|
On September 09 2011 16:16 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 16:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On September 09 2011 15:58 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 15:53 Geo.Rion wrote:
I really do not mean to troll you, but it seems like this is your logic:
An offensive and a defensive Protoss have the same rally distance. Hence, Protoss doesnt have an advantage in defence, because it doesnt have a disadvantage in attack cuz of easy reinforcing, so it is pretty clear, that Protoss is weak.
I appreciate your work and the effort you put in it, but you really did not convince me, actually it is ridiculous, maybe i didnt understand it well enough.
Also: Protoss timing attacks with large armies are balanced against defensive, economic Terrans and Zergs (both races have economic openings that are ahead after defending a Protoss timing).
It would be a lot nicer and look less biased, if you'd say "allegedly" or "presumably" balanced timing atacks, and both of the other races have economic openings that are ahead IF they defend the protoss timing push, if not they just died. Well, I just sort of assumed that the games in all our tournaments speak for themselves. Terrans and Zergs are capable of defending early Protoss pressure with economic openers. If this weren't true, every Terran or Zerg would open much more unit heavy than they currently do. Yes, I am making assumptions, but I feel they aren't that ridiculous. I'm just assuming that it is possible as a Terran or Zerg, to expand before (ie play more economically than) a pressuring Protoss and survive. Do you disagree? If yes, do you have a replay? I sincerly believe, it is not possible to expand before the Protoss because on most positions a Protoss can go 15 nexus before forge against anything slower then a 13 pool, or just forge first in wich case the Zerg is not allowed to hatch first, because he dies to canons on most of the maps, and even if he goes pool first has to have at least one drone following the probe because of possible contain or just 1 well placed canon behind the mineral line. And I politely disagree with your opinion that Zerg cannot open more economically than a Protoss. Once cannon rushing is denied, the length of time to any aggressive maneuver is long enough for you to 3 base and prepare. Keep in mind that a forge + cannons does not advance tech towards any units at all. In other words, If you defend a pylon + 2 cannon rush with lings, but lose 400 minerals of lings, you're technically ahead, because both players have lost the same amount of minerals, but you actually can make attacking units. I still have to build my gateway to get going. Agree to disagree, I suppose. I think most people would agree with me though >.>
well thanks for not quoting half of my post, which is the direct answer to your first few lines. I suggest re-read it, i dont feel like copy pasting it here again.
If you defend a pylon+2 canons with lings? Bad news, you canot, if he walls himself in, or hides or finds any way for the canons to finish or be close to finish no ammount of lings would take it out, if the Zerg can hold the canon rush, that becomes obvious before any canon or additional pylon is finished, in most of the cases, then you just cancel them and exp. But honestly, a smart Protoss doesnt go for a canon rush if it can be denied with drones in that position, or if the pool is fast enough for zerglings to come out before canons warp in.
But smart protosses are as rare as white ravens, im above 1k masters, which granted isnt very good, but 1/3 of the Protosses go for canon rush, yes, even against 12 or 13 pool with having 1 drone right clicked on their probes, another good proportion goes for 15 nexus no matter what, yes vs 12 pool too, then the rest go for an allin either off of one or 2 base, and the remaining few %s turtle up and wait for a deathball.
And even against opponents this bad and many autowins due to their horribly bad openers i have a fairly poor ZvP record, somewhere around 50%, which would be a tone worse if those autowins wont happen.
So when i hear protosses are doing everything that's possible and Zerg and Terran are just overpowered, and bad players in general, that's why they werent owning harder up till now. OK, this wasnt in this topic, but it's a quite popular opinion here and on bnet.
And how can you close out with a line like that, seriously? If by most people you mean those protosses who canot beat double exping Zerg, then i think you got a fairly tiny majority there bro.
|
Its kinda weird with this mechanic....
If you play Protoss its a lot of fun in terms of Gameplay etc. but if you don´t play Protoss and your Opponets reinforces his army right at your choke it feels kinda broken,
|
On September 09 2011 05:04 Bleak wrote:
My suggestion:
Warp-ins only available through Warp Prisms. Other then that, Gateways only produce as they do pre-upgrade, similar to how Terran produces.
This change would stop PvP 4-gate vs. 4.gate, still allow warp-in to be used effectively when used in a smart way (attack+warp-in with prism behind the base, especially with w.prism getting buffed now), make some ridiculous Protoss timing pushes less effective (would help other races to defend) and overall would result in a better game imo. I'm surprised it has taken this long to notice how ridiculous and abusive warpgate mechanic is when it comes to being on the offensive timing pushes. Also, as the article mentioned, if you make warp-in only through warp-prisms, then you may buff gateway units to be stronger, and nerfing big hitters like Colossus a little bit to overall balance things out in a much wider way.
Great post, OP.
like ur idea !
|
Honestly, I don't think you even need to make such a detailed opening post. To me this is a matter of common sense. Gateways have slower production than Warpgates and Gateways have less utility than Warpgates. Obviously the solution is making Warpgates slower than gateways and forbid chronoboost on them. The whole warp-in mechanic is wrong but there is nothing we can do unless the progamers admit it and start bugging Blizzard about it.... 
|
I like the OP, even if it's a little on the provocative side.
I don't think the warp-in mechanic can be construed as a disadvantage when defending - the Protoss is still on par with the other 2 races in this regard (in the sense that they can reinforce faster in defence than an attacking Zerg or Terran). It's a spurious argument to say that it's weak when compared to its usage when attacking. The comparison should be with other races' ability to defend with reinforcements, not Protoss's ability to reinforce attacks.
As for the problem with defensive structures; I never thought about it before (since cannons are so awesome), but the OP made a pretty convincing argument that Protoss is lacking in this regard. I have no idea how to fix it, since cannons are awesome, and if you could make them after, say, only a gateway, they would probably become too powerful.
The OP's suggestion is interesting, and although it would obviously help Protoss defence, it also has implications for attacks which may make it an unreasonable response to a relatively small problem.
In BW, didn't Protoss frequently expand with a Zealot and a cannon?
|
On September 09 2011 17:39 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 17:05 archonOOid wrote:
I'm not sure that the warp mechanic is the reason for the boring PvP matchup and the brutal beating Protoss has experienced in the other match ups. Nonetheless, the warp mechanic is f***ing retarded. Because there is exist only a small the defenders advantage namely the ramp while in the other matchups there exists additional advantages for the defender, time. Time to react through more units and their composition, "static" defence. Protoss does have a static defence disadvantage as compared to the other races because zerg can move their spine crawlers and spore crawlers. Terran can salvage bunkers. This mechanic allows these races to secure an expansion and transition from 1 base static defences to 2 base static defences. Phase cannons anyone?
Early game:
I think PvP is responsible for the sentry which main ability is the forcefield. The forcefield is necessary for one of the three defensive advantages in PvP, denying access through the ramp while the other advantages is the high ground and the ramp itself (concave defence vs one line aggression). If there were no forcefield the aggressor would only have one obstacle to worry about the high ground advantage and a concave defence.
Mid game:
As mid game has been reached in the match up or rather blink has been upgraded then the defenders advantage diminishes even more. Because the ramp has almost lost its importance due to the fact that the ramp is not the only entry point into the base. The high ground advantage is also of less importance with an enemy observer.
Solutions:
Allow only same level blinking or conversely disallow cliff blinking. This would allow only one entry point for blink stalkers to a protoss base. If that is not enough then the sentries should have a greater range so that they could attack behind stalkers and gain an ever stronger concave defence (Could be imba in PvT and PvZ but i'm solely brainstorming in the PvP match up)
PvP would actually be the one most clearly and easily fixed with the addition of a gateway tech defensive structure, in my opinion. As long as there were some way to restrict it to solely defensive use. Just start a shield battery, ff your ramp a couple times to let it get up, and bam you're safe.
PvP doesnt need to be fixed, its the only fair matchup for p right now. There is the possibility of a build order loss, but other than that its a clear test of skill and no bullshit involved.
If you dont like how it usually plays out, that might be another thing, but thats a matter of preference really.
|
On September 09 2011 20:30 barrykp wrote:
I like the OP, even if it's a little on the provocative side.
I don't think the warp-in mechanic can be construed as a disadvantage when defending - the Protoss is still on par with the other 2 races in this regard (in the sense that they can reinforce faster in defence than an attacking Zerg or Terran). It's a spurious argument to say that it's weak when compared to its usage when attacking. The comparison should be with other races' ability to defend with reinforcements, not Protoss's ability to reinforce attacks.
As for the problem with defensive structures; I never thought about it before (since cannons are so awesome), but the OP made a pretty convincing argument that Protoss is lacking in this regard. I have no idea how to fix it, since cannons are awesome, and if you could make them after, say, only a gateway, they would probably become too powerful.
The OP's suggestion is interesting, and although it would obviously help Protoss defence, it also has implications for attacks which may make it an unreasonable response to a relatively small problem.
In BW, didn't Protoss frequently expand with a Zealot and a cannon?
Cannons shoot only ground,no detection, 100 minerals, unlocked with the cyberneticscore.
add a forge upgrade that gives cannons detection + air attack.
so cannons still wont be as fast as spines or bunker, but also not as hampering as building a damn forge way too early in the game.
|
On September 09 2011 21:40 beute wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 20:30 barrykp wrote:
I like the OP, even if it's a little on the provocative side.
I don't think the warp-in mechanic can be construed as a disadvantage when defending - the Protoss is still on par with the other 2 races in this regard (in the sense that they can reinforce faster in defence than an attacking Zerg or Terran). It's a spurious argument to say that it's weak when compared to its usage when attacking. The comparison should be with other races' ability to defend with reinforcements, not Protoss's ability to reinforce attacks.
As for the problem with defensive structures; I never thought about it before (since cannons are so awesome), but the OP made a pretty convincing argument that Protoss is lacking in this regard. I have no idea how to fix it, since cannons are awesome, and if you could make them after, say, only a gateway, they would probably become too powerful.
The OP's suggestion is interesting, and although it would obviously help Protoss defence, it also has implications for attacks which may make it an unreasonable response to a relatively small problem.
In BW, didn't Protoss frequently expand with a Zealot and a cannon? Cannons shoot only ground,no detection, 100 minerals, unlocked with the cyberneticscore. add a forge upgrade that gives cannons detection + air attack. so cannons still wont be as fast as spines or bunker, but also not as hampering as building a damn forge way too early in the game.
Cannons are kind of jack of trades master of none defensive structure. Compared to the missle turrent it costs 50% more and does 50% less damage. Also missle turrents have few upgrades, repair and spores can move. The problem with cannons are you almost never need them to hit air and ground at the same time. You want to be able to kill the drop ship when it comes in, they tend to only wound. Once a marine is dropped the target changes and their drop ship almost never dies.
You want a static defence that is either stoping drops or is doing good anti ground dps. I would maybe suggest 2 cannons. 1 ground only without decetion and 1 air only with detection. Allow the ground only cannon when gateway is made. Adjust damage/cost, this would make protoss base defenses a little more useful.
|
In Brood War Zerg didn't have roaches and Terran didn't have marauders.
There are some people who don't seem to understand what the OP is saying. He's not saying that Warpgates are a defensive disadvantage (which of course would be rubbish), he is saying that warpgates cause Protoss to be at a defensive disadvantage and he is absolutely correct.
There aren't any stupidly scary Protoss timing attacks (which means Toss isn't overpowered) but there are certainly some very strong ones (that are so primarily because of their ability to quickly reinforce). The reason is that despite the excellent reinforcement abilities of a Protoss army basic Protoss units are neither particularly effective (but aren't terrible either) nor particularly cost efficient (eg: 2 roaches cost about the same as a Stalker but dominate them in combat).
This balances out their quick reinforcement and makes their timing pushes not bullshit strong (and if you could warp-in MM or Ling/Roach how stupidly sick would that be?). HOWEVER, this has the side-effect of making Protoss units weaker for defending - eg: when they would have that reinforcement advantage anyway (aka part 1 of the defenders advantage). They can't be made strong enough for defending without also making them TOO strong for attacking (although in the mid-late game I'm not too sure this would be a problem to be honest, but early game certainly would be).
So this means that Protoss can't safely expand economically without sacrificing tech.
Firstly I'll explain what I mean with a couple of popular builds in each (non-mirror) Toss matchup:
PvZ:
Now, Protoss obviously has the (very safe on some maps) Forge Fast Expand which allows them to get a very fast 2 base economy going, however they have to sacrifice tech to do so. Every time a Protoss does the FFE he will be behind vs a good Zerg player (this isn't actually debatable, nor is it in any way imbalanced, this matchup is actually fine I think). However Protoss is in the game and has the opportunity to outplay their opponent and win (Toss is having a hard time in this matchup right now but I feel this is just one of those swings and roundabouts kinda things).
1-Gate Stargate Expand (counting this as 1-gate-star and 1-gate-nexus-star):
Pretty safe build but forces a lot of resources into a tech path that shouldn't deal much in the way of direct damage and will still put you economically behind as well as delaying any other sort of tech you might want to go. Still in general safe enough but as with all PvZ openers if your opponent responds correctly you will be behind.
3-Gate Expand:
Not really very economical and doesn't actually get any tech up (a bunch of sentries is kinda like tech though) but similar to FFE is relatively safe (if you have good scouting and control) and gets you into the game a little behind (again assuming Zerg is taking every opportunity to drone, which is of course easier said than done). This is my preferred (or 2-gate-nexus-tech which works about the same) opening because it allows for putting pressure on the zerg (so you don't fall too far behind in econ).
Summary: Impossible to be even or ahead vs equally skilled opponent early-on, but with good control (particularly of the sentry) can absolutely win vs similarly skilled opponents (especially with Toss' better late-midgame army). However you will have to outplay them, but behind economically doesn't mean a phenomenal come back or anything like that is needed. This matchup is tougher for the Protoss IMO than the Zerg, but it's definitely still pretty well balanced (and Toss can often get pretty easy wins vs poor Zergs whereas the other way is not necessarily the case).
PvT:
1-Gate expand:
Can lose to several Terran openers (even with ideal scouting) depending on follow-up. Obviously there are things like the uber-fast 2-rax marine+SCV push which will stop it, but that will also just lose Terran the game. However 1-1-1 needs a Robo right after Nexus which means you lose to 2-rax which needs 2 more gates with probe cutting to have any hope to hold (and doing so means losing to 1-1-1).
3-Gate expand:
Flat-out dies to 1-1-1 and puts you well behind vs any fast Terran expo.
Tech Expand (2-gate + tech)
Put's you behind almost no matter what Terran does. IMO not a good opening vs Terran usually.
1-gate Robo->Obs:
Very safe expand but puts you behind vs any sort of Bio opening (because you have to cancel the Nexus) and doesn't seem to be able to hold off the 1-1-1 whilst expanding.
Summary: Can expand safely and be behind (and still possible die) or riskily and maybe still be behind. Once 1-1-1 gets solved/patched out of the game 1-gate-Nexus-2 more gates should be (barely) holdable with good control which will allow Protoss to enter the mid-game on even footing (although Protoss really wants to be ahead economically vs Terran, IMO). Of course if you have much better control than your opponent you will usually be able to pull off riskier openings and will be ahead assuming the Terran player is aggressive early (and there's almost no reason not to be). Big maps also make things safer for Toss (but make it harder to scout at the same time which benefits Terran).
As you can see there's no genuinely safe opening vs equally skilled opponents that doesn't put you behind without your being able to scout it/kill it. This is a problem caused by the general (and necessary) inefficiency of Toss units and it's also not helped that so much money needs to be devoted to static defence which isn't very useful vs Terran anyway.
Shield Battery would actually be awesome and would I think aid not only PvP but would also basically make gateway based expands safe and flexible vs Zerg (but you'd still end up economically behind but that's ok in this matchup) and make 1-gate-nexus-robo a viable, safe and flexible opener vs Terran.
Apologies if I rambled on a bit, it's late and I'm tired.
|
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense.
|
On September 10 2011 01:45 mieke wrote:
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense.
I like the pylon energy idea. I think one of the goals of blizz with the warpgate mechanic was that it's just plain cool and adds a lot to the visual appeal of protoss. As a viewer, the fact you can warp in units and attack multiple fronts is exciting, and why I believe blizz wanted warpgates to be strictly better than gateways in way, shape and form.
However it does lead to overly cheesy and simply unenjoyable scenarios/builds for players. K4G is a retarded, but effective build. Builds should not rely on ensuring a single pylon going up and the second it goes up they have an entire army knocking on your front door. Giving pylons energy not only makes it so you can't warp in an entire army at that location for eternity but also gives time for defenders to take it out. Then rebalance gateway units accordingly.
But this is probably all just pointless discussion because does anybody truly believe blizzard would make such a drastic change this late into development? The only possible time I could see this actually being revisited is when HotS comes out, and even then I seriously doubt it.
|
On September 10 2011 02:42 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 01:45 mieke wrote:
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense. However it does lead to overly cheesy and simply unenjoyable scenarios/builds for players. K4G is a retarded, but effective build. Builds should not rely on ensuring a single pylon going up and the second it goes up they have an entire army knocking on your front door. Giving pylons energy not only makes it so you can't warp in an entire army at that location for eternity but also gives time for defenders to take it out. Then rebalance gateway units accordingly.
That's not even a relevant point. K4G was common almost a year ago. And of course, a warp gate timing will rely on a proxy pylon. It's the entire balance and functionality of protoss, and it's not even remotely overpowered. It's also upon the defender to be actively aware of his opponents build and to know that he should be moving out to deny the proxy pylon from going down.
You suggest a warpgate nerf/gateway unit rebalance as if it's overpowered.
|
On September 10 2011 02:49 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 02:42 Skyro wrote:On September 10 2011 01:45 mieke wrote:
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense. However it does lead to overly cheesy and simply unenjoyable scenarios/builds for players. K4G is a retarded, but effective build. Builds should not rely on ensuring a single pylon going up and the second it goes up they have an entire army knocking on your front door. Giving pylons energy not only makes it so you can't warp in an entire army at that location for eternity but also gives time for defenders to take it out. Then rebalance gateway units accordingly. That's not even a relevant point. K4G was common almost a year ago. And of course, a warp gate timing will rely on a proxy pylon. It's the entire balance and functionality of protoss, and it's not even remotely overpowered. It's also upon the defender to be actively aware of his opponents build and to know that he should be moving out to deny the proxy pylon from going down. You suggest a warpgate nerf/gateway unit rebalance as if it's overpowered.
It is relevant; you can K4G still, GMs do it; just do it on a 4player map where there are equal distances between mains on all start locations, like Typhon Peaks. Place 9 pylon in a remote location not scouted as normal, easy peasy.
9 pylon
9 gate
cb nexus
13 gas
13 core
16 pylon in base
WG cb
18 gate gate gate
drop pylons (4-5)
viola, K4G
|
On September 09 2011 19:32 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 16:16 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 16:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On September 09 2011 15:58 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 15:53 Geo.Rion wrote:
I really do not mean to troll you, but it seems like this is your logic:
An offensive and a defensive Protoss have the same rally distance. Hence, Protoss doesnt have an advantage in defence, because it doesnt have a disadvantage in attack cuz of easy reinforcing, so it is pretty clear, that Protoss is weak.
I appreciate your work and the effort you put in it, but you really did not convince me, actually it is ridiculous, maybe i didnt understand it well enough.
Also: Protoss timing attacks with large armies are balanced against defensive, economic Terrans and Zergs (both races have economic openings that are ahead after defending a Protoss timing).
It would be a lot nicer and look less biased, if you'd say "allegedly" or "presumably" balanced timing atacks, and both of the other races have economic openings that are ahead IF they defend the protoss timing push, if not they just died. Well, I just sort of assumed that the games in all our tournaments speak for themselves. Terrans and Zergs are capable of defending early Protoss pressure with economic openers. If this weren't true, every Terran or Zerg would open much more unit heavy than they currently do. Yes, I am making assumptions, but I feel they aren't that ridiculous. I'm just assuming that it is possible as a Terran or Zerg, to expand before (ie play more economically than) a pressuring Protoss and survive. Do you disagree? If yes, do you have a replay? I sincerly believe, it is not possible to expand before the Protoss because on most positions a Protoss can go 15 nexus before forge against anything slower then a 13 pool, or just forge first in wich case the Zerg is not allowed to hatch first, because he dies to canons on most of the maps, and even if he goes pool first has to have at least one drone following the probe because of possible contain or just 1 well placed canon behind the mineral line. And I politely disagree with your opinion that Zerg cannot open more economically than a Protoss. Once cannon rushing is denied, the length of time to any aggressive maneuver is long enough for you to 3 base and prepare. Keep in mind that a forge + cannons does not advance tech towards any units at all. In other words, If you defend a pylon + 2 cannon rush with lings, but lose 400 minerals of lings, you're technically ahead, because both players have lost the same amount of minerals, but you actually can make attacking units. I still have to build my gateway to get going. Agree to disagree, I suppose. I think most people would agree with me though >.> well thanks for not quoting half of my post, which is the direct answer to your first few lines. I suggest re-read it, i dont feel like copy pasting it here again. If you defend a pylon+2 canons with lings? Bad news, you canot, if he walls himself in, or hides or finds any way for the canons to finish or be close to finish no ammount of lings would take it out, if the Zerg can hold the canon rush, that becomes obvious before any canon or additional pylon is finished, in most of the cases, then you just cancel them and exp. But honestly, a smart Protoss doesnt go for a canon rush if it can be denied with drones in that position, or if the pool is fast enough for zerglings to come out before canons warp in. But smart protosses are as rare as white ravens, im above 1k masters, which granted isnt very good, but 1/3 of the Protosses go for canon rush, yes, even against 12 or 13 pool with having 1 drone right clicked on their probes, another good proportion goes for 15 nexus no matter what, yes vs 12 pool too, then the rest go for an allin either off of one or 2 base, and the remaining few %s turtle up and wait for a deathball. And even against opponents this bad and many autowins due to their horribly bad openers i have a fairly poor ZvP record, somewhere around 50%, which would be a tone worse if those autowins wont happen. So when i hear protosses are doing everything that's possible and Zerg and Terran are just overpowered, and bad players in general, that's why they werent owning harder up till now. OK, this wasnt in this topic, but it's a quite popular opinion here and on bnet. And how can you close out with a line like that, seriously? If by most people you mean those protosses who canot beat double exping Zerg, then i think you got a fairly tiny majority there bro.
So, what I'm getting from you is: cannon rushes put Protoss an expo ahead and do significant damage to Zerg consistantly with low risk. Right?
There's no way for either of us to prove that we're right without actually citing games. Right now its your word against mine, and honestly, I think you're being ridiculous. Cannon rushes are not low risk guaranteed reward, and you cannot cannon expo every map... there are only like 2 or 3 maps you can theoretically do a good cannon expo.
This is also completely off target of the thread too. No matter how much anecdotal evidence you throw out it's probably not going to change my mind. Just drop it, or make a thread about how cannons are imba with good evidence.
|
On September 10 2011 04:05 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 02:49 Tyrant0 wrote:On September 10 2011 02:42 Skyro wrote:On September 10 2011 01:45 mieke wrote:
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense. However it does lead to overly cheesy and simply unenjoyable scenarios/builds for players. K4G is a retarded, but effective build. Builds should not rely on ensuring a single pylon going up and the second it goes up they have an entire army knocking on your front door. Giving pylons energy not only makes it so you can't warp in an entire army at that location for eternity but also gives time for defenders to take it out. Then rebalance gateway units accordingly. That's not even a relevant point. K4G was common almost a year ago. And of course, a warp gate timing will rely on a proxy pylon. It's the entire balance and functionality of protoss, and it's not even remotely overpowered. It's also upon the defender to be actively aware of his opponents build and to know that he should be moving out to deny the proxy pylon from going down. You suggest a warpgate nerf/gateway unit rebalance as if it's overpowered. It is relevant; you can K4G still, GMs do it; just do it on a 4player map where there are equal distances between mains on all start locations, like Typhon Peaks. Place 9 pylon in a remote location not scouted as normal, easy peasy. 9 pylon 9 gate cb nexus 13 gas 13 core 16 pylon in base WG cb 18 gate gate gate drop pylons (4-5) viola, K4G
Who cares if a few GM's still do it on the ladder? It's non-existent in competitive play. It's been solved almost a year ago, and even nerfed; inadvertently. The only advantage you even gain from doing it is that it's unexpected, and punishes a greedy opening (blindly). But a normal 4 gate can do that too, and is much more stable.
Furthermore, there is no way K4G can be propped up as an argument against warp gates. Oh, and thanks for the build order.
|
On September 09 2011 23:25 althaz wrote:
In Brood War Zerg didn't have roaches and Terran didn't have marauders.
There are some people who don't seem to understand what the OP is saying. He's not saying that Warpgates are a defensive disadvantage (which of course would be rubbish), he is saying that warpgates cause Protoss to be at a defensive disadvantage and he is absolutely correct.
There aren't any stupidly scary Protoss timing attacks (which means Toss isn't overpowered) but there are certainly some very strong ones (that are so primarily because of their ability to quickly reinforce). The reason is that despite the excellent reinforcement abilities of a Protoss army basic Protoss units are neither particularly effective (but aren't terrible either) nor particularly cost efficient (eg: 2 roaches cost about the same as a Stalker but dominate them in combat).
This balances out their quick reinforcement and makes their timing pushes not bullshit strong (and if you could warp-in MM or Ling/Roach how stupidly sick would that be?). HOWEVER, this has the side-effect of making Protoss units weaker for defending - eg: when they would have that reinforcement advantage anyway (aka part 1 of the defenders advantage). They can't be made strong enough for defending without also making them TOO strong for attacking (although in the mid-late game I'm not too sure this would be a problem to be honest, but early game certainly would be).
So this means that Protoss can't safely expand economically without sacrificing tech.
Firstly I'll explain what I mean with a couple of popular builds in each (non-mirror) Toss matchup:
PvZ:
Now, Protoss obviously has the (very safe on some maps) Forge Fast Expand which allows them to get a very fast 2 base economy going, however they have to sacrifice tech to do so. Every time a Protoss does the FFE he will be behind vs a good Zerg player (this isn't actually debatable, nor is it in any way imbalanced, this matchup is actually fine I think). However Protoss is in the game and has the opportunity to outplay their opponent and win (Toss is having a hard time in this matchup right now but I feel this is just one of those swings and roundabouts kinda things).
1-Gate Stargate Expand (counting this as 1-gate-star and 1-gate-nexus-star):
Pretty safe build but forces a lot of resources into a tech path that shouldn't deal much in the way of direct damage and will still put you economically behind as well as delaying any other sort of tech you might want to go. Still in general safe enough but as with all PvZ openers if your opponent responds correctly you will be behind.
3-Gate Expand:
Not really very economical and doesn't actually get any tech up (a bunch of sentries is kinda like tech though) but similar to FFE is relatively safe (if you have good scouting and control) and gets you into the game a little behind (again assuming Zerg is taking every opportunity to drone, which is of course easier said than done). This is my preferred (or 2-gate-nexus-tech which works about the same) opening because it allows for putting pressure on the zerg (so you don't fall too far behind in econ).
Summary: Impossible to be even or ahead vs equally skilled opponent early-on, but with good control (particularly of the sentry) can absolutely win vs similarly skilled opponents (especially with Toss' better late-midgame army). However you will have to outplay them, but behind economically doesn't mean a phenomenal come back or anything like that is needed. This matchup is tougher for the Protoss IMO than the Zerg, but it's definitely still pretty well balanced (and Toss can often get pretty easy wins vs poor Zergs whereas the other way is not necessarily the case).
PvT:
1-Gate expand:
Can lose to several Terran openers (even with ideal scouting) depending on follow-up. Obviously there are things like the uber-fast 2-rax marine+SCV push which will stop it, but that will also just lose Terran the game. However 1-1-1 needs a Robo right after Nexus which means you lose to 2-rax which needs 2 more gates with probe cutting to have any hope to hold (and doing so means losing to 1-1-1).
3-Gate expand:
Flat-out dies to 1-1-1 and puts you well behind vs any fast Terran expo.
Tech Expand (2-gate + tech)
Put's you behind almost no matter what Terran does. IMO not a good opening vs Terran usually.
1-gate Robo->Obs:
Very safe expand but puts you behind vs any sort of Bio opening (because you have to cancel the Nexus) and doesn't seem to be able to hold off the 1-1-1 whilst expanding.
Summary: Can expand safely and be behind (and still possible die) or riskily and maybe still be behind. Once 1-1-1 gets solved/patched out of the game 1-gate-Nexus-2 more gates should be (barely) holdable with good control which will allow Protoss to enter the mid-game on even footing (although Protoss really wants to be ahead economically vs Terran, IMO). Of course if you have much better control than your opponent you will usually be able to pull off riskier openings and will be ahead assuming the Terran player is aggressive early (and there's almost no reason not to be). Big maps also make things safer for Toss (but make it harder to scout at the same time which benefits Terran).
As you can see there's no genuinely safe opening vs equally skilled opponents that doesn't put you behind without your being able to scout it/kill it. This is a problem caused by the general (and necessary) inefficiency of Toss units and it's also not helped that so much money needs to be devoted to static defence which isn't very useful vs Terran anyway.
Shield Battery would actually be awesome and would I think aid not only PvP but would also basically make gateway based expands safe and flexible vs Zerg (but you'd still end up economically behind but that's ok in this matchup) and make 1-gate-nexus-robo a viable, safe and flexible opener vs Terran.
Apologies if I rambled on a bit, it's late and I'm tired.
gateway units are not "made weaker" to other races units to balance warpgates. thats simply not true. gateway units are equal in strength to other races tier1 units, however protoss warpgates are balanced so offensive builds cannot pump out too many units to be overpowered. this means protoss cannot do safe-economic-defensive builds like zerg/terran can.
but alas, gateway units are not weak compared to other races tier1
roaches beat stalkers because of race mechanics between toss/zerg. 1 stalker beats 1 roach, a roach costs 50 less minerals and 25 less gas. Yeah, 2 roaches cost almost as much as 1stalker and will pwn the stalker, lets call this fact the "roach advantage". so the zerg can mass more of them to beat the toss, but if the toss can use forcefields he can make battle favorable then he can effectively kill the roaches/lings and the zerg cannot use this "roach advantage" until he gets ultralisks to pop FF or broodlords to longrange pwn a FFing toss
by the time the zerg gets those things, the toss is at 200food with storm/collossi/3 bases (hopefully). this now means the zerg is bound by his supply cap. now the toss has an advantage because 50 stalkers will slaughter 50 roaches easily. so zerg has a "roach advantage" early game, but late game it doesnt count because equal food in stalkers will kill equal food in roaches lategame
marauders beat stalkers because of race mechancis as well. marauders cannot shoot up. marauders beat stalkers, however sentry+staker+zealot will beat MM+stim early game in equal food amounts as long as the terran has no ghosts/thors/tanks/medivacs
guardian shield causes marauders/marines to do very little damage to zealots. force field stops MM balls from being able to kite the toss ball properly. using stims forces a terran to get medivacs to do it properly which hopefully gives the toss time to get collossi.
ive done this plenty times in micro/unit testers against my friends trying to micro MM as best as they can. gateway units are NOT WEAK. equal foods of gateway units will defeat equal foods of MM+stim units (assuming the terran has no ghosts or siegetanks or medivacs). the problem is warpgates are balanced so protoss is never really able to get out "equal food" of unts because warpgates are balanced to not let toss timing attacks get too many units
zerg is the swarm race with cheaper units that can swarm the enemy, but protoss has the stronger unit that wins a 200v200 battle.
terran is in the middle ground of this concept. for example comparing stalkers to marines. 10 stalkers should beat 20 marines with combat shield (but not with stim too. sentrys are needed to beat stim). but the marines are cheaper, require no gas. however if the protoss can defend and get a 200food deathball he should be unstoppable because marines are extremely weak to toss aoe (collossi) and stalkers are alot more resilient to terran aoe (tanks) so the marines vaporize but the stalkers are allowed to remain. etc.
im not saying theres no problem, im just saying the problem is "warpgates are balanced to give toss reduced unit creation power. this means because toss is balanced to not have overpowered timing attacks, their defensive abilities are weak"
the problem is NOT "gateway units are weak compared to other races t1 units"
|
Defenders advantage is measured against your opponent, not your own army. Protoss having similar rally distances on offense and defense isn't a 'lack of a defenders advantage' it's just a massive boost to offense. The short rally relative to the opponent is still there on defense. It doesnt just magically disappear because it can also exist on offense. This idea that because they enjoy this advantage on offense means it is no longer an advantage on defense is asinine.
|
On September 10 2011 02:49 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 02:42 Skyro wrote:On September 10 2011 01:45 mieke wrote:
What they should do is require chronoboost energy to warp-in units. Each unit will cost 25 energy(might need to tweak this value) per warp-in. Reduce warp-gate cooldown to that of current chrono'd warp-gate's cooldown.
Or give pylons 25 starting energy (200 max energy) and whenever a unit is warped in its power grid, take 25 energy from that pylon. (Might need to tweak these values)
Either would require tweaks to Gateway unit build times. Find a way to strike a balance in build time such that a toss player would choose warpgates for quickly powering an army (with penalty to proxy pylon reinforcements) and gateways for economic defense. However it does lead to overly cheesy and simply unenjoyable scenarios/builds for players. K4G is a retarded, but effective build. Builds should not rely on ensuring a single pylon going up and the second it goes up they have an entire army knocking on your front door. Giving pylons energy not only makes it so you can't warp in an entire army at that location for eternity but also gives time for defenders to take it out. Then rebalance gateway units accordingly. That's not even a relevant point. K4G was common almost a year ago. And of course, a warp gate timing will rely on a proxy pylon. It's the entire balance and functionality of protoss, and it's not even remotely overpowered. It's also upon the defender to be actively aware of his opponents build and to know that he should be moving out to deny the proxy pylon from going down. You suggest a warpgate nerf/gateway unit rebalance as if it's overpowered.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying anything about WG being OP or not, I'm saying I believe the primary motivation for blizz to allow warping in of units was for the visual appeal and coolness factor for spectators to lend itself as an esports game, and are now finding it hard to effectively balance around that mechanic in a fun way for the players who actually play the game. K4G is just an example (albeit a dated one due to all the WG nerfs) of how ridiculous the mechanic is from a player's perspective. I don't think anybody really found playing or defending a K4G fun in the slightest. The pylon energy idea keeps warpgates in the game (pleasing spectators) while still keeping the fundamental RTS tenet of a defender's advantage intact (pleasing players), and from there you can rebalance the units as necessary.
|
So, do you want cannons to be off the gateway? The photon cannon is an amazingly powerful early game; if you were given easy access to it, every game would be a zeal/cannon rush.
You seem to think short rally distance makes reinforcing better, but your reinforce point is instant as protoss, so the only situation you have to worry about is in PvP. Is it OK if warp ins are obnoxious for everyone else to deal with but not protoss? Yeah, if you have more gateway units and attack, it's very reasonable that you should win, so you need to match his gateway numbers or get some sort of tech advantage to overcome that.
Also, defensive protoss macro styles are already rediculously powerful versus zerg, shield battery would be ridiculous in SC2 PvZ
|
On September 10 2011 04:30 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 19:32 Geo.Rion wrote:On September 09 2011 16:16 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 16:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On September 09 2011 15:58 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 15:53 Geo.Rion wrote:
I really do not mean to troll you, but it seems like this is your logic:
An offensive and a defensive Protoss have the same rally distance. Hence, Protoss doesnt have an advantage in defence, because it doesnt have a disadvantage in attack cuz of easy reinforcing, so it is pretty clear, that Protoss is weak.
I appreciate your work and the effort you put in it, but you really did not convince me, actually it is ridiculous, maybe i didnt understand it well enough.
Also: Protoss timing attacks with large armies are balanced against defensive, economic Terrans and Zergs (both races have economic openings that are ahead after defending a Protoss timing).
It would be a lot nicer and look less biased, if you'd say "allegedly" or "presumably" balanced timing atacks, and both of the other races have economic openings that are ahead IF they defend the protoss timing push, if not they just died. Well, I just sort of assumed that the games in all our tournaments speak for themselves. Terrans and Zergs are capable of defending early Protoss pressure with economic openers. If this weren't true, every Terran or Zerg would open much more unit heavy than they currently do. Yes, I am making assumptions, but I feel they aren't that ridiculous. I'm just assuming that it is possible as a Terran or Zerg, to expand before (ie play more economically than) a pressuring Protoss and survive. Do you disagree? If yes, do you have a replay? I sincerly believe, it is not possible to expand before the Protoss because on most positions a Protoss can go 15 nexus before forge against anything slower then a 13 pool, or just forge first in wich case the Zerg is not allowed to hatch first, because he dies to canons on most of the maps, and even if he goes pool first has to have at least one drone following the probe because of possible contain or just 1 well placed canon behind the mineral line. And I politely disagree with your opinion that Zerg cannot open more economically than a Protoss. Once cannon rushing is denied, the length of time to any aggressive maneuver is long enough for you to 3 base and prepare. Keep in mind that a forge + cannons does not advance tech towards any units at all. In other words, If you defend a pylon + 2 cannon rush with lings, but lose 400 minerals of lings, you're technically ahead, because both players have lost the same amount of minerals, but you actually can make attacking units. I still have to build my gateway to get going. Agree to disagree, I suppose. I think most people would agree with me though >.> well thanks for not quoting half of my post, which is the direct answer to your first few lines. I suggest re-read it, i dont feel like copy pasting it here again. If you defend a pylon+2 canons with lings? Bad news, you canot, if he walls himself in, or hides or finds any way for the canons to finish or be close to finish no ammount of lings would take it out, if the Zerg can hold the canon rush, that becomes obvious before any canon or additional pylon is finished, in most of the cases, then you just cancel them and exp. But honestly, a smart Protoss doesnt go for a canon rush if it can be denied with drones in that position, or if the pool is fast enough for zerglings to come out before canons warp in. But smart protosses are as rare as white ravens, im above 1k masters, which granted isnt very good, but 1/3 of the Protosses go for canon rush, yes, even against 12 or 13 pool with having 1 drone right clicked on their probes, another good proportion goes for 15 nexus no matter what, yes vs 12 pool too, then the rest go for an allin either off of one or 2 base, and the remaining few %s turtle up and wait for a deathball. And even against opponents this bad and many autowins due to their horribly bad openers i have a fairly poor ZvP record, somewhere around 50%, which would be a tone worse if those autowins wont happen. So when i hear protosses are doing everything that's possible and Zerg and Terran are just overpowered, and bad players in general, that's why they werent owning harder up till now. OK, this wasnt in this topic, but it's a quite popular opinion here and on bnet. And how can you close out with a line like that, seriously? If by most people you mean those protosses who canot beat double exping Zerg, then i think you got a fairly tiny majority there bro. So, what I'm getting from you is: cannon rushes put Protoss an expo ahead and do significant damage to Zerg consistantly with low risk. Right? There's no way for either of us to prove that we're right without actually citing games. Right now its your word against mine, and honestly, I think you're being ridiculous. Cannon rushes are not low risk guaranteed reward, and you cannot cannon expo every map... there are only like 2 or 3 maps you can theoretically do a good cannon expo. This is also completely off target of the thread too. No matter how much anecdotal evidence you throw out it's probably not going to change my mind. Just drop it, or make a thread about how cannons are imba with good evidence.
Just to prove how wrong you are: Nerazim, Abyssal, Thaldarim, Shattered, Shakuras, Antiga are very good/decent for canon exp, and i ve seen it done totally safely on every single map including Xel Naga. (i dont even know about the lava map, i thumbed that down long ago, but afair that s good for it too)
It's not my word against yours, Zergs do not hatch first against forge opening unless there is no way to wall in effectively behind mineral lines or if they want to take a huge risk. The standard ZvP openings are 12 pool, 14/15pool and 14gas14pool, Hatch first on 1 or 2 maps and it s a big risk even so. Canon rushes are very low risk vs 15 hatch, if you do them right and not in those few scenarios where it can be stopped while going hatch first, and it is relevant to the topic, since forge FEs are the way to 6/7gate builds and warprism+warpgate builds, which you claim are not able to hurt double expoing zergs, which is flat out wrong, and not a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
