Dragoon vs. Stalker problem

Co-op Missions Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 8 Next
08/12/2018 11:43 PMPosted by Axiom
08/12/2018 08:39 PMPosted by heroix
So Dragoons are in danger of being overshadowed by Stalkers; what can be done to rectify this?

You can stop comparing apples and oranges.
The unit should be judged by how it fits into it's own commander kit, not compared to another unit from another commander.
In this case, the orange is becoming more apple. Stalkers have been agreed to be more of a mobile ranged warrior option while Dragoons are more of a tank/damage option. Guess what most of the Stalker buffs gave...
08/14/2018 03:17 AMPosted by Nephalem
@BrosifStylin https://youtu.be/WSguZeln6-8
Watch patiently.


Thank you for this. Do you know which moment I really liked? When he used it on Hybrid Dominator at about 16:50. Watch that moment really closely.

I don't really like this particular moment in itself, but just couple seconds later, a hybrid reaver appears. And oh no, his shadow cannons are on cooldown! What will he do? Instagib it with autoattacks.

That's how horrible shadow cannon is. I mean dominators have more ehp, but he just instagibbed a reaver with autoattacks. The result with the dominator would have been largely the same if you didn't use shadowcannons: it would have taken two autoattack hits and that's about it.

Or maybe 3 with stutterstepping because of positioning. Nevertheless, I hope you're not trying to defend the idea that this ability is possibly "borderline overpowered" with this demonstration. It is not.

+ Where were his energizers? Imagine how fast he would have ripped a new one to that hybrid dominator if these immortals had energizers along them
08/14/2018 06:25 AMPosted by heroix
In this case, the orange is becoming more apple. Stalkers have been agreed to be more of a mobile ranged warrior option while Dragoons are more of a tank/damage option. Guess what most of the Stalker buffs gave...

I'm gonna try to explain this in a simple way because you clearly don't understand what I'm telling you.

Stalkers have no relation to Dragoons at all. This is not a PvP mode.

Dragoons do need a change, they're bad, but that change should be done in the context of what Artanis himself needs not in the context of "make it better than Vorazun".

This is the equivalent of demanding that Infested Marines get stimpack to keep up with Raynor's Marines.

In order to make things even remotely balanced you gotta look at commanders as a whole, not pick a single part and compare it to a single part of another commander.

EDIT: And even then commanders have different areas at which they excel, they're not all the same.
08/14/2018 10:31 AMPosted by Axiom
Stalkers have no relation to Dragoons at all. This is not a PvP mode.


Um, yes they do? They both serve as their commanders earliest ground to air unit, produced from the gateway after a cybernetics core is finished and cost the same. Theyre equivalent units on the protoss tech tree for the two different commanders. You might as well say that Nova's marines have no relation to Raynor's marines.

08/14/2018 10:31 AMPosted by Axiom
This is the equivalent of demanding that Infested Marines get stimpack to keep up with Raynor's Marines.


No, this would be like if infested marines didnt have an air attack and people were asking for one. The dragoon is supposed to be long range high damage compared to the Stalker's shorter range, lower damage and greater mobility. The entire concept of this unit pair is based off of that comparison.
08/14/2018 10:31 AMPosted by Axiom
Stalkers have no relation to Dragoons at all. This is not a PvP mode.


Um, yes they do? They both serve as their commanders earliest ground to air unit, produced from the gateway after a cybernetics core is finished and cost the same. Theyre equivalent units on the protoss tech tree for the two different commanders. You might as well say that Nova's marines have no relation to Raynor's marines.

I agree with Axiom and disagree with you here.

In principle, two commanders can be completely balanced while one has a vastly superior unit for every unit the other has. The other commander might have a hero, powerful top bar abilities, a more powerful economy, or another unique feature that catches them up.

This is why it's generally going to be a better approach to look at how a unit performs within that commander's kit, and then look at how the commanders perform relative to each other. I do think Artanis is under-tuned, but it's clear he's not supposed to rely on overpowered unit types. Vorazun, with her Dark Templar and Corsair, is. Stalkers need to find their place amongst Dark Templar and Corsairs, while Dragoons need to find theirs amongst Tempests and Immortals. It's a different landscape.

Incidentally, yeah, Nova's marines have no relation to Raynor's.

Lastly, saying all this... yeah, Dragoons probably do need more attention. Monk's revamp notes last time implied they might be revisited. I think they're tiptoeing around Dragoons to keep them from being a monochrome attack-move unit that drains all of Artanis's unit diversity. New Stalkers are at no risk whatsoever of doing that to Vorazun.
08/14/2018 11:07 AMPosted by Elyssaen
In principle, two commanders can be completely balanced while one has a vastly superior unit for every unit the other has. The other commander might have a hero, powerful top bar abilities, a more powerful economy, or another unique feature that catches them up.


This isn't incorrect, but dragoons and stalkers were designed around each other from their very inceptions in SC2. The original stalker was designed compared to the BW dragoon to be faster and lighter, less able to stand and fight but able to get around the map much better. Come LoV, the dragoon came back, and thus was designed in relation to the stalker again to be heavier and more focused on standing their ground.

Perhaps more to the point, both units suffered from the same problems of not putting out enough power in their role to justify making them. If they buff the stalker, they necessarily have recognized the problem, and either chose to just not address it for the Dragoon or are waiting until the Alarak notes come out to announce it.
08/14/2018 06:53 AMPosted by BrosifStylin
08/14/2018 03:17 AMPosted by Nephalem
@BrosifStylin https://youtu.be/WSguZeln6-8
Watch patiently.


Thank you for this. Do you know which moment I really liked? When he used it on Hybrid Dominator at about 16:50. Watch that moment really closely.

I don't really like this particular moment in itself, but just couple seconds later, a hybrid reaver appears. And oh no, his shadow cannons are on cooldown! What will he do? Instagib it with autoattacks.

That's how horrible shadow cannon is.


You’re seriously not criticizing the video because some guy used Shadow Cannon on a GROUND UNIT and compared it to the Immortals’ ground attack are you? You’re also not using the Immortals’ autoattack to bring down Shadow Cannon’s value, right? In fact, the Immortals’ high damage autos would serve as an argument that they’re already strong, Shadow Cannon makes them extremely stronger.

Especially when the argument in the first place is that Shadow Cannon is great for utterly annihilating big air units that have 200+ HP and high tier hybrid(Not Reavers or Destroyers, I’m talking Dominators, Nemeses, and Behemoths).
08/14/2018 11:22 AMPosted by Kelthar
08/14/2018 11:07 AMPosted by Elyssaen
In principle, two commanders can be completely balanced while one has a vastly superior unit for every unit the other has. The other commander might have a hero, powerful top bar abilities, a more powerful economy, or another unique feature that catches them up.


This isn't incorrect, but dragoons and stalkers were designed around each other from their very inceptions in SC2.

You're making an appeal to different game modes – why? Is this not a discussion about Co-op? Is Vorazun having Stalkers that can out-Dragoon Dragoons a step too far in a game where Vorazun has Dark Templar that can out-Zealot Zealots?
08/14/2018 10:31 AMPosted by Axiom
08/14/2018 06:25 AMPosted by heroix
In this case, the orange is becoming more apple. Stalkers have been agreed to be more of a mobile ranged warrior option while Dragoons are more of a tank/damage option. Guess what most of the Stalker buffs gave...

I'm gonna try to explain this in a simple way because you clearly don't understand what I'm telling you.

Stalkers have no relation to Dragoons at all. This is not a PvP mode.

Dragoons do need a change, they're bad, but that change should be done in the context of what Artanis himself needs not in the context of "make it better than Vorazun".

This is the equivalent of demanding that Infested Marines get stimpack to keep up with Raynor's Marines.

In order to make things even remotely balanced you gotta look at commanders as a whole, not pick a single part and compare it to a single part of another commander.

EDIT: And even then commanders have different areas at which they excel, they're not all the same.
Before you sass me, check my experience: I played Legacy of the Void (and the other campaigns) and beaten it. I played Coop and maxed out on 8 commanders and reached mastery 75. I think I can tell the difference between the Dragoon and Stalker and say the changes are discriminatory towards Dragoons. Now let me clear some misconceptions you're saying.

-Dragoons and Stalkers are RANGED WARRIORS (heck, Stalkers have been described as "Dark Dragoons" by the developers at least 8 years ago). They are different alternatives of the same unit type (primary ranged units).

-No freaking duh on any of that; I (as well as most people on this post) have been saying that Stalkers are overshadowing Dragoons in terms of ROLES (stalkers are mobile, more micro heavy with their blinks while Dragoons are supposed to be the low micro, tanky haymaker-style AA/support fire unit).

-Your argument overall has been "a green apple is not a red apple". They're the same type of thing, just different flavors >_<

-Do you even know what Vorazun and Artanis do? Because I maxed both; Artanis is a "Vanguard" style commander, who summons many units onto the field typically high AoE damage units (Zealots, Reavers, Tempests, HT/Archons), with Immortals for tankbusting and Phoenixes for air support.

Vorazun, however, is a micro-intensive "Disruptor" style commander. Yes, people label stealth as her specialty, but look at her abilities: Void Stasis, Shadow coil, Time Stop, Shadowstrike, blink, wormhole, disruption web, confusion, mind control, stasis ward...

So yeah, Artanis should have decent fire support with Dragoons, instead of rushing up to stargates for antiair. Stalkers needed a buff, but that didn't mean make the Dragoons seem outright inferior in anyway.
And this is a comparison that's been done since Legacy of the Void was made available, so yeah, blame that for establishing the relations in the first place.

Response to EDIT: This is the most redundant edit... Yes, every commander is different:
Raynor is infantry/combined arms who focuses on macro play and a strong econ. Swann is a late game mech commander who steamrolls everyone and has strong defense. Nova is a spec ops commander with uber elite (but really expensive) units who can respond to any kind of threat possible, with Nova being a burst-style caster. HH are a hybrid; disposable ground forces with incredible on-death effects with expensively powerful air units.

Kerrigan is a frontline commander who leads high damage units (Ultras, hydras, mutas) into prolonged combat scenarios, whereas Zagara is a kamikaze-style blitz commander whose units are cheap and fast to massproduce with Zagara being a summoner-style hero. Abathur is a late game commander who depends on his units suriviving long enough to become unstoppable juggernauts. Stukov mixes Terran defensive prowess with Zerg expendability and numbers. Dehaka is a late game juggernaut who has many evolution options...and can eat everything, even the kitchen sink.

I already explained Artanis and Vorazun above, but Karax is a tower and artillery commander who has incredible defense and support abilities with some mech units. Alarak is a bursty melee hero who requires expendable supplicants to not only keep him alive, but also serve as fodder to protect his Ascendants and mechs and provide power to him and his Ascendants. Fenix leads onto the field with THREE separate forms and six heroes to back him up, with optimal flexibility in construction options.

Is that a good enough understanding?
08/14/2018 02:10 PMPosted by heroix
Before you sass me, check the difference in our experience: I played Legacy of the Void (and the other campaigns) and beaten it. I played Coop and maxed out on 8 commanders and reached mastery 75.
It doesn't appear that you even played any part of SC2. So let me correct some of your misconceptions.

Uh.... you know that the on the us.battle.net site only displays the NA part of their account...

They could play from one of the other servers and their progress won't show up
08/14/2018 11:07 AMPosted by Elyssaen
Lastly, saying all this... yeah, Dragoons probably do need more attention. Monk's revamp notes last time implied they might be revisited. I think they're tiptoeing around Dragoons to keep them from being a monochrome attack-move unit that drains all of Artanis's unit diversity. New Stalkers are at no risk whatsoever of doing that to Vorazun.
Can I point out that about 90% of Artanis's comp are "monochrome attack-move unit[s]"? Zealots, Immortals, and Phoenixes have their abilities on autocast, Tempests and Archons don't need to use their abilities to be effective fighters (at most, they can just cast as necessary; weaken enemies, initiate, etc.), and Reavers only need a few moments to reload their Scarabs. The only unit needing such attention is HT, who are frail and are predominantly casters.
Before you sass me, check the difference in our experience: I played Legacy of the Void (and the other campaigns) and beaten it. I played Coop and maxed out on 8 commanders and reached mastery 75.
It doesn't appear that you even played any part of SC2. So let me correct some of your misconceptions.

Don't trust profile information. If someone appears to not even have played the game, that should clue you in that it's not accurate. (My profile info, for instance, doesn't include anything non-Co-op as that's on a different server, or anything on my other account.)

"Disruptor" I can get behind. "Vanguard" style commander isn't meaningful to me, but that's fine. There are some important differences between the two that I think are relevant here, though:

  • Artanis has a damage-dealer as his primary top-bar; Vorazun has a CC spell. This is pretty important because in the early game you've got to compare, say, 3 Dragoons + Orbital Strike to 3 Stalkers + Black Hole.
  • Vorazun derives relatively more power from powerful unit abilities. Artanis doesn't have a unit as good as her Dark Templar or Corsairs, and isn't supposed to. Stalkers are going to be chosen in comparison to those, not to Dragoons.
  • Comparing the toughness of Artanis's Dragoon and Vorazun's new Stalker has to take into account Guardian Shell and Shield Overcharge, just as Vorazun's has to take into account Veil of Shadows and Emergency Recall.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree that Dragoons need another look, but Axiom and I think that look has to be based on Artanis's kit, not a comparison to a variant of a unit in a different game mode.

08/14/2018 02:37 PMPosted by heroix
08/14/2018 11:07 AMPosted by Elyssaen
Lastly, saying all this... yeah, Dragoons probably do need more attention. Monk's revamp notes last time implied they might be revisited. I think they're tiptoeing around Dragoons to keep them from being a monochrome attack-move unit that drains all of Artanis's unit diversity. New Stalkers are at no risk whatsoever of doing that to Vorazun.
Can I point out that about 90% of Artanis's comp are "monochrome attack-move unit[s]"? Zealots, Immortals, and Phoenixes have their abilities on autocast, Tempests and Archons don't need to use their abilities to be effective fighters (at most, they can just cast as necessary; weaken enemies, initiate, etc.), and Reavers only need a few moments to reload their Scarabs. The only unit needing such attention is HT, who are frail and are predominantly casters.

I should've explained what I meant by the 'monochrome' metaphor, sorry! I mean creating an entire army out of one unit type: that's why I talked about the risk of draining Artanis's unit diversity. They want you to be creating an appropriate mix to the situation, so are being particularly careful buffing the Dragoon. Stalkers aren't attack-movers, and they're highly unlikely in Vorazun's kit to ever dominate in a mass Stalker build because V has absurdly strong specialised alternatives.
Before you sass me, check the difference in our experience: I played Legacy of the Void (and the other campaigns) and beaten it. I played Coop and maxed out on 8 commanders and reached mastery 75.

Uh.... you know that the on the us.battle.net site only displays the NA part of their account...

They could play from one of the other servers and it won't show up.


Bingo !
It's like bragging who has the biggest one but not looking in the good pants...
08/14/2018 02:31 PMPosted by ILIKEPIE
Before you sass me, check the difference in our experience: I played Legacy of the Void (and the other campaigns) and beaten it. I played Coop and maxed out on 8 commanders and reached mastery 75.
It doesn't appear that you even played any part of SC2. So let me correct some of your misconceptions.

Uh.... you know that the on the us.battle.net site only displays the NA part of their account...

They could play from one of the other servers and their progress won't show up
Fair enough, so I edited it. Still doesn't mean he should treat me like a simpleton. Or act like I'm so horribly wrong in every point.
08/14/2018 02:44 PMPosted by heroix
Fair enough, so I edited it. Still doesn't mean he should treat me like a simpleton. Or act like I'm so horribly wrong in every point.
Respect is earned. Bragging about your meager achievements is not a good way to go about earning it.

By all available measures, Axiom is a far more experienced player than you are. This does not invalidate whatever feedback you may have to give, but do not make the mistake of thinking that your view is an in-depth one. The achievements you point to do not speak in your favor.

It is clear that Dragoons are in need of a buff, but using Stalkers as a metric to judge by how much is unreasonable. Artanis possesses tools that enable him to easily create an army of a-move Dragoons and march across the map with little need for strategy. If this were to become a viable build that would work in most situations, this would not be a good thing, as it would cause Artanis to be very boring to play indeed. As such, any buff to the Dragoon must be carefully measured, lest it break Artanis' excellent unit balance and make him really boring to play.

The same worry does not exist for Vorazun. Even if mass Stalker became a very powerful strategy (it won't), it would still be a lot of fun to play, as Stalkers are a whole lot more fun to play around with, and they've got better potential to combo with Vorazun's topbar and other units, like Oracle, Centurion, and DA. Doing so is fun and engaging. In the case of the Dragoon, this is not the case—an Artanis player would quite simply spam them to the exclusion of everything else.

It is absolutely correct to consider units in the context of the commander. Failing to do so would make the game poorer for it.
08/14/2018 02:37 PMPosted by Elyssaen
I should've explained what I meant by the 'monochrome' metaphor, sorry! I mean creating an entire army out of one unit type: that's why I talked about the risk of draining Artanis's unit diversity. They want you to be creating an appropriate mix to the situation, so are being particularly careful buffing the Dragoon. Stalkers aren't attack-movers, and they're highly unlikely in Vorazun's kit to ever dominate in a mass Stalker build because V has absurdly strong specialised alternatives.
Not like mass dragoon would be wise anyway; at higher difficulties, they would be easily overwhelmed by masses of smaller units (zerglings, banelings, marines, zealots, mutalisks etc.) and there is no guarantee they can stand toe to toe with other antiarmor units (marauders, siege tanks, warhounds, etc.) At the very least, they would need zealots to tie up enemies while they bombard from afar. HT if you can micro storms well. Besides, Dragoons are too big to mass effectively

Yes, I understand Stalkers need more attention for better survivability, but at their DPS and the Dragoons' own disabilities outweighing usability, it feels very off balance. And yes, I'm still keeping in mind this is Coop we're talking about, but it is also fair to point out that both armies will not ALWAYS be together. Artanis should have a convenient anti-air that is more accessible than rushing to Tempests, or as gas heavy as HT and archons.

08/14/2018 02:37 PMPosted by Elyssaen
"Disruptor" I can get behind. "Vanguard" style commander isn't meaningful to me, but that's fine. There are some important differences between the two that I think are relevant here, though:

Artanis has a damage-dealer as his primary top-bar; Vorazun has a CC spell. This is pretty important because in the early game you've got to compare, say, 3 Dragoons + Orbital Strike to 3 Stalkers + Black Hole.
Vorazun derives relatively more power from powerful unit abilities. Artanis doesn't have a unit as good as her Dark Templar or Corsairs, and isn't supposed to. Stalkers are going to be chosen in comparison to those, not to Dragoons.
Comparing the toughness of Artanis's Dragoon and Vorazun's new Stalker has to take into account Guardian Shell and Shield Overcharge, just as Vorazun's has to take into account Veil of Shadows and Emergency Recall.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree that Dragoons need another look, but Axiom and I think that look has to be based on Artanis's kit, not a comparison to a variant of a unit in a different game mode.
My turn to explain what I meant: Vanguard as in he hits first and has abilities to not only soften up foes (if not outright obliterate), but also prolong survivability in a fight; he's a front liner. Barrier, storms, guardian shell, overcharge, etc. His forces also can drop in ANYWHERE (with a powerfield) near instantaneously.

Lastly, I don't think Axiom even let me make one suggestion about updating the Dragoons; said something about comparing apples and oranges when I said Stalkers thematically overshadow Dragoons. *praying this last sentence does not make another circle.*
08/14/2018 03:12 PMPosted by Aron
08/14/2018 02:44 PMPosted by heroix
Fair enough, so I edited it. Still doesn't mean he should treat me like a simpleton. Or act like I'm so horribly wrong in every point.
Respect is earned. Bragging about your meager achievements is not a good way to go about earning it.

By all available measures, Axiom is a far more experienced player than you are. This does not invalidate whatever feedback you may have to give, but do not make the mistake of thinking that your view is an in-depth one. The achievements you point to do not speak in your favor.

It is clear that Dragoons are in need of a buff, but using Stalkers as a metric to judge by how much is unreasonable. Artanis possesses tools that enable him to easily create an army of a-move Dragoons and march across the map with little need for strategy. If this were to become a viable build that would work in most situations, this would not be a good thing, as it would cause Artanis to be very boring to play indeed. As such, any buff to the Dragoon must be carefully measured, lest it break Artanis' excellent unit balance and make him really boring to play.

The same worry does not exist for Vorazun. Even if mass Stalker became a very powerful strategy (it won't), it would still be a lot of fun to play, as Stalkers are a whole lot more fun to play around with, and they've got better potential to combo with Vorazun's topbar and other units, like Oracle, Centurion, and DA. Doing so is fun and engaging. In the case of the Dragoon, this is not the case—an Artanis player would quite simply spam them to the exclusion of everything else.

It is absolutely correct to consider units in the context of the commander. Failing to do so would make the game poorer for it.
An oversight I hope to avoid in the future.

Anyway, I thought I was pointing out that Stalkers are doing what Dragoons are advertised to do and was asking if anyone had ideas.

Yes, I understand that Dragoons shouldn't get ridiculous amounts of mobility or abilities or anything and that it should be based on the commander's kit and theme. So for Dragoons, what value of the dragoon should be changed to make them consistently viable. Cost and size are out of the question, so what else is there?

Should they get some splash damage to their attacks? Would add to all the AoE that Artanis already possesses, even if it is only a small percentage.
More efficient attack or projectile speed to limit overkill? It's such an annoying problem to deal with, particularly on a unit so easily overwhelmed by numbers.
A boost to durability or damage? A tantalizingly simple solution, but also one that is just as easily disruptive to gameplay.
Other? One lone mind can only think of so much...
Make singularity charge change dragoon's attack from 14 (+14 armored) to a 28 to all. Strengthen's dragoon's anti air not preserving immortal's superiority towards armored.
If there was a clear answer, I believe Blizzard would already have implemented it.

They've voiced in the past that they look to preserve the core identity of each unit. In the case of the Dragoon, their terrible unit handling is a key part of their identity—meaning that any changes to stuff like move speed or projectile speed are quite unlikely. Adding stuff like splash to them also seems dubious.

That pretty much leaves raw stats, and you can't give Dragoons raw stats without risking them being capable of overshadowing other units. They almost have to be terrible by design.

That said, I think there is room to improve on them without it suddenly becoming an issue. Perhaps a tad more HP or damage would not be unreasonable.
I think the easiest change that preserves dragoons identity in Artanis kit is to change their cost.

Trillic compression should also change them to a 150 mineral 0 gas cost. That way they would be a good support alternative to zealots. (against large/armored/air targets)

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum