EPTOn July 12 2023 12:48 Gescom wrote:
^ Citing Protoss balance concerns after watching Creator throw games doing Creator things is bizarre. They're not gonna change fundamentals like Stalker damage when Ladder, all the way up to High GM, is completely healthy for Protoss. It's the small sample size of GSL players and maybe the map pool. We had 5P 3Z in the GSL RO16.. no one is gonna say Zerg is in a bad place balance-wise. Conversely, the HomeStory Cup RO8 was 5Z, 2P, 1T, with the bad bracket luck to have a protoss mirror.
KR is dominated by Terrans, EU by Zerg, and NA by Protoss. Perhaps that is "balance". Heh.
If we're going to make changes at this point they need to be hyper subtle. Things like 5-10% reductions in medivac boost speed or widow mine burrow speed or yes, lurker/swarm host movement speed.
^ Citing Protoss balance concerns after watching Creator throw games doing Creator things is bizarre. They're not gonna change fundamentals like Stalker damage when Ladder, all the way up to High GM, is completely healthy for Protoss. It's the small sample size of GSL players and maybe the map pool. We had 5P 3Z in the GSL RO16.. no one is gonna say Zerg is in a bad place balance-wise. Conversely, the HomeStory Cup RO8 was 5Z, 2P, 1T, with the bad bracket luck to have a protoss mirror.
KR is dominated by Terrans, EU by Zerg, and NA by Protoss. Perhaps that is "balance". Heh.
If we're going to make changes at this point they need to be hyper subtle. Things like 5-10% reductions in medivac boost speed or widow mine burrow speed or yes, lurker/swarm host movement speed.
Thanks for bringing up the stats, it doesn't look as dire as maybe how it feels, though I do feel like Protoss is still weak at the top level and that they got the short end of the stick last patch, making them even weaker.
I'm very curious about the Stalker damage, as it would be significant but still a relatively small change in terms of keeping unit dynamics and strategies mainly the same. I just wonder why no one seems to bring that up when it comes to suggestions on how to buff Gateway army strength.
It seems the last patch strived to help Gateway strength by making Forge upgrades slightly faster and buffing Sentries slightly. But these all feel like tiny things that don't truly make Gateway armies more resilient in a meaningful way that helps Protoss with its flexibility issues and punishing nature to play. (For +1 for example you get like 10 more seconds to fight with +1 damage/armor but they're not actually stronger, and maybe a few more zealots will now be covered by Guardian Shield easier, and maybe Sentry pushes are slightly more worth it by getting 1 more Sentry faster before WarpGate research, but that's kinda it). I don't think what Protoss got compensated for Overcharge being weaker and Interference Matrix being even stronger and faster now (with cheaper and quicker to build Ravens).
I also feel that people would agree that Protoss struggles against Mutalisks, and that they're quite punishing and have a high game-ending potential when compared to other things in SC2. Mutalisks need very specific responses and good control by Protoss to fend off, and that's simply to fend them off - once fended off with specific counters it's not like Zerg suddenly goes into a significant disadvantage, or didn't get any damage to be worth it. Mutalisks feel relatively low risk but with very high potential in ZvP. I think people would agree Stalkers are a bit weak compared to Mutalisks, forcing Protoss to often need to resort to double Phoenix production which are specifically good against Mutalisks and aren't as useful later.
It also feels like Ling/Roach/Ravager is stronger than it should be at defending Gateway pushes (sometimes with Immortals). Ravagers just have so much staying power and you can easily remake them, while Gateway pushes quickly lose all the tech it needs to keep going (Sentry energy, Immortals). I feel even reverting Spores to root/uproot a few seconds slower would help Protoss pushes so that Zerg can't chase down the WP with the Spore as easily.
I think Stalkers having 1 more damage vs Mutalisks, Ravagers, Queens, Zerglings etc. could be an effective way to subtly buff Gateway strength without changing the way the game is played much. So often you see a low committment Ravager push (often times from a Zerg who is behind and launching a last ditch attack) or some Queen push or Queen overlord drop play do massive damage to Protoss if they don't have the right army composition and in exactly the right place at the right times. I do feel it's very punishing as Protoss in general and a slight buff to a core unit like the Stalker could be the kind of overall buff that'd make Protoss more solid/flexible overall.
It would also help Protoss fend off Terran pushes in the early-mid game by doing a little more damage vs Marines, and relying slightly less on needing splash ASAP. I think this, or something needs to be done to compensate for the Overcharge nerf and Interference Matrix being cheaper/easier to get.
Maybe it'd be a lot stronger than I think, or maybe it'd mess with PvP vs Zealots/Archons/Phoenix or something, but it doesn't seem like it'd hurt much and I'm very curious why no one talks about buffing damage vs non-Armored specifically (usually people mention buffing Stalker overall damage or reworking its attack speed/damage so upgrades give +2 instead of +1 etc.).
I've also been thinking about something else lately... maybe it's part of race identity but if a Protoss was behind, and they tried a last ditch all-in, it never seems to be very scary at all, yet last ditch Ravager pushes from Zerg somehow are. Last-ditch all-ins from Terran can be scary too with SCV pulls. It doesn't feel like Protoss has that equivalent in last-ditch all-ins. They used to, with the old 4gate, 6gate, 8gate all-ins on less bases focusing on pure army, but those aren't a thing anymore. Maybe I'm wrong on that but i just don't recall seeing any last ditch Protoss pushes that did anything. The only one I remember is Creator doing a super super delayed 2 base all-in where he just like maxed out vs a 4 base Zerg and somehow Zerg didn't prepare enough despite knowing Protoss was on 2 base for so long.
On July 12 2023 13:12 tigera6 wrote:
My simple suggestion would be make the Robo unit cheaper, they are the backbone of Protoss army in most PvT fight so having them earlier and more would solve part of the problem. Either way, I do agree that Protoss just missing their top players at the moment. If you stack up all the top player in each race, the talent level is lopsided to Terran and Zerg, Serral/Reynor/Dark/Solar and Maru/Cure/Clem/Byun are definitely better than herO/MaxPax/Classic and whoever else you want to throw in between Creator-Showtime-Astrea.
My simple suggestion would be make the Robo unit cheaper, they are the backbone of Protoss army in most PvT fight so having them earlier and more would solve part of the problem. Either way, I do agree that Protoss just missing their top players at the moment. If you stack up all the top player in each race, the talent level is lopsided to Terran and Zerg, Serral/Reynor/Dark/Solar and Maru/Cure/Clem/Byun are definitely better than herO/MaxPax/Classic and whoever else you want to throw in between Creator-Showtime-Astrea.
That's true too, i guess it brings up the discussion between whether we can know if it's because the players aren't as skilled, or if it's because the race has always been weaker at the top top level that we don't see as skilled players playing Protoss. For example, we've seen sOs was a top top Protoss player in his prime years, but it seemed that once people figured the game out a bit more, those surprise strategies weren't effective enough anymore, and Protoss was weak when trying to play a "straight up" game. So would we consider him falling off as just not being as good as other players anymore, or is it the race is not as strong now that people figured out how to defend things better? (Obviously not counting his last year or so before he retired, where he was probably just chilling out and not tryharding anymore).
Same with Protoss players who were at the top in their prime, like Dear, Zest, etc. These players all seemed to fall off and weren't able to maintain the way top Terran or top Zerg players do. Zest did stay relevant for years, by managing to to win some stuff again before going to the military, but it just seems like top Protoss struggle so much more with consistency than players like Maru/Innovation/Rogue/Dark, and i have to wonder if it's really just the players or just the race.
I know you can't compare things 1:1 like this, but doing these early Marine/Tank pushes vs TvP are easy to execute and control compared to the high precision control and split-second decisions you have to make as Protoss to fend them off. Maybe it's just because I'm a Terran player so it feels easy to me and hard cus I don't play Protoss, but I don't think I could manage to control Blink stalkers and making game-ending calls on when to blink in and snipe tanks, having to split their fire to not overkill Tanks, to use a WP to fly near but not over the Marines so that you can pick up hurt stalkers while you're micro'ing the stalkers, juggling the stalkers in and out, etc. At the same time I know it's tricky though because if you do buff things like Stalker damage, if you have a really good player with perfect micro, things could get overpowered too with the very high micro ceiling.
Sorry i am probably discussing in the wrong place and i don't mean to balance whine, I just really like to think of these things, maybe Protoss is actually fine because there's also lots of things they can do that Terran/Zerg can't
