|
On August 15 2011 18:45 paradisefar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 07:42 Darclite wrote:
Regarding the whole "If you used shuttles in BW, why can't you use warp prisms in SC2":
1. They're different games, each race has different units, there are different maps, different pathing, so I don't even see why this is an argument
2. Shuttles were a bit more resilient than warp prisms are, especially considering the higher dps of sc2 units.
3. The robo in BW had nothing better to do. You didn't use it to produce essential combat units (colossi). It was the support tree that provided shuttles for drops, reavers very often for drops, and observers for detection. In sc2 you sacrifice production time you could be spending on colossi, or in some situations immortals,
4. BW Protoss had units worth dropping. Zealots could keep up with workers a bit more, reavers were amazing, high templar had storms that covered a greater area and did more total damage, etc. In SC2, sentries are decent but are too costly to put in the glass house. Zealots are too slow, stalkers have too little dps, immortals are too expensive and only good against buildings, colossi don't work and are too expensive, dts are decent but expensive and most players would have detection at every base, and high templar can't be warped because Khaydarin is gone so they are costly to fly over and good players will pull workers pretty quickly.
5. SC2 Protoss is too ball oriented and it needs to be unfortunately. The strong units in large numbers have good synergy, but alone they don't work well. You're better off just throwing more into your ball.
6. It is easier to gain map awareness in SC2. You need to make sure the warp prism doesn't pass through any Xel'Naga towers and dodge through overlords and around buildings that can spot you.
7. The AI in BW made it hard to catch speed shuttles. A few stimmed marines, a queen, a spore crawler, a photon cannon, a missile turret, a viking, an infestor, and a muta are all likely to kill you in SC2 and you have little chance of escaping. a 4 zealot drop dps is 53(with charge they are not slow at all), 2 marauder 4 marine is 60 stimmed , don't think that's such a huge difference. while medivac heals, warp prism can warp additional units on site, and run it away you can do inifinite number of warp-in drops with it. and don't forget probes killed can be re-produced 1.5 speed than scv.
Use blue flame hellions in drops and then you will see the difference between protoss harrasment and terran harrasment.
|
On August 15 2011 18:45 paradisefar wrote:
a 4 zealot drop dps is 53(with charge they are not slow at all), 2 marauder 4 marine is 60 stimmed , don't think that's such a huge difference. while medivac heals, warp prism can warp additional units on site, and run it away you can do inifinite number of warp-in drops with it. and don't forget probes killed can be re-produced 1.5 speed than scv.
All protoss drops get countered by one viking, which can always be built because you wanna make them or medivacs anyay. While Protoss needs the useless stargate tech to build a phoenix, that does not even deal much damage and can die to the very same dropped marines. Speed for prism is retarded late in the tech tree and expensive.
|
I'm not a P player, but it seems like Terran may be ahead of Protoss right now in TvP. There seems to be many annoying timing attacks that Protoss have a hard time defending, and even scouting and preparing for. Am I right?
If I'm wrong, please do tell me. It just seems like it to me, and it would also explain the low number of protosses.
|
The last Protoss is out of Code A.
|
On August 15 2011 19:53 Soleron wrote:
The last Protoss is out of Code A and it looks like the final four will be all Terran.
No dude, leenock's gonna take it all the way this time!
|
On August 15 2011 20:01 labbe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 19:53 Soleron wrote:
The last Protoss is out of Code A and it looks like the final four will be all Terran. No dude, leenock's gonna take it all the way this time!
I agree, Leenock's near unbeatable (for Code A players) in ZvT.
|
On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur.
My thoughts exactly.
Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba.
|
On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba.
Lmao right. "Two strategies."
PvT you see mass gateway + ht, double forge gateway, zealot/archon, stalker/colossi, a good amount of phoenix play lately. There are about a hundred different timings of getting to each of these as well.
PvZ you have dt expand, stargate expand, blink stalker play, blink stalker/colossi, chargelot/archon/ht, stalker/voidray.
Note that every tech path possible is used.
The reason it looks like we have strategies is because your build order goes:
gateway --> cyber core --- > tech path you are going down until three base saturation
Sorry that we can't put tech labs and reactors and have everything come out of three different buildings with perfect synergy to have a hundred early game combinations and timings.
Try actually playing the race before you insult the hundreds of thousands/millions of people who actually have any idea how it works.
|
On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba.
Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP.
Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups.
|
On August 15 2011 20:23 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP. Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups.
Innovation in TvP = using 1/1/1 50% of the games, standard MMM with the same timings you have used since beta the other 50% of the time. Adjust bunker timing by +/- 5 seconds depending on last patch notes.
|
On August 15 2011 20:23 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP. Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups.
Your question and comments suggests you have little understanding of the terran race and how the playstyle has changed. Please dont act like you actually has an understanding of the game, and dont ask questions when you behave like a douche.
|
Toss has been trying different things lol, theres your normal robo play, heavy gateway styles and its many variations (double ups, single ups, mass gateway), early templar tech, warp prism (not to mention the risk/reward is really messed up compared to other races drop methods), stargate (voidray all in, phoenix harass)
Only real thing that hasn't been explored is carriers and thats like saying get battlecruisers to a terran who is having trouble. Problem isn't winning when you have 10 carriers, problem is not dying getting there. Chances are if you can get carrier tech out you've already won the game a while back.
The issue is the same as what it was for zerg in early pvz, lack of ability to scout 111 quick enough without risking falling behind. Except toss doesn't have the ability to sacrifice 200-300 minerals to find out whats going on (saccing OL, scan). Toss has to use gas and getting robo or sentries+halluc sets you behind in being able to hold off 111. 111 is stupid hard to hold off as it is even if you assume its coming blind. But whatever, only time will tell, its too early to start making any real balance changes on this particular build. The rest of the matchup feels like it goes to the better player.
|
On August 15 2011 20:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 20:23 Toadvine wrote:On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP. Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups. Your question and comments suggests you have little understanding of the terran race and how the playstyle has changed. Please dont act like you actually has an understanding of the game, and dont ask questions when you behave like a douche.
How has TvP changed, out of curiosity?
|
On August 15 2011 20:28 paradox_ wrote:
Toss has been trying different things lol, theres your normal robo play, heavy gateway styles and its many variations (double ups, single ups, mass gateway), early templar tech, warp prism (not to mention the risk/reward is really messed up compared to other races drop methods), stargate (voidray all in, phoenix harass)
Only real thing that hasn't been explored is carriers and thats like saying get battlecruisers to a terran who is having trouble. Problem isn't winning when you have 10 carriers, problem is not dying getting there. Chances are if you can get carrier tech out you've already won the game a while back.
The issue is the same as what it was for zerg in early pvz, lack of ability to scout 111 quick enough without risking falling behind. Except toss doesn't have the ability to sacrifice 200-300 minerals to find out whats going on (saccing OL, scan). Toss has to use gas and getting robo or sentries+halluc sets you behind in being able to hold off 111. 111 is stupid hard to hold off as it is even if you assume its coming blind. But whatever, only time will tell, its too early to start making any real balance changes on this particular build. The rest of the matchup feels like it goes to the better player.
Agree with most of this post except the 'too early to start making any real balance changes on to the 1-1-1 build' part - that build has been around since release, I'd say an entire year is more than enough time =p
|
immortal is so useless i want reaver back instead byebye terran t1 
|
On August 15 2011 20:33 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 20:28 Hider wrote:On August 15 2011 20:23 Toadvine wrote:On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP. Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups. Your question and comments suggests you have little understanding of the terran race and how the playstyle has changed. Please dont act like you actually has an understanding of the game, and dont ask questions when you behave like a douche. How has TvP changed, out of curiosity?
As a Protoss player the only way I've seen TvP change in the past few months is that more ghosts are used earlier now more often (see them a lot more before 3 bases/before 13 minutes)
And a lot more 1-1-1 used on ladder games. Back in May~ I'd get 1-1-1'd MAYBE once every 7-8 games now its about once every 2-3
|
On August 15 2011 20:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 20:23 Toadvine wrote:On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Terran play evolved so much in TvP. Also, in PvZ, both races constantly innovate, which is why the winrate graph looks the way it does. Honestly, the "Protoss players don't innovate enough" is another stupid excuse similar to "Protoss players are just bad". It's Terrans who barely innovate, because they don't need to. It took them a year to figure out that Hellions are good, and they're being forced to use Ghosts because of the Infestor buff. They still prefer to drop 4-5 Scans while pushing a Zerg to avoid baneling bombs, instead of producing 1 Raven. And they do all of this because it works anyway. Why change if you're dominating the GSL as you are? The only thing that's changed a lot for them is TvT, because that's more than half their games, and it doesn't afford them the advantages they have in other matchups. Your question and comments suggests you have little understanding of the terran race and how the playstyle has changed. Please dont act like you actually has an understanding of the game, and dont ask questions when you behave like a douche.
You know, your response would've been much more effective at demonstrating my lack of understanding if you had actually answered my question. I'm perfectly willing to recant if someone demonstrates I'm wrong. I'm ready to point out how PvT changed on the Protoss side.
Besides, don't you think my basic line of reasoning is solid? Why would a race innovate if they're doing great with what they have currently? Protoss didn't innovate when turtling on 3 bases and thein rolling Zerg over was effective. Why would Terran innovate when the only time they've been significantly below 50% in a matchup, Blizzard immediately axed KA in order to remove the injustice? Success always breeds stagnation.
|
On August 15 2011 20:11 Strike_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 15:55 TheLOLas wrote:
I sort of feel that Protoss hasn't evolved like the other races have. Protoss players seem to try to play the game the way they did 3 months ago while terran players and zerg players are trying new and unique things. Zerg in particular have drastically evolved ( No pun intended ) with their roaches in ZvT and more infestor play.
I personally dont think that Protoss players are changing up their game so they are being figured out. EGIncontrol actually stated this in a recent SOTG. When he said that his strategies were already solved. I think that when Protoss players start experimenting more we will see more victories for Aiur. My thoughts exactly. Protoss just refuse to change their playstyle and when the other races find out about new strategies that beat the 2 strategies that protoss seem to use, they cry imba.
There are plenty of counter arguments for both of you in this thread. Are you too blind or too ignorant to understand them? Here is my favourite one that deserves to be reposted:
On August 15 2011 02:55 Cyrak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 02:17 tdt wrote:
I think protoss players are approaching this wrong, let me give an example PvZ: zerg players have started to figure out how to stop the gateway heavy timing pushes that protoss seem to dish out on a consistent basis. I think this is a bad way to judge the game, given that it is some kind of a timing window/gimmicky play that requires your opponent not to be prepared for it.
I know that protoss players seem to think that they have no other option than to do timing pushes, but I think it's a matter of time before protoss find out that you can play straight up. When I watch Huk's stream he executes really nice builds against zerg that focuses on heavy macro lategame. Rather than having the thought 'damn, my timing push didn't work' I think people should think 'how do I reasonably approach lategame without disadvantage?' Gimme a break. Zerg players love to claim they figured it out when truth is Blizzard figured it out for Zerg after incessant complaints. They never learned how to deal with reapers, reapers were nerfed. They never learned how to deal with bunker rushes, bunkers were nerfed. 2-rax a problem? Depot before rax nerf. 2-gating zealot pressure too hard to defend? Nerf zealot build times. Stim pushes to powerful? Nerf stim. Warp-gate pushes to effective? Delay warp-gate research. Air openers to much of a hassle to deal with? First nerf the Void Ray. That didnt work? Buff spore-root time so they don't have to pay as much a cost for poor building placement. Death-ball? Here you go zergs, your all-in-one counter, Infestors, 100% more DPS and 130% more DPS to armored. So before you claim these protoss pros are idiots and just can't think outside the box perhaps you need to refect on the past wrt zerg pros who had no answers. The reason why Terran and Protoss MUST do timing pushes, if they like winning, is because you leave a Zerg alone and it will be 200 vs 100 before you know it. Go watch nani vs ret in that tounament last week (i forgot what it was called) if you want to see what happens when a Protoss puts zero pressure on Zerg, it's laughably one sided due to zerg macro mechanics. The meta game basically works like this. Terran and Protoss puts enough pressure/harass on Zerg to be on equal footing come mid game. Or kills them outright with an all in. If not they die.
|
They need to nerf 1/1/1 a little, outside that Protoss is fine. I haven't seen a single game this GSL where a protoss lost where I thought "he should've won" outside of (maybe) that all-in (not like it's unholdable or anything, but it just pretty much autowins against a fast nexus with good micro), although that might be because a lot of protoss players aren't actually adapting to the all-in by scouting the expansion and then not dropping an early nexus. I loved the way Puzzle dealed with it in the GSTL (if you haven't seen that, he basically went immortal/phoenix against the all-in, although it didn't work against TheBest's all-in which was only marine/tank without any air, it crushed the 1/1/1 all-in with an expansion up for Puzzle).
|
On August 15 2011 20:57 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
They need to nerf 1/1/1 a little, outside that Protoss is fine. I haven't seen a single game this GSL where a protoss lost where I thought "he should've won" outside of (maybe) that all-in (not like it's unholdable or anything, but it just pretty much autowins against a fast nexus with good micro), although that might be because a lot of protoss players aren't actually adapting to the all-in by scouting the expansion and then not dropping an early nexus. I loved the way Puzzle dealed with it in the GSTL (if you haven't seen that, he basically went immortal/phoenix against the all-in, although it didn't work against TheBest's all-in which was only marine/tank without any air, it crushed the 1/1/1 all-in with an expansion up for Puzzle).
I don't see how you could consider that as "crushing the 1/1/1" when Puzzle had to pull probes off to help fend it off despite sniping three free banshees prior to the main engagement. If those banshees were in the main army, Puzzle would have undoubtedly been the one who gets 'crushed.' =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
