Protoss Stalker

lol, yep and a Dragoon is named because it Dragoons around, right, subverting the enemy over to their cause? And a Zealot is named that way because it is Jewish.

Its named that because the name sounds cool primarily and sort of describes it, sort of. But the stalker is an offensive and defensive unit. Resource raids and a very mobile defense is what pokes out as the Stalker's most obvious identifiers.

 

@ Darktemplar_L. What makes you say it would stalk Light units? That kinda defeats the purpose of stalking. Imagine lions taking down wildebeest, wolves taking down bison or a tiger taking down a buffalo. They're all stalkers and they all favour taking down large prey. You'll never see a pack of lions stalking a monkey, a vulture or any other small prey, they go for the big ones, just like how the Stalkers go for Armoured targets.

 

and some bad people stalk little kids. That technically contradicts your term of stalking.
Stalking is following/pursuing a desired target stealthily, no matter the size.

EDIT:

I don't want to sound like an ass, so I'll stick a happy face in here.

 

That's a completely different scenario. Those 'bad people' seldom want to kill the little kid, and if they do they'd want to do it in private. Either way, it results in the 'bad person' stalking the kid because they don't want there to be any witnesses, etc. It's completely different in StarCraft2. The Stalkers will always want to kill its target as quickly as possible, there aren't any innocent bystanders anywhere and there is no legal system, etc. They're completely different scenarios. I'm aware that size doesn't matter when it comes to stalking, but in the vast majority of cases you'll see smaller things stalking larger things. That's why they do it, because if they started on equal terms, then the predator wouldn't be able to do anything. They stalk in groups, suddenly lash out to take down their large target, and then it's over.

 

For those wondering what Dragoon means:
dra·goon (dr-gn, dr-)
n.
A member of a European military unit trained and armed to fight mounted or on foot.
tr.v. dra·gooned, dra·goon·ing, dra·goons
1. To subjugate or persecute by the imposition of troops.
2. To compel by violent measures or threats; coerce.

I wish Blizzard still used cool names like those which don't sound too common and relate to the unit.

 

European military trained to fight mounted or on foot relates to the StarCraft Dragoon? I think the meaning of the word 'Stalker' relates to the StarCraft2 Stalker a touch more than 'Dragoon' relates to the StarCraft2 Dragoon. I don't see how there's anything wrong with the Stalker's name. It describes the units well, isn't too commonly used and links back the the Dark Templar perfectly.

 

Narrow mindness much?

Who said theres anything wrong with the Stalker?
And Stalker is definitly a common word. Lurker and Stalker pretty much relate to similar things yet Lurker isn't used as commonly.

As you can see a Dragoon is a military rank given to those who use force to enforce laws or orders. They also will fight the opposition to subjugation meaning to the enemies stop basically.
sub·ju·gate (sbj-gt)
tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates
1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To make subservient; enslave.
Thats what Dragoons do, they comply to situations with force. Where it says a military unit trained on foot and mounted is simply refering to the fact Dragoons used to be Zealots. Remember the Dragoon's dialogue when they say ''you have 15 seconds to drop you weapon <countdown> bla bla *weapon fires*''
Understand now?

 

So the only link that actually exists between the two are that both are in the military? The StarCraft2 Dragoon does not hold a specific rank nor does it subjugate the enemy. They're just fallen warriors so they'd roughly hold the same rank as they did previously and they're there to exterminate the enemy, not to subjugate them. That line of dialogue is a reference to RoboCop and not to show that they're the there to restore order or enforce obedience or anything. It's just like how the Dropship says 'We're in the pipe, five by five'. They're not actually in the pipe, it's just a reference to popular culture.

You said there was something wrong with the Stalker's name here:

You're implying that they don't any more meaning that the Stalkers name is not cool, is common and doesn't relate to the unit.

 

No its simply preference. To me Stalker is a simple name with an obvious meaning.

The Dragoon is a war machine. It isn't exactly in the position to reason is it? I don't know why or what you are trying to argue as that is the meaning of Dragoon and that is what the Dragoon is.

 

You can't deny that...

...makes you sound as though you dislike the Stalker's name.

The thing with the Dragoon is that both the noun and verb do not suit the StarCraft Dragoon all that well. The noun 'dragoon' basically means a soldier, so it doesn't relate specifically to the StarCraft Dragoon. The Dragoon is a soldier, but so is everything else. The verb 'to dragoon' basically means to subjugate by force, which is not what the StarCraft Dragoon does either. It doesn't subjugate enemy units, it kills them. I'm not saying that Dragoon is a bad name, I'm saying that your reasoning behind the meaning of the word suiting the unit is wrong.

 

For **** sake dude. How can you argue against a definition?!
What happens when you put an injured Zealot into a 4 legged machine?
Similar thing when a soldier is on a horse, thus mounting. Also how could my reasoning be wrong if its the definition.
I have nothing against you, you're cool and all but just don't argue against plain facts.

dra·goon (dr-gn, dr-)
n.
A member of a European military unit trained and armed to fight mounted or on foot. = Zealot+Dragoon suit=Dragoon
tr.v. dra·gooned = Subjugated by a Dragoon
dra·goon·ing = Subjugating with the methods of the Dragoon tying in with its meaning
, dra·goons = a number of Dragoons or the status of those units being Dragoons
1. To subjugate or persecute by the imposition of troops. = In Protoss society they'd be similar to what we'd call riot police along with Zealots.
2. To compel by violent measures or threats; coerce. = He has a gun? shoot him.

 

I'm not arguing against the definition, I'm arguing that the application of the definition is wrong.

Putting a Zealot in a Dragoon bears little resemblance to putting a soldier on a horse. The only real similarity is the fact that they both have four legs, which is an extremely useless similarity at that. Saying that putting a Zealot into a larger machine is like mounting the Zealot is exactly the same as saying that putting a convict into a Marine suit is like mounting the convict. It's not the case. Neither are like mounting a soldier.

Dragoons are not riot police, and they're not law enforcers. They're soldiers. They don't subjugate the enemy and they don't compel the enemy. They kill the enemy.

 

I always like the stalker and thought of it as a unit with a very strong attack but was very fragile and was never supposed to be hurt and would blink to avoid that. (Which kind of raises a question. What if the stalker was shot at by a visible attack, like that of another stalker, but blinked before it could hit him? What would happen?)

Anyway one thing I heard that I think would be kind of cool and make the stalker a bit more unique would be to give it a upgraded for some sort of "blink cloaking". A passive ability that would cloak the stalker for 3 seconds and then uncloak it for 5, while uncloaking for 3 secondes after an attack (basicly turning of cloak when fighting) to keep them balanced. I'm not sure how this would be useful but it would be alot of fun, especially if you were watching a large group of them pass by. (that might acually be how it could serve as a tactical purpose, to keep enemies from finding out there numbers before they attack)

 

If the Stalker Blink'd away while an attack projectile was coming towards it, the projectile would probably just track it, similarly to how a Yamato would track units that escaped into the fog of war while it was charging up. It's not as though Stalkers can transverse huge distances in a single Blink, so having the projectile home in on it wouldn't be too unbalanced or unrealistic.

I'm not really sure what you're saying exactly with your proposed idea, but from what I can understand it's like Phase Shifting while in combat? Is that right? If it is, while it would still suit the Stalker's mindset, I don't feel as though it suits better than Blink. The main problem with yours is that, as you said, although it may be an interesting mechanic, it's not all that useful. Blink is useful for bypassing obstacles, and both attacking and retreating, but yours just seems like a way to limit the amount of damage the Stalker's taking. It's a fragile and powerful unit so it would be more capable of getting in, dealing as much damage as possible to high priority targets, and getting out before they're overwhelmed. With yours, they'd just be sitting there dealing constant damage, and harder to detect/attack.

 

I was actually trying to say that they would be cloaking for small amounts of time while out of combat, to help them get around the enemy base with out being noticed or destroyed. The cloaking would turn of right when they attacked so they woudn't be invincible, and would turn on again if they stopped and tried to flee. I agree that blink is much more useful for both those situations, but I am just trying to throw random ideas out there to try and make units more interesting.

 

ItzaHexGor, I was just making a guess since their attack has been changed a few times. Since the damage was that low I assumed that they wouldn't be able to take down heavily armored units because of the heavy armor.

 

@ ChickeN Wing. Ah, I see now. You're right in that it would make them more interesting, but yeah, the problem lies with the usefulness. Nice suggestion though. Fit the Stalker pretty well.

@ Darktemplar_L. I don't really understand what you're getting at with that post. I can tell that you assumed it would be better against Light units, and I explained how stalking doesn't work that way, and we all know that they still have their bonus against Armoured targets. So, what's your problem?

 

If they were traced while blinking i would be pissed off.

i think of Dragoons as ranged cavalry, so in a way it fits SC goons and fits in with names like "Zealot" ,not historically but the way it sounds. As for Stalkers i find the name suits dark templars fine.

I sort of see Stalkers taking down small packs off units or a large target, maybe having splash damage with a fairly powerful attack and since the other ranged ground units= Immortal<Armoured, Collosus< massed, it would be nice to have a fairly rounded toss ranged unit instead of having the blink being gimmicky.

 

I don't see why Stalkers would need any splash damage or anything. Colossus can deal with multiple ground units and Phoenixes can deal with multiple air units, so Stalkers can focus on taking out all the Armoured targets. Immortals aren't really Anti-Armoured, as they don't have a bonus or anything, they're just there to absorb the damage. They can deal pretty decent damage against everything which is why the opponent would want to take them down fairly quickly, which is why they have the Hardened Shields.

 

ahhh, good point i thought Immortals had a bonus anti armour.

although i still think they should have a reletively fast ROF.