[D] Why is protoss doing so bad in the GSL? - Page 105

On November 17 2010 07:18 drewbie.root wrote:
are you guys kidding observers are imbalanced, make it so they need an observatory before they can be built from the robo like in brood war pls

4. Yeah, Genius won Blizzcon. Who else was a finalist in Blizzcon? Loner. Who didn't even qualify for this GSL. Who lost in the Round of 8? Genius, the Blizzcon champion. Who was eliminated in R32 in GSL 1 and R16 in GSL 2? IdrA, who easily wins plenty of NA tournaments. Who was a former MLG champion who didn't even qualify for GSL 3? HuK, that's who. The GSL is clearly THE tournament to look at if you want to see players of the utmost highest caliber play against each other, and I believe the consistently weak performances of Protoss do indicate problems at the very top level - if you don't think the game should be balanced around the tip-top level, then you clearly have no idea about the actual concept of game balance.

On November 17 2010 06:48 ZerOfy wrote:
Why not have the observer be built from the cybo core?

On November 17 2010 07:26 TheRealPaciFist wrote:


I'm not even protoss main (I random now) but I would love this change! It would mean I could scout well without having to feel like I have to get robo tech

On November 17 2010 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:


Uhm... so because players win some tournaments and lose others, that means the GSL is the only thing that matters??? I mean, this argument is literally saying that the only tournament anyone should ever look at is the GSL. Nothing else matters. This is absurd.

Look, I'm not saying protoss isn't underpowered. But sheesh, could people please bring some real argument or discussion to the table? This claims are too hyperbolic to have a reasonable discussion.

I do think the game needs to settle a bit after terran was hit the supply depot thing. That last patch was pretty dramatic honestly. Perhaps protoss players are playing like terran players can still 10rax?

On November 17 2010 07:19 HolyArrow wrote:
I love hearing the responses, 1: "Just wait, the game is still young", 2: "Protoss players just need to try different things, their race has the most unexplored potential", 3: "The GSL performances mean nothing, it's a tiny sample pool", or 4: "Protoss does well in other tournaments, can't just look at the GSL".

People have been saying this since GSL 1, and I honestly think anyone still saying such things at this point are obviously non-Protoss players who want easy wins for as long as possible by throwing up a thin veil of phony balance caution.

1. How long should we have to wait? Another GSL has passed, and the third is about to start, with Protoss looking weaker than ever. At what point will you actually go, "Ok, I guess Protoss really does have some big problems, and they need a buff"? GSL 4? 5? 6? You can keep up with the "Game is young" excuse for an arbitrarily long time, since it's so relative and ambiguous as to what point a game is no longer "young".

2. This one is just insulting to pro Protoss players everywhere. You think you know their race better than they do? You think they haven't tried different things? They're not stubborn idiots going Gateway/Robo every game and then QQ-ing about Protoss UP. I'd like to think that they'd be good enough to practice a ton and experiment with their race, and it's clearly not producing anything fruitful.

3. Well, it's been 2 GSL performances so far, and a third is just beginning, with a mere 12 Protoss players out of 64. A tiny sample pool, yes, but it's a pool of easily the very BEST players in the world. I think at this point that means something.

4. Yeah, Genius won Blizzcon. Who else was a finalist in Blizzcon? Loner. Who didn't even qualify for this GSL. Who lost in the Round of 8? Genius, the Blizzcon champion. Who was eliminated in R32 in GSL 1 and R16 in GSL 2? IdrA, who easily wins plenty of NA tournaments. Who was a former MLG champion who didn't even qualify for GSL 3? HuK, that's who. The GSL is clearly THE tournament to look at if you want to see players of the utmost highest caliber play against each other, and I believe the consistently weak performances of Protoss do indicate problems at the very top level - if you don't think the game should be balanced around the tip-top level, then you clearly have no idea about the actual concept of game balance.

Why not have the observer be built from the cybo core?

On November 17 2010 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:


Uhm... so because players win some tournaments and lose others, that means the GSL is the only thing that matters??? I mean, this argument is literally saying that the only tournament anyone should ever look at is the GSL. Nothing else matters. This is absurd.

Look, I'm not saying protoss isn't underpowered. But sheesh, could people please bring some real argument or discussion to the table? This claims are too hyperbolic to have a reasonable discussion.

On November 17 2010 07:29 DoubleReed wrote:


Hallucination? Phoenixes? Probes??

You can scout without an observer...

On November 17 2010 07:18 DoubleReed wrote:


The fact of protoss being nerfed in every patch has nothing to do with protoss being underpowered or overpowered right now. Bringing this up only makes you sound like a whiney "Buff my race!!!" person like you find on the Bnet Forums.

Honestly, not qualifying two times is not a streak. And really, I had no idea that Phoenixes were only good at fighting mutas. I could have sworn they could do other things as well... /sarcasm

There may be legitimate reasons why protoss is underpowered, so why is everyone giving such vague (or weird) answers here? Can anyone say why, specifically, they think protoss is underpowered?

On November 17 2010 06:37 GoldenH wrote:


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.

On November 17 2010 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:


Uhm... so because players win some tournaments and lose others, that means the GSL is the only thing that matters??? I mean, this argument is literally saying that the only tournament anyone should ever look at is the GSL. Nothing else matters. This is absurd.

Look, I'm not saying protoss isn't underpowered. But sheesh, could people please bring some real argument or discussion to the table? This claims are too hyperbolic to have a reasonable discussion.

I do think the game needs to settle a bit after terran was hit the supply depot thing. That last patch was pretty dramatic honestly. Perhaps protoss players are playing like terran players can still 10rax?

On November 17 2010 07:34 Moragon wrote:


That would be completely awesome, all of a sudden all of the tech paths would be open with protoss being able to tech to counter. See spire/tech lab rax/factory? Tech stargate. See reactor rax/hydra/roach? Tech robo. See early expo/drop play/no detection? Tech twilight. With observer at cybernetics you would finally be able to see the creativity from protoss players that you've been imploring them to use.

On November 17 2010 07:19 HolyArrow wrote:
I love hearing the responses, 1: "Just wait, the game is still young", 2: "Protoss players just need to try different things, their race has the most unexplored potential", 3: "The GSL performances mean nothing, it's a tiny sample pool", or 4: "Protoss does well in other tournaments, can't just look at the GSL".

People have been saying this since GSL 1, and I honestly think anyone still saying such things at this point are obviously non-Protoss players who want easy wins for as long as possible by throwing up a thin veil of phony balance caution.

On November 17 2010 07:42 Durp wrote:


Specifically, I believe Protoss to be underpowered due to the flow of the game.

In vT, the cost-ineffective nature of gateway units vs barracks units requires a Protoss player to scout with an obs before choosing tech path. The sheer reactionary nature that is required, combined with Terran mobility and the ability to amass a viable late game army from early tech forces Protoss predictability. If only a couple defined, reliable builds can consistently keep you safe, then you are almost automatically forced into them. When these builds are seen across the board of the Protoss race, that is the problem. When Protoss only have so many options, it makes creating strategies to trounce those few safe Protoss builds very easy.

In vZ, the slower zealot nerf, in combination with the voidray nerf (by nerf, I solely mean the ability to auto-win games if unscouted), took away Protoss unpredictability. Before these patches, zerg needed to scout for 2 gateways/double early gas/gateway cybercore to have an idea of which opening Protoss would go- because they were so powerful. Zerg then Q.Qs, and these are nerfed. Were they OP? Maybe. But now, those two strategies are essentially null and void (unless your opponents fails at scouting). That, in combination with the roach range upgrade, forced Protoss to also require a robotics facility (unless going for some all-in blink stalker play TY Nazgul). Again, the predictability of Protoss is an obvious weakness. Mutalisks are so powerful against Protoss that a good zerg will contain the Protoss without the P following a safe response (HT usually). This allows zerg to both control the early-mid game, and also to know the end game tech-path of the Protoss.

PvP is a coinflip. I blame the colossus.

The problem is that Protoss has noticeably less varied early game, due to the natural short-handedness against the other races (Barracks units > Gateway units. early roaches > gateway units). With the early to mid game almost always predetermined due to required defense tech paths, the opportunity to vary your early game is gone.

Protoss USED to have multiple early game choices. 4gate, 2gate zealots (V zerg), void ray rushes, forge FE, etc. All of those early strats have received some sort of nerf since release except the 4gate (arguable also), and at the high levels, 4gating is just not viable.

The problem isn't the UP of Protoss, or the OP of other races. It's the fact that Protoss has an innate advantage over the other races in army potency (almost all Protoss units are more powerful than their late game alternatives for T and Z), and so all strategies that have abused this fact have been nerfed. The other races, now not behind from this, are showing that it was this overpowering nature of Protoss that kept the game balanced- the fact that a solid Protoss could end game in 7 is multiple ways kept other races on their toes.

The key, in my opinion, is to stop nerfing Protoss every time someone finds a new powerful opener that "can't be handled"

On November 17 2010 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:


No, right around the time the GSL 1 was starting many people were saying that they believed Protoss to be the strongest race.