|
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 ^_^
Interesting....
This'd never work. Without fast forcefields, P would die to so many different rushes from every race.
|
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.
Please look at the previous posts before posting 
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 03:32 xAPOCALYPSEx 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 ^_^ Interesting.... This'd never work. Without fast forcefields, P would die to so many different rushes from every race.
I am not sure depends on FF research time. The problem would only be that it would be a forced upgrade that has no reason to be delayed.
I personally think EMP vs Temps are fine as is, Make EMP either a DOT stuck on the units shield (plague on shield) or an AOE over time that hurts shields (psistorm on shields). 33% damage of a targets hp burst and AoE is way to strong with how easy ghost are to make.
|
On October 12 2011 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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.
With ghost being an anti caster, im not sure that would make sense i think the first thing i would do to see if it balances the emp; is add a time to it like storm and have the 100 shield or energy reduce over 4 seconds... So protoss can move out of the emp like terran can with storms... plus with the time added then the emps will not stack, so your whole army is not defenseless instantaneous...
|
On October 12 2011 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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.
I always wondered why Ghost's spells outrange HT's spells. It's so noticeable that it must be intended by Blizzard. I don't see them changing that. If only they had the same range on their spells...
What about the Psionic Storm research. Anyone else finds that it's fucking expensive? I would remove it altogether, because Ghosts don't need to research EMP (yeah they must research cloak, but we can agree that storm is much more vital for templars than cloak is for ghosts...), but then you wouldn't have anything to research for HT...
The cost in gas of templars with storm is a bit ridiculous... 200 for Templar archives, 200 for storm, and 150 per templar, without even including the twilight council?
Compare that with Ghost with EMP and Infestors with fungal... Why is it that this Protoss tech must be that expensive? It's not even that effective, as shown in multiple games.
I would lower the cost to 100/100 for templar archives and 100/100 for storm (150/150 maybe?). It frees up 200 (150) gas to have an extra templar, which can be crucial, and most helpful.
That or give back the Amulet, with +15 starting energy 
|
On October 12 2011 03:32 xAPOCALYPSEx 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 ^_^ Interesting.... This'd never work. Without fast forcefields, P would die to so many different rushes from every race.
you get the best scouting in the game if that change was implemented.......!
|
On October 12 2011 03:34 Brainiak wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Please look at the previous posts before posting Show nested quote +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
I did read all that As a Protoss player, I don't think most of those buffs are required, especially since I feel that ghosts are a problem, moreso than generic PvX being worthless.
|
On October 12 2011 03:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 03:34 Brainiak wrote:
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.
Please look at the previous posts before posting 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 I did read all that As a Protoss player, I don't think most of those buffs are required, especially since I feel that ghosts are a problem, moreso than generic PvX being worthless.
So why do you think the other changes wont be necessary?
|
On October 11 2011 06:15 BeeNu wrote:
I'd like to talk about how imbalanced Warp Prisms seem to be. Seriously, Protoss gets THE best drop harassment in the game.
Lets just look at gas costs for a second.
If Zerg wants to drop harass they must spend 100g on Lair, 100g on Overlord Speed, then another 200g on the Drop ability, 400 gas before they can even consider doing a drop.
Terran? 100g on Factory, 100g on Starport and then an additional 100 gas for every Medivac, at minimum this is 300 gas.
Protoss? Well let's see here, 100g for a Robo Facility. Yep.
At the low low costs of 100 gas Protoss can endlessly drop through the entire game for nothing but minerals.
You neglect two valid points as to why WP is not the end-all-be-all of drop units:
1) Z and T will already have their drop units on the field anyway. Z needs overlords already, and has a dozen of them in play by the time they tech to drops. T medivacs come out as soon as the starport come out whenever theres bio units in play (which is 99% of the time). P has to go out of its way, stopping production on a building that could be producing more important immortals, observers or collosi, and has to sacrifice/delay either teching to air units or templar to make prisms.
and 2) You mention that overlords need speed upgrades, yet not prisms. If you are going to include numbers for one, include it for the others.
Besides the point, nobody ever made the case that all transport units need to be equal. They just need to be different. Strong dropships won't carry a whole race to successful play.
|
I actually watched today's match between Nestea and MVP, specifically looking for mistakes of the sort that make Protoss players fall way behind, or just lose outright. And guess what, they do make them, quite often actually. Even MVP, the god of Terran, does things like unloading hellions out of a medivac into a group of lings, or driving hellions into an expansion and letting them die to spines while they shoot at a Queen. Nestea did multiple awful attacks/drops during the series, that would've been an instant loss had he been playing Protoss.
On the other hand, you have games like Oz vs Curious g2, where I look at Oz's play, and I honestly can't think of anything he could've done to win, and this is after some very, very impressive unit control and crisis management from him.
So yeah, I'm almost certain Nestea or MVP couldn't win a GSL with current Protoss. I wouldn't be surprised if they got knocked out of Code S, just like MC did.
True, everyone makes mistakes. But dropping onto a group of lings, and not walling in and letting 30 lings run into your base like MC did are quite different. The difference is that one loses you games and you make SURE it doesn't happen, and the other is a mistake that doesn't cost the game.
You can't seriously tell me you saw no mistakes in Oz's play. Besides Star motherfucking Tale Curious being matched up against someone relatively obscure (and sure, this should be irrelevant to the argument), Oz made some huge blunders. I'll say it very straightforward again:
1. Oz goes FFE on a map known to be really bad for FFE (like XNC). He then only makes a single cannon, doesn't scout, and moves all of his units wayyyy out of position and loses them for free.
2. Oz tried to hide an expansion, and it got found the moment he transferred a ton of probes and made a bunch of buildings there. This was really.... cheesy, and he lost it.
3. 7 gate all-in. Wow. Then he loses all his sentries by leaving them exposed, huge blunder.
4. Proxy 2 gate. He seriously proxy 2 gated.
Do you EVER see nestea 6 pool or proxy hatch? Do you EVER see MVP proxy rax or go 2 starport banshee? No, you don't.
Have they made colossal blunders in games before? Yes, in fact both of them have, and they lose games because of that. So what's the difference? None, the only difference is no one is saying Zerg is UP because he lost to MMA, but people are saying Protoss are UP because MC let 30 lings run into his base.
Oz was nowhere near the level of Curious. Every single game, he attempted to 'cheat' out Curious, either by hiding an expansion, not making any cannons, or all-inning. I can't believe you don't know what he could have done to win, that sounds extremely biased. Maybe he shouldn't have proxied 2 gateways in g4. Maybe he shouldn't have done a 7 gate all-in in g3, and then lose all his sentries by leaving them by themselves. Maybe he shouldn't have tried to take a hidden expansion against someone who has a spire on the largest map. Maybe he should've made 2 cannons on a map that's bad for FFE.
Huge blunders. Regardless, you can't say BALANCE was a factor in any of these games either.
As for Protoss in Code S, MC does very well, as does Huk and Puzzle. They lost to Terran, and I already said TvP could be broken and I'm not here to talk about it. In fact, MC got to Up/Down because of Terrans, most of the Protoss did. But MC lost his Up/Down games, and his Code A games, because of huge blunders, not because of balance.
Rewatch the Up/Down games with MC and his Code A game.
In the up/down, he got nydus'd (he ACTUALLY let a nydus build...). In Code A, he let 30 lings run into his base twice and lost 20+ probes, and in the next game he rallied his colossi into the zergs base, lost all his sentries when he left them out of his base and didnt' pay attention, and the final stake in the coffin was him blinking all of his stalkers way ahead of the rest of his army into all of zerg's army.
Who tried to 4 gate?
Tassadar vs SUPERSTAR.
Even JYP, the great PvZ hope, did double Stargate vs Jookto on Antiga Shipyard, because how else are you going to play after Zerg takes the gold instead of his natural? You'll get murdered if you try to take a third. HongUn double Stargated on Dual Sight, another map where Protoss can't take a third unless Zerg just lets them for whatever reason.
There are definitely Imbalanced Maps, you don't need to tell a Zerg that. But there is a big difference between saying Zerg is OP, and saying Antiga Shipyards is broken. So you should say the maps are broken, instead of saying Protoss is broken in ZvP. Make sense?
HongUn did a double stargate and it was an embarassment. He tried to double stargate against one of the best Zergs in the world, and then he controlled it horribly.
But yes, Dual Sight is pretty impossible for Protoss because your third is so exposed. Antiga Shipyards has a lot of rotational imbalance (close spawns is always just outright imbalanced for the player who has to defend both his third ramp and his natural ramp while the other player can safely defend both from one spot).
The "Nexus first vs 6pool" comment is particularly amusing coming from you, since you believe FFE is a bad opening, and Nexus first is a good one. Well guess what, there's a reason you don't see Nexus first every game, and that's because it's not safe. It wouldn't even be too bad if defending the 6pool meant a win for the Protoss, but against a Forge opening, the 6pool ends up even or ahead almost every time if the Zerg just powers drones after making 6 lings. Compare that too double 8 Gate proxy having a good chance of killing a hatch first on some maps, but losing instantly to anything else, and being impossible to transition out of.
I think FFE is a bad opening for the same reason you think it's a bad opening, actually. Because on maps like Antiga Shipyards, Zerg will just take the gold. As for Nexus first being a good opening, it has it's risks, and that's why you scout first.
Defending a 6 pool is a win for Protoss. The difference is that it's not an autowin, and puts both players very very similar spots and gives a bit of control to Zerg. Not to mention if Protoss opens any sort of 1 base play, it's autoloss for Zerg right there.
Anyways, comparing the cheeses both races have is kind of ridiculous. Protoss has much more available to them (Zerg has 6 pool, autoloss to 1 base and barely behind against FFE, and roach/ling which just hopes you went FFE on a bad map like Crossfire or XNC, or didn't make a second cannon).
Also, double 8 gate proxy does NOT kill a hatch first, by the way. Zerg will just cancel the hatch, throw down a spawning pool (if it isn't down already) and come out way ahead. But Oz should've gotten a read and known Curious never goes hatch first anyways.
Clearly, Protoss can win even with their current units and basic strategies. But imagine how much better they could be if they had some vision.
I really enjoyed your post, but I'm not someone who could comment on it. I do agree with your sentiment that at Masters, Protoss ... how to put this, is easier to play? Have less skill? I don't know, and it's just a flaming comment anyways, and it's obviously a stereotype. And TvP is a totally different ballgame from ZvP. But I run into a lot of 40APM protoss players who just turtle up a deathball, never scout, and just push after 15 minutes. To any protoss who takes offense to this, please, this isn't really relevant, it's just something I see in my experience. There's a lot of highly skilled P I run into as well. But I definitely see mostly Protoss who just execute some FFE, do a build, and push, and maybe they win with it, maybe they don't.
I think a big reason Protoss doesn't do the innovative things you said, good sir, is because they are so fragile if they lack the wrong tech. It'd be nice to do what you said, for example, but if Terran went cloaked banshees, it's GG autolose. It'd be nice to get stargate tech, but if Terran got stim and you don't have aoe, GG autolose. So I think that's the hurdle Protoss has, and maybe better scouting options would be the answer for more innovation from Protoss.
Has it occurred to you that these Protoss players are taking crazy risks that wind up being "blunders" because, in their professional experience, trying to play standard against the highest level of Zerg opposition will give them an even lower chance of winning?
This is one of the most... ridiculous, comments I come across when I present my argument.
First off, MC didn't do anything crazy. He moved out, walled in with a pylon, and the pylon was in the wrong spot. His colossi were rallied to the Zerg's base. These weren't risks, these were mistakes.
As for cheesing, that's also ridiculous. People do it against players they know are better than them, like Oz vs Curious, but to say Protoss can't play a macro game or play in end-game is a joke. Please, there are a million ZvP's out there over 20 minutes and Protoss wins or it's a close game. Don't say something so ridiculous.
And if you really believe that, please, provide some examples and evidence to back it up. I've heard Terran players say that they can't play against Zerg in end-game too, and so therefore must resort to 1 base cheese to stand a chance.
|
On October 12 2011 03:53 Belial88 wrote:
Do you EVER see nestea 6 pool or proxy hatch? Do you EVER see MVP proxy rax or go 2 starport banshee? No, you don't.
MVP proxy raxed today vs Nestea.
|
On October 12 2011 03:32 xAPOCALYPSEx 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 ^_^ Interesting.... This'd never work. Without fast forcefields, P would die to so many different rushes from every race.
The idea is that if Gateway units are as strong as their BW equivalents, Protoss won't have to rely on fast forcefields. I suppose you could also reduce Stalker/Sentry build time from Gateways if you wanted to (not Zealots or else 2gate becomes to hard to stop).
|
On October 12 2011 03:41 Brainiak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 03:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2011 03:34 Brainiak wrote:
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.
Please look at the previous posts before posting 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 I did read all that As a Protoss player, I don't think most of those buffs are required, especially since I feel that ghosts are a problem, moreso than generic PvX being worthless. So why do you think the other changes wont be necessary?
Because I don't think it's the lack of damage or cost of any of the Protoss units that is the problem (although I could get behind giving a little more starting energy for high templar as well, so that I don't have to wait a day and a half to cast storms). Again, I think ghosts are the problem. Ghosts counter a lot of important Zerg units (including their ex-best unit, the infestor), as well as high templar and the rest of Protoss. I feel like tweaking the ghost a bit (in the way that I describe earlier) would make Terran a little bit easier to deal with.
I don't think Protoss needs to be super-buffed; I think Terran needs to be slightly nerfed.
That's my opinion, anyway.
|
On October 12 2011 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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.
The issue there is snipe, terrans are starting to snipe the HT's out of the protoss army while cloaked. The range makes it very hard to stop.
What I wanna know is how come terran gets emp and zerg gets fungal without research? How come ghosts have cloak and infestors have burrow move but ht are this slow as hell unit with a bulls-eye on them? How bout get rid of dt's and make the HT's cloaked all the time Than well see some QQ. (Just kidding)
Besides the best spells in the game needing research what really needs help is protoss just being able to expand. If you FFE vs zerg they can nydus before you even have warp and about 3 out total units. On some maps with large mains, you just can't stop multiple nydus and defend your front. If you 3 gate expand, zerg can break you with roach ling or delay you expo for a long time, or still have a huge economic lead even if they don't all in. Terran bio rushes are very hard to stop when you early expand because you can't scout many of them in time and have the units to defend your natural after getting robo and obs. But because the terran can expand inside their own main and double mule, you are running a risk if you don't get your expo up early enough. Also, when a protoss expands they are committed, nexus don't fly. Which is another thing that I think needs to be changed, orbitals shouldn't fly. They are so powerful because of scans, and mules. Terran should have to commit to an expansion if they make an orbital or get a PF instead, after all they have refundable bunkers and repair. That alone could bring terran on par with zerg and protoss win rates.
Realistically, if I could patch the game right now the first thing I'd do is give stalkers +2 per attack upgrade. The reason is because stim bio shoots 3x more often than a stalker, roaches get +2 per upgrade, and hydras shoot much more often as well. So all of these units benefit more from attack upgrades over stalkers. The longer the game goes on with equal upgrades the weaker the stalker is vs all of these units. Or perhaps shift a little more of stalkers health away from shields, meaning they can benefit from the 1 armor they start with more, armor upgrades, and won't evaporate to emp.
Another thing to look at is taking a little bit of the gas cost out of some protoss tech, everything is really expensive which very often leaves protoss in a situation where they can't even produce the gas heavy units they need to deal with zerg or terran tech in the mid/late game. You spend so much gas just so you can stay alive vs bio and roaches (which are very gas light). It also make protoss very committed to tech paths and predictable. Obviously, Templar or Colossus should stay expensive because making them cheaper would make toss op. But I'd like to see things like fleet beacon and carriers faster to produce, tech too, and cheaper on gas. So at least protoss could start to experiment with these things more. Who doesn't love to see motherships in a pro game? (other than stephano fans )
As far as infestors go, what I think would be a good change is to give them back the neural parasite range, and make fungal not affect blink anymore. Blink just got a nerf anyway, but at least in battles protoss would still have a micro option and be able to blink and try to snipe infestors. Which would lead to zergs being much less careless with them and they would have to micro more as well. Because when you have a lot of stalkers vs a lot of roaches and you get hit with fungal you pretty much feel screwed, when you consider a stalker costs almost 2x more than a roach and roaches smash them in a straight fight, if they can't blink and are taking damage from fungal, stalkers and blink becomes useless. At least protoss could blink micro to save some and not just watch their whole army die. After all, it takes more gas and time to tech to blink than fungal.
Emp imo, hard counters too much from protoss, immortals, templar, sentries, stalkers, archons, voidrays, (even motherships and dt's to a lesser extent because emp reveals cloak) are all pretty much nullified by emp. What I would like to see is the hard shield on immortals work on emp, so emp only does 10 dmg to immortal shields. Then protoss would have an option vs emp in the late game when terran has the vikings to deny colossus.
So yea, orbitals can't fly, stalkers +2 per attack upgrade, shift some stalker health from shield to HP, fungal doesn't stop blinking (only normal movement), neural change undone, immortals take 10 dmg from emp. Make some gas cost/build time changes to fleet beacon tech. Bam!, game balanced.
But I am interested to hear what Terrans or Zergs would think about these changes. I play Terran as much as I play toss, but I'm pathetic as zerg (so I am kind of ignorant to their general views on things)
Please, try to use some intelligence in response. Even if you think some of these things are idiotic. Attack the ideas, not me.
|
On October 12 2011 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 03:41 Brainiak wrote:On October 12 2011 03:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 12 2011 03:34 Brainiak wrote:
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.
Please look at the previous posts before posting 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 I did read all that As a Protoss player, I don't think most of those buffs are required, especially since I feel that ghosts are a problem, moreso than generic PvX being worthless. So why do you think the other changes wont be necessary? Because I don't think it's the lack of damage or cost of any of the Protoss units that is the problem (although I could get behind giving a little more starting energy for high templar as well, so that I don't have to wait a day and a half to cast storms). Again, I think ghosts are the problem. Ghosts counter a lot of important Zerg units (including their ex-best unit, the infestor), as well as high templar and the rest of Protoss. I feel like tweaking the ghost a bit (in the way that I describe earlier) would make Terran a little bit easier to deal with. I don't think Protoss needs to be super-buffed; I think Terran needs to be slightly nerfed. That's my opinion, anyway.
Thats definetly a reasonable opinion
However as a protoss player (just dia/master level  ) i am tired of all ining against zerg after forge fast expanding (although most zergs at my level dont know how to hold it  ) But in my opinion mainly the dominance of terran in the early game has to be stopped. I dont care that much If that happenens through buffs to toss or nerfs to terran, the only thing I want is that protoss makes more fun to play and that it competes well again
|
Okay, I see what others are saying but I still think Protoss would be too weak without that forcefield, especially vs something like a 5RR or 7RR, unless you maybe make cybercore build time shorter and make sure that forcefield research time is shorter. This is even more true because zealots, while having 10 extra shields, would do 2 less damage per shot and stalkers, even with an extra 2 damage per shot, I feel it wouldn't change things too much from now, holding off a 7RR without forcefields.
Another thing that may be kinda weird with this is it allows insane scouting so early on for P. I guess one could make an argument for it being equivalent to scan/suicide overlord, but I don't think it really is. If you didn't have to research hallucination, I feel it'd put P scouting miles ahead of Z and T, especially because T has to use their 'maphack' in lieu of a MULE which is a vital part of their economy, and their drops would come much later. Properly micro'd, I feel it would basically allow P to permanently have vision of the opponent's base, and if the opponent decided to do something about it, it would cost a ridiculous amount of money or patrolling units, etc etc. Well more so than should be required for just denying early scouting anyways.
|
On October 12 2011 03:39 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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. I always wondered why Ghost's spells outrange HT's spells. It's so noticeable that it must be intended by Blizzard. I don't see them changing that. If only they had the same range on their spells... What about the Psionic Storm research. Anyone else finds that it's fucking expensive? I would remove it altogether, because Ghosts don't need to research EMP (yeah they must research cloak, but we can agree that storm is much more vital for templars than cloak is for ghosts...), but then you wouldn't have anything to research for HT... The cost in gas of templars with storm is a bit ridiculous... 200 for Templar archives, 200 for storm, and 150 per templar, without even including the twilight council? Compare that with Ghost with EMP and Infestors with fungal... Why is it that this Protoss tech must be that expensive? It's not even that effective, as shown in multiple games. I would lower the cost to 100/100 for templar archives and 100/100 for storm (150/150 maybe?). It frees up 200 (150) gas to have an extra templar, which can be crucial, and most helpful. That or give back the Amulet, with +15 starting energy
Another neat idea could be to put EMP onto the Raven. They might have to make some adjustments the range on in or feedback or something but I feel it could work.
I make this observation as a spectator more than an actual gamer. My feeling is that TvAnything can feel kind of dull to watch since their strategies are so dynamic. One of the big exciting moments when watching a game comes from thinking "Oh my god he committed so much to a particular tech path but now his army is lopsided, how is he going to pull this off?" . Terran doesn't seem to play out that way quite as much and thus seems boring because pretty much everything is always viable. You never need to worry weather a Terran committed too heavily to drops because Medivacs are a cornerstone to a Terran army. Same with ghosts late game, they can shut down Sentries, Broodlords, Ultras somehow, Immortals, Templar and even Collosi seem kind of feeble with no Sentrie support. The element of anticipation that you get where you wonder if a Terran will be able to grab enough of an advantage from his tech before it is no longer viable doesn't exist. The fact that add-ons are modular doesn't help one bit either because almost any early game strategy can transition into any other one and a barracks, a factory or a star port will almost never be useless.
My intuition says that putting EMP on Ravens would help a little bit but I don't know the game well enough to suggest anything else to help Terran become less flexible and hopefully more exciting to watch.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On October 12 2011 03:53 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +Has it occurred to you that these Protoss players are taking crazy risks that wind up being "blunders" because, in their professional experience, trying to play standard against the highest level of Zerg opposition will give them an even lower chance of winning? This is one of the most... ridiculous, comments I come across when I present my argument. First off, MC didn't do anything crazy. He moved out, walled in with a pylon, and the pylon was in the wrong spot. His colossi were rallied to the Zerg's base. These weren't risks, these were mistakes. As for cheesing, that's also ridiculous. People do it against players they know are better than them, like Oz vs Curious, but to say Protoss can't play a macro game or play in end-game is a joke. Please, there are a million ZvP's out there over 20 minutes and Protoss wins or it's a close game. Don't say something so ridiculous. And if you really believe that, please, provide some examples and evidence to back it up. I've heard Terran players say that they can't play against Zerg in end-game too, and so therefore must resort to 1 base cheese to stand a chance.
Perhaps we're talking past each other. I don't disagree that MC's recent play has been poor, and says little about any possible imbalance in ZvP. On the other hand, I don't think you can appropriately dismiss the extremely high prevalence of cheesing among top Protoss players against top Zerg players so easily.
Are you suggesting that, by some cosmic coincidence, the top Protoss players in Korea are just less skilled than the top Zerg players? If so, then you argument is nothing but improbable conjecture, so I'm afraid there's little to discuss. If not, then the top Protoss players' recurring decisions to resort to cheese suggest they know something that you or I don't: namely, what the outcome of the game would likely be if they did not cheese. Nor does your "million ZvP's" where Protoss play a macro style and win or have a close game suggest to the contrary, since very few of them indeed of them are played against the caliber of Zerg opposition that Protosses playing PvZ in the GSL are up against. It may be that an imbalance, if any, exists only at this absolute highest level of professional play and not at the level of play that those million games were played at; indeed, I would tend to agree that the evidence points away from any significant imbalance at lower levels of play.
Since there are relatively few games at that level that we have to draw on as evidence, I don't think we can yet draw any firm conclusions on balance there one way or the other. You are right to point out that the struggles of a few players or a few anomalous games could easily swing the pendulum in the direction of suggesting imbalance where none existed. It is not proper reasoning, however, to merely dismiss claims of a possible imbalance by arguing that players lost because they cheesed whilst ignoring the very substantial possibility that they chose to cheese precisely because they were trying to overcome an imbalance in the matchup--whether real or perceived. To really get to the heart of the question will require more time and more games than we have at this point, and there's a significant probability that intervening changes, be it through patches, changes to maps, or the discovery of some previously unrefined strategy will moot the issue. For now, however, it strikes me as equally disingenuous to suggest that we can know there is no imbalance as it is to say that we can be certain there is one.
|
I think EMP issue in PvT could potentially be solved if they slowed down the EMP projectile by about 30-50% or something close so it can be dodged (kind of like in BW), and increase the speed of templars to 2.25.
|
On October 12 2011 03:53 Belial88 wrote:
True, everyone makes mistakes. But dropping onto a group of lings, and not walling in and letting 30 lings run into your base like MC did are quite different. The difference is that one loses you games and you make SURE it doesn't happen, and the other is a mistake that doesn't cost the game.
You can't seriously tell me you saw no mistakes in Oz's play. Besides Star motherfucking Tale Curious being matched up against someone relatively obscure (and sure, this should be irrelevant to the argument), Oz made some huge blunders. I'll say it very straightforward again:
1. Oz goes FFE on a map known to be really bad for FFE (like XNC). He then only makes a single cannon, doesn't scout, and moves all of his units wayyyy out of position and loses them for free.
2. Oz tried to hide an expansion, and it got found the moment he transferred a ton of probes and made a bunch of buildings there. This was really.... cheesy, and he lost it.
3. 7 gate all-in. Wow. Then he loses all his sentries by leaving them exposed, huge blunder.
4. Proxy 2 gate. He seriously proxy 2 gated.
Do you EVER see nestea 6 pool or proxy hatch? Do you EVER see MVP proxy rax or go 2 starport banshee? No, you don't.
Have they made colossal blunders in games before? Yes, in fact both of them have, and they lose games because of that. So what's the difference? None, the only difference is no one is saying Zerg is UP because he lost to MMA, but people are saying Protoss are UP because MC let 30 lings run into his base.
I cut out all the stuff about MC, because I don't care that much. I don't think his path to Code B is indicative of PvZ balance. I also don't specifically care about any of the Oz games, I know why he lost them. Except for game 2, that is. What, in your opinion, should he have done in that game to win? Sit on 2 base and wait for death? His hidden third actually almost worked out, I think it was a good calculated risk to take on Bel'shir. I mean, I guess you can file it under "map imbalance" again. But really, he played very, very well that game.
For the record, good Terran and Zerg players do cheesy openings all the time. MVP proxy 2 raxes Nestea at least once every time they play. Bomber won like 3 games at an MLG with 2port banshee. Curious 10pooled Oz on TDA. Coca 2 base all-ins vs Protoss in like half of his games. The only real difference is that Protoss "cheese" has been repeatedly nerfed, and is now kind of bad.
On October 12 2011 03:53 Belial88 wrote:
There are definitely Imbalanced Maps, you don't need to tell a Zerg that. But there is a big difference between saying Zerg is OP, and saying Antiga Shipyards is broken. So you should say the maps are broken, instead of saying Protoss is broken in ZvP. Make sense?
HongUn did a double stargate and it was an embarassment. He tried to double stargate against one of the best Zergs in the world, and then he controlled it horribly.
But yes, Dual Sight is pretty impossible for Protoss because your third is so exposed. Antiga Shipyards has a lot of rotational imbalance (close spawns is always just outright imbalanced for the player who has to defend both his third ramp and his natural ramp while the other player can safely defend both from one spot).
I actually agree. PvZ always looks very reasonable on Daybreak or the new Terminus. I kind of wish you could do the same with PvT, but I'm not entirely sure how a Protoss favored map looks in that matchup. Part of the problem is that good PvZ maps inadvertedly end up being good TvZ maps, which is definitely undesirable.
On October 12 2011 03:53 Belial88 wrote:
I think FFE is a bad opening for the same reason you think it's a bad opening, actually. Because on maps like Antiga Shipyards, Zerg will just take the gold. As for Nexus first being a good opening, it has it's risks, and that's why you scout first.
Defending a 6 pool is a win for Protoss. The difference is that it's not an autowin, and puts both players very very similar spots and gives a bit of control to Zerg. Not to mention if Protoss opens any sort of 1 base play, it's autoloss for Zerg right there.
Anyways, comparing the cheeses both races have is kind of ridiculous. Protoss has much more available to them (Zerg has 6 pool, autoloss to 1 base and barely behind against FFE, and roach/ling which just hopes you went FFE on a bad map like Crossfire or XNC, or didn't make a second cannon).
Also, double 8 gate proxy does NOT kill a hatch first, by the way. Zerg will just cancel the hatch, throw down a spawning pool (if it isn't down already) and come out way ahead. But Oz should've gotten a read and known Curious never goes hatch first anyways.
I'm not sure what to think about FFE. I kind of think it's the lesser evil, as it's not especially good, but it's safe, and better than anything else. 1 Gate FE suffers from the same problems, but has a much worse economy, Nexus first is risky, 3 Gate FE is way behind on economy without being able to pressure especially well, and anything else is a 1 base all-in, which are awful in PvZ. If Protoss can just figure out consistent ways of putting out pressure after an FFE (like maybe Sage's +1 Zealot/DT), then it's going to be a good build. And all the Protosses in GSL seem to agree, as they force FFE even on maps that don't support it well, like Crossfire.
You can only Nexus first safely if you scout the Zerg first. Otherwise, you need to drop down a Forge and scout with a second probe. It's a very greedy opening, and Protoss can't be balanced around it. If they get a Nexus first, they should have a small advantage.
I'm not even sure if I consider 6-10 pool cheese on a map like TDA. You can't 1 base there, because there's no ramp, and it takes forever to simcity that natural against speedlings. So the Protoss pretty much needs to FFE, and the Zerg can comfortably use an aggressive opening and transition into a normal game.
For the record, an unscouted 8/8 proxy does kill a 14/14 hatch/pool if the rush distance isn't excessively big. For example, on Shakuras it's undefendable, you have a Zealot in your mineral line before your Pool finishes, and there's no way to establish Spines in your mineral line without losing a zillion drones. Or at least it's not possible with my Drone micro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
