|
On October 19 2010 04:18 Xanatoss wrote:
I really dont like to discuss what should be changed, because players have no (concrete) influcence on these things anyways.
But from the current state I really dislike Stalkers. Low(est) dps, fragile (due to armored), expensive, scales horrible with Upgrades (as you mentioned).
Their Main Strength is their Mobility but due to the fact that I dont have the APM to micro them properly while doing other stuff and be not a fan of Blink-Play I take it as da_head and build as much as necessary and as little as posssible.
I pretty much completely agree with this.
Stalkers are incredibly fragile, and sometimes you have to engage the enemy head on (Like hes marching up your ramp with Roaches), and they are just weak. They are OK against air, and some units, but are simply crushed by the other races heavy hitting tier1.5 unit: The Marauder, and the Roach. I dunno what you could do to change them, but they feel weak. I -have- to use them because if Roaches or Marauders come out before my robotics facility is done I need something to deal with the Roaches. Even on my ramp the damage that a Stalker does compared to a marauder is embarrassing. I find myself less and less researching blink and moving away from any kind of Stalker support, especially in ZvZ because Stalkers are just terrible against Hydralisks, and aren't that good against Mutalisks.
Although in the tooltip it says "Ranged support strider", it doesn't really preform the "support" role, its a lackluster harass unit, that doesn't get its real harass ability until too late in the game to be really effective.
Edit:
Dragoons were better then Stalkers in almost every way. 20 more hull health, 20 damage vs. air and ground with +2 on upgrade, a range upgrade (Although the range was fairly poor to start) and also the same price. I'm just convinced that they would be better to have in SC2. Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable.
|
On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Stalkers are incredibly fragile, and sometimes you have to engage the enemy head on (Like hes marching up your ramp with Roaches), and they are just weak. They are OK against AA,
Exactly, they are just OK. Considering they are protoss's main anti air unit they are a joke.
|
Just because Blizzard thought it was too strong at one point doesn't mean it remains the case now. It still remains an undeniable fact that stalker dps/cost ratio is the lowest in the game. This was supposed to be offset by their versatility (air and ground attack) and speed (fastest "T1" unit).
However, being able to attack both cost them the ability to do either particularly well (see marine for the opposite). As for movement speed, every other non Protoss "T1" unit is faster after an upgrade (Stim, Zergling speed, Roach speed) as well as all the harassment units (Mutalisk, Banshee, Hellion, Phoenix). Taking into account creep for Zerg and Concussive Shells for Terran, and Stalkers fall farther behind.
Then there is Blink. Blink's effect is hard to quantify, however it does nothing to Stalker dps. It's major contribution is for harassment and some longevity in battle. It doesn't seem unreasonable to let Stalkers scale a bit better with upgrades seeing as they gain the least from them of all units in the game (besides already starting at the lowest dps/cost).
|
On October 19 2010 04:09 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 03:51 BlasiuS wrote:
Stalkers already had +1(+1) in the early beta, it was deemed too powerful and was nerfed in beta patch 6.
They're probably not going to revert that change. MalVortex nailed this. Patch 6 was a stalker buff. And more to the point, can anyone name a unit that +1(+1) would be too powerful against? Late-game stalkers seem underpowered vs roaches, marauders, ultras, upgraded broodlords, upgraded battlecruisers, upgraded tanks, thors, collosi....pretty much every armored unit in the game. Maybe a case could be made for vikings or carriers. Maybe. On the whole tho, late game stalkers suck because their upgrades scale terribly.
With the exception of roaches, stalkers are not good vs. any of those units you named at any point of the game, nor were they meant to be. Stalkers have mobility and versatility that no other unit in the game has. You can't expect them to do equivalent DPS while having the ability to shoot air units, incredible base movement speed, and blink. Ironically, it is their versatility that misleads players into thinking they can mass a single unit to win the game, but they are easily steamrolled by any unit that is good vs. armored. Stalkers have a supporting role in SC2 and BW players have to accept the fact that they don't pack the same punch as a dragoon. Immortals exist for a reason, and that is to counter armored ground units that stalkers are so weak against. I will concede that protoss AA vs. armored unit sucks (mainly vs bc) because 1) VR nerf 2) 5x2 damage on phoenix instead of 10x1 (though this makes sense) and 3) carriers just suck. However, BCs are slow, expensive, susceptible to feedback, and very strongly countered by guardian shield, so its not like protoss don't have an answer for it.
|
On October 19 2010 03:46 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 03:38 Roaming wrote:
I'd agree. But i try to remind myself in game stalkers have the lowest dps in the game for a reason. And that reason is blink. That's true, but changing their upgrades from +1(+0) to +1(+1) wouldn't change the fact that stalkers have low dps. They'd just be slightly less awful vs ultras, battlecruisers, and 3/3 masses of marauders or roaches.
Well to be honest, I don't think the extra +1 to armor'd changes enough to warrent a change. It's going to change maraders from 9 hits to kill to 8 hits? I'm almost with you if its +1/+1. It's certainly not a threat though. I think it only nets you 1 shot faster kill on maraders or roaches, and without zealots both those units hard counter stalkers.
Dragoons were better then Stalkers in almost every way. 20 more hull health, 20 damage vs. air and ground with +2 on upgrade, a range upgrade (Although the range was fairly poor to start) and also the same price. I'm just convinced that they would be better to have in SC2. Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable.
Yes, but they couldn't teleport.
|
On October 19 2010 04:43 Mystgun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 04:09 kcdc wrote:On October 19 2010 03:51 BlasiuS wrote:
Stalkers already had +1(+1) in the early beta, it was deemed too powerful and was nerfed in beta patch 6.
They're probably not going to revert that change. MalVortex nailed this. Patch 6 was a stalker buff. And more to the point, can anyone name a unit that +1(+1) would be too powerful against? Late-game stalkers seem underpowered vs roaches, marauders, ultras, upgraded broodlords, upgraded battlecruisers, upgraded tanks, thors, collosi....pretty much every armored unit in the game. Maybe a case could be made for vikings or carriers. Maybe. On the whole tho, late game stalkers suck because their upgrades scale terribly. With the exception of roaches, stalkers are not good vs. any of those units you named at any point of the game, nor were they meant to be. Stalkers have mobility and versatility that no other unit in the game has. You can't expect them to do equivalent DPS while having the ability to shoot air units, incredible base movement speed, and blink. Ironically, it is their versatility that misleads players into thinking they can mass a single unit to win the game, but they are easily steamrolled by any unit that is good vs. armored. Stalkers have a supporting role in SC2 and BW players have to accept the fact that they don't pack the same punch as a dragoon. Immortals exist for a reason, and that is to counter armored ground units that stalkers are so weak against. I will concede that protoss AA vs. armored unit sucks (mainly vs bc) because 1) VR nerf 2) 5x2 damage on phoenix instead of 10x1 (though this makes sense) and 3) carriers just suck. However, BCs are slow, expensive, susceptible to feedback, and very strongly countered by guardian shield, so its not like protoss don't have an answer for it.
Stalkers are absolutely meant to be used against all of those units. Stalkers are the primary damage dealers of the Protoss force against big armored units. Zealots soak up the damage, collosi and storm take out the smaller light units, and stalkers (with immortals) focus fire down the big targets. Unless you understand that your opponent lacks the will to make air units and that you're therefore safe to go triple-robo immortal, you're going to be using stalkers for a healthy component of your damage vs armored units.
|
On October 19 2010 04:51 Roaming wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 03:46 kcdc wrote:On October 19 2010 03:38 Roaming wrote:
I'd agree. But i try to remind myself in game stalkers have the lowest dps in the game for a reason. And that reason is blink. That's true, but changing their upgrades from +1(+0) to +1(+1) wouldn't change the fact that stalkers have low dps. They'd just be slightly less awful vs ultras, battlecruisers, and 3/3 masses of marauders or roaches. Well to be honest, I don't think the extra +1 to armor'd changes enough to warrent a change. It's going to change maraders from 9 hits to kill to 8 hits? I'm almost with you if its +1/+1. It's certainly not a threat though. I think it only nets you 1 shot faster kill on maraders or roaches, and without zealots both those units hard counter stalkers. Show nested quote +Dragoons were better then Stalkers in almost every way. 20 more hull health, 20 damage vs. air and ground with +2 on upgrade, a range upgrade (Although the range was fairly poor to start) and also the same price. I'm just convinced that they would be better to have in SC2. Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable. Yes, but they couldn't teleport.
Stalkers can't teleport without a fairly pricey tech structure (Which fair enough unlocks templar tech and tier2 upgrades) and requires a 150/150 you may not even use to its fullest potential. Blink as been nerfed a lot on a lot of maps. Like on LT you can't blink across from mains because it was deemed "too powerful" but a terran can just send a fully loaded medivac with marauders and its ok?
Stalkers are like, (well one of the) bastard childs of SC2. They wanted to make something cool and fun, but they weakened one of the biggest core units of BW, into something cutesy and generally, less effective.
|
Glad to see this issue brought up. You need stalkers throughout the game in your army for AA support, but I've always felt they become a bit of a liability as the game goes on.
|
On October 19 2010 04:51 Roaming wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 03:46 kcdc wrote:On October 19 2010 03:38 Roaming wrote:
I'd agree. But i try to remind myself in game stalkers have the lowest dps in the game for a reason. And that reason is blink. That's true, but changing their upgrades from +1(+0) to +1(+1) wouldn't change the fact that stalkers have low dps. They'd just be slightly less awful vs ultras, battlecruisers, and 3/3 masses of marauders or roaches. Well to be honest, I don't think the extra +1 to armor'd changes enough to warrent a change. It's going to change maraders from 9 hits to kill to 8 hits? I'm almost with you if its +1/+1. It's certainly not a threat though. I think it only nets you 1 shot faster kill on maraders or roaches, and without zealots both those units hard counter stalkers. Show nested quote +Dragoons were better then Stalkers in almost every way. 20 more hull health, 20 damage vs. air and ground with +2 on upgrade, a range upgrade (Although the range was fairly poor to start) and also the same price. I'm just convinced that they would be better to have in SC2. Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable. Yes, but they couldn't teleport.
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.
0/0 stalkers deal 14 damage to marauders. 0/0 marauders deal 20 damage to stalkers. With zealots serving as meatshields, marauders are roughly even against zealot-stalker before upgrades.
3/0 stalkers deal 17 damage to marauders. 3/0 marauders seal 26 damage to stalkers. Because stalkers scale poorly with upgrades, the damage differential increases from 6 to 9 over the course of the game. Given equal upgrades, a battle of T1 units that is even in the early game will be easily won by Terran in the late game.
|
On October 19 2010 04:51 Roaming wrote:Show nested quote +Dragoons were better then Stalkers in almost every way. 20 more hull health, 20 damage vs. air and ground with +2 on upgrade, a range upgrade (Although the range was fairly poor to start) and also the same price. I'm just convinced that they would be better to have in SC2. Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable. Yes, but they couldn't teleport.
Also dragoons dealt explosive damage, so 10 damage per shot without upgrade. Both of them take 4 shots to kill a zergling.
|
On October 19 2010 03:16 kcdc wrote:
Stalkers deal 10(+4 armored) base damage. While their 14 damage to armored units isn't great for cost, with micro, stalkers are intended to be a big part of Protoss's response to armored units. The obvious example is the roach where stalkers are THE early game Protoss response, and as the game continues, continue to be an important core of the army since you can't go mass immortal. Against marauders, stalkers are the primary damage dealers in the early game. And as the game continues, stalkers are intended to comprise a portion of the solution to the bigger armored units like siege tanks, battlecruisers, brood lords, collosi, carriers, and even for focus firing units like thors and ultralisks.
The problem is that stalkers are arguably unit that benefits least from upgrades in the entire game. Armor upgrades are of little use since half of their health is in shields, but the bigger problem is that their weapon upgrade only offers +1 damage to their base damage of 14 vs armored.
Consider the stalker vs roach match-up. The stalker deals 14 base damage and has 1 armor that applies to 80 of its 160 health (effectively 0.5 armor). The roach deals 16 base damage and has 1 armor that applies to the entirety of its 145 health. In the early game, the stalker is slightly weaker for cost in combat, but its greater speed and range makes it reasonably effective against the roach. In the later game, however, roaches will be fully upgraded giving them 22 damage and 4 armor while stalkers might be 3/3/0 or 3/2/1 giving them 17 damage and effectively 2 armor (since either armor upgrade applies only to half of their health). The early game matchup between the stalker's 14/0.5/160 (attack/armor/health) vs the roach's 16/1/145 is now 17/2/160 vs 22/4/145. In the early game, stalkers cede 2 points of damage and a half a point of armor to roaches. In the late game, however, stalkers cede a massive 5 points of damage and roughly 2 points of armor (depending how diligent you are with shield upgrades) to roaches. Late game roaches CRUSH stalkers regardless of micro because roach upgrades are so much more effective than stalker upgrades.
You might want be inclined to say that stalkers don't get matched up against roaches in the late game because immortals, collosi, forcefields, storms etc supplement the Protoss army, but Zerg of course has tech options open up as well. And more importantly, the stalker-vs-roach example is just one example. A similar pattern emerges with every armored unit the stalker would match up against. Before upgrades, stalkers do reasonably against every armored unit (including marauders with zealot meatshields), but as upgrades get factored in, the stalker falls far behind its counterparts.
Shouldn't weapons upgrades give stalkers +1(+1 armored) to keep them reasonably useful in the late game? It's not like Protoss has too easy of a time already against upgraded armored units like roaches, ultras, brood lords, battlecrusers, thors and tanks. They're all really freaking hard to beat in the late game....
In the case of stalkers vs. roaches, you have to take into account that the stalker is firing for 14 every 1.44 game seconds while the roach is doing 16 every 2 game secs. However, roaches cost considerably less than stalkers. Players take advantage of this with techniques like the 5 roach rush.
The real issue, is marauders. Marauders have a hefty double damage bonus against armored units. Combined with stim packs and concussive shells they are also a hard conter to zealots. This makes the only way to stop marauders outside of a choke in the early game a large number of sentries and forcefields. Because this is a very expensive option for a unit that does very little damage protoss 1.5 is utterly dominated by the marauder. We will probably see a change in some form of mechanic before the end of the balancing to make early - mid game a little easier for the protoss player especially after the last patch making terran better late game by removing the energy bar on the thor.
|
On October 19 2010 04:35 Philip2110 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Stalkers are incredibly fragile, and sometimes you have to engage the enemy head on (Like hes marching up your ramp with Roaches), and they are just weak. They are OK against AA, Exactly, they are just OK. Considering they are protoss's main anti air unit they are a joke.
yeah, the fact that that we have no other anit air unit than the sentry is pretty bad since stalker damage vs light units (mutas and banshees)is damn awful.
|
On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable.
Dragoons take 4 shots to kill one zergling.... (Explosive damage).
|
On October 19 2010 05:26 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Taking 3 shots to kill one zergling is so bad. Where as taking 2 shots to kill a zergling is reasonable. Dragoons take 4 shots to kill one zergling.... (Explosive damage).
Yeah I was comparing it as a direct translation to SC2. Where a Dragoon would deal 20 damage.
|
On October 19 2010 04:56 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 04:43 Mystgun wrote:On October 19 2010 04:09 kcdc wrote:On October 19 2010 03:51 BlasiuS wrote:
Stalkers already had +1(+1) in the early beta, it was deemed too powerful and was nerfed in beta patch 6.
They're probably not going to revert that change. MalVortex nailed this. Patch 6 was a stalker buff. And more to the point, can anyone name a unit that +1(+1) would be too powerful against? Late-game stalkers seem underpowered vs roaches, marauders, ultras, upgraded broodlords, upgraded battlecruisers, upgraded tanks, thors, collosi....pretty much every armored unit in the game. Maybe a case could be made for vikings or carriers. Maybe. On the whole tho, late game stalkers suck because their upgrades scale terribly. With the exception of roaches, stalkers are not good vs. any of those units you named at any point of the game, nor were they meant to be. Stalkers have mobility and versatility that no other unit in the game has. You can't expect them to do equivalent DPS while having the ability to shoot air units, incredible base movement speed, and blink. Ironically, it is their versatility that misleads players into thinking they can mass a single unit to win the game, but they are easily steamrolled by any unit that is good vs. armored. Stalkers have a supporting role in SC2 and BW players have to accept the fact that they don't pack the same punch as a dragoon. Immortals exist for a reason, and that is to counter armored ground units that stalkers are so weak against. I will concede that protoss AA vs. armored unit sucks (mainly vs bc) because 1) VR nerf 2) 5x2 damage on phoenix instead of 10x1 (though this makes sense) and 3) carriers just suck. However, BCs are slow, expensive, susceptible to feedback, and very strongly countered by guardian shield, so its not like protoss don't have an answer for it. Stalkers are absolutely meant to be used against all of those units. Stalkers are the primary damage dealers of the Protoss force against big armored units. Zealots soak up the damage, collosi and storm take out the smaller light units, and stalkers (with immortals) focus fire down the big targets. Unless you understand that your opponent lacks the will to make air units and that you're therefore safe to go triple-robo immortal, you're going to be using stalkers for a healthy component of your damage vs armored units.
I would have to strongly disagree with you on this point as I think stalkers are terrible vs. big armored units like thor and ultralisk and my rule of thumb is to build as few stalkers as I can get by with (which might mean quite a lot if they are going air-heavy).
I think you can agree with me that zealot meat shield with robo units is a much better army composition vs. ground units than zealot with stalkers. The advantage that stalkers bring is that they can attack air, so you don't risk getting chased away by a few air units. Getting stalkers is pretty good insurance that you can handle most types of units that your opponent can throw at you with the drawback that it doesn't particularly excel at stopping any of them. I don't think its unfair that a unit with so much flexibility has lower DPS and relatively poor scaling compared to more specialized, situational units.
|
+1 weapons makes zealots 2 hit lings and +2 makes collussi 2 hit them, since all ground toss forces get the benefits from it, it seems they would already have the +2 attack anyway
On October 19 2010 03:16 kcdc wrote:
Consider the stalker vs roach match-up. The stalker deals 14 base damage and has 1 armor that applies to 80 of its 160 health (effectively 0.5 armor). The roach deals 16 base damage and has 1 armor that applies to the entirety of its 145 health. In the early game, the stalker is slightly weaker for cost in combat, but its greater speed and range makes it reasonably effective against the roach. In the later game, however, roaches will be fully upgraded giving them 22 damage and 4 armor while stalkers might be 3/3/0 or 3/2/1 giving them 17 damage and effectively 2 armor (since either armor upgrade applies only to half of their health). The early game matchup between the stalker's 14/0.5/160 (attack/armor/health) vs the roach's 16/1/145 is now 17/2/160 vs 22/4/145. In the early game, stalkers cede 2 points of damage and a half a point of armor to roaches. In the late game, however, stalkers cede a massive 5 points of damage and roughly 2 points of armor (depending how diligent you are with shield upgrades) to roaches. Late game roaches CRUSH stalkers regardless of micro because roach upgrades are so much more effective than stalker upgrades.
i disagree; ever see a Z player use mass roach lategame?
i consider them more comparable to hydras in larger scale battles, since the ability to hit air doesnt exsist on the roach so its not got much function outside of this matchup
however; should such a scenario occur, stalkers win even w/ roach burrow tunneling to them and no observers
why? between blink, roughly equal upgraded move speeds and superior range, the stalkers will have better firing effeciency and therefore kill the roaches for cost, especially if the 200 supply limit comes into play [this is for offcreep, he cant push you there and if it is a problem youll get observers to kill the tumors and thus be able to hit the burrowed roaches above before you engage]
This spoiler is my opinion on stalkers and probably doesnt have much convincing logic, note that i am a Z player
+ Show Spoiler +it is in my belief that the T1 stalker that does less damage vs non-armoured targets is a little bit too strong compared to the hydra by cost considering the blink abilitys vast usefulness. maybe these 'weaker upgrades' balance it out more than i think, maybe the stalkers just a little overpowered even with that
if i could balance the game according to what i believe should happen, id lower their health just a touch so hydras are a bit more cost effective vs them
hell, it'd probably mean the marauder would get a slight vs armour damage nerf too, and a slightly lower marauder/roach hp to match wouldnt go astray
it might be why im not balancing the game though
On October 19 2010 04:35 Philip2110 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Stalkers are incredibly fragile, and sometimes you have to engage the enemy head on (Like hes marching up your ramp with Roaches), and they are just weak. They are OK against AA, Exactly, they are just OK. Considering they are protoss's main anti air unit they are a joke.
this problem is because the pheonix is a dedicated AA unit that doesnt really do too well at it, id say corruptors are in the same boat, building them to fight air is generally unnecessary and can bite you in the longer run
vikings i exclude here because of the massive range and the ability to make them hit ground
(the others can help vs ground but its not really practical)
|
I think this is a silly argument.
A zealot doesn't get twice the benefit from attack upgrades as a stalker. It gets a very similar amount: +1. The reason this is relevant is because a stalker with +1 attack vs. an opponent with +1 armor deals the same damage as a stalker with 0 attack vs. an opponent with 0 armor. The zealot is in the same situation, he deals the same damage to opponents in general, as long as the weapon upgrades are equal to the armor upgrades.
The issue if you were to increase stalker damage to be +1 (+1) per upgrade is they would greatly outpace armor upgrades. Now, you can argue that marauders get +1 (+1), and that immortals even get +2 (+3), but I think there's an important distinction as to why. Both Marauders and Immortals are sort of "Anti-Armor" units. Stalkers aren't designed for that, in fact, I would venture to say that the patch 6 change really emphasizes this point. Stalkers are a general mobile assault unit, and the reason that there is the bonus to armored isn't to make them anti-armor focused (that's the immortal's role) but instead to make them reasonably powerful against armor without making them overpowered against light units.
Stalkers aren't at all weak units. They have 160 health, high base speed, higher base damage than a marauder, an anti-air attack, and the eventual ability to blink for 2 supply. Their high base damage means that things like high armor units don't ruin their ability to deal damage (An ultralisk with 3 base armor reduces an equal upgraded zealot to 63%, but reduces a stalker to only 78% of their potential)
Certainly an immortal is stronger than 2 stalkers against mixed ground forces, but the stalkers have the mobility, and anti-air capability that the immortal lacks.
I think it makes perfect sense that the unit with so much flexibility has lower DPS and relatively poor scaling compared to the more specialized situational units. It the flexible unit scaled as well, and had relatively similar DPS to the specialized units, there would be no need to build any specialized units. If 2 stalkers could deal the same damage at the same scaling factor of an immortal, as well as be able to shoot aircraft, blink, and run at 2.9 speed, why in the world would anyone ever build an immortal who is susceptible to air attacks, EMP, and kiting by faster, longer ranged units?
Marines and Hydralisks both have severe downsides in that they are relatively low-health, light classed units. For Terran and Zerg, these two units are the general "all-round" counterpart to the stalker. Both have relatively higher DPS than the stalker per supply, but both are less than 1/2 as sturdy as the stalker. However, I don't often hear that they should get double-sized upgrades or any other special benefits of that type.
Comparing stalkers (all-around versatile units) directly against marauders and roaches (anti-heavy-ground units) is unfair. Compare Zealots (possibly with sentry support to keep them in range) Immortals or Colossi if you want a more fair comparison. If you want to compare something directly to stalkers, compare stalkers with hydras or marines instead of roaches and marauders.
|
If you want to suggest this change then I suggest you math out the number of hits required for a stalker to kill certain units which you feel it is weak against late-game then compare that to the number of hits required to kill the units with your change then examine if this will make a significant difference against other units which the stalker already fairs well against and add it to your post.
This shouldn't take more then 20-30 minutes in Excel and will provide you with concrete evidence to support your hypothesis instead of abstract theorycrafting.
|
interesting idea I'd say
nevertheless the reason why earlier roaches were NOT better vs stalkers was easy to determine: force fields: put down force fields, move your army back a little and stalkers can hit while roaches can't;
range 4 has changed this quite significantly, nevertheless I haven't played enough games yet to see if this changed it indeed in favour of roaches; because the range-difference can theoretically (!!) still be exploited with force fields, especially in late-game where you should have enough sentries to force-field right through the whole army
|
On October 19 2010 06:09 zeidrichthorene wrote:
I think this is a silly argument.
...
...
...
...
...
Yes, I fully agree except roaches aren't anti-armor, and they especially don't counter stalkers.
This stalker-roach argumet OP makes is totally wrong. Roach balls don't work vs stalker balls for 2 reasons:
1. blink
2. range
Stalkers get a big range advantage so protoss can engage with a ton more units attacking than zerg can attack with.
Another thing - sure roaches gain +2 per attack, but realize that their attack speed is 2 and their DPS is terrible. Stalkers always have better DPS than roaches.
When it comes to micro, yes roaches can burrow, but when you're in mass situations, once the roaches burrow they can't really unburrow because there's no space. It's also really hard to burrow any units at all due to the DPS the stalkers are doing.
The reason blink DOES work is because stalkers have more health, roaches deal less damage AND have less range (making for two factors dealing less damage), and blink has a substantial range that can be used to teleport it behind the army and still very possibly attack from there.
Sure roaches cost less, but that doesn't matter because zerg can't get many more roaches than protoss can get stalkers by the time you hit mid or late game, due to supply. 50 stalkers will just stampede over 65 roaches. Sure protoss isn't maxed out yet and has less units, but zerg can't get any more than 65 roaches if he has 3 bases with standard saturation.
On October 19 2010 04:30 DreamSailor wrote:
Stalkers are incredibly fragile, and sometimes you have to engage the enemy head on (Like hes marching up your ramp with Roaches), and they are just weak. They are OK against air, and some units, but are simply crushed by the other races heavy hitting tier1.5 unit: The Marauder, and the Roach. I dunno what you could do to change them, but they feel weak. I -have- to use them because if Roaches or Marauders come out before my robotics facility is done I need something to deal with the Roaches. Even on my ramp the damage that a Stalker does compared to a marauder is embarrassing. I find myself less and less researching blink and moving away from any kind of Stalker support, especially in ZvZ because Stalkers are just terrible against Hydralisks, and aren't that good against Mutalisks.
Wow Protoss whining like mad. Stalkers win vs hydralisks 1:1 without blink and with hydra range (although they are about even). Considering both units are similar costs this is fine. Stalkers win vs mutalisks 1:1 ratio also, (unless you get into unrealistic numbers of units, such as above 50-60)
Stalkers dominate roaches without speed, and do very well against roaches with speed.
Stalkers are not fragile at all because they have good movement speed, good health, and good range. Yes they will die to marauders, but definitely not roaches.
Just because marauders are powerful (or OP) does not mean you should be yelling about how your own units are gimped, because that's not how it works. If marauder is OP, it should be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
