|
On September 22 2011 08:18 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:16 Olinim wrote:On September 22 2011 07:56 gogatorsfoster wrote:On September 22 2011 07:52 galivet wrote:On September 22 2011 07:36 gogatorsfoster wrote:Despite all of the balance whines I have heard recently about protoss. I looked up the winrates from this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=262678. In the foreigner tournaments Protoss is at 47%. This is just two months later than when it was literally 50/50/50. In korea the 45% is pretty bad, but its not even due to pvt like everyone is complaining about, its because they are at 41% vs zerg. I`m going to go ahead and say that this protoss QQ session is as wrong and silly as any complaints after the nerf to barrack after depot, and 5 rax reaper. *The pvz does trouble me though but with the infestor nerf, hopefully that number ill bounce back torward 50% vOv anyone can cherry-pick tournament results or personal anecdotes or whatever to spin the balance story whatever way they want it spun. For example, you bring up foreigner tournaments, and I counter with this season's GSL. But at the end of the day if most protoss players move on to other games or race-switch to terran, e-sports falters, and the subsequent SC2 expansions sell more poorly than blizzard expects, then all there will be is a bunch of terran players TvTing on the ladder and TvTing in tournaments that hardly anyone watches and SC2 will be a failure. Even then I'm sure that people will be able to make some argument that the game is balanced for all three races, but it will be meaningless. pvz and they nerfed So...let's just see how it plays out long-term if Blizzard sits on its hands and doesn't balance the game with a quickness. Please stop. You basically said you can use facts but those things disprove my argument so im going to state some sensational future instead. The only match-up that had imbalanced numbers in that graph was the reason for it. The game is balanced, and if its imbalanced its very minor not to the extent that people like to act like.' *also didn't cherry pick from tournaments Its every tournament in the foreigner and korean scene That graph combines the foreigner and korean winrates so it becomes irrelevant because we are talking about the highest level of play. You know, in GSL and AOL, where protoss are 10-30, and only have 1 game won in Code S, and will most likely not have a single Protoss in the ro16. The game certainly is NOT balanced. The tournaments are separated. Korea on one side international on the other. Also are you saying that protoss is only underpowered at the highest level? Because then nobody on the forum needs to complain.
If it is underpowered at the highest level, that means that mid and low-level Protoss are inevitably doomed to grim winrates as the metagame moves forward.
Also, as someone who has ceased buying GOMTvT passes because of the lack of Protoss players (GSL is enjoyable to watch, but also to steal builds and innovations from top-level Ps. Not much of that going on these days), I absolutely think it matters if Protoss is broken at the highest levels.
|
On September 22 2011 08:15 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:11 Toadvine wrote:On September 22 2011 07:56 gogatorsfoster wrote:On September 22 2011 07:52 galivet wrote:On September 22 2011 07:36 gogatorsfoster wrote:Despite all of the balance whines I have heard recently about protoss. I looked up the winrates from this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=262678. In the foreigner tournaments Protoss is at 47%. This is just two months later than when it was literally 50/50/50. In korea the 45% is pretty bad, but its not even due to pvt like everyone is complaining about, its because they are at 41% vs zerg. I`m going to go ahead and say that this protoss QQ session is as wrong and silly as any complaints after the nerf to barrack after depot, and 5 rax reaper. *The pvz does trouble me though but with the infestor nerf, hopefully that number ill bounce back torward 50% vOv anyone can cherry-pick tournament results or personal anecdotes or whatever to spin the balance story whatever way they want it spun. For example, you bring up foreigner tournaments, and I counter with this season's GSL. But at the end of the day if most protoss players move on to other games or race-switch to terran, e-sports falters, and the subsequent SC2 expansions sell more poorly than blizzard expects, then all there will be is a bunch of terran players TvTing on the ladder and TvTing in tournaments that hardly anyone watches and SC2 will be a failure. Even then I'm sure that people will be able to make some argument that the game is balanced for all three races, but it will be meaningless. pvz and they nerfed So...let's just see how it plays out long-term if Blizzard sits on its hands and doesn't balance the game with a quickness. Please stop. You basically said you can use facts but those things disprove my argument so im going to state some sensational future instead. The only match-up that had imbalanced numbers in that graph was the reason for it. The game is balanced, and if its imbalanced its very minor not to the extent that people like to act like.' *also didn't cherry pick from tournaments Its every tournament in the foreigner and korean scene Just so you know, PvT in GSL August had a 35% winrate out of 51 games, while PvZ was 30% out of 20 games. Don't you think that's a bit worrying, combined with the fact that there are 5 Protoss players in Code S, with Puzzle already falling to Up/Downs, 4 Protosses remaining in Ro16 of Code A (out of 12 in Ro32), and MC being knocked out of GSL altogether? I think the reason the numbers are much better on the graph is that it counts the Code A preliminaries, where a lot of Protosses and Zergs qualified. Still, there's a very real possibility that there will be less than four Protoss players in the next Code S? Does that not subtly imply that something is wrong with the game? Or will we have to wait for Code S to comprise of 30 Terrans, Nestea, and DRG? Is there any proof you can show me of those numbers? But, I would say that all of korean tournaments>code S. I know gsl is the only tournament which is why I dont beleive the numbers you stated
Um, do you really think I'm lying to you? Liquipedia has winrates for both Code A and Code S. You just need to manually tally up the Up/Down matches, and you're set.
Also, like I said, the graph probably includes Code A preliminaries, as well as ESV Weeklies. If you want to see those as equivalent to Code A/S, I guess that's fine. Still, it's really difficult to say that Protoss complaints are unfounded at this point. I repeat my initial question - how many Terran players do you need in Code S before you admit there is a problem with the game?
|
On September 22 2011 07:59 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 07:44 MrProb wrote:On September 22 2011 06:38 Treemonkeys wrote:
I think wolf or doa said it best in that protoss has not really had to innovate very much in SC2 yet, that is what it seems like to me as well. Zerg and terran have both gone through much more meta game changes than protoss simply because it has taking this long for protoss timing pushes to finally be consistently shut down in high level play. It's up to protoss players to develop more consistent play styles and a patch (like the one we just got) will help. Maybe another patch is needed but personally I'm really curious to see where jyp, sase, and huk will be a month or two from now. Really ? what can u innovate about protoss ? the units are broken.I'D SAY IT AGAIN PROTOSS UNITS ARE BROKEN.PERIOD. Stalkers do pitiful dmg.Too expensive to be cost effective for a race that rarely secure 3rd. Voidray... dont even get me started on this piece of crap.Tho, it'd be a perfect terran units combine with siege tanks.Too bad its a protoss unit. Colossis are good.Only if sc2 doesnt have units like Vikings, Marauders, Infestor or Corruptor. Immortals are too situational to be good.I like them but way too situational(they're extremely good on certain situation tho). Carriers are jokes.Vikings would love to fight against em anytime anyday. Mothership is a forgotten unit.Too slow to play on competitive level. Warp Prism was one of my favourite unit.They are transportor + mobile pylon but when there're units like vikings, mutas or corruptor... I think Reaver would fix Protoss but not sure if it'd be too powerful ? Also Protoss lacked support caster like Arbiter. Protossa are so easily predictable late game cuz the only threat is High Templar which is easily countered. You list a lot of things, but balance is much more granular. You could revert a specific change for a specific unit to how it was in the beta and Protoss would suddenly be the strongest race again. Everything's intertwined too, buff Void Rays a lot and suddenly VR all-ins become much more powerful, so T has to play more defensively to prepare for that which allows P to get ahead and kill the T with the units you list as terrible.
Vikings are way too air dominant.There's no hard counter to Vikings and the thing is it rendered Collossis pretty useless and money sink, can snipe Warp Prism in 1 shot with a small amount of Vikings, They rape Phoenix, rolfstomp Broodlords and Mutalisks well... they pretty much steamroll over anything that could be hit by air.
Siege Tanks while basically weaker ? than Sc1 version they still give u advantages by setting up perimeter where ever they go and they will punished you HARD with miss stepped into their range.(Siege tanks are not OP like Vikings btw just saying that they have their roles and they sure did a good job at that)
Ghost are ... well everyone know they lived up to their expectation."Somebody called for the Exterminator ?" hell yeah they sure are exterminators.The Bane of all Casters.
I could go on and on on Terran units.
Eventho Terran is my 2nd favourite race of all 3 but still, cant denied that they're one hell of a completed race.
I cant see any of those said Toss units able to do any of these things Terran units could.
|
|
|
Oh btw, give us AoE spell that undone stim effect.Everything solved !
heh just kidding tho.
|
I'm also getting sick of the whole "well that's the highest level so it doesn't matter on yours so you shouldn't care (and usually somewhere in here they say you suck or are a bitch or something)"
...
Yeah, it isn't like sc2 has a spectator thing going on, right!? Why should people care!?
|
On September 22 2011 08:15 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:11 Toadvine wrote:On September 22 2011 07:56 gogatorsfoster wrote:On September 22 2011 07:52 galivet wrote:On September 22 2011 07:36 gogatorsfoster wrote:Despite all of the balance whines I have heard recently about protoss. I looked up the winrates from this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=262678. In the foreigner tournaments Protoss is at 47%. This is just two months later than when it was literally 50/50/50. In korea the 45% is pretty bad, but its not even due to pvt like everyone is complaining about, its because they are at 41% vs zerg. I`m going to go ahead and say that this protoss QQ session is as wrong and silly as any complaints after the nerf to barrack after depot, and 5 rax reaper. *The pvz does trouble me though but with the infestor nerf, hopefully that number ill bounce back torward 50% vOv anyone can cherry-pick tournament results or personal anecdotes or whatever to spin the balance story whatever way they want it spun. For example, you bring up foreigner tournaments, and I counter with this season's GSL. But at the end of the day if most protoss players move on to other games or race-switch to terran, e-sports falters, and the subsequent SC2 expansions sell more poorly than blizzard expects, then all there will be is a bunch of terran players TvTing on the ladder and TvTing in tournaments that hardly anyone watches and SC2 will be a failure. Even then I'm sure that people will be able to make some argument that the game is balanced for all three races, but it will be meaningless. pvz and they nerfed So...let's just see how it plays out long-term if Blizzard sits on its hands and doesn't balance the game with a quickness. Please stop. You basically said you can use facts but those things disprove my argument so im going to state some sensational future instead. The only match-up that had imbalanced numbers in that graph was the reason for it. The game is balanced, and if its imbalanced its very minor not to the extent that people like to act like.' *also didn't cherry pick from tournaments Its every tournament in the foreigner and korean scene Just so you know, PvT in GSL August had a 35% winrate out of 51 games, while PvZ was 30% out of 20 games. Don't you think that's a bit worrying, combined with the fact that there are 5 Protoss players in Code S, with Puzzle already falling to Up/Downs, 4 Protosses remaining in Ro16 of Code A (out of 12 in Ro32), and MC being knocked out of GSL altogether? I think the reason the numbers are much better on the graph is that it counts the Code A preliminaries, where a lot of Protosses and Zergs qualified. Still, there's a very real possibility that there will be less than four Protoss players in the next Code S? Does that not subtly imply that something is wrong with the game? Or will we have to wait for Code S to comprise of 30 Terrans, Nestea, and DRG? Is there any proof you can show me of those numbers? But, I would say that all of korean tournaments>code S. I know gsl is the only tournament which is why I dont beleive the numbers you stated
No, those numbers are correct as far as GSL goes - but those TLPD charts that clutchik makes include other korea games as well, such as the weekly KOTH if I am not mistaken.
|
On September 22 2011 08:32 MrProb wrote:
Vikings are way too air dominant.There's no hard counter to Vikings and the thing is it rendered Collossis pretty useless and money sink, can snipe Warp Prism in 1 shot with a small amount of Vikings, They rape Phoenix, rolfstomp Broodlords and Mutalisks well... they pretty much steamroll over anything that could be hit by air.
Siege Tanks while basically weaker ? than Sc1 version they still give u advantages by setting up perimeter where ever they go and they will punished you HARD with miss stepped into their range.(Siege tanks are not OP like Vikings btw just saying that they have their roles and they sure did a good job at that)
Ghost are ... well everyone know they lived up to their expectation."Somebody called for the Exterminator ?" hell yeah they sure are exterminators.The Bane of all Casters.
I could go on and on on Terran units.
Eventho Terran is my 2nd favourite race of all 3 but still, cant denied that they're one hell of a completed race.
I cant see any of those said Toss units able to do any of these things Terran units could.
I can suggest a few things that would help balance things out. Mainly, Viking range and Ghost EMP should be researchable abilities. I cannot comprehend why they are not - at one point in the beta viking range certainly was.
EMP should also have shorter range to compensate for the fact that Ghosts can cloak and move close to the battle safe from damage. And Ghosts should be light units as well.
Marauders devour gateway units - but I think the immo buff will help against that.
Also, SCVs shouldn't be able to repair eachother. They should be biological, not biological-mechanical. It's kind of silly seeing a whole mess of them fixing eachother.
Also medivac drop ability should be researchable.
|
Playing several old RTSs in the past few days, lol this RTS is probably worse designed than CnC Generals. Really. Terran is perfection, Zerg a little less, and Protoss is just terribad. Just kill enough of the Protoss Tier 3 and even if his army is much larger than yours, you auto-win.
So we have to wait until HOTS for blizzard to design the decently with the addition and removal of units... but given Blizzard's track record, I don't expect that happening.
|
I think the reason protoss is doing so poorly is deceptively simple. There's no failure of innovation or specific terran/zerg imbalance or anything, it's just that stalkers are terrible units, yet you need them in every matchup. They're one of the least efficient units in the game in terms of damage per mineral/gas spent. The increased mobility doesn't even remotely compensate for their weakness relative to marines, marauders, roaches, hydras, and lings or justify their massive cost. Once roaches get speed or marine/marauders get stim, both of which are far more accessible than blink, protoss is stuck with an awful unit which is not cost effective AND has no mobility advantage either. Compounding this, zergs and terrans can get an economic advantage against protoss in straight up games with relatively little risk, so protoss is in a situation where they have less resources to produce less cost effective backbone units and is forced to turtle/tech until they can produce cost effective units to beat t1/2 units.
The justification for making stalkers so bad is that protoss has forcefields to manipulate terrain in order to compensate for their weakness, and in practice this worked in the previous iterations of the metagame, but isn't really working at all now.
One of the general complaints about protoss is that they become unstoppable when things come to a 4 base 200/200 situation and their tech units are just way better than everyone elses. You end up with a race that is ultra weak early game and wins by literally just surviving while trying to take as little damage as possible. I think the solution is really obvious: make protoss tier 1/1.5 not so god awful while toning down tier 2 and 3 units. Stalkers aren't cost effective against practically anything except vikings, corruptors, broodlords, and mutas (though surprisingly muta vs stalker is a close fight without blink), yet you need them as a core ranged unit because zealots are a very niche unit which has specific things it counters and is countered by.
|
Canada13386 Posts
On September 22 2011 11:31 Drowsy wrote:
I think the reason protoss is doing so poorly is deceptively simple. There's no failure of innovation or specific terran/zerg imbalance or anything, it's just that stalkers are terrible units, yet you need them in every matchup. They're one of the least efficient units in the game in terms of damage per mineral/gas spent. The increased mobility doesn't even remotely compensate for their weakness relative to marines, marauders, roaches, hydras, and lings or justify their massive cost. Once roaches get speed or marine/marauders get stim, both of which are far more accessible than blink, protoss is stuck with an awful unit which is not cost effective AND has no mobility advantage either. Compounding this, zergs and terrans can get an economic advantage against protoss in straight up games with relatively little risk, so protoss is in a situation where they have less resources to produce less cost effective backbone units and is forced to turtle/tech until they can produce cost effective units to beat t1/2 units.
The justification for making stalkers so bad is that protoss has forcefields to manipulate terrain in order to compensate for their weakness, and in practice this worked in the previous iterations of the metagame, but isn't really working at all now.
One of the general complaints about protoss is that they become unstoppable when things come to a 4 base 200/200 situation and their tech units are just way better than everyone elses. You end up with a race that is ultra weak early game and wins by literally just surviving while trying to take as little damage as possible. I think the solution is really obvious: make protoss tier 1/1.5 not so god awful while toning down tier 2 and 3 units. Stalkers aren't cost effective against practically anything except vikings, corruptors, broodlords, and mutas (though surprisingly muta vs stalker is a close fight without blink), yet you need them as a core ranged unit because zealots are a very niche unit which has specific things it counters and is countered by.
God what I wouldnt give for a stalker that doesnt suck. Half its health is in shields so it dies so quickly when EMPed. Attack upgrades scale horribly. (10 + 4 to armour and upgrades add ONE to base damage, NONE to its vs. Armour)
They are speedy in the early game only and suck vs light units like zerglings.
Especially frustrating is comparing it to the roach. Half the resources a roach can do better damage than stalkers to everything and they get +2 per attack upgrade against everything. Sure the stalker has 2 more range but really, The Stalker has slightly better DPS at even upgrades but as soon as upgrades come in the roach is always better.
Without forcefield if you let any other ranged unit get close to the stalker even with blink micro they die very very quickly and they cost so much compared to the other ranged T1/1.5 units of the other races we can't easily replenish them and hold an attack.
EDIT: omg, im balance whining >.< I havent done this in so so long I feel terrible but these are true strats and I want to look at the bright side of 80 shields being really good at rewarding good blink micro.
|
On September 22 2011 11:31 Drowsy wrote:
I think the reason protoss is doing so poorly is deceptively simple. There's no failure of innovation or specific terran/zerg imbalance or anything, it's just that stalkers are terrible units, yet you need them in every matchup. They're one of the least efficient units in the game in terms of damage per mineral/gas spent. The increased mobility doesn't even remotely compensate for their weakness relative to marines, marauders, roaches, hydras, and lings or justify their massive cost. Once roaches get speed or marine/marauders get stim, both of which are far more accessible than blink, protoss is stuck with an awful unit which is not cost effective AND has no mobility advantage either. Compounding this, zergs and terrans can get an economic advantage against protoss in straight up games with relatively little risk, so protoss is in a situation where they have less resources to produce less cost effective backbone units and is forced to turtle/tech until they can produce cost effective units to beat t1/2 units.
The justification for making stalkers so bad is that protoss has forcefields to manipulate terrain in order to compensate for their weakness, and in practice this worked in the previous iterations of the metagame, but isn't really working at all now.
One of the general complaints about protoss is that they become unstoppable when things come to a 4 base 200/200 situation and their tech units are just way better than everyone elses. You end up with a race that is ultra weak early game and wins by literally just surviving while trying to take as little damage as possible. I think the solution is really obvious: make protoss tier 1/1.5 not so god awful while toning down tier 2 and 3 units. Stalkers aren't cost effective against practically anything except vikings, corruptors, broodlords, and mutas (though surprisingly muta vs stalker is a close fight without blink), yet you need them as a core ranged unit because zealots are a very niche unit which has specific things it counters and is countered by.
The problem is that it's impossible to buff stalkers the way they work. Their long range means that once you start massing them they become very good against everything, and since they're bigger than marines and mobile they're not that vulnerable to AOE.
The last thing Starcraft needs is a unit that is efficient, fast, long range, massable, resistant to AOE, and can shoot both ground and air.
Basically, it's very hard to fix the problems in this game IMO, we're going to have to wait HotS. Protoss needs a new, mid tech unit to fill the holes in their race.
|
After watching Huks stream recently + his match vs Zenio I do feel protoss vs zerg is manageable. Huk has been using the standard unit comps of protoss like colossus, blink stalker, etc and HT, archon, stalker, etc but has been using a different game management style I don't see other protosses doing except for maybe Hero a little bit. While Hero and JYP has shown very harass focused styles to hold zerg down until they get up the econ, tech, and army needed to push out on the map, huk has been doing this very weird style.
What he has been doing is building lots of gates, tech, and probes while keeping himself alive with simcity, cannons, and just enough units. He would put cannons and gates, simcitying in between his 2nd and his 3rd and putting his army between the two locations, allowing him to get up a faster and safer 3rd. Once he has all the tech he needs, the gates he needs, and the economy to support his army production, he is able to push out on the map and hold his own vs a zerg with all the econ in the world. He doesn't get stuck on 2 bases like other protoss, even on maps with difficult to take 3rds.
Sorta hard to explain, I hope you understand me >.> but it definitely looks like a very strong management style and would work great when combined with the harassing style of hero.
Terran...I see nothing to stop terran with out a patch >.>. I'd hit terran with the nerf hammer so hard. Nerf viking range by 1, slightly reduce medivac healing rate, nerf EMP and snipe by making emp not effect shields perhaps or reduce its effect, and of course reduce the range of these abilities. Also the mule. The mule is the most OP thing in the whole game. It it what makes terran the best 1 basers, gives them the best ability to come back from huge deficits, etc. Maybe make its mining rate slower, or make it mine less per mule, whatever seems best.
|
The thing is, zenio overdroned HARD and had nothing but bad engagements. I was still amazed huk pulled it off but Zenio helped him a lot :/
|
On September 22 2011 12:06 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:31 Drowsy wrote:
I think the reason protoss is doing so poorly is deceptively simple. There's no failure of innovation or specific terran/zerg imbalance or anything, it's just that stalkers are terrible units, yet you need them in every matchup. They're one of the least efficient units in the game in terms of damage per mineral/gas spent. The increased mobility doesn't even remotely compensate for their weakness relative to marines, marauders, roaches, hydras, and lings or justify their massive cost. Once roaches get speed or marine/marauders get stim, both of which are far more accessible than blink, protoss is stuck with an awful unit which is not cost effective AND has no mobility advantage either. Compounding this, zergs and terrans can get an economic advantage against protoss in straight up games with relatively little risk, so protoss is in a situation where they have less resources to produce less cost effective backbone units and is forced to turtle/tech until they can produce cost effective units to beat t1/2 units.
The justification for making stalkers so bad is that protoss has forcefields to manipulate terrain in order to compensate for their weakness, and in practice this worked in the previous iterations of the metagame, but isn't really working at all now.
One of the general complaints about protoss is that they become unstoppable when things come to a 4 base 200/200 situation and their tech units are just way better than everyone elses. You end up with a race that is ultra weak early game and wins by literally just surviving while trying to take as little damage as possible. I think the solution is really obvious: make protoss tier 1/1.5 not so god awful while toning down tier 2 and 3 units. Stalkers aren't cost effective against practically anything except vikings, corruptors, broodlords, and mutas (though surprisingly muta vs stalker is a close fight without blink), yet you need them as a core ranged unit because zealots are a very niche unit which has specific things it counters and is countered by. The problem is that it's impossible to buff stalkers the way they work. Their long range means that once you start massing them they become very good against everything, and since they're bigger than marines and mobile they're not that vulnerable to AOE. The last thing Starcraft needs is a unit that is efficient, fast, long range, massable, resistant to AOE, and can shoot both ground and air. Basically, it's very hard to fix the problems in this game IMO, we're going to have to wait HotS. Protoss needs a new, mid tech unit to fill the holes in their race.
Protoss is by far the weakest race. If you don't want Stalkers that aren't pure trash, then please suggest something that will make the game better designed and/or better balanced, rather than giving bad reasons why Protoss can't have a decent unit other than Colossi. Seeing how Blizzard seems to be completely lost, I honestly believe you and other can think of better fixes.
|
^ Hes just saying that by doing "big" changes you can easily just open the next can of worms which is true. Just imagine a 4 gate / 3 gate blink with good stalkers. I think the whole warp gate mechanism should be given another look.
What Im wondering is: Does Blizzard have the balls to do bigger changes in protoss design?
|
Protoss just doesn't have the macro of zerg or the efficiency of terran. The 2 units that make that efficiency come into play get shutdown HARD in TvP and although not as much in PvZ you are always fighting an uphill battle with 0 map control for the whole game except for maybe the phoenix harras phase of a FFE opener.
PvZ is is the matchup that can still see a lot of meta game development and also they one where you truly get to appreciate good protoss at work while in PvT any toss can just die horribly to carpet emps or scan + snipes.
I do believe if Protoss is on a map with a not impossible to take 3rd they can do pretty well vs Z in a macro game specially if they manage to get a 4th and are still in good enough shape to get a mothership. With range 7 parasite is really no longer a huge threat and if you are really scared of getting wormholed you can always dump the energy and just use it as a very very expensive and slow arbiter for defense when you have to deal with broodlords.
TvP is just a battle of counters that terran is usually winning unless they fail miserably to scout a 3x robo + bay late in the game while you've been going templar + gateway upgrades for the start of it. There's really not much to develop in this matchup because of how strict you need to be on when and what you build in order to not die.
I would love to see phoenix graviton being changed to an ability with a cooldown. Maybe even something as long as 30 seconds but being able to not get emped to fight ghosts or at least force terran to keep them with the army if they dont want them picked off. Its simply impossible to fight ghosts once terran gets vikings and cloak since you can't even keep an obs near them.
|
On September 22 2011 12:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
please suggest something that will make the game better designed and/or better balanced, rather than giving bad reasons why Protoss can't have a decent unit other than Colossi.
Wait, what? When did I say that? As the poster above me said, I was just giving reasons why it's impossible to buff stalkers.
On September 22 2011 12:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Seeing how Blizzard seems to be completely lost, I honestly believe you and other can think of better fixes.
I don't think Blizzard is lost at all, just maybe a bit slow.
On September 22 2011 12:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Protoss is by far the weakest race.
This kind of overreaction is what makes me hate TL these days. Protoss is not even that weak statistically. Numbers show a pretty good balance in PvZ, and even PvT is not as bad as you'd think by reading TL.
|
Just making them *cheaper* instead of better would go a long way. It wouldn't make for overload stalker mid-late game, but their cost-effectiveness could be improved by lowering their price.
|
On September 22 2011 13:53 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Protoss is by far the weakest race. This kind of overreaction is what makes me hate TL these days. Protoss is not even that weak statistically. Numbers show a pretty good balance in PvZ, and even PvT is not as bad as you'd think by reading TL.
Eh, while you're right, it seems more likely with the diversity of Terran, macro and map control of zerg, and constriction of Protoss that the balance issue will only get worse as time goes on, and I think that's what he's focusing on.
Also, I know this doesn't matter, but does anyone actually enjoy their games as Protoss? It seems so repetitive and restricted. I wouldn't mind as much if we were winning tourneys with standard play but to be boring and underpowered is pretty frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
