|
On April 24 2014 05:15 Foxxan wrote:
Nerfing warpgate and buffing gateway units doesnt mean passive play from protoss.
It means instead:
- Getting better unit interactions.
This could also help with the "timing/allin attacks". In general protoss either snowballs or do a timingattack through warpgate. With this change it might be a better "fight".
- If protoss really lacks any kind of mobility, you have the teleport on the mothership core that could be looked at and go further with: aka give more teleport stuff to protoss as a whole or something else.
One thing removed, and other things redesigned doesnt mean other things cant be looked at.
Again, this would mean stuff would need to be redesiged, which would mean a game with better unit interactions.
What unit interactions will you get from protoss if forcefield stays the same but Stalker HP is buffed + warptech is much stronger defensively?
Basically, nothing is changed here microwise. Protoss maxed out army has become stronger and harassing protoss has become harder as well. To even out things (balancewise) protoss agression must therefore be weaker.
Now, in order to get new micro interactions, you will need redesigns of the units them selves. A characteristic of a redeisgn isn't that it doesn't neccsarily involve a balance change. So you can keep the same strenght of warptech while redesigning the unit --> get a new interaction.
Widow mines don't provide the level of defender's advantage that creep gives. And I do agree that Zergs have a very strong response to warp tech - the MU with the biggest issue atm, however, is PvT.
Did you read all my previous posts here? I previously argued that it wasn't warp tech it self that created problems for terran. Like in WOL, protoss allins really weren't hard to beat. Rather, its the units them selves that creates problem. E.g. Oracle, Timewarp and Forcefields (though thats more of an issue vs Zerg). Blink also creates no remicro option for terran (though I think blink allins will be much nerfed if Timewarp gets nerfed/redesgined/removed).
And we see SC2 Zergs do pretty decently against Protoss. Creep is really a powerful mechanic. And why do you assume that Protoss needs a compensation for applying a slight increase in cooldown based on distance of warp-in? Warp-tech makes deathballs more powerful, because you can kite and kill zealots of a Protoss deathball close to your base - and they still warp in units to reinforce that deathball.
Warp-tech cooldown increase (relative to warp-in distance) will be an indirect nerf to the deathball.
But that's still "aggressive" deathballing, which very few people actually have a problem with. The phenomena deathball instead comes from just sitting in your base with a big army and doing nothing really. Being aggressive with a big army instead is also something we see all the time in Brood War and isn't really a problem as long as the micro interactions it creates are good.
In the scenario you present, the alternative (instead of attacking) is to not attack at all (not chase enermy bio units), but simply just keep defending/defending.
Protoss harass options have gotten better in HotS. They can use oracles for early harass - speed buffed and all. Warp prism got a speed buff. Nexus overcharge allows Protoss to have virtually no units back home to defend most harass/push (early on) and that indirectly makes harass easier (you're not out of position with your army if its harassing since you can Nexus Overcharge and Recall, or warp-in defensively if its not a big harass or doom drop).
This doens't contradict anything I say. Relative to current state of HOTS, this change will ceteris paribus create more passive gameplay. Now if you believe protoss can already be too aggressive, and thus want them to have less aggressive options, that's fine. But that's not what I want personally.
|
What's all the fuss about Warpgate/Gateways?
Protoss has been both very under and overpowered since the beta came out (results wise) and pretty much the only thing that HASN'T changed has been the Warpgate mechanic. Is it just an argument of change for change's sake?
Game looks fine to me at the moment. There's no glaring 1/1/1 or Blink Allin or Brood Lord Infestor issue present and at least since the last round of patches it seems like the better player is winning most of the time.
|
On April 24 2014 06:01 DinoMight wrote:
What's all the fuss about Warpgate/Gateways?
Protoss has been both very under and overpowered since the beta came out (results wise) and pretty much the only thing that HASN'T changed has been the Warpgate mechanic. Is it just an argument of change for change's sake?
Game looks fine to me at the moment. There's no glaring 1/1/1 or Blink Allin or Brood Lord Infestor issue present and at least since the last round of patches it seems like the better player is winning most of the time.
The overrepresentation of Protoss players in tournaments (especially in top rankings) begs to differ. Something is very wrong with Protoss at the moment.
I personally have no idea what would fix this, save for removing the mothership core altogether (or at least heavily nerf its abilities). In my opinion, the unit's offensive and defensive capabilities early game are ridiculous. Overcharge means that they are safe from any early pressure while recall allows them to take huge risks with minimal repercussions if things go wrong. On top of that there is time warp, which is already the second anti-micro spell Protoss has next to forcefield.
Protoss just has insanely powerful units in any phase of the game now.
Early game: MSC and oracle (the latter is basically an early WOL Reaper on steroids)
Mid-Game: Colossi or High Templar with Storm, chargelot/archon
Late Game: an army including both Colossi and High Templar for massive AoE destruction. On top of that there are the usual sentries, archons, chargelots and blink stalkers, often heavily upgraded; instant warp-in of reinforcements actually requires opponents to beat back a protoss army that far exceeds the 200/200 pop cap.
I don't really play anymore because of various reasons, but as a spectator it just seems as if Protoss can get away with nearly everything whereas Terran and Zerg must stick to one or two builds if they do not want to outright lose the game early on. Terran's only chance of winning is seemingly to severly outmultitask their Protoss opponent, and Zerg relies on Swarm Hosts to turtle up, or mass mutalisk if Protoss fails to contain their numbers or outright defeat them using some kind of funky immortal all-in.
As a spectator this is pretty boring since it turns tournaments into guessing games. Guessing how many Protoss players will actually cheese or all-in their way to the ro8 that is. The few straight up games we do get are actually pretty good, but they are way to few and far between. This is understandable from a Protoss point of view: why go for a (risky) standard game when you can end it early using some kind of funky all-in or pressure? I really hope that Blizzard fixes this soon.
|
On April 24 2014 05:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 05:15 Foxxan wrote:
Nerfing warpgate and buffing gateway units doesnt mean passive play from protoss.
It means instead:
- Getting better unit interactions.
This could also help with the "timing/allin attacks". In general protoss either snowballs or do a timingattack through warpgate. With this change it might be a better "fight".
- If protoss really lacks any kind of mobility, you have the teleport on the mothership core that could be looked at and go further with: aka give more teleport stuff to protoss as a whole or something else.
One thing removed, and other things redesigned doesnt mean other things cant be looked at.
Again, this would mean stuff would need to be redesiged, which would mean a game with better unit interactions. What unit interactions will you get from protoss if forcefield stays the same but Stalker HP is buffed + warptech is much stronger defensively? Basically, nothing is changed here microwise. Protoss maxed out army has become stronger and harassing protoss has become harder as well. To even out things (balancewise) protss agression must therefore be weaker. Now, in order to get new micro interactions, you will need redesigns of the units them selves. A characteristic of a redeisgn isn't that it doesn't neccsarily involve a balance change. So you can keep the same strenght of warptech while redesigning the unit --> get a new interaction. Show nested quote +Widow mines don't provide the level of defender's advantage that creep gives. And I do agree that Zergs have a very strong response to warp tech - the MU with the biggest issue atm, however, is PvT. Did you read all my previous posts here? I previously argued that it wasn't warp tech it self that created problems for terran. Like in WOL, protoss allins really weren't hard to beat. Rather, its the units them selves that creates problem. Aka Oracle is terribly desgined, Timewarp and Forcefields (though thats more of an issue vs Zerg). Blink also creates no remicro option for terran (though I think blink allins will be much nerfed if Timewarp gets nerfed/redesgined/removed).
Much like how infestors themselves did not create problems in TvZ, it was the buff to queens and Zergs figuring out the power of creep-spread (thanks to more available queens), that led to the era to Brood/Infestor TvZ.
Show nested quote +And we see SC2 Zergs do pretty decently against Protoss. Creep is really a powerful mechanic. And why do you assume that Protoss needs a compensation for applying a slight increase in cooldown based on distance of warp-in? Warp-tech makes deathballs more powerful, because you can kite and kill zealots of a Protoss deathball close to your base - and they still warp in units to reinforce that deathball.
Warp-tech cooldown increase (relative to warp-in distance) will be an indirect nerf to the deathball. But that's still "aggressive" deathballing, which very few people actually have a problem with. The phenomena deathball instead comes from just sitting in your base with a big army and doing nothing really. Being aggressive with a big army instead is also something we see all the time in Brood War and isn't really a problem as long as the micro interactions it creates are good. In the scenario you present, the alternative (instead of attacking) is to not attack at all (not chase enermy bio units), but simply just keep defending/defending.
People have problem with deathball is virtually all of it's form. Making it harder to reform the deathball in your opponent's base is a good thing - it means that Protoss cannot just get 1 good engage and roll their opponents because the momentum swing with follow-up warp-ins.
When Blizzard balances around units ignoring Defender's Advantage - they are either too weak (quite a bit of WoL era TvP, 1/1/1 et. al.) or too strong (More recent HotS TvP, current patch perhaps needs more time).
When maps get bigger - Warp tech is that much stronger. Your opponent (unless it's a mirror) has to traverse that map distance while you don't. Bigger map, more distance, more Warp-favoured.
Going from a 2 player map to a 4 player map already introduces a small handicap for Terrans versus Protoss. Terran aggression is A) risker, having to proxy if needs to be hidden or closer to enemy, B) weaker, reinforcements take longer if done standard from base. Protoss gateway timings are... unaffected. Great.
Show nested quote +Protoss harass options have gotten better in HotS. They can use oracles for early harass - speed buffed and all. Warp prism got a speed buff. Nexus overcharge allows Protoss to have virtually no units back home to defend most harass/push (early on) and that indirectly makes harass easier (you're not out of position with your army if its harassing since you can Nexus Overcharge and Recall, or warp-in defensively if its not a big harass or doom drop). This doens't contradict anything I say. Relative to current state of HOTS, this change will ceteris paribus create more passive gameplay. Now if you believe protoss can already be too aggressive, and thus want them to have less aggressive options, that's fine. But that's not what I want personally.
Protoss deathball hasn't changed much. Much like BL/infestor had not changed much, but later became known to be problematic. The indirect buff of having stronger early game and stronger harass means that Protoss deathball is stronger in HotS than in WoL. Similar units - but Protoss no longer have to delay their tech for safety earlygame (sentries).
It's not so much about Protoss have too many aggressive options, but given the relative options for Terrans - it bears a good look and see if the MU isn't just being gutted by the arbitrary nature of Warp-tech rather than the naturalistic Defender's Advantage.
|
Much like how infestors themselves did not create problems in TvZ, it was the buff to queens and Zergs figuring out the power of creep-spread (thanks to more available queens), that led to the era to Brood/Infestor TvZ.
No. Infestors were already terribly designed, and lategame TvZ was still unwinable, but it was just harder for Zerg to get there prior to Queen buff. They obviously got redesigned in HOTS while Queens stayed the same.
People have problem with deathball is virtually all of it's form. Making it harder to reform the deathball in your opponent's base is a good thing - it means that Protoss cannot just get 1 good engage and roll their opponents because the momentum swing with follow-up warp-ins.
Bascially just look at a random recommend Snipelot game. I can (almost) guarantee you that the game will have big armies battling each other w/ surprisingly little multitasking. Yet, people don't seem to find a problem with those types of "deathballs" due to two differences;
1) They can generally be more offensively with their army/not nearly as terrain-dependant as a Sc2-protoss army is.
2) The micro is better there compared to the protoss deathballs.
When maps get bigger - Warp tech is that much stronger. Your opponent (unless it's a mirror) has to traverse that map distance while you don't. Bigger map, more distance, more Warp-favoured.
Going from a 2 player map to a 4 player map already introduces a small handicap for Terrans versus Protoss. Terran aggression is A) risker, having to proxy if needs to be hidden or closer to enemy, B) weaker, reinforcements take longer if done standard from base. Protoss gateway timings are... unaffected. Great.
What's your point? Yes, Alterzim is a terrible map and there is no need for those superbig maps in the mappool. BW didn't have them either.
Protoss deathball hasn't changed much. Much like BL/infestor had not changed much, but later became known to be problematic. The indirect buff of having stronger early game and stronger harass means that Protoss deathball is stronger in HotS than in WoL. Similar units - but Protoss no longer have to delay their tech for safety earlygame (sentries).
Your point is that nerfing warptech offensively is gonna make it easier for the opponent to play greedy early game so they can pressure better in the midgame (?) Honestly if you compare WOL TvP to HOTS TvP you have a lot less lame passive deathball TvP's as terran midgame is so much much more stronger.
So I actually don't think its a relevent issue that protoss has an easy time to get a deathball, at least not in TvP.
In PvZ, Mutas seem quite strong - or so I heard.
Actually, I also think the exact opposite is gonna happen. Both races are gonna play greedy defensively early game. Then terran is gonna try and medivac drop the toss, but strong defensive buffed stalkers will have an easier time reflecting it (assuming this unit is gonna get compensated - if toss won't be compensated, TvP is gonna be super terran favored. And basically every terran will be going fast 3rd OC and win in the midgame), and thus less action will happen in this phase of the game as well --> Game is much more likely to get into Ghost + bio deathball dancing vs protoss deathball dancing which we saw alot of in WOL (and luckily less of in HOTS).
|
I agree with Hider on those WG stuff. I dont see how Protoss with the units they have would become more interesting than currently through such changes.
It doesnt magically make zealots, stalkers and sentries units that are good at controlling a map or harass. Nor Immortals, Colossi or Archons. Recall, blink, phoenix and prism are currently the exciting, dynamic plays P has. The large bulk of Protoss units though is just a bunch of more or MORE Defense that is somewhat slow and expensive.
|
On April 24 2014 06:50 Big J wrote:
I agree with Hider on those WG stuff. I dont see how Protoss with the units they have would become more interesting than currently through such changes.
It doesnt magically make zealots, stalkers and sentries units that are good at controlling a map or harass. Nor Immortals, Colossi or Archons. Recall, blink, phoenix and prism are currently the exciting, dynamic plays P has. The large bulk of Protoss units though is just a bunch of more or MORE Defense that is somewhat slow and expensive.
The biggest issue with "deathball" is the fact that there is only 1 major action, and the game is decided. Defender's advantage forces multiple engagements, unless you take a massive victory in an engagement.
It's not that individual units become more interesting. But the viewers get to see players duke it out over the course of several battles.
You see this in most Terran victories over Protoss. It's rarely just 1 engagement in their favour and the Terrran ending the game (unless quite outclassed, say, avg. Foreign pro vs. avg. Korean pro).
|
On April 24 2014 06:58 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 06:50 Big J wrote:
I agree with Hider on those WG stuff. I dont see how Protoss with the units they have would become more interesting than currently through such changes.
It doesnt magically make zealots, stalkers and sentries units that are good at controlling a map or harass. Nor Immortals, Colossi or Archons. Recall, blink, phoenix and prism are currently the exciting, dynamic plays P has. The large bulk of Protoss units though is just a bunch of more or MORE Defense that is somewhat slow and expensive. The biggest issue with "deathball" is the fact that there is only 1 major action, and the game is decided. Defender's advantage forces multiple engagements, unless you take a massive victory in an engagement. It's not that individual units become more interesting. But the players get to see players duke it out over the course of several battles. You see this in most Terran victories over Protoss. It's rarely just 1 engagement in their favour and the Terrran ends the game (unless quite outclassed, say, avg. Foreign pro vs. avg. Korean pro).
But deathball doesn't imply one battle followed by game over. That's related to defenders advantage, and you can have no deathball and no defenders advantage at the same time.
I agree that a game with no real defenders advantage isn't good, but I think you can design the game in such a way to take into account Warp Tech. For instance, I do like the new Widow Mines quite a bit as it makes big Zealot warpins post battle a lot less strong (which really was the main threat).
Further, terran can still kite Chargelots + walloff. I think if you look at pro TvP's its really rarely its just one battle and over. That was much more WOL'ish, but TvP HOTS is quite a bit better.
For zerg, I don't think they really suffer here due to their produciton strenght + creep. Their main problem is just the design of Forcefields.
IMO, as long as Blizzard designs protoss warptech units as non"-killer units, then the defenders advantage issue is solved.
|
On April 24 2014 06:58 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 06:50 Big J wrote:
I agree with Hider on those WG stuff. I dont see how Protoss with the units they have would become more interesting than currently through such changes.
It doesnt magically make zealots, stalkers and sentries units that are good at controlling a map or harass. Nor Immortals, Colossi or Archons. Recall, blink, phoenix and prism are currently the exciting, dynamic plays P has. The large bulk of Protoss units though is just a bunch of more or MORE Defense that is somewhat slow and expensive. The biggest issue with "deathball" is the fact that there is only 1 major action, and the game is decided. Defender's advantage forces multiple engagements, unless you take a massive victory in an engagement. It's not that individual units become more interesting. But the viewers get to see players duke it out over the course of several battles. You see this in most Terran victories over Protoss. It's rarely just 1 engagement in their favour and the Terrran ending the game (unless quite outclassed, say, avg. Foreign pro vs. avg. Korean pro).
The most perfect example of this is really high level TvT Marine tank vs Mech/Marine Tank. Too bad we don't see any TvT nowadays.
Defenders advantage in that matchup is so huge. There's always the potential to come back through crisp defense, really good positioning or (I don't like this one, but still, it's an option) yolo doomdrops.
ZvZ has some of this to it, but sadly, Swarmhost/Broodlord are the transition of choice in that matchup.
|
As much as Warpgate might be the starting point of flawed design of protoss race, I don't think just changing it is enough or would make game that better. Obvious line of thinking would be "no WG -> better defender advantage -> gateway units can be stronger -> no need for forcefield and units like immortal, collosi (in current form)"
|
I don't think that WG is the problem, the problem is forcefield and timewarp.
WG is essentially only WG units. The reason its strong is because protoss makes a few high tech units, like colosi, immortal or VR. Then they use forcefield and timewarp to make sure that they can keep their expensive/important unit alive. WG is also a risky tool, beacuse if they warp in units and the backbone of their attack gets killed then the WG units are thrown into a meatgrinder. Protoss is gimicky because they rely on gimmicks to keep their expensive units alive while warping in meatshields.
Imagine if teran could have sieged tanks defended and witihn firing range for a whole fight and just keep steaming in marines/maraurder or if zerg could keep their hydras 100% safe and just reinforce with roaches for a long back and forth fight. The reason WG is a problem is because of the gimmicks, ff and tw which can make the opponent unable to win no matter their skill.
|
I agree that WG is not the problem, in fact if you get rid of it, P will lose its identity, they are supposed to be an advanced alien race with among other things the tecnology for teleport.
Lore aside, the biggest issue for balancing P IMHO is the overall unit design: is much more solid, understandable and flexible than Z and T. I mean the P units have a very defined role that combines with almost every other P unit. Their biggest disadvantage is supposed to be that they are expensive, but in the current meta of 2 bases minimun, is not a big deal.
As a result, P players can build any units composition and change it easily from early to late game, without much problems. Meanwhile T is less flexible and they face some huge hard counters and Z armies are often composed by a swarm one or two units (ie: mass zerlings -> mass muta).
TL;DR: P desing is very solid, rather than nerfing P or change how it basic mechanics works, it´s better to deal with the problems that T and Z have ie: T Bio-Mech synergy and compositions and Z AA issues, SH and ground units desing.
|
On April 24 2014 16:45 Tuczniak wrote:
As much as Warpgate might be the starting point of flawed design of protoss race, I don't think just changing it is enough or would make game that better. Obvious line of thinking would be "no WG -> better defender advantage -> gateway units can be stronger -> no need for forcefield and units like immortal, collosi (in current form)"
I think there is a better and actually simpler way to make it easier for toss to survive in the midgame vs timing attacks;
1) Reduce infastructure costs (so toss doens't get so much behind in army size in the midgame)
2) Replace Forcefield with another ability or tweak it in some way/make guardian shield the more important ability and add more remicro to Guardian Shield. There are various types of solutions here that all can work.
3) Slightly reduce the cost efficiency of some warptech units (this might not be neccesary though), so Robo tech becomes more important during battles (though robo units also needs a redesign, but that's a different discussion) --> Increases defenders advantage.
Above, is is actually a simpler way of increasing defenders advantage while maintaing/increasing protoss aggressive/harassbased options.
|
On April 24 2014 04:13 Cloak wrote:
When these micro discussions and Protoss complaints crop up, it always just shows tremendous race bias. Why is Blink unfun, but stim Marines are? What exactly is fun about your opposing army being twice as fast as you and twice as much DPS? Where are these micro situations suddenly gained? Micro is made despite Marines, not because of them. Banelings force epic splitting, but there's nothing intrinsic about the Marine that makes their splitting more fun or anything, aside from the 0 damage point delay. It's why Hydras are garbage for micro because their damage point isn't unrealistically instant. The debate over whether or not Warpgate should be on equal terms with Gateway is another oft talked about red herring. At this point in the development it's not gonna happen. Why doesn't Inject Larva have cons? Why doesn't Medivac boost have cons? Why doesn't a Mule have cons? There's plenty of stuff in this game that doesn't force a sophie's choice. The Warpgate haters are really saying "I don't like Protoss aggression keeping me in check, I want my Stim timing to be stronger," or they don't like the idea that their easily acquired map control by virtue of their naturally stronger and faster basic units can be undermined intermittently.
I agree 100%.
|
Northern Ireland23782 Posts
Most people don't mind the microability of Stalkers in and of itself I quite like them as units for that reason, the blink vT is more an annoyance due to the timing it hits and how it transitions etc
|
On April 24 2014 22:23 Salient wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 04:13 Cloak wrote:
When these micro discussions and Protoss complaints crop up, it always just shows tremendous race bias. Why is Blink unfun, but stim Marines are? What exactly is fun about your opposing army being twice as fast as you and twice as much DPS? Where are these micro situations suddenly gained? Micro is made despite Marines, not because of them. Banelings force epic splitting, but there's nothing intrinsic about the Marine that makes their splitting more fun or anything, aside from the 0 damage point delay. It's why Hydras are garbage for micro because their damage point isn't unrealistically instant. The debate over whether or not Warpgate should be on equal terms with Gateway is another oft talked about red herring. At this point in the development it's not gonna happen. Why doesn't Inject Larva have cons? Why doesn't Medivac boost have cons? Why doesn't a Mule have cons? There's plenty of stuff in this game that doesn't force a sophie's choice. The Warpgate haters are really saying "I don't like Protoss aggression keeping me in check, I want my Stim timing to be stronger," or they don't like the idea that their easily acquired map control by virtue of their naturally stronger and faster basic units can be undermined intermittently. I agree 100%.
Protoss gimmicks (minimal micro effort) are so hard to hold even when scouted and the best part is that the p player also has a button that negates all the aggression from his opponent. That's where the complaints come from, and you're calling them biased'? while p players can just do whatever they want behind the nexus cannon??
|
On April 24 2014 22:31 Wombat_NI wrote:
Most people don't mind the microability of Stalkers in and of itself I quite like them as units for that reason, the blink vT is more an annoyance due to the timing it hits and how it transitions etc
The big difference to blink vs Stim is that there is basically no way to react to someone that blinks except for a-move. Focus firing basically becomes useless. Stim, on the other hand doesn't take away options for the opponent. Like you can still take your Immortals to focus fire Maurauders and let your Collosus target the middle of a clump of units.
But that's also makes blink more of an early-game issue (where target firing is more realistic), rather than later game. Thus, my personal opinion is that blink allins should simply be significantly nerfed as it creates a pretty bad playing experience. Early game pressure/all ins is only good when both players have remicro options.
As the game progresses blink becomes better for the game as it gives protoss micro options in situations where protoss doesn't have any other practical micro to do.
|
Northern Ireland23782 Posts
Pretty much what you said there Hider can't disagree with any of it
|
On April 24 2014 22:23 Salient wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 04:13 Cloak wrote:
When these micro discussions and Protoss complaints crop up, it always just shows tremendous race bias. Why is Blink unfun, but stim Marines are? What exactly is fun about your opposing army being twice as fast as you and twice as much DPS? Where are these micro situations suddenly gained? Micro is made despite Marines, not because of them. Banelings force epic splitting, but there's nothing intrinsic about the Marine that makes their splitting more fun or anything, aside from the 0 damage point delay. It's why Hydras are garbage for micro because their damage point isn't unrealistically instant. The debate over whether or not Warpgate should be on equal terms with Gateway is another oft talked about red herring. At this point in the development it's not gonna happen. Why doesn't Inject Larva have cons? Why doesn't Medivac boost have cons? Why doesn't a Mule have cons? There's plenty of stuff in this game that doesn't force a sophie's choice. The Warpgate haters are really saying "I don't like Protoss aggression keeping me in check, I want my Stim timing to be stronger," or they don't like the idea that their easily acquired map control by virtue of their naturally stronger and faster basic units can be undermined intermittently. I agree 100%.
Me too.
The risk of an all-in coming their way is the only thing stopping Terran from ROFLstomping Protoss at the 10-12 minute mark. Econ needs to go into a Reaper, bunker(s), and potentially some turrets.
In TvZ, the Zerg can econ up and then explode into unit production as the parade push begins because of the larva/hatchery mechanic. The only units Protoss can produce quickly are Gateway units and everything else takes forever in terms of build time and infrastructure.
IMO stim DOES reduce microability. Protoss basically can't ever run from a fight (only Blink Stalkers can).
I think people underestimate the strength, mobility, and space controlling potential of stim bio vs. gateway units. Having the ability to warp in anywhere on the map is effectively what keeps the Terran in check. Without defensive warpins to counter drops or offensive warpins to threaten the Terran with, the game would be very difficult for Protoss.
If anyone has ever seen a game where Bomber is allowed to go CC first and not allined, you'll know what I'm talking about.
|
On April 24 2014 06:01 DinoMight wrote:
What's all the fuss about Warpgate/Gateways?
Protoss has been both very under and overpowered since the beta came out (results wise) and pretty much the only thing that HASN'T changed has been the Warpgate mechanic. Is it just an argument of change for change's sake?
Game looks fine to me at the moment. There's no glaring 1/1/1 or Blink Allin or Brood Lord Infestor issue present and at least since the last round of patches it seems like the better player is winning most of the time.
Didn't you say the exact same thing pre MsC sight range nerf and WM buff vs protoss? Funny that you finally acknowledge Blink all-in was an issue when every time it was bought up previous, you always pointed out how all the pro terrans were defending wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
