|
On September 10 2011 05:42 tetracycloide wrote:
This idea that because they enjoy this advantage on offense means it is no longer an advantage on defense is asinine.
It is also true, and perfectly logical.
Gateway Units need to be balanced with Warpgate in mind else they would be overpowered.
if Gateway Units are balanced around their offensiv potential, then defending with them will be
worse, where the Protoss units can't defend due to map design with forcefields (which is the majority of maps) and lack of defensiv structures.
Hell that is the reason why Roach/Ling all-ins work.
Protoss lacks the defensiv structure, that unlocks normally with the first production building structure (Baracks/Pool). Some cost effective defensiv structure would instantly fix all match ups and make the game alot more macro orientated, because your opponent can't just blindly all-in and know they will be in 90% the more favorable side.
In the end Protoss has 2 techonologies that are a core advantage.
Warpgate/Forcefield
If both Warpgate Timings are not good anymore due to nerfs and the map doesn't suit for Forcefield play, then the map (or the game) is imbalanced towards Protoss.
Because there is nothing left to fall back on, while the opponents macromechanic will always be something that has benefits.
|
i think you also have to take in the fact that we (as a protoss player myself) have forcefields, which provide huge defensive capability. ask any zerg/terran player that we've forcefielded half-way up ramp!
|
|
|
On September 10 2011 06:12 Skyro 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. 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.
You brought up K4G again. It's irrelevant. It shouldn't be used as an example, especially outside of PVP. I don't know which players you're trying to please either; warp gate timings are protoss's only method of punishing/pressuring. Just their very existence is what keeps most greedy players honest.
And again, the entire way you word your posts, you empower the user using warp gates, and take all credit away from their opponent.
On September 10 2011 05:41 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +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"
What? Getting a lot of units is precisely what a warp gate timing attack accomplishes. You get an influx of units as warpgate/gateways finish, ontop of the fact gateway units are produced first, and put on cooldown later.\
Your arguments are non-existent. You treat forcefields as if they're indefinite. Zergs aren't going roach ling and then waiting for ultralisks to break forcefields these days. I don't know how many PVT's you see where you get a chance to fight purely marines with just stalkers, or how often a terran marine/marauder mix will sit still to let you get perfect forcefields and let your zealots get anywhere close.
Gateway units suck vs current meta game compositions. You will rarely see a game end with purely gateway units that isn't part of a timing attack.
|
On September 10 2011 06:37 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 06:12 Skyro wrote: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. 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. You brought up K4G again. It's irrelevant. It shouldn't be used as an example, especially outside of PVP. I don't know which players you're trying to please either; warp gate timings are protoss's only method of punishing/pressuring. Just their very existence is what keeps most greedy players honest. And again, the entire way you word your posts, you empower the user using warp gates, and take all credit away from their opponent.
Again you misunderstand. You focus on balance. Can you not understand that something can be balanced (or imbalanced, again I'm not saying anything about balance, at all), but not fun for the players? I'm saying the concept of warpgates, as currently implemented, causes issues with how enjoyable the game is for the players. This is a design flaw, and essentially the whole point of the topic in the first place. K4G is used an example as it is the most obvious example to point out this design flaw.
And when I say please players, I mean make the game, from a strategic point of view, more enjoyable to play. All players of all races would IMO welcome a change to the warp-gate mechanic that kept the basic RTS tenet of a defender's advantage intact, or at least myself as a protoss player would. Or to put it another way, from a design standpoint it is better to ensure all your basic RTS principles are intact, and then balance around that. A stronger, rebalanced gateway units with limited offensive warp-in potential would absolutely do wonders to the enjoyability of the early game for players IMO.
|
On September 09 2011 15:58 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Turned around, unless you have an eco opener vs P, they simply overwhelm you with masses of 4 gated units.
|
This is a really stupid discussion. OP claims that a lot of openers are completely invalid vs a lot of terran openers which is complete bullshit. With good enough micro it is possible to hold off a 2rax with a 1gate expo + a 1 gate expo is really good against 1/1/1.
Protoss is all about good micro, if you fuck up with army positioning or micro in the early game, its just like missing injects as zerg or not siegeing your tanks in time as terran. Saying that Protoss openings are underpowered is bullshit since its all about how well you execute it.
Yeah PvP is a hyper aggressive matchup just like zvz in BW. But thats just the way the game works atm. A lot of new stuff is going to come in the expations and the possibilities will grow. But as of now this is what we got. Don't tell me its not possible to play defensive in PvP though, since it definitely is on maps with ramps.
|
On September 10 2011 09:48 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +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? Turned around, unless you have an eco opener vs P, they simply overwhelm you with masses of 4 gated units.
You DO have eco openers vs P though! That was the whole point of the argument. Bunkers, spines, and close rallies help T and Z defend against superior Protoss numbers. 4 Gate hasn't been a problem in the non-mirror for a LONG time now.
|
this really did make me think a lot, and i do agree there is no defenders advantage for a toss... i would think the shield battery could be a pretty sick building to introduce...
|
On September 10 2011 10:21 Kong John wrote:
This is a really stupid discussion. OP claims that a lot of openers are completely invalid vs a lot of terran openers which is complete bullshit. With good enough micro it is possible to hold off a 2rax with a 1gate expo + a 1 gate expo is really good against 1/1/1.
Allow me to rephrase your statement: "With some of the best micro in the world the Protoss player can defend a 2 rax reactor first push with 6 scvs after doing a 1 Gate FE, if the Terran screws up his positioning." - see Naniwa vs Strelok at the EU Blizzard Invitational for an example.
Also, it's hilarious how 1 Gate FE has become "really good against 1/1/1" suddenly, all the while Protosses in the GSL still lose to the all-in after 1 Gate expanding.
|
On September 10 2011 10:48 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 10:21 Kong John wrote:
This is a really stupid discussion. OP claims that a lot of openers are completely invalid vs a lot of terran openers which is complete bullshit. With good enough micro it is possible to hold off a 2rax with a 1gate expo + a 1 gate expo is really good against 1/1/1.
Allow me to rephrase your statement: "With some of the best micro in the world the Protoss player can defend a 2 rax reactor first push with 6 scvs after doing a 1 Gate FE, if the Terran screws up his positioning." - see Naniwa vs Strelok at the EU Blizzard Invitational for an example. Also, it's hilarious how 1 Gate FE has become "really good against 1/1/1" suddenly, all the while Protosses in the GSL still lose to the all-in after 1 Gate expanding.
Took the words right outta my mouth. Or... right off my keyboard.
1 Gate FE has a chance to hold of 1/1/1, but its not "really good". 1 Gate FE must sac expo to 2rax, unless you have godly micro and your opponent screws up. If they bring SCV's and bunker you, you're almost guaranteed to lose your nexus.
|
I REALLY enjoy, how this topic, which used to talk about design issues relating to a concept and how it could be changed to still fit the current balance (only talk of balance) between races has now turned into a balance talk about allins.
Good job Teamliquid.net. good. fucking. job.
|
Somewhat Agree with OP regarding Protoss doesn't have rally disadvantage when attacking. But it affect to PVP the most I think.
|
God, people seem to be missing the point completely. Gateway units fair poorly against the lower tier units of the other races. There are various ways to deal with this (e.g. forciefields and templar), but the point is that perhaps there just shouldn't be this inequity. If gateway units were stronger, it would make protoss less dependent on tech units like collosi and storm. This would allow for new ways of playing. The problem the op is suggesting is that improving gateway units would make warp gate timings too strong, so perhaps warpgates could be nerfed to allow for these other changes.
|
On September 10 2011 06:26 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 05:42 tetracycloide wrote:
This idea that because they enjoy this advantage on offense means it is no longer an advantage on defense is asinine.
It is also true, and perfectly logical. Gateway Units need to be balanced with Warpgate in mind else they would be overpowered. if Gateway Units are balanced around their offensiv potential, then defending with them will be worse, where the Protoss units can't defend due to map design with forcefields (which is the majority of maps) and lack of defensiv structures. Hell that is the reason why Roach/Ling all-ins work. Protoss lacks the defensiv structure, that unlocks normally with the first production building structure (Baracks/Pool). Some cost effective defensiv structure would instantly fix all match ups and make the game alot more macro orientated, because your opponent can't just blindly all-in and know they will be in 90% the more favorable side. In the end Protoss has 2 techonologies that are a core advantage. Warpgate/Forcefield If both Warpgate Timings are not good anymore due to nerfs and the map doesn't suit for Forcefield play, then the map (or the game) is imbalanced towards Protoss. Because there is nothing left to fall back on, while the opponents macromechanic will always be something that has benefits.
give the protoss a defensive structure that is unlocked with gateway without needing other tech = zerg cannot attack at all, and must play it to macro game.
Funny how Zerg is the only race forced to go for long game if they don't want to all-in and get a coin flip win/loss.
|
On September 10 2011 11:46 darklight54321 wrote:
I REALLY enjoy, how this topic, which used to talk about design issues relating to a concept and how it could be changed to still fit the current balance (only talk of balance) between races has now turned into a balance talk about allins.
Good job Teamliquid.net. good. fucking. job.
This really made me laugh. 
To be fair, that's kinda in the OP since the main point of the OP is the lack of defender's advantage for one race as opposed to the other races (the warp gate just being a factor of that fact in the OP's eyes). But I know what you mean... 
|
The OP seems to imply that warp-ins make Protoss' defender's advantage weaker. Not true. The choice of where to warp-in can only help Protoss; it can't hurt it. Protoss always has the close rally perk in PvT and PvZ, because it has the close rally perk everywhere, whether attacking or defending. PvP is balanced by definition (both sides have the perk).
It seems to me that the best way to solve Protoss' lack of early defensive structure is to make the Photon Cannon weaker at the outset and include a midgame upgrade for it, bringing it to its current strength. Not only would this solve the problem of needing an early forge to expand, it would reduce the effectiveness of the ever-annoying cannon rush.
|
On September 10 2011 15:58 MShaw006 wrote:
The OP seems to imply that warp-ins make Protoss' defender's advantage weaker. Not true. The choice of where to warp-in can only help Protoss; it can't hurt it. Protoss always has the close rally perk in PvT and PvZ, because it has the close rally perk everywhere, whether attacking or defending. PvP is balanced by definition (both sides have the perk).
It seems to me that the best way to solve Protoss' lack of early defensive structure is to make the Photon Cannon weaker at the outset and include a midgame upgrade for it, bringing it to its current strength. Not only would this solve the problem of needing an early forge to expand, it would reduce the effectiveness of the ever-annoying cannon rush.
This is kind of how I feel. I'll agree that there is no difference between where you rally because of the warpin mechanic, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have a defenders advantage (with the exception of PvP). No matter what Zerg and Terran still have to travel to your base to attack, so reinforcements arrive late, Protoss reinforcements will be wherever you have power. In this sense the only thing here that has changed is that the warp in mechanic lessens the defenders advantage for your opponent.
Now if you want to talk about defensive structures then I will also agree that Forge is a bit outside what would be your ideal build, whereas Zerg has access to Spine Crawlers as soon as his Pool is finished and Terran has access to Bunkers as soon as his first Barracks is finished. Still I would have trouble justifying Cannon in their current condition being made available earlier for Protoss. Some of what worries me is the potential for using Cannons offensively and that Cannons hit both air, ground and can detect. This is quite a lot for a single building to do and I doubt many would say that Cannons are a horrible structure, the problem like stated is most likely where they are in your tech tree.
Finally if we're talking about balance then it is hard for me to say if Protoss need help defending or should even have help opening up extremely economy oriented. I personally feel like you guys can keep up fairly well in terms of economy with chronoboost and sentries, and your two base timings are just so darn good that I would feel uneasy if Protoss had access to higher economy all ins with well fortified bases. If anything the changes that would be made would have to be very carefully thought out, it seems like it would be too easy to make something overpowered.
|
Well i dont see any problem with it. If Toss is bad at defending(what i dont even think, well placed forcefields not just at your choke, can redude the opponents army value pretty hard) then dont play defensive. I think thats what good about starcraft , different races represent different gamestyles.
If you like to defend, play a race thats good at defending and has a advantage in small groups.
If a race is good at doing pushes, then go for it and abuse all the positive aspects of agressive protoss play.
|
So you're saying that Protoss players should be able to instantly warp across the map and have defender's advantage?
I'd be fine with giving P shield batteries, but that means you should give up your warp gate. Having both means P has superior aggression and defender's advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
