|
On August 11 2011 05:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:
I think people are still using that excuse from Brood War. SC2 protoss is more micro intensive whereas the protoss on brood war was as simple as 1a2a3a4a5a with a few storms or stasis while terran had to seige tanks, mines, turrets, emp arbiters, slowly push, harrass and build defensive supply depots all strategically while macroing and microing. Protoss in BW could literally build 20 gates, expand everywhere and a terran player twice as good as him could still lose. It is one reason why you see so many bw replays with high apm terrans losing to low apm protoss players and the reason is because to play terran and zerg on brood war you need higher apm which clearly shows that protoss is the much easier race.
Also, if a in bw protoss loses his force to an engagement, he can easily rebuild his army within a short amount of time. Whereas a terran would basically lose the game if put in that situation.
So how is that 3+ year Protoss no finals draught working out for BW?
|
OP: Because most people don't know what the fuck they're talking about. They see a toss strategy over and over again and think "it's so easy, you just do that and win," but don't realize that those toss strategies are basically the only option available to Protoss.
Toss is probably the hardest to play, since Terran is capable of response flexibility and Zerg/Terran are capable of effective multi-pronged attacks. Simple numbers reveal that Protoss investments are heavier in cost at any given point in time compared to the other two races making toss tech choices more unforgiving. Couple that with a lack of a diverse set of units that are relevant in more than one or two points in the game, and you have a race that requires more skill to play effectively at high levels because of how easy they are to predict given small amounts of info. Whats the pro win rate right now for Protoss?
EDIT: Protoss probably looks easy because it's easy to make a stalker, zeal, or sentry from a warp gate based on how many minerals/gas you have and the unit composition will still be effective, but that's a really ignorant way to look at the race as a whole.
|
The only thing I have to say is losing to a 6gate is painful 
|
To me it's pretty simple, same as BW, if your grandma, mom, sister, little cousin or whoever started playing, protoss would be the race they'd pick because it's the simplest to get a hang of and yields the fastest "success".
Which is also why you saw many toss players in the lower iccup ranks who clearly weren't even close to their terran and zerg counterparts in terms of skill level but were still pretty successful. Of course everything changes at higher levels of play and it's not that easy anymore.
|
On August 11 2011 05:24 jarrydesque wrote:
It's not the easiest. Protoss units are usually quite cost efficient against Zerg and Terran units (they are very expensive though) which often results in butthurt crying over race balance.
All the races have advantages like this. It's just that Protoss advantages are most obvious on a low level (below masters).
Where do people get all these facts? I've actually tested around alot, and almost no protoss low tier unit is cost efficient in smaller numbers atleast.
Sentries are what can change the tide early game and mid game if you play defensively (ie you don't all-in), otherwise protoss would be Fd in the A.
To me zerg is the hardest race, just because it's got the least in common with other strategy games and I know no Z builds for shit..
T to me is the hardest race because I suck at splitting and siege micro, so banelings would just wipe me out once I do a mistake with stim kite.
I think all races suit people and personalities. You can't really objectively judge a race the 'easiest' or 'hardest', I don't think.
Just play the race you think is the easiest one and you've probably found the one that suits you the best 
|
mostly because protoss units are the most 'powerful'. for example at low levels, players barely use forcefield and they toss has lot of units that are pretty powerful if you just a-move. they also have the easiest ways to compensate for lost macro (build more warpgates, or make some expensive ass units. they also have the colossus which is really powerful in a 1-A scenario.
|
On August 11 2011 05:35 isM wrote:
This thread was so tempting to open, I should have known I would lose brain cells reading it. Protoss players will defend their race because no one wants to admit to playing the easiest race and everyone else will bash Protoss because they have lost at least a few times to a Protoss who was seemingly not doing anything with maxed chrono on every nexus. It is all in the eyes of the beholder.
It's funny because most protoss players are agreeing that the fundamentals of protoss are the easiest out of the races, but arguing against them being easy to win with at higher levels - so I don't really know what you are talking about.
|
Played toss to high diamond and then Zerg to Masters. Here's my take:
Protoss have a very easy macro mechanic and the ability to dump resources very effectively via warpgate technology. In a 1a situation, a toss ball will fair better than a Z or T ball will. That is NOT to say that all they need to do is 1a, especially at higher levels. Its just that if all 3 races do it, toss will come out ahead more often than not.
For me, Toss was much easier to understand and execute basic build orders compared to Zerg. I can't say anything about Terran.
|
On August 11 2011 05:29 Chargelot wrote:
"Protoss is easy" - Everyone but Protoss
"Protoss has the lowest win rate" - Statistical data
I wonder who is right?
Difficulty and strength of a race aren't the same thing. If terran only had 1 production facility (CC + rax) and could only make marines, macro would be ridiculously easy. But they would get slaughtered (weak as hell). Easy but weak. Could be the same thing with toss and both statements are fine.
Anyways, directly related to the topic, I think it's just because protoss macro is easiest.
I've been playing random for a few weeks now and of terran/toss, I just find it harder to macro with terran. And terran requires just as much (if not more) micro as toss. Again, this has nothing to do with balance. Protoss could be statistically the weakest and still the easiest to play.
Btw, I won't compare either to zerg. I'm a native zerg and whatever I say is probably biased.
|
As a high masters protoss player currently, high platinum during first beta release, high diamond when that league came out and finally masters when it was introduced (never made it to GM, play only 1-2x a week) I have become increasingly frustrated with the protoss race. We definitely have a GIANT hole in our early game play. I've switched to zerg and I'm playing at equal level in just a few days of playing with a lot more flexibility in everything I do. Map control, tech swap, scouting a hole in my opponents play and exploiting it very rapidly. Protoss I might find a hole and be like well... nothing I can do about it right now...
|
On August 11 2011 05:26 phyre112 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 05:15 Bluerain wrote:
everyone has their preferences but i also believe that in general, protoss is the easiest to play overall. im a zerg player so there may be some bias here. that aside, i think protoss is easy because of the very convenient and user-friendly warp gate mechanic which allows to make units anywhere in a power field. also stalkers are a very good all around unit to the point where if you just mass stalkers, youll do "ok" in most situations. stalkers hit air/ground, are medium sized which means they have decent pathing while moving around in a blob while still being resistant to AOE, have ok movement speed and nice range. also, the stalker / collosi ball is the ulimate a-move army and they also share upgrades! Lastly, they have static D that attacks both air/ground and acts as detection. just everything that protoss has is good "all-around" which makes it very noob friendly but not necessarily easy at the higher levels.
imo, it takes relatively little skill to become a gold/platinum protoss player. just macro up and make a stalker/collosi ball with some sentries and a move and force field a couple times. of course at pro levels, i think skill requirement is relatively the same for all races. Stalker actually loses in a straight up fight to almost any other unit at-cost. Roaches beat them. Marauders beat them. Marines with stim beat them. Mutas don't beat them, but off the top of my head that's the only thing. The strength of the stalker is that it protects the collossi or HT's (and blink lets it do that better) as well as the "survivability" of blink micro in small engagements - but that requires WAY more micro than the other side of the battle. At lower leagues as well, forcefield placement is just as likely to hurt you as it is to help. Half the time, forcefields just cut your zealots and archons from doing damage (free hits for m+m) and the gas cost of sentries means you can't tech, (no stargate, no robo) can't have both a significant stalker and sentry count, and sentries don't "really" deal damage.
roach/marauder cant hit air, marines are more weak to AOE, so i wuld have to say that stalkers are still better overall. although marines are best overall with stutter step micro
|
Easiest to understand, hardest to master.
|
Protoss is just harder to break in the late stages, they easily have the strongest fortification in the early game and the strongest army costefficiency wise in the late game.
This just makes the race frustrating to play against. If you let the protoss take position on your natural or just get bases slowly then yes, they are going to roflstomp all over your face. Seeing as a lot of ladder tosses just sit on their asses and macro up while sitting behind a fortification, this makes for a rather emotional end. After all, you dropped him, harrassed him, tried a run by, outmacroed him in the midgame, but he still defeated your army while he did none of that.
My 2 cents is when HotS comes about, they should scrap the boring collosus and give the protoss a strong harrass unit. This will make the race more fun to play and more exciting to play against.
|
Protoss is not the easy race. This isn't Broodwar.
|
On August 11 2011 05:35 isM wrote:
This thread was so tempting to open, I should have known I would lose brain cells reading it. Protoss players will defend their race because no one wants to admit to playing the easiest race and everyone else will bash Protoss because they have lost at least a few times to a Protoss who was seemingly not doing anything with maxed chrono on every nexus. It is all in the eyes of the beholder.
No, Protoss players will defend their race because it isn't the easiest. You're telling me if someone submitted a false fact about you that you wouldn't challenge it?
|
It's like poker, easy to learn, takes a lifetime to master.
|
When I read the posts in threads like this I really wish I could see peoples' ladder ranks.
|
Protoss dont have many things to choose from...
Stargate only used to harass zerg in early, every army composition u counter with Gateway units + robotics, at least 99% of my games!
|
I recently switched from Protoss to Zerg because P was getting too uninteresting to play, and I can tell you that having good macro and mechanics is much less important as protoss. If you miss chronoboosts, you're fine. If you miss larva injects, you're fucked.
Managing your base is quite easy for protoss, and there aren't many things you can do to show off your micro skills with P besides forcefields. So in general it's hard to really separate yourself as either good or bad as P.
|
this thread is about low mid to maybe slightly above avg gamers. I dont know why you guys are trying to defend using high to pro level based arguments. Clearly most of these statements are made assuming the 2 players are prob not great at macro and dont micro there armys well at all more then likely and just A move there armys in a fight which is quite common even close to high level players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
