EPT[D] Why is protoss doing so bad in the GSL? - Page 106
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOfy
United Kingdom405 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:44 positron. wrote: How about having a maphack for all Protoss to use? Terran needs to spend scan Zerg need to sac overlord and Protoss get 100/100 unlimited map hack? Whatever balance change you need is certainly not this. I am glad neither of you is on the balance team. Observers are map hacks now? | ||
|
PulseSUI
Switzerland305 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:29 DoubleReed wrote: Hallucination? if you go for Hallu pre-warpgate, you are delaying your warpgates wich can lead to problems in case of a early push. if you go for Hallu post warpgates, it is to late in case of a attack with cloacked units. if you want to scout with Hallus, you will also have to build several sentry extra, because the sentry energy is needed for FF and Shield, because of that, Hallu scouting is actualy more expensive then going for robo. On November 17 2010 07:29 DoubleReed wrote: Phoenixes? requires stargates -> you basicly choosen a techpath and still do not have detection. phoenix scouting is also very expensive, for a full view of a base, you will need at least one, possibly two phoenix and you are at risk of loosing them. On November 17 2010 07:29 DoubleReed wrote: Probes?? probes is early game scouting, once a few Marines, Zergling or Stalkers are out, probes will no longer be able to give you anything more then basic informations, finding tech with a probescout is rare. On November 17 2010 07:29 DoubleReed wrote: You can scout without an observer... yes, but no detection and in 2 out of 3 cases more expensive then Observers, and in the cheaper case, far inferior to observers. | ||
|
Darhaja
United States108 Posts
Basically protoss has to go down 1 path from start to finish of a game and if they mess up it can be huge, and honestly i do not know of THAT many strategies protoss really has that's really effective against all races. I dunno, I do not play protoss but from all of the games I've watched this is what I've gotten out of it. I do think that they need some sort of change that will make the race a little unpredictable and just better in BO3-7 situations. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:20 JJEOS wrote: In GSL2 Quals, Flint said he had studied the top players to beat them. Tester happened to be one of them, that's not imbalance that is Flint being a smart player. I wouldn't call that a fluke. This will keep happening. None of you were at GSL3 qualifiers, I'm sure this is a a regular thing. EDIT: Not worth the time. -.-; | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
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" QFT. Which opener besides the 4 gate does the other races have to take into consideration when playing a toss? DT's? Then what? There is no "omg he might be doing xx i better scout and see so i dont instantly lose the game". While the other races have tons of these, terran has 30 viable openings vs a toss for example. It's very very seldom that i as a protoss get a BO win, even if a zerg knows im going blink stalker sentry he can still go mutas, he wont instantly lose the game. But as a toss if i go for pretty much anything but that vs mutas, i instantly lose the game. If i FE and the terran does one of 10 allins they have, i instantly lose the game. If i go templar tech and he goes cloaked banshees i instantly lose the game etc. This is because the toss tech tree works the way it does, and getting "a little bit of everything" like terran is simply too costly and makes tech swaps very hard which in turn makes good scouting invaluable, which again forces protoss into the robo tech. And vs terran the sheer threat of cloaked banshees defaults a robo unless you want to gamble. Protoss have no unpredictable build that forces the opponent to "play it safe" like protoss has to do vs a terran, which is getting a robo and an observer. Which in turn makes protoss easily the most predictable race in the game. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:44 sihyunie wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I'll start this by saying that I'm a diamond trash (a term often used in korean forums) playing zerg and I have been watching sc since tooniverse days (props to all those who know what I'm talking about). 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. Lol you mean the spell that does over 1,000 damage instantly and can't be dodged? Bah nonsense who would use that weak crap. P.S. I thought it was a really good post. | ||
|
Xxavi
United States1248 Posts
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. Wait, it stopped making sense somewhere along the lines. So let's get it straight, because it's confusing. Better players from SC1, including former SC1 protoss like Foxer aka OptimusPrime and HopeTorture aka IntoTheRainbow indeed switched to Terran. Correct. I am not sure they are the better players, but OK, let's assume so. Which ones did go with the Zerg? Why did they switch? Ah so macroing. But do you know how many switched from Zerg to Terran and from Z and T to P? This is so selective argument. What does it mean playing Z is cool? These are pros, they don't play for being cool, they have to do it 12 hours a day, and they have to earn money from this. Cool and enjoyable etc. is for amateurs, these people choose the strongest race they feel or the race with which they can show the best results. If they chose Terran and Zerg, this already tells you a lot about Protoss problems, i.e. lack of options. When Morrow got bored with Terran, did he for a second consider Protoss? Did TLO for a nanosecond consider Protoss? No, because you have very limited options. It's like getting 2-3 strategies, and then working around small improvements. This is not related to players, this is related to the race. You stop making sense when you say people didn't like P because it was too strong. Why? These are Pro's! They earn money, freaking $85,000 is on the line, they will play the strongest race, not the coolest, not the shiniest as you imagine. Yes, indeed, some of the better terrans were former Protoss, don't know about the Zerg. But they switched it not because of shine, but because Protoss is garbage in this game. Connect the dots. So there's only 1-2 good level protoss players, and they cannot consistently even qualify or show good games, which already says not only about lack of good P players, but also just they cannot even get past some mediocre (GSL standards) players to qualify. That's P for you. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
On November 17 2010 06:44 sihyunie wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I'll start this by saying that I'm a diamond trash (a term often used in korean forums) playing zerg and I have been watching sc since tooniverse days (props to all those who know what I'm talking about). 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. Good post, and i agree about the EMP. It's great vs Immortals, Sentries and Templars ofcourse, but even besides that it instantly cuts the protoss armys health almost in half depending on which units are out. It is an amazing spell and i dont understand why terrans dont use it more. | ||
|
Xxavi
United States1248 Posts
Now, imagine how embarrassing it will be that only 3-6 (6 at most I think, at current rate) players out of 32 will be. Especially if it is only like 4-5, that will be 16%. Will you enjoy watching tons of TvT, ZvZ and ZvT? I sure don't want to see 2 race competition, come 2011. Fix something Blizzard, and quick. Even if you temporarily make Protoss OP, make it happen, otherwise you will screw up the competition, come 2011. | ||
|
Darkush
United States19 Posts
A few random ideas: -Colossus were a mistake, plain and simple. They dont belong in the game. Id much prefer something along the lines of the reaver. A micro intensive unit that can be used to both annihilate workers and as support in late game battles. -Maybe tweak the graviton beam ability to be AOE make phoenix a more versatile unit. Sort of like a more bad ass disruption web. This way phoenix wouldn't be completely shut down by a few hydras or marines. -Let stalkers blink up cliffs even if they dont have vision. Reapers can do it. In addition I dont see why they shouldn't do a little more damage vs light units. | ||
|
JJEOS
United States127 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:42 PuercoPop wrote: I agree with you that there is nothing wrong to force a Protoss player to build a robo fac to fight against cloaked units, but with a hallucinated obs we could prevent any massive damage while we build a robo fact. One of the cons of not going robo is not have the best scouting tool, the observer. Build a forge and make a cannon if you need a detector. If you move out you need to get an obs. | ||
|
JJEOS
United States127 Posts
Let's hear it sunshine. | ||
|
JJEOS
United States127 Posts
On November 17 2010 08:25 Darkush wrote: I think Blizz made some fundamental errors with protoss in general that are not likely to be addressed anytime soon. A few random ideas: -Colossus were a mistake, plain and simple. They dont belong in the game. Id much prefer something along the lines of the reaver. A micro intensive unit that can be used to both annihilate workers and as support in late game battles. -Maybe tweak the graviton beam ability to be AOE make phoenix a more versatile unit. Sort of like a more bad ass disruption web. This way phoenix wouldn't be completely shut down by a few hydras or marines. -Let stalkers blink up cliffs even if they dont have vision. Reapers can do it. In addition I dont see why they shouldn't do a little more damage vs light units. Are you forgetting that stalkers shoot air and ground? Blink is insanely powerful as is. | ||
|
Xxavi
United States1248 Posts
| ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
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" Exelent post by Durp which I think precisely points out the problem. | ||
|
Darkush
United States19 Posts
On November 17 2010 08:30 JJEOS wrote: Are you forgetting that stalkers shoot air and ground? Blink is insanely powerful as is. Now that zerg can fungal them and marauders hard counter stalkers no matter what, I wouldn't say its "insanely powerful". I dont see a problem with giving stalkers some increased mobility. | ||
|
minru
United States78 Posts
Against Terran for example. Terran can simply make a Starport without ANY consequences. Failed Banshee? No problem. Raven/Viking/Medivacs are still good. Starport alone can counter Colossus/Void Ray(viking), DT(raven), force Protoss to get Obs(banshee), and I am not going to even mention Medivac. Stargate on the other hand is either a hit or miss kind of thing, if it doesn't work you just wasted all that time building the Stargate and the phoenix/voidray. Now have fun transitioning into High Templar by making Twilight Council AND Templar Archives(and research storm+amulet while you're at it). Don't get me wrong. I am not saying nerf Terran or Starport. What I am trying to say is currently the Stargate and Twilight Council are just horrible options. Protoss can't go 1/1/1 like Terran can and decide what to transition into. They are stuck with Robo because it simply is the best tech tree hands down. | ||
|
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:44 positron. wrote: How about having a maphack for all Protoss to use? Terran needs to spend scan Zerg need to sac overlord and Protoss get 100/100 unlimited map hack? Whatever balance change you need is certainly not this. I am glad neither of you is on the balance team. What does that have to do with anything that Moragon was trying to say? You obviously have a deep root of hatred for toss maybe losing to them too much in your silver league? An observer is by no means a map hack LOL, even using those words together in one sentence makes me chuckle. Having the observer come out of a cybercore is actually an interesting idea, instead of committing money into that robo, toss can maybe put up a stargate for air, rush DT's, rush HT, who knows. Interesting suggestion. | ||
|
minru
United States78 Posts
| ||
| ||
