|
On February 24 2010 03:12 Plexa wrote:
In my experiences Void Rays get destroyed by Stalkers. If you're going robo you typically get an obs out first and you'll see he's going voids and just start slapping down a few stalkers. Void's are a pretty big investment so it shouldn't be long until you're able to over power them.
The stalker definitely does NOT destroy the void rays. One void ray will beat two stalkers in a straight up battle, and the mobility of them is unparalleled. Stalkers are the key to beating them, but if you use void rays correctly you can do a lot of damage. I play a guy who went stargate instead of robotics and citadel and he was doing a fair bit of damage. Every time I moved out he would come in with void rays, and considering that you need six or seven stalkers to effectively fight three void rays, you need to split up your army too much to be able to simple counter-attack.
|
On February 24 2010 01:04 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 00:43 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Immortals are beast units that cut through zealot numbers. You want a healthy mix as well. Think about it from a SC1 perspective.
In PvP midgame whats better?
12 dragoons, 8 zealots, and 2 high templar
22 dragoons
The same thing applies to this game, in fact even more. An army that consists of 20 zealots will not be nearly as effective as an army with 10 zealots, 8 stalkers and 1-2 immortals. Then mix in a sentry and you can make choke points thus making the all-zealot army less effective. Even a 20 zealot army with 1 colossus vs. a mix of zealots, stalkers, and immortals will not be effective. Immortals are the direct counter to the colossus (without teching stargate or templar archives).
Based upon the number of PvP games I've played I'm liking the 10:8:3:1 ratio of zealots:stalkers:sentry:immortals. The sentry is a good support unit to keep the colossus attack damage minimal. Also you can substitute immortals for colossi if you're willing to tech higher, don't forget you can make an immortal right when the robo is finished, you don't need a support bay. I understand what you are saying, but are you conceding that in an open area, or an area in which the opponent can be flanked, that mass zealots with colossus are better? If that point is conceded, that you have to weigh what is considered easier to do: flank with zealots, or only fight in areas with tight chokes/make tight chokes yourself. I'm not trying to advocate that mass/zealot and colossus is the best combination throughout the entire game, as late game it would be silly to have only a massive pile of zealots, but I don't see how mid-game you're going to stop an opponent with twelve to fourteen chargelots, when you have six zealots, four stalkers and an immortal for example. Can you post a replay where you play someone who went for chargelots, foregoing any immortals or stalkers? I would post my own replays, but I haven't lost versus an opponent who makes these units.
EDIT: Furthermore, if I am going to engage and you throw up barriers, why do I not simply retreat? From what I envision, I see myself being able to easily get out of nasty situations like the one I stated, whereas if I happen to catch you in an open area you're toast.
im not talking about just throwing up force field when you see him coming. There is a tiny timing window where you can make force fields to split the enemy's army. Your goal is to get about 1/2 the zealots on one side of the block and the rest + colossus on the other end. Even on an open field this is a viable tactic to manipulate the playing field. You have to be stupid to engage a protoss ball of zealots and colossus in an open field with an army that requires a tight choke without even thinking you can change the field in your favor.
On February 24 2010 04:27 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 03:12 Plexa wrote:
In my experiences Void Rays get destroyed by Stalkers. If you're going robo you typically get an obs out first and you'll see he's going voids and just start slapping down a few stalkers. Void's are a pretty big investment so it shouldn't be long until you're able to over power them. The stalker definitely does NOT destroy the void rays. One void ray will beat two stalkers in a straight up battle, and the mobility of them is unparalleled. Stalkers are the key to beating them, but if you use void rays correctly you can do a lot of damage. I play a guy who went stargate instead of robotics and citadel and he was doing a fair bit of damage. Every time I moved out he would come in with void rays, and considering that you need six or seven stalkers to effectively fight three void rays, you need to split up your army too much to be able to simple counter-attack.
Not true at all. 2 stalkers is enough for 1 void ray.
|
On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Not true at all. 2 stalkers is enough for 1 void ray.
Well, to be fair, it depends. Is this 2 stalkers walking to the middle of the map while a void ray does the same? Or is this a battle that already began, where a void way is already doing its max damage trying to kill 2 stalkers? Different circumstances will have different results.
|
On February 24 2010 04:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Not true at all. 2 stalkers is enough for 1 void ray. Well, to be fair, it depends. Is this 2 stalkers walking to the middle of the map while a void ray does the same? Or is this a battle that already began, where a void way is already doing its max damage trying to kill 2 stalkers? Different circumstances will have different results.
Once stalker 1 is defeated the void ray needs to begin again from its base damage to take out stalker 2. And you can micro two stalkers to disrupt the void ray's attack.
|
On February 24 2010 04:54 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 04:51 Mohdoo wrote:On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Not true at all. 2 stalkers is enough for 1 void ray. Well, to be fair, it depends. Is this 2 stalkers walking to the middle of the map while a void ray does the same? Or is this a battle that already began, where a void way is already doing its max damage trying to kill 2 stalkers? Different circumstances will have different results. Once stalker 1 is defeated the void ray needs to begin again from its base damage to take out stalker 2. And you can micro two stalkers to disrupt the void ray's attack.
In my experience this isn't true. It takes a 2-3 seconds for the void ray to lose its charge. During that time, it can attack any other target to keep up its charge; just one "tick" of damage from the beam is enough to prevent the charge decay for another 2-3 seconds.
I think terrain is going to decide the effectiveness of void rays vs stalkers. Void rays outrange stalkers slightly (7 vs 6) but a mass of stalkers with blink can pounce on the void rays and kill at least a few before they retreat. The void ray speed upgrade may help; upgraded, I think void rays are a bit faster than stalkers.
|
On February 24 2010 04:54 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 04:51 Mohdoo wrote:On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Not true at all. 2 stalkers is enough for 1 void ray. Well, to be fair, it depends. Is this 2 stalkers walking to the middle of the map while a void ray does the same? Or is this a battle that already began, where a void way is already doing its max damage trying to kill 2 stalkers? Different circumstances will have different results. Once stalker 1 is defeated the void ray needs to begin again from its base damage to take out stalker 2. And you can micro two stalkers to disrupt the void ray's attack.
The Void Ray's attack remains after killing a unit if I recall correctly. The time it spends not attacking decreases the potency of the attack at the same rate that continuing to attack increases it. So its stronger in long fights and weaker in short fights.
|
Disclaimer: I do not have a beta key but have played at blizzcon 2009
Watched a great game between Louder and Idra which illustrated this well. I feel that at volume the zealot / collosi mix become more vulnerable and less effective. The collosi do an absolute ton against zealots especialy when grouped both zealots and collosi, but with the collosus requireing the robotics bay after the robotics facility lower unit count with a voidray, immortal mix (which I believe can be timed properly) will be more effective. The voidrays and imortals can mince the heavy targets while contributing to light but they will be much less suceptable to aoe anti light units (colosus). Not to mention the wider optinos available to the player with the stargate, they can either specialize for colosi if there is an over abundance of light units, make pheonix even head for carrier tech to counter more light ground forces. with a more diverse unit mix (especialy if there are range differences or ground /air elements) incoming damage can be minimized through less natural grouping and or micro. The collosus cost is not justified unless you are massing light units that will fight in a clumped fashion. If you have such units send in waves.
|
Has anyone tryed a zealot archon mix in PvP? Seems like you can burn up zealots as fast with archon as u can with collssi and they are cheaper.
|
I always go zeal/immortal/collossus. I haven't lost many PvP's unless I make a stupid mistake or if I lose to early proxy pylon 3 gate. Or disconnects lol (my nemesis).
I consider it a free win when my opponent goes templar tech or gets lots of stalkers.
|
On February 24 2010 06:08 InToTheWannaB wrote:
Has anyone tryed a zealot archon mix in PvP? Seems like you can burn up zealots as fast with archon as u can with collssi and they are cheaper.
I had a successful game mixing in two archons against a player who was going very heavy on zeals, their DPS against zealots is insane.
In general people are using immortals because, as people said, they're good against both stalkers and colossi and don't hurt you if your opponent also goes immortals. I have seen players with good sentry micro keep immortals away from their colossi while they safely pummel zealots, so it's not a hard counter, but in general the whole idea behind making immortals is that it scares your opponent into a predicable response (zealots).
|
On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 01:04 Salv wrote:On February 24 2010 00:43 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Immortals are beast units that cut through zealot numbers. You want a healthy mix as well. Think about it from a SC1 perspective.
In PvP midgame whats better?
12 dragoons, 8 zealots, and 2 high templar
22 dragoons
The same thing applies to this game, in fact even more. An army that consists of 20 zealots will not be nearly as effective as an army with 10 zealots, 8 stalkers and 1-2 immortals. Then mix in a sentry and you can make choke points thus making the all-zealot army less effective. Even a 20 zealot army with 1 colossus vs. a mix of zealots, stalkers, and immortals will not be effective. Immortals are the direct counter to the colossus (without teching stargate or templar archives).
Based upon the number of PvP games I've played I'm liking the 10:8:3:1 ratio of zealots:stalkers:sentry:immortals. The sentry is a good support unit to keep the colossus attack damage minimal. Also you can substitute immortals for colossi if you're willing to tech higher, don't forget you can make an immortal right when the robo is finished, you don't need a support bay. I understand what you are saying, but are you conceding that in an open area, or an area in which the opponent can be flanked, that mass zealots with colossus are better? If that point is conceded, that you have to weigh what is considered easier to do: flank with zealots, or only fight in areas with tight chokes/make tight chokes yourself. I'm not trying to advocate that mass/zealot and colossus is the best combination throughout the entire game, as late game it would be silly to have only a massive pile of zealots, but I don't see how mid-game you're going to stop an opponent with twelve to fourteen chargelots, when you have six zealots, four stalkers and an immortal for example. Can you post a replay where you play someone who went for chargelots, foregoing any immortals or stalkers? I would post my own replays, but I haven't lost versus an opponent who makes these units.
EDIT: Furthermore, if I am going to engage and you throw up barriers, why do I not simply retreat? From what I envision, I see myself being able to easily get out of nasty situations like the one I stated, whereas if I happen to catch you in an open area you're toast. im not talking about just throwing up force field when you see him coming. There is a tiny timing window where you can make force fields to split the enemy's army. Your goal is to get about 1/2 the zealots on one side of the block and the rest + colossus on the other end. Even on an open field this is a viable tactic to manipulate the playing field. You have to be stupid to engage a protoss ball of zealots and colossus in an open field with an army that requires a tight choke without even thinking you can change the field in your favor.
OK, but then my point remains but altered to this:
What is considered easier to do, flank with zealots or essentially split an opponent army in half?
|
You also have to take into account that zealot immo will have an earlier and much stronger push then a zealot colossus just because of the tech and build time of the colossus. Overall I believe it depends on the skill level of each player, you can pull off zealot immo against players of a lesser caliber then you, but colossus is overall an amazing unit in this matchup with proper micro as well as positioning (basically ideally fighting near any cliffs, which shouldn't be too hard if it's him pushing you or visa-verse). If you want I can dig up a replay of Pillars beating me with Colossus Zealot vs my Zealot Immortal. Was an okay game!
|
On February 24 2010 06:45 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:On February 24 2010 01:04 Salv wrote:On February 24 2010 00:43 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Immortals are beast units that cut through zealot numbers. You want a healthy mix as well. Think about it from a SC1 perspective.
In PvP midgame whats better?
12 dragoons, 8 zealots, and 2 high templar
22 dragoons
The same thing applies to this game, in fact even more. An army that consists of 20 zealots will not be nearly as effective as an army with 10 zealots, 8 stalkers and 1-2 immortals. Then mix in a sentry and you can make choke points thus making the all-zealot army less effective. Even a 20 zealot army with 1 colossus vs. a mix of zealots, stalkers, and immortals will not be effective. Immortals are the direct counter to the colossus (without teching stargate or templar archives).
Based upon the number of PvP games I've played I'm liking the 10:8:3:1 ratio of zealots:stalkers:sentry:immortals. The sentry is a good support unit to keep the colossus attack damage minimal. Also you can substitute immortals for colossi if you're willing to tech higher, don't forget you can make an immortal right when the robo is finished, you don't need a support bay. I understand what you are saying, but are you conceding that in an open area, or an area in which the opponent can be flanked, that mass zealots with colossus are better? If that point is conceded, that you have to weigh what is considered easier to do: flank with zealots, or only fight in areas with tight chokes/make tight chokes yourself. I'm not trying to advocate that mass/zealot and colossus is the best combination throughout the entire game, as late game it would be silly to have only a massive pile of zealots, but I don't see how mid-game you're going to stop an opponent with twelve to fourteen chargelots, when you have six zealots, four stalkers and an immortal for example. Can you post a replay where you play someone who went for chargelots, foregoing any immortals or stalkers? I would post my own replays, but I haven't lost versus an opponent who makes these units.
EDIT: Furthermore, if I am going to engage and you throw up barriers, why do I not simply retreat? From what I envision, I see myself being able to easily get out of nasty situations like the one I stated, whereas if I happen to catch you in an open area you're toast. im not talking about just throwing up force field when you see him coming. There is a tiny timing window where you can make force fields to split the enemy's army. Your goal is to get about 1/2 the zealots on one side of the block and the rest + colossus on the other end. Even on an open field this is a viable tactic to manipulate the playing field. You have to be stupid to engage a protoss ball of zealots and colossus in an open field with an army that requires a tight choke without even thinking you can change the field in your favor. OK, but then my point remains but altered to this: What is considered easier to do, flank with zealots or essentially split an opponent army in half?
Who cares if it's easier? That doesn't make your attack any more effective. And you're limiting yourself to one counter, while my proposed army combination requires you to move from a fixed build of one unit type
|
On February 24 2010 07:16 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 06:45 Salv wrote:On February 24 2010 04:38 Amber[LighT] wrote:On February 24 2010 01:04 Salv wrote:On February 24 2010 00:43 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Immortals are beast units that cut through zealot numbers. You want a healthy mix as well. Think about it from a SC1 perspective.
In PvP midgame whats better?
12 dragoons, 8 zealots, and 2 high templar
22 dragoons
The same thing applies to this game, in fact even more. An army that consists of 20 zealots will not be nearly as effective as an army with 10 zealots, 8 stalkers and 1-2 immortals. Then mix in a sentry and you can make choke points thus making the all-zealot army less effective. Even a 20 zealot army with 1 colossus vs. a mix of zealots, stalkers, and immortals will not be effective. Immortals are the direct counter to the colossus (without teching stargate or templar archives).
Based upon the number of PvP games I've played I'm liking the 10:8:3:1 ratio of zealots:stalkers:sentry:immortals. The sentry is a good support unit to keep the colossus attack damage minimal. Also you can substitute immortals for colossi if you're willing to tech higher, don't forget you can make an immortal right when the robo is finished, you don't need a support bay. I understand what you are saying, but are you conceding that in an open area, or an area in which the opponent can be flanked, that mass zealots with colossus are better? If that point is conceded, that you have to weigh what is considered easier to do: flank with zealots, or only fight in areas with tight chokes/make tight chokes yourself. I'm not trying to advocate that mass/zealot and colossus is the best combination throughout the entire game, as late game it would be silly to have only a massive pile of zealots, but I don't see how mid-game you're going to stop an opponent with twelve to fourteen chargelots, when you have six zealots, four stalkers and an immortal for example. Can you post a replay where you play someone who went for chargelots, foregoing any immortals or stalkers? I would post my own replays, but I haven't lost versus an opponent who makes these units.
EDIT: Furthermore, if I am going to engage and you throw up barriers, why do I not simply retreat? From what I envision, I see myself being able to easily get out of nasty situations like the one I stated, whereas if I happen to catch you in an open area you're toast. im not talking about just throwing up force field when you see him coming. There is a tiny timing window where you can make force fields to split the enemy's army. Your goal is to get about 1/2 the zealots on one side of the block and the rest + colossus on the other end. Even on an open field this is a viable tactic to manipulate the playing field. You have to be stupid to engage a protoss ball of zealots and colossus in an open field with an army that requires a tight choke without even thinking you can change the field in your favor. OK, but then my point remains but altered to this: What is considered easier to do, flank with zealots or essentially split an opponent army in half? Who cares if it's easier? That doesn't make your attack effective in any way.
If two players have to execute a particular strategy (in this case flanking vs cutting off an army) in order to have the advantage during a battle, then the person who has an easier time executing their strategy will most likely win. If I am making many zealots with charge, which will win in an open area or where I can surround you, and you're making more units with range that while weaker, are better when few zealots can attack, then I think I will have an easier time winning. I think it's harder for you to lure me into an area where you can cut my army in half, and then actually do it; then it is for me to flank.
You said that you would have to be stupid to attack or put yourself in a position where you would wind up battling in open area, whereas I can make the exact same argument that it would be stupid to engage in an area where you can potentially cut my army in half.
On February 24 2010 07:16 Amber[LighT] wrote:
And you're limiting yourself to one counter, while my proposed army combination requires you to move from a fixed build of one unit type
I don't understand what you mean here.
|
Immortals cost 250/100 w 100 shield and 200 health. 20 damage +30 armored Range 5
Stalkers cost 125/50 with 80 shield and 80 health. 8 damage + 6 armored Range 6
I haven't tested their ground speed, but with these statistics, immortal makes sense vs other stalkers. Health wise, an immortal is 2x a stalker. And an immortal costs 2x a stalker.
The big thing to notice is: Immortals deal 50 damage a pop to other stalkers while stalkers deal 10 damage to the immortal is a big swing. 5:1 ratio
Even vs Zealots:
Stalkers deal 7 damage to Zealot's health with shield down.
Immortals deal 19 damage to Zealot's health with shield down.
That is almost a 3:1 efficiency on a unit that has a 2:1 cost ratio
Depending on your build, you may get an immortal out before your robobay is finished depending on how many obs you make. I'd prefer an immortal to a stalker, but not by much.
|
On February 24 2010 07:33 GoodNewsJim wrote:
Immortals cost 250/100 w 100 shield and 200 health. 20 damage +30 armored Range 5
Stalkers cost 125/50 with 80 shield and 80 health. 8 damage + 6 armored Range 6
I haven't tested their ground speed, but with these statistics, immortal makes sense vs other stalkers. Health wise, an immortal is 2x a stalker. And an immortal costs 2x a stalker.
The big thing to notice is: Immortals deal 50 damage a pop to other stalkers while stalkers deal 10 damage to the immortal is a big swing. 5:1 ratio
Even vs Zealots:
Stalkers deal 7 damage to Zealot's health with shield down.
Immortals deal 19 damage to Zealot's health with shield down.
That is almost a 3:1 efficiency on a unit that has a 2:1 cost ratio
Depending on your build, you may get an immortal out before your robobay is finished depending on how many obs you make. I'd prefer an immortal to a stalker, but not by much.
Some variable that you may have missed is build time and the fact that stalkers can be warped in anywhere on the map if there is power, whereas an immortal cannot.
|
United States313 Posts
One thing I haven't heard mention in this breakdown is the differences in range, but it seems like a critical issue in the Imm vs Col comparison. The immortal's 6 range vs the Colossus's 7 doesn't mean much if the two were to meet 1v1 in an open field, however thats not going to happen. Theorycraft with me for a minute:
Lets say the Blue player is going to try Zeal+Col, and the Red player is going to try for the strong Zeal+Stalk+Imm push. Blue would use strictly Zealots to defend till Col are out because saves gas for teching, and Zealots are the majority of the goal unit mix. Red would start with a Zeal or two, start making Stalkers, and then having noticed Blue only making zeal would continue with stalkers while getting Imms. Stalkers can out preform zeals thanks to their range/speed/ease of focusing down a target; Immortals can help take incoming damage while also adding a considerable amount of damage output, greatly developing the overall power behind the push. Blue in the meantime has made a solid number of zealots understanding the vulnerability until Colossi are out. In order to overcome the unit type advantage Red has, Blue could research charge as soon as possible, delaying the 1st Col a little bit, but since Zeal army needs no gas its hardly a delay at all. Charge partially negates the range/speed advantage of stalkers and imms. None of the damage bonuses apply, so in Theory when Red pushes with his army, Blue should have a fighting chance if the zealot count provides roughly the same damage output / health as Red's army. The outcome will depend a little on micro as always, but the majority of Red's tactical advantage is nulled.
So continuing on as if Blue had defended without excess zealots, the Colossus tech should be finished and production started. Red likely continues with Stalker/Imm since these units do counter the Col. If both armies died in the push then Red would have to stick to this unit mix because they need to defend themselves there is not time to branch to a new tech. They could try zealots or sentries but these would fare worse against Zeal+Col. If Red retreated and did not push then they could start a new tech, however they still need to bolster defenses to deal with Blue's incoming push. Here, finally, is where the range issue comes into play. With charge, Blue's zealots engage at a similar range as the colossi, creating a melee wall (aka meat shield) protecting the colossi. The stalkers and immortals cannot easily move past the zealots to attack the colossi, so they are forced to attack the zealots. The Immortals negate the majority of Colossus damage, however hiding the stalkers behind the immortals leaves the immortals taking most of the zealot damage so they will fall quickly. Most likely an actual battle wouldn't have colossi perfectly outranging Red's army, more likely a couple of units could attack them but not enough to focus down quickly in general good positioning, but if Red told the whole army to attack the colossi too many units would be scrambling around out of range taking damage. This huge advantage requires good positioning however, if the stalk/imm flank or utilize LOS to engage at close range, the Colossi will be lost in an instant. Similar to Blue's use of charge however, Red can research Blink for the stalkers, allowing them to bypass the zealot wall and knock out the Colossi. One detail is the Colossi can increase their range even further with an upgrade, but it would not greatly affect the balance of these two armies, still protected by charge but vulnerable to blink.
This is as far as these two unit combinations go, given a chance to shift tech Red would do very well with air units, like blink they can easily attack the colossi and cannot be damaged by Blue's army, but making the tech shift would leave a timing window. In response Blue could add stalkers or tech to archons or air units of their own. There are far too many possibilities to consider things any further though.
Obviously these timings are very flexible, just as all timings are. If Red builds more stalkers, delaying imms, then Blue may have a colossus out by the time the push happens, but less stalkers then Blue needs fewer zealots. If either side is too greedy in teching and scouted by their opponent, harassment should slow the tech down to keep them at a relative pace.
There is no perfect strategy, Immortal and Colossus both work, its a matter of supporting them correctly and making the right choices getting there. Strategies themselves don't win the game, they force your opponent to respond correctly; various sized mistakes give you a relatively sized advantage, but to keep it you can't make any mistakes of your own. With enough practice Red will learn exactly the timing required to hit as hard as possible prior to the Colossus finishing. Likewise Blue will improve at using the perfect number of zealots in early game. It is this back and forth, balanced gameplay that make RTS oh so incredible.
|
On February 24 2010 01:08 CrownRoyal wrote:
the only reason to get immortals is because your opponent is going collosus
target fire the collosus with the immortals
Correct. All the fire power shut down collosi
|
On February 24 2010 10:57 radiumz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2010 01:08 CrownRoyal wrote:
the only reason to get immortals is because your opponent is going collosus
target fire the collosus with the immortals Correct. All the fire power shut down collosi
except for the fact that colossus can go up cliffs, they have longer range, and immortals are super vulnerable to zealots. They can only work as a surprise or a counter to his first attack maybe, after that I wouldnt keep making immortals. Even though they deal good damage to colossus, even two will still take a moment to kill a colossus. Add up that there's a zealot wall, colossus have longer range etc and your immortals are actually not that good later on.
I tried it out, and it works good in theory until you try it out yourself, or maybe just for the first attack.
|
Maybe people are trying out high tier units as they become available because it's such a new game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
