|
I rly think the stalker is one of the worst units in the game.
Sure if u have rly good micro then u can do a lot of dmg with blink. but Cost for cost the stalker gets defeated by basically everything in the game - zerglings, hydra and marauder especially, but also marines and roaches... they are somewhat decent vs mutas but thats about it.
And toss is IMO very badly balanced, a protoss gateway force will lose vs zerg and terran groundforces of equal value unless u manage to pull off some good ff and have a good position.
collossi are rly bad in low number, grow ridiculously strong in high numbers and can be basically be preemptively countered by terrans reactor starport...
u are basically forced to play reactively as toss, if zerg goes FE u have to go FE to if zerg goes fast roaches u have to get immo ASAP, early terran bio pushes can basically only defended by guarding the ramp and hoping u survive until storm or collossi get out...
i play toss mostly but i play a lot of random, and i win most tvp without effort and a lot of zvp despite me having far less practice with terran or especially zerg.
Buffing the stalker would be a good way to make a toss ground force able to stand up to the other races without toss having to get tier 3 tech.
Zealots are basically good units but without charge they are so much worse. I could imagine that making charge earlier accessible would be a nice idea too.
|
Compared to BW, SC2 units with an anti-air attack seem to pay some price so that they're less effective vs ground compared to units that can't attack air. In the Marine and Hydralisk case its severe fragility vs AoE. For thors its slow movement speed, and for archons its cost-inefficiency. Stalkers pay with poor scaling.
I think this is a major reason why we so commonly see ling/bling/festor, rauder/tank/hellion, zeal/immo/colo, and other ground comps that have no anti air.
|
The stalker seems not meant as a massable unit, especially seeing as how shitty they were in beta. The design of the stalker seems to be as a neccesary unit to counter certain stuff but not as a strong lategame unit. I'd call it a transitional unit, they are great early on and often neccesary but you wouldn't want to mass them later on in any matchup.
If stalker attack upgrades were better it would severely weaken the use of roaches and ultralisks. Stalkers have weak upgrades on purpose imo, to not make them too strong lategame.
The stalker is already pretty unique in being the the only ground unit that can attack armored air with a bonus. If they were to get +1(+1) upgrades massive air like BC's, carriers and broodlords would be nearly useless against protoss. I think their lategame weakness is neccesary to keep certain units viable against protoss.
For use against roaches and ultra's there is the immortal obviously. Whereas stalkers get worse against roaches if both sides have equal investments in upgrades the opposite is true for immortals.
Immortals have 200 hp 100 shield and 50 attack against armored. Upgrades give +5 to that so if roaches/ultra's have 3 armor and immortals 3 attack the attack will still do 12 damage more compared to no upgrades. At the same time the shield from the immortal gets relatively more effective, ie. upgraded roaches still do 10 dmg a hit to shield regardless of having a base damage of 16 or 22. For example immortals are also quite effective against hydra's later on. A 0-0-0 immortal is about cost even against 0-0 hydra's. A 3-2-0 immortal however beats 3-2 hydra's cost effectively. The pattern you describe for stalkers is exactly reversed for immortals against any armored lategame unit and even most non-armored units, it is obvious blizzard intends immortals to be used instead of stalkers for ground based battles later in the game. Stalkers later on are only meant for their lategame AA capacity.
So I think it's actually a very neat balance blizzard created here. Stalkers may be preferrable over immortals early on because of their micro ability and general usefullness, immortals however get much much better later on as immortals benefit very well from upgrades for both players whereas stalkers do not. It's a elegant system that makes immortals a neccesity later on without forcing protoss to rush for them (as stalkers manage early on).
Against a roach/hydra user you should simply be going 2 or 3 robo bays. Immortals and colossi are great against both hydra and roach and only get better and better as you get upgrades.
|
On October 19 2010 23:57 Markwerf wrote:
The stalker seems not meant as a massable unit, especially seeing as how shitty they were in beta. The design of the stalker seems to be as a neccesary unit to counter certain stuff but not as a strong lategame unit. I'd call it a transitional unit, they are great early on and often neccesary but you wouldn't want to mass them later on in any matchup.
If stalker attack upgrades were better it would severely weaken the use of roaches and ultralisks. Stalkers have weak upgrades on purpose imo, to not make them too strong lategame.
The stalker is already pretty unique in being the the only ground unit that can attack armored air with a bonus. If they were to get +1(+1) upgrades massive air like BC's, carriers and broodlords would be nearly useless against protoss. I think their lategame weakness is neccesary to keep certain units viable against protoss.
For use against roaches and ultra's there is the immortal obviously. Whereas stalkers get worse against roaches if both sides have equal investments in upgrades the opposite is true for immortals.
Immortals have 200 hp 100 shield and 50 attack against armored. Upgrades give +5 to that so if roaches/ultra's have 3 armor and immortals 3 attack the attack will still do 12 damage more compared to no upgrades. At the same time the shield from the immortal gets relatively more effective, ie. upgraded roaches still do 10 dmg a hit to shield regardless of having a base damage of 16 or 22. For example immortals are also quite effective against hydra's later on. A 0-0-0 immortal is about cost even against 0-0 hydra's. A 3-2-0 immortal however beats 3-2 hydra's cost effectively. The pattern you describe for stalkers is exactly reversed for immortals against any armored lategame unit and even most non-armored units, it is obvious blizzard intends immortals to be used instead of stalkers for ground based battles later in the game. Stalkers later on are only meant for their lategame AA capacity.
So I think it's actually a very neat balance blizzard created here. Stalkers may be preferrable over immortals early on because of their micro ability and general usefullness, immortals however get much much better later on as immortals benefit very well from upgrades for both players whereas stalkers do not. It's a elegant system that makes immortals a neccesity later on without forcing protoss to rush for them (as stalkers manage early on).
Against a roach/hydra user you should simply be going 2 or 3 robo bays. Immortals and colossi are great against both hydra and roach and only get better and better as you get upgrades.
First, the notion that giving stalkers +1(+1) would make bcs, carriers and brood lords useless is ridiculous. Second, I get that you can make immortals later in the game, but you still need a lot of stalkers. At any point past the midgame, you need to be prepared for air raids and drops. Unless you have air superiority (and since you're P, you probably don't), you need a lot of stalkers. They're already weak for cost (counter-balanced by their mobility) in the early game, but their crap upgrades make them much weaker in the late game. There's no reason that every T1 unit in the game crushes stalkers regardless of micro once upgrades start piling up. Sure, stalkers can blink, and that's great, but marines and marauders can stim (and fly since dropships are a necessary complement), zealots can charge, zerglings are crazy fast, can burrow, and get an attack upgrade to keep them relevant in the late game, and roaches get a speed upgrade, a regen upgrade, and can move while burrowed. All of the T1 units gain mobility and tactical utility as the game continues. There's no reason for the stalker's combat effectiveness to drop off so sharply compared to its counterparts.
|
Im not sure if stalker should get +1(+1) updrade, i would like to see marauder get +1(+0) upgrade tho. i dont think they need to be even better building killer has the game progress.
|
Stalkers are absolutely fine and people need to stop whining about them.
Versatility comes with a price. The hydralisk costs nearly as much as a stalker, can't be warped in, can't blink, requires an upgrade to get range 6, and has half as much HP. Did I mention it's slow?
Given it does about 2x the damage of a stalker.
But yes, I think stalkers ought to get +1 armored damage on upgrades. Part of the argument for that is that armor and shield upgrades are only 50% as effective on them as other units, part of it is that the protoss don't have any solid method to deal with heavy air besides the stalker. (void ray sucks).
I also don't think it'd unbalance the stalker against marauders or roaches. Roaches are already pretty effective against stalkers, especially when mixed with zerglings or hydras. And after the void ray nerf one of the best ways to deal with mass roach is a lot weaker.
It's a tweak.
People are acting like this is going to make or break the stalker when +1 upgrade damage against armored targets will be largely irrelevant.
|
On October 19 2010 12:53 Darkstar_X wrote:
I have no problem with a mediocre unit being versatile, however, nothing else attacks air better. Since Protoss has the hardest time swapping to deal with an air threat (Terran have reactors to double production on a building, Zerg have larva), they tend to err more towards Stalkers. If Protoss falls behind, they simply cannot recover with a strong counter unit. For example, Terran might swap a reactor over to a Starport to pop out Vikings to deal with Collosi, just as Zerg might spend a production cycle making Corruptors. If Protoss want to stop Muta with Phoenix, it's one at a time (arguably with Chrono Boost that's 1.225 at a time).
You're forgetting:
Sentries, archons, HT.
Most toss opt not to go for templar tech OR stargates, which is usually why they get steamed by heavy air builds. Think about it. Templar allow you to throw in an AoE storm (which, if it doesn't kill, it damages and delays an attack) and then get one of the best anti-bio tanks in the game. Feedback is also quite amazing. Then, in a heavy stargate build, you already have dedicated AA available.
What heavy air do toss have a hard time countering? BC? Carrier? Void ray? Corruptor? Please. This whole "toss AA is weak" is getting annoying. Protoss can reduce incoming damage with sentries, kite mutas with Phoenix, storm and feedback with HT (battlecruisers specifically), and do AoE damage with archons. Chrono boost is on equal footing with zerg and terran mechanics; it is, arguably, better; you can use it on research too.
Zerg AA is limited to corruptors, and is the only race without an area-effect against air ability. Terran have thors and Protoss have archons and storm. However, Zerg make up for this with huge production cycles and the ability to switch between tech.
A lot of protoss units are versatile AND strong. Stalkers are your mediocre unit for everything, yes, but you have to support them with templar, sentries, etc. If you use these units you'll find that AA for protoss is surprisingly strong and effective.
|
You gotta realise stalkers are not cost effective vs anything in a straight up battle. Their effectiveness diminishes as the game goes on. However they are fast, microable units, making them good for defense, scouting, and harassment. Does that sound like a unit you would want to mass?
|
On October 20 2010 00:55 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2010 23:57 Markwerf wrote:
The stalker seems not meant as a massable unit, especially seeing as how shitty they were in beta. The design of the stalker seems to be as a neccesary unit to counter certain stuff but not as a strong lategame unit. I'd call it a transitional unit, they are great early on and often neccesary but you wouldn't want to mass them later on in any matchup.
If stalker attack upgrades were better it would severely weaken the use of roaches and ultralisks. Stalkers have weak upgrades on purpose imo, to not make them too strong lategame.
The stalker is already pretty unique in being the the only ground unit that can attack armored air with a bonus. If they were to get +1(+1) upgrades massive air like BC's, carriers and broodlords would be nearly useless against protoss. I think their lategame weakness is neccesary to keep certain units viable against protoss.
For use against roaches and ultra's there is the immortal obviously. Whereas stalkers get worse against roaches if both sides have equal investments in upgrades the opposite is true for immortals.
Immortals have 200 hp 100 shield and 50 attack against armored. Upgrades give +5 to that so if roaches/ultra's have 3 armor and immortals 3 attack the attack will still do 12 damage more compared to no upgrades. At the same time the shield from the immortal gets relatively more effective, ie. upgraded roaches still do 10 dmg a hit to shield regardless of having a base damage of 16 or 22. For example immortals are also quite effective against hydra's later on. A 0-0-0 immortal is about cost even against 0-0 hydra's. A 3-2-0 immortal however beats 3-2 hydra's cost effectively. The pattern you describe for stalkers is exactly reversed for immortals against any armored lategame unit and even most non-armored units, it is obvious blizzard intends immortals to be used instead of stalkers for ground based battles later in the game. Stalkers later on are only meant for their lategame AA capacity.
So I think it's actually a very neat balance blizzard created here. Stalkers may be preferrable over immortals early on because of their micro ability and general usefullness, immortals however get much much better later on as immortals benefit very well from upgrades for both players whereas stalkers do not. It's a elegant system that makes immortals a neccesity later on without forcing protoss to rush for them (as stalkers manage early on).
Against a roach/hydra user you should simply be going 2 or 3 robo bays. Immortals and colossi are great against both hydra and roach and only get better and better as you get upgrades. First, the notion that giving stalkers +1(+1) would make bcs, carriers and brood lords useless is ridiculous. Second, I get that you can make immortals later in the game, but you still need a lot of stalkers. At any point past the midgame, you need to be prepared for air raids and drops. Unless you have air superiority (and since you're P, you probably don't), you need a lot of stalkers. They're already weak for cost (counter-balanced by their mobility) in the early game, but their crap upgrades make them much weaker in the late game. There's no reason that every T1 unit in the game crushes stalkers regardless of micro once upgrades start piling up. Sure, stalkers can blink, and that's great, but marines and marauders can stim (and fly since dropships are a necessary complement), zealots can charge, zerglings are crazy fast, can burrow, and get an attack upgrade to keep them relevant in the late game, and roaches get a speed upgrade, a regen upgrade, and can move while burrowed. All of the T1 units gain mobility and tactical utility as the game continues. There's no reason for the stalker's combat effectiveness to drop off so sharply compared to its counterparts.
Ok I might have overexagerated about the stalkers power against air if it had +1(+1) but I still think it would be too much. It would be a pretty sick buff to stalker/colossi as by going that combo you can force your opponent to go vikings / corruptors which in turn take alot of damage from stalkers already. +1(+0) is absolutely fine really. If stalkers got +2 against armor for each up I would be too strong to just get +2 or +3 attack stalker/colossi imo.
Also one huge thing this whole analysis is forgetting:
sure stalkers get the lowest percentual DPS increase of about any unit with a attack upgrade but in the same way armor upgrades are also not really effective against stalkers. +1 attack and +1 armor on zerg/terran cancel eachother out mostly regardless of that upgrade being a +7% boost or a +20% boost or whatever. The only thing with stalkers is that it's not really effective to be ahead on upgrades as they don't benefit a whole lot from that if you are playing against armored units.
Against lots of armored units you want some immortals eventually anyway which benefit better then any unit in the game from upgrades on both sides so it all evens out.
(the only time where I want to have mass stalkers is against zergs using roach/hydra. In that case I want some robo facilities as well and mix in a few immortals/colossi anyway which benefit from upgrades very well). The whole roach vs stalker balance is fine imo, stalkers aren't needed as a counter to them except early on. After speed and some roach upgrades you SHOULD need immortals/colossi.
|
I absolutely agree. Right now, just +1 doesn't keep up with the other races equivalent upgrades really. Expensive as they are (more expensive than the roach and the marauder, especially in gas), +1/+1 should be implemented into an upcoming patch. I think this will also force terran to stray from MM(M) and bioballs earlier to get other tech such as seige tanks or ghosts, resulting in overall more diverse gameplay.
|
On October 19 2010 22:51 Freeborn wrote:
collossi are rly bad in low number, grow ridiculously strong in high numbers and can be basically be preemptively countered by terrans reactor starport...
u are basically forced to play reactively as toss, if zerg goes FE u have to go FE to if zerg goes fast roaches u have to get immo ASAP, early terran bio pushes can basically only defended by guarding the ramp and hoping u survive until storm or collossi get out...
So if someone guesses that you will go collossi and build the appropriate counter, your race is bad?
Maybe if you didn't go for the A-Move army every time, they wouldn't build vikings so often. Good use of force field with a decent amount of zealots can stop early - mid bio armies easily. Instead of going colossi every game against T, try going HT sometimes.
Sentries are absolutely necessary to deal with bio armies, at least until you can comfortably have a decent number of colossi or storm.
|
1/0 or 1/1 is not gonna magically make stalkers less of a piece of shit that they are right now, their dps for a unit that costs so many resources is just awful.
They are just needed to not die to air or units that can kite zealots till the end of time.
|
I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but stalkers are not the "I win unit" for protoss. You cannot expect a unit that hits air and ground and has mobility to be able to kill everything. It's just not a reasonable expectation.
Stalkers are already very strong vs ground targets. They outrange marines and roaches, they do considerable damage vs structures such as spine crawlers and bunkers, and are able to snipe repairing SCVs or out-of-position units such as queens. They can easily go toe to toe with unupgraded or lone Marauders, and can function as panic AA when needed.
What more from a unit could you possibly want? Giving stalkers +1/+1 will break stalker/colossus in the TvP matchup and quite possibly the TvZ matchup too. There would be no need for immortal; just get a forge and chrono tech while pumping colossus and stalker.
|
I completely agree. I've been discussing this with people for a while but no one really understood it. Stalkers become almost worthless eventually against certain compositions.
|
i don't really feel like +1 +0 is the issue, what i dislike is the high cost.
tho it is "okay" since most of the time you don't need that many of them anyway.
but i always have the feeling, i pay more than it's worth..
i totally understand the arguments, and i agree that the range,speed,shooting air part should have its price, it's just that Protoss has no other option in the early game to fullfill the "range dps" role - and that's exactly where the stalker feels weak compared to T/Z units.
however, in the later stages of a match, stalker cost seems to be totally fine, aswell as their scaling with upgrades.
|
Stalker is the fastest unit in the game without ups (off creep) though AND it has blink so it can focus fire most air by going under it, esp when you have colosi/HT/Archon to clear the ground under the air unit.
For late game composition, all races need a mix of units to do well, and hopefully you will have other units by the time they get massive air. Carriers, even against massives, still have high burst dps (esp when uped as much or more as their armor)
For the roach vs stalker, remember shields recharge alot faster in sc2 when out of combat, so micro without doubt gives the stalker the advantage.
|
I use stalkers early game when micro is still manageable, by the late 200/200 armies I try to have as few as possible. However even in late game they can be very useful for harassment and mobility, and they're one of the few AA ground units for protoss, which basically means they'll be ubiquitous in toss army compositions. Their mobility and blink abilities are compensated for by their low DPS.
|
a lot of good reasoning back and forth. i don't really know if +1 to bonus is good or not. all i know is the game is fine right now so why change it?
also, no one's mentioned this: stalkers surprisingly grows stronger in numbers. they're pretty good when at critical mass whatever that may be. think about one stalker kiting a roach. pretty effective. now then think about a whole mass of stalkers shooting their shot and then blinking away. roaches will have to run toward stalkers to engage or they would have taken a hundred plus damage.
|
I used to build plenty of stalkers throughout the match and use as a bulk unit for my army but I have been forced to stop this late-game. Sure the Stalkers have versatility but late-game they are just a bit to weak and if you get pushed and have invested to heavily in stalkers there is a high risk of getting rolled.
To me the argument "but they shoot AA" is a bit flawed, just because they shot AA you cant make them to weak since that would mean you lose heavily to ground with them.
+1(+1) Would really help stalkers stay as a staple unit late-game.
|
Stalkers don't scale well with upgrades relative to other units. Certainly this seems pretty obvious.
I think it's also fairly obvious that they don't have to in order to have a useful role in the protoss late game army, and protoss also seems to be doing quite well in late game situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
