EPTI'm saying you can feedback the ghosts so they can't EMP your Archons. That way they can be much more effective in battle.
The Archon - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
I'm saying you can feedback the ghosts so they can't EMP your Archons. That way they can be much more effective in battle. | ||
|
graphene
Finland211 Posts
| ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
PvP: Infantry support. High HP. High damage PvZ: Best ground unit for defending against Mutalisks (Dragoons were insufficient). Fighting Ultra + Ling. In SC2, by contrast, there are simply better units for those roles. PvP: Colossi are waaay better anti-ground support. They don't suffer from the Reaver's deficiencies PvZ: Colossi are again way better than general anti-ground support Cannons are better against Mutalisk than they were in SCBW Archons are not as good against Mutalisk as they were in SCBW Templar Archives is not as common against Zerg Zerg no longer uses Ultraling | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
i would not spend all of my energy on 2 ghosts to get 1 archon down to 10 hp. thats like having 2 ghosts for no other reason than casting 16 snipes on an ultralisk to bring it down. | ||
|
The_Pacifist
United States540 Posts
Pretty terrible in every other scenario, though. And the above should only ever happen to you once at most. | ||
|
Tone_
United Kingdom554 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:50 Elite00fm wrote: It's not meant to be a powerful combat unit, but instead an option for when you have energy-less templars No, that's exactly what it does not want to end up as, a waste. Each unit is going to need to have a real purpose not a last resort may as well situation. Archons in BW were viable against late game ultra / defiler and pushes with zealots. | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
If blizzard wants the archon to be a fast-response combat unit, this change is exactly what they were supposed to do. What's the big deal? Do protoss need a buffed archon as a core unit to their armies? | ||
|
AJ-
United States316 Posts
if you want good splash damage for your army, you tech to storm or colossi zealots for the cost are better tanks and your gas is better spent for your tech units or the templar before them that being said, if you have archons from leftover battles they do pretty well nonetheless as two_down mentions | ||
|
Willes
Germany199 Posts
if you think they suck against ghost, dont build them in pvt, if you want to use templars in pvt its also better to morph archons and deal/tank dmg instead of templars without mana for spells.... iirc from my ~300 zerggames until now i had maybe 2 vsP with archons, they really can hurt zerglings ( like in bw ) after the two templars have casted the storms, so i dont get it if someone complains about archons, 1 archon dont cost you 300 gas, you tech for storms and maybe feedback, archons are a bonus when you quickly need reinforcements... | ||
|
Morayfire73
United States298 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Archons would be a lot better if depleted gases still gave 1-2 gas instead of 0, like in SC1. IMO if they changed cost of say DT around to make it cost be a little less gas intensive , like being 200 mins and 50 gas you could get archons for a high mineral cost 400 minerals 100 gas, or a high gas cost with HT 100 minerals 300 gas, or for a balanced price of 200 minerals 200 gas (by combining both types of templar). This would make them cost wise 100 minerals cheaper then a colossus, as well as providing splash. | ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
| ||
|
RyanRushia
United States2748 Posts
| ||
|
Kezzer
United States1268 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:53 pyr0ma5ta wrote: Yes, when that unit has 10 HP after doing so. Wouldn't you? um no. waste 4 emps on a single archon? ...really? | ||
|
Phisk
166 Posts
For a unit made when another has passed all usefulness, it isnt as terrible as it is made out to be. This. I find archons useful when my templars have used up all their energy, but unlike in BW its pretty ineffecient to warp in templars just to turn them into archons and are only something that makes templar useful after their energy is gone (which afaik is what blizzard intended). My guess is that people tried to do Archon builds, realised its not possible and started ranting about how useless archons are just cause you cant go mass archons. Their size is a big problem, but they can at least soak up quite a lot of damage. One of the biggest problem for me about the Archon is that Storm isnt as effective as it was in BW and I often opt for colossi instead. When High Templars gets less effective then so does the archon. I also feel that people are exaggerating about EMP effects. EMP does 100 dmg to shields, less than a 3rd of the Archons total hp, hardly enought to consider the Archon "gone" or "roflstomped" (is a maraduer with 85 hp also gone?). EMP is way more dangerous to tightly packed SSZ balls or Immortals. | ||
|
xinxy
Canada116 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:46 oxxo wrote: Same way tanks were 'bad' in the beginning, but are now 'OP'... when all that's changed is 10 hp (and slight splash change). And build time reduction. | ||
|
ExileStrife
United States170 Posts
| ||
|
EvilSky
Czech Republic548 Posts
| ||
|
Lylat
France8575 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Archons would be a lot better if depleted gases still gave 1-2 gas instead of 0, like in SC1. This, besides Archons shouldnt be slowed down by Marauders and they would be a lot better | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On June 02 2010 06:05 BDF92 wrote: um no. waste 4 emps on a single archon? ...really? His post about EMP leaving Archons with 10 HP is in regards to how come mass Archons versus Terran in BW could work quite well sometimes, but essentially never works in SC2. No one is suggesting you burn all of a Ghosts energy EMPing one Archon. If Terran is facing a Bio/Templar army, and is surprised with Archons in SC2, its as simple as building some Ghosts (which you should already have given how early you can get them in SC2) and spamming EMP, as stated above spamming EMP on an army of Archons will decimate it, and is far from a poor use of EMP. In BW unless the Terran purposely went for a Sci Lab tech build it would require building that, then the Covert Ops add-on and then getting Ghosts. This is the primary reason that making it look like you're going a Templar army only to get Archons in BW was viable and could work in a number of situations versus Terran. That said I do not believe the Archon should be as under-valued in PvP or PvZ battles, as it is still a good unit versus those races. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On June 02 2010 05:59 Morayfire73 wrote: IMO if they changed cost of say DT around to make it cost be a little less gas intensive , like being 200 mins and 50 gas you could get archons for a high mineral cost 400 minerals 100 gas, or a high gas cost with HT 100 minerals 300 gas, or for a balanced price of 200 minerals 200 gas (by combining both types of templar). This would make them cost wise 100 minerals cheaper then a colossus, as well as providing splash. That's a pretty good point, especially since DTs are also pretty infrequently used. If going DTs also meant you had the ability to make cost effective archons then it could really help the archon out. I kinda get the impression that players don't mess around enough with DTs -> Archons and what possibilities that may have. Zealot -> DT -> Archon seems like it could be really effective. Anyone know how cost effective archons would be against zerg ground (specifically ling/roach)? Without splash it seems like archons aren't too bad vs roaches. | ||
| ||
