Printable View
Forgetting balance right now. Why, lore-wise, would a DT cost more than a Stalker? If we assume that the price for warping-in is teleportation cost and not production cost, and if Stalkers are DTs fused with armor (without Warp Blades), Stalkers should cost more. What are your theories? (Other Gateway units can be discussed too)
you have to feed dts
last i checked protoss dont have mouths. lmao
I have no idea how that has anything to do with this topic sylvstelon. Nor did it really make sense...
Perhaps the constant psi drain that maintaining the invisibility overloads the circuits in a DT's armor quickly, thus causing their equipment to break down more often and require constant repair.
Perhaps the in-game 'Dark Templar' units represent elite fighters/assassins where as Stalkers can be made from any member of the Nerazim (the culture the Protoss from Shakuras identify themselves as)? That would make the former rarer to come by, and thus more 'valuable'.
dude did you just read the thread topic and not read the op?Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvstelon
well lore wise it doesn't make sense, balance wise cheaper DTs would be OP
however less gas for a DT would be nice to see, let's say 125min/75gas
That makes sense, although I like to think the whole 'the commander/Executor/queen pays a lump sum of minerals and gas and a unit appears' thing is just a gameplay mechanic, and the lore is somewhat more complex. Command and Conquer economies make no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
In reality, they'd have to deal with wages (assuming the protoss have currency), arming and feeding the troops, as someone else said, treating them if they become ill or wounded, et cetera.
In terms of lore, that would probably make the stalker more expensive, actually. A cybernetic mech, capable of teleportation no less, probably costs a lot more to maintain than the ceremonial armour of the dark templar assassins.
However, if we go back to the wages idea, it could be that the dark templar make much more money than the stalkers, given they are basically going on a suicide mission every time they leave the base. They are invisible, but if they get caught, they're screwed. Stalkers on the other hand can teleport out of the action. Less danger.
While we're on the topic, since every mission is a suicide mission for the dark templar assassins, and the protoss are a very religious or ceremonial (in my eye) society, it stands to reason that before each mission, there would be some sort of 'good luck' ritual to send them off, which could be costly in itself.
I think the cost aspect of the game is less that than a representation of the value and scarcity of a unit (i.e. the more expensive a unit, the less readily available they are for deployment), and not a reflection of the cost of producing and/or maintaining said unit.
WHAT? You are all wrong, you must scout armory and then build zerglings to kill thor because thor is so slow. But if you get banelings hope he get marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvstelon
/lolwhut off
Maybe they got more "dead" dark templar then actaully alive, they are more important to the race as a whole then stalkers are seeing they are like almost dead anyway they are more robots then actual protoss only infused with the essence of a "dead" dark templar. Immortals maybe cost more because they are still alive just got severe body damage so they need the exoskeleton to move around and use their experience as soldiers soldiers.
/non-researched based thoughts.
Maybe minerals and gas are like payment. A stalker asks for less money because he just wants to get some action before he dies while a DT charges more because he is more "valuable" and takes much bigger risks than a stalker (sometimes).