Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 86

On September 09 2011 15:00 Belial88 wrote:


They do it because FFE is much more greedy and up until last month, FFE stargate denied Zerg's third base.

I'm a Master Zerg, so I guess you could just insult me about not knowing anything about PvZ.

On September 09 2011 10:12 Belial88 wrote:


Even better, he lost a macro game against 6 pool. Wow. And hongun can't forcefield in time, that's pretty embarrassing. Missing forcefields does not exactly happen to everyone, and if it does, you deserve to lose your set. There's a difference between a 2nd best like Hongun, and THE best like MC or Nestea, who would never make such a mistake. You never see Nestea float a flock of mutas into marines, you never see MC miss forcefields.

I mean to be over 50% win rate and one of the top 5 protoss in the world, you just have to miss forcefields only sometimes, and lose macro games to 6 pool? And then people cry that Protoss is broken when all the Protoss finally fall to Code B like they should have months ago? Huk, MC, and Alicia are performing extremely well in tournament play, besides losing a game here or there in Up/Down after coming in 2nd at IEM or getting to quarterfinals in GSL to lose to someone of the same race.

And what does Destiny/Bomber have to do with anything? Destiny played a unique, innovative style that Bomber clearly had no idea how to deal with. If Bomber had prepared for it or experienced it before, he would have crushed it, just like every Terran crushes Destiny when they are familiar with infestors (like Rainbow, who is far worse than Bomber, toying with Destiny and crushing him consistently with things from mass BC to bio to mech).

While Protoss are definitely losing in the metagame right now (Zerg knowing how to 'counter' stargate and FFE now, 111), it's also true that so many Protoss just don't deserve to be in the GSL at all, and now we are finally seeing them fall out. San and Anypro are bad, Hongun and Inca are nowhere near the skill level of, say, TOP or Nada or Polt or MVP.

On September 09 2011 12:35 Belial88 wrote:


This is the designated balance thread. I don't constantly whine about balance anywhere except in this thread... and I don't bash Protoss, I bash people who say Protoss is UP and doing oh so badly, when in reality there's a few good Protoss doing fine, and a bunch of bad protoss being put in their place.



I'm not saying Protoss in general are bad, I'm saying Anypro, Hongun, San, Inca, are bad players, compared to the not-quite-#1 Terran like TOP, Nada, MKP, SC, MMA, Ganzi, Taeja. MC, Genius, Alicia, Puzzle, are great Protoss, and they did fairly well this season, only to suffer in the up and down matches or lose a critical game in a tight series after doing a failed aggressive opening.

You can be the best player in the world, but if MVP opens banshees with cloak against Terran every game (like P going stargate), and then Zerg found a way to not only defend it but turn it into a 20 supply lead, when a month ago it was considered a safe and conservative opening, then Zerg will always win. You can be the best player in the world, but any Master player will win if you open DTs and do absolutely zero damage with it.

There may be balance issues, but I have not heard any Protoss say anything besides "Look Protoss are out of GSL, this is clearly imbalanced!" We didn't hear Terran say this game was imbalanced in GSL S3 when a bunch of Terrans got knocked out of the GSL after getting to the RO16 in GSL S2, but that was because those Terran were trash and the metagame figured them out (BitbyBit, Golden, SCV all ins, etc).

I already said, 111 is something I'm not really talking about, so maybe T is broken, whatever.

But as for ZvP, and P saying Zerg is OP, is just ridiculous. None of the GSL games where Protoss lost, were lost because of infestors. They all lost because they went FFE, and Zerg took a fast third, and held the 2 base timing. They lost because they opened DTs or Stargate, and Zerg took it as an opportunity to drone up, take a third, and win the macro game. They did not lose, because of infestors, or broodlords, or mass roaches.

Well I'm am master protoss and a master zerg. And I know just as well as you should that 3 gate expand is something you love to see as zerg. The reason most pro players try doing 1 gate expands with fast forges after the nexus (when a ffe isn't viable) isn't because they found 3 gate too hard to do, it's because you will be behind economically after a 3 gate expo.

The point is that Zerg is free to take a 2nd and even a 3rd because Protoss does not have a way to apply early pressure, they haven't since the warpgate nerf. Stalkers do practically nothing that early and zealots will just get kited by roaches. Protoss FFE because we know we have no way to apply early pressure, so our best bet is to try and stay somewhat even in economy, which we still can't do.

I mean you keep bashing the current Protoss strats as if there are so many unexplored options. What other builds do you think we have? I'd like to know what you think we can start doing to change our winrate against Terran and Zerg, because you seem to find our current builds gimmicky. I still believe that if there were other options, the pros would have sorted them out by now.

On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it?

On September 10 2011 05:46 Blazinghand wrote:


I think you can. I remember playing a TvZ where several of my thors were NPed. Ultralisks are specifically immune though.

On September 10 2011 05:21 Belial88 wrote:


I have never heard any Zerg say they love 3 gate expo. Why exactly do you love 3 gate expo? Because 3 gate sentry zealot pressure from a 3 gate sentry expand can easily kill you, and it particularly deadly on maps like XelNaga which are shorter in size (relatively) and wide open naturals. Searing Crater? God damn.

I also don't see Protoss being behind Zerg going 3 gate expo compared to FFE, and usually get their third up right when Zerg's finish (and even then, Zerg is taking a risk, 3 gate expo forces a 2base vs 2 base situation for Zerg).



Protoss has no way of denying a third with FFE. But any non-forge opening automatically denies a third. It's near impossible to hold a fast third against simple zealot/sentry pressure (there was, I believe, a Nerchio game where he lost doing that), but I can tell you even the best 6 gate +1 all-ins will not stop a fast third.



1 gate expand, 3 gate expand, nexus first, are all fine and were never completely demolished like we see FFE being owned in the GSL. Right now FFE is practically a BO loss for Protoss, but 1 gate expand stargate like MC does, for example, is extremely deadly. Protoss wasn't losing horribly a few months ago, they just found something they liked better in FFE and stargate. And they won a lot with it. Now, Zerg is bucking back, and FFE is basically a BO loss and stargate is like a banshee that never kills drones. Protoss can either do new builds, like MC's 1 gate expand stargate, or use safe builds like 3 gate sentry expand which was always good, but is much more conservative and less risky (less safe, but more reward possibility when zergs were stupid).

A few months ago, Zerg was stupid. They stayed on 2 base against Protoss. The infestor buff did a lot to balance the match-up, and some Zerg found this as a reason to stay on 2 base even more. But now, they realize they can take a fast third, and actually hold a 6 gate +1. I think the main reason Zerg didn't do this was because everyone assumed 6 gate would autowin and stargate would always kill the third.

On September 10 2011 05:58 3clipse wrote:

PTR patch, look it up.

I suspect that balance will be significantly out of whack (at least temporarily) if all the PTR changes go through. I was all for an infestor nerf, but the NP nerf goes too far. I also think any infestor nerf should be accompanied by some buffs. The faster ultra spawn is nice, but corruptors (which will have renewed importance in ZvP) and possibly hydras could use a buff, imo. Infestors will still be useful for IT and the declawed fungal, but they won't be the crutch they once were.

On September 10 2011 05:42 Chriscras wrote:
If you can't NP massive units why even bother researching it?

On September 10 2011 06:04 sharktopus. wrote:


I think 1 gate expand and Nexus first are both too vulnerable to mass lings or an early roach push to be used regularly. You would have to do a lot of continuous scouting to be sure it's safe, because you won't have any kind of army that could hold off even the smallest push by Zerg.

On September 10 2011 06:10 H0i wrote:

Yep, let's make it available by default and make fungal a research.

Now add KA again and make templars faster. It'll be more fair?

So, if we're honest, I don't think this is something you should complain about

On September 09 2011 13:12 Belial88 wrote:



3 gate sentry is an extremely safe build vZ, you can easily do it every game. Toss has a lot of deadly timing attacks, like 3 gate sentry pressure, that isn't all in at all.

And Zerg macro play is very safe. There is nothing wrong with 5 gate robo or 5 gate twilight, apply pressure without heavy commitment, and take a 3rd. Protoss macro game is extremely hard for Zerg to deal with, the difference is it takes longer to buid up, but when P has 3 bases, it's nearly impossible for Zerg to deal with. It's not like Zerg can saturate more than 3 bases themselves.

On September 10 2011 06:10 Belial88 wrote:


MC has held off multiple ling/roach all-ins, like Idra's 1 base canceled hatch roach/ling all-in, with 1 gate expand stargate. It's a very safe build. It's not that 1 gate expand is risky, it's the follow up that can be risky. If you follow up with stargate or forge, that's very safe. If you follow up with maybe twilight or more gates, that can be risky.

On September 10 2011 06:20 Heavenly wrote:


Lol are you kidding me? Try watching the GSL and stop listening to people like IdrA who say "it's not impossible to deal with 3 base protoss" when he changed his style and now does completely fine against them now that he no longer a-moves roach or roach/hydra. Zerg macro play is not "safe". MC v Kyrix, Kyrix takes a fast third, makes literally no attacking units, and makes a hydra den when MC's 6gate +1 zealot and voidray timing push hit.

If he hadn't cut probes and committed heavily to it he would have lost, no matter how much better he was, because if you sit back and let zerg play a macro game they will cut every single possible corner imaginable to get a godlike midgame while you are sitting at your base making one probe at a time. Good zergs aren't retarded enough to overreact to something like 5 gate pressure.

And 3 gate sentry pressure is pretty all-in, how many games have you seen of Huk trying to do that, loses all his sentries, and has no chance to ever do any pressure ever again or secure a third? You're sending 1000+ gas at your opponent in the hope that he doesn't have enough units to kill you, and once those sentries are at the opponent's base there is no going back with them no matter how many forcefields you have.

I think you're code s material if you just swap to protoss. You seem to understand the metagame better than any toss I can care to name.

On September 10 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote:


To be fair, he has a point-- if NP doesn't impact massive units, it's a pretty expensive spell that might have sharply limited use. Good targets will remain Other Infestors, maybe Queens or Corruptors if you need suddenly AA? Siege Tanks, Vikings, Immortals-- but it takes away the really great targets like Colossi, Thors, BCs or whatever.