|
On November 17 2010 05:00 McMonty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:41 Moragon wrote: Update: In NA top 200 last week I reported 51 protoss, this week the new number is 45. Thats 22.5% folks. What?? Dropped 6 P in just one week? Whats happening to Protoss? They are getting crushed... Its like a wave of failure all across the board. 22% Top200 18% GSL participation all of that despite 34% of diamond being Protoss! There seems to be a huge divide between high level diamond balance and mid to low level diamond balance. I wonder what causes that? I know two of the ones that droppd off the list (one was even ~100 last week) and the reason they dropped off the list is just due to sheer inactivity on the ladder. One has mostly been playing customs with our team and the other hasn't been online in about 6 or 7 days.
|
On November 17 2010 05:05 ibreakurface wrote: There is only one, kind of two, tech paths for toss because no one has tried anything else. People only use void rays in small numbers earlyish game, carriers are never used, phoenix's are used only when one needs to counter air, and DTs are hardly used.
Yes I understand there are reasons for not using them, but it's arrogant to say,"I can NEVER use those units." Wait for new strategies, or make your own.
As for dependency on FF early game, I do think that is a problem.
i really, really dislike people saying pros don't try new things. the same was said about zerg when their early game was in a miserable state. from what i've seen, especially from dimaga in the beta, they try new shit all the time when they are having problems, just maybe not in tournaments where cash and such is on the line.
there's a difference between what you see in tournaments and what people try in their games as a whole. i've seen socke use carriers, incontrol uses DTs, and inca use DTs in tournaments, so pro players definitely know how to do nonstandard builds and use lesser seen units via practice. the question isn't "are people exploring other options?" it's "do top protoss players feel nonstandard builds/units will only work against them at a tournament level?"
|
On November 17 2010 05:00 McMonty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 04:41 Moragon wrote: Update: In NA top 200 last week I reported 51 protoss, this week the new number is 45. Thats 22.5% folks. What?? Dropped 6 P in just one week? Whats happening to Protoss? They are getting crushed... Its like a wave of failure all across the board. 22% Top200 18% GSL participation all of that despite 34% of diamond being Protoss! There seems to be a huge divide between high level diamond balance and mid to low level diamond balance. I wonder what causes that?
I hope I dont get misinterpreted here, but i think in the lower than some amounts of points diamond, protoss is way too forgiving ... while in something like 2k + diamond it starts not being ....
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
To make ground units useful, you HAVE to upgrade them, or you will quickly fall behind to Z or T (attack for Z, armor for T).
Switching to carriers or void rays requires such a huge time/currency investment (both in tech buildings and upgrades) that it will either a) severely hamper your early game or b) make them useless for quite a while when you first get them.
It's a similar sort of thing to getting HT's imo. It just takes so long to get the citadel + templar archives + researches. It's a popular complaint that transitioning to HT's is so difficult; how's that any different from stargate units? In fact, with HT's at least you already have the gateways.
|
On November 17 2010 02:25 Jacobs Ladder wrote:Oh wow, I just don't agree with you on anything. XD Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 01:44 Severus_ wrote: I think tosses are doing bad in GSL because there is no one good compere to other guys.Zerg has Idra,FD,Dimaga,Ret some other epic Koreans.Terran has Optimus,BoxeR,NaDa,SeleCT,Jinro,Loner and what does protoss has? NEXGenius,WhiteRa and some #14~60 ladder players who ether are 1.cheesy - Kiwikaki,Nazgul,Tyler 2.standard playing - Socke and the other euro guys I'm not saying this guys are bad overall just not good as the other pros.The other reason i think toss is failing because toss is the easiest race to be good at and no one is thinking outside the box.For tosses there is no one to make the builds to make the highlights and make people say "oh i want to be like that guy" and encourage people to think of new builds and new strats...anyway that is only my opinion and i hope more tosses to qualify for the next GSL. 1. I maintain that Tyler has been playing with a lot of all-ins because he sees that as the best chance of winning. His macro was amazing in BW, and I'm sure he could easily macro as well as almost anyone in SCII. He does hard two base all ins because they work. You say no one is thinking outside the box, what do you suggest? Its not like T or Z are doing anything too amazingly different from beta even. Sure, they've refined, but they haven't really CHANGED that much. The problem in my eyes is the fragility of protoss. This isn't necissarily a balance issue, but rather something that P players must be very aware of. If they lose a lot of workers, there is likely no recovery. If they miss key force fields, same thing. If they mess up positioning on one fight, same thing. When everything goes right, toss is terrifying, its when little things go wrong that they seem to fold like a wet napkin.
Regarding the bolded part, this is quite simply not accurate. Zealots have the highest health per resource of any unit except for interceptors. Stalkers have the fifth highest, after roaches, zerglings, and Marauders. Note also that both have 1 point of armor and access to guardian shield from the sentry.
You can say gateway units aren't "good" qualitatively for a number of reasons (range/speed on zealots being the key one) - but the idea that they don't have enough health or armor is silly.
|
On November 17 2010 04:39 Firebolt145 wrote: Pretty sure all units have the same warpgate cooldown. This comes up EVERY conversation about warpgate cooldowns. I'm going to try not to pick on any one person, because this misconception is REALLY common. In fact, it's probably the reason why Protoss sucks so much right now; nobody knows how warpgates work.
Look it up, or try it in the unit tester. Each unit takes 5 seconds to warp in, and then after that, the warpgate cools down for a time that is 10 seconds shorter than the build time out of an unmorphed gateway. HTs, for instance have a 45 game-time second cooldown, Zealots are 28 seconds. They have 55-second and 38-second build times out of gateways. Warpgates are 5 seconds faster when you factor in the 5-second warp in time.
IMO, increasing the warp-gate morph time or similar would be very bad. You usually only have a couple units before you morph warp-gates, and that would create a big dangerous window where you'd be almost defenseless against rushes.
|
On November 17 2010 05:20 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 02:25 Jacobs Ladder wrote:Oh wow, I just don't agree with you on anything. XD On November 17 2010 01:44 Severus_ wrote: I think tosses are doing bad in GSL because there is no one good compere to other guys.Zerg has Idra,FD,Dimaga,Ret some other epic Koreans.Terran has Optimus,BoxeR,NaDa,SeleCT,Jinro,Loner and what does protoss has? NEXGenius,WhiteRa and some #14~60 ladder players who ether are 1.cheesy - Kiwikaki,Nazgul,Tyler 2.standard playing - Socke and the other euro guys I'm not saying this guys are bad overall just not good as the other pros.The other reason i think toss is failing because toss is the easiest race to be good at and no one is thinking outside the box.For tosses there is no one to make the builds to make the highlights and make people say "oh i want to be like that guy" and encourage people to think of new builds and new strats...anyway that is only my opinion and i hope more tosses to qualify for the next GSL. 1. I maintain that Tyler has been playing with a lot of all-ins because he sees that as the best chance of winning. His macro was amazing in BW, and I'm sure he could easily macro as well as almost anyone in SCII. He does hard two base all ins because they work. You say no one is thinking outside the box, what do you suggest? Its not like T or Z are doing anything too amazingly different from beta even. Sure, they've refined, but they haven't really CHANGED that much. The problem in my eyes is the fragility of protoss. This isn't necissarily a balance issue, but rather something that P players must be very aware of. If they lose a lot of workers, there is likely no recovery. If they miss key force fields, same thing. If they mess up positioning on one fight, same thing. When everything goes right, toss is terrifying, its when little things go wrong that they seem to fold like a wet napkin. Regarding the bolded part, this is quite simply not accurate. Zealots have the highest health per resource of any unit except for interceptors. Stalkers have the fifth highest, after roaches, zerglings, and Marauders. Note also that both have 1 point of armor and access to guardian shield from the sentry. You can say gateway units aren't "good" qualitatively for a number of reasons (range/speed on zealots being the key one) - but the idea that they don't have enough health or armor is silly.
Re read the post please, he didn't mean the fragility of protoss units, but the fragility of protoss as a race. wtf do you want to do with a 100000 hp zealot if it gets kited to death because you missed 1 forcefield?
|
On November 17 2010 04:15 mols0n wrote:Its cool bro. The thing is if they balance it for just the top lets say 200 players, thats SUCH a small minority. Like .1% of all players playing maybe? Just a guess. They have to think the big picture as well. Imo I think toss is too strong late game vs T and too weak early. The easy solution is to just say nerf HT and Collosi and buff warpgate units. But then the question becomes will that make 4 gate rushes too strong? And what about zerg. Zerg has late game advantage over toss so wouldn't that just make toss lategame worse? So its a tricky issue
If they balance for the top 1% then when you get better you will do better. If they balance for everyone else then you cannot get better. It doesn't matter how good you are, you will get 50% of wins anyway, so casual people will be matched with people they can have fun games with even if the game is imbalanced for their level. I don't see what the concern is? It's just that blizz will have to keep track of MMR per race instead of just sticking their head in the sand and pretending the races are balanced at all skill levels when they are clearly not. Its obvious that one person can be better at terran than they are at zerg or whatever. Even if the races were perfectly balanced.
As far as buffing toss early game....
If you buff gateway units but nerf warpgate then protoss won't really be better early game. But I don't think gateway units + warpgate have a problem early game. It's midgame and lategame that they aren't good in. But, you can't balance them with upgrades off the forge, because its soooo fast to get +1 attack or +1 armor and the upgrades are linear. So protoss units get balanced assuming they have some upgrades early game and all upgrades midgame and then late game there are no upgrades left... and they sacrificed their economy pretty hard using all those chronoboosts on upgrades.
So instead of getting upgrades we get a new unit, Templar, but now all the other gateway units are useless and they need to safely army trade with our opponent. Too bad they aren't even good as meatshields at this point. We are behind economically so Templar get balanced to hold off a superior force which makes them look OP, since they know they have an advantage yet can't exploit claim victory, yet if the Protoss managed to do some damage midgame and come into the late game even, they are actually ahead, both of which look OP.
So gateway is kind of balanced but it obviously needs some tweaking. The problem is you can't just adjust damage/health values. There are some creative solutions but they are pretty major may have to wait until an expansion.
The bigger note here is that toss would LOVE to replace some of their gateway units with T2 units, making late game army trading safer. But we really can't because of how reliant Protoss are on the Stalker.
What do you replace it with, Carriers? They actually lose in cost effectiveness to Stalkers DPS wise, are significantly less mobile, and have very effective counters.
Void Rays? Less health, less mobile, but still very situational, and not going to do the tanking job of the zealot. If you could've beat him while you were trading armies you should have, and after the nerf, they don't do enough damage to pin an army while you rebuild after an army trade. After all, you can't just warp stuff in when your whole point was getting rid of gateway units. 20 templar does not an army make.
Phoenix? The magic number is 8, you can get that in 2 minutes, what are you going to build for the other 20? Robo bay units can't shoot air, yet all but 1 can be shot by anti air, so it's not a solution.
So, if you can buff some of these Stargate units it might give the Protoss something to build midgame without buffing Gateway units, but the noobs in lower levels have too much trouble with that. Late game, you might be able to manage with HT, but you'll have to stop producing out of the Starport because it's also gas heavy. Zealot leg speed should be out now, but you still need an anti air unit. That's not dark templar...
So there's clearly this big hole for Protoss late-game anti air, that can be exploited with Battlecruisers and Corruptors. And useless gateway units that we can't buff and can't take the time to replace with better units, which only attack ground.
The only other option is to make the game imba for casual players.
Buffing the stalker health & damage, & sentry hallucination (if units didn't reduce attack priority of hallucinated units, it'd be viable all game long), making Charge castable from anywhere (but having the same range) and ignoring slow effects, and putting Warp Gate on the late on the tech tree would work. Blink Stalkers would be stronger, but all the races actually have pretty good counters to them. They come out a bit early for Zerg, though. So what we could do is put Warp Gate and Blink on the Dark Shrine. That still would be plenty early to do good harassment.
Dark Templar, on the other hand, come out too late. Reduce the Dark Shrine build cost and increase the build cost of Warp Gate. Having your first pair of Dark Templar NOT warp in, will balance this, while making them useful on the defense.
Archons are also too weak. A slight buff to damage might make them more viable as a early/midgame tech choice. (Keep in mind that getting a twilight council means one less unit producing structure than Robo/Stargate, and it also delays upgrades since you won't have the gas with this tech choice. So the cost of building a Twilight Council is higher than it would appear.)
Stargate: Buffs all around, to keep them at the same effectiveness/cost as gateway units, but for lower food cost. Except for the phoenix. It has a unique, exciting role.
Robo: Reduce Collosus damage. Stacking HT storm + Colossus for late game will be fine.
|
My totally reasonable guess which is that most or many of the better players from sc1 went with Zerg since they found it cool and wanted to have the kinds of macro games it offered.
Also to add to this many good players swiched from P and Z to T as they were a bit IMBA before and saw the new potential in the race and thus this added to the total number of good Terrans.
Protoss never had this fad with players just switching since they were so strong or to do 4-gate all day long, it worked in GSL 1 probably but now it's old news no players really are switching to the race in the top tier but rather switched from the race.
This has led to that a majority of the better players are Zerg or Terran and less so Protoss.
How insanely out of the air this might sound and however much Protoss blame balance I think this actually explains much of the divergence in the races.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On November 17 2010 05:20 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 02:25 Jacobs Ladder wrote:Oh wow, I just don't agree with you on anything. XD On November 17 2010 01:44 Severus_ wrote: I think tosses are doing bad in GSL because there is no one good compere to other guys.Zerg has Idra,FD,Dimaga,Ret some other epic Koreans.Terran has Optimus,BoxeR,NaDa,SeleCT,Jinro,Loner and what does protoss has? NEXGenius,WhiteRa and some #14~60 ladder players who ether are 1.cheesy - Kiwikaki,Nazgul,Tyler 2.standard playing - Socke and the other euro guys I'm not saying this guys are bad overall just not good as the other pros.The other reason i think toss is failing because toss is the easiest race to be good at and no one is thinking outside the box.For tosses there is no one to make the builds to make the highlights and make people say "oh i want to be like that guy" and encourage people to think of new builds and new strats...anyway that is only my opinion and i hope more tosses to qualify for the next GSL. 1. I maintain that Tyler has been playing with a lot of all-ins because he sees that as the best chance of winning. His macro was amazing in BW, and I'm sure he could easily macro as well as almost anyone in SCII. He does hard two base all ins because they work. You say no one is thinking outside the box, what do you suggest? Its not like T or Z are doing anything too amazingly different from beta even. Sure, they've refined, but they haven't really CHANGED that much. The problem in my eyes is the fragility of protoss. This isn't necissarily a balance issue, but rather something that P players must be very aware of. If they lose a lot of workers, there is likely no recovery. If they miss key force fields, same thing. If they mess up positioning on one fight, same thing. When everything goes right, toss is terrifying, its when little things go wrong that they seem to fold like a wet napkin. Regarding the bolded part, this is quite simply not accurate. Zealots have the highest health per resource of any unit except for interceptors. Stalkers have the fifth highest, after roaches, zerglings, and Marauders. Note also that both have 1 point of armor and access to guardian shield from the sentry. You can say gateway units aren't "good" qualitatively for a number of reasons (range/speed on zealots being the key one) - but the idea that they don't have enough health or armor is silly.
He (or she) doesn't mean that Protoss are fragile with regards to their health. Instead the poster you replied to meant that Protoss is a very unforgiving race if you make a mistake when the opponent doesn't. This was said by one of the TL guys at MLG Dallas (can't remember who exactly). If you place your force fields wrong you lose. If you don't kill the ghost fast enough you lose. If you time your attack wrong you lose. If you drop behind in economy you lose. Its just so hard for a Protoss to macro up an army after a trade and the positioning is so crucial that a single mistake can cost you a game even when the opponent makes a similar mistake. A supply block or mispositioned army for Protoss is worse than a supply block or mispositioned army for Terran or Zerg respectively.
|
On November 17 2010 05:20 Treehead wrote: You can say gateway units aren't "good" qualitatively for a number of reasons (range/speed on zealots being the key one) - but the idea that they don't have enough health or armor is silly.
Per unit, they are qualitatively the same, Per cost, they are quantitatively worse.
|
I am amused by how many people think Warp Gate has the same cooldown for all units. I've heard this misconception everywhere its weird lol.
On November 17 2010 05:05 ibreakurface wrote: There is only one, kind of two, tech paths for toss because no one has tried anything else. People only use void rays in small numbers earlyish game, carriers are never used, phoenix's are used only when one needs to counter air, and DTs are hardly used.
Yes I understand there are reasons for not using them, but it's arrogant to say,"I can NEVER use those units." Wait for new strategies, or make your own.
As for dependency on FF early game, I do think that is a problem. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on =( These pros like oGs and TSL train more than 8 hours a day and they have regular matches. Pretty sure that in their training time they have tried these "unique" things. I am not saying that Protoss has exhausted every possible avenue, it is just that there is this misconception about Protoss players being complacent because it is so easy to 4 gate or mass colossus when obviously players like Tester Huk Kiwi Nony Inca probably have been trying to invent new builds all the time.
|
One of the reasons Protoss is doing bad, I think, is air.
Here's my take on why Blizzard didn't nerf the Void Ray properly, and how it could be corrected.
A month ago, when patch 1.1.2 came out, a discussion popped on TL about the balance changes brought to the Void Ray, and the OP asked wether or not the unit had been overnerfed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=160785
I do not wish to tell here that the VR has been overnerfed. In fact, I think that Blizzard had to nerf the VR, just like they had to nerf the reaper: not only to balance the game at its higher levels of play, but also for the silver league and the team matches. The Void Ray has been rightfully nerfed, only, not in the way it should have been.
Since Protoss have had a whole month to adjust, and everybody's QQing anyway, I hope people won’t be too angry if I take the time to expose my views on this matter.
I) Introduction: the reasoning behind the balance change + Show Spoiler +Before 1.1.2, two or three VRs could melt a Command Center/Nexus/Hatchery in a matter of seconds if they weren’t handled swiftly, and basically wreak havoc in any enemy base if the welcome party wasn’t substantial enough, even more so when they were precharged on rocks or friendly units. It was a real problem for players of lower skills. The good maneuverability of the unit also made it possible to kite ground units (notably marines) quite well, at higher levels.
In order to fix this, Blizzard’s reasoning was pretty much straightforward: - Damage level 1 increased from 5 to 6 (+4 armored); - Damage level 2 decreased from 10 (+15 armored) to 8 (+8 armored); - Flux Vanes speed upgrade bonus decreased from 1.125 to 0.703.
II) Why the balance change isn’t sound + Show Spoiler +1) A Protoss doesn’t go air like a Terran goes air. The Terran needs medivacs (sometimes ravens) anyway; it’s only a question of time before he gets a starport, while the Protoss gets dropships and detection from the robotics facility. He doesn’t go air like a Zerg goes air either, since mutalisks are good in almost every circumstances: a safe bet. Thus, getting one or more stargates, as Protoss, is by comparison a risky decision. However, a risky decision must be adequately rewarded. In other words, it must represent a risk to your opponent, too. The first VR fitted this description: it was a high risk-reward unit. Which spelled, especially for newcomers, the word C-H-E-E-S-E. Blizzard got rid of that, but in doing so they also got rid of the high risk-reward value of the unit, therefore rendering it unappealing. As a matter of fact, a decent Terran or Zerg now doesn’t have to prepare in any special way for VRs. The normal amount of marines, vikings, queens, hydras or mutas entering in one’s standard build usually proves sufficient, unless you’re going for a totally all-inish build. Since Terran and Zerg opponents barely have to worry about VRs, not only does it make rushing towards VRs a bad option (compared, let’s say, to banshees), it also reduced the number of variables Terran and Zerg have to take into account, therefore making their standard builds even safer.
2) In mid and late game, pre-1.1.2 VRs were good enough to be an important part of your main army. Indeed, incorporating them in large groups of units almost always meant that, in big battles, a good portion of your VRs would have enough time to charge up; while this is still the case today, the fact is that charged-up VRs deal a ridiculously small amount of damage compared to what they used to do before. Let’s not forget that VRs were initially designed (so Blizzard said) to bring down capital ships and other massive units in those big battles. As they currently are, they hardly serve such a purpose.
III) A possible solution + Show Spoiler +To summaries, the question is: 1) How can we make the VR into a high risk-reward unit, while preventing it to become a cheesy unit? 2) How can we make the VR into a unit that can still be a part of a big army? To do so, we cannot close the gap between damage level 1 and damage level 2, as Blizzard tried to do, for the aforementioned reasons. Nevertheless, we can, and, in my opinion, we should rather focus on the type of damage dealt by the VRs. As I see it, VRs should deal close to no damage against everything that’s not armored, but a tremendous amount of damage to armored units. What would that do? First of all, early game, VRs wouldn’t be a death treat anymore: a handful of marines, a queen or two would be more than enough to repeal them. But that doesn’t mean that they would be ineffective. They would easily be able snipe an isolated supply depot, a spine crawler, a gas geyser, etc., but, unless the opponent is an utter newbie and/or left his base totally unattended, they wouldn’t be able to take on a command center or a hatch by itself. The VR would thus become the perfect building harassment unit in the early game, skirting an enemy base and waiting for the least occasion to do a hit and run on a tech lab, and somewhat pinning the Terran infantry, although much less than in its pre-1.1.2 form. And a pretty decent unit for mid-game pushes. It would also be a much more potent part of a big army, since the level 2 damage would not be as puny as it is now. It would still be able to bring down massive units, but would be much more easily countered by hydras, mutas, marines, sentries, phoenixes and such. VR + colossus or VR + carrier would probably become very powerful mixes. An example of what the VRs stats could become: + Show Spoiler + Patch Level 1 dmg Level 2 dmg 1.1.1 5 10 (+15 armored) 1.1.2 6 (+4 armored) 8 (+8 armored) 1.1.4 4 (+8 armored) 6 (+16 armored)
|
On November 17 2010 05:27 Yttrasil wrote: My totally reasonable guess which is that most or many of the better players from sc1 went with Zerg since they found it cool and wanted to have the kinds of macro games it offered.
Also to add to this many good players swiched from P and Z to T as they were a bit IMBA before and saw the new potential in the race and thus this added to the total number of good Terrans.
Protoss never had this fad with players just switching since they were so strong or to do 4-gate all day long, it worked in GSL 1 probably but now it's old news no players really are switching to the race in the top tier but rather switched from the race.
This has led to that a majority of the better players are Zerg or Terran and less so Protoss.
How insanely out of the air this might sound and however much Protoss blame balance I think this actually explains much of the divergence in the races. I was willing to buy that argument when the best of the best were beating Protoss, but now they can't even make a strong showing in the 64 "best" players right now. Not to mention constantly declining representation in the top 200.
People say that P is easiest to learn and hardest to master, I'd argue that it has a skill cieling and that the reason we're seeing so many gimmicky builds is because there's just no answer to "what should standard play be?"
Either someone needs to come around and bisu up SC2 or its just going to be downhill for P, but it's going to be much harder when all of the "op but balanced" elements of brood war have been given significant reductions in awesomeness in SC2, whether it's the time it takes to get out HTs, the fact that phoenixes diminish in effectiveness against mutas as numbers grow (instead of increasing in effectiveness like their counterparts did in BW), or the fact that stalkers do terrible damage with bad upgrades and maybe something about how watered down colossi are.
|
Summary of event that has been happening to protoss
1. Wrap gate mechanics regarded as too strong in beta 2. Wrap gate nerfed, revealing weakness of toss pre-tier 3 unit 3. Fear of any adjustment to the protoss gateway unit overpowering 4 wrap gate build 4. Underutilization of gateway, making wrap gate a mandatory research.
I purpose a very simple and elegant solution to adjust strength of gateway unit and 4 gate strength independently.
Approach 1:
1. Wrap gate cooler down and gateway cool down swap - This means wrap gate production will have a longer cool down, and you will have less units if you use wrap gate in the long run 2. Small buff to gateway units
Approach 2
1. An addition of 25 mineral premium on unit produced from wrap gate 2. Small buff to gateway units
|
On November 17 2010 05:14 chadissilent wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:00 McMonty wrote:On November 17 2010 04:41 Moragon wrote: Update: In NA top 200 last week I reported 51 protoss, this week the new number is 45. Thats 22.5% folks. What?? Dropped 6 P in just one week? Whats happening to Protoss? They are getting crushed... Its like a wave of failure all across the board. 22% Top200 18% GSL participation all of that despite 34% of diamond being Protoss! There seems to be a huge divide between high level diamond balance and mid to low level diamond balance. I wonder what causes that? I know two of the ones that droppd off the list (one was even ~100 last week) and the reason they dropped off the list is just due to sheer inactivity on the ladder. One has mostly been playing customs with our team and the other hasn't been online in about 6 or 7 days.
If the problem is inactivity, one would expect it to affect all races equally no?
|
On November 17 2010 05:35 Gegenschein wrote:One of the reasons Protoss is doing bad, I think, is air. + Show Spoiler +Here's my take on why Blizzard didn't nerf the Void Ray properly, and how it could be corrected. A month ago, when patch 1.1.2 came out, a discussion popped on TL about the balance changes brought to the Void Ray, and the OP asked wether or not the unit had been overnerfed: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=160785I do not wish to tell here that the VR has been overnerfed. In fact, I think that Blizzard had to nerf the VR, just like they had to nerf the reaper: not only to balance the game at its higher levels of play, but also for the silver league and the team matches. The Void Ray has been rightfully nerfed, only, not in the way it should have been. Since Protoss have had a whole month to adjust, and everybody's QQing anyway, I hope people won’t be too angry if I take the time to expose my views on this matter. I) Introduction: the reasoning behind the balance change + Show Spoiler +Before 1.1.2, two or three VRs could melt a Command Center/Nexus/Hatchery in a matter of seconds if they weren’t handled swiftly, and basically wreak havoc in any enemy base if the welcome party wasn’t substantial enough, even more so when they were precharged on rocks or friendly units. It was a real problem for players of lower skills. The good maneuverability of the unit also made it possible to kite ground units (notably marines) quite well, at higher levels.
In order to fix this, Blizzard’s reasoning was pretty much straightforward: - Damage level 1 increased from 5 to 6 (+4 armored); - Damage level 2 decreased from 10 (+15 armored) to 8 (+8 armored); - Flux Vanes speed upgrade bonus decreased from 1.125 to 0.703. II) Why the balance change isn’t sound + Show Spoiler +1) A Protoss doesn’t go air like a Terran goes air. The Terran needs medivacs (sometimes ravens) anyway; it’s only a question of time before he gets a starport, while the Protoss gets dropships and detection from the robotics facility. He doesn’t go air like a Zerg goes air either, since mutalisks are good in almost every circumstances: a safe bet. Thus, getting one or more stargates, as Protoss, is by comparison a risky decision. However, a risky decision must be adequately rewarded. In other words, it must represent a risk to your opponent, too. The first VR fitted this description: it was a high risk-reward unit. Which spelled, especially for newcomers, the word C-H-E-E-S-E. Blizzard got rid of that, but in doing so they also got rid of the high risk-reward value of the unit, therefore rendering it unappealing. As a matter of fact, a decent Terran or Zerg now doesn’t have to prepare in any special way for VRs. The normal amount of marines, vikings, queens, hydras or mutas entering in one’s standard build usually proves sufficient, unless you’re going for a totally all-inish build. Since Terran and Zerg opponents barely have to worry about VRs, not only does it make rushing towards VRs a bad option (compared, let’s say, to banshees), it also reduced the number of variables Terran and Zerg have to take into account, therefore making their standard builds even safer.
2) In mid and late game, pre-1.1.2 VRs were good enough to be an important part of your main army. Indeed, incorporating them in large groups of units almost always meant that, in big battles, a good portion of your VRs would have enough time to charge up; while this is still the case today, the fact is that charged-up VRs deal a ridiculously small amount of damage compared to what they used to do before. Let’s not forget that VRs were initially designed (so Blizzard said) to bring down capital ships and other massive units in those big battles. As they currently are, they hardly serve such a purpose. III) A possible solution + Show Spoiler +To summaries, the question is: 1) How can we make the VR into a high risk-reward unit, while preventing it to become a cheesy unit? 2) How can we make the VR into a unit that can still be a part of a big army? To do so, we cannot close the gap between damage level 1 and damage level 2, as Blizzard tried to do, for the aforementioned reasons. Nevertheless, we can, and, in my opinion, we should rather focus on the type of damage dealt by the VRs. As I see it, VRs should deal close to no damage against everything that’s not armored, but a tremendous amount of damage to armored units. What would that do? First of all, early game, VRs wouldn’t be a death treat anymore: a handful of marines, a queen or two would be more than enough to repeal them. But that doesn’t mean that they would be ineffective. They would easily be able snipe an isolated supply depot, a spine crawler, a gas geyser, etc., but, unless the opponent is an utter newbie and/or left his base totally unattended, they wouldn’t be able to take on a command center or a hatch by itself. The VR would thus become the perfect building harassment unit in the early game, skirting an enemy base and waiting for the least occasion to do a hit and run on a tech lab, and somewhat pinning the Terran infantry, although much less than in its pre-1.1.2 form. And a pretty decent unit for mid-game pushes. It would also be a much more potent part of a big army, since the level 2 damage would not be as puny as it is now. It would still be able to bring down massive units, but would be much more easily countered by hydras, mutas, marines, sentries, phoenixes and such. VR + colossus or VR + carrier would probably become very powerful mixes. An example of what the VRs stats could become: + Show Spoiler + Patch Level 1 dmg Level 2 dmg 1.1.1 5 10 (+15 armored) 1.1.2 6 (+4 armored) 8 (+8 armored) 1.1.4 4 (+8 armored) 6 (+16 armored)
I would rather see them fix it by lowering the cost and slightly lowering the build time.
250/150 with 60 second build time was warranted for the strength of the unit before, however now that it's damage has been nerfed into oblivion (to the point where it nearly loses to a queen 1v1) it needs to be a cheaper unit with the ability to mass it. In my opinion this would give protoss the harassment options that we severely lack at the moment, while also allowing us to venture down more than 1 tech tree.
I would like to see:
175/100 with a 50 second build time which in the units current form would be a lot more fitting. If we could somehow move the speed upgrade to be accessible earlier (flux vanes requiring a fleet beacon is just stupid as hell), maybe move this to core?
|
On November 17 2010 05:14 taintmachine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 05:05 ibreakurface wrote: There is only one, kind of two, tech paths for toss because no one has tried anything else. People only use void rays in small numbers earlyish game, carriers are never used, phoenix's are used only when one needs to counter air, and DTs are hardly used.
Yes I understand there are reasons for not using them, but it's arrogant to say,"I can NEVER use those units." Wait for new strategies, or make your own.
As for dependency on FF early game, I do think that is a problem. i really, really dislike people saying pros don't try new things. the same was said about zerg when their early game was in a miserable state. from what i've seen, especially from dimaga in the beta, they try new shit all the time when they are having problems, just maybe not in tournaments where cash and such is on the line. there's a difference between what you see in tournaments and what people try in their games as a whole. i've seen socke use carriers, incontrol uses DTs, and inca use DTs in tournaments, so pro players definitely know how to do nonstandard builds and use lesser seen units via practice. the question isn't "are people exploring other options?" it's "do top protoss players feel nonstandard builds/units will only work against them at a tournament level?" I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.
I'm not talking about pros really, at a pro level things develop slowly generally, I don't expect them to suddenly make carriers and motherships. But on the ladder, we don't play nearly as well as them, and we can afford to try new tech paths. People always watch the pros and imitate, I would rather see people try and create their own ideas based on what they are usually up against.
|
It's not a skill cap or number of good players thing, or the fact that tech switches are more rigid. It's the fact that Terran/Zerg options are just better. Take the cloak opener for P and T. Twilight/Shrine vs. Starport/Techlab. Cloaked flying unit that yields map control and easy Probe harass even with detection and antiair, even if that fails, the same building can simultaneously produce a Raven for detection and offense, or Medivacs to complement the bio, or Vikings to counter any air response. Dark Shrine fails and 250+ gas down the drain, nothing else to be gained from it.
When Blizzard designed Protoss they must've said to themselves "Wow this sounds overpowered, we should nerf X to compensate." When Blizzard designed Terran they must've said "Wow this sounds overpowered, whatever, let's get lunch."
|
On November 17 2010 05:44 Protoss_Carrier wrote: Summary of event that has been happening to protoss
1. Wrap gate mechanics regarded as too strong in beta 2. Wrap gate nerfed, revealing weakness of toss pre-tier 3 unit 3. Fear of any adjustment to the protoss gateway unit overpowering 4 wrap gate build 4. Underutilization of gateway, making wrap gate a mandatory research.
I purpose a very simple and elegant solution to adjust strength of gateway unit and 4 gate strength independently.
Approach 1:
1. Wrap gate cooler down and gateway cool down swap - This means wrap gate production will have a longer cool down, and you will have less units if you use wrap gate in the long run 2. Small buff to gateway units
Approach 2
1. An addition of 25 mineral premium on unit produced from wrap gate 2. Small buff to gateway units
Well, actually this would only increase the power of a pure 4-gate push w/o proxy pylon. I doubt it would really solve the 4-gate problem...
|
|
|
|