|
Hi TL
I was wondering whether it's better to go stalker heavy in PvT (vs MMM) or zealot heavy in a Protoss ball that includes sentries and colossi. I'm actually undecided on the issue myself but here's a list of pros and cons:
More Zealots:
Pros:
Zealots are cheaper than stalkers
Zealots have less cooldown on warpgate (produce faster)
Zealots can take more damage as marauder's have no damage bonus
Zealots still attack pretty soon (once charge is upgraded)
Zealots have high DPS (13.3)
Cons:
Zealots are closed ranged, after force fields are dropped almost all of the Marines/Marauders can still shoot the zealot (across the force field)
Hard for Zealots to retreat
Zealots are melee, no surround means that DPS is not maximized.
More Stalkers:
Pros:
Stalkers are long ranged. After force fields are dropped lots of marines/marauders will be too far away to shoot over the force field.
Blink can keep the Stalker alive longer
Stalkers help with vikings
Easy retreat
Cons:
Stalkers are expensive, and come with a high gas cost
Low DPS (6.9 vs Marine, 9.7 vs Marauder)
Well what are your experiences with the protoss ball, and which do you think is the way to go? What do you find works for you?
thanks (:
PS: Please do not discuss chargelot/ht vs MMM
|
zealots are better because they make bioball busy when stalkers(u wanna have around 10 no more) are killing vikings, then u have colossus with forcefields vs mmm and u warp in zealot reinforcements
also stalkers die super fast to marauders and only pro is dealing with drops/retreating units
|
You need enough stalkers to deal with their vikings. But being stalker heavy is very bad because they have terrible DPS and with a low zealot count, terran can stutter step into you and get a maximum amount of units attacking. You want to sink most of ur warp ins into zealots and just have enough stalkers to deal with vikings and to blink around and scout where the terran army is.
|
You want as few stalkers as possible to defend your collosus from vikings. Zealots soak up a ton of damage, and have much better synergy with sentry colo than stalkers do, however you have to have enough stalkers to prevent vikings from flying in and sniping the colo while the bio just runs away from the zealots.
It's all situational, but if your only goal is to have a stronger straight up army, zealot heavy is the way to go.
|
Before zealots have charge I get more stalkers than zealots as slowlots are easy to kite. At that point I get just enough zealots to tank.
After charge is out I would like to spend all my money on zealots and high templar, preferably none on stalkers at all. I would throw my zealots into the terran mmm line repeatedly while conserving my stalkers via blink.
|
zealots don't require any micro after a-move, stalkers do.
|
You actually don't drop many forcefields after early game, at least in the current meta game where protoss rely heavily on mass chargelots to be the wall that protects the colossus and stalkers. Regardless, both marines and marauders are superior anti-ground compared to the stalker. Stalkers have utility with blink/anti-air but beyond enough to shoot down vikings they suck gas from HT's/Colossus/Upgrades. You can get fancy like HuK and try to pick off ghosts pre-fight with slightly more blink stalkers but it's very difficult.
Though there is definitely a threshold where extra zealots are useless when they can't get surface area, but I would still say past the hand full of stalkers you'd always keep by, rather than getting more just use the extra zealots in drops/harassment or begin removing zealots to add more and more archons.
edit: Chargelot/HT are simply two units that are easy to grab together. They both run along the same tech tree, one is a mineral dump while the other is a gas dump, they're both produced by gateways, etc.
|
|
|
On January 29 2012 20:49 Jarree wrote:
zealots don't require any micro after a-move, stalkers do.
at your level i guess?
|
Zealots.
Why?
Stalkers suck so hard. Maradeurs with sitm is raping them so fast, it isn't even funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
