EPTIEM Global Challenge Cologne - "Dead Presidents" - Page 21
| Forum Index > News |
Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way. | ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
| ||
|
rpgalon
Brazil1069 Posts
On September 09 2011 11:26 xajukx wrote: The new protoss hope is Hero, please don't let him and MC meet early in Code A... there is going to be so much protoss in code A that protosses killing each other can't be avoided... | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. What the hell are you talking about? | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
| ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 11:44 red4ce wrote: Well written article, but isn't it already out of date? Patch 1.4 is coming so I don't see any point in complaining about balance until at least a couple months after the patch is released to see if any imbalances have been solved. What on earth makes you think 1 immortal range and a blink stalker nerf will help P considerably :/ Sure there was SLIGHT nerf to terran but... not that much, also MC commented on the patch saying it wont have a considerable effect on anything but PvP. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
Go into unit tester and just amove low to medium amounts of gateway with a bit of support vs mass roach. Make sure that unit costs are the same, not necessarily supply. Without good to great forcefields, the roaches win every time. What allows protoss to be cost efficient is forcefields, without them protoss units are just squishy and suck. Protoss is supply efficient against most zerg comps, it's not cost efficient. That's part of what makes toss play for 200/200. The terran problems have been discussed earlier. | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:13 robopork wrote: Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers. "There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit." Cited from the community manager in this b.net forum: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1020823601?page=4#71 I'm amazed at how resiliant people like you are to cold, hard, numerical facts. http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them. Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out. Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%. | ||
|
tyrless
United States485 Posts
| ||
|
Brian333
657 Posts
An explanation for the state of Protoss I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it. The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1. I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options. For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army. What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand. Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy. Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies. Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage. Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest. Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes. We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses. With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs. So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point. So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth. And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with. To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
| ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:05 Olinim wrote: What on earth makes you think 1 immortal range and a blink stalker nerf will help P considerably :/ Sure there was SLIGHT nerf to terran but... not that much, also MC commented on the patch saying it wont have a considerable effect on anything but PvP. Hmmm, if it fixes PvP, I don't see why they shouldn't remove the warpgate nerf, which might help hold off the 1/1/1? IIRC, a properly executed 4gate can hit a Terran before 1/1/1 gets out? That would just be a band-aid on a huge gaping wound though. | ||
|
kash000
Canada25 Posts
Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc. My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran... Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance. TL,dr: you've been trolled by TL writers. | ||
|
-y0shi-
Germany994 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:17 kofman wrote: Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out. Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%. I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition. I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws... Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi? And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier? Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt... | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:32 kash000 wrote: I find it funny that the writers added a sarcastic balance comment and no one understood it as such. Mods have been having fun thanks to people not knowing the posting rules either. Maybe this is some kind of TL evolutionary test =) Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc. My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran... Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance. TL,dr: you've been trolled by TL writers. No, the writer isn't trolling. | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:34 -y0shi- wrote: I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition. I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws... Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi? And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier? Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt... Why not make HT's and not collosi, and then switch over to mothership? vortex + storm seems very powerful to me, but no one tries it. 850/750 is not an insurmountable amount in the lategame. What I'm saying is that motherships should see more use in 200 food situations, where you are maxed and have a bunch of money saved up. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:04 kofman wrote: Why not make HT's and not collosi, and then switch over to mothership? vortex + storm seems very powerful to me, but no one tries it. 850/750 is not an insurmountable amount in the lategame. What I'm saying is that motherships should see more use in 200 food situations, where you are maxed and have a bunch of money saved up. With the amount of ghosts terrans are making lately, going 2 techs that are both heavily spell reliant is a horrid idea. Go try EMPing a mothership. You have a hitbox the size of a quarter the screen. Add in the fact that terran often has better army awareness through scans late game, and really going mothership alongside HT's is asking to die to EMP. | ||
|
kash000
Canada25 Posts
Thanks for the link, I had missed his answer. I believe he made a mistake. He should have known balance talk would drown out anything else and make people miss the rest of the article. It took many years and an expansion to balance brood war, we should trust in blizzard and wait. They have realized that toss has design flaws and is least flexible and that currently terran has plenty of options. I am surprised that they continue to lower toss options (slower blink) for the sake of pvp. Ramp vision and pylon range are now such that it should be very viable to go robo in pvp or even stargate if you scout or anticipate robo play, in addition to gateway play. Thanks, kash P.s. Gates are good because they offer the most flexibility to toss. You can adapt your composition with mass gates without having to create additional production buildings. | ||
|
Olinim
4044 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:13 kash000 wrote: Thanks for the link, I had missed his answer. I believe he made a mistake. He should have known balance talk would drown out anything else and make people miss the rest of the article. It took many years and an expansion to balance brood war, we should trust in blizzard and wait. They have realized that toss has design flaws and is least flexible and that currently terran has plenty of options. I am surprised that they continue to lower toss options (slower blink) for the sake of pvp. Ramp vision and pylon range are now such that it should be very viable to go robo in pvp or even stargate if you scout or anticipate robo play, in addition to gateway play. Thanks, kash P.s. Gates are good because they offer the most flexibility to toss. You can adapt your composition with mass gates without having to create additional production buildings. No one is expecting perfect balance. What people do expect, however, is for protoss to actually be competitive in Code S, and not be repeatedly be demolished by a simple 1 base all in that can be anticipated, scouted, prepared for, and still wreck every single pro protoss. | ||
|
Soulish
Canada1403 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:16 Amui wrote: Go into unit tester and just amove low to medium amounts of gateway with a bit of support vs mass roach. Make sure that unit costs are the same, not necessarily supply. Without good to great forcefields, the roaches win every time. What allows protoss to be cost efficient is forcefields, without them protoss units are just squishy and suck. Protoss is supply efficient against most zerg comps, it's not cost efficient. That's part of what makes toss play for 200/200. The terran problems have been discussed earlier. Zergs don't have colossus, and my archon zealot rips through mass roach just fine | ||
| ||
