|
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
|
Everyone ignores the fact that Terran and Zerg get a early game defensive structure after their first unit building - rax to bunker, and pool to spine. Protoss gets nothing. This makes early Protoss expos, the ones that beat 1/1/1, vulnerable to 2 or 3 rax timings. This is compounded by the ghost issue, where early expos are typically defended by sentries.... which of course, can be nullified by ghosts at a timing where no other significant defense can be had by Protoss. Terran has a build that kills Protoss if they're too greedy (2 or 3 rax), and they have a build that kills if you're too conservative (1/1/1). The problem is that there's no Protoss build that walks the middle line that's safe to both.
So yes, Robo detection kinda sucks, and Ghosts are kinda imba, but that does nothing to say about the problems P's having with Zergs. I dont think its a problem with unit inefficiency or anything like that - its simply that all early expansion builds by toss either involve a forge, are unsafe, or are too slow. Forge completely forgoes any early aggression and allows the zerg to RESPOND to your economic play with an EVEN MORE economic play. 1 gate expo dies to many, many pushes that aren't even all-in. And the safest openings that still preserve some semblance of map presence (3gate expo) are way too slow. And don't even have map presence. Huk's all sentry push-outs are suicidal sometimes (sorry Huk).
Terran expos (Marauder expand vP, reactor Hellions vZ, etc.) and Zerg expos (speedling expo) can keep map presence while expanding and being safe because they can respond to a scouted pressure with spines and bunkers. How many 4gates have we seen defended by a spine or bunker defense? All of them, nowadays.
It is my challenge to you players to find a Protoss build that can expand reasonably quickly, maintain map presence to be able to scout pressure, and respond to it in time.
I don't think it can be done currently. Any build that wants to have any map presence at all must include a gateway or two. If the expansion comes any later than after the 2nd production building its just too slow to keep up with the other races. With that small number of units, you can't be safe to an attack, because there's no reactive structure you can build (forge + cannons takes too long since the cannons cant be started until after the forge is done).
So yeah. Protoss can't expand early enough to keep up while maintaining map presence. Not map CONTROL, just PRESENCE. Zerg gets a free 3rd against a forge expo, now that spores root quickly and zergs have figured out the air timings. Forge just delays your aggression too much. Non-forge openings rely on units, which are expensive and must be kept at home to be defensive, giving up the initiative, since early units are slow and pressure is usually a one way trip. Non-forge openings also cannot respond to pressure by dropping efficient defensive structures, so you have to pre-prepare with extra units/production/a forge.
TLDR: It's impossible to play a safe, reactive Protoss style that keeps up economically.
|
races are fine - maps are broken
User was warned for this post
|
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote:
races are fine - maps are broken
races arent fine, but i agree that maps dont help deal with this
I think that the issues with PvT is obvious, the PvZ issues have begun to unfold with the current ineffectiveness of the deathball. Before, the problems still existed it's just that Protosses could rely on the deathball (and 4gates) to win, simply because standard games were just not really possible due to a zerg's ability to control the map and easily outmacro protosses simply because of race mechanics (thus the need to rely on the 200 max supply cap in order to gain an advantage). Most Protosses didn't want to have to use such a bland metagame style, but it was necessary if you wanted to win. Now that zergs are using infestors way more in addition to optional baneling drops, deathballs no longer work, and aren't even near cost effective. The general understanding the protoss units cost more but are better no longer applies, because while you can micro your units to make them more effective, fungal growth prevents you from doing this and results in protoss units dying extremely easily as they are unable to be used to their highest potential.
In game 2 of the HerO vs IdrA series at Dreamhack, the only reason HerO was able to pull off the victory (aside from being a godly hero with near PERFECT control and execution) was because he was able to feedback IdrA's infestors before they could really do the devastating damage that they could've. If IdrA had been less rambo with his infestors and had kept them farther behind his army until HerO's high templar (which were actually standing in front of his army) had been taken out. It would've been extremely easy to do that since the high templar were extremely vulnerable, since HerO's only chance of getting the feedbacks off were if they were in the front lines, despite this being a huge risk. He took the risk, however, and was greatly rewarded. If those infestors hadn't been donated to Aiur, then HerO's 4th base defensives probably would've fallen as HerO was barely able to pull it off. Oh wait, why was HerO in any trouble at all? Maybe it's because having 3rd bases still puts you at a disadvantage against a zerg who has more bases (which they will no doubt have if you try and take a 3rd, unless they're extremely dense). Anyways, back to the point, fungal growth (and neural on colossi) negate a protoss' ability to be cost effective with their units, which kind of defeats the purpose of their race and makes you rely on "gimmicky" strategies that are based on tricking your opponent, since beating them in a straight up fight isn't an option (even if you both have equal levels of skill).
|
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote:
races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
|
I think getting hallucination verse terran early on will become key, I would absolutely love if blizzard did some changes to warp gate and changed some timings around.
For eg. gateways before warp gate research, make units at normal gateway speed. After warp gate research, gateways get the current warpgate timings to make units.
So for example, the cooldown of a warp gate is now the building time of the gateway unit etc(maybe even less for the gateway). While the warp gate will get the gateway timer cooldown. I think it will sprout new innovation, instead of just having warp gates going all the time, having to switch between gateway production to warp gate defence/offence could give protoss that early gate boost that I think they need at the moment (coming from a zerg).
|
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point.
And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk.
Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
|
On September 20 2011 17:02 sharktopus. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act. This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
|
On September 20 2011 11:46 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:22 Dalavita wrote:On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote:
I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss). People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are. In the end, zergs managed. Don't worry, you'll get there. Managed to whine their way out of nerfs, petitioned for nerfs for other races, and cried their why to easier double expansion builds and other buffs. Yeah, zerg evolved. Evolved the art of lobbying for changes.
Zerg, the political party. You heard it here first folks.
|
4713 Posts
Well yes, I forgot to talk about Warp Gates, forgive me for that, but with trying to cover all those points I must have omitted a couple.
It does unfortunately feel like gateway units are innately underpowered because of Warp Gate tech.
Also it is specifically because of WG tech that protoss don't have a fast harass unit from gateway. and no fast harass unit means no map control. Zerg has zerglings, terran has hellions, later on zerg can transition into mutalisk.
Protoss do have a fast harass unit that could get some map control, the Phoenix, however they don't cut it because of the following reasons.
Phoenix cost too much, and thus close the door behind more combinations/innovations that protoss need.
Phoenix cost too much for what they do.
Phoenix don't harass as efficient as other counterparts.
Hellions can kill workers extremely easy, even after the BFH nerf, zergling if they get into a mineral line can cause havoc, mutalisks can not only run amok in a mineral line but they can even snipe buildings.
The phoenix costs 150 M and 100 G, that is 50 M more then a muta, while for the zerg it is ok because of the swarming power of zerglings and banelings, it is not good for the protoss, who relies on a mix of high gas units to be effective.
Also while mutas in large numbers can snipe buildings, reinforcements and workers quickly, the phoenix feels a bit slower and clumsy because it needs to graviton units to kill them, and they can't even target buildings.
I think Phoenix could be a fantastic harass unit, but the price point needs to be adjusted so it doesn't hurt the rest of the army composition, graviton beam could be made cheaper. And the protoss needs another detection, either from GW or SG so they don't die to banshees while they try to harass with phoenix.
|
On September 20 2011 18:35 Red Alert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act. ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point. And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk. Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
You forgot a thing man, that the terran "base"units wreack the protoss "gate" units.
You cannot watch only the time of production of barracks and warp without take a look to the effectiveness.
Your point of view can be right only if i could warp marine/marauder by my gate...
|
Destructicon for President (or maybe Blizzard's lead Games Dev), is all I can say.
Also, Red Alert is right that as it is Protoss T1 units cannot beat Terran T1 units head on in equal cost, because then the warp gate mechanic would make PvT favoured in Protoss' favour too much. However, there is currently a vast discrepancy in cost efficiency of Terran vs Protoss, and while there must be some (or Warp Gate must be changed/moved to Twilight Council etc), at the moment I feel there is too much.
|
On September 20 2011 13:53 GMonster wrote:
MC doesn't practice so he gets knocked down to Code B. + everyone has caught on to his style. Pretty sure tyler got a lot of hate for saying he takes to many risks. Sometimes you win GSL championships, othertimes you get knocked out of GSL.
And Alicia... just got slammed lol. SeleCt such a baller. That was some scary ghost control.
But we will see Both them again.
I'm waiting to see how Sage does in a Bo3 and not bo1 teamleague.
JYP has a little ways to go, but he will be code S in the next 2 months. of the 12 that qualified for code A, 5 were Protoss. And they are all sick good.
I've seen what Sage does to Jinro in a best of 24  , quite a lot. Amazing play.
|
There are a few problems with Protoss that the other races can easily exploit.
The main one as I see it is that Protoss units are the most expensive in the game and by virtue of that tend to always be outnumbered. Gateway units simply do not have enough numbers or power by themselves to adequately fight the armies of the other races.
Zerg has the worst units in the game but compensate for this by always having numerical superiority, map vision and counter attack options. A Roach will never beat a Stalker but at they can easily out number them.
Terran has some of the most cost efficient units in the game. Just look at the Marine. A Stalker costs 125/50 and yet just two Marines at 100/0 have double the dps (14 compared 6.9 vs non-armoured targets, 20 if you count stim). There's an even more stark comparison to be made between the Marauder and the Stalker. Though they fulfil generally the same role (anti-armour) and have relatively even costs (a Marauder is 25/25 less at 100/25) there is no comparing a Marauder to a Stalker in terms of raw damage. The Marauder is significantly more powerful - 13.4 dps (an incredible 23.4 when stimmed) versus the Stalker's 9.7 dps versus armoured targets.
This forces the Protoss to rely on other more powerful units to compensate for the weakness of their main army. The best example of this is the Colossus, which is extraordinarily powerful. The problem here is that the Colossus is easily countered - mass Vikings (and to a lesser extent Corruptors) can render a Colossus completely useless, thus forcing the Protoss to fight on (un)equal ground.
Another problem that many are aware of is the lack of a truly viable unit for harassment purposes and this is one of main reasons why Protoss are struggling versus Zerg. The main units usually cited are Phoenixes and Dark Templar. Neither of these are particularly appealing options as they force you down alternatively (and costly) tech paths that can significantly lower the strength of your main army. They're also relatively easily countered. The recent changes to the Warp Prism should help though it still requires you to occupy your most important production structure for 50 seconds).
Blizzard have stated they're aware of this and perhaps will introduce such a unit in HOTS.
Full disclosure - I'm a gold league Protoss player so I'm very open to being entirely wrong on everything I've said here, but I've tried to present my perspective as free from bias as possible.
|
A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
|
The warp gate shouldn't be such early tech anyway, it's completely fucking stupid. Protoss units should be strong and importantly - LESS MOBILE. Who at Blizzard had the smart idea of letting them completely ignore distances early game? Note in BW that the recall ability is at the very top of the tech tree because that kind of ability is very very powerful; ditto for Nydus Canal and that's mostly a defensive structure anyway.
Mobility is something Blizzard have got wrong throughout SC2 design. From allowing an early game harass unit to jump and cliffs and ignore chokes to the extremely small maps they originally expected people to play on, it's like they don't even take it into consideration.
|
On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote:
A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
i know right ? zerg didnt get buff or patched at all they figured everything out by themselves !
/facepalm
|
On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote:
A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
Actually, I still believe that Zerg is a fundamentally broken race, but they got a huge buff by way of the Infestor which compensates for the other flaws, and they are just less broken than Protoss are because they have no Warp Gate mechanic equivalent which Blizzard overcompensated for. Because Infestors are rarely used in GSL, especially because almost all Zergs follow Nestea's lead and his style doesn't use them often, Zerg is losing out almost as much as Protoss. Two things Protoss and Zerg have in common at the moment is that they're very unforgiving, compared to Terran where it is easier to make mistakes and get away with them, eg losing dropships when harassing, losing a couple of tanks due to mismicro/bad positioning etc.
|
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss.
This happens the other way round as well. If I go 1 rax expo and the toss goes 3 gate robo they are going to have a larger army value than me when they go for their 1 base all in push.
I don't see a problem with this. If one player pursues economy, and the other goes for army size, there SHOULD be a period where the guy on one base has a larger army. The economy based player is aiming at a later point in the game where his economy will enable him to get ahead in army size. Until that point he is behind in army and tech. This is the game working as intended.
|
On September 20 2011 20:51 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote:
A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned. Actually, I still believe that Zerg is a fundamentally broken race, but they got a huge buff by way of the Infestor which compensates for the other flaws, and they are just less broken than Protoss are because they have no Warp Gate mechanic equivalent which Blizzard overcompensated for. Because Infestors are rarely used in GSL, especially because almost all Zergs follow Nestea's lead and his style doesn't use them often, Zerg is losing out almost as much as Protoss. Two things Protoss and Zerg have in common at the moment is that they're very unforgiving, compared to Terran where it is easier to make mistakes and get away with them, eg losing dropships when harassing, losing a couple of tanks due to mismicro/bad positioning etc.
How is it forgiving when you lose dropships or tanks? Terran doesn't have a magic revive button, the units and the resources are still lost...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
