|
|
|
On June 12 2013 05:29 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 03:12 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 02:40 willstertben wrote:On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam. i disagree completely. protoss has the tools to hold 100% commited allins from zerg even with bad scouting. force fields and mothership core + walloffs are so fucking good defensively it's not pretty to watch. also aggression without roaches tends to suck because there is nothing to take damage so immortals will always be useful. I didn't say it's impossible. I just think that a Protoss that tries to build a third on a map that is not 500% antiaggression is disfavored. I don't know how many PvZs I have seen since the beginning of HotS where Protoss tried to take a third before 11mins and the zerg just went YOLO, threwing all kinds of stuff at the Protoss with up to 70supply advantages at 12-14mins. And I'm not talking about buffing the immortal. It surely does not need a buff. I'm saying it should undergo a small redesign, such that nonstop immortal production is a good way to stay safe against groundplay in head on engagements. It's not even just pvz, I'll never forget listening to Idra call a terran making a 3rd command center, IN HIS MAIN, "greedy" and saying "they deserve to lose" when it is punished. Yet the zerg took his 3rd earlier.....
Its nice that you misquote.
He said terrans that go 3cc + double upgrade on 1/2 rax then drop like 4 rax at once is greedy and they deserve to lose. Hes not wrong, its insane what terrans have been getting away with.
|
|
|
On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin.
As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions."
|
Complaint
Problem: Swarm Hosts require immediate scouting and perfect play in order to create Colossi to dispatch locusts
Solution: Swarm hosts require hive so they are slightly later
Side Effects: Protoss and Terran expansions will be harder/more expensive to siege
Alternative Solution: reduce enduring locusts to 5 seconds so attackers have 5s to advance to the swarm hosts
Side Effects: Shorter range means more vulnerability to blink stalkers and stemmed marines
|
On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions."
I don't get why you think it's greedy to have "only" 225/150 worth of units against 600/0 worth of units, as long as you have all sorts of defenders advantages. Sure, it's not a question of costcomparison whether this is greedy play or not, but having one stalker and one MsC with enough energy for a Nexus Canon AND a warp gate, capable of immidiatly warping in another stalker AND something else on the way (like your first immortal) AND the ability to pull workers sounds like pretty safe play to me at a time when an opponent can only have 12marines attacking. (assuming you use your stuff properly, kite/scout the marines early with your stalker etc.)
And the complex you talk about is known as "medivac complex". 
|
On June 12 2013 10:34 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 05:35 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 13:39 Whitewing wrote:On June 11 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2. terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind) but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment It's called fungal, yeah they do. Lol, the new fugal is in no way as menacing to Protoss as it used to be and even how it was it was nowhere as effective as storm is vs Terran. I don't know if you have ever played as Terran so I will tell you. You can be winning the whole game outplaying him left and right and if you step a little to far and don't see yourself get stormed your army is destroyed and the game is over. It takes like 9 fungals to do that to Protoss. So 9 infestors = entire toss army dead. Good to know.
I wish. ;_;
hots infestors are balanced.
|
On June 13 2013 01:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Swarm Hosts require immediate scouting and perfect play in order to create Colossi to dispatch locusts
Solution: Swarm hosts require hive so they are slightly later
Side Effects: Protoss and Terran expansions will be harder/more expensive to siege
Alternative Solution: reduce enduring locusts to 5 seconds so attackers have 5s to advance to the swarm hosts
Side Effects: Shorter range means more vulnerability to blink stalkers and stemmed marines
Solution is to delay the swarm host until you get colossuss up, i.e, by delaying you need to engage midmap to force burrow. Or counter-attacking.
Other solution get observer.
Other other solution know the swarm host timing from 2 or 3 bases and have colossi up in time.
|
On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions."
Yeah I've been seeing this really shitty build where people just rush factory make 2 hellions and then make 4 widow mines and justrun past the army with the hellions and kite the 1 stalker while the mines burrow everywhere. It is dumb and the fact that it works says that maybe toss should get a 2nd gate at some point. lol
|
On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam.
you realize that immortal allins are a thing? yeah, not as strong as in WOL, but buffing them against non roach units while still keeping a counter role to roaches (which is what you're asking if you don't want to make them worse against roaches) would make all kinds of immortal allins (mass sentry immortal + MSC /// zealot + immortal + msc 1 gas //// 2 immortal 2 colossi / etc.) pretty much unstoppable.
|
Austria24422 Posts
I don't see a reason to change the immortal at all right now. I looooove the place it has in the protoss arsenal right now in every matchup.
|
On June 13 2013 22:40 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam. you realize that immortal allins are a thing? yeah, not as strong as in WOL, but buffing them against non roach units while still keeping a counter role to roaches (which is what you're asking if you don't want to make them worse against roaches) would make all kinds of immortal allins (mass sentry immortal + MSC /// zealot + immortal + msc 1 gas //// 2 immortal 2 colossi / etc.) pretty much unstoppable.
well, that's exactly what I want. You don't need 50damage to armored AND hardened shields on a 250/100/4 unit to be good vs the roach. On the flipside, 20damage is ridiculously low for that prize, if you don't profit at all (zergling, marine, zealot) or very little (hydralisk) from the hardened shields.
My ideas would go along the lines of (of course this would require testing):
New Immortal:
Ground Attack from 20(+2) to 30(+3)
Bonus from +30(+3) vs Armored to +20(+2) vs Massive
--> better vs marine/zergling/zealot/hellbat/hellion/hydralisk/queen
--> better vs locusts, worse at targeting swarm hosts themselves
--> now two shots drones and SCVs
--> worse (but still not overly bad) vs marauder/roach/stalker
--> worse vs tanks, static defenses
--> now destroys archons (sorry)
or:
Ground Attack from 20(+2) to 30(+3)
Bonus from +30(+3) vs Armored to 0.
Build time from 55seconds to 45seconds
Movement speed 2.25 to 2.9531
--> similar to above, though more kiteable and easier to mass
--> more mobile
--> worse vs Ultras/Thors/Colossi (so one of the biggest questions would be... how good is it against ultralisk+something kind of play)
or:
Ground Attack from 20(+2) to 35(+3)
Bonus from +30(+3) vs Armored to 0.
--> similar to the first one, but really good vs zerglings now and generally most predictable behaviour.
--> Similar questions arise vs ultras/thors/Colossi
or:
some other constellation similar to the ones above.
So I think the overall theme is clear:
Less of a "this unit destroys everything that is armored brutally and you better just don't use such units to begin with". Less of a "use this unit to punish defenders advantages".
More of a "this is generally a very good unit vs ground units, if you can make it engage".
Of course there are problems that could arise (massive roach pushes, early blink play, ultralisk play, 1-1-1s), but some of the stuff I mentioned fix those (+vs massive to tackle an ultralisk problem; lower build times and better kiteabilite to tackle roach rushes and stalker rushes; I think 1-1-1 is essentially dead with the nexus canon having same range as the tank - and it's mainly a marine push, so the intention behind this change already tackles it). And others could arise (mass immortals becoming too good in head on engagements). But watching Protoss build orders... yeah, I don't think anybody wants to see 2 basish Colossus turtle everygame anymore, yet there simply aren't many other options. Templar in PvT to some extend - which have the same dynamic as Colossi, as requiring the same kinds of investments. PvZ without Colossi is basically unthinkable at this point. You just go roach/hydra or swarmhost in the midgame and get massively ahead if Protoss tries to take a third.
|
The immortal is the epitome of the counter-mentality in sc2 imo. Not enough that it deals extra damage to armored it negates damage over 10 to 10 which pretty much all armored units does. It's a niche idea with the sole purpose of anti-tank. If the hardened shield was an ability that lasts 5 seconds it would had been okay. But now you can not change the immortal without disturbing balance so there is not much to do.
|
On June 14 2013 00:25 Elldar wrote:
The immortal is the epitome of the counter-mentality in sc2 imo. Not enough that it deals extra damage to armored it negates damage over 10 to 10 which pretty much all armored units does. It's a niche idea with the sole purpose of anti-tank. If the hardened shield was an ability that lasts 5 seconds it would had been okay. But now you can not change the immortal without disturbing balance so there is not much to do.
I disagree. From WoL to HotS, blizzard already showed that you can plainly buff units (medivac, mutalisk, voidray, hydralisk, phoenix, ultralisk) and then repair any overpoweredness with 1-2 simple tricks. I don't see why this wouldn't work with the immortal as well.
I mean, the buffs from above were all to a certain extend kind of "we just want to try this, because it sounds great". And afterwards they turned out to work.
The Immortal is one of ~15 Protoss units. And a damage change is a change to one of its ~5-10 important stats. In the great scheme, it's very hard to actually break the game with one somewhat thoughtthrough and pretested change.
|
On June 13 2013 20:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions." I don't get why you think it's greedy to have "only" 225/150 worth of units against 600/0 worth of units, as long as you have all sorts of defenders advantages. Sure, it's not a question of costcomparison whether this is greedy play or not, but having one stalker and one MsC with enough energy for a Nexus Canon AND a warp gate, capable of immidiatly warping in another stalker AND something else on the way (like your first immortal) AND the ability to pull workers sounds like pretty safe play to me at a time when an opponent can only have 12marines attacking. (assuming you use your stuff properly, kite/scout the marines early with your stalker etc.) And the complex you talk about is known as "medivac complex".
The difference is the time required to build a Terran army that can do even light pressure to Protoss. A single Gateway + MsC can fend off far stronger pushes than a single Barrack, or even two Barracks.
EDIT: I know that the races are not supposed to be equal, asymmetrical balance and all that, but Terran was actually supposed to be the stronger race in early game between Protoss and Terran, and right now it is quite the other way around.
|
On June 14 2013 00:36 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2013 20:26 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions." I don't get why you think it's greedy to have "only" 225/150 worth of units against 600/0 worth of units, as long as you have all sorts of defenders advantages. Sure, it's not a question of costcomparison whether this is greedy play or not, but having one stalker and one MsC with enough energy for a Nexus Canon AND a warp gate, capable of immidiatly warping in another stalker AND something else on the way (like your first immortal) AND the ability to pull workers sounds like pretty safe play to me at a time when an opponent can only have 12marines attacking. (assuming you use your stuff properly, kite/scout the marines early with your stalker etc.) And the complex you talk about is known as "medivac complex". The difference is the time required to build a Terran army that can do even light pressure to Protoss. A single Gateway + MsC can fend off far stronger pushes than a single Barrack, or even two Barracks. EDIT: I know that the races are not supposed to be equal, asymmetrical balance and all that, but Terran was actually supposed to be the stronger race in early game between Protoss and Terran, and right now it is quite the other way around.
No, Terran was not "supposed to be" the stronger race. The game was supposed to be fun and balanced. That due to each race working differently (asymetric design) there would be times and timings in which one race could be considered "stronger" in certain aspects of the game is obvious.
That's it. No race was supposed to be generally stronger at a certain time, than the other race. It just happens so that they sometimes are.
|
They should probably decrease the widow mine research time. Instead of facing Terrans with 30 percent win rate in every mu that isn't t vs p, where it's 70 plus due to proxy widow mines, I think they should try to make it 90 plus win. 1 minute widow mines, let's do it. Let them start with a factory. If I can't warp in a dt at 6 minutes into the game, let alone 4 minutes... I just have to wonder how this makes sense. Does Toss have Scan. Do zealots have detection? I dunno. Must be balanced, though, since it's only 70 plus for everyone that uses the strat.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
I really wish mech against zerg had a way of being cost efficient rather than sitting behind walls of planetaries all day.
Ultras just feel far too good against mech and no matter what I seem to build they just remax on Broodlords or something else my army has had to skew away from dealing with thanks to the blighters. I don't even have any problems with vipers, vipers are not even an issue. It's just ultra broodlord switches.
Thors are still completely useless against Broodlords and if you go vikings you get rolled over by ultras. I really am not sure what to do.
|
On June 14 2013 02:02 Qikz wrote:
I really wish mech against zerg had a way of being cost efficient rather than sitting behind walls of planetaries all day.
Ultras just feel far too good against mech and no matter what I seem to build they just remax on Broodlords or something else my army has had to skew away from dealing with thanks to the blighters. I don't even have any problems with vipers, vipers are not even an issue. It's just ultra broodlord switches.
Thors are still completely useless against Broodlords and if you go vikings you get rolled over by ultras. I really am not sure what to do. not go mech, if you dont want to turtle it out. or 2base allin behind hellbat drops.
|
On June 14 2013 02:02 Qikz wrote:
I really wish mech against zerg had a way of being cost efficient rather than sitting behind walls of planetaries all day.
Ultras just feel far too good against mech and no matter what I seem to build they just remax on Broodlords or something else my army has had to skew away from dealing with thanks to the blighters. I don't even have any problems with vipers, vipers are not even an issue. It's just ultra broodlord switches.
Thors are still completely useless against Broodlords and if you go vikings you get rolled over by ultras. I really am not sure what to do.
1. don't play mech vs zerg. bio is better. why do terrans feel entitled to be able to play any style they want in any matchup?
2. spread out your stuff to mitigate ultra splash dmg, don't get caught unsieged. ultras actually suck against mech armies so i dunno what your problem is. vipers are the true key unit for dealing with mech, if you don't have problems with them but against ultras then something is really weird. maybe you make a lot of preemptive vikings?
3. don't let him get all that economy for free. you can drop hellbats to harass.
4. make more production in endgame to be able to deal with tech switches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
