|
On August 29 2011 09:21 darkness wrote:
What do you think, should Blizzard revert storm's old range?
It might help, no?
I would think an increase in the range of feedback and/or the move speed of high templars would be much more relevant. Storm is powerful, but the issue tends to be specialist units (primarily ghosts and infestors). If HTs were either faster or could feedback from longer range, then a squad of them would be useful even without storm as a way to even things up for the protoss army. It would, at any rate, make the micro much easier.
Another problem I think is that terran has the greatest ability to force engagements, followed by zerg, with toss being the weakest at forcing an engagement. By forcing an engagement, what I mean is how forgiving it is to approach that army, realize you shouldn't fight, and then get away.
Terran: Stim generally allows a bioball to catch retreating units, and concussive shells also prevent units from retreating, particularly early game in small numbers. Siege tanks also make it extremely difficult to retreat because they take shots both coming in and going out, so once you start to rush them you're pretty much committed. Marines also have very high dps, as do thors. Basically, for both zerg and toss, if you approach a terran army when you should not have engaged with them, you're going to take huge losses and the mistake will punish you severely.
Zerg: Speedlings are basically the fastest thing out there and can surround an army. Mutas are also pretty fast, and fungal growth can stop an army cold. On creep, nearly any zerg units can catch and overwhelm an opposing force. Zerg armies can be extremely vulnerable in chokes, however, so if you get close to a zerg army and then pull away, it can be possible to escape using careful terrain. Zerg forces also tend to be a bit fragile in straight up fights, so if they can't surround, sometimes an army can escape them. Nevertheless, a bad move out can be caught and killed by a zerg force.
Protoss: Forcefields used well can cut off part of an army, charge zealots can surround a force in large enough numbers, and blink stalkers can punish a retreating force. To a much lesser extent, phoenix anti-gravity can also punish a retreating force by picking off a few units at a time. Forcefields are extremely effective here, but they can be limited when facing ranged units because the zealots run into melee and get killed by the stuff behind forcefields anyway. EMP also wrecks forcefields, as does army trading since sentries need time to build up energy. Blink stalkers would be good except that on their own they tend to be weaker than most other army compositions, so they can only chase so far before they have to wait for the bulkier stuff to catch up to them. They're still nice at picking off retreating roaches or medivacs though.
To sum up: I think that a terran army is the most effective at preventing the opponent from retreating and inflicting damage when they try to retreat, and this in turn punishes mistakes from the opponent much more than either zerg or protoss, which likely contributes to an imbalance towards terran wins.
|
On August 29 2011 09:26 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:15 SafeAsCheese wrote:
Not getting combat shields isn't game changing? ^^
As game changing as ignoring a major push at your doorstep whilst countering into an already somewhat defended natural? Twice? Yeaaaah, anyone who says Coca would have won because of balance rather than some poor decision making needs to be lined up for flaming. Regarding Protoss, there was still decent Protoss representation, but PvT is definitely struggle-street for P players at the moment. I expect 1.4 patch should rectify a lot of this anyway, though I've been of the opinion for some time now that Protoss is probably the race that's been least figured out in the professional scene. That's just my feel on it I guess, since most times Protoss players do something unique it's "cute~" rather than "wow effective!"
Riiiiiiiight...
Protoss were using their T3 since beta, and how long did it take for the super duper gosu terran players to figure out that their tech tree consists of more than 4, 5 units? Terrans started using ghosts and hellions a couple of months ago.
And the reason why everything P are doing looks "cute" at best, rather than "super effective", is because the race simply doesnt have more potential. If storms had range 13, and chargelots were faster than workers, etc, you would be amazed by the things people like MC would be doing.
|
On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races?
I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers.
Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance.
|
On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance.
What else is there?
|
On August 29 2011 10:28 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance. What else is there?
Actual discussion rather than pointing out an unstable number that has little to no basis. There are too many variables to just say "OH BUT X RACE NEVER WINS QQ". It's just an attempted justification for balance whine, where the justification itself is stupid.
|
Nice post, Anarion 55. I didn't think about that before, but yeah, it does make sense. As Protoss you really have to pick your battles, there can't be any hesitation because retreating effectively, without losing your slow sentries for example, is often out of the question - although it can be done with effective FF and depending on the terrain (as well as the opposing player not realising that he has an advantage and coming after you).
There are a few issues with Protoss, but the main one, really, is the Stalker. It's just a piece of crap that only becomes marginally effective once you have blink, but should not really be part of core Protoss army compositions. Protoss armies, IMO, are way more effective with minimal Stalkers for AA and base defense with the core taken up by Zealots, Immortals, and Sentries. The only issue here, of course, is that Zealots are melee units and ranged support is necessary. Immortals should be able to do it, but being built out of the Robo bay (and being so damn expensive) means that they are rarely out in sufficient numbers to be anything more than a supplement to a Protoss army rather than a core element. It would be nice if the Immortal is reworked in some way in HOTS so that it can return to being a gateway unit, as it is supposed to be. That would also free up the Robo for multiple obs, for map vision, and prisms for harass and multiple attacks (imagine warping in DTs cutting across a Zergs remaxing support lines during a big battle) before going for Colossus Tech.
|
On August 29 2011 10:53 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:28 IVN wrote:On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance. What else is there? Actual discussion rather than pointing out an unstable number that has little to no basis. There are too many variables to just say "OH BUT X RACE NEVER WINS QQ". It's just an attempted justification for balance whine, where the justification itself is stupid.
Numbers tend to be objective, while people tend to lie, because they are biased.
Fact is, that the last time people were saying "race X has a hard time right now..." zergs got some serious buffs, and P and T got some huge nerfs. Now people are saying the same thing about protoss...
|
On August 29 2011 09:30 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? Since Zerg players got the upper hand in the ZvP metagame? :D
I am so sick of hearing the word metagame lol.
|
On August 29 2011 10:53 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:28 IVN wrote:On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance. What else is there? Actual discussion rather than pointing out an unstable number that has little to no basis. There are too many variables to just say "OH BUT X RACE NEVER WINS QQ". It's just an attempted justification for balance whine, where the justification itself is stupid.
Actual discussion has to be based on some facts rather than only opinions. For example someone might say 'oh protoss doesn't need any buffs because they're doing fine at the highest level of the game'. An opinion that is false and can be proved false by looking at win rates in Korea. Why would you ignore facts in favor of biased opinions? That seems to me to be the height of stupidity.
|
On August 29 2011 12:21 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:53 Zeke50100 wrote:On August 29 2011 10:28 IVN wrote:On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance. What else is there? Actual discussion rather than pointing out an unstable number that has little to no basis. There are too many variables to just say "OH BUT X RACE NEVER WINS QQ". It's just an attempted justification for balance whine, where the justification itself is stupid. Actual discussion has to be based on some facts rather than only opinions. For example someone might say 'oh protoss doesn't need any buffs because they're doing fine at the highest level of the game'. An opinion that is false and can be proved false by looking at win rates in Korea. Why would you ignore facts in favor of biased opinions? That seems to me to be the height of stupidity.
The problem is that facts are not dictators of everything just because they are facts. Winrate has incredible fluctuations and, at the same time, is not separate from skill, nor is it a direct result of balance. At a certain point, yes, winrates can be used to discuss balance. However, the person I originally quoted for some reason had the idea that "Terran and Zerg are fine because Protoss winrates a low", which is ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
Essentially, it irks me when people whine about balance with their clearly biased opinions and think it's okay because winrates for their race is low. A ton of that broken logic is present in this thread in multiple forms >.<
|
On August 29 2011 10:58 aZealot wrote:
Nice post, Anarion 55. I didn't think about that before, but yeah, it does make sense. As Protoss you really have to pick your battles, there can't be any hesitation because retreating effectively, without losing your slow sentries for example, is often out of the question - although it can be done with effective FF and depending on the terrain (as well as the opposing player not realising that he has an advantage and coming after you).
There are a few issues with Protoss, but the main one, really, is the Stalker. It's just a piece of crap that only becomes marginally effective once you have blink, but should not really be part of core Protoss army compositions. Protoss armies, IMO, are way more effective with minimal Stalkers for AA and base defense with the core taken up by Zealots, Immortals, and Sentries. The only issue here, of course, is that Zealots are melee units and ranged support is necessary. Immortals should be able to do it, but being built out of the Robo bay (and being so damn expensive) means that they are rarely out in sufficient numbers to be anything more than a supplement to a Protoss army rather than a core element. It would be nice if the Immortal is reworked in some way in HOTS so that it can return to being a gateway unit, as it is supposed to be. That would also free up the Robo for multiple obs, for map vision, and prisms for harass and multiple attacks (imagine warping in DTs cutting across a Zergs remaxing support lines during a big battle) before going for Colossus Tech.
Did you really just critisize the stalker?
The stalker, at the beginning of the game, allows for early aggression without any losses in pvt and pvz.
As a tier one unit, it provides essential anti air so that collosus can be used viably.
These are all great, but honestly the main point is:
Stalkers have blink, which, in tandem with protoss having shields, makes them wonderful.
Blink makes fast stalkers even more mobile, allowing them to escape battle at ease and blink into bases, do damage, and then leave. They also raise the skill ceiling for playing protoss incredibly high.
Consider the following situations:
8 marauders vs 8 stalkers. Stalkers can blink and cause concussive shells to do nothing, allowing stalkers to win this engagement.
Stalkers vs tanks on high ground. By seperating stalkers and blinking back damaged stalkers, it is possible to kill tanks with minimal losses.
A terran pushing out of his base: with good stalker micro with blink you can get a few kills as they push towards their base.
TL;DR stalkers are great units when used to their potential which makes them a great part of the protoss army
|
In case you want some statistics on that topic based on probably the biggest StarCraft II Database (tournament games that is) you should have a look at this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb
Cheers, Khaldor
PS: you can/should also sort those statistics by patch in order to make it more relevant to the discussion itself. Pretty interesting though how it developed over time imho.
|
Here's the problem IMO
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nsGE7.png)
*Numbers from Liquipedia
Now when you mix in a few other factors you start to see more of a problem. First of all every unit beats stalkers for cost in dps, even DRONES. Zealots are slower than everything, stimmed MM, speed roach ect. The total cost of getting speed for roaches is 100/100, getting stim is 100/100 + 50/25, the cost to get charge is 150/100 + 200/200. This means in the early game all of protoss's units can be chased down and killed by MM or roach ling, before toss gets those upgrades.
Protoss gets less from armor upgrades because it is only half the unit's health (and more supply per unit) Roaches get +2 per attack upgrade, marines have a short cooldown. Maruders and marines have stim, which means all of these units benefit more from attack and armor upgrades over stalkers.
Now consider that Zerg gets detection in any build with lair, and terran gets detection in any build with orbital. Protoss has to make robo 200/100 + 25/75 for obs to get mobile detection.
Now compare the effectiveness and cost of spell casters. Getting Ht requires 150/100 twilight, 150/200 archives, another 200/200 for storm. Infestors require a lair (which you'll get anyway) and 100/100 infestation pit, they start with burrow movement, fungal, and infested terrans. Ghost academy is 150/50 and requires a barracks, they start with emp.
Storm can be dodged, fungal and emp cannot. Storm takes research, fungal and emp do not. Templars cost 3x more to tech to compared to ghosts or infestors (thats not including storm!)
Toss's late game is strong, but the fact is because their early game units are so bad, they have trouble living that long or not being so far behind they can't comeback at that point. Everyone always says OMG FF, and it is good, but for 50/100 a piece they buy time but take away the gas you need for VERY expensive tech and unit upgrades. The benefits and cost of protoss upgrades and tech are horrible compared to the other races equivalents. This makes the mid game a struggle as well.
There is a reason every time I've ever seen a thread about a new cheese build to get into masters it always says somewhere "works best against protoss"
|
I'll love to see what Blizzard replaces the immortal with, because I'm betting the immortal is one of the units that will die in the "fire"
I also think it'd be great if collosi were replaced with something that had micro potential, but that'll probably never happen
|
On August 29 2011 13:06 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:58 aZealot wrote:
Nice post, Anarion 55. I didn't think about that before, but yeah, it does make sense. As Protoss you really have to pick your battles, there can't be any hesitation because retreating effectively, without losing your slow sentries for example, is often out of the question - although it can be done with effective FF and depending on the terrain (as well as the opposing player not realising that he has an advantage and coming after you).
There are a few issues with Protoss, but the main one, really, is the Stalker. It's just a piece of crap that only becomes marginally effective once you have blink, but should not really be part of core Protoss army compositions. Protoss armies, IMO, are way more effective with minimal Stalkers for AA and base defense with the core taken up by Zealots, Immortals, and Sentries. The only issue here, of course, is that Zealots are melee units and ranged support is necessary. Immortals should be able to do it, but being built out of the Robo bay (and being so damn expensive) means that they are rarely out in sufficient numbers to be anything more than a supplement to a Protoss army rather than a core element. It would be nice if the Immortal is reworked in some way in HOTS so that it can return to being a gateway unit, as it is supposed to be. That would also free up the Robo for multiple obs, for map vision, and prisms for harass and multiple attacks (imagine warping in DTs cutting across a Zergs remaxing support lines during a big battle) before going for Colossus Tech. Did you really just critisize the stalker? The stalker, at the beginning of the game, allows for early aggression without any losses in pvt and pvz. As a tier one unit, it provides essential anti air so that collosus can be used viably. These are all great, but honestly the main point is: Stalkers have blink, which, in tandem with protoss having shields, makes them wonderful. Blink makes fast stalkers even more mobile, allowing them to escape battle at ease and blink into bases, do damage, and then leave. They also raise the skill ceiling for playing protoss incredibly high. Consider the following situations: 8 marauders vs 8 stalkers. Stalkers can blink and cause concussive shells to do nothing, allowing stalkers to win this engagement. Stalkers vs tanks on high ground. By seperating stalkers and blinking back damaged stalkers, it is possible to kill tanks with minimal losses. A terran pushing out of his base: with good stalker micro with blink you can get a few kills as they push towards their base. TL;DR stalkers are great units when used to their potential which makes them a great part of the protoss army
I disagree, although as I said in my earlier post, they only really become viable with Blink. However, in the early-early game (before Conc shell and Slings) they are strong due to their speed and range. But, all those examples you posted are of harassment and raiding which the Stalker is fine at - where it does fall down is in entrenched battles as part of a standard Protoss army composition. That was my point. I feel the Stalker was originally designed as a harass-type unit which then became submerged in it's role as part of a standard Protoss unit, something it is not well designed for especially as the game goes on into the mid to late game. In these cases, unless the enemy has Air, it's way better to go Immortal heavy (in place of the Stalker) if that were possible.
|
On August 29 2011 13:06 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:58 aZealot wrote:
Nice post, Anarion 55. I didn't think about that before, but yeah, it does make sense. As Protoss you really have to pick your battles, there can't be any hesitation because retreating effectively, without losing your slow sentries for example, is often out of the question - although it can be done with effective FF and depending on the terrain (as well as the opposing player not realising that he has an advantage and coming after you).
There are a few issues with Protoss, but the main one, really, is the Stalker. It's just a piece of crap that only becomes marginally effective once you have blink, but should not really be part of core Protoss army compositions. Protoss armies, IMO, are way more effective with minimal Stalkers for AA and base defense with the core taken up by Zealots, Immortals, and Sentries. The only issue here, of course, is that Zealots are melee units and ranged support is necessary. Immortals should be able to do it, but being built out of the Robo bay (and being so damn expensive) means that they are rarely out in sufficient numbers to be anything more than a supplement to a Protoss army rather than a core element. It would be nice if the Immortal is reworked in some way in HOTS so that it can return to being a gateway unit, as it is supposed to be. That would also free up the Robo for multiple obs, for map vision, and prisms for harass and multiple attacks (imagine warping in DTs cutting across a Zergs remaxing support lines during a big battle) before going for Colossus Tech. Did you really just critisize the stalker? The stalker, at the beginning of the game, allows for early aggression without any losses in pvt and pvz. As a tier one unit, it provides essential anti air so that collosus can be used viably. These are all great, but honestly the main point is: Stalkers have blink, which, in tandem with protoss having shields, makes them wonderful. Blink makes fast stalkers even more mobile, allowing them to escape battle at ease and blink into bases, do damage, and then leave. They also raise the skill ceiling for playing protoss incredibly high. Consider the following situations: 8 marauders vs 8 stalkers. Stalkers can blink and cause concussive shells to do nothing, allowing stalkers to win this engagement. Stalkers vs tanks on high ground. By seperating stalkers and blinking back damaged stalkers, it is possible to kill tanks with minimal losses. A terran pushing out of his base: with good stalker micro with blink you can get a few kills as they push towards their base. TL;DR stalkers are great units when used to their potential which makes them a great part of the protoss army
Everything you mentioned is Blink Stalker.
And 8 Stalker lose against 8 stimmed Marauder, even with Blink.
It's not even close, you'd kill at BEST 2 Marauder.
Blink Stalkers are "better" than Vanilla Stalker, but steal deal crap damage.
Vanilla Stalker is the worst unit in the game, while blink makes them into an okish unit, but
it remains bad.
|
On August 29 2011 14:35 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
I'll love to see what Blizzard replaces the immortal with, because I'm betting the immortal is one of the units that will die in the "fire"
I also think it'd be great if collosi were replaced with something that had micro potential, but that'll probably never happen
If the warp prism change goes according to plan, colossi are going to have micro potential.
|
On August 29 2011 10:24 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 09:25 highsis wrote:
I find it funny how zergs complain about Terran when protoss was not even in semi finals.
Since when did SC2 have 2 races? I could just as easily say all Protoss players are terrible while the best Terran and Zerg players are all ballers. Stop with the terrible arguments. Winrates alone do not dictate balance.
Actually they do. It all depends on what figure you are looking at. If we make judges after you and me play than it's not fair to call imbalance, but if the whole world plays than you can look at those statistics safely.
|
I wonder how many people in KR play terran, it's possible that the racial balance percentages are thrown off because many more people play terran, giving them much more chance to win. I play terran and i like them, i do feel that I have a fair chance at winning all of my matchups, i haven't felt the feeling of being helpless in a situation like you are decribing.
I would like to talk to Artosis about this, He always has so much insight, and he plays protoss. Wonder what his thoughts are.
|
On August 29 2011 13:06 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 10:58 aZealot wrote:
Nice post, Anarion 55. I didn't think about that before, but yeah, it does make sense. As Protoss you really have to pick your battles, there can't be any hesitation because retreating effectively, without losing your slow sentries for example, is often out of the question - although it can be done with effective FF and depending on the terrain (as well as the opposing player not realising that he has an advantage and coming after you).
There are a few issues with Protoss, but the main one, really, is the Stalker. It's just a piece of crap that only becomes marginally effective once you have blink, but should not really be part of core Protoss army compositions. Protoss armies, IMO, are way more effective with minimal Stalkers for AA and base defense with the core taken up by Zealots, Immortals, and Sentries. The only issue here, of course, is that Zealots are melee units and ranged support is necessary. Immortals should be able to do it, but being built out of the Robo bay (and being so damn expensive) means that they are rarely out in sufficient numbers to be anything more than a supplement to a Protoss army rather than a core element. It would be nice if the Immortal is reworked in some way in HOTS so that it can return to being a gateway unit, as it is supposed to be. That would also free up the Robo for multiple obs, for map vision, and prisms for harass and multiple attacks (imagine warping in DTs cutting across a Zergs remaxing support lines during a big battle) before going for Colossus Tech. Did you really just critisize the stalker? The stalker, at the beginning of the game, allows for early aggression without any losses in pvt and pvz. As a tier one unit, it provides essential anti air so that collosus can be used viably. These are all great, but honestly the main point is: Stalkers have blink, which, in tandem with protoss having shields, makes them wonderful. Blink makes fast stalkers even more mobile, allowing them to escape battle at ease and blink into bases, do damage, and then leave. They also raise the skill ceiling for playing protoss incredibly high. Consider the following situations: 8 marauders vs 8 stalkers. Stalkers can blink and cause concussive shells to do nothing, allowing stalkers to win this engagement. Stalkers vs tanks on high ground. By seperating stalkers and blinking back damaged stalkers, it is possible to kill tanks with minimal losses. A terran pushing out of his base: with good stalker micro with blink you can get a few kills as they push towards their base. TL;DR stalkers are great units when used to their potential which makes them a great part of the protoss army
go into the unit tester and build an equal number of marauders and stalkers. give both of them their corresponding upgrades. i guarantee you the marauders will win by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
