Printable View
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5767
In that link, I have "proof" that Archons HAVE a purpose and that's to destroy Ultralisks in lategame :D I wanted to know your thoughts about this!
Even though I made critical mistakes in this game, what do you think can be done to better streamline getting archons in the lategame stages?
:D
why not just get immortals. They own ultras even harder and cost less resources.
It's situational, if the zerg was using hydras before he went to ultras then HT is a very viable option and perhaps someone would opt for that. After seeing that he transitioned to ultras/hydras archons would seem like the most logical choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0mar
And Archons DESTROY any roaches that are used with hydras and Ultras. Usually when dealing with mass hydras with templar, temps with no energy are morphed into archons. BUT, once in late-game, I can make so many more temps and zealots, and can purely focus on those 2 units for lategame if I scout an Ultra-den. In my game, I made a bunch of temps and kept morphing into archons. With their splash and psi-storm, combined, Ultras fall sooo quickly, not to mention that the supporting hydras have absolutely no chance!!
The Immortals do make sense as a counter since Immortals do massive bonus damage to armored and only take 10 damage per Ultra hit. The only problem is if you went temp tech, you'd only have 1 robo max. 1 robo immortals will be impossible to keep up with ultra production.
Archons are much more of an obvious choice (esp now that I have found how MERCIFULLY good they are against mass Ultras!). And Archons have 350 shields! That's a LOT of tanking damage they can take while chargelots and storm rip through everything else.
Sorry for double post.
On top of the tanking damage, fully upped Archons do 47 damage per hit to Bio. That's a lot of damage to dish out to 5 armor ultralisk (which counts as 6 armor since base ultra armor is 1). Fully upped archons are scary for an ultralisk force.
************* SPOILER ALERT *************
Also, I wanted to mention this:
In the King of the Beta tournament, Huk's game vs Idra, he could've used the alternative route of templar tech soo easily, if he hadn't gone for the robo bay. I know he didnt get charge or extended thermal lances upgrades, and that was his major mistake. But, think about it. Had he gone for a Templar Archives (since he already had a Twilight Council), he already had the infrastructure to get high templars.
Idra still only had a hydra heavy army which he couldn't yet attack with. Had Huk not gone for colossi and later Immortals, he'd have had a lot more to go for an archon/HT heavy army with chargelots as support, which may have allowed him more time and flexibility to expo to his gold unmolested. The game might have looked a lot different, had Huk chosen temps.
Again, I think Archons are an underdog I am determined to exploit in the full game's PvZ matchup. I will post more replays to demonstrate this more thoroughly later, before July 30th, and after August 30th ;)
Meh, for 100/300 (or 250/250 (or 175/275)) it still takes 2 Archons to take down a 300/200 Ultra. Even though un-upgraded Archons might be doing slightly more damage to an Ultralisk than the Ultra does to it (courtesy of it not being light or armored), the ultra still has 140 more life than it, and costs at the very least 50 less gas.
I will grant that for cost, Archons will beat Ultras, but by a very slight margin.
Funnily enough, Archons are listed as weak against Ultralisks (though apparently thors are good against stalkers *shrugs*).
Blizzard will be nerfing this, because it know "intereferes" with Immortal
No, it doesn't. Protoss always have a choice in tech tree to make, unlike Terran or Zerg. You EITHER get Templar or Robo, just like in BW for ground armies. There is also the Stargate tech, but that is a much more specialized strategy that still needs a ground techswitch to survive mid-game...
You can never get both techs at the same time for ground unit production. What I had found weak in the beginning of the beta was that Temp tech had no transition for lategame, since Archons were weaker with the smaller AoE splash (if you remember) and long morphing time.
You HAD to switch techs to be able to be viable in lategame PvZ. So you HAD to get Colossi to be able to play a lategame, or at least get a bunch of Void Rays, which is waaay out of the way of templar tech. That was why you saw a lot of late game Colossi and builds around that unit. The thing with colossi is that they're not that mobile on open maps. Their damage is excellent, but it was the one and only option.
NOW, with this newly discovered use for archons, I think they ARE a viable lategame unit. If you go Immortals in PvZ they're extremely vulnerable to hydras and air. Archons have the benefit of being able to dish BONUS damage to both air and ground units, and did I mention they can hit air? So, no, Archons DEFINITELY do not interfere with the role of Immortals which is more of tier 1.5 / 2 unit that is meant to counter roaches and to snipe buildings.
They could potentially be used to counter small numbers of Ultras, but Ultras and ling/hydra are the bane of any zealot-heavy/Immortal force. I once did play against a zerg on Kulas Ravine where I had a bunch of Immortals/sentries/charge-zealots and a couple of colossi. This is of course before the nerf to the ultras and when FF's were able to block ultras. The fact that Ultras with 5/3 upgrades are tougher than anything on the ground makes for them able to outlast forcefields and come up to destroy your Immortal-heavy army. I had scouted ultra-den and was like, ok: Immortals do 50 damage to ultras unupped, & I was at +3 attack. So, I figured that the ultras would die, but no. I ended up losing the game to mass ultralisk.
Also, if you consider the context of the latest patch:
You go Immortals from 3-4 robos after getting a few colossi when you see the ultra-den, and support it with stalker/charge-zealots since FF's are useless. This means that the ultras will be able to head up to your immortals rightaway and hydras from behind are going to do a ton of damage, not to mention any flanking force of tier 2 roach/lings. All/Any gate units in the way of Immortals will get splashed to death and any Ultras that do get a head butt on the Immortals do extra damage after shields go down (which is VERY quick). That head butt from 1 ultra does 90 damage!! That will just killa bunch of Immortals quickjer than they can kill any significant number of ultras, esp with hydra support.
Also, rebuilding Immortals takes at least 2 CB's to be able to be in time for a second engagement, by which time, he will have almost 2x the amount of ultras.
In contrast, consider this: Templar Archives is a direct continuation in the build from Core > Council. So you will already have zealots with charge, and forge upps. Also, once you get temp tech you can easily deal with any hydra/roach. To deal with any muta zergs, getting cannons and a temp or two (when needed) at every expo will nullify any muta harass, and the follow up is the most natural thing in the world.
You see him tech to Hive and get ultra den, you can just make more zealot/templar and morph a bunch of the temps into archons. Takes only 12 s (in-game time), which is in-real-time MUCH faster.
MulletBen, when you consider that the archon does so much more damage and takes a lot less time to make than an Ultra, and as you mentioned yourself, it takes a lot less damage since it is a fully Psionic unit. The 350 shields makes this thing a beefy unit than can tank a lot of ultra damage and it in itself can DEAL a lot more damage per second.
Also, I never even go by the chart that blizzard gives. I discovered a long time ago that they were VERY inaccurate. Better to find the information on unit counters here on the forums.
WRT your argument that it takes 2 archons to kill 1 ultra. That is EXACTLY how it was in BW. It took 2 fully archons upped 3-3-3 to kill a 5/3 Ultra. Also, there is one thing you're not considering here is that in a battle, you're using storms on and around ultras situationally where the most hydras, lings or roaches are found. The extra damage from storm allows for some of your zealots to clean up the ultras with residual life, while the majority are fighting off hydras and roaches and lings with storms decimating from behind.
I am so amazed by how good archons make a lategame PvZ ground composition. I'm also surprised no one has ever done this before.
I don't think Archons are meant to be massed against your opponent's force. They do however make a great support unit that will do a ton of damage to any unit that is small and stacks close together, especially Zerg since they're all bio.
I agree Taerix, they do make a great support unit. I never said it wasn't, but in this particular scenario where Ultras are the focus of a zerg's lategame, I discovered that Archons CAN BE much more than is the belief of most players.
Btw, did you get a chance to watch the replay I posted? I admit I'm not the most awesome player in the world, but I feel there is dormant potential with going Archons in PvZ, starting with countering fully upgraded Ultralisks.
Ultra's headbut does 75 damage (+5) and is only activated against buildings.
No upgrades, an Immortal can beat an Ultra with about 5 health left. An Archon will leave about 100 health on the Ultra.
Fully upgraded, an Archon will leave an Ultra with just 50 health left. On the other hand, an Immortal will leave the battle, fully upgraded, with 100 health.
Now, look at the costs. An Archon costs 300 gas if you use high templar. An Ultra costs 200 gas. An immortal, on the other hand, only takes 100 gas.
The ONLY advantage to using Archons is the infrastructure that getting Immortals requires you to get. If you see him getting Ultras, the best thing to do is probably start a robo or two, then warp in some high templar, use their storm, then get Archons to hold them off until you can chronoboost out some Immortals.
As for the replay, the reason you lost was not because you lost expansions; it's because that map horribly favors zerg.
Ok, good point. It was the first time I had heard about this ultralisk's ability today in a commentary being done in a game between Sheth and MouzMorrow, where Sheth's Ultras were hitting a PF, and the commentator mentioned that the head-butt did 90 damage (fully upped Ultra). I was going on based on that. My apologies for assuming it worked on units too :pQuote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
So, it just means that it will take a few extra hits to kill an Immortal.
One on one comparisons are bad; you know that right? One on one comparisons NEVER translate into battle situations. As you add more Immortals against more and more Ultras, the amount of net damage is not what you say happens in a battle. I'm taking my "figures" from my own ladder experience where I WENT Immortals vs Ultras in almost equal proportions and lost due to the fact that Ultras can surround Immortals more easily than they can cover an optimal "arc" to kill the Ultras.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
That equates to a lot more damage dealt to the Immortals than the reverse.
You can't do 1 on 1 comparisons and show that Immortals counter Ultras. This is further proven by the fact that Huk WENT Immortals from 2 robos in that game vs Idra's Ultras and still died too fast for my liking, and the Ultras WERE hitting the Immortals. The fact that Immortals take normal damage from any other unit at the same time that they're taking 10 damage per hit from a few Ultras at a time, compounds the damage to an extent that the Immortals fall much much faster in battle.
Archons do not have that kind of handicap, and their 350shields make them much much more durable in battle situations. They can take more hits than Immortals can in a real battle, and that makes them stronger overall.
An Archon has only 10 HP... Do you mean 40 shields and 10 HP?Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Again, I explained above why this type of comparison is pointless. No offense, man.
I demonstrated above again why Immortals are weaker in this situation and are valued correctly. Archons DO cost the 300 gas, yes, but at the same time, they're much stronger than Immortals in a similar battle scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
2 things:Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
1) If you see ultra-den finished, THEN you get 2 robo's, you're screwed because during that time, he will have Ultras on the field. You can't stall vs Ultras as you can vs Hydras (while you're researching storm) using Forcefield and other gate units. You NEED a high DPS unit as soon as Ultras are on the field. If you haven't teched to robo and are using mostly gateways units like zealots with charge and stalkers, and decide you need to get Immortals to counter the ultra-den you scouted, you have already lost. The time it takes to build the robo's AND Immortals, you will have Ultras knocking at your door.
2) You need 2 chronoboosts to get 1 Immortal out asap. 1 Robo costs 200/100. Getting 3-4 Robo's which is what you would need if you needed to get those Immortals to kill the Ultras, that's a lot of resources at one go which will hinder your production of Immortals in time as well.
On the other hand, you have gone Council > Temp Archives to counter mass hydra with chargelots/Stalker/HT with storm. You find out that Zerg is going ultras (i.e. Den is done and Ultras are on the way). All you need to do is morph half of your HTs or 3/4 of your HT's (depending on how far along the game has gone), and warp-in more HT's and Zealots. That takes max 15secs. Also, at this stage I already have a robo pumping observers, but I don't need to make more robo's. Also, If need be, I can diversify my unit mix by having an Immortal or two to add to the DPS Archons and Storm will provide.
Much much faster than getting more robo's. I have been in a few games in the past where I faced ultras, what you need is high damage AND highly resistant units. Protoss do not have super high DPS units like Marines and Tanks, and have to rely on a mix of units to deal out the DPS. And being the "stronger" race, the units tend to take more punishment than Terran or zerg (except ultras and roaches). Hence, they need to maximise on that ability with Archons.
Note that I'm not totally discounting the use of Immortals. I'm just saying that the use of Archons are a lot more cost efficient than Immortals. And Archons have a lot more use after ultras die since they can full on engage zerglings and roaches and deal High DPS splash damage when in numbers.
So, in conclusion, going robo against Ultra-teching zerg is VERY risky and most of the times fails due to the fragility of the Immortal (ironically).
I am aware of that lol! I played really bad that game, but the point of it was to show Archons in action. Their ability to KILL ultras in numbers is more astounding than anything I would have expected. My friend did not hold back on diversifying his army with Hydras, Roaches and lings. That made for an even better test for the Archons, as they demonstrated that when in numbers, their usefulness increases exponentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Yeah, I should've taken the right-hand-side expo and the expo at the back of my base a LOT sooner. Had I done so, I would have gained an upper hand, given how many units he lost in the previous battles.
massing ultra leads to massing an immortal counter anyway with speedlings. archons are good vs those. or hydra/ultra leaves robo needing both collosus and immortal, so the cost efficiency of ht/archon ends up working out well. robo is stronger vs midgame army, but the ht/archon is better vs the ultra late game army. don't forget about shield regeneration either. I think you'll have to adapt a different playstyle to use it effectively though. a defensive harass-expand style would be needed for this (needs good use of geysers and upgrades), while the robotic builds are more of a big push aggressive style.
something like a fast expand-phoenix-dt-templar+expand-robo. phoenix harass overlords, pick off overseers. dt are for harassing and defense. get templar archives and expand again with alot of cannons (gas heavy units leave many minerals). follow with robo + obs/warp prism. alot like bw. This seems a little map/position dependent on how effective it would be compared to a 2 base robo build. It could be hard to pull off well on metalopolis for example.
the beauty of this game is that there is no dark swarm, so a cannon heavy defense is basically good vs anything that isn't massive baneling, ultra, or broodlord.
First of all, I am very surprised at how well put together your argument is. I still think you're wrong, but at least you only misquoted me once, and it was a minor mistake. Besides, I don't play Protoss anyway. :D
I was counting on the fact that Immortals and Archons are about the same size to dissolve any issues about scaling. Any surround ultras could get on Immortals, they could also get on Archons, so I don't see much of a distinction. The only real issue I can see with scaling is that Immortals have a much higher range than Archons, which means that you can get zealots attacking the Ultras while your Immortals attack them.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Here's the misquote: The Archon doesn't have any HP. It's dead. The Ultra has 50 HP left. I.e., 1 Ultra > 1Archon, but 1 Immortal > 1 Ultra.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Hence the source of my confusion that Immortals were better than Archons.
Ultra Cavern takes 65 seconds, and obviously when you scout it it will be far later than that. Robo Fac takes 65 seconds also. Ultra's take 70 seconds to morph, and Immortals take 55 (Cronoboost makes that about 40 seconds). Obviously, you will not have Immortals by the time the first wave of Ultra's hatches. What I'm suggesting is that, rather than try to fend off all his Ultra's with Archons, you use Archons at the start, but transition to Immortals asap. Otherwise, you'll be wasting a LOT of gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
One Immortal costs 200/100, One Robo costs 200/100. One Archon costs 100/300, and one Ultra costs 300/200. I look at these numbers, and I see that of everything, Archons cost the most gas. And a fully upped Archon will die to a fully upped Ultra. A fully upped Immortal will not.
Half your HTs!? How many do you have? it takes 2 to form 1 archon, and you need at least 1 archon per Ultra.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Here's the other thing: you don't need to stop Ultras in 15 seconds. If you've scouted Ultrs, then yes, but if you've scouted a cavern, Ultra's may be anywhere from already out to 70 seconds away. I would only warp in more HTs and morph Archons if I thought he was going to attack; up until then, I think it would be best to start getting up robo bays and Immortals.
You definitely are onto something though; Archons are pretty bad at dealing damage to Ultras, but they are VERY good at tanking (especially since they don't take any bonus damage to themselves). Immortals shields will actually end up absorbing more than 350 damage, but that's just because the Immortal takes bonus damage against it.
Now, some zealots in the front, then a wall of Archons, then some Immortals for DPS...
lol, thanks man :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Maybe the reason why I'm not being able to convey my ideas as clearly as I'd want to is because you don't play Protoss (just saying). The timings for getting the various tech in-game is probably fuzzy, or you just don't know them. It is an important thing to note, but I will try my best to explain my reasoning better.
The thing with Immortals is that they don't do any splash damage at all. And they will get surrounded/attacked frontally by Ultras and lings at the same time. The size of an Immortal is similar, but because of the rate at which an Immortal dies, the zerg can surround individual Immortals a lot more easily. Even with zealots supporting, the speed with which Immortals reposition themselves during a battle just makes them more vulnerable to melee units. Zealots trying to squeeze in have a harder time and tend to be late to the party - ie, after the Immortals die. And Zealots vs ling/Ultra = a slaughterfest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Archons with their splash, on the other hand are better able to deal with this combination. They damage lings as well as the Ultras. Also, Archons tend to line up much more easily and at a much faster rate than Immortals because they move a lot faster than Immortals do.
On open ground, Immortals are at a disadvantage and are defenseless against smaller melee units as they can get surrounded more easily than Archons can. Not to mention that any ultras getting in contact will be dealing splash from multiple angles which compounds the damage being dealt whereas with Archons, it is rarer to see this since you can retreat/re-position/attack much more easily.
I guess the main point is that Immortals being slower units can get surrounded and overwhelmed quicker than Archons unless supporting zealots/stalkers are able to form a wall to prevent flanking lings/Ultra from decimating them from the sides. Archons don't have that problem as they can retreat with your chargelots as a single unit due to their fast speeds.
Ok, my bad :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
I still think your approach to compare the units 1 on 1 is not a very accurate depiction of what happens in a real battle situation. I agree with your stats; there is no doubt there. What I don't agree with is you feel this is what translates onto the battlefield, when in fact, these stats are only true for 1 on 1 unit comparisons. In a real battle, this only will apply upto a third of the way maybe, where there are smaller numbers to consider. In massive battles with larger numbers of fully upped Ultras + support and fully upped Archons + support, the Archons will win out. Whereas the result is very iffy if you replaced the Archons with Immortals.
Again, I'm not saying Immortals are completely useless, but are a much riskier unit to get as a counter since despite its extremely powerful attack, it has blatant shortcomings that can be easily exploited - the most noteworthy one being its speed, and ability to be surrounded much more easily by melee.
I highlighted that part from your quote as this is a key point to consider. The timing of Ultras coming out is when a Protoss can either consolidate his position on the map or lose the game entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Ultras are fucking strong against ALL gate units, including storm and DT. Colossi don't do nearly enough damage either. If you went robo, there is a timing window where Ultras can cripple your economy or production capacity by just killing a large part of your army, forcing a retreat, and then destroying 1-2 expos, which in late-game is extremely painful as you run out of minerals and gas from your main and natural.
You may consider this minor, but a lot of games are won and lost due to timing windows of crucial tech - at least that's how it was in the gold and platinum leagues. If you lose a crucial expo, and map control without you dealing enough damage to Zerg, you lose might as well GG right there and then.
So, you kind of reinforced my previous argument that : The time it takes to get enough robos and to pump out sufficient Immortals to deal with Ultras, it is already too late.
Unless, you got lucky and was able to find an ultra den just starting. That is the only time I believe getting robos for Immortals would work. And as Superkiller mentioned in his post: getting robo's might be the only way to deal with ultras on maps like Metalopolis, but any wide open maps like Temple, Steppes, Blistering Sands, etc, you just won't have enough time.
On Metalopolis, you can force zerg to divert their army by harassing their expos and retreating constantly, just to buy enough time. Since gate units are faster than lumbering ultras, you can get away with it for a while, but it would be really close. By the time your Immortals pop out, your expos might already be under attack, and if you suffer an econ blow there, you're finished.
Archons could work on Metal, but there too, it might be hard to use them, I admit, just because of the potency of things like nydus worms and doom drops that can catch your army out of position. On other maps it is easier to control the large spaces, and even easier with a large force of Archons.
I agree that Destination is a zerg-favored map, but Protoss do have windows of opportunity (that I did not take advantage of). Archons shine on maps like these with wide open spaces and the bridges actually help to storm hydras in clumps while archons and zealots block the way out.
Agreed. But, again, 1 on 1 comparisons like these aren't fruitful in a real battle situation. As a Protoss player, I guarantee you that even with archons costing the most gas, they are the most efficient unit to get. They warp-in really quick (via HT/DT) and morph even quicker (12 seconds).Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
In late game, it is not uncommon to have around 12-13 HTs lying around. Morphing those and making more HT at home at a pylon somewhere gives your army a chance to retreat from an onslaught of Ultra/hydra/ling, and once you join up with the newly warped-in HTs you have a strong counter force. Also, if you watch the game I play, I was continually making 6-7 HTs at a time and making archons. That's how I ended with 8-10 archons on a regular basis. If I had the econ (which I didn't get due to my dumbass self), those archons would've been easy to support throughout the game. Zerg would have HAD to find a different way. AND, as Superkiller said: the beauty of SC2 is no Darkswarm! So, you can spam cannons like crazy with the extra minerals, after making your chargelots and HTs, and protect expos long enough for your army to reach there to reinforce and protect your economy. It makes for a very fluid gameplay style that is as aggressive as in BW.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Er... you do. Ultras take 70s yes, but once they're on the field, you need high DPS, high tanking units NOW. 12 s to prepare for ultras is really a boon for Protoss compared to having to wait for at least 65+40 seconds where a timing attack with Ultras can cripple him, and lose him the game most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
They're EXTREMELY good at tanking :D ! That was one of my strongest points going for Archons. The other thing I want to point out tho is that Archons deal splash damage and in large numbers (8-10+) they can destroy ultras VERY fast. If you watch the replay I posted again, and concentate on that battle near the gas expo on the left where I had my archons in that half of my army while the other half with stalker/Zeal/HT was battling hydras on the other side, you will see just how fast the Archons went through the Ultra armor in the very first few hits before the zealots charged and dealt the finishing blows. Observe that part of the battle. That's the BONUS damage to Bio that comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletBen
Also, it really isn't a bad idea at all to use 1-2 Immortals WITH the Archon/Zealot/HT force as 1-2 Immortals will tank a lot of damage as well as dish out a LOT of damage themselves. And, since I already have 1 robo for obs anyways, supporting 1-2 or even 3 immortals at a time is very possible. Even in small numbers, I have found Immortals as support units VERY useful against roach/hydra in general, and I think mixing them in here will help enormously.
So you see, I am not making it so that Immortals are completely useless. They are so as a core component for a counter to an ultra build in a lot situations, due to their speed (and size maybe), and their inability to tank other smaller dps units in numbers. Whereas Archons are much more versatile, and can still use the help of Immortals if they want to, even though it is really not required in most cases.
Lategame PvZ in BW used to revolve so much around cannon-turtling to secure expos while using a huge archon/zealot/HT + supporting reaver force to deal with Ultra/Hydra/Ling with DS. In SC2, you don't have reavers, and you don't have DS. So, that makes cannon-expoing SOOO much stronger. And having a cost-efficient force like HT/chargelots makes for an easy transition into Archons "en-mass" in late-game since from 4 bases, you easily support it.
/sorry for wall of text ^_^ ;;
Yes, my timings for getting tech are rather fuzzy for toss. After looking at the times for immortals and robo facilities, I was a little bit more swayed to your side. At this point in time, I'd kinda have to say you're winning the argument. I have realized you are on to something that's more than I originally considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Here, I think we may be arguing different points. I would make the case here that Archons' splash has nothing to do with how they counter Ultras, since Ultras absorb splash. But I realize that from this argument, you aren't really arguing the validity of Archons vs. Ultras, you are arguing the validity of using Archons late-game. And I have to agree with you. Archons are a much softer counter; in a 1-on-1 situation, they preform much worse, especially when considering cost. As a direct counter for Ultralisks, they are still much worse than Immortals. But I can see that isn't what you are arguing. Archons are far more versatile, and building Archons, n that situation, I have to believe you were validated.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
This is a point I hadn't even considered, and it is true that Immortals move quite a bit slower, and can be more easily surrounded. But here, I will trade you one overlooked fact for another: Immortals have a much higher range. They don't even need to get surrounded. Most Gateway units will naturally move in front of the Immortals, since they move faster. There the Immortals can fire at the Ultras without being in harm's way. And if Ultralisks ever get close enough to attack the Immortals, it is an easy win for the Immortals.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Here I think we'll have to agree to disagree on method. You claim that 1-on-1 comparisons are invalid, based on the fact that there are too many variables in a full scale battle. The problem with this thinking is that, without removing some variables, there is no way to tell what specific variable caused the outcome. While quite a bit of information is lost in my two trials, there is simply SO MANY different things about your two examples (your own personal experience, and the HuK vs. Idra game, that in the same way you argue it is impossible for 1-on-1 information to translate to full scale battles, I argue that there is so much happening in full scale battles that it is impossible to tell whether Archons in place of Immortals makes any difference at all, let alone favoring Archons. You claim that Archons with support beats Ultras with support, but Immortals with support is "iffy." Unless you have quite a few more replays showing Archons with support and Immortals with support, there really isn't any basis for your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
I'm going to depart a little from my line of thought here, just to bring another option on to the table that doesn't really have to do with this argument. You talk here about timing windows, specifically since switching tech to Immortals takes time and money. I would argue that switching to Ultras takes MORE time and MORE money; Ultras cost more than immortals, and take longer to build. Perhaps, instead of thinking, "I need to counter these Ultras," you could change perspective and say, "I have an opening. His Ultras will take a long time; I can attack him before he can get them out." And while you attack, you can expand and tech to Immortals. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
I feel you are also arguing from two different angles. One is that Immortals are hard to get out, and the other is that Archons are better in most situations where the enemy has Ultras. I'm arguing, on the other hand, that Immortals are what you really want to get for dealing with Ultras, and the only thing Archons are good for is bridging the gap until you can get them out. With your two arguments, 1 should be obsolete; either Immortals aren't worth it because they take too long, or because Archons are better. If Archons are better, it doesn't matter if you can get out Immortals instantly, you should still get Archons. If Immortals simply take too long, it doesn't matter if they can win the game if you lose before you can get them out. One of these has to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
Also, you say you can guarantee they are the most efficient unit to get. Since 1-on-1 Immortals are FAR more efficient, I assume you are referring to large battle situations. In that case, all you are doing is putting a lot of faith in your own opinion, without a lot of evidence in your favor. We obviously both have a bias towards being right, but stating you can guarantee that is more a show of stubbornness than anything else (unless there are some other examples of large scale battles you are basing this off of, which if you have please tell me so I can stop sounding like an idiot).
Here, I would again argue that, if you had the econ, it would be much easier to support Immortals than Archons. Immortals are an even harder counter to Ultras, and even if the support for the Ultras could tear down the Immortal, they would still do much more damage to the Ultras than Archons, and once again, force the Zerg to find a different approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
If you look at my quote, I kind of say the same thing you say in this post. Specifically, that once Ultras are on the field, you need something to hold them off. But up until the Ultras are out on the field, you can get tech started along. Even if he makes Ultras as soon as the cavern goes down, that doesn't mean he'll attack as soon as they're up; Ultra's cost a lot, and unless the enemy has a large stockpile, like he does in that replay, he won't be able to get a lot of them out at the same time. He may wait until he builds up more force before he attacks. Either way, even if Immortals aren't out by the first encounter, if you manage to hold with Archons, you can have Immortals out by the second attack, and there destroy the Ultras with the Immortals.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
I don't have the time to rewatch the replay right now, but I quoted this so I can come back to it if I think you've made an important point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
This is where I think we are going to come to an agreement. Perhaps the best solution is really a compromise; the tanking power and versatility of the Archon, mixed with the high anti-armor DPS of the Immortal might be the best counter for Ultras+support. Granted, Archons and Immortals are both very expensive, but at the same time so are Ultras.Quote:
Originally Posted by protoswarrior
We seriously need to test this once release hits.