|
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
|
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
|
On September 20 2011 20:54 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that protoss held the expansion for most of the game. Usually if you hold onto an expansion for that long you should be ahead in supply. The guy focusing on army needs to hit a timing before the expansion kicks in and enables his opponent to have a better army.
This is why people usually immediately attack when they scout a fresh base... if they wait any longer they will lose their army advantage and if they take an expansion themselves they will be behind.
His point being is that a protoss can hold onto an expansion for ~7 minutes and still lose. I would think if someone held a fresh expansion for about 3 minutes you're pretty much screwed.
|
I'll start off by saying I'm not very good at theorycrafting nor at the game (diamond ish haven't played in months Protoss point of view) but what if Protoss aimed for a more tempo sort of play.
Let's say the standard protoss build is 1 gate FE. You're playing Terran and you can't scout his build might be 1-1-1 or something else. Can't you just stop probes at 36ish split to maximize mining at both bases. Power out units (no workers) with all you're chrono and have just a big army in time for the 1-1-1. I mean you cut probe production even if you don't know it's the 1-1-1 just to pump out a bigger army at that time. Sure he might be making SCV and have 2 orbitals but with powering from 2 base and chrono on warpgates could you not make a big enough army to stop the 1-1-1 or if he expands to make so much pressure as to gain a edge and restart probe production while solely chronoboosting your nexus for probes (disadvantage with upgrades since you're not chronoboosting them)
And hopefully the army you made gives you map control to expand faster. It's a crazy idea and I'm very open to critisism, but I haven't heard a lot about Protoss aiming for tempo based game plans. It might be that we can't control the game very well, or because we would need to cut probe production which is considered a big no-no in economy RTS games.
I know it sounds very bad to stop making probes for a time every game, but since chronoboost exist might as well use it to change up production timings and save money where we can on gateways/warpgates to make more units at a certain time interval vs certain builds. Surely scouting can be an issue with this type of play. But other then all ins no one ever stops to make workers except Zerg to throw funky timings with units at you. I was wondering if it could be possible for a Protoss equivalent vs Terran.
|
4713 Posts
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income.
You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries.
To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
|
On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
|
On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
|
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched. I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work.
Believe it or not, it does.
There's a Forge expand into 2 Stargate and 5/6 Gate Zealot warp-in all-in / high pressure build.
It's extremely effective and strong, especially if the Zerg doesn't scout the 2 Stargates.
|
On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Actually - you are very incorrect. Blizzard does not change it based on an analysis. Though they will consider a good analysis on a build, they mainly work with percentages. They are in the business of balancing the game around percentages. At the end of the day, if they can say that the game is within 2% of being balanced at all skill-levels, they have kept their word in providing a competitive E-Sport.
How was Infestor / Broodlord proven to be broken through an analysis? When Terran starts making Ghosts, everything Zerg has begins to look like trash. Unfortunately, Ghost-Mech was largely unexplored at the time of David Kim mentioning a potential Infestor / Broodlord nerf.
|
On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
There are not 8191 possible unit compositions. You're counting {zealot; stalker; sentry} and {stalker; zealot; sentry} as different combinations.
Use this:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations-calculator.html
No order, no repetition.
And now, if you care at all about being the slightest bit realistic, exclude units that MUST be made (probe). Exclude either stalker, zealot or sentry, because you can't make 0 gate units and live past 2 minutes, unless you're in bronze league. Also allow for having an observer, which is a requirement. ~10 types to choose from.
And this is not even excluding the unrealistic scenarios, e.g. as getting only carriers and nothing else and having this be viable.
Let's be generous, and pretend that the composition will have 4 units.
This is far from exact, but much more realistic than your absurd estimate: 210 possible combinations.
|
4713 Posts
You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
|
On September 21 2011 04:15 Destructicon wrote:
You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
So why don't protoss players use this fact to confuse zerg players? Say leave only 1/3 or your standing army at the ramp so the zerg goes on and makes sporecrawlers and queens while you make probes.
Subterfuge is a brilliant strategy.
|
On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Stop trolling.
None of the things you mention were proven imbalanced the way you suggest. Which utterly makes no sense anyway since your mathematical model is off, not even considering restrictions on permutations whatsoever.
|
4713 Posts
Subterfuge won't work in the above mentioned case because, the zerg will be on 3 bases to the protoss 2. If the Protoss goes for a forge fast expand the zerg can get a fast 3. If protoss goes for a 1 gate or 3 gate expand the zerg can still defend what comes out of it. So in 90% of the situations when a protoss gets his 2nd, the zerg will get his 3rd.
The zerg will only make 1-2 spores per hatch and queens don't interrupt drone production. The protoss will not gain anything from faking a DT or SG, or worst he leaves himself open to a devastating attack once the zerg is ready to either go for a kill or destroy the Protoss 3rd.
|
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote:
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income.
You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries.
To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote:
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
|
On September 21 2011 04:15 Destructicon wrote:
You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
And that's bullshit and the reason why people that are bad at playing the game shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.
|
On September 21 2011 04:28 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote:
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income.
You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries.
To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe. Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote:
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply. Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him.
Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
|
United States2822 Posts
Disclaimer: I am only Diamond, and I have not had the opportunity to read most of the thread to see if the discussion has happened already. I'm just posting my quick thoughts on the situation.
The way I see it, a large problem with Protoss centers around one idea: the split between the "main" units of your army (damage dealers) and the "supporting" units of your army (ones that let your damage dealers deal damage).
In Terran, your main damage dealers are Marines and Marauders. Ghosts, Medivacs, Vikings and Tanks support them. The main damage dealers are easily replaceable, and you don't need extremely large numbers of the supporting units in most cases in order to be effective. Large numbers of Barracks allow your damage dealers to be replaced easily, and the flexibility of the addon mechanic allows even the supporting units to be replaced quickly.
In Zerg, units tend to be able to fulfill multiple roles. Zerglings both act as main units when surrounding Fungaled units, or as supporting units when tanking Marine fire for Mutalisks to attack, for example. However, because of the Zerg production mechanic, outside of resources, all their units are limited by the same larvae, which gives them the ability to reproduce an army quickly (see the 300 food push patented by Zergs in late game).
However, in the Protoss army, Gateway units do not end up doing a majority of the damage for the army. Higher tech units, such as Colossus, Void Rays, Immortals and High Templar form a larger overall percentage of the damage for your army. Zealots and Stalkers form the supporting units of the group - Zealots by tanking damage and keeping units out of range of Colossus, and Stalkers by picking off the opposing supporting units such as Vikings, Ghosts, Infestors, Brood Lords, etc. Outside of High Templar, none of those units are easily replaceable as they all come from a separate production facility - one that is not feasible to get multiples of. This facilitates the "ball"-style play, where Protoss focus heavily on protecting their high tech units and going for strong timing pushes. Often, when a Protoss loses these key units in their army, they have a hard time coming back because Protoss can only replace their supporting units quickly.
|
On September 21 2011 04:35 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:28 Klystron wrote:On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote:
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income.
You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries.
To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe. On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote:
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply. Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out. Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him. Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
Thank you
Oh and the formula I used for counting unit combinations was n!/(k!*(n-k)!). Which means that I am not counting repeating combos, and ordering does not matter.
|
1 gone 4 to go:D
I wish 16 terrans in ro16, i know it's hard but I HAVE HOPE
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
