stalker air damage increase

For the cost I believe stalkers should get a increase to 10 +10 versus air because they are also the main source of protoss ground gta and for cost the hydra and marauder both outclass them in damage which is strange (I know the marauder is ground based but still).

at least give them this to balance things out.

edit: I made this in the wrong place

 

And there isn't anything called ground ATA. The Stalker's simply GTA.

And isn't the Hydralisk a later tier? Or is it early again?

 

I think +10 would be far too imbalanced. Stalker has the blink, which is really a useful skill in a battle, and while chasing down enemies. Hydras have only a speed and a range upgrade, which are effective, but I think they are not as good as the Blink.
As for the marauder I don't have a clue what it does.
I wouldn't add more damage to the Stalkers air, or maaybe a maximum of 4. It looks effective this way..

 

I agree that the stalker should get a boost vs air units, 10 sounds lame for the cost!

 

The low(? is it really that low?) damage is compensated by the increased mobility. And you can make quite a lot of them.

 

But just imagine having it 10 more damage, it would halve the time it finishes up the enemies.. I don't think that is fair.

 

You might want to look at this thread as well, discussing protoss anti-air capabilities.

 

Hydras are tier 2 but still stalkers are the most prevalent anti air versus heavy units that the protoss have atm.

plus im just talking anti air not its ground attack.

 

Ever thought about the fact that air is higher tier anyway? Saying that a low tier unit is ineffective against a higher tier unit... Isn't that called balance? And you can also use the Phoenix as soon as Terran and Zerg get air.

 

Firstly, this thread seems exactly like this thread you made.

Secondly, my reply that you never replied to still applies. (That's no lie.)

Also, moved, and soon it'll probably be merged with your old thread.

 

Well how about 11 damge vs air, + 5 to armored units?

 

Well look at it this way if the hydra has the same attack speed it had in Starcraft 1 them its hitting 2 times for every stalker hit so its hitting for 32 damage versus heavy air versus the stalker who hits for 14 damage versus heavy air think about it.

This is also how the dragoon and hydra where set up for starcraft 1.

The hydra hit twice as fast and did 10 damage while the dragoon hits slower but did 20 damage and both had explosive damage.

Also the cost has remained the same but yet the damage has be nerfed from 20 damage to 14 damage versus armored and also its had its shield reduced by 40 points. (ya I know its got blink but that still costs resources)

 

So what? StarCraft1 has nothing to do with the balance in StarCraft2. If it does, then Zealots are underpowered in StarCraft2 because they're comparatively weaker than their StarCraft1 counterparts. My point is that absolutely nothing in StarCraft1 affects the balance in StarCraft2 and perhaps, just perhaps, the roles may have changed slightly between the gaping ten year gap between both game. Firstly, the Hydralisk is, save for the Queen which is completely non-viable in most situations, the only Ground-to-Air attacker at the Zerg's disposal, and has been buffed accordingly, what with its Anti-Air attack being stronger than its Anti-Ground attack. The Marauder is only Ground-to-Ground, so of course it's more likely to out-damage the Stalker, which is comparatively a much more versatile and fragile unit. With the Stalker itself, no, it's not what the Protoss relies of for Ground-to-Air damage, as they've also got the the Nullifier and Archon at their disposal. On top of that it's just as capable against Ground targets as well, and also carries the Blink skill.

So no, units should not be balanced based on patterns seen in the original game, especially when other components, like cost, build time, health and attack bonuses have been changed as well. So as I originally said, these changes should be balanced through fine-tuning and not through random stabs in the dark.

EDIT: As for the damage being nerfed, why do you simply assume it was balanced to begin with?

 

Nullifier -low damage, low range- as well as Archon -higher damage, but range 2- are not effective vs air for the aforementioned reasons, so i hope you are not serious

 

The stalker is still supposed to be the most prevalent gta for the protoss

This is just gta and stalkers cost more then the marauder

I was simply adding the old hydra/dragoon thing because thats how they originally balanced it

archons can attack air but there range in limited and they are better versus weaker units, same goes for nullifiers
plus archons are too costly to be a quick defence versus air and I seriouly dout you would pick nullifiers versus stalkers to have in bulk to defend your base

also remember if the hydra has the same attack speed it had in Starcraft 1 them its hitting 2 times for every stalker hit so its hitting for 32 damage versus heavy air versus the stalker who hits for 14 damage versus heavy air think about it (its a repeat but its worth repeating) .

 

@ Ivhoang. The Nullifier does low, though considerably higher against Biological targets, but continuous damage, with one less range than the Stalker so you might want to check your facts sometime, and will most likely often be an ever-present force on the battlefield, much like High Templar if they were given an attack in StarCraft1.

As for the Archon, if you truly believe that they're not effective against Air targets, I'm not really sure what to say to you. However I will say that they're quite possibly the best Ground-to-Air attackers against Zerg due to their massive bonus against Biological targets and splash damage will absolutely rip through stacked Mutalisks, unlike Stalkers, and that the only thing they're really 'bad' against are units such as the Brood Lord and Banshee, which best require Air-to-Air to be appropriately countered due to their inability to retaliate.

All in all, there are few Air units that can really be considered as a 'counter' to Archons. The only flaw the Archon has is its low range, but there are only really a select few units who can take advantage of that, being the aforementioned and Void Rays, Carriers and Motherships, which, apart from already being Protoss, can easily be countered by Phoenixes and Warp Rays. On top of that, no other unit save the Thor is really able to counter then from the Ground, so saying that that's one of the reasons why the Stalker is better at Anti-Air than the Archon is is completely irrelevant.

@ Bthammer. So what if the Stalker's supposed to be the most prevalent Ground-to-Air for the Protoss? Why is that any reason to disregard the normal means of balancing?

The Marauder does not have any sort of Ground-to-Air attack, and I've directly stated that in what you excessively quoted, as well.

As I said, this is a new game and any patterns seen in the original are literally completely meaningless for balancing. If it was, the Zealot would be underpowered in StarCraft2 because it's weaker than it's StarCraft1 counterpart.

Archons are viable counters for all Air units, except for those that siege, which Stalker's aren't a viable counter for anyway. Also, there's no reason to say that they're better suited to dealing with weaker units. Their damage is not altered either way, and if you're going to attempt to go down that path, then Stalkers are not viable counters against Zerg Air units, as they're either out-ranged or do not deal as much damage.

And I've never said that you'd pick Nullifiers to counter Air, but as I've said they'll most likely be an ever-present force on the battlefield, and they still do significant damage against Biological targets, dealing almost double damage to them. Saying that their input to Anti-Air is useless is like saying that giving the High Templar a continuous attack in StarCraft1 would be useless, which it quite obviously wouldn't've been, regardless of the fact that they're not built in the same numbers as other units.

Lastly, again, that comparison is meaningless. Apart from the fact that the Hydralisk is supposed to have one of the most powerful Anti-air attacks in the game, complaining about that is like complaining that two Zerglings beat a Marine, or that a Zealot beats two Marines. It's nothing more than an observation, and us attempting to balance them is like trying to get a baby to bench a hundred kilos without using its arms.

 

I know what the nullifier does but its still not a effective low cost counter its supposed to enhance the group and I still stand by what I said about building a bunch to defend off air units.

Archons are awesome and very strong but their expensive, take some time to produce and you could put 2-3 stalkers on the field in the same time a archon could be produced plus there still supposed to be counters for less armored and ranged units like roaches and multalisks.

........ Stalkers are supposed to be the most prevalent gta for the protoss for get all the other units the protoss have and forget about the the archon and the nullifier because there not quick counters when it comes to gta or heavy armored units like battle cruisers, carriers, brood lords ect .

Because of Stalkers low attack and the upgrade to almost every air units in terms of damage they have no chance banshees would tear them up carriers would dominate them same with battle cruisers even mutalisks would have there way with them because the mutalisks has pretty much the same damage attacks multi units,I believe has a faster attack and almost the same amount of health.

 

Itza, do you mean that people are going to make massive use of the nullifier for anti air? a spellcaster that has no offensive ability, dooing 5 (+3 for biological) damage?

What are the nullifiers good at anyway? Since Molecular disruptor disappeared, all they have left is hallucination and force field. Don't try to tell us that Protoss players are going to use it massively...

It costs 50 minerals + 100 gas => waste of ressource (in gas most certainly)

Again, Itza, " you might want to think a bit before posting your thoughts" :wacko:
Seriously, I mean it.

 

Nullifiers are still really good group damage enhancers and early and later casters but they are in no way effective counters to air units like banshees ect.

Itza you know im right you just don't want to admit to it

 

my point exactly ^^
Itza cannot be serious about nullifiers being anti air. LOL that was a good joke though :laugh:

btw BThammer: "good group damage enhancers" could you please tell me what you are alluding at? I do not know if they have such abilities, wikipedia does not say anything about such capacities. Maybe you are talking about sthg else? Thanks!