Petition: Bring back the Predator!

Marines beat Banshees when they ain't clustered as Blizzard showed. So the Banshee is equally weak as the Reaper. But the Banshee can only do so much that its attack allows it to. It doesn't take advantage of other units attributes and has only one simple attack with no effects.

 

@ItzaHexGor The banshee has weak armor and low health, just like the Reaper. The reaper however is cheaper, could be built sooner, and probably builds faster, making it more likely to survive large battle because of its higher numbers. That only advantage the banshee has is that it can cloak, which isn't very useful when the enemy has detectors in his army.

 

The Reaper is pretty much in the same boat. It has one strong, one-off attack and a fairly useless normal attack. The D8 Charges can easily be foiled, by being destroyed before their timer has gone down, similar to how Spider Mines could easily be shot down by a group of Marines before it reached them. The Banshees attack has recently been changed, though. No matter whether it was more versatile that the Reaper or not, I think this was a terrible move for the Banshee.

The Banshee may be weak, but the Reaper is even weaker. The Banshee has 120 health and 1 base armor, the Reaper only has 45 armor and no base armor. The Banshee still does have a lower cost to health ratio, but the Banshee gets Cloak which gives it a huge advantage.

Saying that they are likely to survive because they're built in large numbers doesn't really make sense. It just goes to show that they're weak and can easily be killed, so you need a lot of them in order to have some survive the battle. Let's face it, the more of them there are, the more of them will die. Let's face it, Zerg will always receive the most casualties because they work with shear numbers. Protoss on the other hand, will most likely have much fewer casualties, because they have fewer, more powerful units. It would be much more beneficial to a large scale assault for Terran to have half the Banshees rather than twice the Reapers. Banshees have greater survivability, with Cloak and, being a flying unit, they can fly over any oceans or troops that would otherwise obstruct their path. Lots of Reapers are really easy to counter, as seen in the Terran Gameplay video, there isn't much they can face toe to toe, and rely purely on tactical strikes.

It's not the only advantage, but I get your drift. It might not be useful when the enemies have Detectors, but that's just like saying that Reapers are effective when they have, for example, Motherships. Everything has a weakness. Banshees are weak when they have Nomads, Sensor Towers, Observers, Phase Prisms, Overlords, etc (any Detectors), but Reapers are weak when they have Motherships, Battlecruisers, Siege Tanks, Banshees, Carriers, Marauders, High Templar, Colossi, Vikings, etc (Anti-Infantry or area of effect). The benefit that the Banshee has is that Detectors are easily identified and there often aren't swarms of them, so they can easily be taken out.

 

So what you're basically saying is the Banshee is more versatile than the Reaper or the Reaper is not versatile and it is specialized?

 

It's a bit of both really. The Reaper is a specialized unit. It's only good in situations that it's been designed for. The Banshee is also specialized but a lot more possibilities were open to it, with its old attack, because it was more maneuverable, because it could fly over places the Reaper couldn't jump over, and more powerful, each volley of missiles doing about thirty damage, with greater survivability.

 

Yes, the reaper is also IMO only a harasser, where the banshee can be used vs masses meele ground units etc.

 

Both are versatile. Both can be used for harrassment, but the banshee is probably better suited for outright assault than the reaper is. Reapers are probably better for hit-and-run.

 

They aren't versatile. They've both got fairly limited roles. Versatile units are units like the Viking which are useful in almost every situation. The Banshee and Reaper, on the other hand, are not.

 

Another versatile unit is the stalker/dragoon. The dragoon was the backbone of the protoss army, the stalker will be IMO

 

I don't think that Stalkers will be the backbone of the Protoss army. They've got less health/armor and cost more than the Dragoon. They do still have a strong attack but now that they've got Blink, I feel that won't be used as they were in StarCraft1.
Don't get me wrong, they'll still be an essential part of the Protoss force, but not to the extent of the Dragoon. Everything in StarCraft2 is and has a counter. Nothing will be able to be massed or left unused. Players will need to balance all their troops and won't be able to rely on one unit type as being the backbone of their army.

 

Dragoon couldnt be massed too (not in the long run, you will need zealots later ofc) ...
IMO the stalker is perhaps not as much as a backbone as the dragoon was, but it will be the damage dealer against mech, something the dragoon was used for too. Ofc the immortal will be used as a tank, and therefore taking a bit of the dragoons part. But the Damage dealer in PvT will be the stalker (vs mech), because its dps vs mech is very high.

I agree with you that in Starcraft2 we will not have one unit being the backbone, because it seems like many more strategies can be used.
My use of backbone was therefore uncorrectly, i should have used dmg-dealer against T mech (which i think still will be used much against P), and perhaps a dmg-dealer against Z too. And i think it will be used as much in PvP as the dragoon was.
And where do you have the information that it costs more?
And i think blink is just a little extra feature, like the charge abbity of the Zealot. It will just make the stalker more usefull for hunting down troops (with it high dps).

 

Dragoons could be massed fairly effectively. They can counter almost anything quite effectively. They did deal explosive damage, so they dealt less to small targets, but made up for that in numbers.
Stalkers will still receive their damage bonus against Zerg. Their bonus is against units with an 'Armored' modifier, which doesn't exclude Zerg. The only armored-type unit they have at the moment is the Overlord, but there will definitely be others, the Ultralisk for example. Blink will be used for hunting down enemies, but it'll also be used for ambushing and fleeing. I got the info from sc2armory.com. Given their heightened maneuverability, they won't be involved in as much stand-and-fight type tactics.

 

I'm sorry to put this thread back on the rails but isn't this the "bring back the predator" thread?
Seems like this main idea has been dead for a while so if you want to debate I suggest you make a new topic.

 

DontHate me. This topic because its about the predator, is also about roles.

 

This isn't exactly correct. In every game I've observed when a player focuses on mass Dragoons he loses.
Hydralisks beat Dragoons when in the correct numbers; not even a huge mass but close to equal just a little higher.

 

There is no discussion about the predator or the terran roles considering the predator anymore but whatever. If the mods let it slide then let them.

To be honest, I don't think any unit massed is as powerful as a combination of units put together. That's sort of how the stalker being less powerful makes the player have to use them coupled with other units.

 

Hydralisk isnt the counter, Zerglings are... Lings rape Dragoons even 3:1 which is 75 minerals against a dragoon (especially when they have crack, but it sint needed)

 

I never said they was the counter, just saying they work will against them. But yes Cracklings own Dragoons as the Goons just fire too slow.

 

Once your opponent realizes what your tactics are, they shouldn't be able to mass enough Hydralisks to counter it. Unless, for some strange reason, you tell them what your tactics will be before the game, they won't always have time to react.

 

But a lot of people use Dragoons. I do see what you mean tho :]