In any case, these numbers aren't the last word in, nor the only component of, our balance analysis. It's best to consider them a point of interest and one step along the path to fine tuning balance, rather than the final destination. It's also interesting to note how the races fare versus one another from region to region as well.
Due to the way the numbers shake out, we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results; win/loss ratios that are +/- 5% suggest balance between those races.
NA – Global – 11/11 PvT: 59.8% PvZ: 51.7% TvZ: 50.3%
QQ! Protoss has the lowest win rate vs Zerg in Korea and Europe! OMG IMBA. T_T (Slightly surprised at the PvT indicating a slight tip towards P in Diamond though)
On a serious note, I AM curious as to what the breakdown of W/L is by Points, with 1.8k-2.5k being the one I'd want to see most, since that's the upper 5-6%, where simply being better at keeping production up matters less since everyone's basics SHOULD be up to snuff, and it comes down to things like race imbalance/control (keeping micro and macro up at the same time with less issues) determining victories.
On November 16 2010 12:28 Uncultured wrote: Having global ranks is pretty worthless. Diamond is all you really need to determine anything.
Not true at all. The game should be balanced for the majority of customers, and the majority aren't in diamond. Balance at lower ranks reflects how easy or intuitive each race is, and that should be roughly equal. There are ways to adjust for that without affecting high-end balance, too.
Wasn't PvT at 48% in Korea just a few weeks ago? How could it jump this much so quickly? Nothing new has been innovated for Protoss in that matchup lately, unless NEXGenius' style finally started to "kick in". Also interesting to see how Zerg is absolutely dominating in Korea. Does anyone have an idea what strategies are being used that explain these trends? Or is it purely mechanics that makes the difference?
Despite toss having superior winrates vs T in most servers, the EU diamond winrate for PvT being less than 50% suggests there is a large variation in strategies across regions and leagues rather than definite balance issues for P or T.
These numbers mean nothing with zero context. I wish Blizzard would stop posting them, or better people would stop posting threads about them considering them to have some sort of meaning behind them.
Yes they're interesting to look at and see how things are doing "at the moment." But they have no realistic meaning about balance without seeing more detailed info. Because of the way ladder works and how some people have maps vetod and etc etc there is no possible way to gain decent insight into these numbers unless you have the Info Blizz does but refuses to post.
Example: I was speccing games with Dlovan and a Zerg was playing that he said had downvoted Shakuras but not Jungle Basin. This is going to cause a swing in his winning percentages.
What I'd rather see is something like, these winning percentages within the like say... top 20% MMR of Diamond.
There are so many players that are diamond but are garbage players, just exploiting certain flavor of the month builds or timings, or just 7RR each game. I think if you were to see what the top 20% was doing it would show a bit more than just "Diamond players" about the current state of balance for the higher level.
This is nice to see as just a general snap shot of where the game is at. I don't think you can take any certainties from it... obviously there are a ton of variables and that is why this isn't the only piece of data that the guys use but it just happens to be the easiest to understand to release to the public. The only way this would really be helpful or show something is if there was a percentage that was like 68% for a matchup or something like that.
Additionally there is also the point of balance in different phases of the game, sure, Protoss may have a good win percentage, but that might be because a lot of terrans are gunning for a late-game plan in stead of the 1-base builds which all protoss cry about.
Example could be that even tho the winning percentages could be 50/50 that just might mean Terran wins early on or protoss wins late.
So yea, you really can't look too much into the winning percentages though.
In regards to the PvZ stats from korea i imagine it might be the korean zergs being better at countering 4gate builds, but that's just me guessing.
On November 16 2010 12:45 CortoMontez wrote: Despite toss having superior winrates vs T in most servers, the EU diamond winrate for PvT being less than 50% suggests there is a large variation in strategies across regions and leagues rather than definite balance issues for P or T.
That's not necessarily the case. It could also suggest that, in terms of player skill, EU is much more balanced across the races than Korea or NA.
Not saying you're wrong, it's just not the only thing those numbers could represent. That's why they don't ONLY use this metric for balance changes.
Just for the record, while these stats are useful, they aren't the sole factor with balance. The blizz panel actually does a decent job explaining how 1 source of information can't be the basis for balance in such a diverse and fragile game.
But yeah, it does seem like Pvt might have some issues, and I am sure blizzard is taking alot of time looking into this issue.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Those numbers are incredibly surprising, as a Terran player I find Protoss by far the easiest matchup, with Zerg by far the most difficult, and PvZ aren't people always complaining that P is too strong?
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Sounds about Right. Protoss TvP suck right up until tier 3. Then they just melt Terran. Personally i feel terrans loss to Protoss its because Terran has nothing to transition to except more Bio.
And mech TvP is a joke Sadly.
In SK Terran you would go Mass Medic Marine but you would eventually need the use of higher tier units such as the Science Vessel.
In SC2 i don't think PDD can really hep against Collosi or Templar.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
1.lets say a one guy has a skill rating of 1000 and happens too play race X that is currently imbalanced and is 50 rating above his real level
2.this other guy has a skill rating of 1100 but plays race Y that is currently under powered so he is playing at a rating 50 below his real level.
3. because of the skill difference these players should not meet each other but because racial imbalance they have the same rating
4. when they play they will have a 50% win against each other even tho they are not at the same real skill level the racial imbalance balances that out and makes it an even match.
this is why they cant use numbers such as these for balance and the only real way too do it would be too look at tournament results and the really top level players only
I think the TvZ numbers are still premature to be accurrate since a number of Terran players are still in transition which is evident by the number of threads on Blizzard's forums complaining of imbalance when tbh I think it's a relatively balanced mu (on-going "cheese" thread aside). Over the last few weeks I'm dreading the TvZ match-up less and less (focused on it hard, came across some timings in replays, modified my opening/transition and in general I find it working well as long as I'm actively scouting) so I think Blizzard still needs to give some time for it to settle and see where things are left. I'd like to see this number again in 2 or so months assuming no further changes are made.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
I don't think Storm needs nerfing. I feel terran need buffs in the Factory. Even TvZ the Factory is slowly becoming less viable.
It's too difficult to beat toss with a good econ It's almost as difficult to get a 2nd base with toss units..
The discrepancies between the regions for any terran MU is because of the marine. They're really strong DPS wise but rather flimsy in the mid game due to the strength of Z and P midgame armies
Zerg seems like the most balanced now i think. The banelings may be a little overpowered, but that doesnt have a huge impact on most games.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Yea, the numbers for Korea feel like what is certainly the most accurate - I just think NA (maybe Europe too) needs to skill up. I know that I feel completely helpless past midgame vs top zergs, and I feel like terran really struggles to win lategame in PvT.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
Buffing the sentry would be the opposite of what I have in mind, I think thats one of the units they are far too reliant on and that, in some situations, is far too strong (its stupid that force field traps units now, instead of pushing them back).
However, you cant nerf it without buffing something else.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Yes! I always thought Protoss was slightly UP looking at Korea but the way you put it sounds perfect. I would gladly exchange nerfs for buffs if it meant giving us some actual results. (Meaning GSL)
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
Buffing the sentry would be the opposite of what I have in mind, I think thats one of the units they are far too reliant on and that, in some situations, is far too strong (its stupid that force field traps units now, instead of pushing them back).
However, you cant nerf it without buffing something else.
if your referring too the 1 unit stuck in between two ffs they fixed that last patch, tester mentioned it in a interview a while back
Protoss is just entirely fucked as race. Stalkers are pathetic, sentries are amazing, Colossus is insane, spamming templar is insane, mothersihp is laughable etc.
Jinro has it right when he says Protoss are unbalanced, the race is a complete shambles and knowing Blizzard they'll nerf it without any buff.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
Buffing the sentry would be the opposite of what I have in mind, I think thats one of the units they are far too reliant on and that, in some situations, is far too strong (its stupid that force field traps units now, instead of pushing them back).
However, you cant nerf it without buffing something else.
if your referring too the 1 unit stuck in between two ffs they fixed that last patch, tester mentioned it in a interview a while back
You can trap units in FF - the patched made it so that if you jammed units between two FFs then they still attacked, but now you can still trap units with them.
I think some of the project / balance leads at Blizzcon summed Protoss up well. If they survive the first 12~ minutes they are likely to win.
Protoss have GREAT late game units but against a good opponent it can be difficult to get to the right tech. So the games end up in either a stomp or get stomped. I think this is kind of in line with what Jinro is saying about them being unbeatable / helpless. There is a real dichotomy in Protoss play.
I had seen an even more interesting graph recently that shows the higher up in skill you go the less Protoss are present at top level diamond and Terran/Zerg come to the front. So it is a very difficult thing overall to balance...
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
I was talking with a friend of mine a day or two ago. We came to this conclusion.
I think the problem with Protoss comes inherrently from the way they were designed.
Protoss is supposed to be this race that has 3 distinct tech paths, and is able to have some extremely powerful, ninja-like timing attacks if they aren't scouted and aren't prepared for.
However, their ability to transition from one tech path to another is the worst of the three races.
I think balancing this, they've created a race where in the early game when they only have access to one of three tech paths, they're slightly underpowered, while in the late game when they've had the time and resources to tech up multiple paths at once, they're suddenly too good.
Even without high templar tvp is really hard. Protoss players have good FE builds now that are really difficult to punish. The numbers show an imbalance, I dont really feel it super bad tbh. Lots of games on ladder now involve warp in DT's or protoss FE builds. TBH warpgates feel a bit dodgy I dont really know what to do with them but good P players now are basically able to expand with no loss in production since they can just warpgate + chrono boost 2 rounds of units and they get Ob up intime to not die to cloaked banshee.
Its really difficult when P has a good build but maybe terran can figure something out. Ive been trying ghosts with mixed success.
edit:
For the record I dont think HT is imbalanced really at all. Warp in templar is kinda gay and could be fixed but the real problem is HT + Colossus absolutely rapes since the HT is able to weaken the units and then colossus one shots them.
Zealot Charge personally is a joke compared to old Zealot Speed.
So i caught up to you wack once and you walk away. Then i have to w8 another minute to wack again. With Speedlots Zealots could actually keep up with kiting units such as Hydras with speed.
The Zealots has good DPS. IT just never uses it because it can't reach anything. Melee is useless without speed upgrades.
Any Zerg can vouch how useless Lings are without Speed
Zerg vs Terran is in a really good spot right now. The matchup still needs to be worked out a lot more but there's a lot of potential.
PvZ is kind of funky right now. It seems in Korea zergs are doing better because they are all hyper aggressive ling/roach attacks nonstop. Playing the macro game against toss right now is pretty brutal as zerg, force fields are insane and just flat uncounterable if the P does them right all throughout mid game. The 6 gate with expo is very rough. Colossus are still an insane constant threat, just 1 out can cause huge problems. Tons of toss going with starports to start and going mutas is just suicide a lot of the time.
TvP needs the most work imo. Mech MUST be made viable, but whether that can be done before the next expansion is unknown. Protoss just has extreme mobility against mech that makes it almost impossible to use. And P will probably need some storm change.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
Buffing the sentry would be the opposite of what I have in mind, I think thats one of the units they are far too reliant on and that, in some situations, is far too strong (its stupid that force field traps units now, instead of pushing them back).
However, you cant nerf it without buffing something else.
Such as zealots and stalkers! Maybe not stalkers because it would break PvZ, but as a BW Terran I envied my opponents ability to send endless streams of speedlots at me off of 3-5 bases. Having switched to Protoss in SC2, it's kind of sad that this kind of play is never going to work against any race because what was once a great core unit became just another meatshield for the colossus. I would much prefer that the sentry is removed altogether so they can buff zealots and stalkers to the spammable level of marine/marauder and roach/zergling.
we get retardedly bad units like stalkers and unbelievably good units like colossi and sentries. Feels like im playing warcraft III where i have a bunch of garbage units (gateway units) to act as cannon fodder and a couple heroes (tier 3) doing all the work.
On November 16 2010 13:46 Looky wrote: i feel like protoss is the strongest race its just people are playing them wrong
Yeah your right, the most played race and no one has figured out how to play them. *facepunch* Want to know what real statistics are? Korea thinks Protoss is the most underpowered race at the moment (PlayXP:Jingjing) And rightly so, however I support Jinro's statement a bit more and feel it's just that the race is unbalanced and it feels like your constantly walking on a tightrope where if you miss a forcefield or something, your out. It's just too punishing a race at it's current state.
Current Protoss: You're rewarded with lolroll if you play perfect. You get lolrolled if you stuff the slightest thing up.
How would you buff gateway units and nerf T3 without 4gate becoming even more unreasonable? I understand it's not a big deal in PvT but PvZ 4gate is incredibly strong, especially on maps where spinecrawlers aren't viable (BS, XC, even Metal to some extent). Even if you don't kill the Zerg, the creation of units alone puts Z in a bad shape if the P just pulls back and techs.
On November 16 2010 13:46 Looky wrote: i feel like protoss is the strongest race its just people are playing them wrong
Yeah your right, the most played race and no one has figured out how to play them. *facepunch* Want to know what real statistics are? Korea thinks Protoss is the most underpowered race at the moment (PlayXP:Jingjing) And rightly so, however I support Jinro's statement a bit more and feel it's just that the race is unbalanced and it feels like your constantly walking on a tightrope where if you miss a forcefield or something, your out. It's just too punishing a race at it's current state.
Current Protoss: You're rewarded with lolroll if you play perfect. You get lolrolled if you stuff the slightest thing up.
On November 16 2010 13:46 Looky wrote: i feel like protoss is the strongest race its just people are playing them wrong
Yeah your right, the most played race and no one has figured out how to play them. *facepunch* Want to know what real statistics are? Korea thinks Protoss is the most underpowered race at the moment (PlayXP:Jingjing) And rightly so, however I support Jinro's statement a bit more and feel it's just that the race is unbalanced and it feels like your constantly walking on a tightrope where if you miss a forcefield or something, your out. It's just too punishing a race at it's current state.
Current Protoss: You're rewarded with lolroll if you play perfect. You get lolrolled if you stuff the slightest thing up.
Sounds like Zerg macro.
Haha it does. But with stats suggesting it's imbalanced.
On November 16 2010 13:46 Looky wrote: i feel like protoss is the strongest race its just people are playing them wrong
Yeah your right, the most played race and no one has figured out how to play them. *facepunch* Want to know what real statistics are? Korea thinks Protoss is the most underpowered race at the moment (PlayXP:Jingjing) And rightly so, however I support Jinro's statement a bit more and feel it's just that the race is unbalanced and it feels like your constantly walking on a tightrope where if you miss a forcefield or something, your out. It's just too punishing a race at it's current state.
Current Protoss: You're rewarded with lolroll if you play perfect. You get lolrolled if you stuff the slightest thing up.
Sounds like Zerg macro.
Doing 4sdddddddddddd too much != having a sentry 2 feet out of range, missing a forcefield and getting smashed by a tier 1 army in 10 seconds
On November 16 2010 13:46 Looky wrote: i feel like protoss is the strongest race its just people are playing them wrong
Yeah your right, the most played race and no one has figured out how to play them. *facepunch* Want to know what real statistics are? Korea thinks Protoss is the most underpowered race at the moment (PlayXP:Jingjing) And rightly so, however I support Jinro's statement a bit more and feel it's just that the race is unbalanced and it feels like your constantly walking on a tightrope where if you miss a forcefield or something, your out. It's just too punishing a race at it's current state.
Current Protoss: You're rewarded with lolroll if you play perfect. You get lolrolled if you stuff the slightest thing up.
Sounds like Zerg macro.
Doing 4sdddddddddddd too much != having a sentry 2 feet out of range, missing a forcefield and getting smashed by a tier 1 army in 10 seconds
Doing 4sdddddddddddd too little means I'm garantueed to die to some Colossus doom army in 10 minutes. Doing 4sdddddddddddd too much means I die from something as dumb as 4gate.
You're walking a tightrope with forcefields. Droning isn't any less difficult to get right, so the premise that P is to punishing is something I don't agree with.
well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
The problem with protoss is their units are just too expensive, and easily taken out by cheaper units like lings or marauders. Protoss need to tech to the higher tech, not stupid 3M or just mass zerglings.
Honestly I think if you want to help Protoss you have to nerf colossi. It's that simple. They ruin the game for Protoss and until they're adjusted to be less stupid the rest of Protoss can't be equalized to a reasonable state.
Every single thing that happens in any Protoss related match-up happens because of colossi.
The win % means nothing as there's still tons of new strategies coming out like the 6 gate that are insanely hard to stop without opening yourself up to other strategies.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
So in other words make it so that all protoss go mass warp gates, haha. These changes seem to affect one build too much compared to the others (and the build isn't severely underpowered).
After blizzcon PvT discussion (for what it was worth) im hoping they will bring some changes to balance out the different stages of the game for protoss, i think gateway units are not good enough and colossi/HT are to good, needs to be a happy medium.
IMO as a Protoss player, getting to the late game is almost an insta-win. I don't think it's because Toss lategame is so overpowered; I feel it's either because players try soooo hard to stop a Toss from reaching late game that if a Toss DOES infact reach late game, they're behind because they were just throwing units at the Toss as he macro-ed, trying to prevent the late game, slowing becoming behind, or they don't understand how to beat Toss late game.
I can't honestly tell anyone how many PvT's where I 1 gate FE, hold off his early pressure and then win because the Terran didn't take an expo and macro with me.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
PvT is always the most imbalanced matchup when they release these numbers but no one ever talks about it, wtf...
Strange considering most Terrans best match up is Protoss. All the Terran interviews at the GSL, the T's were the most confident against Protoss. Does anyone actually feel that Protoss is that dominant against Terran? Seems like a cognitive dissonance kinda thing
PvT is always the most imbalanced matchup when they release these numbers but no one ever talks about it, wtf...
Strange considering most Terrans best match up is Protoss. All the Terran interviews at the GSL, the T's were the most confident against Protoss. Even
Well Diamond and ladder are very very different. It's much easier to play the Protoss side of the match-up if your mechanics have gaps compared to the Terran side where they need to be really really careful about/around Colossi.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
With 7 range and 8(?) vision I wouldn't recommend trying to rely on cannons vs the 6 range banshees. It's probably cheaper to build the robo.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
With 7 range and 8(?) vision I wouldn't recommend trying to rely on cannons vs the 6 range banshees. It's probably cheaper to build the robo.
Exactly, if you want to FE quit bitching and build the robo. Its not like it slows you down anyway. You can go templar tech after that if you really want to.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
Lol giving pylons chrono detect is almost exactly like giving toss a scan.
"Oh shit cloaked banshee 1+a stalkers + chrono a pylon, damn its a good thing I wasn't punished for my lack of scouting!"
I agree with most of the other stuff though, Collosi need to be nerfed in order for other stuff to be buffed, buff stalkers with current collosi would be broken as hell.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
You can't cannon your entire base. Even if you put enough down to cover your mineral like the banshees will start to go to work on your army/pylons/key tech. Not to mention both those tech routes are big resource investments, your ground army is quite pitiful, investing in cannons means Terran can just roll you with whatever army he has built up.
Exactly, if you want to FE quit bitching and build the robo. Its not like it slows you down anyway. You can go templar tech after that if you really want to.
I hate this line of thinking. No you cant. Templar tech from Robo is a good 1000/1000 investment and 4mins (all your chorno boosts) of teching before you get Storm and Amulet. Throw in a robo and observer ontop of that and your army would comprised of 2 zealots and a stalker.
PvT = toss is too strong, even I have an easy time beating 2k diamond terrans. PvZ on the other hand, toss is too weak, even unless you do strong sentry abuse, you stand little chance.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
You can't cannon your entire base. Even if you put enough down to cover your mineral like the banshees will start to go to work on your army/pylons/key tech. Not to mention both those tech routes are big resource investments, your ground army is quite pitiful, investing in cannons means Terran can just roll you with whatever army he has built up.
so dont go stargate or templar tech without obs first and transition to them later in the game. P is doing fine going robo.
Protoss favored in 2 regions(Na - 55%, Korean - 58%) in diamond. But is a little weaker than T in one (48% in Europe)
Zerg matchups are almost as bad too, favors Zerg in Korea( ZvP - 57%, ZvT - 54%) and is mostly balanced in other regions
While this isn't the end all, it's still interesting.
I really do think Region Locking is making this much harder for them, and the sooner they get rid of it(Which is on the way it eventually) the less headache they'll have.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
You can't cannon your entire base. Even if you put enough down to cover your mineral like the banshees will start to go to work on your army/pylons/key tech. Not to mention both those tech routes are big resource investments, your ground army is quite pitiful, investing in cannons means Terran can just roll you with whatever army he has built up.
so dont go stargate or templar tech without obs first and transition to them later in the game. P is doing fine going robo.
The point is P want to go different tech routes without having to be pigeon holed into a specific tech path first. Yes they are doing fine, but this is like if Terran HAD to go 3 Barracks with techlabs before going to any other tech path, would Terran be fine? Yeah, but it is pretty dull.
What I gather from the diamond stats. Zerg needs a bit of a nerf, Protoss late game needs to be nerfed and early game buffed (charge at 200 200 is ridic). Terran need a bit of a buff
I`m actually so shocked at the 58% win ratio for pvt on the euro server. TvP is my strongest matchup imo(1800 terran). But of course I end it early-mid game. Scv all-ins ftw!!!
A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
Expect a nerf to high templar and a buff to mid tier unit (like zealot or sentry). Personally i'm hoping for a removal of the charge ability on zealots and lowering the cost of zealot speed to 100/100 and lowering the cost of twilight council to 150/50. I think this would really help protoss in the mid-early game as they could get blink and zealot legs a lot faster to counter effect the stim and concussive shells upgrades.
Buffing the sentry would be the opposite of what I have in mind, I think thats one of the units they are far too reliant on and that, in some situations, is far too strong (its stupid that force field traps units now, instead of pushing them back).
However, you cant nerf it without buffing something else.
I straight up love your balance posts Mr.Jinro, ever since day 1 of the beta i've been reluctantly coming to the SC2 forum, and your posts always seem to hit the nail on the head, from my own perspective at least. Your balance discussions have maintained the quality we were used to in the BW forums.
Personally what i fear at the moment is that whiners seem to rule Blizzard's balancing approach, if any toss units were to be buffed, most terrans would go mad with 4gate whine. Sure, stats are great at looking at some balance, but without sounding arrogant you just can't approach the balance for the masses - there was a certain bio push for T as well in BW (i believe Berseker did it from time to time?) which was pretty damn strong as well - but it was straight up countered by some good Reaver micro.
(My reaver micro was terrible, so one of my Terran friends just kept doing this bio push until i had it down)
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
From personal experience storm isnt that hard to play against (granted im not the greatest at the game). Its relatively easy to dodge and you can actually counter it with emp. The problem is colossus doing insane damage when you get like 3-4 of them. Im sure part of it is due to maps having narrow pathways so you cant really flank the protoss army once they get colossus. Templars are essentially just a buff to colossus.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
think jinro said it best. The funny thing there are so many people that claim that toss is helpless vs terran even at the 2k + level -_-
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
From personal experience storm isnt that hard to play against (granted im not the greatest at the game). Its relatively easy to dodge and you can actually counter it with emp. The problem is colossus doing insane damage when you get like 3-4 of them. Im sure part of it is due to maps having narrow pathways so you cant really flank the protoss army once they get colossus. Templars are essentially just a buff to colossus.
Yeah, totally agree. Like I said before every matchup involving Protoss revolves around the Colossi.
Bio and Zerg HAVE to do so well vs gateway units because it's the only way they can stop/prevent/survive colossi. People will say "omg air units" and that's true now, but only because we can have a leaner force to deal with the remaining gateway mix and it's not as big of a deal that a big part of our army is useless after killing the colossi.
On November 16 2010 12:34 schiznak wrote: I wasn't aware that PvT was so protoss favored, this is probably the only signifigant information we can get from these numbers
i really wouldnt take the whole of diamond as an accurate representation of balance tbh T-T....
These figures are pretty worthless imo, almost every single one of them, dono why they even release them, all it does it make outcries of people claiming imba =\
On November 16 2010 15:25 lolaloc wrote: If forced observers are the problem, then I think it would be best if you can make them from the Cybernetics Core... or just buff Zealot/Stalker.
Naw man, forced observer is np, it was the same with spider mines in BW.
Zealots are pretty weak though, especially against Zerg... Roaches are out = Zealots become useless.
T seems to be doing pretty bad in NA while P is owning everything in diamond. I think Europe is pretty balanced but some of the numbers in NA/Korea is very weird. PvT: 59.8% in NA global, and PvT: 58.0% in Korea Diamond? PvT needs some fixing IMO but other than that, most of the numbers seems to be in a reasonable level.
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
Both need to be nerfed. Colossus are a staple in every single match up. Storm, like it was in the early days of Starcraft, is too powerful for the energy, currently. What ended up happening in SC1 is they ended up lowering the damage and increasing the length of the spell. I don't think a damage reduction is really necessary here, as a Terran player, but increasing the length of the spell so that damage doesn't happen so quickly would be a change in the right direction.
But with both of these units now more reasonable, toss would never really be able to compete with the other two races, because they aren't strong until they have 1 of the 2 (and not always then, either). Gateway units need a buff of some kind, but that's a nightmare to think about without ruining one of their 3 match ups. For instance, any early game buff would inevitably lead to protoss 4-warp gating each other again.
these types of threads are starting to annoy me so im gonna rant with impulsive thoughts.
Firstly these statistics are meaningless and i dont understand why the global statistics was even mentioned.
Its like stating that 85% of the population would have trouble driving a F1 car properly. Is there something wrong with the F1 car that makes it so hard to drive? do the designers have to make changes to make it easier to steer?
well 85% of the population doesnt have the SKILL to drive a F1 car, so the statistic is meaningless. You need to take into consideration testing the car with the best drivers in the circuit and make changes based upon that.
Same analogy can be used for any sport with any sort of equipment or skill.
Would you compare golf clubs/tennis racquets using random weekend golf/tennis enthusiasts? performance wise you would test with skilled golfers.
Same thing applies in sc2, the race is the equipment/tool being utilized by the player, why would you consider bronze->plat/low diamond at ALL. One could go to the extreme and say keeping track of the statistics at these levels is a waste of resources (not saying it I believe it is, but its a valid argument).
Everyone knows what blizzard is trying to do is balance the game at all levels, thats like trying to create one set of rules which the professionals AS well as the weekend enthusiasts all use. that is literally not possible for the majority of sports. Have you played <insert sport> with your friends on saturday or sundays and you guys add your own rules or change the rules to keep things fair? well thats what the lower leagues need to keep them balanced while blizzard balances the top flight.
I would like to lower leagues playing with a different patch to orient them more towards casual gaming and have the higher ones with the competitive patch.
This type of balance is even being shown in soccer, with additional goal line refs in some europa/CL leagues whilst not being used in teir 2 in England, or even some Tier 1 leagues around the world.
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
Both need to be nerfed. Colossus are a staple in every single match up. Storm, like it was in the early days of Starcraft, is too powerful for the energy, currently. What ended up happening in SC1 is they ended up lowering the damage and increasing the length of the spell. I don't think a damage reduction is really necessary here, as a Terran player, but increasing the length of the spell so that damage doesn't happen so quickly would be a change in the right direction.
But with both of these units now more reasonable, toss would never really be able to compete with the other two races, because they aren't strong until they have 1 of the 2 (and not always then, either). Gateway units need a buff of some kind, but that's a nightmare to think about without ruining one of their 3 match ups. For instance, any early game buff would inevitably lead to protoss 4-warp gating each other again.
Actually the Colossus being staple is pretty situational - you aren't really well off going Colossi against a muta zerg for example.
If you increase the length of Storm casting - noone will use Storm because Colossus will become the better choice for the sole purpose that stimmed units dodge storm but they don't dodge colossus.
Well well, to be honest I did not see this coming at all. Zergs are definitely doing a lot better than they were previous so we'll have to see what other tweaks are needed.
The most problematic match up it seems is TvP atm. Like what's been mentioned earlier, Protoss is either too strong or too weak and after playing quite a bit on the ladder I have to agree. Sometimes I'm just completely smashed in the face by their army composition other times I can 1a through them with ease. Obviously, my games aren't any indication of anything, but it's just how I feel.
A rebalancing of the race is needed. Also another thing I want is something done to the Terran lategame which I feel is vastly inferior to the other two races, but whatever that's just me.
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
Both need to be nerfed. Colossus are a staple in every single match up. Storm, like it was in the early days of Starcraft, is too powerful for the energy, currently. What ended up happening in SC1 is they ended up lowering the damage and increasing the length of the spell. I don't think a damage reduction is really necessary here, as a Terran player, but increasing the length of the spell so that damage doesn't happen so quickly would be a change in the right direction.
But with both of these units now more reasonable, toss would never really be able to compete with the other two races, because they aren't strong until they have 1 of the 2 (and not always then, either). Gateway units need a buff of some kind, but that's a nightmare to think about without ruining one of their 3 match ups. For instance, any early game buff would inevitably lead to protoss 4-warp gating each other again.
Increasing the length of the Spell would end up hurting Protoss more, with the way Terrans kite, it isn't uncommon to see Zealots and Stalkers catch the tail end of the storms as Terran move back. Increasing the length would hurt Toss quite a bit.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
With 7 range and 8(?) vision I wouldn't recommend trying to rely on cannons vs the 6 range banshees. It's probably cheaper to build the robo.
Exactly, if you want to FE quit bitching and build the robo. Its not like it slows you down anyway. You can go templar tech after that if you really want to.
Looking at the different races, Protoss has the worst detection there is. Zerg can easily make an overseer once they get lair - easily before any invisibad units show up - and Terran 's are in a very similar position as Protoss, except they have scans. Terrans CAN go 3 rax against toss because a scan can save them from a DT, or they'd have to 1-1-1 all the time (which is viable in it's own self).
Imagine there were no scans, Terrans would be FORCED to get a raven just in case there is a DT. In the same manner, Protoss are FORCED to get an obs just in case there is a banshee. And sure, ravens are 'higher tech' than obs but be aware that DT's are 'higher tech' than banshees, too.
Turrets and cannons shouldn't be a part of this conversation, if you need to throw up static defenses then the invisible units are doing their job; giving your opponent map control and time for him to macro as you waste money on defenses. You lose to any good player.
Don't even get me started on why I need a Robo Bay (200/200) to get observer speed, the only way they will keep up with banshees. Man, oh man.
I'm not QQing here, I just disagree with your argument is all.
On November 16 2010 14:17 Knutzi wrote: well since were all just trying too waste some time while spamming f5 on the gsl qualifier i think il post some retarded sugestions on how too help protoss
1.make it possible too chronoboost on a pylon giving the chronoboosted pylon stealth detection for a short while making it possible too skip robotics and not instantly lose against stealth.
2.stalkers get 2+ damage against armored per uppgrade instead of 1, small buff but i think it would help a littlebit against speed roaches and marauders
3. make achrons massive.
4. reduce the research time and mana cost for hallucination, this would help protoss with scouting options early on
obviously after this protoss probably would need a nerf on the collosus and sentry as these two units are just stupid good
P doesnt lose to cloaked banshees with FE with a good build. Robo comes up in time
But the fact that you [b]MUST/b] build the thing removes the possibility of going stargate tech or templar tech early on without losing to banshee.
So what, its the same thing as PvP in bw. I dont see the problem with "having" to go robo tech. If you really wanna go templar or stargate, get cannons.
With 7 range and 8(?) vision I wouldn't recommend trying to rely on cannons vs the 6 range banshees. It's probably cheaper to build the robo.
Exactly, if you want to FE quit bitching and build the robo. Its not like it slows you down anyway. You can go templar tech after that if you really want to.
Looking at the different races, Protoss has the worst detection there is. Zerg can easily make an overseer once they get lair - easily before any invisibad units show up - and Terran 's are in a very similar position as Protoss, except they have scans. Terrans CAN go 3 rax against toss because a scan can save them from a DT, or they'd have to 1-1-1 all the time (which is viable in it's own self).
Imagine there were no scans, Terrans would be FORCED to get a raven just in case there is a DT. In the same manner, Protoss are FORCED to get an obs just in case there is a banshee. And sure, ravens are 'higher tech' than obs but be aware that DT's are 'higher tech' than banshees, too.
Turrets and cannons shouldn't be a part of this conversation, if you need to throw up static defenses then the invisible units are doing their job; giving your opponent map control and time for him to macro as you waste money on defenses. You lose to any good player.
Don't even get me started on why I need a Robo Bay (200/200) to get observer speed, the only way they will keep up with banshees. Man, oh man.
I'm not QQing here, I just disagree with your argument is all.
I think observers should build a little faster - observers are so tough to lose because you have no time to reproduce them when making Colossi. I'd be happy with getting the Observatory back if i can get cheap fast building observers again :p
On November 16 2010 15:44 VenerableSpace wrote: I would like to lower leagues playing with a different patch to orient them more towards casual gaming and have the higher ones with the competitive patch.
This type of balance is even being shown in soccer, with additional goal line refs in some europa/CL leagues whilst not being used in teir 2 in England, or even some Tier 1 leagues around the world.
I don't think that would be the best idea for the community. If you want to build an online community, then the best thing to do is keep it all one single game with the same rules throughout the leagues. If you make it so that bronze leaguers are forced to play at a certain patch with alltogether different rules, then they'll start to feel alienated and mad that they can't play the same game that the higher up pros play. It's also one of the things that attracts people to start watching starcraft. Starcraft has so many spectators because people enjoy watching the things others (pros) can do with the same tools that they are given.
The type of change you're talking about (if you want to use an analogy) is analogous with changing the game of American Football so that everyone who does not play for a high school team must play with a round ball instead of the familiar elliptical shape with tapered ends. The reasoning behind it would be the same, "people who don't know how to throw a football would be better suited to playing this version of the game."
On November 16 2010 13:45 Raiden X wrote: Zealot Charge personally is a joke compared to old Zealot Speed.
So i caught up to you wack once and you walk away. Then i have to w8 another minute to wack again. With Speedlots Zealots could actually keep up with kiting units such as Hydras with speed.
The Zealots has good DPS. IT just never uses it because it can't reach anything. Melee is useless without speed upgrades.
Any Zerg can vouch how useless Lings are without Speed
Incorrect, go check your facts. Zealot charge ALSO has a passive movespeed buff, putting them up among the faster ground units, in addition to the charge ability.
Having just recently changed to protoss for funsies ( damn those zvz's, couldn't take it anymore ), I can safely say that its easier for protoss to beat zerg than it is vice versa at my diamond level ( 1650 when mained zerg, 1560 when protoss ). I can just go some random push and do significant damage, and even when I expand I'm almost always even on his drones with my probes.
I'm not completely biased though. ZvP is my worst match up since people started to expand and then push. And I'm not really sure how to combat it effectively. I'm not in favour of any balance work right now. I think its pretty ok for the moment.
The problem with protoss like some have said is the design. The most powerful race gets warp gate tech very early in the game, right off the bat that made it very OP and cheesy with all kinds BS timing attacks. So Blizzard has nerfed the living hell out of them. Because a lot of lower skilled players cried about the cheese and the timing attacks which still happen to date, protoss has gotten the short end of the stick.
Yet these nerfs have done nothing to improve protoss' standard builds. Gateway units suck ass, the sentry is a great unit, but protoss unlike other races can't afford unit compositions early on. Getting that much stuff means sacrificing an army for tech. So toss' options are to kill you with a timing attack, fail but get ahead, or survive until he gets colossus and HT.
I think what needs to be done for protoss, is moving warp gate tech to the robo or twilight c, and moving the sentry to the robo. Then buffing the Stalker's attack and hit points, and reducing the zealot build time.
Buff the stalker get rid of the Immortal, I never liked that unit anyway.
Protoss does not need to be nerfed, it needs to be fixed. Protoss is the only race that you can't try anything fancy. You can only play one way, but that one way is pretty damn strong. I think changing the way storm works would be a benefit, but also allow other units to be more viable as well.
Obviously noone here have looked at the multiplayer-panel from blizzcon. While on these numbers it looks like P is strong its quite the difference. In the koreas top-diamond PvT is 40-60% in favor of terran..
This is what buggs blizzard, because on lower levels PvT is acceptable while on higher levels terran just rolls protoss... This could also be your explaination to why every T feels confident vs P in GSL and you hardly see any protosses at the end of the tournament. And the games of PvT you have seen is almost all cheese from the protoss, since they cant really compete with a standard game against marine / marauder mass drops.
On November 16 2010 18:24 xzidez wrote: Obviously noone here have looked at the multiplayer-panel from blizzcon. While on these numbers it looks like P is strong its quite the difference. In the koreas top-diamond PvT is 40-60% in favor of terran..
This is what buggs blizzard, because on lower levels PvT is acceptable while on higher levels terran just rolls protoss... This could also be your explaination to why every T feels confident vs P in GSL and you hardly see any protosses at the end of the tournament. And the games of PvT you have seen is almost all cheese from the protoss, since they cant really compete with a standard game against marine / marauder mass drops.
if protoss is doing so well in these stats why are they doing so poorly in big competitions? nerf protoss again now and they'll never win another competition balance should be done by watching the pro level , ignore anything below pro
sad face if this merits even more protoss nerfs! i think all, but 2 patches since beta have been nothing, but nerfs and i thought the game was fairly balanced then. although we know so much more nowadays. kinda sucks too because ive been struggling in all my match ups lately dropping from 58% to 53% w/l/r within the past few weeks according to sc2 ranks =[ guess it's time to change my builds up though as it's prolly just my builds are expected nowadays..
also bliz talks about the match making system perhaps being responsible for w/l/r for each race, but they don't mention anything about how many people are playing each race. (bit extreme of an example coming up) what if 50% of the population is playing terran, 30% toss, and 20% zerg excluding random. are they trying to match the top of the ladder with 33% for each race respectively as we can kind of see in the top 200 ladder rankings? i sure hope they wouldn't leave out considerations like this as it would make it even tougher to estimate player potential and imbalance. bliz is smart though i'll take it they have their act together.
Tweaking Protoss is such a problem for Blizzard because they try to cater to the casuals so much and in Diamonds and below, Protoss has such an insane popularity and high winning rate
Buffing Zerg was easier because it had such low popularity and relatively low winning rate on all levels.
They need to redesign some stuff to make Protoss harder on lower skill level as well as increasing the skill ceiling.
On November 16 2010 18:24 xzidez wrote: Obviously noone here have looked at the multiplayer-panel from blizzcon. While on these numbers it looks like P is strong its quite the difference. In the koreas top-diamond PvT is 40-60% in favor of terran..
This is what buggs blizzard, because on lower levels PvT is acceptable while on higher levels terran just rolls protoss... This could also be your explaination to why every T feels confident vs P in GSL and you hardly see any protosses at the end of the tournament. And the games of PvT you have seen is almost all cheese from the protoss, since they cant really compete with a standard game against marine / marauder mass drops.
not anymore. updated stats. try reading the op
Where in the OP do you see TOP korean diamond? Im not speaking about the entire korean diamond, since its probably trash just like in all other regions.
Cant wait until we get the two master leagues and these numbers for them...
The problem I see with terran is lack of flexibility once the first huge army battle happens. If protoss can warp in defense and zerg can have more than enough larvae to build w/e army composition they want in one go terran still can get pretty much nothing but the same old mmm in time for a defense or it takes way way too much to switch army composition.
Could possibly give Fusion Core with Armory requirement an upgrade to tech reactors or upgrade to decrease in some units' build time (raven, bc, thor, tank, banshee).
In any case terran needs a viable option outside of mmm while protoss needs early game buff that still prevents very early zealot rushes.
TvP/Z is pretty ridiculous at the moment. Can't beat protoss past mid game, and once they figure out how to use sentries correctly in the early game, the matchup will be even more skewed towards toss. TvZ is just hard in general because of tech switches/macro mechanics, the worst feeling is when you push a zerg all the way to his side of the map against a roach or ling/bling composition and have 20 mutas pop on you.
Terran units outside of bio take way too long to build and if there is every an army trade that involves mech, toss/zerg will remacro wayyyy faster. During battles terran still has to be on top of macro while toss can just focus purely on microing and warp in units right after (with a high gateway count its okay to get into the 1000's -_-).
I think it's a bit unrealistic that the win percentage jumps up 10% within a week, especially without any balance changes and in Korea.
maybe alot of terran pros have switched to zerg since the buffs and the two zerg wins in the GSL? i would agree with nerfing colossus if there was a buff to stalkers
On November 16 2010 13:45 Raiden X wrote: Zealot Charge personally is a joke compared to old Zealot Speed.
So i caught up to you wack once and you walk away. Then i have to w8 another minute to wack again. With Speedlots Zealots could actually keep up with kiting units such as Hydras with speed.
The Zealots has good DPS. IT just never uses it because it can't reach anything. Melee is useless without speed upgrades.
Any Zerg can vouch how useless Lings are without Speed
Incorrect, go check your facts. Zealot charge ALSO has a passive movespeed buff, putting them up among the faster ground units, in addition to the charge ability.
The passive movespeed buff Zealots receive in SC2 is very small compared to BW relative to how fast enemy units move. His point is every bit as valid and relevant with or without a passive movespeed buff on Zealots in SC2 since he gave specific gameplay examples. SC2 Zealots are easily kited even with charge/speed compared to BW Zealots with legs.
With the enormous amounts of games being played, an error margin of 5% is ridiculous! If the game is well balanced, a 2% and eventually 1% error margin should suffice. We are looking at literally THOUSANDS of games. But like the OP said, these data are just one of the tools that are used to identify imbalances..
All this talk of removing warp gates or zealot legs is ridiculous.
They need to tone down both colossi and HT (but make them come with storm by default).
To make up for it, they need to buff stalkers/zlots and make Warp Prisms not suck. The problem with toss is that they're immobile. They make up for this by turtling and then pushing.
Yes, warp-ins at proxy pylons are "offensive mobility", but you don't have the option of safely retreating, or doing multi-pronged harass.
Warp Prisms being slightly faster and more importantly not made of paper would make the robo even more of a must-have even if you're not planning to go colossus at all.
And the mothership needs to either stop being terrible or just go back to the campaign as eye candy. Two ideas right off the bat:
1) Make the mothership permacloaked, the "shimmer" will be so huge that you're not going to miss it, but you need detection to counter it.
2) Leave the mothership uncloaked but make its cloaking field apply undetectable invisibility. You want to see what's under the mothership? Kill it.
I agree with Jinro, the protoss arsenal need a better balance distribution with their units. I think the same goes for terran but not to the extent of what the protoss arsenal need.
The VR nerf was a bit over the top just like the siege tank nerf.
Why is all the cool units nerfed -_-??
Nerfing templars however would be a disaster for anything else than 3gate robo tosses. Templars are alredy close to useless in PvP and would be destroyed to mutaling. (if blizz nerf templars; buff archons instead?) Blizzard shouldnt balance the races so they only are good at early, mid or late game. blizz should balance the races so they can fight on even footing in tier 1,2 and 3 battles.
Protoss is a little "broken", and the blame a big part because Collossus that unit dont make any sense. But if you want win games you need to pull that off. I hope that in GSL 3 come a Protoss and show how the race can be "unbroken" or all Protoss fail in round 8 and blizzard do something to protoss.
On November 16 2010 15:07 MaD.pYrO wrote: A nerf to High Templar would be pure garbage - the choice between High Templar or Colossus is pretty tough right now at best, if HT were to be nerfed Colossus would just be the only choice - and i don't know about you, but i like having a choice.
The main issue seems to be that terran is balanced about going bio, and just as in BW i just can't see bio winning over storm, even considering how "bad" storm is now in regards to it's BW counterpart.
Thats why mech needs to be made viable in TvP. But it isn't. So as long as Mech isn't viable Storm needs to sadly be nerfed. Eventhough i personally dont believe this is the right thing.
Come on Blizzard TvP Mech. Curse you Immortal Charge Blink VoidRay Pheonix WarpPrism.
The colossus has hard counters people. It's sad that people want the only other unit aside from the phoenix that doesn't suck in the protoss arsenal removed or nerfed.
All throughout beta protoss players tried to go for HTs before colossus, especially against terran, and many times that investment never paid out. Storms suck, and the amount of HTs you have to invest in to make them worthwhile without colossus is absurd. That many HT means your other army composition is low...so a few emps or mutas sniping HTs and you're dead, for a lack of actual attack units.
The Colossus is only real threat the Protoss have to get mid to late game, and it must be supported by gateway units so that it doesn't die quickly. And even that composition isn't good enough these days. Protoss has to add another unit to the composition in HTs just to stand a chance.
And to get all this protoss has to survive the onslaught of timing attacks for terran, or watch as zerg takes the map as he tries to turtle up until the he can finally push out. Protoss is slowly becoming BW terran.
I think you will continue to see cheesy timing attacks until protoss' standard play is fixed.
The figures in the OP does not mean a single thing other than the matchmaking system is working properly hence we can see quite balanced result. Because what happens if lets say XvY matchup and X is more powerful than Y. (I don't want to name races lol ). Then X will loose more then win to Y but only if the players are on the same level. But if you are X you will get weaker Y opponents due to the matchmaking system and the numbers will even out.
I would not say +/- 5% discrepancy to be imba. Without context I think these stats are just meaningless. Would be good to know whether they took into consideration the race distribution figures when they made the stat.
I think a good race balance study should be based on progamers like ones on GSL or MLG with the same number of players for each race and then take a look at the winrates. I'm saying pros, because probably they can play the races to their full strengths only.
On November 16 2010 18:49 dtz wrote: Tweaking Protoss is such a problem for Blizzard because they try to cater to the casuals so much and in Diamonds and below, Protoss has such an insane popularity and high winning rate
Buffing Zerg was easier because it had such low popularity and relatively low winning rate on all levels.
They need to redesign some stuff to make Protoss harder on lower skill level as well as increasing the skill ceiling.
If Blizzard treated BW the same way they are treating SC2 what would be like? Definetly not an E Sport. If a race is easier to play and thats why its winning in the lower leagues that should be fine. But no Blizzard wants all races to be equal at all levels.
Frikking the Protoss are winning in the lower leagues because they all turtle and go void ray.
On November 16 2010 17:44 link0 wrote: Remove warp gates. Then buff Gateway unit strength.
Personally i like the idea of giving Warp gates and gate ways diffrent roles
Gateway-faster production but macro is old fashion
Warpgates-Slower production, but warpin is instant and anywhere with Pylon Power.(Lore wise the Warp gate is a new unstable technology)
This would nerf 4gates which i feel is a good thing. And it gives an incentive to have both Warpgates and Gateways. Heck on of the reasons Terran has to open Bio or Banshee is because of the stupid 4 gate.
The Colossus is only real threat the Protoss have to get mid to late game, and it must be supported by gateway units so that it doesn't die quickly. And even that composition isn't good enough these days. Protoss has to add another unit to the composition in HTs just to stand a chance.
Yes, to stand a chance and having 57% vs 43%! Please don't make it look like protoss has such a hard time against terrans. I agree that EARLY game MMM is too strong in this matchup, but there it ends. After early game there is still MMM and lategame there is still MMM (with somethimes some tanks added). I would like to use other units then marines, marauders and medivacs. I saw some terrans like servyoa going mech against protoss. Even when they were miles ahead (with hellion drops everywhere), economic and unit wise, they still lost. I tried factory play a lot after the patch but it's just too weak.
MMM is great, but when storm comes out it's very hard. Ofcourse you can EMP those HT's! That's exactly what I do. There is one problem: 5 seconds later the toss warped in 5 new HT's and my ghosts are out of energy / dead by then. My army dissapears and at the end I lose.
Another problem in my opinion is the terran macro. Imagine a 200 vs 200 battle. If I lose it (yes, I often lose 200 vs 200 battles against protoss) or even if we both lose, the toss will warp in so quickly that by the time my units come out, I lost at least 1 expansion. I recently saw a toss (lategame), after losing 90 supply, going back to 200 in 10 seconds. I had 12+ raxes but by the time my units were out, I lost several expansions and at the end I just died because protoss still had his bases up and running.
I am not saying that pvt is imbalanced. I am just not understanding why so many protoss players are complaining about pvt. I miss protoss @ gsl 3 and I really hope blizzard does something about this. PvZ seems really hard (watch the qualifiers of today, most tosses are out because of zergs, not terrans) and early game terrans are too strong. I don't know how blizzard will fix this, because if they make terran less strong early game, TvZ will be in a lot of trouble.
I don't read to much into these numbers, but unfortunately Blizzard does. In low diamond I still see cannon rushes, marauder 3 rax all ins, 7 pools quite a bit. I also see alot of 4 gate all ins, banshee rushes, roach rush ect. If the game goes beyond 2 base opponents often crumble because their lack of macro. In other words half the people in diamond have no idea wtf they are doing, have a poor understanding of the game and use gimmicky cheesy strats to get there. I see a lot of gold players with better mid/late game than many cheesy diamonds. When there is a more elite league formed with the top 5% from diamond then we may see some data from that league that is more telling. I play toss and I can say that it is pretty damn easy to win with 4 gate if your opponent fe's!
The Colossus is only real threat the Protoss have to get mid to late game, and it must be supported by gateway units so that it doesn't die quickly. And even that composition isn't good enough these days. Protoss has to add another unit to the composition in HTs just to stand a chance.
Yes, to stand a chance and having 57% vs 43%! Please don't make it look like protoss has such a hard time against terrans. I agree that EARLY game MMM is too strong in this matchup, but there it ends. After early game there is still MMM and lategame there is still MMM (with somethimes some tanks added). I would like to use other units then marines, marauders and medivacs. I saw some terrans like servyoa going mech against protoss. Even when they were miles ahead (with hellion drops everywhere), economic and unit wise, they still lost. I tried factory play a lot after the patch but it's just too weak.
MMM is great, but when storm comes out it's very hard. Ofcourse you can EMP those HT's! That's exactly what I do. There is one problem: 5 seconds later the toss warped in 5 new HT's and my ghosts are out of energy / dead by then. My army dissapears and at the end I lose.
Another problem in my opinion is the terran macro. Imagine a 200 vs 200 battle. If I lose it (yes, I often lose 200 vs 200 battles against protoss) or even if we both lose, the toss will warp in so quickly that by the time my units come out, I lost at least 1 expansion. I recently saw a toss (lategame), after losing 90 supply, going back to 200 in 10 seconds. I had 12+ raxes but by the time my units were out, I lost several expansions and at the end I just died because protoss still had his bases up and running.
I am not saying that pvt is imbalanced. I am just not understanding why so many protoss players are complaining about pvt. I miss protoss @ gsl 3 and I really hope blizzard does something about this. PvZ seems really hard (watch the qualifiers of today, most tosses are out because of zergs, not terrans) and early game terrans are too strong. I don't know how blizzard will fix this, because if they make terran less strong early game, TvZ will be in a lot of trouble.
You are from Belgium if I'm not incorrect that is located in EU, and if you are in diamond (which is the only league relevant here) Terran has 2% advantage, so as you are not in Korea you shouldn't have anything to whine about. I'm not sure what causes these variations in these win% by region, but I guess it must have something to do with strategy variations, since there is like 20% protoss in the top of the EU ladder and I haven't seen protoss do well at all in Korea.
On November 16 2010 22:04 Tripal wrote: You are from Belgium if I'm not incorrect that is located in EU, and if you are in diamond (which is the only league relevant here) Terran has 2% advantage, so as you are not in Korea you shouldn't have anything to whine about. I'm not sure what causes these variations in these win% by region, but I guess it must have something to do with strategy variations, since there is like 20% protoss in the top of the EU ladder and I haven't seen protoss do well at all in Korea.
Maybe Europe terrans are more abusive early game, I don't know. I like to play a macrogame so a 1base all-in is something I dislike. I am just not understanding why protoss players actually COMPLAIN about pvt. For me as a terran it's a hard matchup but at the end of the day I don't complain. I'm 100% sure the matchup is not figured out yet and I am still experimenting with several builds (and not only MMM).
Storm is not too good, Hydras are too slow off creep and mech is not good enough. Buff Gateway units, nerf Collossus. Storm is just fine the way it is if Blizz fix Z and T mid/late -game options. Am I the only 1 that prefer the BW armor/shield system? changing back to armor for both shield and hp and shield upg. to shield regen time would fix a lot I believe.
if he techs straight to high templars, he dies to most mid-game pushes.
if he techs straight to colossi, the Terran will add vikings in time.
immortals are neutralized in time by ghosts.
a phoenix opening won't be able to do enough damage against 3 rax.
there is this nasty 2-1-2 opening, which can't be countered, even if scouted well.
void rays are no real danger anymore.
Most European Terrans still go 3 rax, which is probably the most boring and most secure opening in the whole game, while very easy to pull off.
Once the Protoss has psionic storm, khaydarin amulett and has an equal economy, the feared late-game Protoss kicks in and the Terran has to fear him, but not before that.
Terran's openings are usually dominating the Protoss ones.
i call bullshit on this one. 2 weeks ago, it was at 48%, i do not believe that it is possible over, according to blizzard, "millions" of games beeing played, to have a shift of 10% over the period of 2 weeks. it would mean that, over the period of the last 2 weeks, protoss would have to win close to 80% of all games to make that HUGHE of a shift even possible.
It's not only that Stalkers need to deal a bit more damage (upgrade sclaing for instance), but also the tech trees have to be looked at.
Protoss basically doesn't have _ANY_ harass options, the only ones are leading to a dead end in the tech tree.
Phoenix are great map controller, and nice for harassing, but besides mutas they suck against everything else in the air. And from the Stargate you won't get anything usefull either. Void Rays plain out suck without Speed as harassing tools, because they get taken out in a blink of an eye. Not worth the investment, because Carriers / Motherships are also garbage. Dark Templar, won't even comment this one because it's obvious as fuck lol. Warp Prism is also a great harassing tool in theory, but its low movespeed and fragility are not worth the try, you need the speed upgrade before you actually can do something. Only choice that doesn't lead to a dead tech tree.
Also protoss is to reliant on force fields in early - mid game, some missed cost you the game. In PvT and PvP there is also the BO gamble, you flat out lose games if your enemy blind counters you, and it's always over.
Protoss also needs better core Units (Zea leg speed change f.e / Stalker higher dmg / upgrade scaling), but in exchange also some nerfs on clossus for instance, and maybe amulett (not too sure about this one...)
i call bullshit on this one. 2 weeks ago, it was at 48%, i do not believe that it is possible over, according to blizzard, "millions" of games beeing played, to have a shift of 10% over the period of 2 weeks. it would mean that, over the period of the last 2 weeks, protoss would have to win close to 80% of all games to make that HUGHE of a shift even possible.
Its the entire diamond which mostly consist of bad players. If those number would have been only of the top it wouldnt look like that. Protoss is simply stronger in A-move games with colossi backing up.
On November 16 2010 22:48 xzidez wrote: Its the entire diamond which mostly consist of bad players. If those number would have been only of the top it wouldnt look like that. Protoss is simply stronger in A-move games with colossi backing up.
that is not what i wanted to say. i want to say that the last nummbers published by blizzard said that PvT is 48% in Korea.
so, lets say that they made that statistic based on 1 million games played per week over the last 8 weeks, that means that of the 8 million PvT, Protoss won 3,84 million and terran won 4.16 million. now, 2 weeks later, it is 58% for protoss. if we keep with the 1 million games per week played, it would mean that Protoss now won 5.8 million games and terran 4.2 million of the 10 million games played in total. it would mean that protoss won 98% of all PvT games over the last 2 weeks.
i call bullshit on this one. 2 weeks ago, it was at 48%, i do not believe that it is possible over, according to blizzard, "millions" of games beeing played, to have a shift of 10% over the period of 2 weeks. it would mean that, over the period of the last 2 weeks, protoss would have to win close to 80% of all games to make that HUGHE of a shift even possible.
Its the entire diamond which mostly consist of bad players. If those number would have been only of the top it wouldnt look like that. Protoss is simply stronger in A-move games with colossi backing up.
Protoss is hardly the A-move army it was in BroodWar. Storms, Blink, Sentries, even Collosus make Protoss a way more micro-intensive race than Terran, who only need to learn to kite and press "T" before engaging. If you A-move a Protoss army, you're doing it wrong.
Blizzard needs to nerf early game MMM and buff late game Terran, give them something to transition into. Terrans have no reason to change their tech because MMM can do everything they want it to, while Protoss and Zergs need heavy-hitter late game units to really seal the deal. Look at all the upgrades for Terran bio vs the upgrades for zealots and stalkers, something isn't fair there.
On November 16 2010 23:14 Barca wrote: Protoss is hardly the A-move army it was in BroodWar. Storms, Blink, Sentries, even Collosus make Protoss a way more micro-intensive race than Terran, who only need to learn to kite and press "T" before engaging. If you A-move a Protoss army, you're doing it wrong.
Blink: only used in small fights. Collossus: kite micro, nothing more.
Micro that toss players are using in large battles: storm, forcefield, guardianshield. Terrans: stim, kite, emp, pdd (and siege with tanks when used).
Why are you so angry with these stats? What do you mean "it doesn't say a thing"? It does. It is not the whole information one can get, but still a part of it. How would you choose the border to distinguish beetwen "the best diamond players" and all other guys there? 20%? Why not 40% or 10% or 1%? I don't get your point... It would just be interesting to see other stats, that's all I can say. Or even the rough data so that everyone can make his own statistical researches on them. Why are there so many people eager to critizise everything that is posted on the internet?
i call bullshit on this one. 2 weeks ago, it was at 48%, i do not believe that it is possible over, according to blizzard, "millions" of games beeing played, to have a shift of 10% over the period of 2 weeks. it would mean that, over the period of the last 2 weeks, protoss would have to win close to 80% of all games to make that HUGHE of a shift even possible.
Its the entire diamond which mostly consist of bad players. If those number would have been only of the top it wouldnt look like that. Protoss is simply stronger in A-move games with colossi backing up.
Protoss is hardly the A-move army it was in BroodWar. Storms, Blink, Sentries, even Collosus make Protoss a way more micro-intensive race than Terran, who only need to learn to kite and press "T" before engaging. If you A-move a Protoss army, you're doing it wrong.
Blizzard needs to nerf early game MMM and buff late game Terran, give them something to transition into. Terrans have no reason to change their tech because MMM can do everything they want it to, while Protoss and Zergs need heavy-hitter late game units to really seal the deal. Look at all the upgrades for Terran bio vs the upgrades for zealots and stalkers, something isn't fair there.
You dont get my point at all... Those number are generated over the entire diamond. All the way from 0 rating to 3000 rating, which means that the majority of games are "a-move" games.
And yes obviously Im doing something wrong because im stuck at 2400~~, but thats not the point. The fact that on Protoss is favored in blizzards numbers but hardly have any real good players representing them in GSL is what bothers me. Also the fact that most "pro terran" said that they are very comfortable with playing against protoss, while the numbers say otherwise.
I am very curious too see what the GSL 3 protoss players have in store for PvT and PvZ, all five of them to be exact . Maybe korean tosses have figured out PvT better than we have.
This means jack shit about balance. Matchmaking will always try to make the win percentage out to be 50% or so. So this basically means that the coders did a decent job at making the system, but not a great one, since some match ups are heavily in favor of one race. We are much better looking at not even the Diamond leagues, but high level tournament results from the very best of players, like the GSL
On November 17 2010 00:11 Gecko wrote: I am very curious too see what the GSL 3 protoss players have in store for PvT and PvZ, all five of them to be exact . Maybe korean tosses have figured out PvT better than we have.
EDIT: my bad there are actually 12
My guess is that you can expect a lot of cheese, like in Season 2. It was quite a while since I saw a straightup game PvX without any DT / Voidray / 4gate rush at a high level.
I remember hearing something on Weapon of Choice where they were saying that balance in either WC3 or Brood War (I really do not remember which) was very heavily weighted towards mathematical algorithims and considerations as such.
What this tells me is that as far as Blizzard is concerned, there are no serious red flags going on and in the current state of Starcraft metagame, there are no true overpowered strategies.
And if you trust statistical models, aggregately collected data is certainly more reliable than individual data points (i.e. watching Protoss get crushed in various tournaments.)
It's a strong argument that those are truly not enough statistical data points to reasonably conclude on a statistically significant scale that Protoss are in fact losing more often then winning. Note that Blizzard said that this is not the only factor they consider in balance. And what they're telling us (subtly) is that they have no red flags that suggest they should invest significant resources in investigating a supposed imbalance in any particular matchup currently.
Also, to the guy that cited the bullshit... they didn't say that they were talking about an aggregate number of percentage win/loss. Maybe it's just the win/loss for the time ending when they last checked to the time when they polled these numbers. They didn't clarify that - you're making mathematical assumptions of their data set.
TL:DR - Blizzard sees no problems at least on this mathematical spread. Don't hold your breath for a Protoss buff or other race nerf anytime soon.
i call bullshit on this one. 2 weeks ago, it was at 48%, i do not believe that it is possible over, according to blizzard, "millions" of games beeing played, to have a shift of 10% over the period of 2 weeks. it would mean that, over the period of the last 2 weeks, protoss would have to win close to 80% of all games to make that HUGHE of a shift even possible.
Its the entire diamond which mostly consist of bad players. If those number would have been only of the top it wouldnt look like that. Protoss is simply stronger in A-move games with colossi backing up.
Protoss is hardly the A-move army it was in BroodWar. Storms, Blink, Sentries, even Collosus make Protoss a way more micro-intensive race than Terran, who only need to learn to kite and press "T" before engaging. If you A-move a Protoss army, you're doing it wrong.
Blizzard needs to nerf early game MMM and buff late game Terran, give them something to transition into. Terrans have no reason to change their tech because MMM can do everything they want it to, while Protoss and Zergs need heavy-hitter late game units to really seal the deal. Look at all the upgrades for Terran bio vs the upgrades for zealots and stalkers, something isn't fair there.
You dont get my point at all... Those number are generated over the entire diamond. All the way from 0 rating to 3000 rating, which means that the majority of games are "a-move" games.
And yes obviously Im doing something wrong because im stuck at 2400~~, but thats not the point. The fact that on Protoss is favored in blizzards numbers but hardly have any real good players representing them in GSL is what bothers me. Also the fact that most "pro terran" said that they are very comfortable with playing against protoss, while the numbers say otherwise.
Better execution of early game harass/limiting the Protoss econ/army. MMM is really good in the right hands just loses steam compared to a same food size Protoss in late tech. Only issue is that it's still the best tool a terran has. VS Zerg losing control and going late game is a lot worse than vs Protoss, probably that's why Protoss is the easiest. From what I've seen as long as you can force skirmishes that use up enemy forces/force tech that is not that great in large army encounters you're peachy as a terran but the moment you lost that control and armies go supersize it's a lot harder. Seems like too much MM just means impossible to micro against AoE properly while also actually using the famed DPS of stim.
On November 16 2010 23:38 Radison wrote: Why are you so angry with these stats? What do you mean "it doesn't say a thing"? It does. It is not the whole information one can get, but still a part of it. How would you choose the border to distinguish beetwen "the best diamond players" and all other guys there? 20%? Why not 40% or 10% or 1%? I don't get your point... It would just be interesting to see other stats, that's all I can say. Or even the rough data so that everyone can make his own statistical researches on them. Why are there so many people eager to critizise everything that is posted on the internet?
i think the new the new leagues will distinguish this better. Diamond is just a league with many horrible players that never played an RTS before, making alot of the statistics coming from diamond really pointless. Top level tournament play records indicated something way different then what was posted here.
GOM posted win percentages for GSL 2 and 1 in one of their streams, does anyone have a screen shot of that?
I think Blizzard should consider releasing W/L data on the map pool for a subsect of top Diamond players. I think it would produce much more useful information and potential for analysis.
I'm really interested to see how the Korean Protosses in GSL3 are going to play. They're very under-represented compared to the other two races, reminiscent of Zerg in GSL1.
Maybe European Terrans (such as myself) are more aggressive than those in NA and Korea? I always try to put on early pressure because P/Z late game is so devastating.
On November 16 2010 14:25 Logo wrote: Honestly I think if you want to help Protoss you have to nerf colossi. It's that simple. They ruin the game for Protoss and until they're adjusted to be less stupid the rest of Protoss can't be equalized to a reasonable state.
Every single thing that happens in any Protoss related match-up happens because of colossi.
The win % means nothing as there's still tons of new strategies coming out like the 6 gate that are insanely hard to stop without opening yourself up to other strategies.
despite solid winratios, maybe protoss as a race is not that well suited to do stable builds. this would lead to a weakness in tourneys. E.g if a lot of ladder wins are by cheese, this can't be done in a tourney. i think zerg is the most reliable race, solid builds with little risk taking. same should be possible with T (macro style terran). protoss play relies on kind of surprise and tec hiding, so it may be harder to perform consitent.
The comments about ruining warp gates is pretty funny, but not entirely inaccurate. A big thing that makes Protoss hard to balance is the way they get warp gates. It's not the warp in that hurts (though losing the defenders advantage certainly does hurt), it's the extra cycle. The unit produced -> change to warp gate -> warp in unit gives a huge boost to an army size very quickly and that bump is a big part of what makes x-gate pushes so strong. I think that change is a big problem in balancing the base warp gate units. If stalker/sentry/zealots are too strong then players can exploit the big jump in army size to have a dominating army at a certain point in the game.
I wouldn't mind seeing some extra time in transforming warp gates in exchange for some other things like stalkers getting +1(+1vs armored) per upgrade instead of just +1. Stalkers are the only core armored early game unit (marauder, stalker, roach) that doesn't get some form of +2 dmg/upgrade. Though Stalkers did have this is beta and it was taken out, so who knows.
Terran: 40% of entries, 37% of Ro64 entrants Zerg: 24% of entries, 42% of Ro64 entrants Protoss: 33% of entries and . . . 19% of Ro64 entrants.
That is to say, a randomly chosen Zerg in the qualifiers was slightly more than three times as likely to qualify for the GSL as a randomly chosen Protoss.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
well this does not explain the extremly low win rate of protoss in high level tournaments like GSL, could be interesting what we protoss players will face in the upcoming balance changes, a huge nerf or a slight buff?
On November 17 2010 01:57 GoDannY wrote: well this does not explain the extremly low win rate of protoss in high level tournaments like GSL, could be interesting what we protoss players will face in the upcoming balance changes, a huge nerf or a slight buff?
well this also does not explain the influx of mid-low rank diamond Protoss players creating topics and using tournaments wins as a excuse to complain how all MU's are unfair and hard while everything shows that they win more than they deserve lol.
On November 16 2010 13:16 Liquid`Jinro wrote: IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
I can't agree more with this statement.
Protoss has some ugly design flaws which were covered by certain, powerful strategies/units. Gateway units are bad and Protoss air is a joke while HT and Colossi mow down everything once they get going.
The purpose of quite a few units is also questionable: - Mothership is a no-brainer - Archons being a terrible unit due to being designed as "trash" unit for HTs out of energy - Phoenix being designed as an air superiority fighter, but failing pretty much against anything armored - and most air in SC2 is armored - Void Rays being used as a cheese unit to melt down everything (including its counters) once they're charged and being quite crappy while not charged. Weren't they suppossed to be a counter against big units like BCs? The charge mechanic introduces a "random" element in a game where it shouldn't exist. - Carriers being too expensive and slow to get; also lacking auto-repair for its Interceptors - Warp Prism having nothing decent to drop
Tech switching suffers from expensive buildings, very expensive upgrades to make units competitive and being pretty much required to go Robo first.
The interesting thing about this number btw.. What happens if we make one race incredible strong?
They will start winning about equally skilled other races, thus getting better opponents. And once their opponents are that good that they match the "race difference" he will win about 50/50% of the games in the certanin matchup. (Even tho their opponents are a lot better)
What happens in mirror matchups? Nothing, because both players are equally bad and in fact use the same race.
Conclusion? Those numbers will be close to 45-55 no matter how good one race is as long as the programmers have done their work and assuming that one race doesnt have an autowin unit that only works against one other race (if it works against both the numbers would still show the race as "balanced").
Im terribad at explaining stuffs, so if anyone actually gets what im trying to say here they can probably do a translation : D
Edit: Before anyone jumps in with "but the numbers aint 50 / 50 so you are all wrong". No, the numbers aint 50 / 50. This is because one race is not equally good against the other two races. For example prepatch T did use reaper against Z with great success, but that strategy didnt work against P. But in overall balance, one race can be incredible stronger than the other two, and the numbers would still be close to 50/50. The only place where they cant be 50/50 is at the very top, where the better race cant get even better opponents from the other two races.
Also. Im not blaming one race in particular. Just that this way of measuring balance is flawed. And blizzard have stated that its not the only method they use, and I have complete trust in blizzard
Let me reiterate that these statistics do not have significant meaning, the GSL season as well as qualifier statistics are more significant due to the level of play.
On November 17 2010 00:40 Boundless wrote: I'm really interested to see how the Korean Protosses in GSL3 are going to play. They're very under-represented compared to the other two races, reminiscent of Zerg in GSL1.
They'll be eliminated in the round of 8 by Hopetorture, just like the first 2 GSLs.
These statistics, however adjusted, are garbage indeed. They are more influenced by the metagame, as the differences between various servers show, than actual game balance. To address game balance, look out for specific issues that should put 2 players on an even ground but put one at an advantage. How to do that ? Just look out for strats being abused in tournaments without a counter being figured out by the next tournament, GSL is a pretty good example. A new strategy might win you one season, but then players will analyze and counter it in the next, if they can't, it's pretty sure it's due to game imbalance.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
exactly! and as analyzed in lots of other posts, this "unbalancedness" prolly stems from
1) core gateway units being way too shitty without FF/colossi/HT
2) FF/colossi/HT being way too strong, especially once you get a big army (or in the case of FF, at ramps)
3) warpgates making protoss early production-curves even more drastic than zergs - before warpgates, you have no units, then boom - you have a shitton of stuff, after that it starts to even out
4) i think 3) is another reason why gateway units are so weak, otherwise warpgate rushes would be even stronger
5) the stalker filling way too many roles, its especially difficult to balance the two roles of a core unit that needs to make up the bulk of the army and is basically the only ground to air unit, and a unit that has an ability that makes it very potent when massed exclusively (blink). it wont happen, but i think it would be way better to have the dragoon or something similar back as a core unit, and make stalkers require twilight council and give them + to light so they could act as a harassment unit, something protoss lacks right now
6) each individual tech path after gateway being strong, but very specialized, and tech switching being very hard, especially since most units require expensive upgrades to be useful
i think what would help is:
- make warpgate research longer and/or more expensive and/or move it to higher tech building and/or make gateway conversion to warpgates take a long time
- make robotic factory cheaper but robotic support bay more expensive and maybe longer build time
- decrease the impact of protoss high-level upgrades by giving colossi more range unupgraded and less range upgraded, and making psi storm cost more mana
- make air tech path viable by buffing carriers and maybe phoenix
- either decrease the size of FF or increase the size of ramps on most maps so one FF cannot block ramps, another option that has already been suggested in beta would be to make FFs destroyable
- increase zlot speed and/or make charge upgrade cheaper - zealots are just countered way too hard by tier 1.5. a tier1 unit shouldnt become useless 7 minutes into the game until you get an upgrade for it
- i dunno what to do about the stalker, maybe nerfing blink but making its research cheaper or even give it to the stalker right away would be a possibility? as stated above, i think the stalker would be way more suited as a + bonus to light harassment unit, even if that would protoss require to go stargate to counter air
tbh, i dont think we will see a well-balanced protoss race in this game without adding additional units in the expansions
On November 17 2010 02:29 VenerableSpace wrote: Let me reiterate that these statistics do not have significant meaning, the GSL season as well as qualifier statistics are more significant due to the level of play.
Because it fits your theory better? These numbers are not the end all be all but they shouldn't be completely ignored either.
Toss is too easy at low levels are not good enough at the top level. The colossal is the culprit along with warp gate masking how weak gateway units are.
On November 17 2010 01:01 BluzMan wrote: Don't forget that 90% of the Diamond league is 4WG vs 3 rax all-in with occasional 8 pools added into the mix.
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
exactly! and as analyzed in lots of other posts, this "unbalancedness" prolly stems from
1) core gateway units being way too shitty without FF/colossi/HT
2) FF/colossi/HT being way too strong, especially once you get a big army (or in the case of FF, at ramps)
3) warpgates making protoss early production-curves even more drastic than zergs - before warpgates, you have no units, then boom - you have a shitton of stuff, after that it starts to even out
4) i think 3) is another reason why gateway units are so weak, otherwise warpgate rushes would be even stronger
5) the stalker filling way too many roles, its especially difficult to balance the two roles of a core unit that needs to make up the bulk of the army and is basically the only ground to air unit, and a unit that has an ability that makes it very potent when massed exclusively (blink). it wont happen, but i think it would be way better to have the dragoon or something similar back as a core unit, and make stalkers require twilight council and give them + to light so they could act as a harassment unit, something protoss lacks right now
6) each individual tech path after gateway being strong, but very specialized, and tech switching being very hard, especially since most units require expensive upgrades to be useful
i think what would help is:
A- make warpgate research longer and/or more expensive and/or move it to higher tech building and/or make gateway conversion to warpgates take a long time
B- make robotic factory cheaper but robotic support bay more expensive and maybe longer build time
C- decrease the impact of protoss high-level upgrades by giving colossi more range unupgraded and less range upgraded, and making psi storm cost more mana
D- make air tech path viable by buffing carriers and maybe phoenix
E- either decrease the size of FF or increase the size of ramps on most maps so one FF cannot block ramps, another option that has already been suggested in beta would be to make FFs destroyable
F- increase zlot speed and/or make charge upgrade cheaper - zealots are just countered way too hard by tier 1.5. a tier1 unit shouldnt become useless 7 minutes into the game until you get an upgrade for it
G- i dunno what to do about the stalker, maybe nerfing blink but making its research cheaper or even give it to the stalker right away would be a possibility? as stated above, i think the stalker would be way more suited as a + bonus to light harassment unit, even if that would protoss require to go stargate to counter air
tbh, i dont think we will see a well-balanced protoss race in this game without adding additional units in the expansions
1. Yeah, otherwise timing pushes would be impossible to hold against
2. Agree again, especially on forcefield. It's a cool ability, but it changes the game too significantly, i think something like stasis would accomplish the same goal without changing the terrain so much.
3 & 4. Agree, warpgates + pylons are extremely powerful.
5. I think stalkers are fine. Mass stalkers are pretty powerful, but i think this more has to do with the immortal being an absolutely horrible unit. Give the immortal +1 range and this problem goes away.
6. Yeah, this is partially by design.
A. Definitely agree. Make warpgates 100/100 and take 20 seconds to morph and suddenly it becomes only viable in the mid game, lower zealot build time to compensate.
B. The robo bay is the weirdest building in the entire game. It has your scouting unit, your shuttle unit, a weird slow fat robo unit that is countered by all t1 units (marines and zerglings) and a powerful ranged unit. hopefully will be drastically changed in the expansion
C. 7 range to start with is good enough for it's purpose which is to outrange marines and marauders. If it starts with this it doesn't need a range upgrade.
D. I think 2 things need to happen. Lower phoenix gas cost by 25( and built time by 5 seconds) and lower viking range by 1 and magically they are actually air superiority fighters.
E. Stasis
F. Remove charge and make it just a leg speed upgrade for 100/100 and cut build time in half. Also give zealots 10 more hp (to match bw)
G. I think the stalker's role is fine. Stalkers are currently 10(+4 to armored). Change it to 11(+3 to armored) and they would suddenly become more useful especially against marines and mutalisks, but this would almost guarantee you would never see an immortal in the game (less dps, slower, can't shoot air, no blink)
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
This is exactly right. Once I have the stormer upgrades and a secured third, I feel like the game is won. I feel lucky whenever I make it that far, however, because the basic P units are terrible against marines, mutas and roaches.
I like that they mention that this is not the only way they go about trying to balance things... You can look at these and then at the GSL qualifier results and have a completely different take, and then at the map-matchup statistics (again looking at the GSL) and have another completely different feel to the balance.
Although I honestly think it's a 'nice' idea to try and balance at more than just the pro level I believe wholeheartedly that it would be disastrous for the longevity of the game if balance changes at mid-diamond and down are not weighted almost exponentially less when compared to the pro-scene... Just for example; If people see that their favorite pros can deal with what seems otherwise imbalanced then they will marvel all the more and have things to push for themselves in mastering the game. I really hope the blizz guys feel the same way.
a melee unit with 150 hp and 2.25 speed and 16 damage (8+8) 100 min. (zealot) and a 6 range unit with 125hp and 2.25 speed with a total of 20 damage is only 100 min + 25 gas. this is unblance.
and mules cooldown is so long even that you have half the worker of toss players you are on the same economies.i am giving my head that if you reduce the cooldown time this match up will be fixed.i am watching lots of pvts and i am expert on this match up.the only reason terran wins even toss has advange on early game cause of mules.dont talk about chrono boost the probes it is not the same thing.
in pvt problem starts in mid game when 2. exp taken by terran.and all the terran players makes their 3. cc to plantery fortress even you sneak some units to his expo no way to deal with plantery fortress.you even dont need to defand your expo.and if it is a gold put 4 mules and you have 2000 income. Am i wrong? what terran do for toss 2. expo. sacrifice 6 maradurs and attack the nexus with stim.cause toss must have their units together to be effective.check nexgenius match on gsl on metropolis.
here lies the problem, how would blizz balance protoss for pros without making auto win for anything lower than 2k diamond ? xDDDDDD
Edit: I dont think it's possible to balance protoss with the current units, i think they will have to do a complete reboot after the expansion ... till then they will be either too good for low levels and too bad for pros or the inverse ...
On November 17 2010 09:31 noD wrote: here lies the problem, how would blizz balance protoss for pros without making auto win for anything lower than 2k diamond ? xDDDDDD
Edit: I dont think it's possible to balance protoss with the current units, i think they will have to do a complete reboot after the expansion ... till then they will be either too good for low levels and too bad for pros or the inverse ...
I agree with this.
I think Thors and Colossi ruin the game for a variety of reasons.
They're flashy units put in to try and create a wow factor but all the really do is create a snooze fest. There's a bunch of reasons why a 6 pop ground unit is a bad idea (Ultras fit this to an extent as well, but they're barely worth their pop compared to Thors and Colossi).
I hate statistics like this. I am extremely suspicious of the timing of this article only a few days after already releasing the same stats even though they are now very different. Its very convenient for them in the face of the recent protoss response to the latest balance changes. The stats show what they want to believe, that the changes were ok.
The problem is that if the stats can swing that fast in a few days how reliable are they? How much of the percentage changes are due to terrans that were previously too high in Korea relying on barracks before supply. It is the most aggressive server after all. Also it could just be one or two maps and spawn positions where the win percentage is skewing the results in one or two of the matchups but Blizzard has already admitted they dont bother looking down that far into the statistics yet. And finally there is a huge difference between low diamond and high diamond I am sure we will see those differences when the 2 new leagues come out.
If it is map balance then it may not even effect GSL because of the ability to veto your worst map except in qualifying which has been shown this time round at least to be bad for protoss (IMO due to the maps used).
On November 16 2010 13:06 coddan wrote: Protoss nerf incoming, lol
IMO protoss need certain things nerfed and then other areas really buffed, they are a bit too unbalanced (not imbalanced, just they seem to alternate between unbeatable and helpless).
I am going to steal that Jinro, so well put. Grats on qualification .
For me I feel the problem is transitioning out of Bio for Terran. Bio is pretty much the only real early pressure that Terran can put out early game against Protoss.
Banshees are possible, but if you get early pressure back from a bunch of Stalkers you could lose the game then and there.
Mech has issues with Protoss due to Zealots (Chargelots in particular) and Immortals, as well as Range 9 Colossi. Mass air is very vulnerable to a combo of Stalkers and Phoenixes.
Hellions until they get Blue Flame don't do enough damage to Zealots to make it worth getting them. Tanks need critical mass before they become useful and with 150/125/3 for each one, that gets tricky. Thors get outranged by Colossi and surrounded by Chargelots, dooming them.
It isn't so much that Mech has issues with Protoss but with how long it takes to get Mech rolling. One Robo Bay with 4 Gateways can produce a deadly army, but just one Factory isn't going to cut it. Double Tank production makes it difficult to do anything else.
If Mech Transition was made a little easier and useful in smaller numbers (maybe make Tanks to 150/75 or reduce their production time, 250mm modified to having more range?), Terran would have something to transition into.
In the TvP's I've played where I managed to get critical mass tanks with EMP support, the playing field was actually pretty even. It's getting to that point, the actual transition itself where all the trouble is as you'll have a bunch of Colossi/HT knocking at your door before you can fight it off.
[B]It isn't so much that Mech has issues with Protoss but with how long it takes to get Mech rolling. One Robo Bay with 4 Gateways can produce a deadly army, but just one Factory isn't going to cut it. Double Tank production makes it difficult to do anything else.
Terran is the only race that cannot increase the production speed/rate with energy. They must build more production structures that consume resources and take SCVs off-mining. Mule mechanic only gets more minerals and these extra minerals go to non-gas units like marines and hellions that don't help much with lategame protoss/zerg.
Perhaps improving the macro mechanic is the easiest way to fix terran, buffing some units will only result in nasty timing pushes with them because terrans unlock tech very fast.
[B]It isn't so much that Mech has issues with Protoss but with how long it takes to get Mech rolling. One Robo Bay with 4 Gateways can produce a deadly army, but just one Factory isn't going to cut it. Double Tank production makes it difficult to do anything else.
Terran is the only race that cannot increase the production speed/rate with energy. They must build more production structures that consume resources and take SCVs off-mining. Mule mechanic only gets more minerals and these extra minerals go to non-gas units like marines and hellions that don't help much with lategame protoss/zerg.
Perhaps improving the macro mechanic is the easiest way to fix terran, buffing some units will only result in nasty timing pushes with them because terrans unlock tech very fast.
If you have a robo bay producing colossus off one base then you will only be able to produce out of 2 of the 4 warp gates. So its a similar situation to that of a factory in that it eats into the resources.
Since you mention chrono boost and compare it to mules. The effectiveness of chronoboost is being gradually chipped away at as an after effect of some of the nerfs. Its like they thought yay this ability sounds cool it can speed production of all units 50% and then gradually since had to introduce warp gate research because units came too early, then increased immortal research because immortals came to early, dark templar shrine build time and cost because DTs came too early, then zealots and warp gate transition because zealots came too early.
Its like giving you a 50% off coupon for your shop that you can use once in every 4 weeks and then increase the price of everything by 50% or more. It would be better if chrono never worked on unit production at all (even if it didnt also give them a supply boost or detection as well) and it only work on tech research and probe production because it really isnt helping protoss as a race much.
So I agree with you it seems that it sounded like a great idea but these resource/production boosting mechanics seem to be causing a lot of the balance issues now we are a few months in.
As a toss player, I cant help but feeling that the entire dynamic or feel of the race is off somehow.
Warpgates allow for some interesting mobility, but really force (balance wise) the protoss to be weaker in comparison. This is a zerg trait, not a protoss trait. Of course, protoss units are still more powerful, but they have some glaring weaknesses in design (some which are more affected by units in other races: marauder, for example).
From alpha, following this game, i thought that warpgates would be an interesting choice that you would have to make. I really saw a ton of potential with this ability. For example, as people all over this forum (and in this thread) have suggested, make warpgates more expensive: maybe 150/150. This change makes warpgates more of a decision to make, instead of just delaying a probe and 1 stalkers worth of gas and then waiting out the upgrade.
Then, make warpgates less efficient, overall. Perhaps it would take the full build time + those extra seconds to warp in (increase to 8-10 seconds????) in addition to having to click them individually.
This is an advantage in itself: the protoss get the ability to warp their units anywhere with pylon power nearly instantly. However, sustaining the level of production of the other races would be impossible with warpgates alone, so gateways would still be necessary.
You could also see some interesting choices during pushes: do i keep up a constant stream of units, or do i push, then change my gates to warpgates to warp in a ton of units, knowing that if i fail, i have to suffer the longer cooldown?
In exchange, buff the zealot and the stalker, while nerfing the sentry. Honestly, forcefield should not be nearly as spammable and shouldnt come out until twilight council. If any protoss upgrade deserves to be 200/200, its forcefield (and im not saying it should be: maybe 100/100). What this does is stabilizes the protoss early game without the use of spellcasting (which is dependent on player skill) and allows protoss a number of interesting choices once midgame hits: you can get sentrys (which could use a buff if FF is nerfed) and forcefield (logical, since you already have sentries perhaps), colossi, stargate or HT/DT.
I feel like warpgates are the primary problem, along with forcefields. Nothing can be truly fixed until blizzard addresses these root issues, imo.
EPT
and knowing Blizzard they'll nerf it without any buff. 
. Maybe korean tosses have figured out PvT better than we have.
