So far I, and I'm sure all of you as well, have been watching sc2 streams or playing and noticing that many players scream imba at something that beats them. This is not news of course, and the game ISN'T balanced because hey, we're less than a week in here.
Something that should be said to anyone who decides something is imbalanced is, go play a few games of sc1. I stopped playing for a few days due to streams becoming addictive but last night I tried to play again and I remembered something. SC1 is balanced, but if I do something wrong, even the slightest miss-timing, and I get steamrolled.
Balance doesn't mean that every unit kills every unit, or that hard counters can't exist. Firebats wtfpwn lings and we just know that and accept it, as well as siege tanks really dont work so well vs zealots ect ect(storms vs everything). Hard counters exist is sc1 we just....I dunno forgot they were called that. xD
So far from things I've seen, roaches aren't imba, reapers aren't imba, warp rays aren't imba, mutalisks aren't imba (realized this after playing a few PvZs last night, didn't scout enough, thought hydras, prepared, 10 mutas fly in, gg) NOTHING is really THAT imbalanced, people just get owned a lot.
Also I rarely see people using all the upgrades available to them as it is still a very new game. People need to stop thinking of balance in the game by game sense, and more like let's play the shit out of this game for a few months, and THEN we can talk some balance.
And just to remember the good ole days of 4 pool in the start of sc, 150 mineral spawning pool xD people need to stop worrying so damn much, and enjoy the pretty lights on the streams. Everything will work out in the end fellas.
Yup, I agree, too many people are claiming imba at too many things.
Remember in SC1, where the balance shifted throughout the game. where at the start vs zerg you couldn't move out of your sim city/fast cannons. Later in the game you found out the different timing pushes. in SC2 those havn't been found yet, so you see people just turtleing forever and then getting overrun (exactly like what happens in SC1) or trying to go heavy econ like they could in SC1, but getting rolled over because they don't have enough defences. Once people find out exactly how much defence they need we'll see heavier econ games, but until then we need to error on the safe side, which is why we're all seeing low low econ games right now (also the super mobility of every army, but that's a different issue)
It's balanced enough if you look at it this way too: If roaches (Zerg) are imba, reapers (Terran) are imba, and warp rays (Protoss) are imba, then everything is imbalanced and therefore it's balanced.
But I agree with the OP, it's just the Beta and it's only been a few days. Give it time, test out the "imba" things, and report them to Blizzard if they bother you too much. I'm sure by the time Beta is done, this game will become a lot more balanced.
On February 23 2010 05:31 flamewheel91 wrote: It's balanced enough if you look at it this way too: If roaches (Zerg) are imba, reapers (Terran) are imba, and warp rays (Protoss) are imba, then everything is imbalanced and therefore it's balanced.
But I agree with the OP, it's just the Beta and it's only been a few days. Give it time, test out the "imba" things, and report them to Blizzard if they bother you too much. I'm sure by the time Beta is done, this game will become a lot more balanced.
I don't consider one thing you just listed as imbalanced, could you please give me some reasoning for why you feel they are imbalanced?
A lot of people are saying that there's just 1 big attack and then the game is over, which is true because to sc1 standards, people are putting themselves in all-in positions. I know the game has changed significantly, but that doesn't change the underlying idea of a balance of econ, tech and aggression. If you want david kim replays, he plays zerg about as identically as can be to sc1. Hatchery first, into mutas, into third base. Very conservative and a balance of all three of those aspects. Not this 4 barrack rush off 1 base or instant tech to thors I see every other game streamed.
The game may not be completely balanced, but for being the first week in beta, it's pretty good considering. Blizzard probably won't have the game completely balanced even after beta, but like sc1, I think they will do what is necessary to make it balanced after release.
You can, in fact, reverse this statement; even if there ARE hard counters, that doesn't mean balance exists.
For example, a 3 hatchery Roach-pumping build will out-produce a Protoss going for Immortals. Immortals are a hard counter to Roaches, yet their cost significantly reduces their viability.
The perception of balance is given by either making a lot of things seem imbalanced or by making a lot of things that work well all around. The thing about SC2 is that it has alot of hard counters while sc1 had only a few which gives a change in preception of the older sc1 community to how balance is done.
Like others said, this game is not balanced yet, since it has been only one week of beta, and a lot of people are trying out new strategies. However, there are a few imbalances that need to be addressed.
My TvP issues:
In my opinion, Immortals are too strong for their cost, even for 250/100. 20 base damage causes Marines to be not effective, and the 30 damage bonus causes Marauders, Thors, and any wall to be teared apart easily. You have to spend a lot of resources devoting to the Ghost, and trying to get a lucky EMP off to deflect the initial attack, or getting Terran Air with Banshees, which is not viable since it is too slow to get out in time and gets picked apart by stalkers.
Carriers are another problem, since the natural counter to them are Vikings, and you need to mass produce them. Also, the interceptors deal 5x2 damage, and Vikings are a fragile unit, with 125 health. Supported with the Mothership and its spells, it's almost impossible.
Infestors do need an upgrade, I have not seen a player use them effectively.
Battlecruisers need to lower their cost in order to make them viable. I haven't used the Battlecruiser yet in any other matchup except TvT to break stalemates.
Personally, I really don't think anyone can discover any really imbalances in the game until people start playing a lot more conservatively and "standard." Right now, based on what I see in the streams, games are usually just all-in rushes or mass up units, a-move, and hope I win the battle.
Until more conservative strategies are found and implemented widely, it'll be rather hard to find most potential imbalances.
I think less people are complaining about imbalanced issue, as they are about bringing the less useful units up to snuff. Tanks, Ravens, Infestors, Carriers (Warp Rays are a better cheaper Carrier in most situations) all come to mind.
On February 23 2010 05:47 Pufftrees wrote: After 150 beta games I'd say the game is remarkably well balanced for a beta. There will be some tweaks, but currently the only 2 problems I see are.
Infestors are weak and need some love. Or people need to synergize a nice strat with their abilities.
Mothership is borderline OP but its so expensive and lategame I will let it slide.
Overall great balancing so far, we'll see how it lasts when people abuse more specific strats.
I agree. The infestor's abilities are just plain stupid.
siphon life from the enemy? Good luck finding a fucking opponent who'll willingly let you drain life from him.
Fungal crap? Great, it engangles units for 8 seconds and does like 0 damage.
ZvT terran will only have ranged units so entangling them won't make a difference. Against toss... by the time you got infestors It's so late in the game that it don't make a difference there either.
This comes from someone who's really made an effort to use the infestor.
Disclaimer: I am not currently in beta, just an avid watch and reader.
Right now I am curious about the Protoss macro mechanic. this replay features imho a pro or near pro level beta player and david kim a 2 year veteran (official blizzard) Balance tester. An enjoyable game and something I have personaly been waiting a while for so props to KHB for the great game and upload in quality.
I think they have missed a decision point. While you have to accumulate the energy Protoss are the only race that actualy begin the game with their macro mechanic available. The other races have tech requirements and oportunity costs associated with the mere attaining of the ability for zerg it's early pool, minerals and larva for the terran it's a racks and the upgrade slot for their command centre.
I would like to see the mechanic as an upgrade available at the nexus after the gateway. I would also be interested in thoughts/ observations on scalability. How does a 50% speed increase for 25 energy compare to zerg production capacity terran free min vs scan etc.
Right now I feel like the Terran's is the least scalable and the zerg's is the most . all feer the 3 base zerg with queens. Another important technique for zerg with the increase in building diversity and hard counter requirements is to split tech between bases to retain rounded unit production ability against the loss of a main or expansion. Honestly I almost feel like hatchery cost should be increased as the requirement for so many is reduced dramaticly by the introduction of the queen.
The protoss has an on demand tech switch as long as you have the tech tree requirements (base infrastructure) you can swing production emphasis. As you expand (more nexus) the same number of unit producing buildings can become more effective on a sustained basis, without you needing to just build 15 gates or something.
Thoughts?
/endrant
I think all this will add up to games where each race is more resilient, flexible and still just as unique. Especialy as the proper counters are learned and reactions become automatic. The speed of play, back and forth can be incredible.
Hopefully fun to play and watch as the skill level escalates, yeah e-sports.
On February 23 2010 05:26 Response wrote: to be honest the game seems fairly balanced to me, I haven't come accross one thing that I've said "that's just imba, how can I stop that"
This is how I feel too. All the protoss matchups are fine. There are some minor minor tweaks that could probably be made (e.g. nydus worm) but otherwise the game is in a remarkably playable state.
I have not played the game, just watched the replays, but I got the impression that Stalkers are really weak against everything. They do low damage and don't have the much HP, especially considering average HP is higher in SC2 and many units do quite a bit of damage, and even old units like rines have more HP now. I just have not seen any games where Stalkers were effective at killing anything (out of like 20+ reps I watched with P in them). People make them, but they just don't really do anything unless the situation is already heavily stacked in their favor.
In SC1 dragoons were versatile units that were generally useful against everything (you typical jack of all trade unit). Stalkers cannot fill that role because they are simply too weak. They can't counter muta, they lose to marauders, they lose to rines, they lose to hydras, lings (not sure about roaches, but for cost they probably lose there as well). They are basically just too weak. This results in protoss being left without a good general purpose unit, which can penalize them overly much if they don't have perfect information about the enemy. Your lack of an all-purpose unit forces you to always make specific counters to what the other person is doing.
Say in SC1 mutas are coming. Your goons can help hold them off as you get sair or archon or whatnot. Stalkers just get owned. Hydras--goons can do a good job, but need some help. Stalker just owned so hard you are better off not even having them. Goons do fine vs most things. Stalkers can't hold their own against anything.
Stalkers do have blink. I have not seen that ability used all that much--does it really make up for them being so much weaker than the simple walking goons?
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote: I have not played the game, just watched the replays, but I got the impression that Stalkers are really weak against everything. They do low damage and don't have the much HP, especially considering average HP is higher in SC2 and many units do quite a bit of damage, and even old units like rines have more HP now. I just have not seen any games where Stalkers were effective at killing anything (out of like 20+ reps I watched with P in them). People make them, but they just don't really do anything unless the situation is already heavily stacked in their favor.
In SC1 dragoons were versatile units that were generally useful against everything (you typical jack of all trade unit). Stalkers cannot fill that role because they are simply too weak. They can't counter muta, they lose to marauders, they lose to rines, they lose to hydras, lings (not sure about roaches, but for cost they probably lose there as well). They are basically just too weak. This results in protoss being left without a good general purpose unit, which can penalize them overly much if they don't have perfect information about the enemy. Your lack of an all-purpose unit forces you to always make specific counters to what the other person is doing.
Say in SC1 mutas are coming. Your goons can help hold them off as you get sair or archon or whatnot. Stalkers just get owned. Hydras--goons can do a good job, but need some help. Stalker just owned so hard you are better off not even having them. Goons do fine vs most things. Stalkers can't hold their own against anything.
Stalkers do have blink. I have not seen that ability used all that much--does it really make up for them being so much weaker than the simple walking goons?
Stalkers are useful but need to be micro-ed to be useful. They are the standard anti reaper rush unit. Also they serve as the protoss version of the reaper. They are not meant to be mass produced as they are the support/sniper/flanking/harass role.
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote: I have not played the game, just watched the replays, but I got the impression that Stalkers are really weak against everything. They do low damage and don't have the much HP, especially considering average HP is higher in SC2 and many units do quite a bit of damage, and even old units like rines have more HP now. I just have not seen any games where Stalkers were effective at killing anything (out of like 20+ reps I watched with P in them). People make them, but they just don't really do anything unless the situation is already heavily stacked in their favor.
In SC1 dragoons were versatile units that were generally useful against everything (you typical jack of all trade unit). Stalkers cannot fill that role because they are simply too weak. They can't counter muta, they lose to marauders, they lose to rines, they lose to hydras, lings (not sure about roaches, but for cost they probably lose there as well). They are basically just too weak. This results in protoss being left without a good general purpose unit, which can penalize them overly much if they don't have perfect information about the enemy. Your lack of an all-purpose unit forces you to always make specific counters to what the other person is doing.
Say in SC1 mutas are coming. Your goons can help hold them off as you get sair or archon or whatnot. Stalkers just get owned. Hydras--goons can do a good job, but need some help. Stalker just owned so hard you are better off not even having them. Goons do fine vs most things. Stalkers can't hold their own against anything.
Stalkers do have blink. I have not seen that ability used all that much--does it really make up for them being so much weaker than the simple walking goons?
Stalkers are useful but need to be micro-ed to be useful. They are the standard anti reaper rush unit. Also they serve as the protoss version of the reaper. They are not meant to be mass produced as they are the support/sniper/flanking/harass role.
Edit: added harass role ^
Stalkers get owned by reapers, even one on one. Once you factor in cost, it becomes a rape. Stalkers take place of the dragoon, which was a key part of toss army--an all-purpose unit that can help toss hold its own against different strategies while they build more specific counters/tech. Stalker is too weak to fill that role. It's weaker than the goon, while on average units in SC2 got stronger.
On February 23 2010 06:03 Phelix wrote: or getting Terran Air with Banshees, which is not viable since it is too slow to get out in time and gets picked apart by stalkers.
Not true. If you sit there and let your banshees fight the stalkers, then yes they will lose, however if you are smart you can deal a good amount of damage. You can have banshee's out before a Protoss upgrades blink, so you can easily kill any buildings/units near the edges of their base, and harass their mineral line. They both have the same range (6), but the banshee's can fly and can stack a bit, so if you are fighting stalkers at the edge of a cliff or base, usually only one or two stalkers can attack while all five or six of your banshee's can.
Later on, you can scan their base for an observer and if you don't see it, just cloak, rush in and either kill a lot of probes or take out the nexus. I've had it done to me, and although I won the game, I found it very powerful. Maybe I am a bad player or my opponent is bad, but I am 16-4 on the gold ladder, so I must be doing something right.
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote:In SC1 dragoons were versatile units that were generally useful against everything (you typical jack of all trade unit). Stalkers cannot fill that role because they are simply too weak. They can't counter muta, they lose to marauders, they lose to rines, they lose to hydras, lings (not sure about roaches, but for cost they probably lose there as well). They are basically just too weak. This results in protoss being left without a good general purpose unit, which can penalize them overly much if they don't have perfect information about the enemy. Your lack of an all-purpose unit forces you to always make specific counters to what the other person is doing.
I'm not that good at StarCraft, but from my experience, don't Dragoons lose to all of those as well? (Well, not Mutalisks, but the Mutalisks will be ignoring your Dragoons and their pathetic damage output while dismantling your Probe line, so it's just as bad.)
As to the subject at hand, the StarCraft II Terran music is imbalanced. But then, it was in the original StarCraft too.
The game seems really balanced, the roaches are totally not imba, even if the immortals are much more expensive they are so much more powerful. About the immortals vs terran, how the hell can you lose a battle with marines against immportals??
This post should be stickied on the b.net forum and here. There's so so many people crying out "xx is imbalanced" simply because they didn't even scout it so they never saw it coming in time to make counters or because they got no idea how to properly counter it yet. So far after ~150 games I haven't come across a unit that feels imbalanced yet, although mothership is starting to feel too much like a hero-unit and Vortex is incredibly powerful in the right hands, but still I'll wait a few months until I judge it because right now you can really notice how the tactics evolve every single day when logging on b.net and it will take a long time until stuff is "figured out".
Compared with Warcraft3's first beta build, this game is a marvel of balance. I still remember Hero rushing with KOTG, having 12 Treants, and 3 mercenaries in their base in about the time they got a footman.
I have issues with balance like the Mothership is worlds better than an Arbiter. The mothership requires 2 less tech buildings. The tech building that it does require allows you to combo Arbiters with Carriers. All of its abilities are fully researched The mothership actually does carrier level damage. You can be building out of your startport while the mothership is being built. The mothership's teleport ability means it can save itself to heal up its shields to be used as a combat unit at a later time.
On February 24 2010 06:34 Fanatic-Templar wrote: I'm not that good at StarCraft, but from my experience, don't Dragoons lose to all of those as well? (Well, not Mutalisks, but the Mutalisks will be ignoring your Dragoons and their pathetic damage output while dismantling your Probe line, so it's just as bad.)
At least you could psistorm mutalisks or go corsair. Phoenix don't deal enough damage vs muta to be effective. And if you start to almost get enough Phoenix to fight off muta, they'll switch to hydra, and they'll just keep their muta coming back to the hydra mass if you chase them off with your phoenix. One slip and all your phoenix die to hydra.
Now it seems only Archons can theoretically stop muta. So my build is like this: Heavy Zealots and pressure at a point where you won't be losing zs to a bunch of lings. Then I cannon my home base and expand. Cannons can still stop mutalisks. I tech straight to archons. I don't even get psistorm real fast as it isn't very useful. Now when I got 2 bases running with cannons in each, I scout them with whatever I got. If they're heavy ground, I go 2-3 robo to Collosus since Collossus = GG ground when comboed with speed zs /stalkers and archons.
It is lame that you're basically forced to cannon expand. But it is super nice that Collosus will win you the ground game, so it goes both ways.
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote: As to the subject at hand, the StarCraft II Terran music is imbalanced. But then, it was in the original StarCraft too.
As a terran player - i'm finding protoss hard on the maps where it takes a long time to actually get to the protoss base. - I can't find a viable solution to the immortal tech, the 1-2 zealots a 2 stalkers/2 immortal push seems to jib me pretty hard, if i massed a marauder/rine army going for medivacs, i'd pretty much lose all that ground vs it - and later meet a collosus on the next push - and if i go for quick banshees, although i push it back, he's dealt a shit load of damage already to my economy - enough that he's got stargates going up and phoenix's out pretty shortly.
Any suggestions on the TvP matchup? - Would be very appreciated.
it seems to be that immortals are only useful with SHIELDS, if shields are gone, tanks will commence the pain. What takes away the shields though....oh yes I know, the ghost! have 1-3 in your army quick as can be (What I would love to see is a factory based build with only one rax (the one you make to start O.o) and make a hellion/tank/few thors(or vikings either are okish for anti air) and a few ghosts. Ghosts > Immortal shields, and Ghosts > HTs (snipe is amazing I hear).
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote: As to the subject at hand, the StarCraft II Terran music is imbalanced. But then, it was in the original StarCraft too.
Hillbilly music from God's land pwn
lol! Well, I had a different perspective. I mean, listen to Terran Theme 4 at around the two-minute mark and tell me it doesn't sound like Pink Floyd.
On February 24 2010 06:34 Fanatic-Templar wrote: I'm not that good at StarCraft, but from my experience, don't Dragoons lose to all of those as well? (Well, not Mutalisks, but the Mutalisks will be ignoring your Dragoons and their pathetic damage output while dismantling your Probe line, so it's just as bad.)
At least you could psistorm mutalisks or go corsair. Phoenix don't deal enough damage vs muta to be effective. And if you start to almost get enough Phoenix to fight off muta, they'll switch to hydra, and they'll just keep their muta coming back to the hydra mass if you chase them off with your phoenix. One slip and all your phoenix die to hydra.
Now it seems only Archons can theoretically stop muta. So my build is like this: Heavy Zealots and pressure at a point where you won't be losing zs to a bunch of lings. Then I cannon my home base and expand. Cannons can still stop mutalisks. I tech straight to archons. I don't even get psistorm real fast as it isn't very useful. Now when I got 2 bases running with cannons in each, I scout them with whatever I got. If they're heavy ground, I go 2-3 robo to Collosus since Collossus = GG ground when comboed with speed zs /stalkers and archons.
It is lame that you're basically forced to cannon expand. But it is super nice that Collosus will win you the ground game, so it goes both ways.
This post is ridiculously wrong There's no need to cannon expand in order to stop Mutalisks. Maybe we'll find that it's the best build around, but it's not the necessary way to fight Mutalisks. Phoenix + Sentry + Stalker (Phoenixes are optional but help a lot) is a ridiculously effective counter to Mutalisks. The Sentry's shield is totally key and makes Mutalisks do like no damage.
As a terran player - i'm finding protoss hard on the maps where it takes a long time to actually get to the protoss base. - I can't find a viable solution to the immortal tech, the 1-2 zealots a 2 stalkers/2 immortal push seems to jib me pretty hard, if i massed a marauder/rine army going for medivacs, i'd pretty much lose all that ground vs it - and later meet a collosus on the next push - and if i go for quick banshees, although i push it back, he's dealt a shit load of damage already to my economy - enough that he's got stargates going up and phoenix's out pretty shortly.
Any suggestions on the TvP matchup? - Would be very appreciated.
Try ghosts. I am experimenting with them at the moment, however I only play against randoms so I only get the timing right sometimes. I open 2 raxx both addons and attack while getting a ghost. The attack hits before P can have a colossus. I pull back immediately if I see immortals (they are well in time to hold this off). The ghost is there to live the immortal/sentry counter attack.
It's very tricky to place the EMP right before the sentry can cast it's shield, but if you manage that you can fend off the attack off 2 raxxes pretty well.
I have still trouble sometimes executing this but given your reputation I would love to hear about your experience with ghosts.
On February 23 2010 05:31 flamewheel91 wrote: It's balanced enough if you look at it this way too: If roaches (Zerg) are imba, reapers (Terran) are imba, and warp rays (Protoss) are imba, then everything is imbalanced and therefore it's balanced.
Somehow this train of thoughts reminds me of an ironic German proverb, which says:
If every person just cared only about himself, then at last everyone would be taken care of!
Not sure whether it exists in the english language as well or if the message is lost in translation, but in other words: "All races have imba units = balanced game" does not compute. In my eyes SC2 seems rather balanced so far because there seems to be no "broken imba unit". We might just need to get used to different "standard units" when compared to BW.
Sorted out my matchup vs protoss thus far - tried ghosts a few games, they seemed to work when the toss didn't make collosus' or was abit silly micro wise, but i went down another road that seems alot more dependable.
On February 24 2010 20:07 Drazzzt wrote: complaining about imbalances is wayyyyyyy too early. lets wait several months...
Well, whats the point of the beta if we can't complain and try to improve the balance? A week might be too early but there will be balance patches during the beta. That's a fact.
On February 23 2010 05:31 flamewheel91 wrote: It's balanced enough if you look at it this way too: If roaches (Zerg) are imba, reapers (Terran) are imba, and warp rays (Protoss) are imba, then everything is imbalanced and therefore it's balanced.
Not really. Balance is a complicated concept, and it doesn't involve summing up imbalances for either side, and then coming out equal. You need to look at the three matchups individually, as well as the different stages of the game. Moreover, even if imba units on either side resulted in a balanced game, it still wouldn't be a good game. We don't want too predictable gameplay.
On February 23 2010 05:26 Response wrote: to be honest the game seems fairly balanced to me, I haven't come accross one thing that I've said "that's just imba, how can I stop that"
this.
the only thing i've found to be imba is how easy toss is to play. HAH! eat that toss-users :p
but srsly, i have my eye on a unit, but i'm not saying anything yet, cuz i don't have a "training buddy." so far, and i've played a lot of games(100+), nothing seems imba to me.
On February 25 2010 02:57 DeMusliM wrote: Sorted out my matchup vs protoss thus far - tried ghosts a few games, they seemed to work when the toss didn't make collosus' or was abit silly micro wise, but i went down another road that seems alot more dependable.
Curious what you settled on - not having ghosts for Immortals seems tough. Colossi are annoying as well, since you have to make vikings to fight them and vikings are built from the starport so now you don't get any medivacs -_- And to make it even more annoying (in case they go carriers), they don't even share upgrades with the rest of the mech units.
So if you go bio, colossus+storm (if you don't have ghosts with EMP, how do you counter hts?) seem a bit overwhelming. If you go mech, you don't have any really good anti-air without spending a ton of gas on starports and vikings, which don't share upgrades. Meh.
This is in addition to the fact that if P proxy gates, he'll have a zealot inside your main before your barracks has even finished (and 2 zealots can kill a supply depot that's being repaired by 2 scvs).
On February 23 2010 18:19 phexac wrote: I have not played the game, just watched the replays, but I got the impression that Stalkers are really weak against everything. They do low damage and don't have the much HP, especially considering average HP is higher in SC2 and many units do quite a bit of damage, and even old units like rines have more HP now. I just have not seen any games where Stalkers were effective at killing anything (out of like 20+ reps I watched with P in them). People make them, but they just don't really do anything unless the situation is already heavily stacked in their favor.
In SC1 dragoons were versatile units that were generally useful against everything (you typical jack of all trade unit). Stalkers cannot fill that role because they are simply too weak. They can't counter muta, they lose to marauders, they lose to rines, they lose to hydras, lings (not sure about roaches, but for cost they probably lose there as well). They are basically just too weak. This results in protoss being left without a good general purpose unit, which can penalize them overly much if they don't have perfect information about the enemy. Your lack of an all-purpose unit forces you to always make specific counters to what the other person is doing.
Say in SC1 mutas are coming. Your goons can help hold them off as you get sair or archon or whatnot. Stalkers just get owned. Hydras--goons can do a good job, but need some help. Stalker just owned so hard you are better off not even having them. Goons do fine vs most things. Stalkers can't hold their own against anything.
Stalkers do have blink. I have not seen that ability used all that much--does it really make up for them being so much weaker than the simple walking goons?
Stalkers are useful but need to be micro-ed to be useful. They are the standard anti reaper rush unit. Also they serve as the protoss version of the reaper. They are not meant to be mass produced as they are the support/sniper/flanking/harass role.
Edit: added harass role ^
Stalkers get owned by reapers, even one on one. Once you factor in cost, it becomes a rape. Stalkers take place of the dragoon, which was a key part of toss army--an all-purpose unit that can help toss hold its own against different strategies while they build more specific counters/tech. Stalker is too weak to fill that role. It's weaker than the goon, while on average units in SC2 got stronger.