Counter-arguments for common complaints against Collossi, Dark Templar redesign, etc.

In a more recent build you can see packs of zerglings take out a pair of collossi. A complaint I've read repeated much is that the collossi are too weak (esp. considering they're supposed to be specialized against small ground forces like zerglings).

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=HGCg_aRABQs&feature=related

I read a tester write his impressions of an earlier build say 4 collossi seemed uncounterable so maybe they've been nerfed too far. A problem I find in the appraisals though is the expectation of one being able to take on many. Collossi aren't siege tanks w/splash damage to wipe out groups. But what their line-attack will do is stack more powerfully than zerglings' attacks. Consider a single Battlecruiser or a pair of them against a pack of hydralisks. The hydralisks will take them out though they're considerably cheaper per-unit. Is the Battlecruiser too weak then? No. Once a decent sized force is amassed (say 6) enough hydralisk can't be brought to bear as an effective counter. Likewise w/marines versus zerglings. In lower numbers zerglings may win but as larger forcers are built focus fire marginalizes zerglings. These higher-costs units aren't meant to be like Dawn of War's Heroes, taking out groups single-handedly but so potent that once there's a group of them lower-tech enemies may as well commit hari-kari.

I think the Dark Templar looks cool. That's a matter of taste. In real life the dark templars were based off Zeratul's model so Blizzard probably wanted them to have an appearance distinct from Zeratul, leaving the original design for the hero. Lore-wise it makes sense that a tribe of assassin's would take trophies. Dark Templar's new appearance distinguishes them more from zealots also.

I've read some claims that the infestor's infestation ability is too potent. Compare it to what other race's spellcasters have. Like nuclear strike. It's more damaging to blow up an opponents workers, buildings, and cripple those remaining than to temporarily stop production and harass w/a summoned force. Protoss can warp in an entire permanent army. If you're objective, comparing abilities, you'll admit the infestor's the weakest of the three, an in-between pure destruction and unit-fielding. Since I've seen no consume ability, it looks like the zerg's spellcasting is nerfed in Starcraft 2 and the worst of the 3 races. Queen's have lots of abilities but they're defensive. Turtling's for Terrans. Aggressive map-control will always eventually overwhelm turtling so strong attack-supportive spells like Dark Swarm are preferable to the Queen's abilities. Protoss and Terran spellcasters have most of their old abilities + new ones but the Zerg have lost their strong old spells.

 

I do not think the Colossi are weak just because they were defeated by a pack zerglings or so because every unit gonna have a weakness and the Colossi were doing a great significant dmg towards the hydralisks and the banelings. The unit seem to be a great support unit for additional dmg towards masses of units plus there were at least 2 Colossi in total that were in battle (around 5 or so were seen altogether) and i am not complaining towards you, im complaining towards to the people criticising the game when it is still in pre-alpha ^^

 

I haven't read your post; I will comment more possibly later.

But, for now, I'll say that maybe the Colossi needs melee or other units blocking it to be effective. Just because Zerglings can kill it doesn't mean it's not effective. Take for example, Tanks or Dragoons (Without superb micro).

 

Up close and surrounded by zerglings, a reaver can die too pretty fast. Same thing with a tank and other mech units. I think people are only saying it's weak because they are only comparing cause death + size.

So yes I agree with you, the only reason people aren't complaining about the BC because they've already seen in in SC1.

 

Reavers still pwn the Zerglings more often than not

 

I think the current colossus is too weak, but it's just numbers, and that will be fixed in beta.

I love the new attack method and animation; much better than the lameness from the WWI 2007 launch.

People compare it to the old reaver for good reason; like the old reaver, it's supposed to be good at killing groups of weak units. However, the old reaver could deal 100 splash damage, insta-killing many zerglings. (Obviously it was also slow and nearly helpless, unlike colossi.)

So we have to decide if the defensive boost is worth the offensive nerf. Without actually playing, it's hard to tell. In my opinion, it's a bit weak for its cost, and I'd rather see it get more expensive and more powerful than have to use groups of them. (Note: in StarCraft I, a mere two line splashing lurkers could insta-kill marines. That's what they were designed for.)

I don't like the "armored" dark templar look. When you're stealthed, you don't want to wear too much armor, as the sound you would make (heavier footfalls, etc) would compromise your stealth (except, maybe, on a space platform). I don't mind the trophies.

I think the new scythe weapon isn't just silly, but the old warp blade was much cooler.

I never thought the old infestor infestation ability was overpowered. I thought that was awesome.

 

While its true that the colossus can be taken down by relatively small numbers of hydras or zerglings it is not really weak. It just needs a row of some other units to keep the enemy away from it a bit. A colossus with a few immortals or even zealots can deal a lot of damage. Its similar to how a reaver needed a shuttle to be very effective.

 

Well a good reaver drop could cause havoc on a worker line and damage a building a bit if units are immediately available. We saw a colossi drop in one of those videos where two colossi couldn't destroy the drones before they could go away.

The colossus is an example of blizzard double standards, one of the leading reasons they removed medics was because reapers would be too weak compared to medic because as cliff jumpers they were meant to work alone, now they made protoss have colossi that is useless even against a unit its meant to hard counter. I'm still hoping for the original colossus attack.

If the price for added mobility on a reaver is this, I say give me a reaver and a shuttle.

EDIT: Also colossi were far from uncountable when they can be attacked by dedicated AA units and can't attack air.

 

I wasn't attempting to claim that the colossus could replace the reaver, simply that like the reaver the colossus needs support units to be truly effective. Though I would agree with you in that I would take the reaver over the shuttle anyday.

 

The Collossus's ineffectiveness on the worker line can be fixed simply by number. Although, I agree that it is a bit of a double standard on Blizzard's part. I hope they get it right.

 

Kimera757,
Dark Templar's cloak is psionic, not a result of sneaking.

overmind,
The guy I read wrote 4 collossi seemed unstoppable when he played w/them. Maybe his opponents didn't build for air or maybe the time it take's to tech to air favors a collossi rush. That build's past but it's why I reckon collossi seem weaker now.

 

@Kimera757,
Dark Templar's cloak is psionic, not a result of sneaking.

I haven't read anything about their cloak making them silent.

 

I'm pretty sure he means the quality of "cloak" (Invisible) is due to being psionic.

 

i remember Jons report about the Colossus back then, and he said once you get 4-6 or more it was almost impossible for the opponent to counter it with just ground forces, and then even if they built air, you would have your Stalkers and Warp Rays(acting a support) slaughter them before they could even kill a single colossi.

 

@TychusFindlayI'm pretty sure he means the quality of "cloak" (Invisible) is due to being psionic.

That's true, and has been confirmed by the Shadow Hunters novel (and probably the original manual). However, if you're invisible but not silent, you'll compromise your stealth.

 

Kinda like Tanks, eh?