stalker air damage increase

I simply meen that they can stand back at a range of 5 and damage over time stuff versus most casters who can"t attack at all and that's all it meens.

 

You guys seriously must be thick. Either that or you've managed to learn to selectively read everything you want to read while completely ignoring everything else, which is ironic, really, when Bthammer feels it appropriate to quote the entire previous post and then only actually reply to a few select sentences it in.

So, that said, for the third time, no, I am not saying that the Nullifier is an effective unit to build in order to counter Air unit, nor have I ever said that. I have, however, already stated twice, once specifically to each of you, that it will most likely turn out to be an ever-present force on the battlefield. If that was too much for you, which it seemingly was, I then likened it to the High Templar, but you obviously chose to not read that sentence either, or just assumed I was, for some reason, suddenly talking about armies consisting entirely of High Templar with attacks.

As for the Archon's, they're not actually awfully hard to get to. Yes, it requires a bit of teching, but until then there isn't really the pressure of requiring extremely competent Anti-Air, for obvious reasons which I still feel compelled to make just to make sure that you don't miss it like you've selectively missed every other point so far, and it's because there aren't many Air units until players are actually able to build them. As for the difficulty to build them, they're actually one of the most flexible units to produce. Firstly, they've got a variable cost, depending on what you've been spending so far and, obviously, what you've got remaining. They can cost either a hundred minerals and three hundred gas, which is handy for if you've been spending a lot of Zealots, etc, by merging two High Templar, or two fifty minerals and two hundred gas by merging two Dark Templar. Also, one seventy-five minerals and two hundred and fifty gas, with one of each, for the middle ground, granted you've teched that much. All in all, they're not like other units which constantly spit the 'You require more minerals' or gas as you, as their cost is flexible and can adjust depending on what other units you're building.

On top of that, there's the fact that, as you don't seem to know, they are actually balanced, so that extra cost is actually going somewhere, and lastly, as I've already said, but that doesn't seem to actually have an effect on either of you, the Archon isn't 'designed' to take on anything in particular, so while they are great against Biological units, that does nothing to diminish their worth when countering Mechanical units, and the only reasons you seem to be saying it is because you'd much rather prove that it isn't at all capable at taking on Air units meaning the Stalker can, in your mind, justifiably receive that buff you're rooting for, without you having to admit that you are, in fact, wrong, due to the fact that the Archon does actually fill that gap quite nicely.

On to what you've said about Battlecruisers, Carriers and Brood Lords, I've decided that I'm so sick of repeating myself that I'll jsut go back and quote it instead, seeing as quoting it yourself didn't seem to encourage you to actually read it.

And just so that you don't come back without applying any logic to the thought before replying, I'll let you know now that the preceding applies to Battlecruisers as well.

As for Banshees, do you remember when people were talking about the Battle Report and how stupid the Zerg player was to go for Hydralisks to counter the Banshees instead of Mutalisks? And do you remember how you, yourself, said that the Stalker does much less DPS than the Hydralisk does? Now would you mind considering that and coming back to me with a shred of logic you could apply from what I just said that could be used to counter these superior Air-to-Ground units that aren't able to defend themselves against Air units, even if it's been worked out long-hand with the remainder of your brain stem? Thank you.

Now onto Ivhoang. Please take the time to read the preceding, because it applies directly to you, as well.

As for the Nullifier, that's obviously pretty abstract painting you're seeing after you've managed to conjure some random assumption based off of the few, unrelated words you managed to recognise while reading my replies, but unfortunately for your sake, you've practically just tried to prove MLK's wrong by telling him that all men are created equal. In short, you don't actually have a clue of what's being said, so I suggest instead of trying to take the witty high ground by posting absolute crap like 'think before posting your thoughts', you might want to take a leaf from your own book and both understand and actually read what's being said before you post a response.

So, just to repeat myself, yet again, me saying that Protoss players should mass Nullifiers in order to counter early Air raids is a figment of your imagination. I have never said, nor have I even tried to suggest, that they should be built for Anti-air purposes. What I have actually been saying, and I certainly hope you're reading this time, is that they are an ever-present force on the battlefield that are able to provide support.

And lastly, the truly funny thing is that Nullifiers, at the moment, could probably out-DPS a Stalker against biological targets such as the Mutalisk. Does that make it more worthy to build? No, but I hope it demonstrates to the both of you that such an attack is far less useless to the game as a whole than you might realise.

So until next time, you might want to understand what's actually being said before you say it's wrong.

 

wow so angry

Im not saying anything sucks just that a boost in damage for the stalker for gta would justify its cost and fill its roll better and im sure there are people here that agree with me.

oh I saw it all I just don"t feel like typing huge stories to get my point across dude.

oh and the fact that you agreed with me on how the nullifier can out dps a stalker just justifies my point entirely.

truly you or I can"t make a honest call till we see some beta games.

Oh and try not to take things so seriously next time what i type is my personal opinion and well if you don"t like it im sorry its not like Im calling you names or anything "cough" ItzaHexGor "cough"

 

So I suppose you're not enjoying being that far on the back foot then, eh? Well hopefully it won't have to come to that next time if you could be bothered reading. So, onto other things...

You have no clue what level of damage would justify its cost. That's what I've been saying since day one when I said it's down to fine tuning, not random stabs in the dark.

And you obviously didn't see everything I said, because I'd already responded to everything you'd said in your reply. Not only that, it was actually written in the completely unnecessary quote at the top of each of your replies. The fact remains that 'feeling like it' has nothing to do with reading what's actually been said.

And no, the Nullifier not having a laughably-weak attack doesn't prove your point, it proves that nothing in the game will simply be given a useless attack, and that the Stakers will have support for early Anti-Air. On top of that, buffing the attack bonus of the Stalker, which is what you're wanting if I'm not mistaken, will do nothing to that comparison due to the fact that the Stalker's bonus is against Armoured targets, which the Mutalisks are not. Unless you're saying its Air attack as a whole needs to be buffed, which is just ridiculous.

And no, we can't make an honest call at all, regardless of how many games we've seen. It's down to the devs. Fullstop.

And I'm not taking it seriously, I just get pissed off when people like you don't actually read what's right in front of your eyes, make some completely inaccurate guess as to what I might be saying and then try and claim the witty high ground because of it. And for good reason, I might add.

 

Izahexgor, is exactly right here, at this point the developers know what is balanced and unbalanced right now. You have no idea on what algorithms etc they are using to make the game balanced.

All we have seen are a couple of videos. There is no way you can dissect the game down to the point where you know what damage it should and shouldn't have and what resource costs it should have.

 

1. I do read everything its just a. I don"t want to type out huge stories to get my point across and b. you just disagree with my comment

2. It would justify it better because a. it would justify its gta better b. its cost versus the original dragoon which its cost remains the same but it does 6 less damage and has 40 less shield.

3 I did once again see everything you said and I have no idea what " feeling like it" has to do with anything these are valid points that you just dont agree with

4 duh no duh I want it to be for armored units because less armored units get dealt with my phoenixes, archons and some assisted nullifier attacks.

5. dude I know but saying that is simply saying that all the chatter on the forums is pointless because their going to do what ever they heck they want anyways.

6. you are taking things way too seriously and you once again just don"t agree with me thats all.

 

LOL Ytza
You can't think straight because you are getting so angry. Relax, we do not have to agree, nor do we have to persuade anybody. We are just exchanging views in a most 'polite and courteous way' which obviously is something you are not willing to do.
I love your essays, but I would say you do not bring new arguments, you just quote yourself to the infinity, and repeatedly. That's not how you can convince people, basically.
May I suggest you not to post if you feel you are going to be aggressive.

 

Well we won"t know for sure until the beta because things are changing so much but still no reason not to talk about it.

 

1. If you'd've truly read everything, I wouldn't've had to have repeated half that stuff just for you, typing out 'huge stories' has nothing to do with what you did, and the fact that I disagree with what you're saying has little to do with anything.

2.Increasing the Hydralisk's already buff Anti-Air attack would justify its Ground-to-Air better as well. In other words, what makes it need a better attack before it's justified? And again, as I've said before, and in other threads as well, patterns in StarCraft1 have nothing to do with balance in StarCraft2. Each of the games has got to be balanced within itself, and not in comparison to each other. In other words, it doesn't matter if Dragoon's aren't balanced with Stalkers? Or if Devourers aren't balanced with Corrupters? Or if Goliaths aren't balanced with Vikings? It's a completely different game, with a completely different damage system and even with a different resource intake rate. The old Dragoon means nothing.

3. You were the one originally saying you didn't feel like it, so you've kinda down a one eighty here. And again, you obviously didn't read everything because I had to repeat stuff just for you.

4. A moment ago you were saying the Archons are too expensive and hard to get to be a viable Anti-Air unit, were laughing at me for suggesting that the Nullifier's Anti-Air attack could be used to attack Air units and that the damage dealt by the Nullifier is laughable. Quite a turnaround, wouldn't you say? And all this from someone who previously said 'why don't you just admit you're wrong'?

5. No, not all the chatter on the forums is pointless, but saying that the Stalker deserves and extra six damage against Armoured Air targets in order to balance it out, is. It is simply a balancing issue, and nothing more. You'll notice that half the other topics are fun ideas, asking for information or talking about how stuff works in the game.

6. You really don't understand the enjoyment I see from seeing someone this cocky fall, so I'll tell you it's a lot. And I also love how you're trying to tell me now, now you're on the back foot, that it's just that I don't agree with your opinion, however when you were on the front foot, you were telling me to admit that I'm wrong. So, why don't you just admit that you're wrong?

@ Ivhoang. Well if I couldn't think so straight because I was supposedly angry, because apparently now you can't insult people unless you're angry, then I've obviously overlooked something huge or made some sort of mistake, so unless you can point that mistake out to me, every last statement I've made still holds, regardless of whether I actually was angry or not.

And you saying that you're exchanging views in a polite and courteous way is truly laughable. You're, apparently, deliberately misinterpreting everything I said and calling me an idiot because of it. Now if that's polite and courteous, I must have been dishing out praise.

As for repeating myself, you really must be thicker than I originally thought, because not only have I already had to rant at greater lengths than I otherwise would about how you don't read, etc, etc, etc, you obviously still haven't read a thing.

And yet again you're trying to gain the witty high-ground. Real polite and courteous response there... Anyway, the fact remains that being angry or aggressive has nothing to do with the quality of the post. You haven't actually addressed any of the issues I shot you down on, so, as I've seen with other member's before, you decide to ignore it all and focus on saying that I was angry and shouldn't post when I am. Well, again, if that was truly detrimental to my post, perhaps you'd like to point them out to me instead of hiding behind an anorexic scapegoat.

 

You have quite the ego don"t you well once again its all up to personal preference and I personally think a extra 6 damage versus air units would be appropriate agree with me or not im sure there are people here who would agree with me.

fall from what? you this question lol you have to be kidding what makes your opinion any better then myn anyways?

Archons are expensive and wont be as effective as the stalker as a quick defense and nullifiers only enhance groups

 

No, it's not personal preference, it's extensive balance testing. As I said straight from the start, it comes down to fine tuning, not random stabs in the dark. As much as you believe it's an opinion or not, or how many people agree with you, it doesn't work on any level.

Fall from your position of self-assured superiority. And you do realise the true hypocrisy of asking why I think my opinion's more valid than yours when you previously said "Itza you know im right you just don't want to admit to it", don't you?

As for what actually does make it more valid, probably because I'm actually able to back it up.

And lastly, that's half the reason why the Stalker's don't have an Anti-Air attack that's as strong as the Hydralisks. Stalkers have support from other units, where the Hydralisks don't have anything other than Queens, which will only really be around for base defence, and not much more.

 

@ Ytza:
AGAIN, Some people here disagree with you, and all you have to do is to respect their point of view. Yes I know it's hard for you but you can try at least! You have such an ego, are you afraid of admitting you were wrong?

I, for now, do not feel like writing huge essays like you do, because obviously, I do not spend my life there
But if you carefully read what you wrote -and you wrote quite a lot - you may find the answer yo your questions.

I am an absolute fan of your essays, but I think you already know that quite enjoyable readings I have to "admit".

Some people feel the stalker needs some kind of buff up, they gave out their arguments, and you gave yours: we just disagree. What's the matter? Can't face diverging views? What a shame for a forum then

 

Note to thread: let's tone it down a little.

 

So you find it appropriate to mock me when you completely miss what I'm saying and believe you've got the upper hand in the discussion, but turn around to say that I need to respect your point of view when the shoe's on the other foot?

Take it or leave it, but I'm actually a fairly modest person. I just happen to enjoy kicking the arrogant while they're down.

And what would I actually be admitting that I'm wrong about? Since I rebutted all your points you've said nothing about what's being discussed. You've just feebly tried to reclaim the high ground by telling me that I'm not posting a strong argument and that I'm letting emotion cloud my thoughts. Well if that's truly the case, you shouldn't have any trouble finding something wrong with what I've said. However seeing as you are, I can only take it that there isn't anything wrong, and you're just struggling to find anything to keep you afloat.

So, in summation, if you do think I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. At the moment it's like both sides of a debate have delivered their points, and after one side's been absolutely shot down to the ground about all the arguments one of the teams has made, they've gotten up and said 'I don't appreciate that tone, thank you very much'. So again, if you're wanting to keep discussing this, stick to the issues and don't *****foot around the edges.

Lastly, I'm again laughing how the both of you are saying; 'We simply disagree, respect our opinions', when you previously shat all over what you assumed my opinion was, telling me it's a joke and saying I should just admit I'm wrong. On top of that, you can't even deal with sticking to the issues any more, most likely because you've realised they hold no merit.

And of course I can face diverging views. I hope you do realise that the hostility I've shown towards the both of you is the exact same crap you two were showing me when you mistakenly thought you had the upper hand while you were apparently attempting to reply to forum posts without reading. So, seeing as this is simply karma giving you a taste of your own medicine, if there's anyone here who can't face opposing views, it's the both of you.

So all in all, stick to the topic. This is a thread about the Stalker, so if you can't handle what I've been saying, don't bother posting. Simple as that. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

You know, big essays are not worth their face value, they just make you think you are right. And as you do not bring new elements to the discussion, I guess you are going nowhere.

So you cannot be any more wrong as you are now, trying to wrestle against people who also have valid arguments. People do not have to agree with you.

As a "Super Moderator, you might as well consider setting yourself as a model. Here are a few hints dude:
- moderate your temper,
- try to discuss points without being aggressive"
Of course this is not an exhaustive listing, but I am not going to do your "job"

Some people think Stalkers need to be buffed up: if you cannot stand this idea, or discuss in a polite way, you may leave.

oh and talking about kicking arrogant people, I think you might consider kicking your own butt, seriously.
That would humble you a bit, and make you a less aggressive person.

 

No, it's people refusing to stick to the issues and instead attempt to attack me personally that makes me know that I'm right, because if I'm wrong they'd be able to keep discussing it. You're not even trying to keep on discussing it, so I can only assume that you can't think of any counter to any of my points.

Again, I'm not saying people have to agree with me, but just as you kicked my argument while I was down, I'm kicking yours while you're down. The only difference is that I didn't start *****ing about how you need to respect my opinion, etc, etc.

And here you go again bashing my apparent 'temper'. Well if it did truly hinder my argument, you should be able to point that out to me. Oh wait, you can't. As for discussing points without being aggressive, as I said before, all I've done is treat you as you treated me.

So for discussing it in a polite way, again, you're a total hypocrite and I've only treated you as you've treated me. And if anyone can't stand this idea, it's you guys, because all my points are open on the table and you're choosing to talk about me, personally, instead.

And no, that's not really how it works. Kicking arrogant people while they're down means you're giving them a taste of their own medicine. In other words, treat them as arrogantly as they treated you. And on top of that, I'm not an aggressive person either, actually being a pacifist. As I said, taste of your own medicine, shoe's on the other foot, kicking them while they're down, karma... It all fits. Quit *****ing, 'cause you've earnt this.

Lastly, I'll bring up the point again. While you guys thought you were 'winning' this, you were telling me to just admit that I'm wrong, that my thoughts were laughable and that they were so stupid they held no merit. Now that the tables have turned, you're telling me to respect your opinions, that both sides have valid arguments, that I don't have to agree with everyone's opinions, etc, etc. I trust I don't actually have to point out what's wrong with all that. Anyway, onto the actual issues.

All my last issues are still clearly on the table, and if you're thinking that you'll have to type something out equally as long in order to reply to it, you obviously haven't read it, because the both of you have forced me to repeat myself to such an extent and elaborate on every point to such a great extent you can't possibly misinterpret it, though I wouldn't bet on it.

In short, for Anti-Air, Protoss have Stalkers, Nullifiers, Archons, Phoenixes, Warp Rays, Carriers and Motherships. For Zerg, they have Hydralisks, Queens, Infested Marines, Mutalisks and Corrupters, and it must be noted that Queens are not ever-present forces like the Nullifier is, and that Infested Marines are weak and temporary units. So after all that, why would you want to buff the Stalker to such an extent that it can match the pace of a Hydralisk? The Hydralisk is practically the sole source of Ground-to-Air for the Zerg, where Protoss have both the Stalker and Archon.

And before you start up about how the Archon isn't viable against, say, Battlecruisers, Brood Lords, Banshees and Carriers, due to their excessive range, and that Stalkers need this buff in order to be able to fight them, no they don't, as Void Rays and Phoenixes are there to counter them.

Lastly, seeing as there's no need for super early Anti-Air, the fact that Archons come slightly later is near irrelevant, and Protoss still have two Anti-Air units at their disposal for early game.

 

If you think the you know im right is hostile you really are talking things way too seriously.

If you don"t like the idea of the stalker getting a up in damage versus air then well that's is your opinion not a fact nothing is in stone, its a idea.

I think for cost that it should get a buff in gta damage because of its role as the backbone of the gta force.

archons cost too much to go in a huge force like the stalker can and don"t have the range let alone the damage bonus versus air.

nullifiers for the cost are too fragile to fight in mass

so this leaves the stalker and with its current damage per second I just don"t see it being able to deal with air threats.

blink has no place in this because its a tier 2 move and also dosent raise any kind of dps when the stalker is going toe to toe with a enemy.

only thing I can think of is regenerating 40 sheild but blink will take alot of micro to get used to for one and 2 the range of blink won"t always save it versus units with 3+ range more then the stalker.

I know things will change but when they come to the beta this is what I would like to see a increase in damage in the range of 4-7 versus air units

stalkers have no more ability to be put on the battle field then a dragoon did in sc1 (people seem to think they pop up more) because the cost is exactly the same except maybe the warp in ability but still.

Is this still not a good enough reason for you? Im also not attacking you personally im attacking your idea and you have for some reason tried to make war on me and Ivhoang I personally think its pretty entertaining.

I can also see your point in this one but that still dosen"t change my mind in this matter.

 

Firstly, the cost might not even be accurate, for example if the cost came from one build and the attack came from another, and also who are we to say whether it's cost is justified or not? And although it may be the backbone and most prevalent of all the Protoss Ground-to-Air units, that doesn't mean it needs to be buffed, and on top of that, Protoss have some of the best means to counter Air in the game. All in all, their Anti-Air is far from lacking.

Secondly, not only is the cost of Archons flexible, but they can be made from common units on the battlefield if needed. Also, you seem to be forgetting that anything that costs more is generally most powerful. In other words, you don't actually need that many Archons, as their attack deals more than the Stalker's and also splashes. Overall, they're not much more expensive than Siege Tanks, are one of the most versatile units for the Protoss and can regenerate almost all their health extremely quickly. As for the bonus against Air, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, as Stalkers have a bonus against Armoured, not Air. Yes, most Air units are armoured, but Archons do more base damage than the Stalker does against Armoured units. No doubt you're going to try to use this to say that Stalker's need to deal more damage, but that's a load of nonsense as is like saying that the Marauder needs to be buffed because the Siege Tank does more damage than it.

Thirdly, I honestly can't believe you just spoke about Nullifiers being too fragile to be massed. Despite all your assurances that you've been reading what I've said, you're quite apparently simply lying, for reasons unknown. Yet again, I've decided to just quote myself.

I do hope you've managed to read it this time. If you haven't, just stop replying, please, because at the moment it's like trying to talk to someone who's blind, deaf and dumb.

Blink may not contribute to increasing the Stalker's DPS, but it certainly does contribute to the unit as a whole, which, in turn, contributes to its ability to attack, defend, survive and simply micro in general. Whether it's the ability to Blink within range, to take pursuit, to retreat or anything, it helps, and depending on the range of Blink, five comes to mind but I'm not sure, when attacking at full range, any Stalker would be able to Blink completely out of range of any Air attacker, so time does not have to be wasted retreating. This means Stalkers will be able to last longer than other unit, which, in practice, increases their durability and, as a result, their damage output as well.

As for Blink not being able to save it from units with three more range than the Stalker, not only would that just leave Brood Lords and Carriers, but seeing as the alternative is walking that distance, it's obviously a huge benefit. On top of that, it helps with survivability when suddenly rushed with Ground units, which is more than likely going to happen on most occasions, where the Stalkers can Blink to safety.

Oh and I love the idea that I've 'waged war' with the both of you. I'll revert you back to my comments about how I've given nothing more than you two originally gave, and the hypocrisy of you two first telling me to admit that I'm wrong, and then demanding that I respect your opinions.

 

OK everyone needs to cool off a hair. lvhoang if you have a problem with any of the mod staff I would advise you take it up with a super mod you are comfortable with or me/Jon. Calling someone out because you don't think they are being "mod-like" really isn't acceptable and if you think about it very unintelligent because if a mod were truly hostile (aka losing their cool etc..) do you really think you would still be around to debate with them? All of our mod staff are very good about keeping their cool, I am probably the weakest in that area and still the worst I have done is make someone look stupid publicly which can be done without actually firing off an insult.

Anyways, back on to the actual topic, I personally think the difference should be split with a little extra thrwon in. The Stalker should get 2-4 more base damage and 1-2 more bonus damage. 10 +10 like is being suggested in this thread is way to extremist in my opinion because it would make the Stalker awsome against armored units and horrible against everything else, when insteald it should be alright against everything with a little extra against armored units. The Stalker is suppose to be the Protoss all around ground unit and not to focused on any one thing. Assuming the Stalker costs about as much as the Dragoon, the big the question on whether or not it should get more damage and how much is really dependent on the relative rate of fire. If the Stalker currently is balanced (which we don't know) and costs the amount as the Dragoon then it probably has a higher rate of fire and this whole thread is moot, otherwise either it currently doesn't cost as much or isn't balanced.

@Itza while I agree that the Protoss currently have a bunch of anti-air it is almost all AtA, on the ground one of the GtA units really is only a support unit at best and the other really close range, because of that the Stalker be able to respond to most air threats and completely deal with some of them, how effectively of course will be up to balance, but it should be pretty close to the effectiveness of the Dragoon (even if Sc1 and Sc2 are different games there are a lot of comparable roles and the Dragoon/Stalker definetly share one).

 

Well you are probably right, this is getting nowhere. So just let it go I guess. However, Ytza is for sure a mod who takes things too seriously, so it's kinda hard to discuss with him in a calm way. And although I am not the only who actually thinks that way, none of his previous "aggressive" replies were forceful enough for me as well as others to change our opinion on the subject.

Anyway, have you noticed that the bonus damages against specific type of units are more Terran-like (and maybe Zerg-like too, not sure) than Protoss-like? I mean The colossus has bonus versus shields (which can only be useful in PvP).... and..... that's it? And oh yeah, forgot the nullifier (+3 vs biological) and Immortal. If you compare with Terrans: they have bonus damage for ghost, hellion, marauder, reaper, tank.... and I might have forgotten a few other ones.

So I would rather think of Terran firepower "relatively" weaker but buffed with bonus if used in an appropriate way. That would also explain the Terran flexibility.
What about the protoss then? Well they should have higher base damage: so stalker need to have like 15 base damage, but then, without damage bonus. So it should be a bit more effective than a Dragoon against Muta/Ling, while being less powerful against bigger units like tanks. For bigger units like tanks Protoss already have Immortals, right?

Boosting only the base damage of Stalkers while adding up no additional bonus would fit the Protoss lore quite well I think. And it would also balance the fact that Storm (which was used a lot in SC1 against Zergs)
has been nerfed (lowered AoE for now).