|
On September 10 2011 17:31 Nyxisto wrote:
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.
It makes Protoss boring and stagnant if they cant open economically and defensively. Someone else mentioned it, but openers are balanced between greedy, aggressive, and safe, which all beat each other in a rock/paper/scissors fashion. It's currently hard to open "safe" as Protoss because of the lack of defense - if you open economically, its closer to "greedy" on that scale. A Protoss opener is thus kept in a smaller box, which makes it predictable... which can be taken advantage of by a smart opponent.
|
On September 10 2011 16:32 CaptTerrible wrote:Show nested quote +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.
you're right, the race is inefficient. It needs to be streamlined so that you pay as little as possible for as much tech as possible. I mean, its not like there was ever the need for forge in brood war for the cannons. Its not like forge is needed for the upgrades for timing pushes which incidentally opens up cannons.
|
On September 10 2011 16:32 CaptTerrible wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
First off, cannons are right where they belong, just like turrets and spores. Toss just has no bunker/spine equivalent, tech wise. Sentries fill this role of early defense... But by making sentries to defend, you have less attacking units, so the number of gateways you have to produce before expanding with a good defense is more than the other races. And its not like sentries are free! 50/100 is EXPENSIVE. Extra sentries means more gas, which means less minerals. More sentries means more gateways for other units, which means less minerals. Which all adds up to a later expansion.
Also, Protoss has the slowest econ growth of the 3 races. Some chrono must be devoted to early units and warp gate for any defense to be viable at all, and MULEs and inject are much more efficient at growing an economy.
On September 10 2011 17:50 Truedot wrote:
you're right, the race is inefficient. It needs to be streamlined so that you pay as little as possible for as much tech as possible. I mean, its not like there was ever the need for forge in brood war for the cannons. Its not like forge is needed for the upgrades for timing pushes which incidentally opens up cannons.
And you've just gone into sarcasm mode. Great, how does anyone discuss anything at all anymore
|
I disagree with the logic of the OP saying toss have no defender's advantage.
Protoss is equally effective whether they're attacking or defending. (warp in, cannons require tech)
T/Z is more effective when defending(shorter rally, defensive structures) than attacking.
If the game is balanced in this regard, T/Z and Protoss should have an equal chance to hold off an attack or succeed in an attack against the other race. This is not achieved by setting Protoss attack = T/Z defense, which makes T/Z attack > Protoss defense, as stated in the OP. Rather, it is achieved by making the advantage T/Z gets in defending equal to the disadvantage it gets when attacking.
If protoss is squarely in the middle of T/Z's offensive capability and its defensive capability, everything is balanced. Protoss has a defender's advantage in T/Z's long rally.
|
I agreed instinctively before playing the game somethign was off about warping tech.
It kind of completely ignores map design almost fully.
Which is why I think protoss is really boring compared to zerg or terran.
|
Simplified explanation (correct me if I'm wrong):
- Protoss seems to have an offensive advantage with warpgates. This offensive advantage was neutered by having inefficient gateway units. Thus, Protoss has no net advantage in offense because of a permanent penalty imposed on Gateway units. Protoss is balanced for offense because of a permanent penalty + several patches toning down 4gate, etc.
- In a defensive context, the permanent penalty is still in effect (Gateway units are weak for cost - source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=CM2fmeYD&key=0Ah7e8gd66xh6dG1JZ1JEc3BlZFpENU1hWjh0ajF1dnc&hl=en&authkey=CM2fmeYD#gid=0). This penalty was imposed because of Protoss offense (warpgates would otherwise have been an advantage).
Thus, Protoss now has balanced offense (especially after the patches) but suffers from the same penalty in non-offensive context.
Shield battery would address this.
Edit: I don't even like this solution, but I think the OP has a winning case. My personal opinion is that Protoss needs some major core changes.
|
Just because you can reinforce the same on offence as defence dosnt mean you dont have defenders advantage. You still have advantage of short rally over the opponent. And wide naturals are just as vulnerable for the other player.
|
You didn't mention PvP because it is "balanced" but I think one of the biggest problems lay in PvP.
Rock, Paper, Scissors is also perfectly balanced but it is hardly suitable for competitive play. PvP is too volatile (or too random). Meaning, the better player has a high chance of losing against the worst player. Compare this to Terran, where the better player generally wins. For who wants to spend tens of thousands of hours preparing for a tournament when you know it is a very chance you will lose as soon as you meet another Protoss, regardless of skill?
This is mainly due to one of the problems you discuss though, that Protoss has poor defense. As there is such a poor defense, attacking is generally a good strategy and with the shorter games, the better player has less of an advantage.
A shield battery requiring only gateway-tech that would "pulse" out shields would greatly help PvP, as it would make it less viable to attack early on.
|
On September 10 2011 18:31 Lucko wrote:
Just because you can reinforce the same on offence as defence dosnt mean you dont have defenders advantage. You still have advantage of short rally over the opponent. And wide naturals are just as vulnerable for the other player.
Lets put it in numbers:
If a Terran attacks a zerg on a map where it takes 1 minute to cross, he will be attacking with a 7 minute army against a 8 minute army. Easy to understand, yes?
If a protoss attacks a terran, no matter the distance, he will be attacking with an 8 minute army against a 8 minute army. This is obviously too strong with regular units, thus protoss gateway units have been nerfed into the ground (especially stalkers) to be as strong as a 7 minute army. It seems to work, because right now, a protoss on the offense can still be very strong, but its not imba.
Heres comes the bad part about this. If a terran attacks a protoss. He will be attacking with a 7 minute army into a 8 minute army. But because protoss units have been nerfed to be a 7 minute army, the protoss suddenly don't have the "rally defenders advantage" that the other two races has. This leads to terran timing pushes becomming incredibly strong. On open maps where other defenders advantages are taken away (Wide areas at natural making forcefields useless, for instance), then it becomes very troublesome for a protoss to defend himself.
Canons isn't the answer either, because 1, they suck vs terran units with their massive dps, and 2, they're out of the way and a bit expensive in the beginning of the game. (Meaning, you'll need a forge to build them, and you can't move them or salvage them afterwards)
|
Excludos: The situation you presented in which protoss is nerfed into the ground does not result in balance as you explained. If blizzard overnerfed protoss units, protoss win ratios would be very low.
Instead, if blizzard would nerf protoss units just enough so that their strength in offense is equal the terran's strength in offense, resulting in balance. Since win ratios are roughly equal, protoss units are roughly nerfed to this degree.
In other words, by saying "this is obviously too strong (so protoss must be overnerfed)" you are assuming what you are trying to prove.
|
On September 10 2011 19:49 saus wrote:
Excludos: The situation you presented in which protoss is nerfed into the ground does not result in balance as you explained. If blizzard overnerfed protoss units, protoss win ratios would be very low.
in gsl (pro lvl) the protoss win ratio is redicilous low ^^
|
On September 10 2011 19:49 saus wrote:
Excludos: The situation you presented in which protoss is nerfed into the ground does not result in balance as you explained. If blizzard overnerfed protoss units, protoss win ratios would be very low.
Instead, if blizzard would nerf protoss units just enough so that their strength in offense is equal the terran's strength in offense, resulting in balance. Since win ratios are roughly equal, protoss units are roughly nerfed to this degree.
In other words, by saying "this is obviously too strong (so protoss must be overnerfed)" you are assuming what you are trying to prove.
You're a tad off there. Protoss units are bad offense so they'll be equally to terrans defense. But now terrans offense will be much stronger because protoss units have been tuned for offense. aka: No defensive advantage for protoss.
I used the word "nerfed", because thats what happened in early beta. When blizzard themself figured that warpgate was too strong offensively. but I guess the accurate word would be "bad". And it has to be, its not like blizzard can buff protoss units, because else the offense would be too strong. But like I said, this negates the defensive advantages, which is what the OP has been trying to tell us.
|
I don't know, I see this argument a lot that WG mechanic meant significantly weaker Protoss units. I used to think so myself, but I'm not sure anymore. The Zealot remains a strong unit, its stats similar or close to the BW Zealot. The Stalker, which I dislike, is strong in the early game but does get progressively worse as the game goes on. It is effective, however, in the mid/late game in mass numbers and with Blink (which is a cool ability). The Sentry is a decent support unit which has two great abilities in FF and GS and does ok damage for what it is. Therefore, it may not be the Protoss gateway army or WG mechanic that may be the issue here.
I don't know, maybe the issue is that when Blizzard added the Roach and the Marauder to SC2 they did not add something similar to the Protoss so that the Protoss Gateway army remains un-upgraded from BW apart from the addition of the Sentry with its FF/GS as a support unit. I'm also no longer sure, like I used to think, that the Sentry FF was meant to compensate for the weakness of Gateway units as a result of the WG mechanic. Rather, that specific Sentry ability was more to counteract the ability of other races to have significantly numerically superior forces than Protoss very quickly (through such mechanisms as Reactors and Larva Inject). Protoss' WG mechanic is the Protoss version of these race abilities in SC2 but, IMO, seems weaker as its advantage in mobility (i.e. warp in within pylon range) has to be played off against the timing of these Z and T racial abilities (along with complicated factors such as stim; concussive; ling speed and so on). Whatever the strengths of the WG mechanic in neutralising distance, you are still limited to the number of gates you have.
Returning to my earlier point, I think the Immortal as it was originally conceived was meant to be the Protoss gateway equivalent of the Roach/Marauder (it certainly counters them very effectively) but is probably too powerful and tanky (especially with such gimmicks as hardened shield) to remain a Gateway unit. This leaves Protoss Tier 1 unable to handle these armies without significant assistance and, at least versus Terran, is made worse by the power of Marines when they reach a significant number (aided by the Reactor ability on Rax). Therefore, I am doubtful if the WG mechanic is the core of Protoss design flaws and issues with the race in general.
I'm sorry if I am being a little unclear, I think I usually make my points better. But I have been thinking about this a little and am coming around to the conclusion that pinpointing the WG mechanic (as I used to do) as the core flaw in Protoss design may be wrong. The WG mechanic, fundamentally, may be fine as are Protoss Gateway units (although I do think the Stalker needs a little work - at least 1/1 for upgrades, please). The issue, rather, may be in a missing gateway unit for Protoss in SC2 and racial Z and T racial mechanics which, while legitimate, have no direct Protoss counter. Nor should they, I think. The WG mechanic works fine as an indirect response to these abilities, what needs to be also tweaked are the timings of this ability (together with, perhaps, minor tweaks to Gateway units).
Edit/ That said, I think bringing back the shield battery would be a great idea. It would, however, have to be tied to the Nexus or base in some way, as the way shield regeneration works in SC2 means, I think, that there could be room for abuse if it could be generated at any pylon anywhere on the map.
TL; DR: The WG mechanic does not necessarily lead to weaker Gateway units. What is lacking is a Gateway equivalent to the Marauder and Roach. Sentry FF/GS are not a buffer to the weakness of Gateway units, rather they compensate for the racial mechanics of Reactors for Terran and Larva Inject for Zerg which gives their armies a numerical advantage which P cannot match without FF/GS. The WG mechanic is therefore fine and does not break Protoss. Rather, what is required is better tweaking of the timing of the WG mechanic and the addition of a new Gateway unit.
|
People keep speaking of potential abuse from a shield generator if it was implemented in sc2.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did that ever happen in bw? Tbh I don't even remember seeing it that often (except for one spesific game where a single dragoon held of a terran allin). What makes you think it will be that much more insane in sc2? Remember the shield battery we're talking about only has the capacity to restore 200 shield, and takes quite a while to regenerate. Its not actually that much.
|
On September 10 2011 17:57 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 16:32 CaptTerrible wrote: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. 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. First off, cannons are right where they belong, just like turrets and spores. Toss just has no bunker/spine equivalent, tech wise. Sentries fill this role of early defense... But by making sentries to defend, you have less attacking units, so the number of gateways you have to produce before expanding with a good defense is more than the other races. And its not like sentries are free! 50/100 is EXPENSIVE. Extra sentries means more gas, which means less minerals. More sentries means more gateways for other units, which means less minerals. Which all adds up to a later expansion. Also, Protoss has the slowest econ growth of the 3 races. Some chrono must be devoted to early units and warp gate for any defense to be viable at all, and MULEs and inject are much more efficient at growing an economy. Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 17:50 Truedot wrote:
you're right, the race is inefficient. It needs to be streamlined so that you pay as little as possible for as much tech as possible. I mean, its not like there was ever the need for forge in brood war for the cannons. Its not like forge is needed for the upgrades for timing pushes which incidentally opens up cannons. And you've just gone into sarcasm mode. Great, how does anyone discuss anything at all anymore
Okay the point is that the entire game, any entire strategy game, is based around arbitrarily set limitations on the pieces on the board. These pieces must be traded off in a risk vs reward fashion, given what may or may not help now, and what definitely will help in the long run (to the ultimate goal of winning).
giving some sort of defense structure available to protoss right off of gateway, as it stands now, would multiply they variables of protoss construction and timing tenfold, making them that much more unpredictable. Sure, this huge leap in versatility will grant them the ability to play "shadowy" and trick T enough time to coin flip some wins out, but at the end of the day, although a more shadowy nature, I thought, was supposed to be the role of protoss, as a hit and fade army, and not some deathball ballbuster army, thats not really good for the game as it simply makes it that much harder to balance it, and removes a lot of the element of understanding the opposition and reading them and then countering them.
My sarcasm was just a tired attempt to point that out without taking the time to go in depth.
|
life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery
|
Interesting read, OP
--------------------------------
Balancing Toss, and discussing the balance of Toss, has always been a really weird thing. It's difficult to put your finger on for several reasons. I'll just make a few observations:
- Bunker / Spine / _____ ??? -
- The bunker is a defensive structure that does not add DPS for cost. It absolutely increases the utility of Marines, which in TvP can be extremely weak in early confrontations (Stim, of course, changes this). It is basically a DPS reduction ability, and allows you to hold a position.
- The Spine is a wonderful defensive structure that adds DPS to the fight for its cost. It has a lot of utility, it can move, and it can be created during sessions of power droning. It requires a lot of work to use these offensively in anything but ZvZ.
- Protoss has no defensive structure available after gate!? - It has been addressed by the comments already, but is an interesting observation to make. The Sentry fills the role of the bunker and the Spine in early game, but has a role in the entire game (usually). All of the abilities are essentially DPS reduction skills but like most Toss abilities, are completely mobile. FF can actually eliminate the fight completely, or reduce DPS by partitioning the opponent's range. Guardian shield reduces all ranged DPS. And Hallucinate can also absorb a ridiculous amount of DPS.
- The cannon must require the forge for obvious reasons. The cannon is so all purpose, and such a formidable cheesing tool, it basically has to stay in the forge. I think everyone agrees on this.
- Warpgate tech is super powerful in early game and late game. It's slightly less powerful in the mid-game. Skipping a round of units, and eliminating rally distance, gives the Warpgate units a huge advantage in early game. Couple this with the Sentry and the Toss army is very powerful until Stim hits the field. Secondly, since the Warpgate is a gassless production structure it can be used as a mineral dump in late game, when the Toss is maxed. After a Toss is maxed, Every warpgate skips a productions cycle, once supply is freed up again.
- It's always been about Tech and Abilities - Abilities and tech completely swing the favor in TvP. In super early game, a concussive shell rush can punish a Toss. Once Warpgates and/or Sentries hit the field a non-Stim Bio army is at a serious disadvantage. Once Stim is up, the Bio Ball has a serious advantage over a GW Ball. Colossus is typically the answer to a bio ball, but Charge and Blink add a tremendous amount of efficacy to their respective units. Once either of these two things hit the field, the Bio Ball and the GW Ball are on relatively even ground.
I contend that the strength of certain abilities and tech paths are contributing a great deal to the sensitivities in the TvP matchup in all stages.
This response might be overkill, : / but I think there are some worthy observations here.
|
On September 10 2011 19:49 saus wrote:
Excludos: The situation you presented in which protoss is nerfed into the ground does not result in balance as you explained. If blizzard overnerfed protoss units, protoss win ratios would be very low.
Protoss win ratios are incredibly low -_-
There are only 5 Protoss in the GSL this season.
|
Great idea with the shield battery. I loved the building in SC1, and it would be awesome as a building to help correct the lack of defense for protoss. However, you know as well as anyone else that it would take 3-4 days before people started to proxy them (they already have the pylon), and would be used primarily for offence/contains.
Loved the whole post tho. Aptly sums it all up.
|
I'd rather they just remove warp gate, buff gateway units and give toss a shield battery. Nullifying defenders advantage and proxy pylons are just incredibly annoying and disruptive to the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
