|
Excuse me if the seems ignorant (I mostly only spectate, rather than play, as I haven't got the time to invest in SC2 seriously), but one of the arguements I've read consistently in this thread, is that P lacks in the number of high calibre players representing them (which I agree with to some extent).
However isn't this indicative of P's lack of options at the highest levels? Presumably the highest calibre players have the greatest understanding of the game and it's mechanics, and are electing to play the other races for a reason. It would seem foolish for them to select a race without serious consideration, given the amount of time they are investing into the game, and the amount of money they stand to win as a result of their play.
For example, Foxer who has exhibited incredible talent and an innovative playstyle this season of the GSL, was a former BW Protosss player as far as a know, who conscientiously chose to switch races for one reason or another. Similarly TLO comes from a SupCom background, and therefore has no affiliation and had little prior experience with any of the races as far as I know. He played random during the Beta, chose to go Terran @ release, and know post 1.1.2 has elected to go zerg. I only highlight these two as they clearly both gave some thought to the race they play and neither elected to go P. I would suggest that a possible reason that many of the highest level players are not representing P is for a reason, because as TLO exhibited a race will gain in the amount of prominent players who represent that race, as it becomes more viable.
|
On November 02 2010 07:48 StormsInJuly wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 07:33 HowardRoark wrote:
Well, in my opionion Protoss problem is that they are just too easy to play...
I disagree with this, protoss have the hardest macro and least margin for error. Their vital units are extremely hard to keep alive, and getting nailed by a single EMP loses you the game. The protoss that get eliminated I think could have survived if they'd played better, but a single mistake costs you the game. Warpgates are imho harder to master than queen inject, and chronoboost is yet another macro mechanic that nobody manages perfectly in the lategame... There's a lot of build order losses for protoss too, especially with sgate/templar tech vs cloaking units, but i expect good players to be able to deal with that
LOL? What part of instant army + chronoboost makes protoss macro challenging? And don't seriously put larva inject and instantly warpgating units on the same league. It's insulting.
|
On November 02 2010 08:19 ston23 wrote:
Similarly TLO comes from a SupCom background, and therefore has no affiliation and had little prior experience with any of the races as far as I know. He played random during the Beta, chose to go Terran @ release, and know post 1.1.2 has elected to go zerg.
TLO has a bw background too.
|
Seems like toss just has the most potential for 'build order losses'. People are saying toss always does the same stuff, but toss is the one who has to be 'safe' from the most things. Try to skip robo early in either of the match ups can essentially be game, especially with the prevalence of banshees and mass roach play.
I've been experimenting with carriers in PvZ but it completely relies on the opponent reacting incorrectly to something they haven't seen before. When I play against terran I just hope to hell they go bio because banshee play is a total bitch to deal with.
Toss needs a fruitdealer right now to 'show us the way', because it's getting rather stale right now.
|
On November 02 2010 08:19 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 07:48 StormsInJuly wrote:On November 02 2010 07:33 HowardRoark wrote:
Well, in my opionion Protoss problem is that they are just too easy to play...
I disagree with this, protoss have the hardest macro and least margin for error. Their vital units are extremely hard to keep alive, and getting nailed by a single EMP loses you the game. The protoss that get eliminated I think could have survived if they'd played better, but a single mistake costs you the game. Warpgates are imho harder to master than queen inject, and chronoboost is yet another macro mechanic that nobody manages perfectly in the lategame... There's a lot of build order losses for protoss too, especially with sgate/templar tech vs cloaking units, but i expect good players to be able to deal with that LOL? What part of instant army + chronoboost makes protoss macro challenging? And don't seriously put larva inject and instantly warpgating units on the same league. It's insulting.
We can't cue things up. Much like a queens spawn larvae every second that we don't warp is a second wasted since we cannot cue up next wave at 80% completion. We also can't just macro up while paying attention to a battle. We must move the camera to pylon power then warp in there and then return to battle.
|
On November 02 2010 08:05 Boblion wrote:
Protoss are doing bad because if you make a single mistake you are dead.
Missed a FF ?
You dead.
One EMP ?
You dead.
Failed to scout ?
You dead ( 2456789 dumb allins possible for T and Z ).
You don't have the perfect army composition ?
You dead.
etc... the list goes on.
Played protoss during the beta but i have switched to terran because PvT is a joke.
yeah i basically agree with this
u can't make the tiniest mistake or u really just lose the game completely
terran seems like they can lose their entire army in a terribly onesided battle but then somehow they just come back and im like wtf
|
On November 02 2010 03:23 Deadlyfish wrote:
There arent that many good protoss players, NEXgenious, Inca and HuK are the only ones i can think of (besides tester, but he didnt qualify iirc). Terran has so many famous people, Nada, Boxer, Foxer, HopeTorture, and i could name so many more. Same goes with Zerg. Idra, FD, Zenio, and i could name lots more.
So yea i think it's because there arent enough good players playing protoss, not because protoss isnt good enough.
Lets say you take the top 8 players in the world purely based on skill. And lets say these 8 players all make it to ro8 of the GSL. The chances that none of these players are protoss is actually quite high.
How you define 'skill' interracially is beyond me. Let's see these terrans and zergs play protoss.
|
Remarkably good thread though some people are just infuriating.
All this talk about storm seems to forget their high dps 50 mineral unit.
As said before by others, PvZ it's a bit too early to judge, but the match seems pretty good since Z doesn't have too much in the way of super hard punishing counters to P.
Edit: except for mutaliska. God I hate mutalisks T_T (kidding about the change)
|
On November 02 2010 08:19 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 07:48 StormsInJuly wrote:On November 02 2010 07:33 HowardRoark wrote:
Well, in my opionion Protoss problem is that they are just too easy to play...
I disagree with this, protoss have the hardest macro and least margin for error. Their vital units are extremely hard to keep alive, and getting nailed by a single EMP loses you the game. The protoss that get eliminated I think could have survived if they'd played better, but a single mistake costs you the game. Warpgates are imho harder to master than queen inject, and chronoboost is yet another macro mechanic that nobody manages perfectly in the lategame... There's a lot of build order losses for protoss too, especially with sgate/templar tech vs cloaking units, but i expect good players to be able to deal with that LOL? What part of instant army + chronoboost makes protoss macro challenging? And don't seriously put larva inject and instantly warpgating units on the same league. It's insulting.
chronoboosting is actually very open-ended in a long game and wise use of it will be important among the best of the best. larva inject and mule will probably remain boring and straightforward outside of pooling for scans or for saving for an early tumor.
|
I too was wondering why brotoss wasn't doing particularly well in the first 2 GSLs, but I don't think the answer is as simple as "they're too easy to play". First bear in mind that the game has only been out, what, 3 months?
That's really not long at all, for any race to be mastered, and I don't see why bad tournament performance (except Blizzcon, which was won by a protoss) suggests that any race is easier or harder to play than another.
In the first GSL, I think it was too early to blame anything on a skill cap, 2 months simply isnt enough time for anyone to be close to it. And I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that toss haven't improved at all since then.
In the second GSL, I think one of the biggest problems for protoss was adapting to the roach range buff, simply because of the timing, and how gravely it affected how toss expand versus zergs. I don't really think protoss have really adapted to the change yet. And since terran control has improved so vastly since the first GSL toss are also having more problems with that.
But I don't think all these problems mean that toss have a lower skill cap, if anything it means that they are taking longer to reach the kind of level that T and Z are at. Take for example, the TvZ matchup as opposed to the PvZ matchup - in big tournaments it is clear which has been the more thoroughly worked on in terms of strategy by the gamers themselves - TvZ. PvZ needs more time and exposure to become a really well thought through matchup.
The things I see protoss doing more and more are things like using chronoboost constantly. I think one of the reasons it doesn't get used to its maximum effect is that it isn't strictly *necessary* to win games - compare this with larva inject which zerg cannot live without, and mules, which so many 2-base terran timing pushes are dependent on to get out enough units. Especially in the late game CBoost seems to be really underused, and that means there is alot of potential for improvement there.
Another thing I see happening is the use of more cannons, to help defend against the things protoss players are having trouble with - big roach/sling and MMM midgames. I think something that would really help defensive cannon play also would be letting upgrades improve cannons - afaik only the shield upgrade affects them. This links into a big emphasis on upgrades which also links into chronoboost.
I look forward to protoss improving, I think they can do it 
|
I think that protoss by far takes the most intensive micro.
Macro.. pretty easy other than the insane skill it will take to keep up on chronoboosts for a long game.
The micro... you really can't make mistakes... and you have to be so quick in countering the moves the opponent's army makes.
or maybe protoss doesn't "take" the most intensive micro. that might not be the right word.
protoss necessitates the most intensive micro.
|
On November 02 2010 08:19 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 07:48 StormsInJuly wrote:On November 02 2010 07:33 HowardRoark wrote:
Well, in my opionion Protoss problem is that they are just too easy to play...
I disagree with this, protoss have the hardest macro and least margin for error. Their vital units are extremely hard to keep alive, and getting nailed by a single EMP loses you the game. The protoss that get eliminated I think could have survived if they'd played better, but a single mistake costs you the game. Warpgates are imho harder to master than queen inject, and chronoboost is yet another macro mechanic that nobody manages perfectly in the lategame... There's a lot of build order losses for protoss too, especially with sgate/templar tech vs cloaking units, but i expect good players to be able to deal with that LOL? What part of instant army + chronoboost makes protoss macro challenging? And don't seriously put larva inject and instantly warpgating units on the same league. It's insulting.
Say queen is bound to "1"
11 + v + click
vs
either double tapping a building key or 1 camera key + w + unit key + #clicks for each unit
Not too sure what you think is so hard about larva or why warping is so much easier. It's harder than any other unit-producing in the game since you have to move the camera to a pylon.
|
On November 02 2010 03:25 Jerubaal wrote:
It does seem like Protoss commonly employs a very small number of build orders and this makes them predictable in the early game. The fascinating parts of a Protoss build order are where and how many gateways to build and when to make a robo. And is it just me or have HTs seen significantly less use lately?
Probably because of how hard it is to get to HT tech without losing or falling too far behind and how Zerg got strengthened so much in early-mid game.
|
On November 02 2010 08:28 travis wrote:
I think that protoss by far takes the most intensive micro.
Macro.. pretty easy other than the insane skill it will take to keep up on chronoboosts for a long game.
The micro... you really can't make mistakes... and you have to be so quick in countering the moves the opponent's army makes.
or maybe protoss doesn't "take" the most intensive micro. that might not be the right word.
protoss necessitates the most intensive micro.
I definitely agree for the most part although I have to say, Boxer's (fake) marine micro vs banelings in ro8 was INSANE.
|
Protoss is not weak but so limited and pidgeonholed.
I agree with "Protoss needs to use more nydus worms!" is what this thread feels like.
|
well earlier i was going to say i thought HTs and DTs should be available from the templar archives. i realize zerg has worse detection in sc2 than bw, but it just seems like a pain in the ass the way it is right now.
on the nydus worm topic, i do think warp prisms are very underutilized!
|
On November 02 2010 08:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 08:05 Boblion wrote:
Protoss are doing bad because if you make a single mistake you are dead.
Missed a FF ?
You dead.
One EMP ?
You dead.
Failed to scout ?
You dead ( 2456789 dumb allins possible for T and Z ).
You don't have the perfect army composition ?
You dead.
etc... the list goes on.
Played protoss during the beta but i have switched to terran because PvT is a joke. yeah i basically agree with this u can't make the tiniest mistake or u really just lose the game completely terran seems like they can lose their entire army in a terribly onesided battle but then somehow they just come back and im like wtf
WOW! So ignorant...
That can be said for any race and anyone...especialy when they lose...
Mismicro marines vs banelings? dead terran
Mis-sieging tanks vs ANYONE? dead terran
Attack moving banelings? dead zerg
Forget to magic box mutas vs thors? dead zerg
Fail to scout? dt's in your base
List goes on...
Speaking of allins, Protoss seems the most cheesiest / allinish race at the moment. Not necessarilly noobie type of allin play, but stuff like DT rush, proxy Void Ray rush, 4-gate with pylon in the back rush...things like this. They always have a follow up, but regardless if they don't do damage they're guaranteed to be behind.
|
On November 02 2010 08:36 taintmachine wrote:
well earlier i was going to say i thought HTs and DTs should be available from the templar archives. i realize zerg has worse detection in sc2 than bw, but it just seems like a pain in the ass the way it is right now.
on the nydus worm topic, i do think warp prisms are very underutilized!
I believe the reason for this is that as stated previously many times Protoss is forced to go Robo every game almost unless they choose to 4gate or some form of all in and they don't really have any time to use the Robo for warp prisms.
But thats just my take on it. I know that when I play I'm constantly biting my nails until the more "necessary" robo units come out.
|
Warping in and larvae inject are 2 pretty different things. Whilst spawn larvae get's harder to do the more hatcheries one get, warping in doesn't get any harder. But in both cases you get severely punished for being late by even a few seconds and add chronoboost to the equation and in the end the apm required for proper macro is probably not all that different.
I think a lot of the problem is in how reactionary the protoss strategies are in the early game atm. Reactionary play is a style much better suited for zerg due to the way their unit production works; heck even terrans are probably better suited for it.
Just my 2cc, though bairemuth probably hit the head of the nail with his VERY impressive post. More of those please!
|
HT Tech is a crazy investment where you are reaping no reward until everything has finished researching.
Just a cost comparison here.
Twilight Council: 150 minerals 100 gas - 50 seconds
Templar Archive: 150 minerals 200 gas - 50 seconds
Storm Research: 200 minerals 200 gas - 110 seconds
Amulet research: 150 minerals 150 gas - 110 seconds
x2 Templar: 100 minerals 300 gas - (45 second cooldown on warpgates for each)
That is a grand total of:
750 minerals + 950 gas + 5mins & 20seconds of research, the upside? You get x2 Psi-Storms 4mins in...
That is roughly 4 minutes worth of gas harvested of a single saturated base...
Monster investment, no way you could possibly do this without going through Colossus, but I think it is intended that way, but either way, it is still massive investment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
