|
On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game.
Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money.
Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh?
Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head.
Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing?
|
On April 10 2012 01:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:41 krell wrote:
Two simple ways to make protoss ever so slightly more challenging:
Remove Zealot Legs
Remove the "w" warp gate button. Zergs dont have a larva button. T doesnt have a rax button. Why should P?
To a more extreme extent: Make it so you have to click an ability for collossi to attack?
No way anyone can take this seriously. Remove Charge and you can essentially remove the zealot because it's worthless. That's like saying blizzard should remove stim, except stim has an even bigger effect than charge. Why shouldn't we? Well because it's a terrible idea. Protoss should have the "W" key because their warpin requires mouseclicks. Why don't we just require Terran and Zerg to use clicks as well? Well because that's just how protoss works, but this way reinforcing from gateways is at least a little bit easier. And I'm not even gonna comment on that last one.
Can we make it so terrans have to tab through marines and marauders and press stim once for each set of units? I mean, thats almost like removing the auto cast. I won't even discuss removing charge, because that is like removing zergling speed.
As for the W-key, well I guess it could be removed. Its not like hotkeying buildings is hard. Maybe raxs should not auto optimize when building marines and marauders(blizzard patched it in, so marines go in the reactored rax first).
|
On April 10 2012 01:58 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:31 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 01:22 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:19 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:24 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:08 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba.  Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation. There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers. As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game. I'm sorry, I must have missed the PvZ slaughter at IPL. Oh wait, only 1 PvZ in the group stages and beyond ended in favour of Protoss. Getting a fast third is the supposed counter to Mutas, and it can usually be punished by 3base Roach. The defense of 3base Roach involves immortal and sentry spam, which, you guessed it, leaves the Protoss player open to Mutas if the third Nexus goes down. 9/10, that Nexus will go down unless the Zerg messes up of the Protoss splits perfectly on a favourable map. On maps like Shakuras, 3base Roach is unbelievably good at denying fast thirds, which makes Muta followups especially deadly. Furthermore, the Phoenix upgrade is more or less useless and I've yet to see a pro game where the Protoss player uses it without already being miles ahead. None of anything you said has anything to do with late game Stalkers. If you don't have Infestor by the late game I'm not sure what to tell you. Infestors are not an end-all-be-all counter to Stalkers, much the same way Sentries do not kill roaches by themselves. Your posts are neither clever nor insightful. No, he was right, if you don't have infestors by the late game you flat out deserve to lose. While by themselves they can't win a game, if used to support an army they can be deadly and devastating. Just the ability to prevent enemies from splitting or blinking away, and to help set up surrounds is golden to zergs, a race that is entirely reliant on flanks and surrounds. You need infestors, just as protoss needs sentries and HT. Ok, if we're playing that game, let's go for it. Stalkers get fungaled, roaches move in, get chopped up by force fields and picked apart by 6 range stalkers without the ability to retaliate. Zerg now has to make a choice: either blow all your energy on ITs in hopes of winning the fight, where the Stalkers will have the option of blinking away, or keep their energy for fungals and hope they have enough roaches left 15 seconds later to put up a fight. Either way, this theoretical stalker/sentry vs roach/infestor is rarely the case. More often we have Colossi involved, and depending how late the game goes, archons, HTs, a mothership, maybe even void rays. Zerg can add Broods and... replace his roaches with spines... I guess add a few corruptors to deal with the mothership/void rays. The point of my argument is not that Protoss deathballs are OMG IMBA or anything. It's that there is a huge imbalance in lategame where Protoss has a mobile army and Zerg has... spines...
It's literally impossible for a Protoss player to engage maxed out Infestor/BL/Corruptor/Roach unless he lands a money Vortex. If anything, it's Zerg who needs to be nerfed at this point in the game. If you spread your BLs, it becomes literally impossible for Protoss to win a direct engagement. This is why you see Zergs like DRG making Spines everywhere; it makes a base trade situation unfavourable for the Protoss, which allows the Zerg to just slowly press forward with BL/Infestor.
If the Protoss has Colossi and Void Rays and Mothership, you should be up at BL/Infestor tech no problem (hell, yours should be out earlier).
I'm still not entirely sure why you think 50 Roaches should beat 50 Stalkers, even though the former composition costs half as much.
|
On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing?
The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight.
|
On April 10 2012 02:33 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:31 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 01:22 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:19 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:24 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:08 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba. Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation. There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers. As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game. I'm sorry, I must have missed the PvZ slaughter at IPL. Oh wait, only 1 PvZ in the group stages and beyond ended in favour of Protoss. Getting a fast third is the supposed counter to Mutas, and it can usually be punished by 3base Roach. The defense of 3base Roach involves immortal and sentry spam, which, you guessed it, leaves the Protoss player open to Mutas if the third Nexus goes down. 9/10, that Nexus will go down unless the Zerg messes up of the Protoss splits perfectly on a favourable map. On maps like Shakuras, 3base Roach is unbelievably good at denying fast thirds, which makes Muta followups especially deadly. Furthermore, the Phoenix upgrade is more or less useless and I've yet to see a pro game where the Protoss player uses it without already being miles ahead. None of anything you said has anything to do with late game Stalkers. If you don't have Infestor by the late game I'm not sure what to tell you. Infestors are not an end-all-be-all counter to Stalkers, much the same way Sentries do not kill roaches by themselves. Your posts are neither clever nor insightful. No, he was right, if you don't have infestors by the late game you flat out deserve to lose. While by themselves they can't win a game, if used to support an army they can be deadly and devastating. Just the ability to prevent enemies from splitting or blinking away, and to help set up surrounds is golden to zergs, a race that is entirely reliant on flanks and surrounds. You need infestors, just as protoss needs sentries and HT. Ok, if we're playing that game, let's go for it. Stalkers get fungaled, roaches move in, get chopped up by force fields and picked apart by 6 range stalkers without the ability to retaliate. Zerg now has to make a choice: either blow all your energy on ITs in hopes of winning the fight, where the Stalkers will have the option of blinking away, or keep their energy for fungals and hope they have enough roaches left 15 seconds later to put up a fight. Either way, this theoretical stalker/sentry vs roach/infestor is rarely the case. More often we have Colossi involved, and depending how late the game goes, archons, HTs, a mothership, maybe even void rays. Zerg can add Broods and... replace his roaches with spines... I guess add a few corruptors to deal with the mothership/void rays. The point of my argument is not that Protoss deathballs are OMG IMBA or anything. It's that there is a huge imbalance in lategame where Protoss has a mobile army and Zerg has... spines... It's literally impossible for a Protoss player to engage maxed out Infestor/BL/Corruptor/Roach unless he lands a money Vortex. If anything, it's Zerg who needs to be nerfed at this point in the game. If you spread your BLs, it becomes literally impossible for Protoss to win a direct engagement. This is why you see Zergs like DRG making Spines everywhere; it makes a base trade situation unfavourable for the Protoss, which allows the Zerg to just slowly press forward with BL/Infestor. If the Protoss has Colossi and Void Rays and Mothership, you should be up at BL/Infestor tech no problem (hell, yours should be out earlier). I'm still not entirely sure why you think 50 Roaches should beat 50 Stalkers, even though the former composition costs half as much.
The thing about Brood Lords is they can't move. Yeah, sure, Protoss can't attack into 16 broods floating on top of 30 spines with 12 infestors in the back waiting to fungal and hope to win that fight unless they land a money vortex... So... Why attack into that? There is a whole map out there waiting to be ravaged by Stalkers with a base movement speed that is literally >2x as fast as the Broodlords + blink to boot. stop being a cocky asshole expecting to slaughter everything Zerg can make... or... wait.. that's it... You EXPECT to win because that's how it goes in every other scenario. Protoss attacks headstrong into Zergs army, uses force fields to make every engagement favorable, applies a little bit of blink to multiply the effective health of his army, and wins because he's got L33T SK33LZ. The only problem here is that when Zerg has a unit with decent range, sitting on top of several thousand minerals worth of static defenses, he doesn't roll over and die like he should...
You're right... BLs are imba, Zerg shouldn't be able to DEFEND against the Protoss deathballs... I mean... It has DEATH in its name... The game should just be over once I've successfully gotten to 100 energy on my mothership... I mean... Its a DEATH ball after all!
|
On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight.
Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army.
|
On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army.
And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed.
Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow.
While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move!
|
On April 10 2012 02:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 01:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:On April 10 2012 01:41 krell wrote:
Two simple ways to make protoss ever so slightly more challenging:
Remove Zealot Legs
Remove the "w" warp gate button. Zergs dont have a larva button. T doesnt have a rax button. Why should P?
To a more extreme extent: Make it so you have to click an ability for collossi to attack?
No way anyone can take this seriously. Remove Charge and you can essentially remove the zealot because it's worthless. That's like saying blizzard should remove stim, except stim has an even bigger effect than charge. Why shouldn't we? Well because it's a terrible idea. Protoss should have the "W" key because their warpin requires mouseclicks. Why don't we just require Terran and Zerg to use clicks as well? Well because that's just how protoss works, but this way reinforcing from gateways is at least a little bit easier. And I'm not even gonna comment on that last one. Can we make it so terrans have to tab through marines and marauders and press stim once for each set of units? I mean, thats almost like removing the auto cast. I won't even discuss removing charge, because that is like removing zergling speed. As for the W-key, well I guess it could be removed. Its not like hotkeying buildings is hard. Maybe raxs should not auto optimize when building marines and marauders(blizzard patched it in, so marines go in the reactored rax first).
I think the charge change could work. Remove auto cast, add (if there isn't one already) a hotkey to turn it on for all zealots, shorten the cooldown of it. However, as Plansix alluded too, why do you only have the abilities for one unit at a time available to you? Can blizzard not make it so that you can hotkey any ability for any unit in your current selection, and if there is an overlap to use the current system of deciding which gets precedence?
Then people can remap the keys so every ability for their race is on a different key and you could have zealot/stalker/sentry/phoenix all in one group with B to blink the stalkers, F to have sentry force field, C to have zealots charge and G to have phoenix grav a unit. This would lower the skill ceiling by not needing to tab to each group or to have different hotkeys for each unit, and would increase the number of hotkeys used for grouping armies in different locations. I feel this would also increase the number of small engagements that occur rather than the current deathball styles that occur.
|
And on the 50 roaches vs 50 stalkers thing, let's go back to the muta argument. How many phoenixes do you need to kill 50 Mutas? 40? 35? 30 with a little bit of micro? 25 if you have decent upgrades?
The important question is not why I think roaches should beat Stalkers in equal numbers at lower cost, the question is why do you think its ok for Protoss to have that situation, but not Zerg?
|
On April 10 2012 02:58 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army. And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed. Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow. While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move!
I don't believe that is a very realistic depiction of the match up or late engagments. Specificly the 40 suppy of the 130 supply protoss army(70 probes) going rogue behind enemy lines. Stalkers are mostly used to protect the mother ship and deal with infestors at that point in the game. They are also very expesive to replace, so they are not really the late game harassment unit.
|
On April 10 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army. And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed. Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow. While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move! I don't believe that is a very realistic depiction of the match up or late engagments. Specificly the 40 suppy of the 130 supply protoss army(70 probes) going rogue behind enemy lines. Stalkers are mostly used to protect the mother ship and deal with infestors at that point in the game. They are also very expesive to replace, so they are not really the late game harassment unit.
If you don't do that, that may be why you think protoss late game isnt as strong as you think it is. Even more mobile than that however is the mass recall ability too, which although it costs a ton of energy basically guarantees two things at the same time: a sniped base and immediate defense or attacking with that same army in a different place, which is just not defendable as a late game zerg.
|
On April 10 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army. And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed. Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow. While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move! I don't believe that is a very realistic depiction of the match up or late engagments. Specificly the 40 suppy of the 130 supply protoss army(70 probes) going rogue behind enemy lines. Stalkers are mostly used to protect the mother ship and deal with infestors at that point in the game. They are also very expesive to replace, so they are not really the late game harassment unit.
You're right on one account. Stalkers are expensive to replace after sending them off to harass the Zerg players economy and likely die. But usually that is because you are replacing them with archons and void rays, making your standing army even better.
Poor Protoss and their limited late game options.
|
On April 10 2012 03:29 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army. And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed. Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow. While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move! I don't believe that is a very realistic depiction of the match up or late engagments. Specificly the 40 suppy of the 130 supply protoss army(70 probes) going rogue behind enemy lines. Stalkers are mostly used to protect the mother ship and deal with infestors at that point in the game. They are also very expesive to replace, so they are not really the late game harassment unit. You're right on one account. Stalkers are expensive to replace after sending them off to harass the Zerg players economy and likely die. But usually that is because you are replacing them with archons and void rays, making your standing army even better. Poor Protoss and their limited late game options.
Stalkers would be better than voidrays or archons against the zerg-lategame-super-army. They are quicker and can snipe off infestors and BL, while archons have short range and are not really suited for the task. Void rays only make the army less mobile and make zerglings more effective at harassment. The last thing I want is my protoss army to get slower against zerg.
|
On April 10 2012 02:58 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2012 02:37 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 02:25 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 02:07 pezit wrote:On April 10 2012 01:17 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:09 da_head wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god. Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement. Stalkers do more DPS than roaches and have 33% more range to deal that damage with. As far as the muta comparison, I never said they were more mobile, I said they are about 90% as mobile. They DO however have 1 base armor, 2x the range, 40 more health and equal/higher DPS. Oh yeah, they scale better with upgrades too. The funny part is that you try to justify the difference by calling Mutas a "harassing unit" and somehow think that makes everything ok. Maybe Stalkers should have their stats reduced because they can harass too... But the stalker does have bad stats for straight up fights because of their mobility already... Roaches will absolutely tear stalkers apart in a straight up fight, that's why you have to blink micro and use forcefields to have a fighting chance. So yeah what are you even talking about? What you're asking for is already in the game. Roaches already have a +2 range upgrade? WHERE? Because all I see is one-sided fights that the Zerg only had a chance of winning under one of two conditions: 1) he has a massive supply lead, like we see in these midgame 200 vs 120 supply battles, or 2) he has 2x the Protoss economy and can afford to bludgeon his way through by just burying his opponent in money. Neither of these apply in the endgame where Protoss is sitting on 3-4 bases and able to make anything he wants because once Protoss gets that kind of income, Zergs income is irrelevant, all he can do is bank further excess income. We're seeing top-level Zergs turtle up hardcore once the game passes the 20 minute mark because he has NOTHING that can fight the Protoss army straight-up. Kinda funny how that works where Roaches are supposed to win straight-up fights, but can't win straight-up fights, huh? Bringing all of this back to the Muta argument: Blizzard introduced a +2 range upgrade for the Phoenix at very high tech-levels so that the unit could perform as desired against the unit its supposed to counter. This was introduced because Blizzard felt that mutalisks are too mobile and versatile vs the Protoss toolkit and there should be SOMETHING to make their designated counter unit capable of taking them on head-to-head. Assuming ALL OF YOU are right and the roach counters the Stalker, why is it so hard to understand that a late game +2 range upgrade for roaches would do the same thing? The reason zergs have troubles engaging the protoss army head on lategame has absolutely nothing to do with stalkers, it's if they have colossus/mothership/archon ball that it becomes tough and even then it all comes down to vortex, if you can snipe mothership or neural it and waste energy the protoss will be the one avoiding a fight. Doesn't the same apply to the protoss, though? Assuming both armies are trying to pull the other one into a bad engagment, I think it is rough for both sides. The mothership is painfully slow and there are ways to damage a protoss without engaging the main army directly. In a straigh up fight, I think the protoss might have an easier time landing the vortex, but there are so many more things to attack that the main army. And thus we've finally reached the whole point of my argument. The Mothership is painfully slow, but Stalker, Colossi, and Void Rays all have standard or better move speed. Broodlords share the same exact painfully slow speed as the mothership. Spines can't move, or if they do, they require 12 seconds to burrow. While Protoss has one unit that they can't really be mobile with, Zerg has a whole army they can't be mobile with. Pull 20 stalkers off your main army, and now you can blink past spine walls and go kill bases. It's going to take at least 30 Roaches to deal with those 20 Stalkers and the best part is it'ss ok if your army back home is a little weaker, Zerg can't move!
First of all, why would you use roaches to deal with blink stalker harass anw, lings is what you should use, they run faster, hit harder, and die slower to blink stalkers, and if you have the crackling upgrade, they are really really good.
Secondly, roaches are insanely good against stalkers without sentries, even if the stalkers can blink. I'll do some math to prove this. A roach costs about half as much as a stalker (except its the same supply), but it has almost as much HP as a stalker. At 0/0 upgrades, a stalker deals 9 DPS to roach, roach deals 8.0/7.5 DPS to stalker (depending on whether shield is up). Furthermore, it takes a stalker 12 hits to kill a roach (17.3 seconds) and it takes a roach 11 hits to kill a stalker (22 seconds). The point is, the difference is not huge. At 0/0 upgrades, a roach almost beats a stalker, if the protoss player does not micro, it is very efficient for the zerg player to trade with roaches.
Now the scary part-- stalkers only get +1 attack per upgrade while roaches get +2 attack per upgrade. So, at 3/3 upgrades, it still takes a stalker 12 hits to kill a roach (17.3 seconds) because the weapon upgrades of a stalker is cancelled out by the armor upgrade of a roach, while it only takes a roach 9 hits to kill a 3/3/3 stalker (18 seconds). In other words, the higher the upgrades are, the more effificent it is to trade roaches with stalkers.
Also, note that speed roaches are slightly faster than stalkers. Stalkers HAVE TO use blink to run away if the protoss player does not want to trade inefficiently. I.E. no blink can be used for cycling.
I understand that the rebuttal for my argument is that stalkers have longer range and can blink, therefore roaches still can't win in a direct engagement. However, we are debating about the roach's ability to stop stalker harass, not in a direct engagement. At the later stage in the game, it is very unlikely for a protoss player to invest all his concentration (which is needed for blink stalker micro) to harass with 20 or so roaches. Especially with the existence of cracklings and fungal growth, stalker will die FAST in a harassment and will usually result in very inefficient trades.
|
On April 10 2012 03:20 Jermstuddog wrote:
And on the 50 roaches vs 50 stalkers thing, let's go back to the muta argument. How many phoenixes do you need to kill 50 Mutas? 40? 35? 30 with a little bit of micro? 25 if you have decent upgrades?
The important question is not why I think roaches should beat Stalkers in equal numbers at lower cost, the question is why do you think its ok for Protoss to have that situation, but not Zerg?
Why are you bringing up mutas versus phoenix? Ok. Phoenix are made to be a counter to light flying units because they suck against everything else. Mutas are amazing at harassing bases while phoenixes are not, not that phoenix are even as great of a counter to mutas as you make it sound but whatever.
Roaches are nothing like phoenixes and why would they hard counter stalkers? That has never been the goal and I don't see why it should be as roaches are just a strong overall unit with no specific specialization.
|
On April 10 2012 03:20 Jermstuddog wrote:
And on the 50 roaches vs 50 stalkers thing, let's go back to the muta argument. How many phoenixes do you need to kill 50 Mutas? 40? 35? 30 with a little bit of micro? 25 if you have decent upgrades?
The important question is not why I think roaches should beat Stalkers in equal numbers at lower cost, the question is why do you think its ok for Protoss to have that situation, but not Zerg?
Because the phoenixes are useless in when their numbers get anywhere higher than 7 and they die to a single fungal growth?
Roaches are incredibly versatile, tough, and cheap units, and a lot of times they are the core of the zerg army. Phoenixes on the other hand are just crazy expensive and bad and they can't do anything. It is sad that how bad phoenixes are against mutas, since it requires 30 phoenixes to deal with a muta flock while they are DESIGNED to counter light air units. Roaches are not suppose to be the counter to stalkers, in fact, stalkers are anti-armor units and they SHOULD do well against roaches.
|
On April 10 2012 02:47 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 02:33 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 01:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:31 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 01:22 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 01:19 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:52 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:24 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 00:08 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:[quote] lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba. Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation. There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers. As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game. I'm sorry, I must have missed the PvZ slaughter at IPL. Oh wait, only 1 PvZ in the group stages and beyond ended in favour of Protoss. Getting a fast third is the supposed counter to Mutas, and it can usually be punished by 3base Roach. The defense of 3base Roach involves immortal and sentry spam, which, you guessed it, leaves the Protoss player open to Mutas if the third Nexus goes down. 9/10, that Nexus will go down unless the Zerg messes up of the Protoss splits perfectly on a favourable map. On maps like Shakuras, 3base Roach is unbelievably good at denying fast thirds, which makes Muta followups especially deadly. Furthermore, the Phoenix upgrade is more or less useless and I've yet to see a pro game where the Protoss player uses it without already being miles ahead. None of anything you said has anything to do with late game Stalkers. If you don't have Infestor by the late game I'm not sure what to tell you. Infestors are not an end-all-be-all counter to Stalkers, much the same way Sentries do not kill roaches by themselves. Your posts are neither clever nor insightful. No, he was right, if you don't have infestors by the late game you flat out deserve to lose. While by themselves they can't win a game, if used to support an army they can be deadly and devastating. Just the ability to prevent enemies from splitting or blinking away, and to help set up surrounds is golden to zergs, a race that is entirely reliant on flanks and surrounds. You need infestors, just as protoss needs sentries and HT. Ok, if we're playing that game, let's go for it. Stalkers get fungaled, roaches move in, get chopped up by force fields and picked apart by 6 range stalkers without the ability to retaliate. Zerg now has to make a choice: either blow all your energy on ITs in hopes of winning the fight, where the Stalkers will have the option of blinking away, or keep their energy for fungals and hope they have enough roaches left 15 seconds later to put up a fight. Either way, this theoretical stalker/sentry vs roach/infestor is rarely the case. More often we have Colossi involved, and depending how late the game goes, archons, HTs, a mothership, maybe even void rays. Zerg can add Broods and... replace his roaches with spines... I guess add a few corruptors to deal with the mothership/void rays. The point of my argument is not that Protoss deathballs are OMG IMBA or anything. It's that there is a huge imbalance in lategame where Protoss has a mobile army and Zerg has... spines... It's literally impossible for a Protoss player to engage maxed out Infestor/BL/Corruptor/Roach unless he lands a money Vortex. If anything, it's Zerg who needs to be nerfed at this point in the game. If you spread your BLs, it becomes literally impossible for Protoss to win a direct engagement. This is why you see Zergs like DRG making Spines everywhere; it makes a base trade situation unfavourable for the Protoss, which allows the Zerg to just slowly press forward with BL/Infestor. If the Protoss has Colossi and Void Rays and Mothership, you should be up at BL/Infestor tech no problem (hell, yours should be out earlier). I'm still not entirely sure why you think 50 Roaches should beat 50 Stalkers, even though the former composition costs half as much. The thing about Brood Lords is they can't move. Yeah, sure, Protoss can't attack into 16 broods floating on top of 30 spines with 12 infestors in the back waiting to fungal and hope to win that fight unless they land a money vortex... So... Why attack into that? There is a whole map out there waiting to be ravaged by Stalkers with a base movement speed that is literally >2x as fast as the Broodlords + blink to boot. stop being a cocky asshole expecting to slaughter everything Zerg can make... or... wait.. that's it... You EXPECT to win because that's how it goes in every other scenario. Protoss attacks headstrong into Zergs army, uses force fields to make every engagement favorable, applies a little bit of blink to multiply the effective health of his army, and wins because he's got L33T SK33LZ. The only problem here is that when Zerg has a unit with decent range, sitting on top of several thousand minerals worth of static defenses, he doesn't roll over and die like he should... You're right... BLs are imba, Zerg shouldn't be able to DEFEND against the Protoss deathballs... I mean... It has DEATH in its name... The game should just be over once I've successfully gotten to 100 energy on my mothership... I mean... Its a DEATH ball after all!
You're missing the point. Protoss can't defend against BL/Infestor slow-pushes because no composition can take it on. If you spread your Vortex, fungal any Void Rays or Stalkers or Archons foolish enough to venture forward, you will win just through sheer force of free Broodlings flying down. There is no way for the Protoss player to protect his expansions in this manner. If the Protoss elects to send half his army to attack your tech structures, you can instantly kill the mothership with Corruptors. It doesn't even matter if you lose all your corruptors doing this; without the MS, the Protoss has essentially no chance of beating your BL ball. Then you can just slow push into his base and win a battle of attrition. He's going to have to kill your Spines sooner or later, and you're always going to win this base trade because you have a better army equipped with Siege mode.
I'm not sure if there's much point debating with you since you're obviously a rather low-skilled Zerg whiner, judging by your comments about the way Protoss supposedly plays against Zerg.
|
@pezit
Really dude?
Go back and read my argument before you waste more time with stupid posts.
My whole argument is in relation to the phoenix upgrade to counter Mutas and the fact that Stalkers fill the same exact role for the Protoss army. Why post if you can't even read what you're responding to first?
@snowfox, you are happy to point out how useless phoenixes are, and yet you insist roaches are versatile and awesome... and yet... they can't even beat Stalkers.
As I've pointed out over and over again, everything you have to say about how useless phoenix are also applies heavily to roaches. The 6 range upgrade is nice, it let's them win fights handily against Mutas. All I'm saying is that roaches should have the same thing. As far as the lings vs stalkers argument, that sounds nice and all, but I don't know of any high level Zergs who leave 40 supply of lings lying around in the late game. They're so worthless against everything else Protoss has, they not even worth making unless its for fast reinforcements. Definitely not worth leaving around the map in hopes of countering a band of marauding Stalkers.
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game.
|
On April 10 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:
Stalkers are mostly used to protect the mother ship and deal with infestors at that point in the game. They are also very expesive to replace, so they are not really the late game harassment unit.
The mothership is actually very cheap (money, not time) for what it can do, not only cheaper per supply than brood lords, but only as expensive as mutalisks and medivacs, so it would likely pay off if; theoretically, you could risk sacking the Mothership but snipe numerous bases and get back home with most of the stalkers (by having any other units/hallucinations/observers be aware of where infestors are so that the stalkers can always escape and rush back home past any slow force).
Motherships can use mass recall though, so keeping the stalkers safe should be less of an issue. If zergs are very concerned about the strength of your army size as well, they would not usually have (or be able to afford to have) infestors lying about their bases just in case they needed to try to fungal something and 1-2 fungals on just a small amount of stalkers is not going to stop them from wreaking havoc, you need some ground forces to arrive in time, while the fungal growth with its 4 second duration (maybe you had two of them though) is still in effect, only to pick off a handful at best given the limited number fungal could grab and the supply your army would most often already take up (you could not have that many ground forces to defend against the stalkers if a very large zerg army). Brood Lords don't usually work well until you have a very expensive amount of them, so potentially losing the mothership is still much less of a financial loss than losing all of the brood lords. If you actually were in some situation where stalkers left a mothership to assault a base, dealt damage, caused whatever ground army the zerg had to try to defend it, pulling some infestors in the hope that they could stop the stalkers, you are aware of infestors leaving (observer spotting some of the zerg army's initial positioning), escape, recall, move towards broods with stalkers, target fire with shift queueing but having split stalkers into a couple of groups so that you can set up a couple of queues so as to avoid massive overkill damage.
Less infestors to fungal, casting fungal on a lot of areas with infestors in a panic doesn't always work well (need enough infestors there still, for one), colossi could have moved in to start working away at spines first, archons could move in first also to bait the first volley of broodlings onto them, so then stalkers move in, blink and continue with the shift queue as said.
2 stalkers (250/100) are very cost efficient against Brood Lords if you can make sure you get them into that situation, it's only the infestors that should really scare protosses, not the Brood Lords.
I can't believe you talk about stalkers being expensive to replace when
1 - Brood Lords are much more so, supply accounted for too, but also cannot warp in conveniently and are slow, so reinforcing Brood Lord numbers is dicey
2 - Roaches are clearly not so supply efficient as Stalkers, so if zerg did indeed have a large 30(!) roaches in the late game to deal with 20 stalkers, that's 60 supply that must be soaked into trying to deal with units that can just blink out anyway. How late game are you thinking of? Supposing you don't mean that both armies have sacked most/all of their workers due to having mined out the entire map (and you stated 70 probes), most of these late game situation have zergs on an actually more expensive army (at least eventually) and zergs would typically choose (maybe need) 80 drones, leaving 60 for the infestors and Brood Lords. I saw 16 BLs being mentioned above, if we take 15 instead, that leaves -4 supply for infestors. Clearly the hive tech force would need to be more like 10 infestors and 10 Brood Lords if you have 30 roaches still, but then if we're talking about that stage of the game, you're going to have colossi, archons and storm mostly likely, not just a small 130 supply army of pure stalker (only 20??)+1 mothership and supposedly only 12 supply of other military units. If you have just about only stalkers with it, you'll have a lot more than 20, so with recall as well, you could potentially send the 20 or however many to raid while your remaining mass babysit the motherhip, if you personally feel that's the best course of action.
EDIT: Also, with normal zergling attack rate being about 63.8% and adrenaling attack rate being only 56.7% of Brood War speeds, I would say cracklings don't actually exist in Starcraft II. I see that is a terrible misuse of the term, like Bonjwa and other terms being thrown around too often.
On April 10 2012 03:48 snowfox330 wrote:
Because the phoenixes are useless in when their numbers get anywhere higher than 7 and they die to a single fungal growth?
Come now, they don't die to one. One might catch them and cause them to be killed once more energy is depleted, but it'll take 6 to kill them all. SIX. Mutalisks have 120 hit points, storm deals a maximum of 80 damage, so for the same energy, you could expend SIX storms and if each of them only hit the stack for one quarter of the spell's duration, they'd all die. Mutalisks are typically more heavily invested in too, so it'd be more efficient. Shield regeneration for the most part trumps zerg health regeneration too, so this could easily be spaced out and you could be throwing storms recklessly at mutas when they come close and you could still succeed at this with such poor accuracy (or maybe they'd all be on about 5 HP due to regeneration, if your stalkers all somehow managed to land any shots on them over whatever extended period of time).
|
On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game.
They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
