|
On September 22 2011 14:34 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 13:53 MilesTeg wrote: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.
I think the major issue that people aren't taking as much into consideration is also the map pool change.
The new maps have MUCH harsher 3rds to take which makes it difficult to amass the dreaded 'deathball' that Protoss used to ride to victory. It's like the old suggestion people used to give to Zergs. 'If you don't like versing the deathball, don't let them get it'
Now, because of the difficult 3rds, most Protoss are trapped in the midgame trying to tech with no units to protect both bases. This is locking them indefinitely into the midgame where they fare their worst.
Like the won games so far. MC vs Monster the game he won was on Terminus with a brutally easy 3rd now.
HuK beat Zenio on daybreak because he could get his 3rd and defend it easily. Compare it with the ikes of maps like xel naga fortress
|
On September 22 2011 13:53 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
So 30-40% win rate in PvZ/PvT in Korea is good balance? Very interesting.
It's not impossible to buff Stalkers. They are so ridiculously bad outside of PvP or being a ranged meat shield and air defense for Colossi (not too brilliant at that, mind you), that even a decent buff would not even breach the slightest fringe of OP. It's a much needed step to making the game more balanced, to say the least. It seems, however, Blizzard wants to wait until HOTS to balance the game properly with the addition/removal of units.
If they are on time, the game should be coming out in January (18 months after WoL). Given how Blizzard does things, however, it could come out late next summer for all we know.
|
So, another superior player loses to another inferior player due to imbalance. How is that even possible? Why don't pro gamers unite and demand that something is done to fix that ********** game?
|
On September 22 2011 12:37 Maghetti wrote:
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.
You're only assuming playstyles of other Protoss players by their one game. Using that logic, if we only look at Huk's GSL games, I don't think he would be considered above to the other Protoss in GSL.
I've seen Puzzle, MC and another Korean Protoss stream and they all seem to look good on stream, not just Huk. (Well, probably not that time when MC was streaming ><")
|
It's funny half of these guys are falling off completely - in terms of not even being in code A.... while the others lost in code A - OR are in code S groups where they are not likely at all to advance.
I hope we get some more protoss players to look up to - but it's going to be really tough in the current meta game.
|
On September 22 2011 15:46 Avan wrote:
So, another superior player loses to another inferior player due to imbalance. How is that even possible? Why don't pro gamers unite and demand that something is done to fix that ********** game?
Imbalance is one thing. Losing your probe and then not reacting AT ALL to the fact that your Zerg opponent hasn't expanded is just bad play and bad game sense.
If you blame literally every single Protoss loss on 'imbalance', people are going to get numb to it and not take it seriously.
|
Sage JYP and Oz are still in the qualifiers and I think JYP Sage and Oz have a good chance at making the ro8, Sage and JYP possibly making code S
|
On September 22 2011 15:54 densha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:46 Avan wrote:
So, another superior player loses to another inferior player due to imbalance. How is that even possible? Why don't pro gamers unite and demand that something is done to fix that ********** game? Imbalance is one thing. Losing your probe and then not reacting AT ALL to the fact that your Zerg opponent hasn't expanded is just bad play and bad game sense. If you blame literally every single Protoss loss on 'imbalance', people are going to get numb to it and not take it seriously.
I think a lot of it is just frustration and desperation. Literally we have nobody that we can be confident in. In the current meta game - our most skilled players look like a joke against Zergs and Terrans that they are arguably more skilled than.
ANY time a protoss loses - it's going to add fuel to the fire. Especially when Hero was supposed to be the next hope : (
|
On September 22 2011 15:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
So 30-40% win rate in PvZ/PvT in Korea is good balance? Very interesting.
It's not impossible to buff Stalkers. They are so ridiculously bad outside of PvP or being a ranged meat shield and air defense for Colossi (not too brilliant at that, mind you), that even a decent buff would not even breach the slightest fringe of OP. It's a much needed step to making the game more balanced, to say the least. It seems, however, Blizzard wants to wait until HOTS to balance the game properly with the addition/removal of units.
If they are on time, the game should be coming out in January (18 months after WoL). Given how Blizzard does things, however, it could come out late next summer for all we know.
What, 30% win rate? Wow you're definitely right, this is beyond imbalanced. In fact I didn't realise the numbers were that bad.
Just to be safe, do you actually have a link that shows Protoss having a 30% win rate in any match-up? Not that I don't believe you of course. Also I'm sure that you have the intellectual honesty to only consider stats that have enough games to be relevant, so I won't even insult you by asking the number of games in your statistics.
As for the rest of your post, I take notice of your claim that Stalkers can be buffed but since you failed to account any of my points and only wrote things like "they are ridiculously bad" I don't feel the need to answer.
|
On September 22 2011 15:54 densha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:46 Avan wrote:
So, another superior player loses to another inferior player due to imbalance. How is that even possible? Why don't pro gamers unite and demand that something is done to fix that ********** game? Imbalance is one thing. Losing your probe and then not reacting AT ALL to the fact that your Zerg opponent hasn't expanded is just bad play and bad game sense. If you blame literally every single Protoss loss on 'imbalance', people are going to get numb to it and not take it seriously.
Yup, that game was really Hero's fault, no imbalance there. Hero played really well games 1 and 2, but I think he just got a bit unlucky and a bit sloppy in game 3.
And I'm not sure if he's the better player, in my opinion, he is just like any other Protoss, except he just played easier opponents in the earlier round that made him look good.
|
Stalkers ARE bad but when you just mindlessly buff them x-gates become incredibly strong. Just take the stupid warp gate blizzard, take the curse of being the timing attack race from us q.q
Also hero just got outplayed / didnt play as good as he usually does, the naniwa/huk games left a really sour taste in my mouth but the hero game... I was sad but there was nothing to complain about, he lost and thats it.
|
On September 22 2011 15:47 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:37 Maghetti wrote:
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.
You're only assuming playstyles of other Protoss players by their one game. Using that logic, if we only look at Huk's GSL games, I don't think he would be considered above to the other Protoss in GSL. I've seen Puzzle, MC and another Korean Protoss stream and they all seem to look good on stream, not just Huk. (Well, probably not that time when MC was streaming ><")
I'm not sure what you are objecting too >.>. Just saying Huk is where I saw this game management style and haven't seen it elsewhere yet...
|
On September 22 2011 16:05 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
So 30-40% win rate in PvZ/PvT in Korea is good balance? Very interesting.
It's not impossible to buff Stalkers. They are so ridiculously bad outside of PvP or being a ranged meat shield and air defense for Colossi (not too brilliant at that, mind you), that even a decent buff would not even breach the slightest fringe of OP. It's a much needed step to making the game more balanced, to say the least. It seems, however, Blizzard wants to wait until HOTS to balance the game properly with the addition/removal of units.
If they are on time, the game should be coming out in January (18 months after WoL). Given how Blizzard does things, however, it could come out late next summer for all we know. What, 30% win rate? Wow you're definitely right, this is beyond imbalanced. In fact I didn't realise the numbers were that bad. Just to be safe, do you actually have a link that shows Protoss having a 30% win rate in any match-up? Not that I don't believe you of course. Also I'm sure that you have the intellectual honesty to only consider stats that have enough games to be relevant, so I won't even insult you by asking the number of games in your statistics. As for the rest of your post, I take notice of your claim that Stalkers can be buffed but since you failed to account any of my points and only wrote things like "they are ridiculously bad" I don't feel the need to answer.
^_^ I'm glad you enjoy the current state of the game. I think there's a TL article that describes people like you.
Especially against Terran your story about stalkers does not check out. Against zerg... well people were having problems with the fact that if you engaged in some extremely intensive micro you could exploit a timing to put serious pressure on.... Especially in light in the buffs and severe nerfs to toss pressure on zerg 3rds a reevaluation is in order. Ofc playing terran its understandable to not want a decent stalker.
|
On September 22 2011 16:05 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
So 30-40% win rate in PvZ/PvT in Korea is good balance? Very interesting.
It's not impossible to buff Stalkers. They are so ridiculously bad outside of PvP or being a ranged meat shield and air defense for Colossi (not too brilliant at that, mind you), that even a decent buff would not even breach the slightest fringe of OP. It's a much needed step to making the game more balanced, to say the least. It seems, however, Blizzard wants to wait until HOTS to balance the game properly with the addition/removal of units.
If they are on time, the game should be coming out in January (18 months after WoL). Given how Blizzard does things, however, it could come out late next summer for all we know. What, 30% win rate? Wow you're definitely right, this is beyond imbalanced. In fact I didn't realise the numbers were that bad. Just to be safe, do you actually have a link that shows Protoss having a 30% win rate in any match-up? Not that I don't believe you of course. Also I'm sure that you have the intellectual honesty to only consider stats that have enough games to be relevant, so I won't even insult you by asking the number of games in your statistics. As for the rest of your post, I take notice of your claim that Stalkers can be buffed but since you failed to account any of my points and only wrote things like "they are ridiculously bad" I don't feel the need to answer.
Buffed? Maybe not. That has some obvious implications in 200/200 fights where protoss are definitely not struggling. Made more cost effective by making them cheaper? Yes. As far as justification, all you need to do is compare Damage per Minerals/gas of stalkers vs other units, add the fact that they don't benefit from upgrades as much as t and z units at the same tier and then couple that with the fact that it's exceptionally rare for protoss to not be at an economic disadvantage when both players opt for 2 base builds.
|
Buff stalker damage, increase build/cooldown time to prevent uber-massing them. Nerf blink cooldown if you have to. I'd be willing to make those sacrifices in order to get a unit that doesn't get rolled by everything for cost.
Regarding how stalkers can allegedly kite everything. They actually can't. Did you ever wonder why stalkers always seem to get hit by marines, in pro games? It's not because the pros are sloppy. It's because stalkers have a terrible attack animation that introduces a delay. If the marines are moving forward, the stalkers will get hit during kiting attempts, even without stim.
I also don't get why the onus is on Protoss to "innovate" to get out of clearly imbalanced builds like 1-1-1.
- 4Gate wasn't even imbalanced and it got nerfed to the ground. Nobody told T and Z to innovate against 4gate.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against void rays - instead, they got nerfed instantly.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against proxy gates. They just nerfed zealot build times.
- Even blink timing got nerfed in 1.4. Nobody even bothered telling Zerg to try innovating their way out of blink rush.
On the flipside of things, playing Protoss feels like a sudden death round. You have to bend over backwards to not die from the very first rush. Even attack-move from a cheaper army can ruin you as Protoss.
Nobody has had to innovate against anything Protoss had. T was already strong against P. Z got buffed. P has gotten nerfed in each patch.
I'm kind of miffed, because I switched to Protoss a few months back (I like their style), and got past the learning curve, and it dawned on me that Blizz has been screwing P players for the longest time.
Conclusion: cut it out with the innovation talk. Protoss was innovating much earlier, due to the "sudden death" nature of the race. Protoss was trying carriers and mothership before T even tried ghosts and Z tried infestors.
|
On September 22 2011 16:26 Brotocol wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Buff stalker damage, increase build/cooldown time to prevent uber-massing them. Nerf blink cooldown if you have to. I'd be willing to make those sacrifices in order to get a unit that doesn't get rolled by everything for cost.
Regarding how stalkers can allegedly kite everything. They actually can't. Did you ever wonder why stalkers always seem to get hit by marines, in pro games? It's not because the pros are sloppy. It's because stalkers have a terrible attack animation that introduces a delay. If the marines are moving forward, the stalkers will get hit during kiting attempts, even without stim.
I also don't get why the onus is on Protoss to "innovate" to get out of clearly imbalanced builds like 1-1-1.
- 4Gate wasn't even imbalanced and it got nerfed to the ground. Nobody told T and Z to innovate against 4gate.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against void rays - instead, they got nerfed instantly.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against proxy gates. They just nerfed zealot build times.
- Even blink timing got nerfed in 1.4. Nobody even bothered telling Zerg to try innovating their way out of blink rush.
On the flipside of things, playing Protoss feels like a sudden death round. You have to bend over backwards to not die from the very first rush. Even attack-move from a cheaper army can ruin you as Protoss.
Nobody has had to innovate against anything Protoss had. T was already strong against P. Z got buffed. P has gotten nerfed in each patch.
I'm kind of miffed, because I switched to Protoss a few months back (I like their style), and got past the learning curve, and it dawned on me that Blizz has been screwing P players for the longest time.
Conclusion: cut it out with the innovation talk. Protoss was innovating much earlier, due to the "sudden death" nature of the race. Protoss was trying carriers and mothership before T even tried ghosts and Z tried infestors.
I like your entire post, but I'd especially like to thank you for the stalker vs marine explanation. For the longest time that has been bothering me - I wince every time I match a pro's stalker get hit by the marines he's kiting. It's good to know there's actually a reason, although it does make me sad that that's just one more thing to hate about the crappy unit 
|
On September 22 2011 16:05 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
So 30-40% win rate in PvZ/PvT in Korea is good balance? Very interesting.
It's not impossible to buff Stalkers. They are so ridiculously bad outside of PvP or being a ranged meat shield and air defense for Colossi (not too brilliant at that, mind you), that even a decent buff would not even breach the slightest fringe of OP. It's a much needed step to making the game more balanced, to say the least. It seems, however, Blizzard wants to wait until HOTS to balance the game properly with the addition/removal of units.
If they are on time, the game should be coming out in January (18 months after WoL). Given how Blizzard does things, however, it could come out late next summer for all we know. What, 30% win rate? Wow you're definitely right, this is beyond imbalanced. In fact I didn't realise the numbers were that bad. Just to be safe, do you actually have a link that shows Protoss having a 30% win rate in any match-up? Not that I don't believe you of course. Also I'm sure that you have the intellectual honesty to only consider stats that have enough games to be relevant, so I won't even insult you by asking the number of games in your statistics. As for the rest of your post, I take notice of your claim that Stalkers can be buffed but since you failed to account any of my points and only wrote things like "they are ridiculously bad" I don't feel the need to answer.
Sabu wrote in reply to MilesTeg:
^_^ I'm glad you enjoy the current state of the game. I think there's a TL article that describes people like you.
Especially against Terran your story about stalkers does not check out. Against zerg... well people were having problems with the fact that if you engaged in some extremely intensive micro you could exploit a timing to put serious pressure on.... Especially in light in the buffs and severe nerfs to toss pressure on zerg 3rds a reevaluation is in order. Ofc playing terran its understandable to not want a decent stalker.
I think Sabu pretty much sums it up. I would like to see that article. I do find it a bit comical to see someone who plays the best race claiming that the game is balanced. It's like I'm a ridiculously wealthy banker and claim that everyone makes the same amount of money. lolwut
Korean stats through July:
http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png
Korean stats through August:
http://i.imgur.com/HvaeL.png
The last couple months are in the 30-40% range or close. Last month PvT, thanks to Code A/B wins, Protoss is doing a bit better against T, but it's superficial at best. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Puzzle and Tassadar are entirely responsible for that rise due to really sick runs to the Code A final.
Already in Code S of this GSL, there are 7 Terrans and 1 Zerg in the Ro16, with the other 8 slots to be decided. From among the 3 remaining Protoss players (Genius, Hongun, and Killer) I don't expect any of them to make it out of their pools, but I'd give Genius the best chance, which means most likely there will be 0-1 Protoss in the Ro16. Very balanced 
I can understand that you want the Stalker to continue to be a joke of a unit that gets shredded to bits by Marines and Marauders in a completely one-sided slaughter fest because you play Terran, but that doesn't mean you go to the furthest fringe of absurdity by claiming the game is perfectly balanced, when Blizzard even says it's not only imbalanced, but has design flaws (eg. Terran being too perfectly made).
What makes things worse is that Terran is hardly explored. If it was explored nearly as much as Protoss, I'd be surprised if Protoss won 25% of the time in Korea. For Zerg, some Zergs don't seem to want to use infestors, despite their great power. More FG would really tip the scales in ZvP more than they are already.
Worst of all is that Terran and Zerg are slowly innovating and finding more abuses for Protoss. Except for a lucky run by 1-2 Protosses in a given season, I only see it getting worse. The only significant change out of the recent patch was the NP range decrease, particularly for ZvP, but other than that, the patch wasn't a game changer by any means.
One of many solutions is simply making Stalkers worth their cost (which they don't in the slightest) either by a buff or a cost reduction.
Any way you put it, Protoss is in need of a serious buff somewhere, at least until HOTS where it will receive new units (one of which will be a harass unit according to Blizz).
Like Brotocol said, Protoss is having to innovate all the time. Protoss is Nikola Tesla. Always innovating, always solving the impossible when everyone and their mother says it is impossible. They have to innovate because they must. The problem is that Tesla could only do so much, and it came to a point where he just can't do much anymore and his ideas were really sounding crazy to people in large part because the technology and development from other fields upon which he depended was lacking (that is, Protoss has discovered most of which it has to work with in regards to units and strats).
Meanwhile, Terran and Zerg are regular folks that just don't want to solve problems facing them, and God (metaphor for Blizzard, here) just comes and gives them the solution. Little to no innovation required.
|
To find out how badly Protoss are doing in the GSL take a look at GSL August on Liquipedia.
Code S: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_August/Code_S_Statistics
Code A: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_August/Code_A_Statistics
Or for those of us that are too lazy to check them out here's the important part.
+ Show Spoiler +Code S:
PvT Record of 10W-19L for a Win Rate of 34.5%
PvZ Record of 2W-3L for a Win Rate of 40%
Code A:
PvT Record of 5W-8L for a Win Rate of 38.5%
PvZ Record of 2W-7L for a Win Rate of 22.2%
Combined Code A and S:
PvT Record of 15W-27L for a Win Rate of 35.7%
PvZ Record of 4W-10L for a Win Rate of 28.6%
Combined Record of 19W-37L for a Total Win Rate of 33.9%
Protoss is losing and badly. When match-ups in BW were considered imbalanced they were around the 56-44% mark. The only Protosses with a 50% or better PvT + PvZ were:
Tassadar: 3W-2L 60%
Genius: 5W-5L 50%
I personally don't think that Protoss players are lacking training or creativity, and I don't know what the correct solution is but I'm really hoping someone finds it. Quickly.
Edit: Ouch, just a little slow. XD
|
On September 22 2011 16:26 Brotocol wrote:
I also don't get why the onus is on Protoss to "innovate" to get out of clearly imbalanced builds like 1-1-1.
- 4Gate wasn't even imbalanced and it got nerfed to the ground. Nobody told T and Z to innovate against 4gate.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against void rays - instead, they got nerfed instantly.
- Nobody told Z or T to innovate against proxy gates. They just nerfed zealot build times.
- Even blink timing got nerfed in 1.4. Nobody even bothered telling Zerg to try innovating their way out of blink rush.
On the flipside of things, playing Protoss feels like a sudden death round. You have to bend over backwards to not die from the very first rush. Even attack-move from a cheaper army can ruin you as Protoss.
Nobody has had to innovate against anything Protoss had. T was already strong against P. Z got buffed. P has gotten nerfed in each patch.
Conclusion: cut it out with the innovation talk. Protoss was innovating much earlier, due to the "sudden death" nature of the race. Protoss was trying carriers and mothership before T even tried ghosts and Z tried infestors.
That's completely false and dishonest. Zergs didn't innovate against FFE? Against 6 gates? Against 3 gate expands? Zergs innovating is by far the main reason why they win more ZvPs nowadays, while it was clearly Protoss favoured a few months ago. If you look at ZvP it doesn't look anything like it did in the beginning of the year, no matchup has had such a brutal change in builds, unit compositions and timings. Clearly the innovation is on the zerg side.
It's easy to write things like this, especially in a thread that will attract mostly Protoss players, but it's not supported by anything. I'd argue that Protoss play has evolved the slowest of the 3 races, in all 3 of their matchups.
Also keep in mind that Blizzard already did patch the game to help with 1-1-1, in a similar way than the zealot build time and blink timing you mentionned.
Sabu > what article?
JudicatorHammurabi > I don't play Terran... Also, please stop overreacting at every single one of my posts. You're obviously horribly biased, and I don't think you're helping the discussion. I'm well aware of the GSL results, my point was that by taking a bigger number of games and not games by just a dozen korean Protoss, you'll get a much better picture. And we're not that far from 50%
I am a wealthy banker though 
|
Protoss don't innovate? That hoary old chestnut... ><
I agree with the Stalker comments, it really is overall a POS unit which beyond the very early game isn't worth much, other than with blink (and even this is often situational). I'm not sure why Blizzard didn't go ahead with their original intent of the Dragoon and Dark Dragoon as the original Dragoon (even in a revised format) could go back to being the backbone of the Protoss army while the Dark Dragoon could have been the 'harassment unit' (perhaps unlocked with the Dark Shrine; if we have to have that useless building to unlock DT tech). Come to that, however, I am wary of specialist harassment units for P as Z and T harassment comes from core army units, and more specialised harass units seem to get nerfed over time (the Reaper and Hellion for example).
IMO, the core issue for Protoss is not the illusory weakness of Gateway units or the WG mechanic but the lack of AOE in the mid-game without sacrificing army size/strength. It's difficult for Protoss to exert map control on the ground without being swarmed by Zerg, and with 1-1-1 (and all it's combinations) the main issue may be the number of marines and their combined DPS. If a new unit is to come for Protoss, I'd rather it was a Tier 2 unit which did AOE damage which Zealots/Sentries/Stalkers could work around. This could also allow for the nerfing of the Colossus which might mean the nerfing of the Viking and thereby open up viable Protoss air strategies which, at least against T, are nullified by a cheap and easily massable unit with 9 range.
I think the core issue though is the interplay of racial mechanics and racial upgrades with respect to each other which may, IMO, make SC2 an inherently unstable and volatile game. This also makes balancing the game difficult, so while it may take until HOTS for Protoss to be sorted out, it's probably better that way because, I think, Blizzard have been too eager with the nerf hammer thus far; and also because it will give time for Protoss to confirm, beyond doubt, that there really is a fundamental problem, and that all possible options have indeed been explored to resolve that problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
