EPTThis wave of Protoss failure is going on across everywhere.. Sad to see this race going down so quickly.
[D] Why is protoss doing so bad in the GSL? - Page 103
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
jdreamer
Australia296 Posts
This wave of Protoss failure is going on across everywhere.. Sad to see this race going down so quickly. | ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
I agree completely, except on your suggestion of the VR stats. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On November 17 2010 04:22 mols0n wrote: Does anyone have the number of protoss to actually play? like is it 12 out of 30? 12 out of 40? According to http://www.gomtv.net/news/265/0 protoss made up 33% of all people trying to qualfiy. I think a total of about 1500 (?) registered for GSL3 so 12 out of 500. They make about 18% in the RO64. For Zerg: 27 out of 360 (24%). 42% in the RO64. For Terran: 24 out of 585 (39%). 37% in the RO64. | ||
|
Phrencys
Canada270 Posts
The only tech tree that could use improvement IMO is the Stargate one. If there was only one Protoss unit I'd like to see improved, it's the Phoenix. For instance, it would be cool (and make sense) if Graviton Beam worked on air units. This way Phoenixes could be used to protect Colossi from Vikings/Corruptors/VRs. While they deal suboptimal damage vs armored units, freezing them in place would negate their damage as well as allow stalkers to pick them off. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13379 Posts
| ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:06 Phrencys wrote: I don't think Protoss is fundamentally weak. The only tech tree that could use improvement IMO is the Stargate one. If there was only one Protoss unit I'd like to see improved, it's the Phoenix. For instance, it would be cool (and make sense) if Graviton Beam worked on air units. This way Phoenixes could be used to protect Colossi from Vikings/Corruptors/VRs. While they deal suboptimal damage vs armored units, freezing them in place would negate their damage as well as allow stalkers to pick them off. That is actually a really really interesting idea. I wonder how it would affect Phoenix vs Muta though. Perhaps not too badly, as phoenixes often have to use their mobility to win vs mutas, and Graviton Beam would remove that advantage. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:06 Phrencys wrote: I don't think Protoss is fundamentally weak. The only tech tree that could use improvement IMO is the Stargate one. If there was only one Protoss unit I'd like to see improved, it's the Phoenix. For instance, it would be cool (and make sense) if Graviton Beam worked on air units. This way Phoenixes could be used to protect Colossi from Vikings/Corruptors/VRs. While they deal suboptimal damage vs armored units, freezing them in place would negate their damage as well as allow stalkers to pick them off. what would that do? flip it upside down so that the air units would shoot at its long feet? | ||
|
Bungle
Canada59 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:11 Sideburn wrote: That is actually a really really interesting idea. I wonder how it would affect Phoenix vs Muta though. Perhaps not too badly, as phoenixes often have to use their mobility to win vs mutas, and Graviton Beam would remove that advantage. This would imply you have a higher number of phoenixes to their muta... Not a likely situation when playing a macro'ing zerg. | ||
|
CaptainFwiffo
United States576 Posts
| ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
 I think it would be too good if used on muta. if you make the Zerg player lose 3 muta each time he attacks, that is way too powerful. The idea is that muta take damage but don't die. Losing even 1 muta each poke would be unacceptable. | ||
|
PuercoPop
Peru277 Posts
Although from my perspective, on of the fundamental problems Protoss have is the stalker's bang per buck. It really should have higher damage. As a Protoss (not even a very good one, just platinum) I have a really tough time putting on pressure à la Stork. So I feel relegated to a passive style. When I go with 1 Zealot and 1-2 Stalkers to try to pressure T or Z have very little trouble defending from it. | ||
|
pencilcase
United States330 Posts
Stalker Range +1!! Honestly, I feel this could help P in the early game a lot by letting P outrange Marauders that cause a lot of trouble, and gives them that extra bonus against roaches (whose range was somewhat questionably increased). This change is also better for skilled players as just A-moving won't help you out that much, but kiting becomes a lot better. Blink research cost and time may need to be increased to prevent all-ins. To compensate, siege tank damage should be increased to 60 vs armored like previously. This will help a lot against P late game, and also against roaches. I feel that P is pretty closed to balanced, but just suffers a little bit at high levels of play. I feel that these somewhat minor changes may be sufficient to make the game much more balanced. | ||
|
Olmer
Poland320 Posts
It's not that Protoss is weak against marine/marauders - I have seen games of top players, where both armies clashed at the beginning of mid-game, and Protoss obliterated m&m ball hardly losing anything. The problem was, that next Terran ball was ready in the base, while energy on sentries was depleted, shields were depleted and in general army of protoss was not ready for another big engagement. Same can be said about vikings - they may have big range, but they are fragile and slow. They aren't exactly imbalanced, it's just that their numbers grow too fast. Those three units have one important thing in common - they are not gas intensive. It's the MULE that allows such insane numbers of those. If you assume, that MULE is the cause of possible imbalancement, many things start to make sense - for example, the insane advantage, that Terran gets, when he manages to get his first expansion earlier (even if it's only one minute earlier), than Protoss, can be easily explained by the effectiveness of the MULE. However, there was one thing that wasn't right. If the MULE is so imbalanced, why isn't it visible in TvZ? Losing your whole army in TvZ always seems waaaay more critical, than in TvP. Why is it so? I did not know, so I dropped the subject and started looking elsewhere. But now I kind of have an asnwer - I'm not entirely confident about it, but since I've posted so much already, here it is. Units, that are light on gas, seem to be much less effective against the Zerg. Marines of course are effective, but they are owned HARD by banelings. Marauders aren't that much better (and are more expensive!) than roaches and vikings aren't essential at all. Besides Terran seems to need more gas intensive units in TvZ, decreasing the impact of MULEs even further. Ultimately, the conclusion is the same as usual - Protoss needs better ways of dealing with infantry/vikings. But the reason is different. It's not that gateway units are too fragile, or just straight bad - they definitely CAN deal with infantry. But they can't deal with Terran's ability to constantly make new armies. That's also why 4 gate is strong - it comes before MULEs change the course of the game. It lets you fight Terran bio, when their numbers are natural, not boosted via free minerals. Of course doing something with the MULE is out of discussion. Possible changes can't increase the effectiveness of 4 gate, can't change PvZ dramatically and shouldn't boost PvT late game. Seems tough. What I think could be done includes: - Making guardian shield add 3 armor instead of 2 (anti-marine change). I don't find it as game-breaking as most people. Sentry can easily be sniped if it causes too much problem. - Making charge cheaper/faster (anti-marine and anti-marauder). - Increasing Marauder cost to 50 gas. | ||
|
CaptainFwiffo
United States576 Posts
| ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:25 PuercoPop wrote: How do people feel about giving Sentries detector status? Or maybe hallucinated obs detector status? I think hallucinated obs detectors would provide a good middle ground vs Banshee. Sentries are weak enough to be sniped if the opponent wants to eliminate detection. And Hallucination is a 100/100 research so its not cheap. It would free up Protoss Tech Choices in the Terran match-up Although from my perspective, on of the fundamental problems Protoss have is the stalker's bang per buck. It really should have higher damage. As a Protoss (not even a very good one, just platinum) I have a really tough time putting on pressure à la Stork. So I feel relegated to a passive style. When I go with 1 Zealot and 1-2 Stalkers to try to pressure T or Z have very little trouble defending from it. I don't think it's unreasonable for cloaked units to force a Protoss player to build a robo fac soley for detectors. I do think that observers shouldn't be the only form of scouting however. You should only be forced to get an observer if he's actually getting cloaked units. The hallucinated phoenix is enough to scout, the problem is that it is too expensive. I like the suggestion of swapping forcefield and hallucination best (eg, forcefield has to be researched, not hallucination). But reducing the hallucination research cost & energy cost would be fine. You could also do something funky, like have it require a twilight council instead of a research item. | ||
|
JJEOS
United States127 Posts
On November 17 2010 00:44 Demarini wrote: This just straight up makes no sense. If the three best Protoss in the world are losing to like, the 15th best Zerg or Terran or something, then something is broken within the race. If you say it's lack of good players, there is that possibility, but thenyou have to ask why is that. Well Protoss isn't as appealing to high level players because they are weaker than the other two races. You honestly think the game is so unbalanced that the likes of Tester & SangHo can't qualify? You people are retarded. | ||
|
sihyunie
United States108 Posts
Protoss in BW days has been the weakest race for over 7 years, and it wasn't until Stork dominated terran matchup with reaver/carrier, and Bisu dominated zerg matchup with corsair/dt that protoss saw some light, and even then you can make an argument that it was very map dependent. So called "6 dragons" of protoss era didn't even last that long thanks to Jaedong and Flash. I believed for many years that the reason is in the tech tree of race and the inflexibility that is inherent within it. While terran and zerg has more or less linear tech tree with sideway branches, protoss tech tree goes into three distinct paths right after cybernetics core. Usually protoss heavily invests into one of the three trees and dabble a little onto another with resources, but you rarely saw toss go into all three trees unless it was in very late game. In sc2, counter units are much stronger than it is in bw. While the main composition of your army will be well rounded units (marines, mutas, and stalkers), you need key support units to counter the opponent main army, and units to counter that counter etc. Once a big fight happens, you need to be able to pump out counter units of the opponent's remaining army. Zerg has the easiest time doing this and terran has much easier time than in bw thanks to ability to change addons. Protoss on the other hand has arguably harder time than in bw because of sheer gas cost of their counter units and tech to get them, especially templar tech. I think TvP is particularly worse in this regard than ZvP. Terran has clear counter units to protoss army and doesn't really need a tech switch to get those. You already have starport with reactor to get vikings (granted you will have to adjust viking to medivac ratio well) to counter colo tech, you just have to build ghost academy to counter templar tech, and as for starport tech... terran better have some racks with reactors. One of the best feature about starcraft is that all three races actually feel different and tech tree plays a big role in that. I'm not suggesting that we change protoss tech tree, but I think given the gas burden of protoss tech, some cost reduction to make them a little more flexible would make things much easier. P.S. one thing i notice is how seldom I see ghost in TvP on NA server. May be my rating is just too low, but I really only see them when I play practice games with 2200+ friends. Even at blizzcon, notably the grandfinal between genius and loner, it seemed like loner just spammed mara with some medivac/viking. I can't remember seeing a single ghost. Ghost EMP is one of the most talked about imbalanced skill, along with forcefield, on korean forums, and I get the sense that NA/EU forums don't share the same concern. | ||
|
aruno222
New Zealand20 Posts
In TvP. A early void ray was a toss up. The key would be to hide the tech. And fly in when the T was just moving out. Snipe a building or scvs then shoot back. Essentially causing a pin effect of making the T player feel nerves about moving out, and thus play defensively. The annoying thing is, I feel like leading up to this Nerf/change. That all race players were already adapting well to the void ray and countering more efficiently. Since the Nerf/change it's like Void rays are actually better suited to countering things like 7 roach rush and delayed marauder rushes. But beyond that since they now take 2x longer to kill buildings, they are essentially too high a risk for potential benefit cost. Maybe I am the noob and need a new way to integrate them into my army. But right now I feel other units do a better job than them for a cheap price. Want to snipe a random building or instil fear/pin like tactics? DT harrass|contains and Warp Prism Drops are better and have better transitions. GG that's how I Feel. | ||
|
CaptainFwiffo
United States576 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:37 GoldenH wrote:I like the suggestion of swapping forcefield and hallucination best (eg, forcefield has to be researched, not hallucination). There's a lot of early pushes that can only be just survived with a forcefield. If you had to research it, it would be too easy to die early. | ||
|
JJEOS
United States127 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:28 Olmer wrote: To be honest, I have always had a strong impression, that the thing that owns Protoss the most, is the MULE (just for the record, I don't think there is any significant imbalance in PvZ). It's not that Protoss is weak against marine/marauders - I have seen games of top players, where both armies clashed at the beginning of mid-game, and Protoss obliterated m&m ball hardly losing anything. The problem was, that next Terran ball was ready in the base, while energy on sentries was depleted, shields were depleted and in general army of protoss was not ready for another big engagement. Same can be said about vikings - they may have big range, but they are fragile and slow. They aren't exactly imbalanced, it's just that their numbers grow too fast. Those three units have one important thing in common - they are not gas intensive. It's the MULE that allows such insane numbers of those. If you assume, that MULE is the cause of possible imbalancement, many things start to make sense - for example, the insane advantage, that Terran gets, when he manages to get his first expansion earlier (even if it's only one minute earlier), than Protoss, can be easily explained by the effectiveness of the MULE. However, there was one thing that wasn't right. If the MULE is so imbalanced, why isn't it visible in TvZ? Losing your whole army in TvZ always seems waaaay more critical, than in TvP. Why is it so? I did not know, so I dropped the subject and started looking elsewhere. But now I kind of have an asnwer - I'm not entirely confident about it, but since I've posted so much already, here it is. Units, that are light on gas, seem to be much less effective against the Zerg. Marines of course are effective, but they are owned HARD by banelings. Marauders aren't that much better (and are more expensive!) than roaches and vikings aren't essential at all. Besides Terran seems to need more gas intensive units in TvZ, decreasing the impact of MULEs even further. Ultimately, the conclusion is the same as usual - Protoss needs better ways of dealing with infantry/vikings. But the reason is different. It's not that gateway units are too fragile, or just straight bad - they definitely CAN deal with infantry. But they can't deal with Terran's ability to constantly make new armies. That's also why 4 gate is strong - it comes before MULEs change the course of the game. It lets you fight Terran bio, when their numbers are natural, not boosted via free minerals. Of course doing something with the MULE is out of discussion. Possible changes can't increase the effectiveness of 4 gate, can't change PvZ dramatically and shouldn't boost PvT late game. Seems tough. What I think could be done includes: - Making guardian shield add 3 armor instead of 2 (anti-marine change). I don't find it as game-breaking as most people. Sentry can easily be sniped if it causes too much problem. - Making charge cheaper/faster (anti-marine and anti-marauder). - Increasing Marauder cost to 50 gas. You are an idiot. User was warned for this and other posts | ||
| ||
