EPTI think if it was increased to 4 (1 more than roach's) it would make them worthwhile, not just in the case of HT running out of juice but for timing pushes as well. I mean, 2 range and no splash? They are just meat shields. Very, very expensive meat shields.
Archon Suggestion: Make them Massive - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
I think if it was increased to 4 (1 more than roach's) it would make them worthwhile, not just in the case of HT running out of juice but for timing pushes as well. I mean, 2 range and no splash? They are just meat shields. Very, very expensive meat shields. | ||
|
iounas
409 Posts
On March 13 2010 00:53 Gnaix wrote: Archons suck, High Templars don't do as much damage as they should, Phoenixes have trouble countering air, the list goes on. You forgot the worst: stalker | ||
|
Iaaan
Canada578 Posts
| ||
|
DaEm0niCuS
United States60 Posts
1. why would u morph your templars into archons when you can simply wait to gain more energy? why make a useless unit instead. 2. Storm cool-down is 10 seconds, so if u have 150 mana your going to be able to use your templar through the entire battle. 3. Battles are pretty short, if you win your not going to need archons, and if you lose your archons will be dead before they even get created. 4. Have you seen archon vs ultra? in bw they were pretty much even, in sc2 the ultra rapes the archon and it still has like 300 life left. Archons should be a unit that you make when you have excess gas, or when you want to counter muta etc. BW had sairs, temps, archon to counter muta, in sc2 storm is not effective cause muta can dodge it very easily, archons simply suck, and phoenix's cannot beat mass muta. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 13 2010 01:00 iounas wrote: ...Stalker with only 5.5dps.. No wonder they suck so much.. That is still more than the old dragoons... Since you don't count the + damage you shouldn't count the goons + damage either, if you average over with and without the + damage they deal roughly the same dps. | ||
|
DaEm0niCuS
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
I would actually prefer Stalker's having blink immediatly or it being lower in the tech tree (cybercore for example). Reasons? People are complaining about attack-moving to much, but at the same time they neglect trying to use blink more, and just ask for a dmg-buff, seems pretty silly to me. I'm still convinced that the stalker good be a good unit micro'd properly with blink (as a harassing units up cliffs, abusing their range + blink vs roaches, etc). But the place in the tech-tree of blink kinda prevents thet from happening and then the robo-bay tech being so good so that the templar archives are even less likely to be taken, and if you do get them, by that time the blink is outclassed by other things. Together with why I think it should be cybercore tech: Let's compare the dragoon to the stalker: Equal to eachother in terms of min/gas/supply/etc (except for building time with warpgates ofcourse) Dragoon 100hp - stalker 80hp Dragoon 10dmg + 10 vs armored (for people who don't know how the sc1 mechanics work), stalker 8dmg + 8 vs armored Dragoon 4 range (+2 research) , stalker: 6 If we look at these stats and just take some balancing "rules" you can make up some quick conclusions: It has lost some dmg, but instead gained extra range without having to research it For getting blink it has lost some HP. So it has the extra range, and therefore put the blink (together with all the other reasons) in the place of the range upgrade that used to be at the cybercore. Or keep blink where it is now in the techtree, but give it some of it's Hp back, since with the lower Hp and without blink it has trouble holding it's own. On terms of dmg, I don't think that it should get extra dmg right off the bat, I would first of all like to see what would happen if you would put blink lower in the techtree. But give it +2 for each upgrade just like it's older brother had, so it keeps the dmg relevant even if the game gets to mid/lategame. For the rest, stop expecting the stalker to be some sort a-move protoss roach equivalent and whine for more dmg, but instead (if you really feel that it needs buffs) think of better ways to buff it instead of "give it more dmg" because tbh, sc2 already has enough units that do tons of dmg. (disclaimer: these are my ideas IF stalkers would need a buff, wether or not they need it, i'm not gonna go into because my experience with the stalker is only from vsAI and replays) | ||
|
DarkOne
Spain41 Posts
On March 13 2010 00:32 iounas wrote: I dont like their new look.. Why do they need armor in a giant ball of energy.. I mean they have only 10hp.. Make them mysterious and unique.. I've always thought like that since I first saw the new archons. Why the need for armour? They dont need that! I prefer the SC1 light alien inside ball of power than the new armoured (again, why?) archon. | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
More range, more damage, more hp, new abilities.....anything....just hope blizzard hears the player's pleas.. | ||
|
L0thar
987 Posts
In that case, what about making Archons stronger but make it so only HT with 150+ (arbitrary number) energy could morph into one? | ||
|
iounas
409 Posts
On March 14 2010 08:56 FictionJV wrote: I'm still convinced that the stalker good be a good unit micro'd properly with blink (as a harassing units up cliffs, abusing their range + blink vs roaches, etc). But the place in the tech-tree of blink kinda prevents thet from happening and then the robo-bay tech being so good so that the templar archives are even less likely to be taken, and if you do get them, by that time the blink is outclassed by other things. I dont think blink helps that unit that much.. Maybe really early in low numbers but anything later and blink is useless.. Blink isnt worth researching because the unit is simply not good enough.. When 2 armies clash blink wont help you with anything.. It has 10 sec cooldown and need vision so you cant use it like reapers up cliffs. Stalker is not really cost effective against anything. Immortal is a better choice. Stalker should be a roach counter but roaches win that battle cost effectively.. Its damage is 8+6 | ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
Blizzard specifically said they want the archon to be something to morph into when you run out of energy, your suggestion is the complete opposite of that, so that won't happen. About the stalker, as far as I know the unit is portrayed as a Hit and Run unit, a bit like the reaper for the terran. Maybe use it that way (and blink would help) instead of using it as a roach frontline fighter equivalent? (If blizzard wanted to have a dragoon copy, they would just have called it a dragoon and gave it the same stats, the thing is that seeing the changes they made they have/had another purpose/role in mind for the stalker then the dragoon had, and what the people want the stalker to be) | ||
|
Inschato
Canada1349 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heVp5vE2KFI As for archons as this topic is about you do know they had pretty short range in SC1 as well, the main difference was they had effective AoE. (Do they have AoE in SC2? If they do it's pitiful) | ||
|
onewingedmoogle
Canada434 Posts
 | ||
|
L0thar
987 Posts
On March 14 2010 18:32 FictionJV wrote: Needing to have 150+ energy on the HT to morph. Blizzard specifically said they want the archon to be something to morph into when you run out of energy, your suggestion is the complete opposite of that, so that won't happen. Well, that was kind of my point. You either accept Blizzard idea or you could ask for buffs but then you must expect some tradeoffs. I'm personally perfectly fine with the current archon as it is. | ||
| ||
