|
On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok
Before the research change, it was viable. Not so much anymore.
|
|
|
On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
|
On September 20 2015 08:00 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Is it just me or is the average game length of lotv games way below hots games atm?
I don't like that :/
well that was the obvious result when blizzard started to make the eco changes
|
On September 20 2015 08:24 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 07:50 Rollora wrote:On September 20 2015 07:41 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote:
not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed a mauarder in a gasless 3 rax rush it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas? Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks.
you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate
|
On September 20 2015 08:32 Rollora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:24 Scrubwave wrote:On September 20 2015 07:50 Rollora wrote:On September 20 2015 07:41 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote:
not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed a mauarder in a gasless 3 rax rush it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas? Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks. you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate
Proxy rax is not off the plate, but has to be executed better. If I recall correctly Puck and his archon partner were defeated like that in one of the games in this tournament.
|
On September 20 2015 08:35 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:32 Rollora wrote:On September 20 2015 08:24 Scrubwave wrote:On September 20 2015 07:50 Rollora wrote:On September 20 2015 07:41 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote:
not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed a mauarder in a gasless 3 rax rush it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas? Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks. you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate Proxy rax is not off the plate, but has to be executed better. If I recall correctly Puck and his archon partner were defeated like that in one of the games in this tournament.
"to be executed better".
you are kidding. Proxy Rax is already one of the "hardest" cheeses there is, actually it has such a low chance of winning that it isn't used anymore at all. Only chance the T has is, when the toss is going nexus first and doesn't have mothersipcore out early enough.
It works vs Zerg from time to time, but that is a differen't matter.
In order to work again, we have to ask Blizzard, if they could reiterate an old joke:
bunker build time change
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
|
On September 20 2015 09:06 juicyjames wrote:
Any recommended matches?
Well since LOTV is new, Archon mode is new, the casting was good...
I'd say you can watch any game and be entertained.
I watched the very first game (HUK/MC vs MMA/Bomber) which was cool and I'd say better then the finals. Personal opinion. The finals felt kinda anticlimatic - for finals.
|
On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted. Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
|
On September 20 2015 10:16 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted. Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS. You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
What? On the contrary, bio with liberators scales amazingly well. I wish my Protoss comps would scale that well. Adepts, for example, are useless later in the game. That's why people switch to tried and tested chargelots.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
Third bases drop around 3 to 7 minutes ingame, the natural is basically free for all races. Terran midgame army (MMM-ghost-liberator) is extremely strong.
From the terrans i saw today, they seemed to be playing entirely HOTS style super aggro with little else thrown in. That was confusing to me because almost nobody plays like that on master-GM ladder so i can't comment much on it
|
On September 20 2015 10:16 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted. Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS. You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
My point is that it's not like TvP or TvZ now, it's the exact opposite. Terran doesn't have to go mass suicidal in the mid game, because the terran army fares much better against Protoss later on than it does in HotS. On the contrary, Protoss is arguably stronger in the early-mid game because of the adepts, but that strength falls off very quickly. Hence, I was suggesting that playing defensive would've resulted in a much different series, and we would've gotten to see how weak Protoss actually is in the late game PvT.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
On September 20 2015 12:42 blooblooblahblah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2015 10:16 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote:
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective. I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm. I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough. I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS. oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely ok You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted. Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS. You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death. My point is that it's not like TvP or TvZ now, it's the exact opposite. Terran doesn't have to go mass suicidal in the mid game, because the terran army fares much better against Protoss later on than it does in HotS. On the contrary, Protoss is arguably stronger in the early-mid game because of the adepts, but that strength falls off very quickly. Hence, I was suggesting that playing defensive would've resulted in a much different series, and we would've gotten to see how weak Protoss actually is in the late game PvT.
1000% true
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
This comment makes perfect sense in WOL and HOTS but is pretty meaningless for Legacy. Terran actually gets way stronger now when they can take a third and afford to mix in ghosts and liberators.
|
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
This is not true though, as we see in the 3rd game (?) in their first series, Huk/MC goes early 3rd and get 11/12 gates while Bomber/MMA stayed at 2 bases. Then they got overrun by adepts/stalkers/sentries/immortals.
Also defensive coordination is a lot harder than offensive. 2 players defend at the same time is a waste of apm when you need to gather all your forces in one place.
Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place?
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
The core problem is that unlike the other two races, the stalker is too "standard" for the core ranged unit. In terran, marine has good dps but is more squishy whereas the marauder is tanky but cannot attack air; In zerg roach is tanky and hydra is squishy but with higher dps. In protoss they have more functional units such as immortal and sentry, and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game). If one wants to add another complementary core unit it is very hard to create something that naturally leads to a mixture like the other two races. So they did this in a bruteful way by making adept tankier and strong against light units. The result is that yeah in the mid game protoss will start to have mix stalkers and adepts, but it made them really strong in the early game.
|
Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place?
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
I agree that it may not be ideal but ideal is pretty hard. I don't think it is worse than HOTS since HOTS is quite simply the reverse: non gimmicky PvT is basically the toss turtling against terran harass until high tech kicks in. Arguably, the current design could be better than HOTS as unlike HOTS protoss LOTV terran won't (hopefully) be turtling for a death ball but for a critical mass of bio, after which they can then start counter-dropping, which may result in a mid-late of two-sided dropping and defending and lots of great multitasking. It's mostly speculation imo until abusive players like huk/MC get more practiced opponents to fence with. This is just the beginning 
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
That's what the game has been about for 5 years though - one side either doing hard all ins or sitting back and turtling for 15 minutes. Only difference is now terran has stronger mid-lategame and protoss stronger early game.
and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game
Stalker is very low DPS, probably the lowest damage standard unit in the game. Less DPS than sentries vs light, less DPS than marines too even though they cost 125/50 instead of 50/0. They do mediocre damage even with their bonus to armored which is balanced by support units, versatility, movespeed, decent scaling + blink etc.
Stalker was never about doing damage (especially vs light) and i'm really happy to see alternatives to the "build stalkers or die" protoss game due to simply not having any other unit capable of engaging basic ranged units even in the early game.
|
On September 20 2015 17:01 timchen1017 wrote:Show nested quote +
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
This is not true though, as we see in the 3rd game (?) in their first series, Huk/MC goes early 3rd and get 11/12 gates while Bomber/MMA stayed at 2 bases. Then they got overrun by adepts/stalkers/sentries/immortals. Also defensive coordination is a lot harder than offensive. 2 players defend at the same time is a waste of apm when you need to gather all your forces in one place. Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place? I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle. The core problem is that unlike the other two races, the stalker is too "standard" for the core ranged unit. In terran, marine has good dps but is more squishy whereas the marauder is tanky but cannot attack air; In zerg roach is tanky and hydra is squishy but with higher dps. In protoss they have more functional units such as immortal and sentry, and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game). If one wants to add another complementary core unit it is very hard to create something that naturally leads to a mixture like the other two races. So they did this in a bruteful way by making adept tankier and strong against light units. The result is that yeah in the mid game protoss will start to have mix stalkers and adepts, but it made them really strong in the early game.
How is that paradoxical? Bio is good in a straight up fight and also really tanky when used as part of a drop, thanks to the amazing healing ability of the medivac.
The core problem of the Protoss race, as you've said yourself at the end of the post, is that the race didn't have a well rounded, massable unit, but instead a lot of one-dimensional hard-counter units. That is why Protoss was always forced to go all-in, because Protoss harass was always too weak and coinflippy and the army weaker the more stretched out it is. For the first time Protoss can actually hurt the opponent, without doing an all-in or a gimmicky build. And that is really good for the game.
|
Stalker does okay damage. That is why you can see so many +2 stalker timings. On paper it does not look high, but it is more burst oriented comparing to marines which makes it a lot stronger in kiting or dodging situations. It is pretty massable and a mass stalker strategy works fine well into mid game. Wtih high tier unit support it works all game long. It does not do less damage to light comparing to sentry.
bio units are not that tanky in drops. A single medivac offers strong healing that offset about 2 stalkers. However, 1. enemy can burst down marines 1 by 1 such that it does not have a chance to be healed; 2. drops comes down 1 by 1 so a few stalkers can already shot down a drop ship if in position; 3. the use of stim pack on the group already off-set the healing for 5 seconds or so. You can say they are tanky when they reach a critical mass (w/o AOE from the other side) but each unit is certainly not that tanky.
Adepts, however, are already tanky and of high damage in small numbers. Even tough BZ tries to compare them to Marauders, but the problem is mass marauders is not really a thing vs. low-mid tier units. Unlike in current LotV it seems mass adepts is good vs. everything, due to its dual harass and tank role.
|
United Kingdom20333 Posts
Stalker does okay damage. That is why you can see so many +2 stalker timings
Those timings are completely worthless without chronoboost, blink, warpgate and sentries. It's not strong because of stalkers anti-light damage at all.
Adepts, however, are already tanky and of high damage in small numbers. Even tough BZ tries to compare them to Marauders, but the problem is mass marauders is not really a thing vs. low-mid tier units. Unlike in current LotV it seems mass adepts is good vs. everything, due to its dual harass and tank role.
Marauders are fairly decent especially mixed into bio armies, they have good DPS when stimmed and don't die as easily as marines. They shut down armored units very quickly. Less use for them since Colossi got pretty much removed from the game, they were good at flanking or leaping forward and killing them and also straight 100% marine wasn't very viable because it was too vulnerable to burst AOE while marauders added meat and consistency to the army. They've been used in every matchup regularly for the last 5 years, they're not bad units. They're worse in legacy because of the changes but the design of the marauder is roughly ok.
"mass" adept isn't good. It was never good since they changed the upgrade at least. Two thirds of the adept health is shields (which means it gets removed by EMP) and if you take 100 supply of adept against 70 supply of marine/marauder/medivac/ghost you will horribly horribly die. They cannot shoot liberators which are very strong when mixed into bio armies too.
Bio outscales straight adept play if protoss does nothing else - even just stim and medivac spam is enough but the ghosts and/or liberators make it a joke. I don't know how people can even have this discussion saying that adept spam beats terran armies in mid-lategame..
nobody is playing adept spam 50 adepts in the midgame vs terrans who have any idea how to play, adepts are strongest when you have very small armies on both sides (in the early game or when harassing or defending harass)
If you wanna post a replay for critique, go ahead
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
