|
On October 22 2014 20:40 -Celestial- wrote:
@Everyone going on about Stalkers: You've kind of made my point for me. I'm not saying "they've got a ton of bad points and therefore they need buffing". I'm saying they're bad, but they're all Protoss has for a couple of specific purposes; so people have found ways to work them into unit compositions.
playa just effectively saying "they're terrible, nobody should use them" is sort of glossing over the fact its quite hard to play without them. My point was: I agree they're bad, they've ALWAYS been bad. But they've also always been needed to an extent. Even if you cut down on usage you still need to use some (balance-wise, of course, it then becomes a question of "how bad can we make this unit whilst still letting it fulfill its purpose" because Stalkers have the potential to be the best unit in the game because of Blink if the stats were much higher).
Arguably this cycles back to the problem of ultra specialisation in Protoss units making balancing them tricky. Everything is highly specialised to a couple of specific purposes and they're pretty much awful at anything else. The comment about "a Swiss army knife unit" is especially poignant given the existence of the Marine and its utter dominance in the Terran arsenal. Compare and contrast how a Terran army is built with how a Protoss army is built and the unit roles therein.
It has nothing to do with that, all the units in the game fall under this ultra specialisation (aka hard counter) mechanic, however the difference with bio and other units is that bio is very fragile composition, however the marine is not the do all be all unit every one says, marine+marauder+medivac however is, but again is a very fragile composition wich is why you need ghost/viking, wich again falls into the ultra specialisation you talk about, is not just protoss is the whole game.
As for the stalker it has been said already you can't make the stalker stronger because warp gate would make too strong, we all knew how strong they were when we had good blink maps or in the WoL era when there were good 4 gate maps, the stalker can't be stronger because warp gate would make it broken, in Brood War the dragoons were really strong all around units with greath range very sturdy and with high damage, but since you had to take time to build them and then bring them to the other side of the map they weren't imbalanced.
|
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM.
|
On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM.
Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be.
|
On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be.
This is a very dumb argument, stalkers have their use, you can't have stalkers be good vs everything, if you don't like using stalkers play Phoenix/colo, otherwise there is no need to change a composition that has been the same since WoL, macro PvT is the MU that has changed the least since release, Gateway/colossus/HT vs MMM+ghost+viking.
|
On October 22 2014 21:40 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be. This is a very dumb argument, stalkers have their use, you can't have stalkers be good vs everything, if you don't like using stalkers play Phoenix/colo, otherwise there is no need to change a composition that has been the same since WoL, macro PvT is the MU that has changed the least since release, Gateway/colossus/HT vs MMM+ghost+viking.
I don't play "phoenix colossi" per se. I simply make a few phoenixes so I don't have to make stalkers. You couldn't pay me to willingly make stalkers. You have to force me to make a unit that lack luster. I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to rationalize a race being at 40% during any sample. I see a lot of stalkers. I don't see anyone saying HT or Colossi are underpowered. It doesn't leave a lot of suspects left.
My favorite argument, personally, is the widow mine has left Toss too predictable. They know were going to make stalkers and colossi, thus how can we win?! We're playing with are cards face up, meanwhile Terran does the same thing every game for the history of life. I like the sentiment that our race is so weak that we can't possibly win unless you get caught with your pants down.
|
It seems almost impossible to do anything about the stalker that wouldn't severely affect PvZ and PvP though.
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On October 22 2014 21:14 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 20:40 -Celestial- wrote:
@Everyone going on about Stalkers: You've kind of made my point for me. I'm not saying "they've got a ton of bad points and therefore they need buffing". I'm saying they're bad, but they're all Protoss has for a couple of specific purposes; so people have found ways to work them into unit compositions.
playa just effectively saying "they're terrible, nobody should use them" is sort of glossing over the fact its quite hard to play without them. My point was: I agree they're bad, they've ALWAYS been bad. But they've also always been needed to an extent. Even if you cut down on usage you still need to use some (balance-wise, of course, it then becomes a question of "how bad can we make this unit whilst still letting it fulfill its purpose" because Stalkers have the potential to be the best unit in the game because of Blink if the stats were much higher).
Arguably this cycles back to the problem of ultra specialisation in Protoss units making balancing them tricky. Everything is highly specialised to a couple of specific purposes and they're pretty much awful at anything else. The comment about "a Swiss army knife unit" is especially poignant given the existence of the Marine and its utter dominance in the Terran arsenal. Compare and contrast how a Terran army is built with how a Protoss army is built and the unit roles therein.
It has nothing to do with that, all the units in the game fall under this ultra specialisation (aka hard counter) mechanic, however the difference with bio and other units is that bio is very fragile composition, however the marine is not the do all be all unit every one says, marine+marauder+medivac however is, but again is a very fragile composition wich is why you need ghost/viking, wich again falls into the ultra specialisation you talk about, is not just protoss is the whole game. As for the stalker it has been said already you can't make the stalker stronger because warp gate would make too strong, we all knew how strong they were when we had good blink maps or in the WoL era when there were good 4 gate maps, the stalker can't be stronger because warp gate would make it broken, in Brood War the dragoons were really strong all around units with greath range very sturdy and with high damage, but since you had to take time to build them and then bring them to the other side of the map they weren't imbalanced.
That's nonsense, just add that unit some mid/lategame upgrade. I don't understand why there are no such upgrades. And we can talk about bio too in this way. Why there is no upgrade in fusion core for bio? Giving marines shields or something. And when the templar archives is built there can be more upgrades than "just" storm, like new weapon for Stalkers, so the damage to light is increased, or blink coold own si reduced etc. The options are endless ;] Same goes to the robo bay. Return observatory back and give to the robo bay some new upgrades to the zealot(I don't know, how about jumping DOWN the cliff(not up) when the charge is researched(I mean, they have stronger legs, they should be able to jump from small hill  ).
Why the hell is Blizzard removing upgrades all the time or just changing numbers. Just give us some new upgrades for late game play, so we can use MORE units than the same all over again...
Edit> By shields I mean protoss type shields(or the shields of BC from Campaign), not some bigger shield instead of their current shield xD
|
On October 22 2014 22:59 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 21:14 Lexender wrote:On October 22 2014 20:40 -Celestial- wrote:
@Everyone going on about Stalkers: You've kind of made my point for me. I'm not saying "they've got a ton of bad points and therefore they need buffing". I'm saying they're bad, but they're all Protoss has for a couple of specific purposes; so people have found ways to work them into unit compositions.
playa just effectively saying "they're terrible, nobody should use them" is sort of glossing over the fact its quite hard to play without them. My point was: I agree they're bad, they've ALWAYS been bad. But they've also always been needed to an extent. Even if you cut down on usage you still need to use some (balance-wise, of course, it then becomes a question of "how bad can we make this unit whilst still letting it fulfill its purpose" because Stalkers have the potential to be the best unit in the game because of Blink if the stats were much higher).
Arguably this cycles back to the problem of ultra specialisation in Protoss units making balancing them tricky. Everything is highly specialised to a couple of specific purposes and they're pretty much awful at anything else. The comment about "a Swiss army knife unit" is especially poignant given the existence of the Marine and its utter dominance in the Terran arsenal. Compare and contrast how a Terran army is built with how a Protoss army is built and the unit roles therein.
It has nothing to do with that, all the units in the game fall under this ultra specialisation (aka hard counter) mechanic, however the difference with bio and other units is that bio is very fragile composition, however the marine is not the do all be all unit every one says, marine+marauder+medivac however is, but again is a very fragile composition wich is why you need ghost/viking, wich again falls into the ultra specialisation you talk about, is not just protoss is the whole game. As for the stalker it has been said already you can't make the stalker stronger because warp gate would make too strong, we all knew how strong they were when we had good blink maps or in the WoL era when there were good 4 gate maps, the stalker can't be stronger because warp gate would make it broken, in Brood War the dragoons were really strong all around units with greath range very sturdy and with high damage, but since you had to take time to build them and then bring them to the other side of the map they weren't imbalanced. That's nonsense, just add that unit some mid/lategame upgrade. I don't understand why there are no such upgrades. And we can talk about bio too in this way. Why there is no upgrade in fusion core for bio? Giving marines shields or something. And when the templar archives is built there can be more upgrades than "just" storm, like new weapon for Stalkers, so the damage to light is increased, or blink coold own si reduced etc. The options are endless ;] Same goes to the robo bay. Return observatory back and give to the robo bay some new upgrades to the zealot(I don't know, how about jumping DOWN the cliff(not up) when the charge is researched(I mean, they have stronger legs, they should be able to jump from small hill ). Why the hell is Blizzard removing upgrades all the time or just changing numbers. Just give us some new upgrades for late game play, so we can use MORE units than the same all over again... Edit> By shields I mean protoss type shields(or the shields of BC from Campaign), not some bigger shield instead of their current shield xD
On the topic of upgrades.
Late game upgrades that change more than just unit stats would be great.
* Decreased Build Time
* Decreased Cost
* Increase unit acceleration
* Damage specific armor (+1 armor vs mech for example)
etc...
|
On October 22 2014 22:59 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 21:14 Lexender wrote:On October 22 2014 20:40 -Celestial- wrote:
@Everyone going on about Stalkers: You've kind of made my point for me. I'm not saying "they've got a ton of bad points and therefore they need buffing". I'm saying they're bad, but they're all Protoss has for a couple of specific purposes; so people have found ways to work them into unit compositions.
playa just effectively saying "they're terrible, nobody should use them" is sort of glossing over the fact its quite hard to play without them. My point was: I agree they're bad, they've ALWAYS been bad. But they've also always been needed to an extent. Even if you cut down on usage you still need to use some (balance-wise, of course, it then becomes a question of "how bad can we make this unit whilst still letting it fulfill its purpose" because Stalkers have the potential to be the best unit in the game because of Blink if the stats were much higher).
Arguably this cycles back to the problem of ultra specialisation in Protoss units making balancing them tricky. Everything is highly specialised to a couple of specific purposes and they're pretty much awful at anything else. The comment about "a Swiss army knife unit" is especially poignant given the existence of the Marine and its utter dominance in the Terran arsenal. Compare and contrast how a Terran army is built with how a Protoss army is built and the unit roles therein.
It has nothing to do with that, all the units in the game fall under this ultra specialisation (aka hard counter) mechanic, however the difference with bio and other units is that bio is very fragile composition, however the marine is not the do all be all unit every one says, marine+marauder+medivac however is, but again is a very fragile composition wich is why you need ghost/viking, wich again falls into the ultra specialisation you talk about, is not just protoss is the whole game. As for the stalker it has been said already you can't make the stalker stronger because warp gate would make too strong, we all knew how strong they were when we had good blink maps or in the WoL era when there were good 4 gate maps, the stalker can't be stronger because warp gate would make it broken, in Brood War the dragoons were really strong all around units with greath range very sturdy and with high damage, but since you had to take time to build them and then bring them to the other side of the map they weren't imbalanced. That's nonsense, just add that unit some mid/lategame upgrade. I don't understand why there are no such upgrades. And we can talk about bio too in this way. Why there is no upgrade in fusion core for bio? Giving marines shields or something. And when the templar archives is built there can be more upgrades than "just" storm, like new weapon for Stalkers, so the damage to light is increased, or blink coold own si reduced etc. The options are endless ;] Same goes to the robo bay. Return observatory back and give to the robo bay some new upgrades to the zealot(I don't know, how about jumping DOWN the cliff(not up) when the charge is researched(I mean, they have stronger legs, they should be able to jump from small hill ). Why the hell is Blizzard removing upgrades all the time or just changing numbers. Just give us some new upgrades for late game play, so we can use MORE units than the same all over again... Edit> By shields I mean protoss type shields(or the shields of BC from Campaign), not some bigger shield instead of their current shield xD
Thats more a game design problema than balance one, why are we forced to use units in very specific ways for very specific reasons, we can add utility to stalkers lategame and then all the toss would make would be stalkers, the game forces responses as a way to force variety, colossus/HT forces ghosts/vikings from the terran, if the bio army was stronger as a lategame buff like you suggest you wouldn't need ghost and vikings and the MU would be more stale than it is. A good comparison is TvZ, if the zerg gets ultras it forces the terran to get marauders and if he gets broodlord it forces the terran to get vikings, same way if he goes roach/hydra it forces tanks from the terran, the game Works in a very specific hard counter way, so the fact that some units have very niche roles are a design problema not a balance one
|
Northern Ireland27126 Posts
I would contend that Stalkers are actually pretty versatile though
|
On October 22 2014 23:34 Wombat_NI wrote:
I would contend that Stalkers are actually pretty versatile though
And you would be correct. The only thing lost by overmaking stalkers is a marked decrease in DPS, comparative to equivalent forces.
But few things are more mobile, as ranged, as flexible, defensive, offensive, etc... as the stalker.
|
Stalkers are garbage, except when they're not.
They're relatively expensive for their DPS and health, making them pretty bad. But they have high survivability and microability, and can be produced relatively easily from Warpgates, making them very good in high numbers in certain situations (early game, allins).
My general rule of thumb is make as few as possible to get by.
I've been doing the PartinG Big Boy build PvT lately so I do make a bunch of Stalkers in the early game but I try not to go too crazy as the game normalizes. Stalker/Colossus gets mowed down by mass Marauders if the numbers get too high.
|
|
|
On October 23 2014 00:58 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be. There isn't a weak link. The maps are just trash. PvT would be more interesting if Widow Mines didn't have +Shield damage since we'd see High Templar openings become more viable again, but there isn't a balance issue that requires Protoss units to be any stronger or Terran units to be any weaker.
Yeah, Nimbus and Catallena are pretty trashy. There's always going to be a few bad maps, though. Stalkers are so bad, though. I have no idea how you guys can make them. I can only laugh when I watch streams and I see stalker compositions trying to fight. When are they ever cost effective without blink micro? Who even blink micros them in big P vs T battles? Such a waste of minerals and gas. The phoenix is better in every way. Instead of offering nothing in battles outside of the first few minutes, like what couldn't stop an early attack, anyways... at least they can pick up a few units, taking them out of the fight.
Better drop defense? Phoenix. Better mobility? Phoenix. Better at protecting colossi and killing medivacs? I'll go with phoenix again. To me, these are all important things. I do think the widow mine is a problem in that it's making people go away from HT: because when people go HT, they usually mass zealots instead of stalkers. That in itself has to give you a few extra win %.
Unless you're trying a 2 base all-in/"timing" with stalker colossi, I don't get it. I'll keep looking at the numbers and waiting for stalkers to become good.
|
On October 23 2014 01:09 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 00:58 SatedSC2 wrote:On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be. There isn't a weak link. The maps are just trash. PvT would be more interesting if Widow Mines didn't have +Shield damage since we'd see High Templar openings become more viable again, but there isn't a balance issue that requires Protoss units to be any stronger or Terran units to be any weaker. Yeah, Nimbus and Catallena are pretty trashy. There's always going to be a few bad maps, though. Stalkers are so bad, though. I have no idea how you guys can make them. I can only laugh when I watch streams and I see stalker compositions trying to fight. When are they ever cost effective without blink micro? Who even blink micros them in big P vs T battles? Such a waste of minerals and gas. The phoenix is better in every way. Instead of offering nothing in battles outside of the first few minutes, like what couldn't stop an early attack, anyways... at least they can pick up a few units, taking them out of the fight. Better drop defense? Phoenix. Better mobility? Phoenix. Better at protecting colossi and killing medivacs? I'll go with phoenix again. To me, these are all important things. I do think the widow mine is a problem in that it's making people go away from HT: because when people go HT, they usually mass zealots instead of stalkers. That in itself has to give you a few extra win %. Unless you're trying a 2 base all-in/"timing" with stalker colossi, I don't get it. I'll keep looking at the numbers and waiting for stalkers to become good.
Couple of things:
When are they ever cost effective without blink micro?
As often as Marauders/Marines without stim and Swarm Hosts without Locust!
Who even blink micros them in big P vs T battles?
Most Korean Protoss..?
The phoenix is better in every way
That must be why professional players who earn their living in this game prefer Stalkers 0_0!
Instead of offering nothing in battles outside of the first few minutes, like what couldn't stop an early attack, anyways..
Photon Overcharge being bullshit is another discussion... lol.
Better at protecting colossi and killing medivacs? I'll go with phoenix again.
Ye men, Phoenix rock vs Marauders and Ghost! Or Marine/Vikings!
because when people go HT, they usually mass zealots instead of stalkers. That in itself has to give you a few extra win %
Because Stalkers cost Gas and Zealots do not -.-?
Do you even play the game buddy?
Obviously a 150/100 units from a 150/150 structure that you spend a lot of attention on IS going to be more effective at certain things than a 125/50 unit from a 150/0 structure that is easy to mass produce everywhere over the map.
|
2014 and terrible myths like "gate units suck" or "Stalkers are garbage" are still alive. Ugh...
|
|
|
On October 23 2014 01:20 TheDwf wrote:
2014 and terrible myths like "gate units suck" or "Stalkers are garbage" are still alive. Ugh...
They are, when you look at the statistics, pretty bad for their cost. Stalkers get wrecked by Marauders which cost less minerals and gas.
However, and what I think your point is TheDwf, these units can't be looked at in a vaccuum. Obviously nobody is going pure Stalker 20 minutes into a PvT (they'd lose every time). Combined with the Colossus, the Zealot, the High Templar, etc. the stats on the Stalker are acceptable because they allow it to do its job in context.
Like I said, Stalkers are garbage, except when they're not 
|
On October 23 2014 01:25 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 01:09 playa wrote:On October 23 2014 00:58 SatedSC2 wrote:On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be. There isn't a weak link. The maps are just trash. PvT would be more interesting if Widow Mines didn't have +Shield damage since we'd see High Templar openings become more viable again, but there isn't a balance issue that requires Protoss units to be any stronger or Terran units to be any weaker. Yeah, Nimbus and Catallena are pretty trashy. There's always going to be a few bad maps, though. Stalkers are so bad, though. I have no idea how you guys can make them. I can only laugh when I watch streams and I see stalker compositions trying to fight. When are they ever cost effective without blink micro? Who even blink micros them in big P vs T battles? Such a waste of minerals and gas. The phoenix is better in every way. Instead of offering nothing in battles outside of the first few minutes, like what couldn't stop an early attack, anyways... at least they can pick up a few units, taking them out of the fight. Better drop defense? Phoenix. Better mobility? Phoenix. Better at protecting colossi and killing medivacs? I'll go with phoenix again. To me, these are all important things. I do think the widow mine is a problem in that it's making people go away from HT: because when people go HT, they usually mass zealots instead of stalkers. That in itself has to give you a few extra win %. Unless you're trying a 2 base all-in/"timing" with stalker colossi, I don't get it. I'll keep looking at the numbers and waiting for stalkers to become good. Stalkers do suck in straight up fights, but that's not what they're for. They're a finesse unit. Good Protoss players are using Blink Stalker openings to threaten the Terran before the Terran can get Stim and Medivacs. This forces a defensive stance from the Terran, which good players can exploit to take a much faster third base than is possible with Phoenix/Colossus or straight-up Robotics Facility openings. The fast third base means that they get the gas required to tech up to Templar in a much quicker manner than would otherwise be possible, ironically reducing their reliance on Stalkers in mid-to-late game fights since they'll probably have Archons/Storm sooner... especially people like MC who use Blink Stalker pressure to give them the space required to skip Colossi and go straight for Templar tech.
I would be curious as to what Terran players prefer to play against. If I were to make stalkers, I'd probably win 40% of my games, if that. It would take a miracle to even get that. On the other hand, make any phoenix at all... and 60% is probably very disappointing. When I watch Hero play that zealot, ht, phoenix style... that seems frightening. OP mines or not. Outside of the 2 base all-in with stalkers and colossi, I don't see anything remotely scary.
W/e Toss is doing, it's not working. And, it can't just be the maps, as you get to veto in tournaments. I get setting up faster thirds and all that, but to be stuck with stalkers, that almost has to cancel it out...
|
On October 23 2014 01:25 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 01:09 playa wrote:On October 23 2014 00:58 SatedSC2 wrote:On October 22 2014 21:29 playa wrote:On October 22 2014 21:15 Tuczniak wrote:
Remove warpgates and massive AoE in collosi + templars and we could talk about making gateway units more like MMM/roach-hyrda.
Anyway saying that making stalkers is playing with handicap in PvT is plainly stupid, and Playa is a proof that one shouldn't rely on his personal experience from ladder no matter if he is bronze or GM. Maybe we should rely on how good Toss is doing in P vs T atm? I'm pretty sure colossi are good. I'm pretty sure HT are good. Hmm. I wonder what the weak link could be. There isn't a weak link. The maps are just trash. PvT would be more interesting if Widow Mines didn't have +Shield damage since we'd see High Templar openings become more viable again, but there isn't a balance issue that requires Protoss units to be any stronger or Terran units to be any weaker. Yeah, Nimbus and Catallena are pretty trashy. There's always going to be a few bad maps, though. Stalkers are so bad, though. I have no idea how you guys can make them. I can only laugh when I watch streams and I see stalker compositions trying to fight. When are they ever cost effective without blink micro? Who even blink micros them in big P vs T battles? Such a waste of minerals and gas. The phoenix is better in every way. Instead of offering nothing in battles outside of the first few minutes, like what couldn't stop an early attack, anyways... at least they can pick up a few units, taking them out of the fight. Better drop defense? Phoenix. Better mobility? Phoenix. Better at protecting colossi and killing medivacs? I'll go with phoenix again. To me, these are all important things. I do think the widow mine is a problem in that it's making people go away from HT: because when people go HT, they usually mass zealots instead of stalkers. That in itself has to give you a few extra win %. Unless you're trying a 2 base all-in/"timing" with stalker colossi, I don't get it. I'll keep looking at the numbers and waiting for stalkers to become good. Stalkers do suck in straight-up fights, but that's not what they're for. They're a finesse unit. Good Protoss players aren't using Blink Stalker openings to pick straight-up fights with Terrans. They are using Blink Stalker openings to threaten the Terran before the Terran has Stim and Medivacs ready. This forces a defensive stance from the Terran, which good players can exploit to take a much faster third base than is possible with Phoenix/Colossus or straight-up Robotics Facility openings. Ironically, because the fast third base means that they get the gas required to tech up to Templar in a much quicker manner than would otherwise be possible, these players are actually reducing their reliance on Blink Stalkers in mid-to-late game fights since they'll have Archons/Storm/Charge a lot sooner... especially people like MC who use their Blink Stalker pressure to give them the space required to skip Colossi and go straight for Templar.
Of course ,it like saying "vikings are garbage why making them if they ground mode is so weak they die to stalkers too easily" MU don't work in a vacuum like that and stalkers fill their role quite nicely, kinda like marines they're good in the early-mid as an all around unit but as the game goes on they became awfull vs strom/colossus and is better to make as few as posible and instead get a higher marauder coun (in TvP ofc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
