Positioning and unit composition is a huge factor if you are even able to do this or not. Like I said if you're making the case for colossi, you want probably want to use FF to split their army and abuse the range of colossi, so if you say FF synergizes with colossi more I agree with that, but that's not what it seems like you're saying. It seems like you're saying you having 2 sentries means your opponent's army can never retreat vs you, which I'm pointing out is silly.
For late game army comps where you choose b/w colossi and HT vs zerg (which is the only matchup I really use HT), it's going to be colossi/stalker/sentry or HT/zealot/sentry (w/ less stalkers), generally. I choose HT b/c they are less hard countered and not as dependent on where you fight as you don't have to worry if the place you're fighting is a nice place to throw down FFs.
7. This makes me wonder if you ever used HTs at all, or you just used them very poorly. This is such a non-factor. Zealots are cheap and expendable, and the damage they receive from well placed storms is minimal at best.
|
On June 09 2010 07:51 Anon06 wrote:
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.
1) HTs are slow. It's annoying I agree. Micro can solve most of those issues. If you can't micro, I agree use colossi they are not as micro intensive. That's the bottom line. And in terms of mobility, the fact you can warp in HTs to defend expos means in some aspects they are more mobile.
2) Psi storm isn't really "negatable." It eats hydras up for breakfast, it doesn't matter how much they try to walk out it, on creep or not if you have enough HTs. I'm guessing you probably just don't have enough HTs. You can't go into battles w/ 2 HTs and think you're set. Same with colossi, you don't go fighting mass hydras with 1 colossus. Like I said above, HTs do reach a critical mass but in a different way than colossi do. When you get enough HTs, dodging storms is pointless, a new one will be casted on top of you until all your units are dead.
3) What does intimidation have to do with the effectiveness of HTs? Besides I'm pretty sure it gets pretty initimidating when players see the storms flying all over the place. They sure seem to run around like chickens when they see it anyway.
4) The amount of units each tree opens up is not that much big of a deal. Both are late game options which by the time you get enough to reach critical mass you should have all tech options available to you.
|
Yeah, it seems like a lot (not all) of the anti-HT arguments revolve around one HT vs. one Colossus. Obviously that's an exaggeration, but the point is that HT function as support for your army, whereas your army functions as support for your Colossi, making them better/worse than one another depending greatly on the situation.
Another thing to point out is that, since HT are so incredibly cheap on minerals and can be warped in anywhere, they are an absolutely perfect unit to get when you're getting ready to expand. 3/4 HT + a small force of gateway units can typically hold an expansion, or at the very least dissuade the attack long enough to bring in reinforcements. Then, after your expo is running, you have some extra storms with which to electrorape your opponent (as opposed to canons, which, of course, are stuck where you put 'em).
Just another point for HT in my book.
|
On June 10 2010 03:21 Skyro wrote:
1) HTs are slow. It's annoying I agree. Micro can solve most of those issues. If you can't micro, I agree use colossi they are not as micro intensive. That's the bottom line. And in terms of mobility, the fact you can warp in HTs to defend expos means in some aspects they are more mobile.
2) Psi storm isn't really "negatable." It eats hydras up for breakfast, it doesn't matter how much they try to walk out it, on creep or not if you have enough HTs. I'm guessing you probably just don't have enough HTs. You can't go into battles w/ 2 HTs and think you're set. Same with colossi, you don't go fighting mass hydras with 1 colossus. Like I said above, HTs do reach a critical mass but in a different way than colossi do. When you get enough HTs, dodging storms is pointless, a new one will be casted on top of you until all your units are dead.
3) What does intimidation have to do with the effectiveness of HTs? Besides I'm pretty sure it gets pretty initimidating when players see the storms flying all over the place. They sure seem to run around like chickens when they see it anyway.
4) The amount of units each tree opens up is not that much big of a deal. Both are late game options which by the time you get enough to reach critical mass you should have all tech options available to you.
1: Fail, you can't micro something that slow. do you mean good positioning? because thats something else. warp-ins can be focus fired, also they require an upgrade to be useful immediately upon warp in.
2: as thelittleone says hydras are not a good unit off creep unit. good zerg will be on creep, good zerg will move their hydras. wrong you can fight mass hydras with one collosi + micro which further adds why collosi are better then HT.
3:w/e arguable, but collosi can force your opponent to change tech upon seeing them.
4:it's completely relevant to what the OP asks.
and no where in my posts or ops post does this mention late game. we are not talking about late game. just because i said they CAN reach critical mass doesn't mean that iIm talking solely about critical mass.
did i mention banelings > HTs aslo?
|
On June 10 2010 08:53 Anon06 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 03:21 Skyro wrote:
1) HTs are slow. It's annoying I agree. Micro can solve most of those issues. If you can't micro, I agree use colossi they are not as micro intensive. That's the bottom line. And in terms of mobility, the fact you can warp in HTs to defend expos means in some aspects they are more mobile.
2) Psi storm isn't really "negatable." It eats hydras up for breakfast, it doesn't matter how much they try to walk out it, on creep or not if you have enough HTs. I'm guessing you probably just don't have enough HTs. You can't go into battles w/ 2 HTs and think you're set. Same with colossi, you don't go fighting mass hydras with 1 colossus. Like I said above, HTs do reach a critical mass but in a different way than colossi do. When you get enough HTs, dodging storms is pointless, a new one will be casted on top of you until all your units are dead.
3) What does intimidation have to do with the effectiveness of HTs? Besides I'm pretty sure it gets pretty initimidating when players see the storms flying all over the place. They sure seem to run around like chickens when they see it anyway.
4) The amount of units each tree opens up is not that much big of a deal. Both are late game options which by the time you get enough to reach critical mass you should have all tech options available to you. 1: Fail, you can't micro something that slow. do you mean good positioning? because thats something else. warp-ins can be focus fired, also they require an upgrade to be useful immediately upon warp in. 2: as thelittleone says hydras are not a good unit off creep unit. good zerg will be on creep, good zerg will move their hydras. wrong you can fight mass hydras with one collosi + micro which further adds why collosi are better then HT. 3:w/e arguable, but collosi can force your opponent to change tech upon seeing them. 4:it's completely relevant to what the OP asks. and no where in my posts or ops post does this mention late game. we are not talking about late game. just because i said they CAN reach critical mass doesn't mean that iIm talking solely about critical mass. did i mention banelings > HTs aslo?
1) Sure you can, like actually waiting so your HTs catch up to your army or get into a good position before engaging. If you can't handle that kind of unit management then don't use HTs I suppose. And yes they do require an upgrade to use psi storm on warp in, and everybody who uses HTs effectively gets it. And it's awesome and a huge advantage over colossi no matter how you slice it.
2) Yes zerg never fights off creep, that's why I never lose to zerg b/c I don't have creep in my base... your arguements are all based on generalizations. My point is that just because you fight on creep doesn't make psi storm useless vs hydras and that is completely true.
Yes you can fight mass hydras w/ 1 colossi. You can also fight them w/ 1 HT, and the HT will probably do more damage. But who cares b/c you're going to lose either way. You need a number of colossi or HT to hold up vs mass hydras as they eat up gateway units.
And white-ra uses HTs vs terrans and owns them in tourneys even when they use ghosts. I acknowledge it's viable vs terran bio but my micro is lacking.
3) That just means colossi are more counterable? Isn't that a bad thing? Vs Zerg you can't counter HTs, they just have to put up with it.
4) As I've said it's pretty much consensus opinion not to quick rush HTs, still build a robo eventually, etc. etc. The discussion has progressed further than the OP. Both colossi and HTs are both late gate options, and generally aren't really needed until late game anyway.
|
Somehow 80 damage doesn't cut it for me. I stopped going storm heavy once un-microed hydras stopped dying to a storm... I miss my BW storm damage lol, screw smart casting I have the apm to storm effectively without it lol...
Also, i have a terrible tendency to storm my own chargelots... especially when facing MMM.
PS: +2 collossi kill zerglings in 1 shot and +3 collossi kill zerglings in one shot regardless of how many carapace upgrades they have. +3 collossi also 2 shot hydas.
PSS: It takes longer to get HT because you have to research storm and wait for energy. Collossi aren't that good without range, but at least they're usable...
|
On June 10 2010 00:38 shimpoe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 14:29 DEVIANT wrote:
I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training).
This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away.
Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units... Yeah it's posts like this that are just hilarious to me. You'd actually rather just throw away energy-less HTs at your enemy for free kills, than warp them into a unit that can at least take some damage, and do some damage. Right. If you think people are just making HTs and immediately morphing them into archons, then you're completely missing the point of them and doing it wrong. We get that archons aren't the best unit, but they're a lot better than a complete dead weight.
hahaha, just saw this reply to my post. My comments were about the same time they reduced the archon's meld time. Before that, it was like a minute of your two HT's sitting there doing nothing, completely vulnerable. You're saying I missed the point, but you missed mine three times in a row...
You should NEVER throw potentially useful units at the enemy- that statement shows you have no idea how to micro your units. Units low on shields, health, or energy should be pulled back out of range to replenish or fire from a safe distance (look up Idra vs Drunk Bobby on Youtube, the infamous stalker blink micro where Drunk Bobby pre-empts Idra's BM departure without gg ).
Secondly, if you are going to meld those units into an archon, why not pull them back to safety first. In the time they are retreating, they are gathering energy. When they are out of danger, melding them into a useless archon takes 12 seconds plus retreat time, vs recharging the energy of your two Templars over about a minute or less, which will provide two units with actual value.
Thirdly, nobody who's been in the beta and hangs out on TL should be at the level of making Templars then insta-morphing to Arcons... that you would think so suggests that you think there are very bad players hanging around here- the home of SC2's English speaking champions.
I'm sure there are one or two, but calling someone out like you did, on this forum, is a very noob thing to do. It's like walking into a biker bar and shouting at a random stranger that they don't know sh*t about harleys or rock music.
|
if i'm running on 1 or 2 base, definitely colossi, if i'm running on 3 base or more, then mix HT with colossi. but otherwise always colossi before HT. reason being is colossi isnt as squishy as high templars. high templars also walk slow which means youre also losing mobility at the same time.
and if you leave your HT's lagging behind, we'll good luck seeing them get picked off by mutas since there's now a huge major animation delay in storm.
|
colossi in big numbers rape everything, no matter how much anti air they have, you will destroy his ground forces before your colossi die.
|
I find that colossi are more reliable because their usage isn't as reliant on your opponent's micro-skills. They are more easily countered through anti-air and they require a critical mass to really reach maximum effectiveness.
I have been trying to utilize templar tech (HT and DT) more often and I find that although it's harder to pull off due to tech paths and the importance of micro, it's more satisfying in terms of the impact it has on the game. In addition, HTs without storm/energy (or DTs when your opponents have detection) aren't completely useless. Warp in archons! They are underappreciated. Archons still do really nice damage, are excellent tanks due to high total HP (shields no longer take full damage), and are good for absorbing splash because they're so fat.
|
Yeah, it seems like a lot (not all) of the anti-HT arguments revolve around one HT vs. one Colossus. Obviously that's an exaggeration, but the point is that HT function as support for your army, whereas your army functions as support for your Colossi, making them better/worse than one another depending greatly on the situation.
Post of the thread IMO. Really like your comment regarding your army supporting Colossi vs HT supporting your army.
|
I always throw down with HT now adays. I never even use Colossi, not even in PvP.
In PvZ and PvT HT are exceptionally effective if you can get them out. However, you CANNOT rush to them. You need to take it slow, get some scout in to make sure they're going for mass units and get lots of gateway units supported by blink/charge.
Robo only has the observer advantage, IMO. You can always grab hallucinate though to get that scout. If he's going burrow or cloak, though, you have to do robo 
The reason is that Collossi just get raped by a decent player. Vikings can snipe them out at ridiculous ranges and corruptors have decent range and LOTS of bonus damage (both with corruption AND massive damage).
You simply cannot get a robo bay, collossi and thermal lance out fast enough without tipping your hand that your opponent needs air. Sure, if you can catch him with his pants down collossi are better, but that shouldn't really be something you rely on. Conversly, if he knows you are going templar.... what can he even do to stop that? Blinking stalkers really combo well here.
In PvP my games just devolve into mass stalker/immo. Every time I've seen a collossus either my opponent invested too much into it and got raped too hard anyways, or they've cut their regular army back enough (especially immo production) that I could just blink in and snipe them while my superior numbers of immos raped his army. In the rare situations I saw zealots I just warped in a handful of my own to tank his long enough/run interferance for my immos with good micro to keep his zealots from engaging my ranged units.
|
On July 07 2010 10:58 FreeZEternal wrote:
colossi in big numbers rape everything, no matter how much anti air they have, you will destroy his ground forces before your colossi die.
Anti-air can be things that fly in air. You know, stuff that colossi can't touch.
On topic, HTs just seems to flow better with a strong number of gateways. Templar Archives not only unlocks upgrades but allows for the research of charge and blink which with micro is a pain in the ass to deal with. HTs also cost a lot of gas and little mins, this meshes well with zealots and to some extent stalkers. I fear HTs as a terran because they can feedback my medivacs and ravens. THis is not to say Colossi aren't good.
For example, ghost's EMP won't make them completely useless. Then again, anti air will kill then.
Both are very dependent on your opponent and are situational.
|
Once the midgame colossus attack gets completely figured out and ultralisk tech becomes standard, high templar will become the proper tech choice. To deal with ultralisks you really need archons to tank because everything else is pretty bad at it. Stalkers get killed at a ridiculous rate by a few ultralisks and zealots will die to your range damage units (roach or hydra) while getting splashed.
Once ultralisks are utilized effectively in the late game, protoss will start forcing midgame attacks on zerg. They will be big for a while then die out because all zergs will learn how to easily deal with them. Protoss will probably whine at this point that they can't win in the midgame and ultras dominate late. Soon they will realize you can use HT immortal much more effectively. At this point it should be pretty interesting having to balance roach hydra ultra armies versus ht immortal stalker sentry zeal. It's actually kind of funny how I'm slowly reverting back to my HT immortal play that I used in the beginning of beta.
edit: I guess I just talked about PvZ.
For PvT I never use colossus and have not since way early in the beta. Vikings are just too affective against them and feedback is huge.
PvP I've never used templar tech. Trying to storm a colossus to death is retarded and stalkers have a pretty easy time dodging. Maybe I'll experiment with it sometime
On July 07 2010 10:58 FreeZEternal wrote:
colossi in big numbers rape everything, no matter how much anti air they have, you will destroy his ground forces before your colossi die.
So I feel this basically is the mindset behind current protoss play. Once you get a mass of colossus you just don't die in PvZ so why even go down HT tech? Until ultralisks are utilized properly this is not going to change because no other ground army is cost effective.
|
The only similarity HT and collosus have is the splash damage, to some that may appear as an overlaping niche, but I hightly disagree with that.
I took the freedom of using some mspaint skillz to illustrate my point about those two units:
![[image loading]](http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7121/htandcolosus.png)
What's evident is the shape of the splash area by both units. HT have a wide circle while collosus are more like a line. If the storm's circle is full of units and the storm hits from start to finish, the damage output is highter than the collosus.
From this simple observation, let's see it in 2 diferent situations, when it's a clash of small or big armys.
So from my pictural representation of the situation, we can see that in small army sizes, the storm doesn't hit to it's full potencial, since the units are relatively spread out and well arcqed thanks to the AI. Meanwhile this AI effect plays right into collosus hands who maximize their damage output. As a final interpretation, it is arguably "easy" for the opponent units to get out of the storms and engage again when the effect vanished.
When the game goes on and the armys get larger, it is no longer possible to arc perfectly with every units, cause their simply is so much, not talking about forcefields too. In this case, storm's power duplicates: the amount of units it hits increase and it is alot more dificult for the opponent to get his stuff out of it. Of course, a large quantity of collosus are still very powerfull but in pure DPS storm is better.
SO do I say early game -> collosus; late game -> storms? of course not.
I advocate going with a good number of colosuses (colusii?) and incorporate relatively few HT. Colosus, as said before have really hard counters while HT don't really (ok, exept EMP, but that shit counters everything) and HT works well against colosus counters. What's great about colosus is with a good number they abuse punctual superiority where they can just melt anything that comes close to it before the counterpart can even fire. that requires of course a very large amount of collosus. And storming HT make this critical number be lower by softening enemy units, and they help the colosus to live longer by giving a hard time to colosus's counters.
So yeah, I feel it's more a transition business than a pick one task. when I see a toss attack the other and storm the opponent, storming like 20 of his own zealots on the progress I think "mm this guy wanted to use splah to achive punctual superiority, he should have chosen collosus", and when you see a toss doing hit and run shooting some cooking beams and imediatly retreating, trying to soft down the opponent's army, well yes, storms would have worked alot better.
I lost my train of thought somewhere in my last statement but I think I'm done more or less. To conclude, the question is not HT vs Colossi, but how to articulate them and transition
|
To me, the biggest distiction between the two is which scouting method do I want to us? If I want observers ill go robo and often go collosus after that. If I go templar I need to either use hallucinated phoenix or real phoenix out of a stargate. My PvZ build is stargate into templar, my terran is collosus, my protoss is stargate or blink stalkers.
I think the biggest difference is that collosus do better in large numbers while high templar and zealots do better in small numbers. Your lone collosus wandering off into the wilderness will die without doing much damage but your lone high templar will often pay for itself in 2 well placed storms. You can also reinforce expansions easily with the # of warpgates you have going templar, but you dont have the brute force of collosus. I don't know which is better. Mostly a stylistic choice.
|
The answer's not easy to see
And really, this thread will just be
A sloppy big mess.
But you must confess
You just want to name it "HD."
|
I go colossi because it was just easier. Phase 1 I wanted to learn the game and understand my first RTS. Phase 2, I'm planning on focusing on Templar tech and hoping to Storm a bunch. Both are really good, but they are really different in play styles.
|
One thing I do hate about storm that makes me favor colossi is roaches in PvZ. Those buggers have so much hp and tank storms so well that going storm against a mass roach or roach/hydra army is usually not very effective at all. That's pretty much the only scenario I can imagine where Colossi are definitively better than HT. However, after the roach supply nerf, storms are much better against roaches simply because there are less roaches to storm. Even so, in PvZ I am still quite wary in using HT.
|
On July 07 2010 12:56 SagaZ wrote:
This right here. Colossus are better in the early-mid game, but once armies get past a point, or in small chokes, HTs will dominate.
|
Just my take on the situation. I have no idea which tech choice is superior, or even if one is, but as much as I love HTs, I find myself leaning towards Colossi first.
1) At my level, upper-middle diamond, well executed cheese/all ins prevail. I got DT or banshee rushed disproportionately often and if you don't have a robo in time for those, you die. Also, mass marauders and blink stalkers are fairly common, and the robo allows immortals to fend these off. Obviously, obs are far less important in PvZ, so it's worthwhile to be more variable in that matchup.
2) Colossi are stronger in smaller numbers. If you get one Colossus, your opponent has to stay wary of it if making an attack. If you have 2 or 3 HTs with a storm each, if your opponent can cleverly micro and cause you to waste those storms, they can easily use the situation to overwhelm you. This becomes less important as you get more HTs and can essentially always have some storms in reserve.
3) I like going Colossi -> HT because, if you have a number of Colossi with a typical gateway army, once you get the tech to get HTs, you can spam out a half dozen of them instantaneously. On the other hand, going HT first requires you to build 3 or 4 robos to get an initial force of Colossi. In this way, HTs make a better sudden, later addition.
|
At the end of the beta my PvT looked like the following:
I do a standard opening and get a stalker out vs reaper harass. after my second gate, I build a twilight council and research charge. I think charged zealots are the best way to deal with any marauder aggression. My army now consists of about two stalkers, a sentry and the rest zealots. after twilight council, I add a robotics for observer, then third gate. If I see a push coming, I chronoboost out an immortal, if the terran is playing passive, I go for templar archives and try to get my expo up.
HTs are essential in PvT. I use the observer to spot the terrans army so that I can feedback ghosts. And feedback medivacs, banshees and thors as soon as they have enough energy of course. How fast I tech to storm is dependant of what the terran has.
After I have my expo up, I build a stargate and add void rays and immortals. the void rays are just really good in finishing medivacs and banshees. and of course it punishes a terran who builds too many marauders.
I haven't lost with this strategy (last week of phase 1), but I don't know how good it really is. maybe it's vulnerable to fast banshee tech.
|
vs a meching terran I prefer Collosi because of the range while HT massacres M&M balls (just beware of the ghosts)
the zerg is very fast and mobile with the new patching and the HT shines when you defend chokes, but overall I think collosi is better (the problem is that when you get collosi you damn sure need to try and win fast because when the zerg finaly completes his broodlords your in trouble.
|
back then High Templars weren't common cause of the lowered radius and visual shown damage compared to StarCraft 1, however I've seen HTs used a lot more in RECENT games over colossus.
Personally I use colossus, as do more non progamers, but I admit both is a viable option.
|
I like storms more but that's more just because I'm used to use them in bw. Also my life long dream in sc2 is to make archons viable so that's a plus too.
But seriously I think that colossus is too used, everyone knows how to counter it perfectly and storm is still a little newer to most of players. My one wish would be that dts and hts both could be made from templar archives.
|
High templar + archons first then colossus vs terran imo.
Archons shield is great vs emp and can soak up a lot of splash dmg from tanks , also they do ridiculus dmg vs biotic units + storm .
immortals + collosus first vs zerg imo .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img707.imageshack.us/i/htandcolosus.png/)
