| Blogs > SiegeTanksandBlueGoo |
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On September 30 2008 22:32 Hawk wrote: Keeping the probe alive is easy.. I do it with ease most games and I rarely crack 120 with toss, and that's my off race. You guys are all in denial. P is obviously the easy button in bw. reps or it didn't happen | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 30 2008 19:24 loupouk wrote: I don't play anymore, my level was not very high, I played only one season in wgtour ladder and i had a record like 30-15. I am a 160 zerg apm user. Let's say i was at "medium" level. When I played terran, it was just a instant loss because i'm not fast enough after the first 10 minutes, but surprisly i could beat bad zerg player and medium terran player with protoss. For me protoss is by far the easiest race at medium-low level. Ok this is a crap example. You'll beat bad zergs because they're bad, and they can't use the ZvP slant to their advantage, and you can beat medium Terrans because of the PvT slant. The slight P>T>Z>P slant is common knowledge, and is not evidence for Protoss imbalance. On September 30 2008 22:32 Hawk wrote: Keeping the probe alive is easy.. I do it with ease most games and I rarely crack 120 with toss, and that's my off race. You guys are all in denial. P is obviously the easy button in bw. As stated previously, reps or it didn't happen. Keeping the probe alive is also meaningless if it can't cross back to zerg's natural, because, as stated before, they can place their tech there. Single examples are not conclusive evidence, because they are too subject to individual play-styles, and whatever pool of opponents you've had to face. So far, the only person whose cited general trends, and not single anecdotes is Chill, and I've conceded that at the level he's talking about (high-level foreigners), there is a skill band where Protoss players have the game sense and timing needed to win, while Terran and Zergs might not have the micro. But that's a relatively small skill band. Most of the people complaining here don't fit into that skill band. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
the easyness of protoss is bigger in low foreigner levels like D and C levels, because terran doesnt have the mechanics to keep up, and generally they dont understand timing windows well enough | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Note no T in semifinal, and the winner will be a P  | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
On September 30 2008 23:13 Chill wrote: We're talknig about foreigner level, not top tier progamers. Keep up. Fair enough, same question then. Will someone educate me with a brief history of foreigner top players and races? Chill basically just said that with top tier progamers it's fine and that this discussion is about foreigners. I have no problem admitting that I am playing the easiest race there is if someone can back it up with some proof (like listing the top players for the past few years and they all happen to be Protoss). | ||
|
Synneby
Sweden61 Posts
I think P is really hard to play actually. I'm a C- P player. I struggled to get too C-. Then I tried to play zerg, for kicks and giggles, and i became C- in half a day. And I never played the race before except in 2vs2 and 3vs3! Its so easy to exp the map and macro the shit out of your oppunent. But with P its 1 bad judgement call and its gg. Your always playing one your toes. 1 mistake. gg. P sux | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On October 01 2008 03:36 0xDEADBEEF wrote: One recent example: Spirit Tournament thread: semifinals: P>Z, P>Z Note no T in semifinal, and the winner will be a P Just because they're better players doesn't make the race easy. | ||
|
ahole-surprise
United States813 Posts
Argument made: -Protoss at foreigner levels is easier than Zerg and Terran, the difference in skill required being significant enough that foreigner events, such as TSL, and the foreigner community in general, are dominated by Protoss players Counter arguments made by a lot of Protoss players: - Protoss is not easy!! (no, the argument is that protoss is easier than the other 2 races) - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN PRO SCENE? (We're talking about foreign scene, where the mechanics are significantly worse than the pro scene) - IF ITS SO EASY WHY DONT YOU DO 1a2a3a and WIN AN OSL?? - Make personal attacks | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 01 2008 06:32 ahole-surprise wrote: lol Argument made: -Protoss at foreigner levels is easier than Zerg and Terran, the difference in skill required being significant enough that foreigner events, such as TSL, and the foreigner community in general, are dominated by Protoss players Counter arguments made by a lot of Protoss players: - Protoss is not easy!! (no, the argument is that protoss is easier than the other 2 races) - HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN PRO SCENE? (We're talking about foreign scene, where the mechanics are significantly worse than the pro scene) - IF ITS SO EASY WHY DONT YOU DO 1a2a3a and WIN AN OSL?? - Make personal attacks This is a gross misrepresentation of both sides. There are people who have made unintelligent posts on both sides of the argument, especially anti-Protoss posts that have said something along the lines of "I played Protoss and I thought it was easy, so therefore, Protoss is easy-mode." Also, while the flaws of the "counterargument" are easily apparent, there are several flaws I'd like to point out about the "argument." 1.) Its been agreed that there is a skill band where Protoss > other races because players at that level don't have Korean pro mechanics but do have good enough game sense and timing. Using that skill band as an indicator and saying it can be extrapolated to Protoss as a race in general is just as flawed as saying Korean Pro level Protoss can be extrapolated to Protoss as a race in general. 2) Popularity does not imply that a race is good. If Protoss players dominate the foreigner community, then perhaps they do well because there are more of them, and therefore more that are at a high skill level. Protoss has an easier time with mechanics, but is harder in terms of game sense and timing required to win. Game sense is harder because protoss players generally have to play with less information that Zerg or Terran players, given that 1) observer tech is late relative to Overlords and ComSat, and 2) observers are generally easier to ward off than ComSats or Overlords (ComSat is impossible to prevent unless you've already broken far enough through Terran to attack his ComSat Stations, and Overlords are hard to ward off due to the fact that they will be in vast quantity and do not cost any gas (and are thus easily replaceable). Timing is harder on a Protoss player because of the long build times of their units and buildings. You cannot prepare for a threat after you've seen it coming because it simply takes too long. No amount of 1a2a3a4a is going to help you win against a 4-hatch hydra all-in if your probe scout couldn't outrun speedlings and you couldn't prepare for it. No amount of of spamming t is going to save you if fast-expanded and got walled out of seeing the 2-factory push headed your way, and got caught before you could produce the units to stop it. | ||
|
ahole-surprise
United States813 Posts
I was saying what the main argument is, at least the one I would make, and then I wrote what a lot of Protoss players use as a counterargument, which I found funny, hence the lol to start the post. "2)" is a contentious issue. Are there more protoss players because it's easier? Or because people just like protoss? I don't care to answer that question. But you seem to bend towards the latter, which I believe is a lot less plausible. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 01 2008 06:53 ahole-surprise wrote: I wasn't trying to represent both sides. I was saying what the main argument is, at least the one I would make, and then I wrote what a lot of Protoss players use as a counterargument, which I found funny, hence the lol to start the post. Sadly, those "counterarguments" are far too common in this thread. On October 01 2008 06:53 ahole-surprise wrote: "2)" is a contentious issue. Are there more protoss players because it's easier? Or because people just like protoss? I don't care to answer that question. But you seem to bend towards the latter, which I believe is a lot less plausible. If the prevailing view among non-Protoss players is that Protoss is the easier race, regardless of whether or not its true, there will be a tendency for people to switch to Protoss. I don't care to answer the question either, but I still would like to point out that Protoss actually being easier is not the only plausible reason for many players to play Protoss. The mere perception that it is easier is enough. | ||
|
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
Now one could argue that tier two Terran is the same as Protoss tier 1/1.5. That may be correct to a very slight degree, however Factories cost much more than a gateway. Even without a machine shop. (But you do need Machine shops regardless. So that only adds to the overall cost) I won't bother going into the unit costs, since we all know them. Terran requires much more micro effort as well. So if anyone tries to bring up that argument, don't. Zerg is even worse, managing 70+ small units can tend to be a pain in the ass. Protoss has it easier there once again. Gateways also produce higher tier units. Dark Templars and High Templars. Also look at the workers and supply methods. A probe can warp in a building, then resume mining. Pylons are multiple use. You need them to set up power grids for your buildings, and they provide supply. An SCV has to stop what its doing to build whatever, until its finished. Supply depots are useless, other than providing supply, and maybe a "wall". Zerg has to sacrifice a drone in order to build something. So any building cost is pretty much +50 minerals, plus you may lose some mining time, and you lose a larva. Overlords are handy though, can't lie about that. So in that aspect Protoss has it easier than the other 2 races there once again. I'm sure there is more, but chances are you Protoss players will just laugh at my points. (Even though they make perfect sense) With all that being said, I'm not saying that Protoss is instant win against the other races. Read the bold, underlined part at the top over, and over again. Until you understand what I'm saying. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 01 2008 06:46 TheYango wrote: This is a gross misrepresentation of both sides. There are people who have made unintelligent posts on both sides of the argument, especially anti-Protoss posts that have said something along the lines of "I played Protoss and I thought it was easy, so therefore, Protoss is easy-mode." Also, while the flaws of the "counterargument" are easily apparent, there are several flaws I'd like to point out about the "argument." 1.) Its been agreed that there is a skill band where Protoss > other races because players at that level don't have Korean pro mechanics but do have good enough game sense and timing. Using that skill band as an indicator and saying it can be extrapolated to Protoss as a race in general is just as flawed as saying Korean Pro level Protoss can be extrapolated to Protoss as a race in general. 2) Popularity does not imply that a race is good. If Protoss players dominate the foreigner community, then perhaps they do well because there are more of them, and therefore more that are at a high skill level. Protoss has an easier time with mechanics, but is harder in terms of game sense and timing required to win. Game sense is harder because protoss players generally have to play with less information that Zerg or Terran players, given that 1) observer tech is late relative to Overlords and ComSat, and 2) observers are generally easier to ward off than ComSats or Overlords (ComSat is impossible to prevent unless you've already broken far enough through Terran to attack his ComSat Stations, and Overlords are hard to ward off due to the fact that they will be in vast quantity and do not cost any gas (and are thus easily replaceable). Timing is harder on a Protoss player because of the long build times of their units and buildings. You cannot prepare for a threat after you've seen it coming because it simply takes too long. No amount of 1a2a3a4a is going to help you win against a 4-hatch hydra all-in if your probe scout couldn't outrun speedlings and you couldn't prepare for it. No amount of of spamming t is going to save you if fast-expanded and got walled out of seeing the 2-factory push headed your way, and got caught before you could produce the units to stop it. overlords come later tech than observers? are you fucking INSANE!? lololl and observers are easier to ward off than overlords lololol please read your own posts | ||
|
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
On October 01 2008 07:28 fusionsdf wrote: overlords come later tech than observers? are you fucking INSANE!? lololl and observers are easier to ward off than overlords lololol please read your own posts Facepalmtastic of a post there fusion. If you're going to insult his post maybe you should READ IT. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On October 01 2008 07:36 Krohm wrote: Facepalmtastic of a post there fusion. If you're going to insult his post maybe you should READ IT. I bolded it for you | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 01 2008 07:25 Krohm wrote: Maybe I miss worded my original statement. Protoss is easier to manage, and handle compared to the other races. They have large more expensive units, so micro/macro management isn't as difficult. I agree that microing Terran is harder, but macroing is stretching it. On October 01 2008 07:25 Krohm wrote: Now one could argue that tier two Terran is the same as Protoss tier 1/1.5. That may be correct to a very slight degree, however Factories cost much more than a gateway. Even without a machine shop. (But you do need Machine shops regardless. So that only adds to the overall cost) I won't bother going into the unit costs, since we all know them. Terran requires much more micro effort as well. So if anyone tries to bring up that argument, don't. How does having LESS production buildings make macroing HARDER? IMO Terran macro is mechanically easier than Protoss because of the way you can position buildings such that you can macro out of more buildings at once (e.g. more factories fit on the screen at once because Terran doesn't have to worry about pylon placement and can place them in neat rows). Also, even though gateways cost less, Protoss needs more of them to keep up because of long build times. I'm pretty sure that no one believes that if Protoss builds the same number of gateways as Terran has factories, that Protoss has a chance of winning the fight. Protoss should almost always have more gateways than terran has factories, so going by resource-equivalence of production buildings is invalid. On October 01 2008 07:25 Krohm wrote: Zerg is even worse, managing 70+ small units can tend to be a pain in the ass. Protoss has it easier there once again. Gateways also produce higher tier units. Dark Templars and High Templars. By this argument, Zerg macro is relatively trivial because Hatcheries produce EVERY tier of unit, and are forgiving for non-constant production. On October 01 2008 07:25 Krohm wrote: Also look at the workers and supply methods. A probe can warp in a building, then resume mining. Pylons are multiple use. You need them to set up power grids for your buildings, and they provide supply. An SCV has to stop what its doing to build whatever, until its finished. Supply depots are useless, other than providing supply, and maybe a "wall". Zerg has to sacrifice a drone in order to build something. So any building cost is pretty much +50 minerals, plus you may lose some mining time, and you lose a larva. Overlords are handy though, can't lie about that. I forget where it was, but I believe its been tested that the mining rates of each worker is different, so as to counteract this effect. IIRC Probes mine slower than SCVs which mine slower than Drones, so the net mining rate of each race is about the same. Also, I still fail to see how pylons being a RESTRICTION (forced to build around them, instead of anywhere, like Terran) is an ADVANTAGE to Protoss? Is it imbalanced that Terran has an "infinite" power grid, since their buildings can go wherever they want, without risk of losing power? On October 01 2008 07:25 Krohm wrote: I'm sure there is more, but chances are you Protoss players will just laugh at my points. (Even though they make perfect sense) PM them to me then, I'll be willing to listen to what you say. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 01 2008 07:28 fusionsdf wrote: overlords come later tech than observers? I never said that. I said that OBSERVERS are LATE relative to ComSat and Overlords. That means that OBSERVERS come late. Way to read my post carefully. On October 01 2008 07:28 fusionsdf wrote: and observers are easier to ward off than overlords lololol I thought this might need some explanation. Overlords cost 100 minerals. Observers cost 25 minerals and 75 gas. This means that Observers are more valuable to a player than Overlords are (especially given how abundant Overlords will be anyway). Combined with the fact that Overlords have MUCH more health than Observers, it is much harder to keep a Zerg player from seeing your tech by suiciding an Overlord than it is to keep a Protoss player from seeing your tech by suiciding an observer. | ||
|
inb4RUSH
Sweden85 Posts
I've been playing P for a couple of months now while having played Terran and to a small extent Zerg before and while P is easier for me now than when I started it's not really easier. I think alot of people play Protoss because it's looked upon as easier, sure, people do this all the time (and example would be WoW and Rogue for example), but you gotta realize that not everyone is trying to achieve something, not everyone is trying to become the "best of the best". Personally I decided to main Protoss simply because I find their units more asthetically pleasing, I also found their units more fun, reavers? Yes please, HTs with storm and illusion? Yes please, arbiters with recall and stasis? Hell yes! Wether it's a easier race or not, I think alot of people play Protoss simply because its more fun and their units are more pleasent than the other races. | ||
|
nAi.PrOtOsS
Canada784 Posts
In conclusion I think that it would be very hard to determine of protoss was truly imbalanced. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  38190Shuttle 1508Mini 712EffOrt  651Soulkey 545Horang2 374Soma 266Rush  230Light 203firebathero 101[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1903 Liquid`RaSZi791 mouzStarbuck363 crisheroes333 XaKoH  166uThermal102 ArmadaUGS80 RotterdaM73 KnowMe56 Trikslyr46 FrodaN7 |
|
OSC
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
