|
On October 12 2011 00:11 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:09 Wren wrote:On October 12 2011 00:03 zmansman17 wrote:
2) Carrier/Mothership play
Why: Because col Rvsp, a Top 7 GM on NA, wrote a thread on here about how sick powerful this combo was with replays. Why Protoss don't find a way to transition to carriers-- the world may never know...Devastated a 200 zerg army, lost 40 army.
Doesn't take a genius, or even a Protoss, to see the gigantic hole that leaves as you try to transition. Both units are ridiculously expensive and slow to build; if you have the opening to make a transition like that, you've already had the opportunity to simply win. col Rsvp had stated that he plays standard 200 supply army Before transitioning to this army. Insteaf of denying it can happen in even games or games where you are behind, try watching the replays and seeing for yourself. It might help not to be trapped by dogma. It can be done.
That's a weaker argument than saying that since Goody uses mech for all matchups, it is viable and therefore everyone should be trying it.
|
On October 12 2011 00:11 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 00:09 Wren wrote:On October 12 2011 00:03 zmansman17 wrote:
2) Carrier/Mothership play
Why: Because col Rvsp, a Top 7 GM on NA, wrote a thread on here about how sick powerful this combo was with replays. Why Protoss don't find a way to transition to carriers-- the world may never know...Devastated a 200 zerg army, lost 40 army.
Doesn't take a genius, or even a Protoss, to see the gigantic hole that leaves as you try to transition. Both units are ridiculously expensive and slow to build; if you have the opening to make a transition like that, you've already had the opportunity to simply win. col Rsvp had stated that he plays standard 200 supply army Before transitioning to this army. Insteaf of denying it can happen in even games or games where you are behind, try watching the replays and seeing for yourself. It might help not to be trapped by dogma. It can be done.
Of course he does. What I'm pointing out is that he has to do well enough with the initial, non-carrier/mothership army, to get to the next composition that he has already essentially won the game.
While my knowledge is observational much more than experiential, there is no evidence yet that there's a nice transition whereby carriers can be gradually added to a composition as they are constructed. Without that, it's a silly endgame goal.
|
On October 12 2011 00:03 zmansman17 wrote:
All I have to say is I play Terran at Top 6 Master. I have a total of 45 games as Protoss. And I am a high master Protoss... I don't think anyone could do the reverse with Terran, as the race is completely dependent on your micro. For me, Toss is easier to play and the units tend to do the majority of the work for you.
We can also say the converse. For me, terran is easier to play because I actually have units to micro and tools to tax the multitasking of my opponents. It all depends on your style of play. I'm a macro protoss and consider having very good mechanics. When I play terran, I feel like those mechanics are way more useful because I can do so much more with my units while still macroing the same army as I would with Protoss.
Nobody ever says this, but the truth is: The race that has the least amount of tools may be the hardest to play, because you have to do so much with so little.
Now I'm not saying that Protoss has nothing in its bag of tricks. But stop with the "Protoss is a simple race, therefore don't complain, I have to micro with my units!". Even if it was true (that Protoss is A-move EZPZ), we would take having more micro to do over having a simplistic gameplay and awful winratios at the GSL.
Edit: Sorry, what I mean by "macro protoss" is just that I don't go for all ins or timing attacks. I try to have a good economy, defending attacks and harass, while trying to mix in some harass and pressure myself. If I see a weakness (I have a bigger army, better upgrades, better tech), I'll go for it, but the killing move is a reactive one, not some pre-planned 10 minutes timing attack.
|
The problem with protoss is the lack of non commital aggression. The warpgate mechanik really broke protoss. The gateway units are really bad without mass upgrades or insane micro, because otherwise the gateway pushes would be wayyy too strong. To compensate that Blizzard intented the robotics and stargate units to be stronger which worked at first. Now collossus and stargate play has been figured out, and players abuse the weaknesses of robotics/stargate styles it doesnt work anymore.
So protoss is now supposed to all in, because they cant just build a lot of units and expand behind it like terran, because protoss has to make these ressources worth to even become near the strength of the other races army. If protoss tries warp prism harras they have no good cheap units that can harass good. Chargelots kinda work but they arent as ideal as marines, marauders, zerglings or banelings. dts are a huge investment and very long to get there+ they rely on the lack of detection to work. Moreover the tech of protoss is very stale due to high investment in tech. templar tech for example (twilight 150/100 + templar archives 200/200 + storm 200/200 ) infestor (lair 150/100 + infestation pit 100/100 + pathogen glands 150/150) ghost ( ghost academy 150/50 + moebius reactor 100/100 + techlabs with have been build for marauders anyways)
In summary:
protoss warpgate mechanic causes gateway units to be weaker
due to warpgate mechanics protoss cannot just attack and expand unless 200/200
lack of non commital agression favors all ins
robotic and stargate units has been figured out by the other races
Solutions:
Protoss:
warpgate mechanic changed: warpin time doubled ( so warp in in base become less effective)
warpgate cooldown time increased by 5 secs ( warp in cooldown still begins during warp in so that equals that )
buff gateway units some suggestions:
sentry attack damage back to 8
stalker attack increased to 12 (+4) ( this makes stalkers kill drones,scvs, marines and zerglings kill faster)
attack now scales with +2 to armored like its counterparts the roach and marauder so it can compete in the late stage of the game
zealot charge investment reduced to 150/150
templar archives cost reduced to 150/150
storm research also increases mana by 15
high templar speed increased to 2.25 ( not sure about this, but templar are so slow because they used to insta storm, now the speed of 1.88 is not necessary anymore)
terran:
I like terran the only problem is carpet emp ,so
Emp shield damage is not stackable, emp damage is now a dot (100 damage in 5 seconds)
So protoss actually can micro against emp
Emp range reduced to 9 its still possible to hit templar before they hit you because of the radius ( 9+2 >9 ) it also encourages snipe that is equal to feedback but has +1 range
Please post your comments on this try
I appreciate it 
|
On October 12 2011 00:03 zmansman17 wrote:Clearly, Protoss can win even with their current units and basic strategies.
On October 12 2011 00:03 SeaSwift wrote:
Clearly, they can't. Not often. Not enough for balance. Not enough for SC2 to be a successful esport.
lol Well I guess you have it all figured out. Limited thinking about new ideas isn't going to get you anywhere. The reality is 1 rax FE used be a crazy idea. 3 Hatch as a response to a forge FE used to be a crazy idea as well. Now both are standard.
The reason ideas are posted is to change the traditional paradigm with respect to these builds. If you don't believe in change, then keep doing what you're doing (clearly that's working). On the other hand, the top Toss players are adapting, as indeed they should be, and are reaping the benefits of their innovation.
This is why the top 10 players in NA, EU and at times KR are all *Surprise* Protoss players. Following this trend, it is only a matter of time before the GSL and other tournaments boast larger Protoss numbers. For those who are willing to adapt instead of sulk...
|
Geez. It's getting tiresome to listen to this "How Warp Gates broke Protoss" bandwagon. You know, you can easily make cases like "How Spawn Larvae broke Zerg" (which I personally believe the most broken thing in the game that is only masked by Blizzard's balancing act for now) or "How Orbital Commands broke Terran". I mean, you guys think Gateway units are weak because of warp-in mechanic. Well, then how about Spawn Larvae? Do you think Zerg units are weak because of Spawn larvae? Of course! Do Terran buildings need to be floating? Yes otherwise it'll be impossible for Terran to build since the opponents will constantly try to pick on building SCVs.
You can easily pick and choose evidences of such claims - there are plenty of them - and they will gain traction once a certain race is perceived overpowered/underpowered. But all these different traits of 3 races exist in order for richer and exciting gaming experience. Obviously it's more fun to watch and play different races than same races with different colors.
Warp gates are what attracted me to play Protoss, and I am staying positive that Blizzard will make the mechanic work at the very top level. And I don't think Warp gates themselves are broken or make Protoss underpowered in any way, form, or shape. It is an interesting and revolutionary mechanic that enriches the RTS genre.
|
On October 12 2011 01:31 usethis2 wrote:
Geez. It's getting tiresome to listen to this "How Warp Gates broke Protoss" bandwagon. You know, you can easily make cases like "How Spawn Larvae broke Zerg" (which I personally believe the most broken thing in the game that is only masked by Blizzard's balancing act for now) or "How Orbital Commands broke Terran".
You can easily pick and choose evidence of such claims - there are plenty of them - and they will gain traction once a certain race is perceived overpowered/underpowered. But all these different traits of 3 races exist in order for richer and exciting gaming experience. Obviously it's more fun to watch and play different races than same races with different colors.
Warp gates are what attracted me to play Protoss, and I am staying positive that Blizzard will make the mechanic work at the very top level. And I don't think Warp gates themselves are broken or make Protoss underpowered in any way, form, or shape. It is an interesting and revolutionary mechanic that enriches RTS genre.
maybe if more and more people are convinced that warp gate broke protoss its better to listen and look at it closely. Thats how democracy works btw. There are a lot of reasons why warpgate might be a bad idea in the first place, though i agree with your argument of making the races differ. However were talking about high level of competition where you cannot just switch the race, otherwise player would have done so, they are not stupid
|
What's a video game have to do with how democracy works..? You're losing me there.
|
Well teamliquid is a forum for expressing personal opinions, so every opinion has to be respected and considered. this example may be to general, sorry for that
|
and the more people who are convinced of an idea the more likely the idea has succes and draws attention
|
On October 12 2011 01:31 zmansman17 wrote:
lol Well I guess you have it all figured out. Limited thinking about new ideas isn't going to get you anywhere. The reality is 1 rax FE used be a crazy idea. 3 Hatch as a response to a forge FE used to be a crazy idea as well. Now both are standard.
The reason ideas are posted is to change the traditional paradigm with respect to these builds. If you don't believe in change, then keep doing what you're doing (clearly that's working). On the other hand, the top Toss players are adapting, as indeed they should be, and are reaping the benefits of their innovation.
This is why the top 10 players in NA, EU and at times KR are all *Surprise* Protoss players. Following this trend, it is only a matter of time before the GSL and other tournaments boast larger Protoss numbers. For those who are willing to adapt instead of sulk...
How did what you say refute what I said in any way at all?
You said:
On October 12 2011 00:03 zmansman17 wrote:Clearly, Protoss can win even with their current units and basic strategies.
I said:
On October 12 2011 00:03 SeaSwift wrote:
Clearly, they can't. Not often. Not enough for balance. Not enough for SC2 to be a successful esport.
Now you are talking about Protoss innovating and adapting - surely that actually refutes your point instead of mine? You just made a blanket few paragraphs (last one is just plain wrong, by the way, the top 10 players in any region has NEVER been only Protoss) about something completely unrelated to the quote. 0_o
|
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^
|
On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^
If you can't forcefield the ramp, then I can see some big problems with early aggresion from Z,T and P.
|
On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^
shut up and play the game you tool
User was warned for this post
|
On October 12 2011 02:08 NerZhuL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^ shut up and play the game you tool
kk, continue to abuse ramp forcefields and Warpgate all-ins.
it so obvious that both these mechanics are what makes and brakes protoss.
If you know how to abuse FF and Warpgate Pushes early/mid game you win.
if the other race knows how to deal with it you lose.
|
On October 12 2011 02:08 NerZhuL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^ shut up and play the game you tool
Wow.
On another note, I don't think gateway units need to be buffed. Something must be added to protoss to apply pressure without all inning, and I don't think it can come from the warpgates. I hope the new units in HotS can give this dynamic to protoss.
If gateway units were stronger, terran all ins wouldn't work anymore (like, not at all) and that's not what Blizzard want. One base play seems to be something they fancy (just look at the maps). I don't think one base terran should be as strong as they are now, but they must not be completely negated either.
Let's take a concrete example: 1 gate FE against terran. It's very hard to hold sometimes, as it should be, because it's somewhat taking a risk to expand that early. It does not rely on the warpgate mechanics. But with good enough micro, it can hold even the most agressive builds. Imagine now that gateway units are stronger. Suddenly, you're free to 1 gate FE very easily without breaking a sweat, and Protoss starts rolling low level play with 1 gate FE -> 6 gates.
However I agree on the scaling of upgrades for the stalker. It's quite ridiculous that an attack upgrade doesn't even give it a +1(+1).
|
Germany157 Posts
|
On October 12 2011 02:02 XiGua wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^ If you can't forcefield the ramp, then I can see some big problems with early aggresion from Z,T and P.
Yep, exactly what he said. The last thing I need is 8 roachs or 20 lings charging up my ramp every game while Im struggling to get out a set of stalkers.
|
On October 12 2011 02:02 XiGua wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 01:59 SeaSwift wrote:
On Protoss, all I think the Warp Gate mechanic needs is a shunt through to Twilight Council along with a slight research time increase and then Gateway units (particularly Stalkers) can be buffed to a decent level.
So:
Warp Gate -> Twilight Council + Build time increase
Zealot -> +10 shields, 9(*2) damage
Stalker -> 12 damage (+4 to armoured)
Sentry -> Forcefield should then become researchable at Cybernetics Core and Hallu should come standard.
I don't really see any major problems with this idea, please enlighten me ^_^ If you can't forcefield the ramp, then I can see some big problems with early aggresion from Z,T and P.
Agreed, and warp gate in the twilight council? Are Protoss players never actually going to make units?
We don't actually need hallucination that early either. We can usually scout Zerg or Protoss decently well at the beginning. It's Terran who can wall and who has the ranged tier one unit -.-'
|
What about the simple nerf where we shorten ghost's EMP range so high templar's feedback could outrange a ghost's EMP? Even such that the high templar has only a range of one or two greater (and keep in mind that ghosts can still cloak, so Protoss still needs observers out anyway), so Protoss players still need to be on top of their game?
This way, the Protoss (who would prefer storm over feedback in a battle anyway) could actually counter ghosts with feedback if need be (since currently, ghosts hard counter high templar and demolish the rest of Protoss)? Ghosts pretty much make late game TvP battles very one-sided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
