stalker air damage increase

Right, this conversation is going to lead nowhere, Itza.

Unless we want to repeat our points again and again, I think we'll have to wait for other new elements on the Zerg/Protoss gameplay to appear before comparing arguments. The Stalker may have gotten cheaper, along with many other changes. I guess that's what the beta is for (can't wait to try it), and the possible changes that will be brought about.

 

Stalkers cost the same amount as dragoons minus the range upgrade which is now the blink upgrade.

 

Dude, why are you still refusing to cooperate? I'm trying to actually get somewhere with this, and if you're not actually going to participate in the thread, then don't post. Until then, there's absolutely no backing for your opinion that Stalkers need to get buffed.

Seeing as, for some reason, you're being too stubborn to cooperate, I'll start, and you'll find that Protoss' Ground-to-Air capabilities have gotten stronger since StarCraft1.

• Stalkers.

Stalkers deal just as much damage to Mutalisks as Dragoons dealt to them in StarCraft1, and can kite much faster than Dragoons too.

• Psionic Storm.

Psionic Storm in StarCraft1, as acknowledged by Blizzard, was nearly overpowered, so just because it deals less damage is StarCraft2, it doesn't mean it isn't still effective.

• Temporal Rift.

High Templar now have Temporal Rift to ensnare groups of Mutalisks in the Storm. Although it may do less damage now, High Templar will be able to keep them in the Storm for longer than they could in StarCraft1.

• Archons.

Archons now have a flexible cost, and are more easily produced than in StarCraft1. They remain relatively unchanged, though are less vulnerable to allied enemy EMP's and deal five more splash damage to Mutalisks.

• Disruptors.

Protoss now have a new Tier 1, anti-Biological unit, the Disruptor, which is more effective at taking out units such an Mutalisks than Stalkers, and hence, Dragoons. Although they won't be produced as military units, we can expect to see numbers similar to that of High Templar in StarCraft1, which will still add a considerable amount of firepower to the battlefield.

I tried to keep it as concise and simply formatted as possible for you.

 

as it stands the only problem protoss might have vs massed units is the concern of energy..... oh wait. theres the obolisk. guess not. just a matter of getting use to the smart cast system and having to spam spells.... hum wait. i play WC3... well i guess thats covered, lol protoss requier more management while terrans dont vs mass air. protoss will need a different aray of units to deal with mass air. terrans need a raven or thors.

 

Stalkers deal 10 damage non aoe damage to mutalisks versus the dragoons ( may be different because of the damage type of the dragoon) doing a aoe damage of 20 to units unless the stalkers attack speed has increased over its old counterpart the dragoon.

Although stalkers will be effective kiters versus units, even with blink mastered mutalisks are insanely fast in sc2 now and I don"t think anything can kite them.

 

@ i2new. Good point with the Obelisks. I'd forgotten about them, so not only can High Templar cast Psionic Storm and Temporal Rift, but their Energy can be replenished. As for having to spam spells, they won't have to any more than they did in StarCraft1. In fact, with the Phoenix replacing the Scout and buffed Archon attack damage, there's probably even less dependence on Storm.

@ Bthammer. Dragoons deal twenty Explosive damage, and do not splash. Mutalisks are Small targets, which take fifty percent damage from Explosive attacks. Therefore, Dragoons deal ten damage to a single Mutalisk target, which is the same as the Stalker.

As for kiting, simply continuously Blinking out of the Mutalisks' range will give the Protoss players an upper hand. The Stalkers will fit in roughly the same amount of attacks in the same amount of time, while the Mutalisks will have to keep flying back into range. Obviously the Stalkers won't be able to continuously stay out of the Mutalisks' range, but they will receive less attacks than Stalkers without Blink, or Dragoons, would.

 

Ya that was what I was wondering with the dragroons damage type but its not about small less armored units it more a agruement on the heavier units but once again im going to wate till beta to make any more assesments on the stalkers damage/frailty.

Depends on the cooldown of blink and like I said mutalisks are insanely fast now so I dout they would have a problem going 3 spaces to re attack the stalker.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

Stalkers deal ten damage, plus four to Armoured targets. The Mutalisk is not an Armoured target, so receive ten damage per attack from Stalkers.

Dragoons deal twenty Explosive damage, which deals half damage to small targets. The Mutalisk is a small target, so receives ten damage per attack from Dragoons.

Yes, their attack speeds may vary, but that was the case when you made your initial claim, as well. From what we've seen, however, Stalkers appear to attack at least as fast as a Dragoon, if not, slightly faster.

 

And Mutalisks are way harder to use in SC2. Blizzard still haven't fixed all muta issues yet, or aren't even going to. They are for example way harder to clump. Only a second or so of standing still will make clumped air units space out with scary efficiency.

And have Blizzard really fixed so that you can attack and turn them around without loosing any speed, like in SC1? Last I read/saw they still suffered from this issue, at least somewhat. Anyone here who's up to date regarding this?

 

I don't have anything specific, but I've heard they're trying to still make it possible to clump them all together, only it'll be a lot harder to achieve, particularly for an extended period of time. And although that would make Archons less effective counters, what with not being able to get all Mutalisks with the splash damage, it'll make focusing fire a breeze. Long story short, individual Mutalisks will have to be microed manually now.

That said, I'm not certain about any of it, so it's really not anything to rely too heavily on.