|
Apparently, the general consensus of the Starcraft 2 community is that the Protoss late-game is stronger than that of the Zerg or Terran. Why? Because of the “Protoss deathball”, a ragtag assortment of Gateway units, Colossus, Immortals, Archons, Storm, and a Mothership to boot. In short, a little bit of all of Protoss’ ground options, plus the occasional mommaship.
I could not disagree more. However, in this piece, I’m only going to go over the TvP match-up. Note also that this is about the late-game. It’s not about Protoss surviving a 1/1/1, or the drops in the midgame, or Terran scrambling Vikings, etc. This is when both players have 3+ bases, are maxed, and have full upgrades.
Terran vs Protoss
It must be noted that a lot of Terrans say that the best way to play TvP is to tear them apart in the mid-game with drops, because it’s hard to deal with the Protoss deathball. However, with the right composition, the Terran late-game blob of Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Viking/Ghost is just as fearsome. The most important thing is, in a straight up late-game fight, the Terran bio ball (MMM) absolutely wrecks the Protoss Gateway ball (Zealot/stalker/Sentry), if no other units are present. Protoss can try and force an even trade with clever use of forcefields and chokepoints, but Marines with stim just chew through Zealots (critical mass), and Stalkers get smashed by Marauders.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YREyS.jpg)
In order to deal with a Terran bio-ball, Protoss needs access to AoE – namely Storm and Colossus. Both of these melt through the bio-ball very quickly. So what’s the Terran response? Ghosts can snipe or EMP Templar (with range 10, vs the range 9 of Feedback), never giving them a chance to use storm.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jEQW8.jpg)
Vikings blow Colossus apart very fast with upgrades. On top of that, they can kill Observers with Scan, allowing the Ghosts to have free reign over Protoss, since the sons of Aiur lack any sort of back-up detection (ie. EMP, Fungal).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hm2wK.jpg)
More subtly, it comes down to the Ghost vs. Templar. If the storms land, Terran can kiss his army goodbye. Conversely, if EMP’s hit first, Protoss will get thrashed.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RVOI5.jpg)
The final battle
The point is, Terran is definitely on equal footing with the Protoss in the late game. It all comes down to unit control and positioning.
Additional thoughts
Terran is, by nature of Marines, naturally resilient against Stargate units. Stimmarines destroy phoenixes so fast it’s not even possible to attempt any sort of Graviton-beam-to-lift-the-ghosts-before-they-can-emp, and of course Void Rays and Carriers are not only terrible against marines, they are also far too slow to fall back if things don’t go well. The mothership in combat is a very high risk strategy, given that Vikings have range 9 and Ghosts can easily EMP its fat a** to nullify it.
On the other hand, the High Templar, with its Feedback spell, indirectly shuts down any sort of air mech play (Banshee/Raven/Battlecruiser), and coupled with the Immortal, mech-based play (Tank/Thor). Mech in TvP seems flimsy, but it’s a shame that the matchup simply doesn’t feature an entire tech tree from both sides. It would be amazing if we could see a viable late-game transition into Void Ray/Carrier/stuff vs Viking/Battlecruiser/stuff.
Part 2, PvZ lategame, coming soon!
EDIT:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 09 2012 07:47 Paincarnate wrote:
Alright, so Protoss has an easier time remaxing with the warp in mechanic. Bear in mind though, that Terran can easily have a larger army because of MULES. This sounds bizarre, but Protoss needs the warp in mechanic to take on Terran head-on late-game.
As for micro:
--Terran needs to spread out to avoid storms, Protoss needs to spread out to avoid EMP.
--Terrans need to micro their vikings (debatable), Protoss needs to focus fire them with blink Stalkers (also debatable).
--Terran/Protoss do the Ghost/Templar dance (where Terran arguably has the advantage with greater range).
--Terran needs to hit stim and, Protoss needs to hit Guardian Shield and/or Forcefields.
I don't see how Terran is somehow "more micro-intensive" than Protoss.
Also, for those who say that if Protoss wins an engagement, he wins the game, whereas if Terran wins an engagement, he has to deal with the next wave:
I want to state, again, that Terran bio > Protoss Gateway. If Terran wins an engagement, he can push forward - even a handful of Marauders on orange/red health decimates Zealot/Stalker reinforcements with micro.
On a related note, although it probably warrants an entire discussion thread of its own, so I'll make another blog post about it, but just some food for thought: is it fair that Terran can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro?
On March 09 2012 10:36 Paincarnate wrote:
Also, this feels like a problem because Protoss can't "outmicro" the Terran. It's not question of player skill; it's that Protoss can't increase their effectiveness of their units with micro.
 
|
Very nice blog!
As a protoss player myself i do feel that my late-game army is much stronger than a terran's army. But at my bad diamond level, it's not like we both played perfect so i can't really judg.
But i was wondering if it was worth for terrans to sac like 20-30 SCVs and rely on additional OCs and mules to keep mineral lines saturated and so having a bigger army?
|
On March 09 2012 00:37 CreationSoul wrote:
Very nice blog!
As a protoss player myself i do feel that my late-game army is much stronger than a terran's army. But at my bad diamond level, it's not like we both played perfect so i can't really judg.
But i was wondering if it was worth for terrans to sac like 20-30 SCVs and rely on additional OCs and mules to keep mineral lines saturated and so having a bigger army?
toss'd late game army is generally better then the others, But brood/infestor can be very hard to beat, as can a big bio ball with ghosts and vikings
and higher leagues (im a top diamond myself) terrans do trade SCvs for mules, but not untill they have 3 mined out bases and about 8 orbital commands. Not many people at diamond are comfortable playing that way.
I love the collosus/HT vs viking/Ghost trades in PvT
you can get such an advantage by tech switching away from collosus once they have vikings and force them to go ghosts. The only thing is, ghosts are awesome even if you dont have HT
|
On March 09 2012 00:37 CreationSoul wrote:
But i was wondering if it was worth for terrans to sac like 20-30 SCVs and rely on additional OCs and mules to keep mineral lines saturated and so having a bigger army?
After hitting supply cap and floating some minerals, you bet it is. I play Terran, and try to kill Toss in mid-game (like everyone else) but if it reaches that level and the huge engagement is coming, I'll take 20 SCVs and put them in front to tank a little. They get chewed through ungodly fast, but that's still one or two swipes that my marines and marauders aren't taking. Or I'll suicide scout with them to hopefully get a glimpse at Ps unit comp.Then I can then start to pump whatever units I'm short on to either defend my base or go in for the kill, while just using mules to keep the money flowing.
After thinking about it, I can see how some people call mules unfair or whatever, but hey, I'm gonna take every advantage that I can get.
|
I think you bring up a good point about scanning observers in late game TvP. Without observers your Ghosts have a decisive advantage versus HT. As an extra bonus this means the Protoss player has to spend robo build time on observers instead of Collosi. The range of the vikings makes sniping the Protosses army's observer a very viable option. I hope I see more high level games where this happens.
|
The issue isn't MMM + ghosts + vikings is too weak against the lategame protoss ball, it's that I feel like I have to micro like Boxer in his prime to pull it off while I get a-moved with the occasional click of the t button for storms. I have to come out so far ahead in the battle or it's actually a loss due to the much faster reinforcement of chargelots. It's not imbalanced, it's just very difficult and frustrating to play. I don't even know if that's a problem, sometimes one strategy is harder to execute than another, that's Starcraft but if you played T and encountered this situation hundreds of times with the same results you can at least understand the frustration.
|
Its not about late game army vs late game army. If Terran could remax to 200 after every fight it would be fine. The problem is that fact that protoss can warp in anywhere on the map almost instantly. Ok so If toss has 30 gateways and you have 20 barracks half with reactors so you can make 30 units at once that are rallied to a position and he can warp in 30 units at once to any pylon that is on the map, who do you think has the advantage? theres your answer. Not to mention no toss is going to have stalker sentry late game. 333 chargelots are extremely hard to kill. Ghosts are much harder to replace and take longer to build then ht that warp in instantly. Its not so far in balanced that it needs to get fixed its just part of the game and it is an advantage the protoss race has.
|
On March 09 2012 01:37 Sky0 wrote:
Its not about late game army vs late game army. If Terran could remax to 200 after every fight it would be fine. The problem is that fact that protoss can warp in anywhere on the map almost instantly. Ok so If toss has 30 gateways and you have 20 barracks half with reactors so you can make 30 units at once that are rallied to a position and he can warp in 30 units at once to any pylon that is on the map, who do you think has the advantage? theres your answer. Not to mention no toss is going to have stalker sentry late game. 333 chargelots are extremely hard to kill. Ghosts are much harder to replace and take longer to build then ht that warp in instantly. Its not so far in balanced that it needs to get fixed its just part of the game and it is an advantage the protoss race has.
But a major advantage that Terran has is they can macro easily during battles since Terran macro only requires hotkeys (pressing 3 and holding down 'd' and 'a' etc.) whereas Protoss needs to leave the scene of a battle to click 30 times to make units, which would be suicide when you need to be microing your army. If there's a pylon at the spot the engagement is taking place, then Protoss may have a macro advantage as you can more easily macro during the engagement.
Also, if you're floating minerals as T (e.g., right before or during a battle) you can queue up more units, whereas as P you have to wait for the warpgate cooldown and you would thus be more likely to float even more minerals as P. I played both T and P and don't think TvP is too imba either way, since both races have advantages and disadvantages.
|
On March 09 2012 01:55 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 01:37 Sky0 wrote:
Its not about late game army vs late game army. If Terran could remax to 200 after every fight it would be fine. The problem is that fact that protoss can warp in anywhere on the map almost instantly. Ok so If toss has 30 gateways and you have 20 barracks half with reactors so you can make 30 units at once that are rallied to a position and he can warp in 30 units at once to any pylon that is on the map, who do you think has the advantage? theres your answer. Not to mention no toss is going to have stalker sentry late game. 333 chargelots are extremely hard to kill. Ghosts are much harder to replace and take longer to build then ht that warp in instantly. Its not so far in balanced that it needs to get fixed its just part of the game and it is an advantage the protoss race has. But a major advantage that Terran has is they can macro easily during battles since Terran macro only requires hotkeys (pressing 3 and holding down 'd' and 'a' etc.) whereas Protoss needs to leave the scene of a battle to click 30 times to make units, which would be suicide when you need to be microing your army. If there's a pylon at the spot the engagement is taking place, then Protoss may have a macro advantage as you can more easily macro during the engagement. Also, if you're floating minerals as T (e.g., right before or during a battle) you can queue up more units, whereas as P you have to wait for the warpgate cooldown and you would thus be more likely to float even more minerals as P. I played both T and P and don't think TvP is too imba either way, since both races have advantages and disadvantages.
I don't think terran gets an advantage from "macroing easily". You still have to wait for the units to build and rallied to a certain location but for protoss, you can just warp in 10 zealots instantly to anywhere on the map you want to defend. Usually after a battle if the terran loses its pretty much over because the protoss can just attack expansions or go for your main. But the protoss loses, he still has a chance to defend with reinforcing zealots vs a weakened bio army. The problem with late game tvp has more to do with warpgates than anything else really.
|
On March 09 2012 01:55 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 01:37 Sky0 wrote:
Its not about late game army vs late game army. If Terran could remax to 200 after every fight it would be fine. The problem is that fact that protoss can warp in anywhere on the map almost instantly. Ok so If toss has 30 gateways and you have 20 barracks half with reactors so you can make 30 units at once that are rallied to a position and he can warp in 30 units at once to any pylon that is on the map, who do you think has the advantage? theres your answer. Not to mention no toss is going to have stalker sentry late game. 333 chargelots are extremely hard to kill. Ghosts are much harder to replace and take longer to build then ht that warp in instantly. Its not so far in balanced that it needs to get fixed its just part of the game and it is an advantage the protoss race has. But a major advantage that Terran has is they can macro easily during battles since Terran macro only requires hotkeys (pressing 3 and holding down 'd' and 'a' etc.) whereas Protoss needs to leave the scene of a battle to click 30 times to make units, which would be suicide when you need to be microing your army. If there's a pylon at the spot the engagement is taking place, then Protoss may have a macro advantage as you can more easily macro during the engagement. Also, if you're floating minerals as T (e.g., right before or during a battle) you can queue up more units, whereas as P you have to wait for the warpgate cooldown and you would thus be more likely to float even more minerals as P. I played both T and P and don't think TvP is too imba either way, since both races have advantages and disadvantages.
At this point you're just talking out of your ass. You can't queue up units at 200 food. You sure as hell are not macroing during main fights since you're always 1 storm away from losing the game. You may have expietence playing both races but I'd be willing to bet you don't have expierence playing Terran past platinum.
|
Terran macro is not that easy. If you queue up to much, you have bad macro. I dont get why people see queueing as an advantage. moreover, p can easily defend drops in the late game with templar, zealot or dt warpins.when a ground unit lands in the t base, the t has to bring MORE than p to defend it, or micro the whole day to defend vs zealots. you can just kick 4 zealots with reinforcements when you dont micro them.
p has the a click army. i dont mean like p has no micro at all, but very less than t in the late game.
t does not get enough emps out before engagement: lose to storm, zealots, archons. not enough vikings: lose to colossi.
of course t is stronger when it comes down to barracks vs gateway units (except zealot archon) but thats how it should be.
the 333 zealot is too strong, and blizzard will only fix that in hots (you can find that statement on yt)
mech is no viable option vs p, as often times stated before. t just has no "big unit" that does not die that easily to splash damage and that is why the t army is so fragile.
another unfair thing is that the t - driven into the corner to use MMM , because mech is not viable - has to do damage in the midgame to be even in the lategame, because the p has the "sitback and buildup" army. on 200 they move out and remax with zealots, which only need A CLICK AND T HAS TO MICRO ALL DAY. that cannot be stressed enough.
tvp is like tvt with one player going mech and the other player going mmm, expect the meching player has better splash, is more mobile, not that fragile in the early game and not that bad in low unit counts.
|
1 - I think terran late game micro is way more intensive than toss. Not that toss just A-moves, but terran has to play the ghost/templar dance, the viking dance, and constantly kite/dodge storm/dodge FF with segments of your bio ball. It's really, really hard, and tiny mistake = gg.
2- Remax. Assume the big battle is a wash, and assume equal eco for both players, toss will have his army rebuilt and in your face long before the T. So, really, if the big battle is a wash, its actually a loss for T.
|
On March 09 2012 00:19 Paincarnate wrote:The final battle The point is, Terran is definitely on equal footing with the Protoss in the late game. It all comes down to unit control and positioning.
I specifically want to point out that Protoss has the advantage. Warpgates and chronoboosts are incredibly powerful tools to remax with. 20 zealots vs 20 marines who just popped from their rax and a few mauraders absolutely destroy terran army. Oh and you can warp in 20 more at the scene of the battle with a forward pylon. Essentially, Terran is a production cycle behind and also has no support units (IE Medivac to sentry or ghost to templar->archon) they could have right after a fight since they have to wait for build time. With the squishiness of terran units, protoss has advantage in keeping their numbers low before critical dps amounts are given.
Protoss, who inherently have the most durable and expensive units, have too fast of reproduction capabilities once they obtain a "bank" of minerals and gas to spend post 200 supply fights. 40 supply can reappear in 30 seconds of time. This is where I see the problem in late-game XvP. Zerg handles better, since they can make "cheap" counter attacks to happen during fights to potentially limit mining/gateway power and remax faster and can choose to have durable units (roaches v lings?). Plus they can choose what to produce first, if only 5 collosus remain after a big fight--make some roaches to deal with stalker warpin and a ton of corruptors to destroy the collosus count ASAP. Obviously Terran can only make what his infrastruture allows, and most of the time we can't afford 3reactor ports to insta make 6 vikings and almost no amount of barracks can keep up without support. (See Genius v Alive GSL semis--Alive was on 21 rax with 10 reactored vs 12 warpgates. 200/200 supply army fight comes out slightly ahead for protoss with 5 zealots and 2 templar, but terran couldn't put a fighting force together to keep alive from killing his 4th with chargelot warpins and pushing into his production facilities afterword.)
|
No, wargates and easier micro for protoss allows protoss to just win easier lategame. This is assuming ofcourse that the Terran player didn't die to the 1 and 2 base all ins of protoss.
|
Totally agree. Although the re-max issue is large if you "win" the engagement (have some forces left at the end) then the terran player shouldnt have and problem dealing with mass chargelots, if you lose the engagement, then you lost it so expect to lose some buildings/infrastructure.
|
On March 09 2012 04:00 Kingy604 wrote:
Totally agree. Although the re-max issue is large if you "win" the engagement (have some forces left at the end) then the terran player shouldnt have and problem dealing with mass chargelots, if you lose the engagement, then you lost it so expect to lose some buildings/infrastructure.
So its Terran wins major engagement = able to deal with next wave of chargelots. Protoss wins major engagement = wins the game.
|
All the macro talk forgot about one thing.....
Chronoboost????
20 gates vs 20 rax
Build anywhere then CB and guess what.. even faster reinforcements. Along with CB'ed Robos that produce very fast Collsi.
One of the most demotivating things in this game is killing the TvP deathball with excellent control. Only to walk into 20 charge lots that destroy what you had left, then you hear your base is "under attack" because a warp prism let 5 DT's get built in your main................
"Happy Microing!"
|
On March 09 2012 03:01 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
1 - I think terran late game micro is way more intensive than toss. Not that toss just A-moves, but terran has to play the ghost/templar dance, the viking dance, and constantly kite/dodge storm/dodge FF with segments of your bio ball. It's really, really hard, and tiny mistake = gg.
2- Remax. Assume the big battle is a wash, and assume equal eco for both players, toss will have his army rebuilt and in your face long before the T. So, really, if the big battle is a wash, its actually a loss for T.
This guy summed it up good. It's also not as easy to macro as a terran while fighting as some others have mentioned, one tiny mistake = gg and you also have to constantly kite with your mm so in a 200 vs 200 fight you actually have very little time macroing while microing.
|
200 vs 200 is such a skewed generalized statement... because protoss needs 60+ probes (usually 70-80?).. while terran can sack scvs so their army supply is like 170 compared to their opponent's 140... if you lose any fights like that then you screwed up your micro (and you screwed up pretty badly LOL).
|
Alright, so Protoss has an easier time remaxing with the warp in mechanic. Bear in mind though, that Terran can easily have a larger army because of MULES. This sounds bizarre, but Protoss needs the warp in mechanic to take on Terran head-on late-game.
As for micro:
--Terran needs to spread out to avoid storms, Protoss needs to spread out to avoid EMP.
--Terrans need to micro their vikings (debatable), Protoss needs to focus fire them with blink Stalkers (also debatable).
--Terran/Protoss do the Ghost/Templar dance (where Terran arguably has the advantage with greater range).
--Terran needs to hit stim and, Protoss needs to hit Guardian Shield and/or Forcefields.
I don't see how Terran is somehow "more micro-intensive" than Protoss.
Also, for those who say that if Protoss wins an engagement, he wins the game, whereas if Terran wins an engagement, he has to deal with the next wave:
I want to state, again, that Terran bio > Protoss Gateway. If Terran wins an engagement, he can push forward - even a handful of Marauders on orange/red health decimates Zealot/Stalker reinforcements with micro.
On a related note, although it probably warrants an entire discussion thread of its own, so I'll make another blog post about it, but just some food for thought: is it fair that Terran can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro?
|
On March 09 2012 07:47 Paincarnate wrote:
As for micro:
--Terran needs to spread out to avoid storms, Protoss needs to spread out to avoid EMP.
--Terrans need to micro their vikings (debatable), Protoss needs to focus fire them with blink Stalkers (also debatable).
--Terran/Protoss do the Ghost/Templar dance (where Terran arguably has the advantage with greater range).
--Terran needs to hit stim and, Protoss needs to hit Guardian Shield and/or Forcefields.
I don't see how Terran is somehow "more micro-intensive" than Protoss.
That all sounds nice and dandy and equal (which at the highest levels of play it may in fact be slightly Terran favored) but you're missing a very important part to all of this. It all starts with the word "need." The terran NEEDS to do all of those things at EVERY level of play or they get ROLLED by a toss that A-Moves. That's the problem. Below masters (and even some in masters) Terran players simply do not have the skills to deal the death ball.
A protoss in gold doesn't do any of the things you say the protoss should do but they will win the engagement by a large amount just by a-moving. A pro protoss does those things and that's why it's fine, at a pro level. But for casuals it's very very very very frustrating. The game shouldn't be like that.
Also, for those who say that if Protoss wins an engagement, he wins the game, whereas if Terran wins an engagement, he has to deal with the next wave:
I want to state, again, that Terran bio > Protoss Gateway. If Terran wins an engagement, he can push forward - even a handful of Marauders on orange/red health decimates Zealot/Stalker reinforcements with micro.
On a related note, although it probably warrants an entire discussion thread of its own, so I'll make another blog post about it, but just some food for thought: is it fair that Terran can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro?
Would you listen to what you just wrote?! Everyone can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro! Just because it's easier to notice when bio does it doesn't mean that the other races can't. That line alone makes this blog a joke for me.
|
A protoss complainning about lategame PvT? Never thought id see the day.
Yes if a terran out micros you, you will lose. Why is this a problem?
|
On March 09 2012 06:38 KawaiiRice wrote:
200 vs 200 is such a skewed generalized statement... because protoss needs 60+ probes (usually 70-80?).. while terran can sack scvs so their army supply is like 170 compared to their opponent's 140... if you lose any fights like that then you screwed up your micro (and you screwed up pretty badly LOL).
This,
and besides that when do you have a pylon right under your army when there is a big battle? i would say it's fair to say that the closest pylon is around half between the protoss base and the battle, because lategame it's all about positioning and you will be dancing around the map.
Alot of times your "forward" pylons are getting sniped because you are forced out of your position, because if you stay you just get ROFLSTOMPEDPOWNEDHARDCORE.
What some other people have been saying as well is that MMM > Protoss gateway army, and a terran should always have a bigger army because of the SCV sacking and more orbitals to mine minerals.
So all in all it's even, but in the mid game that's where protoss is still loosing to the super high mobility from bio and the fact that mid game it's not easy to deal with solid amount off barracks, medivac, +1/+1 stim timing attacks with multi prong drops. If a protoss has to split up their army the terran WILL trade more effective.
Anyways, once the gateway units from protoss will get their general buff Blizzard is promising, we will be on even footing in all stages of the game
|
On March 09 2012 08:01 Akamu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 07:47 Paincarnate wrote:
As for micro:
--Terran needs to spread out to avoid storms, Protoss needs to spread out to avoid EMP.
--Terrans need to micro their vikings (debatable), Protoss needs to focus fire them with blink Stalkers (also debatable).
--Terran/Protoss do the Ghost/Templar dance (where Terran arguably has the advantage with greater range).
--Terran needs to hit stim and, Protoss needs to hit Guardian Shield and/or Forcefields.
I don't see how Terran is somehow "more micro-intensive" than Protoss. That all sounds nice and dandy and equal (which at the highest levels of play it may in fact be slightly Terran favored) but you're missing a very important part to all of this. It all starts with the word "need." The terran NEEDS to do all of those things at EVERY level of play or they get ROLLED by a toss that A-Moves. That's the problem. Below masters (and even some in masters) Terran players simply do not have the skills to deal the death ball. A protoss in gold doesn't do any of the things you say the protoss should do but they will win the engagement by a large amount just by a-moving. A pro protoss does those things and that's why it's fine, at a pro level. But for casuals it's very very very very frustrating. The game shouldn't be like that. Show nested quote +
Also, for those who say that if Protoss wins an engagement, he wins the game, whereas if Terran wins an engagement, he has to deal with the next wave:
I want to state, again, that Terran bio > Protoss Gateway. If Terran wins an engagement, he can push forward - even a handful of Marauders on orange/red health decimates Zealot/Stalker reinforcements with micro.
On a related note, although it probably warrants an entire discussion thread of its own, so I'll make another blog post about it, but just some food for thought: is it fair that Terran can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro?
Would you listen to what you just wrote?! Everyone can increase the effectiveness of their units with micro! Just because it's easier to notice when bio does it doesn't mean that the other races can't. That line alone makes this blog a joke for me.
You don't need GM or Masters level micro. As a Terran, the only thing you NEED to do is to hit the Templar before they storm. That's it. Everything else (Vikings, bio, medivacs) just a-moves and you're fine.
As for the other comment, it belongs in another blog post. But for now, have you tried beating marine/marauder with stim with Zealot/Sentry/Stalker micro? It just doesn't happen. Blinking forward with stalkers is just asking to get mauled by marauders, and blinking backwards is not even an option if Terran has 8+ Marauders. Microing Chargelots? Marauders with concussive shell and stim move faster. The only way Protoss can reasonably fight it is if the he catches the Terran as he's moving up a ramp, and forcefields off half of it, and even then, the fight trades equally, not "in favor of Protoss". See end of this post.
On March 09 2012 08:29 hersenen wrote:
A protoss complainning about lategame PvT? Never thought id see the day.
Yes if a terran out micros you, you will lose. Why is this a problem?
I'm not complaining, I was hoping this article would help Terran players realise that Protoss lategame isn't as IMBA as people make it out to be.
Also, this feels like a problem because Protoss can't "outmicro" the Terran. It's not question of player skill; it's that Protoss can't increase their effectiveness of their units with micro.
+ Show Spoiler +Yes, you can use blink stalker micro, and yes, Forcefields can be gamechanging. But in the TvP matchup, blink doesn't help Protoss in a straight up fight, and Sentries cost 100 gas each, so each one NEEDS to place "money forcefields" to actually make them worth their cost. Planting good forcefields is not easy for the "casual" Protoss, but anyone above silver league can stutter step with Marine/Marauder.
|
On March 09 2012 07:47 Paincarnate wrote:
Alright, so Protoss has an easier time remaxing with the warp in mechanic. Bear in mind though, that Terran can easily have a larger army because of MULES. This sounds bizarre, but Protoss needs the warp in mechanic to take on Terran head-on late-game.
As for micro:
--Terran needs to spread out to avoid storms, Protoss needs to spread out to avoid EMP.
--Terrans need to micro their vikings (debatable), Protoss needs to focus fire them with blink Stalkers (also debatable).
--Terran/Protoss do the Ghost/Templar dance (where Terran arguably has the advantage with greater range).
--Terran needs to hit stim and, Protoss needs to hit Guardian Shield and/or Forcefields.
This is a vast simplification of the idea.
Terran can't just spread to avoid storms. Either you dodge the storm altogether or you EMP the templar. Dodging storms to spreading to avoid emp isn't a fair comparison. Especially now that the emp radius has been decreased. I've hit clumps of zealots with the emp blast entirely and I can tell you it's not an auto win like taking a storm at full damage. Yes, given that it's harder to hit a storm that does its full damage, but I want to make the point that it's no longer cost effective to use ghosts EMP as a way of doing damage UNLESS the protoss player makes a very critical mistake. EMP is to kill mana.
Having played some protoss I can say there's some legitimacy to the viking colossus blink stalker fight, I think that's a legitimate, equal skill equal victory battle.
I don't think terran really has an advantage with the ghost templar dance. In a battle between one ghost and a high templar, the ghost is more likely to snipe or emp the high templar. However, this is a defensive mechanism for the terran and an offensive mechanism for protoss. If protoss wins the battle, protoss gets to use storm which will do critical damage unless dodged entirely. If terran wins the battle, then the two are on even grounds again. (We're talking late game, where protoss has colossus as well).
I think there's some legitimacy to the guardian shield and forcefields, as well as protoss unit positioning in terms of difficulty. It's difficult to have terran unit positioning as well and to coordinate using the emp, using the stim and vikings.
I think though, that in the ghost vs high templar game, protoss has the advantage, and in remaxing protoss has the advantage. Protoss and terran might be able to create units at the same rate, but protoss can create them at the fight and terran has to wait to regroup. Additionally, the terran has to macro during the fight. Protoss can back up and replace missing supply instantly.
These are at least the things I struggle with currently as a terran player. I'm sure there are some strategies that bug protoss just as much, but in my personal opinion protoss has a pretty significant advantage in the late game. There are a lot of ways for a protoss player to just flat out win in one battle or move, while the terran victory is a long, tedious one.
|
Have you played late game tvp???? Sry to blunt. But your arguments sound like theory craft?
A "handful of marauders" does not even last a second vs a zeal warp in...
Not to mention your rebuttal to all of the remaxing talk was "oh well P needs wg to be fair ' that's dodging the reality of how a maxed out tvp is better for the p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zVNiK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KIuAG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/rY1Ct.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Le9bb.jpg)
