|
On September 22 2011 18:13 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +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 
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
I kind of wish P didn't innovate, because then MC wouldn't have won anything, and Blizz would've patched P earlier.
|
You can either say Stalkers suck or T and Z units are simply better.
Stalkers are good against ? i dunno, cant think of any while if u ask me what they're weak against ? Well i got plenty of answers; they're weak against Marines, Marauders, Speedlings, Tanks.Kinda of par against Roach.
And those units are the backbone of their races.
|
On September 22 2011 18:13 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +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
Zerg got BUFFED. k thx
|
On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE.
Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies.
On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors in ZvP because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time.
They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players.
Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating.
|
4713 Posts
Protoss where forced to innovate faster and earlier then all other races. Protoss had to incorporate sentries, HT, colossus, charge, blink and weapon/armor upgrades faster into their builds then zerg or terran and to do their equivalent.
The reason why they still don't use air is because its too expensive and not as efficient as terran or zerg air, there is nothing to innovate there. But where there was feasible room form improvement the Protoss seized upon it.
Now that zerg and terran have innovated, protoss is right back where it started, however now the situation is even more grim, since they can't innovate, there is no room to innovate anything any more. The other unit combinations and timings are either too expensive to execute or too risky to execute.
There is also a fault in the game if the Protoss can't develop a good strategy to counter 1/1/1 without leaving themselves open to other abuse. While the Terran and Zerg have safe builds which they can hold of attacks and tech out of. The protoss doesn't have the same luxury.
The lack of early game scout and detection hurts protoss here a lot. A terran can wall of his ramp and deny scout with marines, he can the go ahead and do a 1/1/1, early pressure, fast expand and the protoss has no idea what it could be. If the protoss decides to do a blind counter to say, 1/1/1 he loses to the other strategies.
And again, if the Protoss finally does reach late game, their specialists get EMPed and/or sniped to oblivion (EMP and snipe have bigger range then Feedback), the Colossus gets sniped fast by vikings. Then it just becomes a fight of bio ball vs zealots and stalkers, and the bio ball wins every time. And this is in large due to the fact that gateway units are incredibly cost ineffective, the main reason why people tech to storm and colossus in the first place.
I wrote a long post about the subject earlier in this thread, I am not in the mood to restate all the facts.
But the balance analysis that we've made backed up by the statistical evidence shown by JudicatorHammurabi and zKamiz, all point towards protoss being underpowered.
Perhaps I should make a dedicated thread to convey all my points and condense the knowledge, that way people would better understand it.
|
On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating.
nope not similarly.
Protoss were making Archons but not as much because :
1.Templar had KA back then.
2.Archons had shorter range and werent massive unit which make them able to be kited by Marauders.
3.300 freakin Gas for an Archon means less gas intensive units like Stalkers, Observers, Colossis or w/e
Even nowadays they got buffed ppl still not making them much because its expensive to make one.You cant lose unit like Archon too often.Its a heavy gas unit plus Protoss army is gas heavy + hard to secure 3rd as protoss
|
|
|
On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating.
Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time.
All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move.
Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem.
Comments like "warp prisms, bro" are just hubris.
|
If u're watching Creator vs Curious game right now, you should have seen how good speedlings can be.
edit : not that they're overpowered just saying protoss has no units like that and in RTS game units with speed & range are the winning factors.
|
On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem.
You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas.
I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now.
That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same.
|
On September 22 2011 16:20 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 16:05 MilesTeg wrote: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.
Actually in 200/200 fights protoss usually get destroyed by any terran that can use EMPs with their superior spellcaster.
Also Broodlord + infestor or Broodlord / Ultralisk can demolish any 200/200 protoss army. So yes, the late game is actually what we fear - which is why so many protoss players do 2 base all ins. It just feels a hell of a lot more powerful. We defend drops, and harass while scouting - and what do we get? A really fragile army that is hard to reproduce.
|
On September 22 2011 19:34 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem. You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas. I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now. That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same.
We're gonna have to disagree. I can't support the fact that Protoss has been innovating, any more than I already have. Just the sheer variety of builds P players have tried since beta, and their exploration of all the tiers, as well as having done drops (the current hot topic) almost a year ago are things which convince me. And since you believe it's more about timings, well, the vast majority of P timings got nerfed. I don't think MC has failed, but rather, that the state of Protoss right now has stumped everyone.
Even the so called "Heroes" of Protoss mentioned in this thread are still playing known strategies in tournament games. Protoss players have been innovators, but now they are stumped. And frankly, I don't expect them to find a solution to the built in weaknesses of the P race. The race itself is poorly designed, and they already spent a year working around its shortcomings; they played their cards, however flawed the design. But the nerfs have finally caught up, compounding the design issues, and there's only so many workarounds you can do.
PS: In watching GSL, I see infestors often in PvZ, so I'm not sure how you can say they play a minor role.
|
On September 22 2011 19:34 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem. You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas. I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now. That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same.
Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea. We HAD mc and kinda / sorta huk. Protoss as a race rewards innovation - they have been innovating for a really long time because their low tier units suck and are more expensive than those of other races- we have seen late game motherships, so many different timings - basically every unit we have seen in conjunction with each other on televised series. Protoss does have room for innovation - as do other races - that is NEVER going to change as it's a game based on meta-evolution.
However, I am sick and tired of ZERGS of all people telling protoss players that we don't have a talented pool of players. We have brought over arguably the best SC1 players to sc2 out of all the races. Both Sangho and Trickster both were significantly more talented than DRG, Bomber, MVP, or any other zerg or terran sc2 player at sc1. So I can't really understand how you can say that protoss players don't have talent. Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races - not a single top level zerg sc2 player was an A teamer in BW recently (July was way past his prime when he switched) EXCEPT for Cool.
Statistically at the highest level, protoss is underperforming. To rule out imbalance is silly - just like it's silly to say that every single protoss loss is because of imbalance.
|
Also, as a side note - 4 pvz's - 4 2 base infestor builds - Yeah... infestors are definitely affecting the strength of zerg right now in the ZvP matchup
|
However, I am sick and tired of ZERGS of all people telling protoss players that we don't have a talented pool of players.
I don't know if it's directed at me but I never said that and I don't think that ^^
I think the reason why "ZERGS OF ALL PEOPLE!!!!" are saying pro Protoss players are awful is because such a ridiculous percentage of their games are 2 base all-ins. There are a lot of them who are really awful in PvZ (and used to win anyway), but I agree with you there are also good players who would deserve to be higher.
Anyway, I never even said Protoss isn't underpowered (although I'm not certain they are either), originally all I said is that Stalkers aren't trash late game and they can't be buffed and people started treating me like I just spit in their face XD
|
On September 22 2011 08:30 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:15 gogatorsfoster wrote: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?
64 terrans in gsl and I will say there is something wrong. Every Protoss i see plays super risky, I hardly ever see a game where they are actively scouting and trying to play as safe as possible trying to counter what their opponent is doing. Its either risky econ or some sort of all in, never an inbetween.
*In all seriousness I take the win% more serious than the amount of players per race
|
That "risky econ" is the only way to beat the 111
|
On September 22 2011 20:31 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:30 Toadvine wrote:On September 22 2011 08:15 gogatorsfoster wrote: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? 64 terrans in gsl and I will say there is something wrong. Every Protoss i see plays super risky, I hardly ever see a game where they are actively scouting and trying to play as safe as possible trying to counter what their opponent is doing. Its either risky econ or some sort of all in, never an inbetween.
Can i ask you something ?
1.Actively scout with what ? against zerg you dont have any map control same as against Terran the only thing that u could scout with is an Observer which come kind of a bit too late.Speedlings, Marines&Medivac drops, Banshee, Mutas or BFHellions harass make it impossible for Protoss to have map control.
2.Counter ? i'd say counter what?(with high pitch voice lol) Protoss units cant counter for sh*t.
More like every unit Protoss has can be hard countered.Please tell me which protoss unit counter which zerg/terran unit.Please...oh wait.If a zerg player is dumb enough to mass pure roaches.Immortal would be great against it =)
3.Mostly 2 Base all-ins ? yes maybe but if there's a safe, easy way to secure a 3rd base WITHOUT letting your opponent gets more ahead of you.Do you think protoss pros wouldnt do that ? All the Protoss players know their race is scary when u have a lot of income to support gas heavy units like Colossis or Archons.
|
On September 22 2011 20:31 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 08:30 Toadvine wrote:On September 22 2011 08:15 gogatorsfoster wrote: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? 64 terrans in gsl and I will say there is something wrong. Every Protoss i see plays super risky, I hardly ever see a game where they are actively scouting and trying to play as safe as possible trying to counter what their opponent is doing. Its either risky econ or some sort of all in, never an inbetween.
Watch Bomber vs Puzzle in the current Code S. Puzzle plays extremely safe, throws down a fast Robo after seeing gas from Bomber, and rushes for an Obs before expanding. Alas, Bomber pulls guys off gas and 1 rax FEs. After no actual engagements taking place, the supplies are 130 for Bomber and 100 for Puzzle going out of the midgame.
I mean, MCs PvZ has been nothing but super standard macro play for months now, and look where that got him.
Such is the sad story of safe Protoss play.
Also, if the point at which you admit imbalance is an all-Terran GSL, then I think you may find yourself arguing against imbalance against the few trolls who stick around after everyone else moves to a better game.
|
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
Here i your proof
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=267040¤tpage=13#247
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
