Edit: The honorable mention Protoss (mainly Huk and Puzzle) that I listed I feel are just as amazing but unfortaunley I wrote this up very late and was to tired to add them into the mix.
Its nothing new to learn that Protoss preformance has not been up to par as of late, in fact its reached an all time low in which Protoss have never before experienced within WoL. With top Protoss such as MC and Alicia falling to Code B Protoss hope has began to diminish and crumble and exceed beyond our reach.
Terran and zerg have won, MC's dedication, everything he fought for - undone. Any chance he gave at fixing our race dies with MC's loss. We bet it all on him. Monster took the best of us and tore him down. Protoss will lose hope of another Code S victory.
But they won't, they must not know of the others.
MC in Code B, Puzzle in a group of death? You can't sweep that up!
No but Protoss cannot abandon hope, Aiur needs its true hero.
No!
You either fall to Code B or live long enough to adapt to the metagame, they can do those things because they aren't QQers, they aren't MC or Alicia, they're innovaters, thats what they can be.
No, no they cant, they're not mainstream!
They're what Protoss needs them to be.
The terran and zerg will own them.
They'll abuse them they'll stomp them, set the ownage on them. Because sometimes losing is good, Sometimes we deserve more, Sometimes players deserve to have their mistakes rewarded for future gain.
Why are they trying new things?
Because we have to innovate.
But they aren't Code S.
Because they're the heroes that Protoss deserve but not the ones Code S have right now, so we'll ignore them, because they will practice, because they are not all inners, they are macro players, innovaters, Aiurs hope.
(Hopefully you guys understood the reference)
So who are these Protoss innovaters that I feel have recently began to outclass much of Code S and players like MC and Alicia. Each of these players I feel is just as capable as MC and Alicia if not more capable.
Liquid Hero
This guys array of strategies is beyond a doubt one of the most expansive out of any Protoss. Constantly he is innovating and improving his unique playstyle. With tacticts such as Warp Prisms in his PvZ his understanding of this matchup will become a go to staple for the community to learn from and copy. He has demonstrated his micro through jaw dropping phoenix control, and shown us that he can preform equally well by preforming very fast and managing his macro superbly through great mechanics. Although his best results as of recent have been a Top 6 MLG Finish and a top 4 Dreamhack finish he is rapidly improving and surpassing many of our beloved Protoss heroes and I feel it wont be long until he claims the throne of the top Protoss. Not to mention this guy has a look of a champion, thats always a plus.
NSHoseoSage
Unless you follow alot of ICCUP tournaments (I appologize for not recalling the new name) you will have only seen this guy mainly in the GSTL. Preforming an all kill on the FOU team against players such as SC and Leenock this guy has demonstrated insanely safe and solid play. His ability to play safe and react based on the information he has been given makes his play an ideal candidate to copy if you wish to maintain consistancy and not rely on risky playstyles that are very abundant within the GSL. In his games he has shown us a vast array of build and styles such as Phoenix Chargelot or simply new safe ways of progressing into a macro game. This guy beyond a doubt has poteintal to take a Code S victory if he continues on his path and please Artosis by making many observers.
TSLJYP
This guy never really hit big until recently when making his way through Code A, his use of the Warp Prism in both PvT and PvZ have shown that Protoss can indeed macro and harass effectively at the same time. His use of High Templars as a form of harassment is a great example of how a Protoss can pressure and keep the zerg on his toes well taking a third. This guy is quickly sweeping the scene by demonstrating a very Brood War form of playstyle and showing us great and innovative macro games. If you were to ask Coach Lee who the best player on TSL was I'm almost 95% inclined to say he would respond with JYP. His matches through the Code A up and down truly demonstrated that he is deserving of our attention. Not to mention this guys blink stalker control is out of this world.
Sase
A former Warcraft 3 Player Sase reigns from the foreigner community and has remained relatively unknown to the scene until very recently. Residing in Korea he is beyond a doubt practicing consistantly and working insanely hard as I can personally vouch I have seen him stream ladder games for 9 hours straight. With his own way of playing the game Sase demonstrates insane micro and is very innovative in his builds, (In fact i've seen him use carriers alot in PvZ). Combine this with his speed (This guys APM is actually insane) I feel Sase has what it takes to compete at the top. Maintaining top 50 in Korean GM this guy is without a doubt a force to be reckoned with and will make a huge splash if he continues to train as hard as he is.
DignitasNaniwa
Yet another foreigner and former Warcraft 3 Player Naniwa has been a well known figure within the community for some time. Although he has been pretty vocal about his balance concerns Naniwa has demonstrated that he understands what it takes to be the best and he is willing to work towards that no matter what it takes. He constantly demonstrates a very good understanding of the metagame and because of this he is able to maintain success through his knowledge and hard work. Considering his skill level prior to Korea being almost up to par with many Code A and Code S players Naniwa with enough time will almost undoubtedly make it into Code S and snag a big tournament victory one day.
Honorable Mentions: IMYonghwa IMSeed San EGHuk SlayersPuzzle MVPGenius (Seriously this guy is so underrated) NSHoseoTassadar
Conclusion: Instead of people whinning about balance concerns I hope they can learn to support and acknowledge the Protoss players I have listed and learn from much of their playstyle and as personally I believe their new innovations will usher us in a strong macro style that can lead us to success and more stability.Just because our old go to Protoss are not preforming up to par as of late people have come to the conclusion that Protoss is underpowered, many are quick to blame balance instead of the players lack of will to change and adapt when things get tough. Although many of these old school Protoss players are very talented individuals I feel that because of their prior success with much easier tacticts they have fallen into a trap of living in the past instead of trying to progress forward. It's important to remember that with new tacticts comes learning and because of that it's vastly important for individuals to remember that although these new strategies and tacticts bring more loses, they are helping the Protoss metagame progress forward as a whole and push us away from our comfort zone, from our mistakes we can learn and in time and reach a much better metagame.
Dont lose hope, Protoss have alot of up and commers that can compete with even the likes of MC and entertain us with amazing games.
lol good job on the Dark Knight poach. The question-response bit had me confused for a few moments, though.
My money's on Sage, or MC coming back out of code B with a vengeance next season. As much as I'd like to hope, though, I'm not sure we'll have a real shot at a GSL title before HotS.
Puzzle will beat Bomber easily (one of the best TvPers :D) don't worry. And HongUn is probably the best PvTer since he doesn't seem to lose it recently.
I hope that protoss doesn't get buffed anytime soon, i'd rather protoss come out of the dark age thanks to an awesome player (example bisu) than thanks to some stupid buff...
I really hope that hero will lead us to a brighter future
HongUn didn't even get a mention despite being the 2nd best toss of sc2 and arguably the best of the last few months? xD
We definitely need to be looking to the new blood for development at a time like this imo; they are far freer to play around and come up with new styles and builds, whereas the guys who already have had a spot in the GSL are presumably busy refining what works a lot of the time.
On September 19 2011 18:39 HellKey wrote: I hope that protoss doesn't get buffed anytime soon, i'd rather protoss come out of the dark age thanks to an awesome player (example bisu) than thanks to some stupid buff...
I really hope that hero will lead us to a brighter future
We don't need buff'd, everyone else needs nerfed :p :D
I can't help but feel that your excellent write-up is somehow undermined by the fact that quite a few of the players you listed, have publicly stated that they feel Protoss is weak. I can't see anyone emerging out of GSL without direct Blizzard interference due to how hilariously brutal PvT is currently. Maybe I'm just jaded, but yeah. I dunno.
Well HerO is my new favorite protoss player, and he can also perform extraordinary sometimes. I hated (excuse me, HATED) his play vs Thorzain at DH Valencia, but that's another story. He has it in him to be a ..... hero.
Puzzle is the second best protoss out there, after MC in terms of win-rate. Pls give him due credit instead of over-rated players like Hero who have yet to perform anything noteworthy.
Posting a thread with a title like that right after MC and Alicia played in Code A pretty much spoiled me already for the results t.t.
Also why is HuK not on that list? He's one of 2 protoss that actually won some games last season and reached the Ro8. He's probably the best performing Protoss in the GSL atm.
On September 19 2011 18:39 HellKey wrote: I hope that protoss doesn't get buffed anytime soon, i'd rather protoss come out of the dark age thanks to an awesome player (example bisu) than thanks to some stupid buff...
I really hope that hero will lead us to a brighter future
i agree but its like MC was the only one already then now hes code B TT
will we always have 1 only guy that can actually win things?
Hero is our hope in PvZ (which I think is close to balanced and just suffering from meta-game problems atm, Bliz doesn't need to nerf infestors, IMO), because he is the BEST in that matchup in the world, bar none. In fact to me he seems like the most talented player running around in SC2, but he needs to work harder on his forward planning to get there. So frickin' good tho.
However, I feel like Huk is maybe the best at PvT (mostly due to his ridiculous control when defending), it's just that the matchup is kinda hard right now (many Toss can't win it at all). Huk also has excellent PvZ and very solid PvP (insofar as anybody does). He's also still in Code S and doing pretty well in general. I understand he's not a new player but he is getting better and better as I think at this stage that not only is he the most likely foreign player to take a Code S win but he's also the most likely Protoss to take out the tournament as well. However I don't think a Protoss will win anything major until Factory pushes can be dealt with after expanding (whilst still being safe to Bio pressure) and they get a buff or 2 (or Terran get a nerf ofc).
Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
On September 19 2011 19:01 -Archangel- wrote: Lol, no Huk?
And I must say I love JYP from the moments I seen him dismantle DRG
After recent performances and showings kinda hard to say hes a top toss right now. Last code s he was able to play pvp against killer TWICE to stay in and Nada played really bad PvT. If he makes it past this ro32 then yeah it would be good but its far from the strongest group.
Puzzle has Ryung-Mkcheeseprime and Bomber. Puzzles the hero toss needs for code s.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
On September 19 2011 19:04 althaz wrote: Hero is our hope in PvZ (which I think is close to balanced and just suffering from meta-game problems atm, Bliz doesn't need to nerf infestors, IMO), because he is the BEST in that matchup in the world, bar none. In fact to me he seems like the most talented player running around in SC2, but he needs to work harder on his forward planning to get there. So frickin' good tho.
However, I feel like Huk is maybe the best at PvT (mostly due to his ridiculous control when defending), it's just that the matchup is kinda hard right now (many Toss can't win it at all). Huk also has excellent PvZ and very solid PvP (insofar as anybody does). He's also still in Code S and doing pretty well in general. I understand he's not a new player but he is getting better and better as I think at this stage that not only is he the most likely foreign player to take a Code S win but he's also the most likely Protoss to take out the tournament as well. However I don't think a Protoss will win anything major until Factory pushes can be dealt with after expanding (whilst still being safe to Bio pressure) and they get a buff or 2 (or Terran get a nerf ofc).
Yeah from watching HerO playing PvZ, you kinda notice how good templars are if used well (and they kinda rofl at infestorz)!
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Hero is better than Thorzain and Rain, his first game alone where he managed to last so long after defending a 2rax with 1gate way (late 2nd gateway), 1Stargate, losing 13 Probes and being 2mins behind on his expo should be enough to say that
On September 19 2011 19:11 n0ah wrote: A little piece of me died today as I watched SlayerSAlicia hold his head in his hands. ='(
I don't even know what to feel about MC. It's like I don't even want to play this game anymore...
Lol.
You should have played Zerg during the beginning of this game. You come off as being pretty spoiled, if this makes you want to quit the game then Zerg during 1.00 would have made you want to quit life.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Hero is better than Thorzain and Rain, his first game alone where he managed to last so long after defending a 2rax with 1gate way (late 2nd gateway), 1Stargate, losing 13 Probes and being 2mins behind on his expo should be enough to say that
Lol how is he a better player than ThorZain? ThorZain nearly won against DongRaeGu in his worst match-up, it's like HerO losing 2-3 against NesTea for a 15000 dollars match (aka NesTea playing seriously) since DRG is like top 2 ZvT, plus he crushed him head-to-head and has better results in the GSTL, equal results in GSL (1-2 in r32 code A). About Rain I'm not really sure if he is better than NaNiwa because it's close since Rain is not in korea anymore, games could have went either way, but ThorZain is definitively better than HerO.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Hero is better than Thorzain and Rain, his first game alone where he managed to last so long after defending a 2rax with 1gate way (late 2nd gateway), 1Stargate, losing 13 Probes and being 2mins behind on his expo should be enough to say that
Lol how is he a better player than ThorZain? ThorZain nearly won against DongRaeGu in his worst match-up, it's like HerO losing 2-3 against NesTea for a 15000 dollars match (aka NesTea playing seriously) since DRG is like top 2 ZvT, plus he crushed him head-to-head and has better results in the GSTL, equal results in GSL (1-2 in r32 code A). About Rain I'm not really sure if he is better than NaNiwa because it's close since Rain is not in korea anymore, games could have went either way, but ThorZain is definitively better than HerO.
I say Hero is because he is one of the few top Protoss's right now that is having any form of success these days, especially in PvZ where you have Zergs who don't even make a single creep tumor beating players like MC >_>
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Hero is better than Thorzain and Rain, his first game alone where he managed to last so long after defending a 2rax with 1gate way (late 2nd gateway), 1Stargate, losing 13 Probes and being 2mins behind on his expo should be enough to say that
Lol how is he a better player than ThorZain? ThorZain nearly won against DongRaeGu in his worst match-up, it's like HerO losing 2-3 against NesTea for a 15000 dollars match (aka NesTea playing seriously) since DRG is like top 2 ZvT, plus he crushed him head-to-head and has better results in the GSTL, equal results in GSL (1-2 in r32 code A). About Rain I'm not really sure if he is better than NaNiwa because it's close since Rain is not in korea anymore, games could have went either way, but ThorZain is definitively better than HerO.
I say Hero is because he is one of the few top Protoss's right now that is having any form of success these days, especially in PvZ where you have Zergs who don't even make a single creep tumor beating players like MC >_>
Yeah he is a promising protoss but he didn't lost against ThorZain because of his race or something like that... About MC he lost to HongUn so it's not only his race either, even if that doesn't help.
Sadly, the guys at the top of Protoss play don't seem like the best innovators, just great executors. That would include guys like Huk... great micro/macro, but innovator? No way.
It seems like the real innovators aren't necessarily the greatest macro/micro players. To save protoss, I'd look more to guys like White-Ra and Kiwikaki. Of course, it's unlikely that either of them will win a tournament with legit Koreans in it, but the better executors should look to those two to see how they handle PvT. Then they can copy it and execute it better for the wins.
As for Hero, when people say "he held off X with only Y", that's not innovation. That's good control. Top protoss players already have that. However, he does do a few interesting things, which makes me believe that maybe he's an innovator... still a little unsure on him. I'm not familiar enough with Sage, JYP, or Sase to comment on them, but no way is Nani an innovator... just another great executor.
There is a reason all these innovators get hyped until they fail to reach code S and fall into obscurity. There really isn't much to innovate when your win or loss just depends on your opponent not messing up several times in a row. All the protoss at valencia got destroyed completely, hero only took out idra, which isn't really hard. + Show Spoiler +
And Jookto falling to jyp is hardlt surprising, jookto has barely done anything in gsl at all.
No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
On September 19 2011 19:45 RenSC2 wrote: Sadly, the guys at the top of Protoss play don't seem like the best innovators, just great executors. That would include guys like Huk... great micro/macro, but innovator? No way.
It seems like the real innovators aren't necessarily the greatest macro/micro players. To save protoss, I'd look more to guys like White-Ra and Kiwikaki. Of course, it's unlikely that either of them will win a tournament with legit Koreans in it, but the better executors should look to those two to see how they handle PvT. Then they can copy it and execute it better for the wins.
As for Hero, when people say "he held off X with only Y", that's not innovation. That's good control. Top protoss players already have that. However, he does do a few interesting things, which makes me believe that maybe he's an innovator... still a little unsure on him. I'm not familiar enough with Sage, JYP, or Sase to comment on them, but no way is Nani an innovator... just another great executor.
^ this so much. Probably best innovators right now (just assuming from what I saw) are HerO, Sage and SaSe. So these are the guys I would look forward the most.
On September 19 2011 19:56 bittman wrote: No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
HongUn is terrible gimmicky player and I'm willing to bet he will be in code B in 4 seasons.. If he has to be our protoss hero, then I'll rather be heroless.
Hero is probably the best out of that bunch. His PvT is actually great but he ends up getting the short end of the build order stick and never gets the macro game.
On September 19 2011 19:56 bittman wrote: No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
HongUn is terrible gimmicky player and I'm willing to bet he will be in code B in 4 seasons.. If he has to be our protoss hero, then I'll rather be heroless.
Lovely attitude. Bet you think TheBest and Rain are terrible players too, since your adjective of "terrible" is based on what has been, not what could be. There are a lot of players who were gimmicky as hell, and have really looked strong since copping a slap to the face.
Protoss heroes obviously aren't going to be coming from "what has been", but rather "what could be". If you personally are looking for a hero, don't be picky if one appears and you don't like him because he looked bad in the past.
MC used to be the toss hero, and people thought he was laughable in Brood War. Take what you get, don't act entitled =P
On September 19 2011 19:56 bittman wrote: No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
HongUn is terrible gimmicky player and I'm willing to bet he will be in code B in 4 seasons.. If he has to be our protoss hero, then I'll rather be heroless.
If HongUn is a terrible gimmicky player, I don't know what MC is... MC basically "invented" about every timing push protoss has, and HongUn uses them well because he can't really play macro games because of RSI issues, so he is as gimmicky as MC... and he crushes terrans a lot.
On September 19 2011 20:23 Drey wrote: Funny how Huk has been in code S for some time and doing decently and people still underestimates him.
^THIS^ Huk is the best performing Protoss in the world right now. It took frickin' MVP to knock him out of the GSL and the absolutely BRUTAL Thorzain (with Huk one of the two best foreign players out there) to knock him out of Dreamhack.
On September 19 2011 20:23 Drey wrote: Funny how Huk has been in code S for some time and doing decently and people still underestimates him.
^THIS^ Huk is the best performing Protoss in the world right now. It took frickin' MVP to knock him out of the GSL and the absolutely BRUTAL Thorzain (with Huk one of the two best foreign players out there) to knock him out of Dreamhack.
He didn't get out of group stages in both Assembly Summer & IEM... Come on, even MC did better by reaching the final crushing everyone except PuMa.
On September 19 2011 19:45 RenSC2 wrote: Sadly, the guys at the top of Protoss play don't seem like the best innovators, just great executors. That would include guys like Huk... great micro/macro, but innovator? No way.
It seems like the real innovators aren't necessarily the greatest macro/micro players. To save protoss, I'd look more to guys like White-Ra and Kiwikaki. Of course, it's unlikely that either of them will win a tournament with legit Koreans in it, but the better executors should look to those two to see how they handle PvT. Then they can copy it and execute it better for the wins.
As for Hero, when people say "he held off X with only Y", that's not innovation. That's good control. Top protoss players already have that. However, he does do a few interesting things, which makes me believe that maybe he's an innovator... still a little unsure on him. I'm not familiar enough with Sage, JYP, or Sase to comment on them, but no way is Nani an innovator... just another great executor.
All this talk about protoss players being great executors made me chuckle a bit.
Hongunprime is the best protoss in the world. He has a very solid style of play, and very consistent results in the GSL, despite his wrists problems. Genius, puzzle, Huk; they are all three decent but definately not strong enough to get to the finals of a GSL. TSL_JYP showed interesting PvZ, but failed hard in the past at other matchups. Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. Yet there are quite some code A protoss which could make code S this season hopefully. It is so saddening to see only 5/32 toss in code S . I am not so surprised by MC's result: He hasn't performed well in ages.
I wonder how many protoss there will be in next season GSL code S. The number is definetly not getting higher. All the protoss players got very hard group except Huk.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
On September 19 2011 19:56 bittman wrote: No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
Pretty sure he'll be going away quite soon.
It's not about getting the wins - the only one who benefits from HongUn's results is HongUn, that's not really the subject here at all. He's not displaying any remarkable personal skill or potential, he's not evolving Protoss play, he doesn't really bring much to the table at all, so it's really no surprise why he's overlooked.
He's like a less successful version of Polt.
Then again, MC's play was never really mind blowing either. I had a feeling that something like this would happen to him sooner or later.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Sase did played code A last season.
hence why I edited at the bottom of my post and said he was in korea a week maximum before hae played his games.
While I can respect your optimism, I can't really agree with this post at all. Nothing matters until one of these up and comers actually wins a Korean tournament. Who cares if some build works against lesser opponents when the true test is if it works against somebody like IMMvp or IMNestea.
Too many people also don't realize that the Chargelot/Prism/Phoenix strategy that Sage uses is from oGsMC. Sage himself even admitted in an interview that is where he got the build from. The OP is being WAAAAY too dismissive of MC. He's in a slump. Everybody slumps in a while.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Hero is better than Thorzain and Rain, his first game alone where he managed to last so long after defending a 2rax with 1gate way (late 2nd gateway), 1Stargate, losing 13 Probes and being 2mins behind on his expo should be enough to say that
Lol how is he a better player than ThorZain? ThorZain nearly won against DongRaeGu in his worst match-up, it's like HerO losing 2-3 against NesTea for a 15000 dollars match (aka NesTea playing seriously) since DRG is like top 2 ZvT, plus he crushed him head-to-head and has better results in the GSTL, equal results in GSL (1-2 in r32 code A). About Rain I'm not really sure if he is better than NaNiwa because it's close since Rain is not in korea anymore, games could have went either way, but ThorZain is definitively better than HerO.
I say Hero is because he is one of the few top Protoss's right now that is having any form of success these days, especially in PvZ where you have Zergs who don't even make a single creep tumor beating players like MC >_>
Yeah he is a promising protoss but he didn't lost against ThorZain because of his race or something like that... About MC he lost to HongUn so it's not only his race either, even if that doesn't help.
I feel that MC will smash MLG so hard now that he is in code B, MKP 1st MC 2nd with MC grabbing the code S spot
He went 1 Gate Stargate on a map that is one of the most 1-1-1 friendly maps in the pool and got countered by a 2rax that took out every sentry and all 13 probes.
Last game was "wtf", but I don't think that was a good series to base anything off...
Puzzle is pretty good. I wouldn't count him out from that group. How is he an honorable mention? He came out of nowhere, smashed through Code A, went straight up to Code S and smacked around some nerds in there before losing to Ryung strangely enough (who is terrible at TvP). I've seen some really cool play from Puzzle like warp prisms. He's probably the best we have. I expect a Protoss to win Code A though. Hero, Sage, and JYP are so good.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Hongunprime is the best protoss in the world. He has a very solid style of play, and very consistent results in the GSL, despite his wrists problems. Genius, puzzle, Huk; they are all three decent but definately not strong enough to get to the finals of a GSL. TSL_JYP showed interesting PvZ, but failed hard in the past at other matchups. Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. Yet there are quite some code A protoss which could make code S this season hopefully. It is so saddening to see only 5/32 toss in code S . I am not so surprised by MC's result: He hasn't performed well in ages.
No, Hongun is just bad. His wins have come largely from a combination of luck, easy brackets, and the surprise factor of his cheesy strats.
Puzzle is probably the best protoss in the world right now.
To be honest, I can't really share your optimism. The perfect example why this is the case could be IdrA vs Hero on Metalopolis. IdrA was ridiculously ahead after the DT-opener (problem #1: DTs are reduced to a gimmick/cheese in SC2) and floated up to 5k minerals. Hero climbed back into the game with crazy multipronged aggression. He warped in from two warpprisms and furthermore attacked with blinkstalker/colossu. Yet if IdrA had dumped half of his excess-minerals in spine-crawlers, the harass would've been 100% nullified. Zealots are terrible vs walls of spines. Same holds true for the playstyle of Sage. Not only is this style hard to pull off, but - from an observer-perspective - it doesn't look like it's that hard to stop if you know it's coming.
To not produce a wall of text: protoss just lacks a good non-cheesy harassment unit that can accompany the deathball-style which is caused by the necessity of sentries. Without that I'm afraid that the "new" styles will get figured out rather quickly. Zergs need a spire anyways, won't take long until they patrol a single mutalisk at the edge of their bases.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
On September 19 2011 20:52 tubs wrote: While I can respect your optimism, I can't really agree with this post at all. Nothing matters until one of these up and comers actually wins a Korean tournament. Who cares if some build works against lesser opponents when the true test is if it works against somebody like IMMvp or IMNestea.
Too many people also don't realize that the Chargelot/Prism/Phoenix strategy that Sage uses is from oGsMC. Sage himself even admitted in an interview that is where he got the build from. The OP is being WAAAAY too dismissive of MC. He's in a slump. Everybody slumps in a while.
Actually almost every popular protoss strategy has been derived from MC in some way or another. I think JYP, Hero and Sage appear to be using storm drops to the point where it looks like it's their thing, but MC was doing it first. He was basically they guy who popularised x gate timing pushes. Forge Fast expands. Air vs Terran. Air harass vs Zerg. The Warp Prism templar ship. Mass sentry expands. Etc.
He's definitely in a slump, but he's not to be looked away from for inspiration.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
On September 19 2011 21:24 Talin wrote: HuK plays very similar to MC anyway, similar general style and mindset. Not something I'd put my money on right now.
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
Results don't tell the whole story.
I look at a lot of things, results, playstyle, quality of opponents. His playstyle is okay but nothing to drool over. Then if you look at his matches against the quality of opponents he's had to play it's pretty depressing. At least when Bomber and DRG were failing to qualify they were owning quality people in other tournaments.
In which matchup exactly does Huk play like MC? Do you mean PvZ where Huk usually goes blink and MC always goes Stargate? Or PvT where Huk usually goes for earlyish Colossi and MC more frequently goes for storm 1st instead? Or do you mean PvP where they both go one of the handful of viable builds?
On September 19 2011 21:33 althaz wrote: In which matchup exactly does Huk play like MC? Do you mean PvZ where Huk usually goes blink and MC always goes Stargate? Or PvT where Huk usually goes for earlyish Colossi and MC more frequently goes for storm 1st instead? Or do you mean PvP where they both go one of the handful of viable builds?
Huks play definately reminds me alot of MCs, altho not nearly as much recently.
I'm shocked by the pessimism of a lot of Protoss fans here. MC was just overrated and frankly never THAT good, I'm sure someone else will emerge as the best Protoss and show everyone how it's meant to be played.
On September 19 2011 19:56 bittman wrote: No HongUn? Everyone always forgets about him, or just dismisses him because when he loses...well he loses. But he constantly beats players in "surprise". I doubt he'll ever revolutionise the race, but he's not going away any time soon haha.
HongUn is terrible gimmicky player and I'm willing to bet he will be in code B in 4 seasons.. If he has to be our protoss hero, then I'll rather be heroless.
Lovely attitude. Bet you think TheBest and Rain are terrible players too, since your adjective of "terrible" is based on what has been, not what could be. There are a lot of players who were gimmicky as hell, and have really looked strong since copping a slap to the face.
Protoss heroes obviously aren't going to be coming from "what has been", but rather "what could be". If you personally are looking for a hero, don't be picky if one appears and you don't like him because he looked bad in the past.
MC used to be the toss hero, and people thought he was laughable in Brood War. Take what you get, don't act entitled =P
lol, of course they are terrible. I mean sure, they're much better than me and better than most of foreigners pros, but we are talking here about the top korean level. Actually comparing hongun to rain is pretty accurate. Thing is, Hongun could be considered top5 toss in the world. Rain can't be considered even top20 terran. Imagine you have no MVP, Bomber, Taeja, MMA, Ryung, Puma, Nada, Ganzi, MKP, SC............ and your fate depends on TheBest and Rain. Would you feel good?
Yea, I know your point is it's important what they show in the future and you're right. But this is exactly why I don't like hongun, trickster and genius, while I love Sage and JYP who have yet to show some real results. Many months ago Hongun was hyped a lot by artosis who said he had the best PvZ in the world. I remember I really liked his play, but despite some good results, he didn't really progress as a player. He still goes for some old allins, sometimes mix in a new one, wins few games, loses few games. Mediocre player at best. There's no sign of a revolutionary style in his play, unlike Sage and JYP. If he's lucky, he may hang on in GSL for a while, but he's not the one to change current state of protoss.
On September 19 2011 21:49 MilesTeg wrote: I'm shocked by the pessimism of a lot of Protoss fans here. MC was just overrated and frankly never THAT good, I'm sure someone else will emerge as the best Protoss and show everyone how it's meant to be played.
Comparing MC to any other Protoss player tends to make the other player look kinda bad. He's still the best Protoss player around.
If *anyone* else was having any sort of success you might have a point, but they aren't. Metagame or balance, Protoss is just absolutely awful right now.
On September 19 2011 21:24 Talin wrote: HuK plays very similar to MC anyway, similar general style and mindset. Not something I'd put my money on right now.
On September 19 2011 21:21 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:39 Tommylew wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
Results don't tell the whole story.
I look at a lot of things, results, playstyle, quality of opponents. His playstyle is okay but nothing to drool over. Then if you look at his matches against the quality of opponents he's had to play it's pretty depressing. At least when Bomber and DRG were failing to qualify they were owning quality people in other tournaments.
So you look at a lot of things, but in the end still end up talking about results and opponents.
I'm really not sure what you see in Puzzle or Tassadar that HerO doesn't have when it comes to his play alone. HerO's multitasking and micro is easily superior, and I'm not sure what part of his game would you consider to be worse (decision making perhaps, but that's got a lot to do with external factors like nerves etc).
Looking at pure playing ability, I see JYP and HerO as the only players who seem to have the raw RTS skill to compete at the top in the future (and stay there as the game evolves, rather than falling off once their strategies have been figured out).
HuK definitely deserves to be on the list especially if Naniwa is there. Not to forget Puzzle.
But other than that, i liked your writing. Glad you have some optimism left lol! I was a bit "shocked" that MC lost, even though i knew he is having a little slump, but still should have beaten Monster in my eyes. I'm not that sad about Alicias lost. Select fanboy and he deserved his win.
Definitely waiting for HerOs, Sages and SaSe's performance!
On September 19 2011 21:15 KinQuh wrote: Bro you forgot Mana.
Read the text. This seems to be completely focusing on GSL and Protosses there.
On September 19 2011 22:04 TedJustice wrote: Once the patch hits, we'll see some new protoss macro champion who uses warp prisms and techs to carriers in a non-cheesy way.
You heard it here first.
Once the patch hits everyone will allin with Immortals you mean.
On September 19 2011 21:51 Kipsate wrote: We need a revolutionist, and Liquid_Hero is pretty enough to do that.
cuz hes on Liquid ? I like this guy but he hasnt impressed me with any fresh way of playing protoss. Talking about revolution, coming in my mind is only Sage with his Bisu-esque play in his gstl allkill and JYP with his harass-based style last GSL. Puzzle, Huk is pretty good, pretty solid but they wont be able to do much with the current metagame. Hero is still kinda shaky.
On September 19 2011 21:24 Talin wrote: HuK plays very similar to MC anyway, similar general style and mindset. Not something I'd put my money on right now.
On September 19 2011 21:21 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:39 Tommylew wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
Results don't tell the whole story.
I look at a lot of things, results, playstyle, quality of opponents. His playstyle is okay but nothing to drool over. Then if you look at his matches against the quality of opponents he's had to play it's pretty depressing. At least when Bomber and DRG were failing to qualify they were owning quality people in other tournaments.
So you look at a lot of things, but in the end still end up talking about results and opponents.
I'm really not sure what you see in Puzzle or Tassadar that HerO doesn't have when it comes to his play alone. HerO's multitasking and micro is easily superior, and I'm not sure what part of his game would you consider to be worse (decision making perhaps, but that's got a lot to do with external factors like nerves etc).
Looking at pure playing ability, I see JYP and HerO as the only players who seem to have the raw RTS skill to compete at the top in the future (and stay there as the game evolves, rather than falling off once their strategies have been figured out).
Any top level player can look good playing much worse players. JYP, Sage, Tassadar, and Puzzle give great performances when they're playing against the best of the best.
Nestea seriously looks like a chump when he plays against MMA or MVP, but then he plays against someone like Ensnare and looks like an unstoppable god. Better players will MAKE you play worse, it's not that they're choking.
On September 19 2011 21:51 Kipsate wrote: We need a revolutionist, and Liquid_Hero is pretty enough to do that.
Honestly, a few good games and the fact that his shirt color is blue, does not justify the hype and expectations placed on him. Puzzle is much more likely to be a Protoss hope, if there will ever be one.
On September 19 2011 21:51 Kipsate wrote: We need a revolutionist, and Liquid_Hero is pretty enough to do that.
cuz hes on Liquid ? I like this guy but he hasnt impressed me with any fresh way of playing protoss. Talking about revolution, coming in my mind is only Sage with his Bisu-esque play in his gstl allkill and JYP with his harass-based style last GSL. Puzzle, Huk is pretty good, pretty solid but they wont be able to do much with the current metagame. Hero is still kinda shaky.
Hero's PvZ looked awesome vs IdrA and the concept was reminding me alot of Sage in GSTL (although you can argue IdrA is currently not up to par with his korean Zerg counterparts). I want to see him develop more in televised matches, he has really great potential.
Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Funny how a couple of the protoss heros you listed are balancer "whiners" themselves haha. Anyway what this comes down to is basically just a whining about the whiners post. Seriously is it impossible to admit there might be a problem? The protoss heros on the front page aren't even capable of being competitive vs high end code S zergs and terrans and they all basically rock 50 percent winrates like hongun and Alicia before them, so I don't really get why you expect anything to be accomplished. Protoss winrate is still in the tank, barely any are making out of Code A, and they aren't even competitive at the highest level. If you're a protoss player fan watching this game is just a sense of freaking dread that is 99% of the time realized.
So you look at a lot of things, but in the end still end up talking about results and opponents.
I'm really not sure what you see in Puzzle or Tassadar that HerO doesn't have when it comes to his play alone. HerO's multitasking and micro is easily superior, and I'm not sure what part of his game would you consider to be worse (decision making perhaps, but that's got a lot to do with external factors like nerves etc).
Hero is terribly overrated on TL (understandable). It's quite irrelevant how good his play looks against foreigners, he's 4-13 in Korea. I don't want to write him down, he had some nice games against DRG, but he has to prove himself and his play in Korea.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
How can I not be negative considering the fact that as a viewer the experience is completely ruined for me. I'm suffocated by GomTvTvTvT and everytime I see a match with a protoss in GSL I know they are gonna lose. It's completely depressing. There's a growing amount of people in GSL who just don't even lose vs Protoss.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
that's not a good example as there never was a protoss bonjwa, protoss has by far the least amount of MSL/OSL titles and the only time toss race was dominating lasted like 5 months haha.
Here are the last 5 games of the top 13 Protosses in Korea by ELO. Note that this was made before JYP's games today, so give him another 2 wins (and the best record of the list):
what the hell... why does no one take hong un into consideration? hes like always doing well on gsl while every other protoss just falls and dies and everyone just ignores him! -_-
On September 19 2011 21:51 Kipsate wrote: We need a revolutionist, and Liquid_Hero is pretty enough to do that.
cuz hes on Liquid ? I like this guy but he hasnt impressed me with any fresh way of playing protoss. Talking about revolution, coming in my mind is only Sage with his Bisu-esque play in his gstl allkill and JYP with his harass-based style last GSL. Puzzle, Huk is pretty good, pretty solid but they wont be able to do much with the current metagame. Hero is still kinda shaky.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
that's not a good example as there never was a protoss bonjwa, protoss has by far the least amount of MSL/OSL titles and the only time toss race was dominating lasted like 5 months haha.
Precisely: out of 60 MSL/OSL tournaments protoss players won 13. Even though the common opinion was that imbalances lied more in the maps than the races itself, toss was always considered very easy race to play at lower leves but the hardest to play at absolute top level.
I hate how you accuse MC of being stuck in the past. He is the only one that has innovated worth a damn and his playstyle is completely different. How is he stuck in the past? Oh I'm sorry he should of used warp prisms or something. Then when he lost with that you guys would be sitting here saying MC should've played standard.
As much as I love my brotoss' I honestly think the race itself has major fundamental flaws in it. Its not underpowered or overpowered, it just encourages some cheesy gimmicky move which is very easy to stop as people get used to it. Notice how protoss has a billion timing attacks and very little "stable" strategies.
Here is hoping for the next expansion to change the way the race works.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
Please point out where I am whiny.
In order for SC2 to ever be regarded as a fair sports competition, you have to make sure you get a somewhat even battlefield. Otherwise it is all just a farce. Ever asked yourself why noone is taking prefessional wrestling serious? People there also prefer romantic legends over fair competition...
And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Players should be protected from investing heavily into something which is systematically not archievable, since they themselves are not in the position to worry about these things without having their performance affected. Its not about dropping a league or something, for these people there are lives and careeres on the line. If esports is to become serious, people need to take it serious and act responsibly.
On September 19 2011 21:24 Talin wrote: HuK plays very similar to MC anyway, similar general style and mindset. Not something I'd put my money on right now.
On September 19 2011 21:21 Itsmedudeman wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:39 Tommylew wrote:
On September 19 2011 20:34 Anomandaris wrote: Sase, Naniwa, Hero; you love for TL and the foreign community blinds you. They barely stand their own in code A. .
Hero has played well in GSTL so can do very well in Code A, Sase hasnt played in Code A yet, Nani played in last Code A, the DAY AFTER arriving in korea so no time to practice on korean server etc, so yeh judge him on this CODE A not the last one.
EDIT, Could be wrong on Sase but I know if anything he wasnt ih korea for too long eithier. A week mamximun.
Wtf? Hero gets destroyed in GSTL just about every time or isn't even sent out to begin with.
I honestly have no idea where Hero has had success. He keeps failing to make it out of the ro32 in code A and he lost to a terran at dreamhack, albeit one of the best terrans in the foreign scene, but still not even in the top 20 terrans. I feel like JYP, Puzzle, Sage, and even Tassadar have had more impressive performances. Just because they don't appear in foreign tournaments to own foreigners doesn't mean they couldn't do the same as Hero.
Results don't tell the whole story.
I look at a lot of things, results, playstyle, quality of opponents. His playstyle is okay but nothing to drool over. Then if you look at his matches against the quality of opponents he's had to play it's pretty depressing. At least when Bomber and DRG were failing to qualify they were owning quality people in other tournaments.
So you look at a lot of things, but in the end still end up talking about results and opponents.
I'm really not sure what you see in Puzzle or Tassadar that HerO doesn't have when it comes to his play alone. HerO's multitasking and micro is easily superior, and I'm not sure what part of his game would you consider to be worse (decision making perhaps, but that's got a lot to do with external factors like nerves etc).
Looking at pure playing ability, I see JYP and HerO as the only players who seem to have the raw RTS skill to compete at the top in the future (and stay there as the game evolves, rather than falling off once their strategies have been figured out).
Any top level player can look good playing much worse players. JYP, Sage, Tassadar, and Puzzle give great performances when they're playing against the best of the best.
Nestea seriously looks like a chump when he plays against MMA or MVP, but then he plays against someone like Ensnare and looks like an unstoppable god. Better players will MAKE you play worse, it's not that they're choking.
A player can't look good or bad, he's either playing good or he's making a lot of mistakes, and if he's making a lot of mistakes he's making them for a very specific reason.
In all of HerO's games that he lost, I can't really remember more than one or two cases that were due to the other player simply having better mechanics (and absolutely none if we're looking at series as a whole).
Vast majority of his losses were due to lack of game sense (BO losses), making bad decisions in a critical moment or just choosing a very risky build and risk not paying off. And tbh those are the best ways to lose a game and the easiest things to fix. On the other hand, becoming better at multitasking is much, much harder - no matter how hard you practice, there's a barrier that you'll almost never be able to break.
If I were picking a prospect for long term, I'd put my money on someone who has a good core skill set, and I just don't see that in the majority of Protoss players that people rank higher than HerO.
On September 19 2011 22:40 sekritzzz wrote: As much as I love my brotoss' I honestly think the race itself has major fundamental flaws in it. Its not underpowered or overpowered, it just encourages some cheesy gimmicky move which is very easy to stop as people get used to it. Notice how protoss has a billion timing attacks and very little "stable" strategies.
Here is hoping for the next expansion to change the way the race works.
Yup. Main reason is the sentry (warpgates coming close second). With forcefields being able to reducing the DPS of your opponent effectively by 40-50% if you do it right, the "ball"-style is much, much, much more powerful than anything else.
If you increase stalker-DPS, then stalker/sentry-pushs will roflstomp over everything. And still, the stalker itself would still be inferior to roaches/marauders dps-per-cost-wise.
Much could change with a potent harassment-unit, this is what I hope for with HotS.
TBH, the best statement on game balance would be if MC actually switched to Terran and went back to Code S. Then all these drooling idiots who claim that "lolol MC was never good" can shut their mouths.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
SC2 by now has inhouses, coaches, structured teams aswell as inhouse practice partners, their approach is virtually the same as BW which is one of the reasons why the Koreans are so much better then the foreigners on average.
Slayers is a prime example of the BW method and style, courtesy of Boxer's legacy. Their builds(and korean builds in general) are refined to the max.
On September 19 2011 23:00 sc14s wrote: so huk is just an honorable mention... wtf?
Lol this is the dude who apparently thinks SaSe has begun to outclass MC. His list and foolish optimism is a joke >.>. This is basically just throwing MC and Alicia under the bus even though most of his freakin list was in Code B like 1 month ago, but now apparently it invalidates them.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
SC2 by now has inhouses, coaches, structured teams aswell as inhouse practice partners, their approach is virtually the same as BW which is one of the reasons why the Koreans are so much better then the foreigners on average.
Slayers is a prime example of the BW method and style, courtesy of Boxer's legacy. Their builds(and korean builds in general) are refined to the max.
SlayerS is the prime and ONLY example.
I don't see any team anywhere similar to SlayerS right now. IM and oGs strike me as very individualistic, with players pretty much managing their own training and practice partners.
To say that as a whole, progamers training and learning is more systematic in SC2 is still wrong. Korean Brood War has like 8x SlayerS (at least).
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
It is like trying to sell a machine which is based upon physics which needs to be invented somewhere in the future. Who are you expecting to believe that it will work?
I see that people are treating starcraft like a religion, but i didnt think they would do it literally.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
I think you forgot to mention a protoss that has been dishing out new tactics for protoss but has been in the shadows from Korean pro terrans and is mostly unknown at the tmoment.
The player is NexSickness and from tyhe few games I was able to get my hands on, he pulls out tricks not many people have used yet. Hopefully, he will come out of the large skilled but relatively unknown korean crowd.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
It is like trying to sell a machine which is based upon physics which needs to be invented somewhere in the future. Who are you expecting to believe that it will work?
I see that people are treating starcraft like a religion, but i didnt think they would do it literally.
Nobody is treating the ga,e like a religion. We just know how BW evolved, but whatever man, its clear your mind is set so no point in discussing
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
Please point out where I am whiny.
In order for SC2 to ever be regarded as a fair sports competition, you have to make sure you get a somewhat even battlefield. Otherwise it is all just a farce. Ever asked yourself why noone is taking prefessional wrestling serious? People there also prefer romantic legends over fair competition...
And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Players should be protected from investing heavily into something which is systematically not archievable, since they themselves are not in the position to worry about these things without having their performance affected. Its not about dropping a league or something, for these people there are lives and careeres on the line. If esports is to become serious, people need to take it serious and act responsibly.
You shouldn't comment about BW if you don't know very much about the game or its competitive scene. It just makes your overall point look equally thoughtless.
Not trying to be an ass, but the reason I'm assuming you don't follow BW is because if you did, you would know how ridiculous it is to say that SC2 is more figured out than BW.
Also, no one takes professional wrestling seriously because it is staged.
On September 19 2011 19:04 althaz wrote: Hero is our hope in PvZ (which I think is close to balanced and just suffering from meta-game problems atm, Bliz doesn't need to nerf infestors, IMO), because he is the BEST in that matchup in the world, bar none. In fact to me he seems like the most talented player running around in SC2, but he needs to work harder on his forward planning to get there. So frickin' good tho.
However, I feel like Huk is maybe the best at PvT (mostly due to his ridiculous control when defending), it's just that the matchup is kinda hard right now (many Toss can't win it at all). Huk also has excellent PvZ and very solid PvP (insofar as anybody does). He's also still in Code S and doing pretty well in general. I understand he's not a new player but he is getting better and better as I think at this stage that not only is he the most likely foreign player to take a Code S win but he's also the most likely Protoss to take out the tournament as well. However I don't think a Protoss will win anything major until Factory pushes can be dealt with after expanding (whilst still being safe to Bio pressure) and they get a buff or 2 (or Terran get a nerf ofc).
Hero is the most talented player running around in sc2? What are you smoking!
Never made code s. 2-0'd by thorzain yesterday, overhyped due to joining liquid.
Sure, protoss hasn't been doing very well lately but if you just look at the gsl you will see that zerg players (except for maybe nestea and to some extent losira as well) isn't doing superb either. The difference between zerg and terran is bigger than zerg and protoss, so i wouldn't say that the main problem is that protoss isn't doing very well right now. But great thread though, i agree with most of what is said
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
So it's just a coincidence none of the top players picked protoss, and MC who was once regarded as the best in the world, now can't even beat a 35 percent winrate zerg a few months later. I totally buy it!
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
So it's just a coincidence none of the top players picked protoss, and MC who was once regarded as the best in the world, now can't even beat a 35 percent winrate zerg a few months later. I totally buy it!
Reminds me of what happens to FruitDealer/IntoTheRainbow/MarineKing (to some extent).
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
So it's just a coincidence none of the top players picked protoss, and MC who was once regarded as the best in the world, now can't even beat a 35 percent winrate zerg a few months later. I totally buy it!
Reminds me of what happens to FruitDealer/IntoTheRainbow/MarineKing (to some extent).
Completely different. Fruitdealer had a 1 month run but MC has been regarded as the best protoss and for a time best period for a year.
toss has always been the weakest race, it's about time zergs finally learned how to play. warpgate units are absolutely terrible because of wg, hts are a joke (fungal does more and keeps units in place lololol), collosus have units dedicated to fuck em up, and voids are expensive as fuck and die to handful of marines (dont get me started on the mothership and carriers). the only save grace we have is that we can turtle and form a deathball, which seems to be the only way our units function effectively.
Sigh. Once again it seems no one really thinks about HongUn. Even anypro isn’t on that list of honorable mentions, and they’ve both had good, consistent results in the GSL (well may be not as much for anypro, but definitely for HongUn). Or, by not mentioning HongUn, are you saying he is good? It’s unclear because you say “Code S and players like MC and Alicia”. I think at the moment HongUn is just about as good as both of them, if not better (he hasn’t even fallen to Code A yet and has had wrist problems), or at least in the tournament result sense.
Anyway I disagree with you saying Genius is so underrated. He’s good and he’s Code S but he isn’t greater than many other Code S players. But that’s all personal experience to say someone is underrated, so perhaps the people you’ve seen do not like Genius a lot.
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
So it's just a coincidence none of the top players picked protoss, and MC who was once regarded as the best in the world, now can't even beat a 35 percent winrate zerg a few months later. I totally buy it!
I'm not selling anything.
I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
While it may seem weird to you that one race/faction in a game doesn't have a genuine top player for a period of time, if you've been following RTS games for a little longer than just SC2, you'll know that it isn't unheard of at all.
On September 19 2011 23:59 Choboo wrote: Lol no Mana?
Didn't he just get 3-0ed by MC? You know, that protoss that apparently is irrelevant now?
Isn't he the only Protoss in the world that consistently beats Korean Terrans? 5-2 vs Puma, 2-0 Nada, 3-0 Thorzain (you know, that guy who beat Hero 2-0 who is supposedly the new Protoss hope)... That series vs. MC was also very whacky and Mana said afterwards he didn't play his best because he was nervous and did strategies he wouldn't normally do.
Isn't this all summed up in that the one protoss hope from before was able to rely on timings for easy wins because of many factors much more than the other races? OGSMC and I don't blame him I would use a 6 pool for the 50k prize pool, but his main moves in games were timings that were built to exploit a sudden macro burst which made his attacks powerful and follow that up with DECENT small army micro and you would get a win. Though I wouldn't toss Alicia off the wagon yet he can late game army micro manage like a BOSS, his overall strategy and in game choices tend to leave him in the losing column for now, but some of the best BW players took other players strategies and just played them better
We still got..HuK.. come on guys... protoss will bounce back... trust me..send MC to mlg NOW!! get him his Code A. MC = December Code S champ.. you heard it here!
On September 19 2011 22:43 perestain wrote: And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Eh, no idea where you got the "way more systematic approach" in SC2. -_- The exact opposite is the case, actually. Brood War has much better structured teams, dedicated coaches and in-house practice partners whose job is basically to test builds.
Also, "metagame messiahs" are actually a common phenomenon in RTS games. Most of the times where a game took a big evolutionary step, it's been ONE GUY who figured something out and found a way to include it in the game.
Even if you're right, it doesnt make a difference, you have to actually make sure you have an even battlefield, not assume someone will eventually come and make it even, otherwise results are not worth much.
If you constantly keep artificially "evening out" the battlefield every time the results aren't balanced, then it's quite literally not a sport or even a competition (or even a game).
Besides, it's not like you're not dealing in guesses and assumptions - you're ASSUMING that there is no solution to a problem. And you're assuming that after like what, 2 or 3 months of that problem's appearance? (2-3 months = nothing in an competitive RTS's lifetime)
Well numbers suggest Terran being on top for what, a year now. Its just a degree of how much on top they are. Protoss and Zerg taking turns on being buttom and middle. Its really not 2-3 month period at all
Do you watch numbers, or do you watch Starcraft?
I watch Starcraft, and based on the games and players' display of skill that I see and given the current level of competition I EXPECT mvp, Bomber, MMA and Nada to be in the top constantly (even though that isn't the case), as they are genuine top level players and they show it through their mechanics and generally having extremely strong RTS fundamentals. I expect the same of NesTea and to a lesser extent LosirA and DRG (even though the latter two also haven't had too much success at all).
If these players were to win the next 10 starleagues among the current competition, I still wouldn't see a problem with the game at all.
So it's just a coincidence none of the top players picked protoss, and MC who was once regarded as the best in the world, now can't even beat a 35 percent winrate zerg a few months later. I totally buy it!
I'm not selling anything.
I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else"... no. -_-
While it may seem weird to you that one race/faction in a game doesn't have a genuine top player for a period of time, if you've been following RTS games for a little longer than just SC2, you'll know that it isn't unheard of at all.
Haha what bullshit. Clearly MC did understand the game because apparently his timing attack style was the only thing capable of winning. Now that's gone and protoss is nothing. It's extremely unlikely that if the races are equal there wouldn't be a bomber equivalent or close to for protoss, or at least another MC. Either something about protoss is limiting or hinders progress or it's just plain not good enough.
I wouldn't balance the future of the game around MCs approach to the game, he won with massive gateway timing attacks and cheeses... hes not winning now because players have him figured out. Puzzle is a beast though along with Sage.
On September 20 2011 00:11 Ashes wrote: We still got..HuK.. come on guys... protoss will bounce back... trust me..send MC to mlg NOW!! get him his Code A. MC = December Code S champ.. you heard it here!
On September 20 2011 00:11 Ashes wrote: We still got..HuK.. come on guys... protoss will bounce back... trust me..send MC to mlg NOW!! get him his Code A. MC = December Code S champ.. you heard it here!
Except he can't get code A through MLG.
I thought he could, if he wins, because he is not coded anymore (A or S)
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
While it may seem weird to you that one race/faction in a game doesn't have a genuine top player for a period of time, if you've been following RTS games for a little longer than just SC2, you'll know that it isn't unheard of at all.
It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
Time is ripe for a protoss to step up and become the champion of aiur. That or they're all utterly destroyed and we find ourselves in a bit of a pickle with SC2.
Well, I must say, MC did become a tad less consistent in his play recently, but him falling to Code B is too much. I think when a 2 time GSL champion (quite recent too!) falls to Code B it's not just him being a worse player than before. He lost to a random nameless Zerg of whom I have not heard of until now. I hate GSL's system! Today is a very dark day.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other T/Z players have. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw. Right now he's doing worse than many Protoss as well.
MC's mentality was very short-term benefit oriented. And he did have short term benefit, and now he's going to have to improve drastically and figure out a solid way to play.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did. Sickens me how fast people are throwing MC under the bus even though he is the only protoss to ever accomplish anything in Korea. And we can do something, encourage blizzard to actually balance the freakin game.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
I'm sorry, but wanting the game to change so that GSL can entertain you more just doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for me. It's a competition, not a show.
Also, you can't encourage Blizzard to do absolutely anything. They do things when they want and how they want. Just because some changes (not nearly all of them) coincide with what the masses wanted in the past doesn't mean that all the whining has any influence on their decisions.
Wow show some respect. The only player you listed that is even close to being on par with MC is LiquidHero and hes a PvZ specialist. Any Protoss player that got MC's opponents would be in Code B right now. MC isn't playing godly because hes in a slump and MC is in a slump because blizzard Patched Protoss out of the GSL
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
At TvP yes Puzzle is much better than Ryung. And if the matchup is indeed imbalanced how do you expect MC to look better than his opponent rofl...simply baffling. You are the type of guy that will simply never admit imbalance no matter what. Even if there are 0 toss in Code S. It is not natural that not even one protoss player is competitive at the top level in such a large scene.
On September 20 2011 00:44 VTPerfect wrote: Wow show some respect. The only player you listed that is even close to being on par with MC is LiquidHero and hes a PvZ specialist. Any Protoss player that got MC's opponents would be in Code B right now. MC isn't playing godly because hes in a slump and MC is in a slump because blizzard Patched Protoss out of the GSL
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
I'm sorry, but wanting the game to change so that GSL can entertain you more just doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for me. It's a competition, not a show.
Also, you can't encourage Blizzard to do absolutely anything. They do things when they want and how they want. Just because some changes (not nearly all of them) coincide with what the masses wanted in the past doesn't mean that all the whining has any influence on their decisions.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung, simply because look at how far Ryung is from the top of his race, whilst Puzzle is easily top 5 and i'm heavily stretching it. I find it really hard to believe all the experienced players decided to randomly pick zerg or terran. I don't even get how you can even argue that?
Maybe protoss getting knocked out left and right has something to do with the consistent whine-related nerfs it has suffered because our win rates took a nose dive right after the buffs zerg/terran got.
It would be interesting to know what the koreans think about MC being knocked out and oevral toss balance. Does anyone read orean and can go check that out pls?
On September 20 2011 00:52 Anomandaris wrote: It would be interesting to know what the koreans think about MC being knocked out and oevral toss balance. Does anyone read orean and can go check that out pls?
Play XP poll had like a ridiculous amount saying Protoss is underpowered and that was even before MC fell to code A I think. The consensus in Korea is that terran is op and Protoss sucks I believe.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Im pretty sure Monster and SeleCT were better players than MC and Alicia. ^^
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Im pretty sure Monster and SeleCT were better players than MC and Alicia. ^^
Well duh. Don't you know only horrible players pick protoss?
This thread is reaching Battle.net 2010 zerg whine levels. There's about the same amount of zergs in Code S and Code A so i guess they don't really have much of a chance either. Maybe it's more of terran being a bit to good than protoss being so utterly horrible.
Also there's changes incoming that at least marginally affects PvZ in favour of protoss.
On September 20 2011 00:56 karpo wrote: This thread is reaching Battle.net 2010 zerg whine levels. There's about the same amount of zergs in Code S so i guess they don't really have much of a chance either. Maybe it's more of terran being a bit to good than protoss being so utterly horrible.
Also there's changes incoming that at least marginally affects PvZ in favour of protoss.
Zergs didn't micro. Seriously. Go back and look at their games. Toss mentality was changed by MC's dominant performance that is all.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair.
On September 20 2011 00:11 Ashes wrote: We still got..HuK.. come on guys... protoss will bounce back... trust me..send MC to mlg NOW!! get him his Code A. MC = December Code S champ.. you heard it here!
Except he can't get code A through MLG.
I thought he could, if he wins, because he is not coded anymore (A or S)
I am afraid not. Koreans can't get code A spot through MLG, only code S when they are in the top 3.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
I'm sorry, but wanting the game to change so that GSL can entertain you more just doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for me. It's a competition, not a show.
Also, you can't encourage Blizzard to do absolutely anything. They do things when they want and how they want. Just because some changes (not nearly all of them) coincide with what the masses wanted in the past doesn't mean that all the whining has any influence on their decisions.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung, simply because look at how far Ryung is from the top of his race, whilst Puzzle is easily top 5 and i'm heavily stretching it. I find it really hard to believe all the experienced players decided to randomly pick zerg or terran. I don't even get how you can even argue that?
Whoa, that's a LOT of relativistic arguments. Ryung isn't a top 5 Terran therefore he can't possibly be a better (or even equal) player than a top 5 Protoss? Are we even discussing Starcraft here, or is it just some arbitrary ranking logic based on statistics alone? -_-
On September 20 2011 00:50 sekritzzz wrote: Maybe protoss getting knocked out left and right has something to do with the consistent whine-related nerfs it has suffered because our win rates took a nose dive right after the buffs zerg/terran got.
No. Masses of people whined and Blizzard implemented balance changes - it doesn't mean whining caused the change. Most of the time the changes weren't even close to what the community wanted.
On September 20 2011 00:59 hummingbird23 wrote: This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
How is "this is not Brood War" sentence invalidating anything I said?
Brood War waited quite a while for Bisu, and then it waited a long time for JangBi, while Terran and Zerg lined up one bonjwa after the other and surprisingly enough it didn't collapse as an e-sport.
Too bad it's nearly inconceivable for JYP or Hero to advance to code S with all the terrans. They have awful PvT. Puzzle really is the only hope but he is probably gonna go to the up and downs with the group he has so yeah.
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Im pretty sure Monster and SeleCT were better players than MC and Alicia. ^^
Lol Alicia loses to ToD in a balanced match-up, PvP, pretty hardcore. What did you expect? :D Slayers were "bad" in TvP and seems to be good enough only recently so maybe it had to do with their main protoss not being solid enough in PvT... And Monster is sick good, but yeah PvZ is insanely hard. MC will be back don't worry
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWnm7UpsXk
Fixed.
exactly this, seems like judgment's day is about to hit us all xD, just look at what zerg went trough, they were getting their asses handed because they would not try something else and they would just want to cry their hearts out, now their using strategies that have been in the age since release almost but that noone figured out till a bit ago, protoss isnt in such a bad shape, even though its currently week
On September 19 2011 19:04 Yaki wrote: Protoss in general are having a bad time it's not just MC and Alicia. HerO and Naniwa got roflestomped by terran at Dreamhack. Just wait MC will make a come back and win a championship again.
Except that Rain & ThorZain were better players than NaNiWa and Hero ^^'.
Im pretty sure Monster and SeleCT were better players than MC and Alicia. ^^
Lol Alicia loses to ToD in a balanced match-up, PvP, pretty hardcore. What did you expect? :D Slayers were "bad" in TvP and seems to be good enough only recently so maybe it had to do with their main protoss not being solid enough in PvT... And Monster is sick good, but yeah PvZ is insanely hard. MC will be back don't worry
Alicia was a PvT sniper and his best match-up was PvT before the protoss downfall.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWnm7UpsXk
Fixed.
exactly this, seems like judgment's day is about to hit us all xD, just look at what zerg went trough, they were getting their asses handed because they would not try something else and they would just want to cry their hearts out, now their using strategies that have been in the age since release almost but that noone figured out till a bit ago, protoss isnt in such a bad shape, even though its currently week
Zerg wasn't even close to this bad of shape, and guess what? They got buffed, and toss got nerfed. CONSIDERABLY. Perhaps you should try drawing an accurate comparison?
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
I'm sorry, but wanting the game to change so that GSL can entertain you more just doesn't sound like a very convincing reason for me. It's a competition, not a show.
Also, you can't encourage Blizzard to do absolutely anything. They do things when they want and how they want. Just because some changes (not nearly all of them) coincide with what the masses wanted in the past doesn't mean that all the whining has any influence on their decisions.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung, simply because look at how far Ryung is from the top of his race, whilst Puzzle is easily top 5 and i'm heavily stretching it. I find it really hard to believe all the experienced players decided to randomly pick zerg or terran. I don't even get how you can even argue that?
Whoa, that's a LOT of relativistic arguments. Ryung isn't a top 5 Terran therefore he can't possibly be a better (or even equal) player than a top 5 Protoss? Are we even discussing Starcraft here, or is it just some arbitrary ranking logic based on statistics alone? -_-
On September 20 2011 00:50 sekritzzz wrote: Maybe protoss getting knocked out left and right has something to do with the consistent whine-related nerfs it has suffered because our win rates took a nose dive right after the buffs zerg/terran got.
No. Masses of people whined and Blizzard implemented balance changes - it doesn't mean whining caused the change. Most of the time the changes weren't even close to what the community wanted.
Its not relativistic, rather its proof that there is something fundamentally wrong with the race or as you say..........for every 95% of the people that are good in playing starcraft 65% pick terran, 30% pick zerg. The other 5% picks protoss.
The example of ryung/puzzle is just a random example but taking the overall picture, the amount of good/consistent zerg/terran players I'd need both my hand and feet for each race separately. You even consider MC a gimmicky/unstable player, but then again, who is left? MC is undoubtedly the best/most consistent protoss player. I can't even name anyone other than MC who is consistent/good because of the way the race is supposed to be played. Again, im not saying we are underpowered or overpowered but the race is fundamentally flawed in the way protoss players are forced to play it.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWnm7UpsXk
Fixed.
exactly this, seems like judgment's day is about to hit us all xD, just look at what zerg went trough, they were getting their asses handed because they would not try something else and they would just want to cry their hearts out, now their using strategies that have been in the age since release almost but that noone figured out till a bit ago, protoss isnt in such a bad shape, even though its currently week
Zerg wasn't even close to this bad of shape, and guess what? They got buffed, and toss got nerfed. CONSIDERABLY. Perhaps you should try drawing an accurate comparison?
What if....
Blizzard unnerfed warp gate research time, and added khaydarin amulet back into the game?
On September 20 2011 00:35 Talin wrote: Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other T/Z players have.
Golly, wonder why. Couldn't possibly be the most obvious possibility.
MC's mentality was very short-term benefit oriented. And he did have short term benefit, and now he's going to have to improve drastically and figure out a solid way to play.
MC plays standard plenty of times. Still gets raped, like every other Protoss who plays standard.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
This is not Brood War. You can keep waiting for that "top player" to show up while the entire legitimacy of the esport crumbles around you. How many people have stopped buying tickets for GSL because of the obvious and stupid imbalance that started months and months ago once innovation hit diminishing returns?
Or you could take a look at the complete joke that protoss everything, units, timings, base defenses, has become and understand why it happened. At what point will you finally admit that the game is broken? It won't be long before lasting damage is done to Starcraft as an esport. Protoss pros have struggled against a steeper and steeper slope and you can already hear the creaks of impending failure from the veterans.
Honestly, I'm impressed with MC's sheer resilience, he's taken blow after blow and continued to fight on. So many of the timing attacks and all-ins that are used today by Protoss in a desperate attempt to squeeze out a win or two, those were his inventions. But I'll say this, if Blizzard doesn't step in soon, pro after pro will crack from the pressure. And once these veteran pros are gone, the damage to Starcraft's image as an excellent competitive game will be very hard to repair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plWnm7UpsXk
Fixed.
exactly this, seems like judgment's day is about to hit us all xD, just look at what zerg went trough, they were getting their asses handed because they would not try something else and they would just want to cry their hearts out, now their using strategies that have been in the age since release almost but that noone figured out till a bit ago, protoss isnt in such a bad shape, even though its currently week
Zerg wasn't even close to this bad of shape, and guess what? They got buffed, and toss got nerfed. CONSIDERABLY. Perhaps you should try drawing an accurate comparison?
what? zerg was in a horrible shape, at least by hearing the zerg players of course ^^
MC's mentality was very short-term benefit oriented. And he did have short term benefit, and now he's going to have to improve drastically and figure out a solid way to play.
MC plays standard plenty of times. Still gets raped, like every other Protoss who plays standard.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
You can still watch lower tier foreign players, the foreign Terran haven't found out yet how to be abusive as their Korean counterparts.
And foreign Zergs (well idra specifically) still lose to protoss lol
People talk of Zerg getting buffed (2011 buffs that is, 2010 Zerg was clearly too weak), but to say that Zerg without the infestor buff will stilll be going roach hydra corruptor vs Protoss is just retarded. Zerg play has adapted to Protoss 1a deathball so much that actually, Losira and Nestea, our best ZvP players, don't even use the so called imba op infestor in most of their matches.
I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: People talk of Zerg getting buffed (2011 buffs that is, 2010 Zerg was clearly too weak), but to say that Zerg without the infestor buff will stilll be going roach hydra corruptor vs Protoss is just retarded. Zerg play has adapted to Protoss 1a deathball so much that actually, Losira and Nestea, our best ZvP players, don't even use the so called imba op infestor in most of their matches.
I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
Zerg wasn't just buffed. Protoss was severely nerfed also.
On September 20 2011 00:06 Talin wrote: I remember MC being criticized for his approach to the game and playstyle even while he was winning GSLs. I remember Tyler being ridiculed for such comments by fanboys as well.
I also remember those same fanboys dishing out words of wisdom like "MC's timing attack style is the best for SC2, look at his results, he clearly understands the game better than anyone else, such amazing Forcfield micro (-_-)"... no. -_-
Nobody else has done any better, so he clearly does/did understand the game best.
Nobody else has done any better with Protoss, plenty of other players have though. That was in response to the argument that MC was the best player in the world btw.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: It's not about not having a top player or two, it's about every single Protoss having their ass handed to them by every mediocre Terran and Zerg in GSL.
That's just incorrect. It's not every single Protoss, and in most cases you can't claim that their T/Z opponents were less skilled.
On September 20 2011 00:27 Yaotzin wrote: The winrates are sub 30% for goodness sake. It's virtually a two-race game at the moment, which is obviously terrible for it.
There was a similar state in BW PvZ, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't focus on that so much. These periods come and go and there's nothing you can possibly do about it except wait for top players to pop up.
Tons of cases where all previous results in the matchup lead you to believe the toss is more skilled and he just gets owned. Examples : ( Puzzle vs ryung, MC vs monster, MC vs noblesse etc.) It is the end of the world. The entertainment value of GSL is dead for me. The game is 2 races, and simply by being a protoss you are almost automatically unfavored in the match. And when did another protoss player win 2 GSLs? I must have missed where they did that and did better than MC did.
Puzzle is more skilled than Ryung? Give me a break. They're even at best. MC vs Noblesse isn't much of a skill discrepancy right now either. In fact all of MC's examples you base his skill on his past accomplishments rather than present ability.
At TvP yes Puzzle is much better than Ryung. And if the matchup is indeed imbalanced how do you expect MC to look better than his opponent rofl...simply baffling. You are the type of guy that will simply never admit imbalance no matter what. Even if there are 0 toss in Code S. It is not natural that not even one protoss player is competitive at the top level in such a large scene.
Ryung is horrible, he floated over 1000 ressources against Puzzle off 1 base and queue'd up his barracks full of Marines (which players like TOP or Nada also do and get away with, btw). Of course, he still won thanks to his great skill.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Sandro wrote: You can still watch lower tier foreign players, the foreign Terran haven't found out yet how to be abusive as their Korean counterparts.
And foreign Zergs (well idra specifically) still lose to protoss lol
Yeah it's pretty much all I watch anymore sadly. It bugs me how obvious it is that the players are...kinda bad though :/
Im pretty sure Monster and SeleCT were better players than MC and Alicia. ^^
It's not googlefight where you pit two players against eachother and the better one always wins. MC played terribly in game 2/3, and while overal a better player than Monster, he rightly deserved to lose the games he lost.
Dimaga beat MVP with a baneling bust and beat Nestea with a 6 pool. Is Dimaga better than both of them? No, but he did deserve to win the games he won.
Ryung is horrible, he floated over 1000 ressources against Puzzle off 1 base and queue'd up his barracks full of Marines (which players like TOP or Nada also do and get away with, btw). Of course, he still won thanks to his great skill.
Yes, that's how we judge players skill. He once floated 1000 resources and queued up units so he must be terrible. MC is worse than people in gold league, he didn't put his one zealot on hold position in one game one time. Awful, awful player.
how's nani a protoss innovator, same builds over and over again and QQ when he loses. Haven't seen much of Sage and JYP, but Hero sure looks promising.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
No White-Ra? >_> I know he isn't in Korea, but he uses funky strategies and builds that other Protoss (or the vast majority) don't, and still winning to an extent.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
i feel like blizzard might have overnerfed the Protoss race, they always had like a 2-sided nerf to the PvX matchups.. they buffed the one race and nerfed things on the protoss side, which is the wrong way to go in my opinion. and i still feel like there has to be something done to the marauder damage against stalkers, it's ridonkulous how efficient they can trade against gateway units, considering the much higher cost of gateway units. on the other hand that wouldnt help in PvZ either..
it's just suspicious how protoss are struggling in korea atm, in both matchups. it's not like there was a protoss dominant time before, and there wasnt a single dominant Protoss except for MC in the GSL who was considered a sniper for PvT or PvZ and could maintain his title.
think of alicia, the chosen one.. ppl refered to him as the best PvT player in the world, and then he never could live up to his hype anymore..
think of tester/trickster, they said he has unbeatable PvZ.. and at that time in his first PvZ of the season he got dismantled by losira i think..
where are the guys with the matchup-sniper-winrates like losira, bomber, polt, mvp, nestea, mma, ...??
nowhere, because protoss is too volatile of a race.
and that's the most frustrating thing to watch as a spectator.
On September 20 2011 01:35 ilikeLIONZ wrote: i feel like blizzard might have overnerfed the Protoss race, they always had like a 2-sided nerf to the PvX matchups.. they buffed the one race and nerfed things on the protoss side, which is the wrong way to go in my opinion. and i still feel like there has to be something done to the marauder damage against stalkers, it's ridonkulous how efficient they can trade against gateway units, considering the much higher cost of gateway units. on the other hand that wouldnt help in PvZ either..
it's just suspicious how protoss are struggling in korea atm, in both matchups. it's not like there was a protoss dominant time before, and there wasnt a single dominant Protoss except for MC in the GSL who was considered a sniper for PvT or PvZ and could maintain his title.
think of alicia, the chosen one.. ppl refered to him as the best PvT player in the world, and then he never could live up to his hype anymore..
think of tester/trickster, they said he has unbeatable PvZ.. and at that time in his first PvZ of the season he got dismantled by losira i think..
where are the guys with the matchup-sniper-winrates like losira, bomber, polt, mvp, nestea, mma, ...??
nowhere, because protoss is too volatile of a race.
and that's the most frustrating thing to watch as a spectator.
Its all good. Blizzard buffed Protoss. They gave immortals +1 range increased the warp prism's shield and increased the mothership's acceleration to 1.3
while he won game one, if flux vanes were still around the void rays could have survived for longer than they did and they could have gotten to where the ovies were to kill some of them before all the hydras dropped out of them. They could have run away from hydras on creep without losing one or two void rays every time they engaged. then a carrier transition could have been a possible follow up to the void rays instead of rushing down the collossus tech path AFTER starting on the stargate tech path.
Terrans wouldnt be able to use every single emp in a spam attempt to disable all shields and energy if amulet was around. They would need to save an emp or two and think ahead about potential HT reinforcements with a storm ready.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
really, Protoss in GSL has always sucked, ever since the first GSL. Only MC has had success and besides him only freaking Inca has made it past Ro4. Is that because all protoss players are bad or because of shitty game design, who knows there seems to be alot of debate about that.
On September 20 2011 01:39 raga4ka wrote: JYP and Sage could get code - S i don't think any other protoss has what it takes to get pass the up and down matches .
JYP can't. His PvT is simply garbage. Maybe if he gets an extremely lucky bracket, but with so many terrans in up and downs it's inevitable. Also Sage is Alicia 2.0, not to mention he's lost like his last 6 games vs zerg in a row, and barely has a 50 percent winrate.
On September 20 2011 01:32 Whitewing wrote: Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
Eh the whole "Protoss end game tech is the best" thing is so last year. With deathballs long figured out, and infestor buffs, templar nerf etc, they probably have the weakest endgame now. Maybe not super super endgame with 3/3/3 voids and whatnot but that's not realistic stuff.
3rd base being hard to secure is more about having to be so defensive imo. Allowing Terran/Zerg easy teching to mass infestor/ghost is suicidal.
Protoss player: "Protoss is UP!! NO OTHER EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!" Non-protoss player: "Protoss is not playing the game right!! FACT!!!!!"
I dream faintly of an absurd and fantastical world where I would enter into the latest LR thread where the latest Protoss stalwart had fallen, and see
Protoss player: "We just couldn't figure this out, and it's hard " Non-protoss palyer: "There there, we know how it feels. Zerg's been through a similar time. You'll figure this out! And maybe, maybe, maybe we could hope blizzard would patch you into better shape!"
The way things are, I just get extra depressed reading the shitstorm after being depressed by the latest protoss tragedy.
On September 20 2011 01:39 raga4ka wrote: JYP and Sage could get code - S i don't think any other protoss has what it takes to get pass the up and down matches .
JYP can't. His PvT is simply garbage. Maybe if he gets an extremely lucky bracket, but with so many terrans in up and downs it's inevitable. Also Sage is Alicia 2.0, not to mention he's lost like his last 6 games vs zerg in a row, and barely has a 50 percent winrate.
They are the most skilled protoss players in code A . Hero is also good , but i am not buying in to his hype so quickly and i don't think he can compete with top A and low level code S players yet .
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs? Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
Even Dustin Browder himself has admitted that terran is the only complete race so I don't know why you have to be so stubbornly blinkered into the idea that this is the best we can get.
On September 20 2011 01:40 hai2u wrote: really, Protoss in GSL has always sucked, ever since the first GSL. Only MC has had success and besides him only freaking Inca has made it past Ro4. Is that because all protoss players are bad or because of shitty game design, who knows there seems to be alot of debate about that.
This is the quintessential truth people are avoiding in every thread about protoss. And also the argument that was made about protoss in one of the TL write-ups.
MC has fallen from grace, but was MC supposed to succeed in the first place? I truly believe that at the highest level of play, protoss has NEVER had any chance at all, and MC made it possible because at his best he's truly a great player. You say 6-gate was OP and couldn't be beaten at the time, well, I say only MC made it work consistently because it required perfect macro, perfect micro and forcefields, and perfect timings.
Protoss was supposedly OP on foreigner matches, on leagues, where people aren't nearly as good. The only other possibility is that truly the worst players are attracted to protoss for some reason, which I find really weird. I still think that protoss needs to be completely discovered, but also, blizzard needs to help out a bit here. Give a small early game buff to help set up for more options in the mid-late game, make air worthwhile by doing something with carriers and the mothership, and do something about templars, maybe WPs are the solution though, some players make it look possible. MC among them let me remind you.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
If you believe that playing a macro game = sitting in your base building units and doing nothing else, then I'm sorry that your race is so terrible, you literally can't move out on the map without being crushed. 'Macro' Terrans started off by doing a push, build up, push, build up, push style against Zerg, which is terrible. Nowadays, Terrans don't do this at all, they are teching, expanding, doing drops, whilst clearing the creep poking the front whilst being safe vs counter aggession. Is this because Terran is so much better than Protoss that Protoss can't at least try and emulate this? Maybe, but I haven't seen many Protosses besides Hero attempt to move out of the 1a Deathball syndrome/2 base all in syndrome. Protoss players have to relearn what a macro game is and if it turns out, they HAVE to stay in their base in order to macro, then fine P is weak. At least try before you say that though.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: People talk of Zerg getting buffed (2011 buffs that is, 2010 Zerg was clearly too weak), but to say that Zerg without the infestor buff will stilll be going roach hydra corruptor vs Protoss is just retarded. Zerg play has adapted to Protoss 1a deathball so much that actually, Losira and Nestea, our best ZvP players, don't even use the so called imba op infestor in most of their matches.
I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
You do know that when protoss macro, they make deathballs. However you want us to stop deathballs while continue to macro? Im not sure what you are trying to get at.
On September 20 2011 01:55 Luminox wrote: I am displeased at the lack of mana in your main AND "honorable mention" groups.
After all, he only has one of the best pvts not only in europe but also in the world.
Give him credit for that.
You base this in him beating Puma in a game? Has he ever beat MVP, Bomber? What about MMA? In a live setting? Any mid-high korean terrans? Because in order to be one of the best PvTers in the world you definitely need to be able to face the best terran competition out there, and foreigners are not even close.
On September 19 2011 22:15 perestain wrote: Reality is that protoss does not play a role in the outcome of tournaments anymore. There is no point in playing protoss if you actually want to win something, since even players who are considered the absolute best in the world are not competitive anymore when they play protoss.
At this point, cultivating a romantic idea about someone eventually figuring out some magic playstyle that will change the metagame is basically just taking a big, warm and steaming shit on the principles of fair competition IMO.
Protoss needs either to be repaired or to be completely disallowed in official competition, as its really unfair for the athletes. In order to maximize their personal performance they need to ignore all balance issues and just continue practicing, which results in them getting fucked over pretty hard right now.
Such a defeatist attitude. It might be a metagame thing or it might be imbalance but please stop being so damn negative and whiny. And the reason people are cultivating a romantic idea that someone will figure out a "magic playstyle" is because this is exactly what happened in BW.
Please point out where I am whiny.
In order for SC2 to ever be regarded as a fair sports competition, you have to make sure you get a somewhat even battlefield. Otherwise it is all just a farce. Ever asked yourself why noone is taking prefessional wrestling serious? People there also prefer romantic legends over fair competition...
And you cant compare bw to sc2, there is a multitude of people figuring out the game with a way more systematic approach. Unless you see starcraft as a religion there is no reason to believe in some magic coming of a metagame messias.
Players should be protected from investing heavily into something which is systematically not archievable, since they themselves are not in the position to worry about these things without having their performance affected. Its not about dropping a league or something, for these people there are lives and careeres on the line. If esports is to become serious, people need to take it serious and act responsibly.
You shouldn't comment about BW if you don't know very much about the game or its competitive scene. It just makes your overall point look equally thoughtless.
Not trying to be an ass, but the reason I'm assuming you don't follow BW is because if you did, you would know how ridiculous it is to say that SC2 is more figured out than BW.
Also, no one takes professional wrestling seriously because it is staged.
Thats a fair point actually,
although I played sc a bit when it was released back then I didn't follow the competitive scene too much, especially not as indepth to comment on any intricacies of actual gameplay or balance development.
From the perspective of a wider audience though I still think it is imperative that some kind of equal opportunity for all the races comes across if you want the game to be taken seriously as a sport, especially if there are people who base their career on it.
In SC2, ultimately you will never be able to be completely sure to what degree success comes from using racial advantages and to what degree it comes from individual skill. You have to make assumptions there, i.e. top terrans are especially strong this season etc. Thats ok.
But to give the viewers the idea of a fair competition you should make sure that the best of the best in korea can at least compete with each other to some degree. It is just not convincing to claim that the reason for such bad protoss performance in multiple consecutive seasons in all major tournaments is just because they all didn't figure stuff out that the other players did for their race. Right now there is still a similar amount of players for all races who put in a similar amount of training and expertise, they even train together with the other races top performers.
If this situation continues though, and the magical metagame messiah doesnt suddenly arrive, the influx of new protoss players will diminish, and the idea that protoss players are just weaker will inevitably become a self-fulfilling prophecy since noone will want to try anymore. Pro players care about winning, they're not willing to just give their life for aiur, at least for their own sake I hope they don't.
On September 20 2011 01:55 Luminox wrote: I am displeased at the lack of mana in your main AND "honorable mention" groups.
After all, he only has one of the best pvts not only in europe but also in the world.
Give him credit for that.
i agree fullheartedly, but for a north american it's not easy to follow the european scene. there are plenty of guys who don't even know who for example Nightend is, even tho he's a great player.
No love for HongUn? Two semifinals, two quarterfinals, and has been in Code S since the beginning, plus taking out Taeja, Boxer and Ganzi in the GSTL. HongUn and Killer have done more than all of your "heroes" combined. And Genius, Puzzle and Huk are stuck with honorable mention? Come on, this thing you've written is silly.
Anyway, has anyone compiled a list of all the actual nerfs to Protoss that have been patched in so far?
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
If you believe that playing a macro game = sitting in your base building units and doing nothing else, then I'm sorry that your race is so terrible, you literally can't move out on the map without being crushed. 'Macro' Terrans started off by doing a push, build up, push, build up, push style against Zerg, which is terrible. Nowadays, Terrans don't do this at all, they are teching, expanding, doing drops, whilst clearing the creep poking the front whilst being safe vs counter aggession. Is this because Terran is so much better than Protoss that Protoss can't at least try and emulate this? Maybe, but I haven't seen many Protosses besides Hero attempt to move out of the 1a Deathball syndrome/2 base all in syndrome. Protoss players have to relearn what a macro game is and if it turns out, they HAVE to stay in their base in order to macro, then fine P is weak. At least try before you say that though.
lol - to paraphrase Jay-Z do you even watch games or do you just skim through them?
Plenty of Protoss have tried and failed to find another way.
They need to keep trying because the game needs a 3rd race but the deck is currently stacked against them.
People seem to think that Zerg was whining for a while then "magically" tried "other ways" and got out of a slump.
In fact, what actually happened: 1) they got buffs (infestor), 2) races got nerfs and 3) maps got bigger with more expos + attack paths, allowing them to utilize their racial advantages much more effectively (flanking, speed, mass expanding).
TLDR: Zerg players didn't "find new ways" they benefited from balance changes and map changes.
Expecting Protoss do the same without structural changes is unlikely.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
I would say pleasing everyone is impossible. Assuming that every MU is balanced; if there is a player of one race who absolutely dominating others regardless of races (like Flash), some people would still whine about that race imbalance.
I won't argue that Protoss is weak right now but to blame everything on the imbalance would not really help.
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
I would say pleasing everyone is impossible. Assuming that every MU is balanced; if there is a player of one race who absolutely dominating others regardless of races (like Flash), some people would still whine about that race imbalance.
I won't argue that Protoss is weak right now but to blame everything on the imbalance would not really help.
Why are you even arguing if there is or isn't imbalance. It's clear that there is some imbalance. Maybe you don't realize it, but Code S/A is really close. Like "anyone can beat anyone on any given day" close. Maybe some guys (MMA/Nestea/MVP) are slightly better but rest of the players are incredibly close with skill level. That's a fact imho. And now look at the results.
Results for GSL Code S August; GSL Code A August; GSL Up n Downs August; GSTL (starting from week 6, which is first week of august afaik):
104 of T/ZvP games were played. 80 matches (considering Bo1 as a "match"). Out of this, T/Z won 68 games, while P won 36. This means, T/Z won about 65% (65.3841.....%) of all games versus Protoss, leaving P with slightly less than 35%. And that's too low of a number to even consider this game to be balanced atm.
Also, interestingly enough, Protosses are really struggling more against zergs than against terrans. Against terrans it's like 40% winratio, against Zergs less than 30%.
Also, imho, ghosts just shouldn't be that big of a deal for HTs. MC already showed us how to do it, stuck them in the warp prism and then they cannot be sniped and cannot be emped at least before they unleash the storms.
About early game harass, I like what SaSe was doing on his stream - warp prism, 1-2 sentry + zealots, load out in mineral line, FF workers so they can't run, warp in zealots, kill entire mineral line (I think it's worth losing few zealots + sentry). Wish more pros would try it.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
No i just want an enjoyable and competitive game at least from the perspective of a Protoss player. I want to actually have a shred of hope that a protoss player can take down a competent zerg or terran. Not be in a constant state of depression on these forums because I have to see MC play a PvZ on a freaking map like Dual Sight.
Feels it's the same few guys here calling the end of the world over and over again. It's not easy for protoss atm but this is way overdone imo. MC lost to Puma in a close series just two months ago, and it's mostly been 1-1-1 that's really fucked over protoss the last month or so.
Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we have some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they are in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
On September 20 2011 02:25 karpo wrote: Feels it's the same few guys here calling the end of the world over and over again. It's not easy for protoss atm but this is way overdone imo. MC lost to Puma in a close series just two months ago, and it's mostly been 1-1-1 that's really fucked over protoss the last month or so.
How convenient that you ignore when they next met Puma demolished MC with 1-1-1 and other all-ins.
Nice write up I hate to see protoss losing so much it really makes me want to switch to terran but I will stick with it and I think players like HerO can pull us through! Judging on his game in dreamhack valencia against IdrA his multi-tasking and use of multiple warp prism's was insane! PROTOSS FIGHTING!
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
No i just want an enjoyable and competitive game at least from the perspective of a Protoss player. I want to actually have a shred of hope that a protoss player can take down a competent zerg or terran. Not be in a constant state of depression on these forums because I have to see MC play a PvZ on a freaking map like Dual Sight.
That's what the depressed Zergs wanted as well, so they got super buffed on multiple fronts and apparently that's why you now can't have what you want, and so on and so forth.
Among people who think balance is the be-all, end-all reason for players of certain race doing badly while a game is evolving very rapidly, then out of all of you, one third at least will always be unhappy and depressed. And the rest of us will have to swim through oceans of tears EVERYWHERE on forums. -_-
The hope and enthusiasm are great, but I don't agree with your evaluations. People have already pointed out the players who are doing better but were left out. Also, several of the players you mention show a very hit or miss style. They can be impressive in their games but can just as easily take an embarrassing loss. I think the difficulty is that a lot of the impressive, unique protoss styles we've seen recently have been very fragile. Sometimes they are just risky and lose to certain build orders. Other times they absolutely rely on perfect control and timing just to get into the mid game relatively even. Puzzle and Hero exemplify this in my opinion. Their micro and multitask abilities allow them to pull off some amazing aggressive builds, but the slightest mistake on their part or superb defense by their opponent shuts it down hard.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners. Alot of good their mindset does them, eh?
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
If you believe that playing a macro game = sitting in your base building units and doing nothing else, then I'm sorry that your race is so terrible, you literally can't move out on the map without being crushed. 'Macro' Terrans started off by doing a push, build up, push, build up, push style against Zerg, which is terrible. Nowadays, Terrans don't do this at all, they are teching, expanding, doing drops, whilst clearing the creep poking the front whilst being safe vs counter aggession. Is this because Terran is so much better than Protoss that Protoss can't at least try and emulate this? Maybe, but I haven't seen many Protosses besides Hero attempt to move out of the 1a Deathball syndrome/2 base all in syndrome. Protoss players have to relearn what a macro game is and if it turns out, they HAVE to stay in their base in order to macro, then fine P is weak. At least try before you say that though.
lol - to paraphrase Jay-Z do you even watch games or do you just skim through them?
Plenty of Protoss have tried and failed to find another way.
They need to keep trying because the game needs a 3rd race but the deck is currently stacked against them.
People seem to think that Zerg was whining for a while then "magically" tried "other ways" and got out of a slump.
In fact, what actually happened: 1) they got buffs (infestor), 2) races got nerfs and 3) maps got bigger with more expos + attack paths, allowing them to utilize their racial advantages much more effectively (flanking, speed, mass expanding).
TLDR: Zerg players didn't "find new ways" they benefited from balance changes and map changes.
Expecting Protoss do the same without structural changes is unlikely.
You are wrong. Take away infestors for Zerg, how would Zerg play? NOT Roach Hydra Corrupter. I am talking Spring 2011 where PvZ was at its worst, big maps were hurting Zerg more than ever against Protoss and everyone was doing things wrong. Losing 3rds to voidrays, dying to 6 gates, staying 2 base vs 2 base for a long time, going Hydra vs Robo, thinking roaches are good vs blink stalkers. Builds such as 3 hatch 1 gas and losira timing introduced good Zerg openings which gave them an edge vs FFE and 3 gate fe respectively, and Zerg was favoured ever since WITHOUT infestors. For fuck sake, DRG beat Naniwa with ling bling only, most Korean zergs don't use the stuff that actually was buffed.
If every Protoss thought like you and said 'everything is explored, Protoss is simply weak, we HAVE to do 2 base all ins because WE CANNOT BEAT ZERGS OTHERWISE,' then innovation simply wouldn't exist. 1/1/1 is imba, but PvZ probably is not. If you keep telling yourself Zerg cannot be defeated if Protoss decides to take a third base, then I'm sorry for your loss.
On September 20 2011 01:40 hai2u wrote: really, Protoss in GSL has always sucked, ever since the first GSL. Only MC has had success and besides him only freaking Inca has made it past Ro4. Is that because all protoss players are bad or because of shitty game design, who knows there seems to be alot of debate about that.
IMO it has always been that way. There was a lot of discussion on the b.net protoss forums about the lack representation of protoss players in the GSL. This was just before GSL Open Season 3 and during that season MC won his first championship and put some doubt onto the thought that "protoss sucks."
On September 20 2011 02:02 Tehs Tehklz wrote: No love for HongUn? Two semifinals, two quarterfinals, and has been in Code S since the beginning, plus taking out Taeja, Boxer and Ganzi in the GSTL. HongUn and Killer have done more than all of your "heroes" combined. And Genius, Puzzle and Huk are stuck with honorable mention? Come on, this thing you've written is silly.
Anyway, has anyone compiled a list of all the actual nerfs to Protoss that have been patched in so far?
His win rate is worse than most protoss in GSL. He just managed to win his first round matches more often to cling to his spot. He's a very good toss no doubt though. He's like the Korean Socke.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
No i just want an enjoyable and competitive game at least from the perspective of a Protoss player. I want to actually have a shred of hope that a protoss player can take down a competent zerg or terran. Not be in a constant state of depression on these forums because I have to see MC play a PvZ on a freaking map like Dual Sight.
That's what the depressed Zergs wanted as well, so they got super buffed on multiple fronts and apparently that's why you now can't have what you want, and so on and so forth.
Among people who think balance is the be-all, end-all reason for players of certain race doing badly while a game is evolving very rapidly, then out of all of you, one third at least will always be unhappy and depressed. And the rest of us will have to swim through oceans of tears EVERYWHERE on forums. -_-
What can I tell you... just don't get depressed.
Even during the deathball zergs weren't doing this bad. Protoss is at an unprecedented level of awfulness in sc2.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
No i just want an enjoyable and competitive game at least from the perspective of a Protoss player. I want to actually have a shred of hope that a protoss player can take down a competent zerg or terran. Not be in a constant state of depression on these forums because I have to see MC play a PvZ on a freaking map like Dual Sight.
That's what the depressed Zergs wanted as well, so they got super buffed on multiple fronts and apparently that's why you now can't have what you want, and so on and so forth.
Among people who think balance is the be-all, end-all reason for players of certain race doing badly while a game is evolving very rapidly, then out of all of you, one third at least will always be unhappy and depressed. And the rest of us will have to swim through oceans of tears EVERYWHERE on forums. -_-
What can I tell you... just don't get depressed.
Even during the deathball zergs weren't doing this bad. Protoss is at an unprecedented level of awfulness in sc2.
They sure complained just as bad.
Anyway, the only real difference is that Zergs always had one genuine, consistent top player with strong fundamentals in NesTea. Whereas Protoss don't. ^_^
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius. MC has like 11 top 3 major tournament places while their "rock solid smart play" has done...well they're in Code A I guess.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
If you believe that playing a macro game = sitting in your base building units and doing nothing else, then I'm sorry that your race is so terrible, you literally can't move out on the map without being crushed. 'Macro' Terrans started off by doing a push, build up, push, build up, push style against Zerg, which is terrible. Nowadays, Terrans don't do this at all, they are teching, expanding, doing drops, whilst clearing the creep poking the front whilst being safe vs counter aggession. Is this because Terran is so much better than Protoss that Protoss can't at least try and emulate this? Maybe, but I haven't seen many Protosses besides Hero attempt to move out of the 1a Deathball syndrome/2 base all in syndrome. Protoss players have to relearn what a macro game is and if it turns out, they HAVE to stay in their base in order to macro, then fine P is weak. At least try before you say that though.
lol - to paraphrase Jay-Z do you even watch games or do you just skim through them?
Plenty of Protoss have tried and failed to find another way.
They need to keep trying because the game needs a 3rd race but the deck is currently stacked against them.
People seem to think that Zerg was whining for a while then "magically" tried "other ways" and got out of a slump.
In fact, what actually happened: 1) they got buffs (infestor), 2) races got nerfs and 3) maps got bigger with more expos + attack paths, allowing them to utilize their racial advantages much more effectively (flanking, speed, mass expanding).
TLDR: Zerg players didn't "find new ways" they benefited from balance changes and map changes.
Expecting Protoss do the same without structural changes is unlikely.
You are wrong. Take away infestors for Zerg, how would Zerg play? NOT Roach Hydra Corrupter. I am talking Spring 2011 where PvZ was at its worst, big maps were hurting Zerg more than ever against Protoss and everyone was doing things wrong. Losing 3rds to voidrays, dying to 6 gates, staying 2 base vs 2 base for a long time, going Hydra vs Robo, thinking roaches are good vs blink stalkers. Builds such as 3 hatch 1 gas and losira timing introduced good Zerg openings which gave them an edge vs FFE and 3 gate fe respectively, and Zerg was favoured ever since WITHOUT infestors. For fuck sake, DRG beat Naniwa with ling bling only, most Korean zergs don't use the stuff that actually was buffed.
If every Protoss thought like you and said 'everything is explored, Protoss is simply weak, we HAVE to do 2 base all ins because WE CANNOT BEAT ZERGS OTHERWISE,' then innovation simply wouldn't exist. 1/1/1 is imba, but PvZ probably is not. If you keep telling yourself Zerg cannot be defeated if Protoss decides to take a third base, then I'm sorry for your loss.
lol "i'm wrong" and then you list reasons for the zerg resurgence that I listed in my post (Zerg got better because they used the big maps to their advantage i.e. fast 3rd, counter attacks and flanks).
Less rage, more thinking please.
I'm not writing from my sh:tty low masters, random-playing, perspective. For me, aside from 1-1-1, the game is balanced enough since the opponents I am facing aren't good enough to abuse their racial advantages.
I'm writing from the perspective of a viewer who finds tvt boring. I'm not biased (as you are, it seems), I just want to see good games.
Zerg wasn't broken (ok, maybe slightly but AOE damage of fungal fixed that), the maps were broken. Once the maps were fixed, Zergs were able to play their race properly.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
Hahaha. They do play actually, even with inferior competition in ICCUP weeklys and hold a 50 percent winrate. (except puzzle). Also sage's "Bisuesk" PvZ is MC's build. Also MKP and bomber are going to absolutely destroy puzzle :/.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
can someone translate?
He's basically saying he doesn't like MC and everyone else is better even though their winrates, accomplishments, innovation, etc are inferior.
On a serious note, I honestly cannot believe what happened to El Presidente. I'm just at a total shock.....the hopes and dreams lie on the shoulders of Naniwa, Huk, Ra, Hero & Tyler in my eyes. I personally never liked the design of Colossus, all "early" toss play revolved around it and the formation of a ball.
Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
On September 20 2011 02:55 TolEranceNA wrote: Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
Out of all those, only motherships haven't been consistently attempted. Carriers just don't cut it, even against meching terran. Warp prism is at it's infant stages so I'll give you that, but tons of things have been tried at the highest level and failed, and if you don't see it, you don't watch enough starcraft.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
Meh, every change Blizzard have made has been pretty good so far
KA would be ridiculous if it were still here these days and Voidrays all-ins would be even more dumb with the old Voidrays
People keep saying to buff Toss but looking at the games they lose (mainly PvZ), what exactly do you "buff" without making warp-gate all-ins and the like stupidly strong?
Something as simple as +2 Damage to Stalkers could easily be too much.
The only thing I can think of would be things like unit move speed and tech costs. It is a freaking hard thing to do really, the fact they have gotten this far without breaking anything says quite a lot.
It is easy to say Protoss is weak and needs a buff, any idiot can do that. But actually coming up with a solution...that is a pretty hard thing to do.
Blizzard in general have always done right, I'm just curious to see what they will change really
I love how this thread started trying to point out the creative Protoss players, but devolved into this. Personally, I am watching some of Hero's games right now, hoping to see some glimmer of an idea.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
can someone translate?
He's basically saying he doesn't like MC and everyone else is better even though their winrates, accomplishments, innovation, etc are inferior.
Well keep defending jokes like MC who forgets to zealot block his ramp twice in a roll when he doesn't get back in code S and drops from the scene who are you gonna support and yes they play in ICCUP but they PLAY each other. I will stop posting here because I don't see any hope for you guys.
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
can someone translate?
He's basically saying he doesn't like MC and everyone else is better even though their winrates, accomplishments, innovation, etc are inferior.
Well keep defending jokes like MC when he doesn't get back in code S and drops from the scene who are you gonna support and yes they play in ICCUP but they PLAY each other. I will stop posting here because I don't see any hope for you guys.
Ok I'll support players that have actually achieved something and you can keep posting incomprehensible fanboyism :/.
On September 20 2011 02:55 TolEranceNA wrote: Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
Out of all those, only motherships haven't been consistently attempted. Carriers just don't cut it, even against meching terran. Warp prism is at it's infant stages so I'll give you that, but tons of things have been tried at the highest level and failed, and if you don't see it, you don't watch enough starcraft.
I'm curious what people are supposed to do exactly with a warpprism. Its not like there is a really cost effective harass unit like banelings hellions and such. dt drop is bad because turrets/spores counter both the prism and the dts hts don't do enough damage for their cost with decent worker micro. Zealot drops/warpins are used already, but they just don't kill stuff as fast.
I remember a thread in the strategy forum revolving around collossus drop and archon drop. Maybe archons are worth a try, they are good vs worker lines, but also quite expensive...
On the other hand I dislike the idea that a player behing outplayed over 20 minutes can just win the game with one succesful drop. Maybe making workers tougher or hellion/ baneling drops more of an investment would be the better approach.
On September 20 2011 02:55 TolEranceNA wrote: Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
Every single one of stargate units have been tried and used. Mass pheonix? Watch july vs anypro. Stargate expo, watch any MC vs sen games. The fact is archon and stargate units(other than carriers) have been used. Protoss have also been experimenting with warp prism lately even tho their winrate is still bad. Unlike zerg who litterally went roach/hydro/corrupted for 5 month. Protoss has went from 3 gate expand to 1 gate exp to dt expo to stargate expo.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
Meh, every change Blizzard have made has been pretty good so far
KA would be ridiculous if it were still here these days and Voidrays all-ins would be even more dumb with the old Voidrays
People keep saying to buff Toss but looking at the games they lose (mainly PvZ), what exactly do you "buff" without making warp-gate all-ins and the like stupidly strong?
Something as simple as +2 Damage to Stalkers could easily be too much.
The only thing I can think of would be things like unit move speed and tech costs. It is a freaking hard thing to do really, the fact they have gotten this far without breaking anything says quite a lot.
It is easy to say Protoss is weak and needs a buff, any idiot can do that. But actually coming up with a solution...that is a pretty hard thing to do.
Blizzard in general have always done right, I'm just curious to see what they will change really
Changing Stalkers from 10+4 to 11+3 and +1/+1 per weapon upgrade sounds reasonably sensible to me. It would not change any of the important early game matchups against other races (stalker vs Lings still 4 shots, stalker vs marine still 5 shots), but it would be a decent DPS buff to hold 1/1/1, the Ghost timing and fare a bit better overall. I doubt it would break PvZ as Zergs have basically figured out Blinkstalker balls already and it would enable Protoss to maybe take his third faster.
On September 20 2011 01:18 Micket wrote: I think Protoss players should SERIOUSLY try macro play as standard rather than 2 base all ins vs Zerg and try and not play deathball style. Terrans used to do this 2 base push, build up, push, build up, push, style which was just terrible. Terran adapted, they used pressures while expanding and teching and dropping, knowing Zerg was being very risky if they commited without enough units. However, 1/1/1 is clearly imbalanced and that must be nerfed, but Protoss overall, are playing the game wrong vs Zerg and more needs to be explored vs T (PvT may be imba because of Ghosts).
People do allins because infestors and ghosts are ridiculously difficult to stop. Give us our caster power back (not as amulet that was stupid, something else to return Templar to their former glory) and we'll macro all day.
Well, protoss mostly do all-ins because it's almost impossible to secure a third base as protoss quickly enough to not be way behind.
Zerg drones way faster than protoss, and can expand quicker and easier (yay fast units!). Terran has MULES, so equal base situations favor the terran. Not to mention terran units are just plain more efficient before end-game tech.
So yeah, playing a macro game as protoss is folly, because protoss is always behind when it gets to the late game unless they do decisive damage early on. Problem is, protoss units suck unless they're in a big ball working together (which is why it's so hard to secure a third, your whole army has to be together to not suck and all the enemy has to do is hit two places at once), and our early game pressure got nerfed to hell.
Protoss was over nerfed.
Yea thank you for this. A protoss player trying to out-macro an equally skilled zerg is stupid. Everyone knows a full macro zerg is far superior to any other race in terms of how fast they can get income. Not to mention the options it leaves open for zerg is a strategy game to easily shut down a protoss 3rd while keeping their own.
Idra telling protoss players to sit on their ass and out-macro zerg is not enough proof for me that it works(because this seems to be the FOTM, to tell protoss to macro). Either he needs to prove it or i'll take it as another "morrow is a gold player" type comment.
If you believe that playing a macro game = sitting in your base building units and doing nothing else, then I'm sorry that your race is so terrible, you literally can't move out on the map without being crushed. 'Macro' Terrans started off by doing a push, build up, push, build up, push style against Zerg, which is terrible. Nowadays, Terrans don't do this at all, they are teching, expanding, doing drops, whilst clearing the creep poking the front whilst being safe vs counter aggession. Is this because Terran is so much better than Protoss that Protoss can't at least try and emulate this? Maybe, but I haven't seen many Protosses besides Hero attempt to move out of the 1a Deathball syndrome/2 base all in syndrome. Protoss players have to relearn what a macro game is and if it turns out, they HAVE to stay in their base in order to macro, then fine P is weak. At least try before you say that though.
lol - to paraphrase Jay-Z do you even watch games or do you just skim through them?
Plenty of Protoss have tried and failed to find another way.
They need to keep trying because the game needs a 3rd race but the deck is currently stacked against them.
People seem to think that Zerg was whining for a while then "magically" tried "other ways" and got out of a slump.
In fact, what actually happened: 1) they got buffs (infestor), 2) races got nerfs and 3) maps got bigger with more expos + attack paths, allowing them to utilize their racial advantages much more effectively (flanking, speed, mass expanding).
TLDR: Zerg players didn't "find new ways" they benefited from balance changes and map changes.
Expecting Protoss do the same without structural changes is unlikely.
You are wrong. Take away infestors for Zerg, how would Zerg play? NOT Roach Hydra Corrupter. I am talking Spring 2011 where PvZ was at its worst, big maps were hurting Zerg more than ever against Protoss and everyone was doing things wrong. Losing 3rds to voidrays, dying to 6 gates, staying 2 base vs 2 base for a long time, going Hydra vs Robo, thinking roaches are good vs blink stalkers. Builds such as 3 hatch 1 gas and losira timing introduced good Zerg openings which gave them an edge vs FFE and 3 gate fe respectively, and Zerg was favoured ever since WITHOUT infestors. For fuck sake, DRG beat Naniwa with ling bling only, most Korean zergs don't use the stuff that actually was buffed.
If every Protoss thought like you and said 'everything is explored, Protoss is simply weak, we HAVE to do 2 base all ins because WE CANNOT BEAT ZERGS OTHERWISE,' then innovation simply wouldn't exist. 1/1/1 is imba, but PvZ probably is not. If you keep telling yourself Zerg cannot be defeated if Protoss decides to take a third base, then I'm sorry for your loss.
lol "i'm wrong" and then you list reasons for the zerg resurgence that I listed in my post (Zerg got better because they used the big maps to their advantage i.e. fast 3rd, counter attacks and flanks).
Less rage, more thinking please.
I'm not writing from my sh:tty low masters, random-playing, perspective. For me, aside from 1-1-1, the game is balanced enough since the opponents I am facing aren't good enough to abuse their racial advantages.
I'm writing from the perspective of a viewer who finds tvt boring. I'm not biased (as you are, it seems), I just want to see good games.
Zerg wasn't broken (ok, maybe slightly but AOE damage of fungal fixed that), the maps were broken. Once the maps were fixed, Zergs were able to play their race properly.
No such horizon exists from Toss.
Sooo, you agree that Zerg didn't need the infestor buff to achieve an advantage in the ZvP matchup, and that they adapted to the maps after playing them for 2 months (Zerg was NOT winning at the time MC won his 2nd GSL),. You agree that Zerg players developed LingBling style, using drop play, using baneling drops, massing ling upgrades, taking fast 3rds, roach ling all ins, hydra busts, anti 2 base tech play, but Protoss is absolutely broken and nothing they do will ever be able to get them out of this slump because they are sooooo weak. Bias much?
Perhaps this is also a map issue and that maps like Taldarim are needed (P has advantage vs Z here), but simply saying your race is SO weak that no amount of getting better at the game will overcome its shortcomings is not clever.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
Meh, every change Blizzard have made has been pretty good so far
KA would be ridiculous if it were still here these days and Voidrays all-ins would be even more dumb with the old Voidrays
People keep saying to buff Toss but looking at the games they lose (mainly PvZ), what exactly do you "buff" without making warp-gate all-ins and the like stupidly strong?
Something as simple as +2 Damage to Stalkers could easily be too much.
The only thing I can think of would be things like unit move speed and tech costs. It is a freaking hard thing to do really, the fact they have gotten this far without breaking anything says quite a lot.
It is easy to say Protoss is weak and needs a buff, any idiot can do that. But actually coming up with a solution...that is a pretty hard thing to do.
Blizzard in general have always done right, I'm just curious to see what they will change really
I totally agree with this.
With the warpgate, it's incredibly hard to buff Protoss without making 6gate too strong.
I believe they are only losing because Protoss players aren't given the opportunity to outplay the opponent. The Warp Prism seems very allin-ish mid game, as they have to send their entire army or at least a very costly portion to "harass".
On September 20 2011 02:27 Severus_ wrote: Because the GSL code S format is a joke and its pretty bad you see the game in a wrong way guys even Artosis said it because there is no salarys for the players they want to keep the old "famous ones" in the game that way it can get a stable scene and keeps the viewers BUT i think its a double edge sword because now we had some Code B players in Code S which made this wrong impression that P is UP. There is no new blood filled in Code S , I mean groups of 4 and 1 dude gets in the up&down rly ?
This way there is no way to see how awesome ppl like Smart,Puzzle,Younghwa,Sage,Hero are with the new maps and more safe bases,buffs from the new patch,new smart and awesome play and some of them geting into code A,code S you will see how those players will start to own it up and even the non-krs like HuK,Nani,Sase. The reason every toss in the code s or those who were "famous" are failing to do something is not because of balance its because they were bad in the first place. They just exploited some things that weren't figured out and because of the dumb format they can't drop out of code s and you see those joke-like games where you think well if the "GOD-like" MC can't stop this push it must be imba htf i'm gonna stop it in ladder. People like Alicia whine in their twitters how 1/1/1 is unstoppable while their chinese fellow xiaOt who sits down and practices all day like a boss and doesn't do some retard exploits in the metagame who rolled ppl even when Grrr was playing just stops it like that, like walking in the park. If people like sAviOr had mindset like Alica they would have quited the game and won nothing. So this brings one thing : You need to change your mindset to win.
Those guys who you watched in previous gsl are nothing they made the game in this state with their gimmicky play and exploiting retards. They couldn't compete in BW they can't compete now their mindset is wrong their play is wrong. Now you maybe thinking " Well Nestea was bad in BW and now he is the best zerg in the SC2 scene it must be the race" but you forget Nestea had pretty bad nerve issues in BW days but still he was a good 2v2 player and got a zerg coach spot in KT which is pretty big deal if you ask me he had to coach ppl like Luxury,Hoejja,Firefist who were pretty decent back in the days.
My point is that those idols you had they are nothing they are bad take a look at Naniwa for example he was this cheesy player but look at him now he has a mind of champion and he tries to improve every day by playing rock solid. Now look what MC or Hongun or Inca have done nothing they still relay on on silly gimicky play since their glory days their mindset is bad so this is why they in code B or will drop from Code S soon. Don't follow blindly and idolize those players just because they win.The game is so new analyze their games learn why they win, and why they win and you will see how fast you will improve and you will not be crying in the forums how your race is UP.
/rant
None of those protoss players were good in BW and they have no success in Korea either. They have never done any better than MC or hongun. Your rant is just absolutely silly and incomprehensible. All those guys have 50 percent winrates and are on losing streaks, and Hero can't even beat foreigners.
Puzzle was first overall draft pick in the 2009 Mid-Year KeSPA Draft. JYP was in eSTRO i think. Hero looks like Bisu+JD and still his play and ideas are 10times better then N-gate rush vsX MC style. The others just are pure SC2 new blood that has the mindset to bring champions with smart and rock solid play.
Your point...? Puzzle was a major disappointment for a first round pick IIRC..and Hero played horribly vs thorzain. He only shows promise in PvZ but just building warp prisms doesn't mean you're a genius.
You bring bad arguments since when Thor loses games that he plans out days before the tournament ? Puzzle was like 16 when he was drafted maybe not everybody has terminator nerves like Flash to win starleagues on 16 ? Just watch Hero in his zone on his stream when he is not nervous and tell me that his play is not inspirational. Also Sage Bisuesk PvZ "I like" with smart play all across the board you bring 50'/. winrate blabla well when they don't play htf they are gonna get high winrate bro ? When Code S is crap btw what you gonna say the next day when Puzzle gets 2nd in his group and rolls Kongprime and ryung ?
can someone translate?
He's basically saying he doesn't like MC and everyone else is better even though their winrates, accomplishments, innovation, etc are inferior.
I have a strong feeling all the MC anti-fans probably only saw 1 match or so where he destroyed his opponent with timing attacks. Though on TL, timing attack = cheese. Actually, any protoss aggression = cheese. And especially with the constant hints at playing a "macro" game will be the key to these "new hopes". MC doesn't play macro? News to me. Especially the claims to "innovation" credited to these players that MC already has done.
On September 20 2011 02:55 TolEranceNA wrote: Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
Is this a troll? Archons get used a lot after their BUFF. Carriers have been done. Motherships are mega-fail every time they are used. Warp prisms might have some potential as White-Ra seems to like them, but I'm not convinced yet. Stargates units? Are you serious? Have you not watched any protoss matches in the last year? They get used a lot in builds. And baneling bombs have been popular for a long time. Artosis eluded to Koreans loving to drop banelings on protoss armies quite a while ago. Every thing about your post suggests you haven't watched any Starcraft. Protoss not innovate? That's laughable.
Zerg at least tried being innovative? A dozen buffs had nothing to do with it at all, right?
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
That consensus is at the same level of Idras "Protoss players are stupid".
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
Hilarious but disturbingly often to be annoying.
I hate terran players at the moment, even though it's not their fault. The game is boring, pvx sux at all levels, and sc2 is not what's supposed to be.
I want MC/HerO to have a good race to play, not play katchup every game.
Just seems to me that the problem is getting out units fast enough to hold vs both the other races. The Terran ball gets so big so quick compared to Protoss.. The fact that they need Collo or Templars to deal effectively with the bioball just seems like a huge flaw in the way Protoss is designed. They just can't get there quick enough and at the same time have enough gateway units to hold their expansions.
Zergs seems to be able to handle all timings after 2 bases.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
Sure it might not be the major reason we see alot of terrans but you can't just disregard the fact that even most BW noobs know of Boxer, Nada and Flash, only Jaedong is close to them in idol size.
Also alot of the top terran SC2 players (MKP and MVP i believe) have outright said that they picked terran based on their fandom of BoxeR.
i agree with alot of the op intill it got to the "protoss innovaters". i just dont feel like naniwa, and sase are really good enough. indeed they are both very good players but havnt really shown any outstanding potential or skill IMO. hero and sage we all know are absolute ballers and will both at sometime break into code s and have proven that they have the skill to compete against the very best.
On September 20 2011 04:17 almins wrote: i agree with alot of the op intill it got to the "protoss innovaters". i just dont feel like naniwa, and sase are really good enough. indeed they are both very good players but havnt really shown any outstanding potential or skill IMO. hero and sage we all know are absolute ballers and will both at sometime break into code s and have proven that they have the skill to compete against the very best.
They haven't proven that at all. Hero has yet to do anything in Korea and sage has gotten 1 all kill, and even now Sage is on a pretty bad losing streak, even when he was just playing ICCUp weeklys.
On September 20 2011 02:55 TolEranceNA wrote: Was mass upgraded ling ever used against protoss before 2011? Was baneling bomb ever used before 2011? Was mass drop ever used against protoss before 2011? Are there buffs to overlord, zerglings and banelings? Nope.avi
Therefore zerg AT THE VERY LEAST tried to be innovative and succeed at doing so.
Now, before you yell me by saying "OMG PROTOSS HAZ N OBANELING< THA RACE IZ DOOMEDDD< U MAD I TELL U." At least try to use warp prism, stargate units, archons, carrier mothership in all your match up, trust me, Ling bling vs toss was just as absurd as any of the units here in 2010.
Every single one of stargate units have been tried and used. Mass pheonix? Watch july vs anypro. Stargate expo, watch any MC vs sen games. The fact is archon and stargate units(other than carriers) have been used. Protoss have also been experimenting with warp prism lately even tho their winrate is still bad. Unlike zerg who litterally went roach/hydro/corrupted for 5 month. Protoss has went from 3 gate expand to 1 gate exp to dt expo to stargate expo.
Actually the thing is that carriers have also been used (Hong un has used them a couple times in the gsl wich won my <3) and like... the problem really is that blizzard nerfed protoss over and over and over because both zerg and terran wherent CREATIVE. like... see how incredibly strong ghosts are... yet every terran said "no they suck" or look at the infestors... now seen in like every game whit a zerg on it but yet again zergs where always like "no no infestors suck!" so then protoss got nerfed to oblivion...and THEN when the race was nerfed they learned how to use those amazing units and thats whats causing protoss to be so weak... so much nerfs because of the other races just not using their advantages ended up coming back to haunt us.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
That consensus is at the same level of Idras "Protoss players are stupid".
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
That consensus is at the same level of Idras "Protoss players are stupid".
At a certain level protoss players *are* stupid -- stupid for continually showing up to the gunfight armed with knives. It doesn't matter how amazingly skilled you are with your knife; you'll still usually lose against a guy with a gun.
There's an obvious best race at this point, and there's no excuse for not playing it if you're a pro player and your job is to win at SC2. Sure, TvT gets boring -- but not as boring as XvP curb-stompings.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
That consensus is at the same level of Idras "Protoss players are stupid".
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
On September 20 2011 02:36 Roxy wrote: I am disgusted that the ineptitude of the blizzard balance team is affecting the livelihood of these gamers
...for shame
I kinda agree with you.
I hate the excuse Blizzard gave saying "oh Terran is more developed".
Ok, i understand that. But why would you release a game with one race being more "developed" than the other two? If it wasnt an Esport, most people wouldnt care that much,but it huts not just the balance, but viewership (dont you tell me you arent tired of watching endless TVTVTVT) and entertainment.
If people get frustrated on the ladder by losing games, imagine a pro player that picked protoss. Unless they pull a byun and switch to Terran, we will probably have to wait till Legacy of the void. Of course i am exaggerating a little, but watching Protoss is so sad.
Another thing that bothers me is that blizz is always faster to fix stuff when it comes to zerg. Nestea lost to a bunker rush? Give rax 5 more secs. Idra got his ass kicked by BFH? nerf them. Protoss can harass a fast third with void rays? No, sir, you cant have that. Buff spore crawlers.
1/1/1 has over 90% winratio? Wait, the metagame will shift. Infestors are too good? nerf NP, while infested terrans remain untouched and fungal rape everything else.
I wont even talk about ghosts.
Yes, im sad and mad.
I think even sadder was the consensus amongst Teamliquid that Terran players were dominating in KR but not anywhere else was due to them being better at RTS than their Zerg and Protoss counterparts. Things like 'they are following their idols Boxer and Nada' was hilarious to hear.
That consensus is at the same level of Idras "Protoss players are stupid".
At a certain level protoss players *are* stupid -- stupid for continually showing up to the gunfight armed with knives. It doesn't matter how amazingly skilled you are with your knife; you'll still usually lose against a guy with a gun.
There's an obvious best race at this point, and there's no excuse for not playing it if you're a pro player and your job is to win at SC2. Sure, TvT gets boring -- but not as boring as XvP curb-stompings.
To be fair, as a pro player you have to focus on playing your race. Worrying about balance is detrimental to your practice regimen and also to your mental strength. Its part of the pro mindset to not complain about balance, since it only frustrates you and doesnt help you to improve.
All this heroism legend hope stuff for protoss on here seems rather cynical IMO. Since pros are systematically unable to notice it, someone should protect them from wasting their lives for something that appears to be not archievable. Even if some people claim thats how it should be.
Ultimately, you cannot tell skill and balance apart anyways. Truth is, it is a matter of opinion if terran players have more skill or if terran is insanely OP, there is no logical sound way to "measure" these values independent from each other. In the end you have to DECIDE if its balanced or not.
If people in the sc2 community decide that terrans are better and protosses suck, they can not be proven wrong. Not even after nobody plays protoss anymore.
Balance is the question of how you want a competitive landscape to look like.
to me, the problem isn't really that toss would be so weak right now, but that each and every successful strategy protoss ever had was denounced "OP" and - most of them at least - nerfed; or units that deal with it buffed
#1 on top of all: 4 gate; even though the nerf was meant for PvP it also meant a drastic nerf in PvT and PvZ #2: double gate zealot pressure PvZ; zealot-buildtime-nerf was claimed to have been introduced due to proxy gate in bronze league, but in reality it removed the protoss equivalent to double rax pressure openings that terrans have #3: voidrays: both the all-in (which could have worked out perfectly in the metagame, forcing terrans into not greedy macro games) and the lategame (flux vanes) was nerfed #4: zealot/templar PvT: terrans cried and amulet...no..didn't get nerfed, but got completely removed #5: protoss deathball PvZ: zergs cried and got the infestor buffed; the funny thing is, the deathball really should be strong, as it consists of each and every protoss high-tech-unit; not something like infestor/ling-2-tier-2-unit bs; also it comes with the disadvantage of zero mapcontrol
People that call for more innovation need to realize that the other races didn't really "evolve"....it was the actually very simple fact that most of the good stuff protoss had got nerfed. I would love to see some real "innovations", the problem is though, that there's a reason why these supposedly good strategies haven't been used yet.
On September 20 2011 01:16 Yaotzin wrote: 1) BW was never this bad. 2) You're assuming it's a period, and by the time you realise you're wrong the game will be dead.
Don't understand you people who insist on waiting forever for some massive metagame change that probably will never happen, while people just stop watching because a 2-race Starcraft is just boring.
1) It absolutely was (and arguably is, save for one fluke player).
2) You're assuming it's not. By the time you realize that you can't keep patching previous patches that were patches to problems caused by other patches, SC2 will lose any legitimacy as a competitive game.
Every time a game is patched, it's basically reset and completely messed up. A month later somebody will finally come up with refined ways of abusing the changes and another race will need a patch. Rinse and repeat.
It never ends, and it certainly never ends well.
Why is it sooo inconceivable to people like you that the game might require another patch or two to improve the balance? Is such a concept so absurd that it cannot even be considered? Why didn't we have this 'no more patching attitude' before the KA and warpgate nerfs? Why couldn't we have stopped patching and let the metagame sort it out before those major nerfs?
It's kind of absurd, given that every patch is pretty much a gamble. Nobody can possibly conceive all the consequences of a balance change immediately, and it could (and usually does) just as easily create additional problems in various matchups later on. With that attitude, you'll never stop patching, which is just absurd because then you're effectively determining all the results by patching.
We already have patches on average each 2 months, and they never seem to fix anything long term. It's just going back and forth. You act as if patches solve something, but they don't - they only change things.
I thought the game was perfectly playable after Terrans could no longer build Barracks before Depots btw. -_-
On September 20 2011 01:46 tomatriedes wrote: Do you really know so much more than all the top Korean protoss players (and even one terran player) and experts like Gisado who are claiming a problem?
No, I'm saying that they don't know everything. Obviously I know even less, but until you've got the game crunched down to the last detail, you can't conclusively claim it's imbalanced. And since knowing everything in a game of such complexity is not humanly possible, all balance complaints are really based on arbitrary and incomplete observations.
Well if balance is so unattainable might as well give Protoss a chance to win something right?
So you would have another 33% (or 66%) of SC2 users whine instead of you, what's the difference? ^_^
Balance whining annoys me no matter where it comes from, and as for games on my level I win when I'm better than my opponent and lose when I'm worse. It's all the same to me.
I wouldn't mind a Protoss-favored patch obviously, but I know it'll really change little in terms of how good overall game balance is and it will eventually just be counter-patched again (especially if the trend continues and people keep demanding and expecting patches).
No i just want an enjoyable and competitive game at least from the perspective of a Protoss player. I want to actually have a shred of hope that a protoss player can take down a competent zerg or terran. Not be in a constant state of depression on these forums because I have to see MC play a PvZ on a freaking map like Dual Sight.
That's what the depressed Zergs wanted as well, so they got super buffed on multiple fronts and apparently that's why you now can't have what you want, and so on and so forth.
Among people who think balance is the be-all, end-all reason for players of certain race doing badly while a game is evolving very rapidly, then out of all of you, one third at least will always be unhappy and depressed. And the rest of us will have to swim through oceans of tears EVERYWHERE on forums. -_-
What can I tell you... just don't get depressed.
nope you're pretty much wronged here.
Zerg wasnt and never been in as bad state as protoss is.
Protoss win rates have been bad since the beginning compared to the other 2 races and you only see one protoss winning top tourneys earlier and that was MC while the rest of the winners usually are Terran most of the time.
Protoss is lacking what the other two races have and that is mobility of armies or units.
Terran has medivacs(lmao transporter and healer in 1 unit!) and can afford to lose a few of those.Plus, they're hella cose effective.
Zerg has perma speed lings that could shred protoss base apart if u dont wall in carefully and they can afford to lose bunch of zerglings.Mutas...no explanation needed
Zealots are extremely slow, melee and can easily be kited until u have charge, which, sometimes charged into death = free gold for your opponent.Marine has stim and can scout pretty well while speedlings... u know how good they are.
Stalkers do pathetic DPS, slow aspd and low dmg.EXTREMELY TERRIBLE in a small group vs small group like 5stalkers vs 6marines with medivac.
All in all, imo, they need to buff protss tier1 units a bit.They can leave the OP ghosts and Infestor as what they are now.
Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
On September 20 2011 06:10 dirtyBeat wrote: Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
Nobody understood the reasoning behind the crazy gas-expensive dark shrine, iirc even some mods/pros complained hard about that in beta. The funny thing is, if you blizz is afraid of "insta" warped DTs, they only have to set the warp-in-time to, like, 25, so it would be insanely risky to warp them in at a proxy location.
On September 20 2011 06:10 dirtyBeat wrote: Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
But then Zerg would need much earlier detection; overseers and/or spores would need to be rebalanced.
On September 20 2011 06:10 dirtyBeat wrote: Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
But then Zerg would need much earlier detection; overseers and/or spores would need to be rebalanced.
Well thei will still be tier 2.5 or even 3. So zerg will have plenty time to build 1 or 2 spores or even create an overseer.
They should give Dark Templars a researchable blink upgrade Okay that might be OP but it would make them a far more potent and resilient harass unit.
Maybe the expansion could add a unit that is built at the forge so that it would still be accessible tier 1 but wont need to be cost ineffective because of warp functionality. Something tailored for fast expands like a slow, tough defender unit...
Hopefully Protoss will innovate their way back into this. All I've heard are terran terran terran innovating their strategies constantly week after week. Zerg have also occationally adapted and improved their previous strategies. Time for protoss to do something besides asking for buffs. Until everything tried fails, then the game is unbalanced.
On September 20 2011 06:10 dirtyBeat wrote: Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
But then Zerg would need much earlier detection; overseers and/or spores would need to be rebalanced.
not really just change the build time of the archives to the same of the shrine and there you go the timings dont change its just that now it isnt useless.
On September 20 2011 06:29 Geos13 wrote: They should give Dark Templars a researchable blink upgrade Okay that might be OP but it would make them a far more potent and resilient harass unit.
Maybe the expansion could add a unit that is built at the forge so that it would still be accessible tier 1 but wont need to be cost ineffective because of warp functionality. Something tailored for fast expands like a slow, tough defender unit...
Shove dark templar into a colossus, making them invisible w/ thermal lance. Stick a pair of HT/sentry on each legs for storm/ff on demand. Sprinkle immortal's hardened shield and you got optimus primetoss.
But seriously, I think most of the korean protosses are suffering from low morales as well, which is affecting their game play. Follow Alicia on tweeter is so sad because it's such a downer.
On September 20 2011 06:39 Avs wrote: Hopefully Protoss will innovate their way back into this. All I've heard are terran terran terran innovating their strategies constantly week after week.
Well innovate as terran isn't a big deal, just roll new units to make in your 1/1/1 (reaper/tank/medivac? seems legit).
But for the protoss innovators I heard of a korean named jang that is still code B but that got innovative builds and a great unit control. I did the air expand safe versus the roach all-in long before everyone else, and I lately saw him use templar on warp prism to avoid EMP. He is currently on a loosing streak, but I hope that if he get over his nerves he can do great (for a protoss I mean, like ro4 of code A).
On September 20 2011 06:10 dirtyBeat wrote: Blizzard should move DT´s to templar archives maybe, dark shrine was the most stupid thing in game, in SC1 you could go templar tech, harassing with DT´s and making HT for your big engagements at least
But then Zerg would need much earlier detection; overseers and/or spores would need to be rebalanced.
Overseers are already getting buffed. (Much needed I think)
I actually wonder what would be so bad about bring KA back... I don't believe the win rates were really that skewed, and ghost play wasn't all that popular back then. With people being much better at ghosts now... I feel like it wouldn't be obscene to bring KA back.
Old WG timings would likely help with balance a lot, but 4 gating is the most boring thing in the world, so I'm okay if they try other things.
Personally I'm glad that MC isn't doing so well right now. He has some really good decision making and macro in some games (NASL Finals come to mind) but he's skated so long on risky coin flippy shit, he shouldn't be at the top. I think HuK is actually a stronger player than NaNi or SaSe mechanically, though SaSe is definitely more creative and NaNi is pretty good at figuring stuff out for himself.
HerO is very good, and Sage is pretty intelligent. Protoss just need players who don't follow the mantra that you need to take huge risks 2/3 games in a Bo3 and they'll start to be very sucessful (the ghost is going to be toned down fairly soon, I feel, and infestors are getting the nerfbat and were being figured out anyway).
Ghosts are fine the way they are, HTs need a speed boost and maybe KA back. infestors on the other hand need to be nerfed a bit. but they should be alright after patch 1.4 is out.
i'd say MC isn't playing well, even though toss aren't doing too well recently, MC is better than that imo.
watching korean protoss is the only reason i really watch GSL and i can't even remember the last time i saw one win a series. it's pretty depressing to see that even while living in a pro team house, they can't figure anything out
On September 20 2011 07:31 HellionDrop wrote: Ghosts are fine the way they are, HTs need a speed boost and maybe KA back. infestors on the other hand need to be nerfed a bit. but they should be alright after patch 1.4 is out.
i'd say MC isn't playing well, even though toss aren't doing too well recently, MC is better than that imo.
Yeah man, ghosts are totally fine, ask any terran. Don't listen to those whiny protoss and zerg who tell you that they're the natural (and cheap) counter to every unit they have with insane range, though. ghosts might actually need a buff, because sometimes if you are really sloppy with them you might lose one or two before you snipe obs or overseers to make your ghosts untargatable and able to rape an entire army; that shouldn't happen.
HerO is very good, and Sage is pretty intelligent. Protoss just need players who don't follow the mantra that you need to take huge risks 2/3 games in a Bo3 and they'll start to be very sucessful (the ghost is going to be toned down fairly soon, I feel, and infestors are getting the nerfbat and were being figured out anyway).
Thats just what nani was complaining about lately. He cant find a way to anything about the 1/1/1 without taking huge risks.
Hmm despite not really going for Protoss players in general, I'm not writing off MC anytime soon - he just needs to shake whatever it is that's bugging him off and come back.
On September 19 2011 18:40 Asha` wrote: HongUn didn't even get a mention despite being the 2nd best toss of sc2 and arguably the best of the last few months? xD
notsureifsrs.jpeg
HongUn has his moments, he's just consistently average. Any game I watch including HongUn is completely lack luster. I used to be a big fan of the guy when he did double forge play before it was adapted by Tyler, and thought it was genius. Since then he's just been following the standards. There's nothing wrong with that, but in no means should he be crowned the 2nd best toss of sc2 or even close to the best in the last few months.
I personally think if results continue to post up the way they do, HuK will probably take the roll of best Protoss in the world, but it all depends on how the Korean meta-game shifts with the next patch.
On September 20 2011 07:22 Arisen wrote: Personally I'm glad that MC isn't doing so well right now. He has some really good decision making and macro in some games (NASL Finals come to mind) but he's skated so long on risky coin flippy shit, he shouldn't be at the top. I think HuK is actually a stronger player than NaNi or SaSe mechanically, though SaSe is definitely more creative and NaNi is pretty good at figuring stuff out for himself.
HerO is very good, and Sage is pretty intelligent. Protoss just need players who don't follow the mantra that you need to take huge risks 2/3 games in a Bo3 and they'll start to be very sucessful (the ghost is going to be toned down fairly soon, I feel, and infestors are getting the nerfbat and were being figured out anyway).
Mc hasn't been doing that coin flippy bullshit since season 3. Most of his recent games have been safe macro oriented games, and he's been getting smashed.
I don't feel at all that protoss is losing because they don't macro, that was 3-4 seasons ago toss that all'nd every game. MC is still better than everyone up there, excluding Sage potentially, IMO. People are waaaaaaaaaaay too quick to cross off players (MVP anyone?)
On September 20 2011 08:11 Ghola wrote: Mc hasn't been doing that coin flippy bullshit since season 3
Yes, he has. I see him DT, 2 star, really unsafe early expands, etc. He still does all that stupid shit he's been doing, he's just not winning now.
Oh no! He build DT's one game and did a 1 gate expo LEARN TO PLAY SAFE MC!!. MVP does tons of risky bunker rushes, cheese, 1 base all in vs huk, but you revere him why? BECAUSE TERRAN ALL INS DON'T SUCK.
Thanks for writing this up- in a time when 90% of pro matches give protoss spectators no helpful insight, it's good to draw attention to the matches that actually are showing new and successful approaches. For a decent period now I havn't considered players like MC and Alicia as the biggest protoss heroes, with that mantle being taken up by the first 3 you mention. My personal favorite is JYP because I have trouble against zerg, but sage and hero are definitely in the same league.
On September 20 2011 09:00 SetStndbySmn wrote: Thanks for writing this up- in a time when 90% of pro matches give protoss spectators no helpful insight, it's good to draw attention to the matches that actually are showing new and successful approaches. For a decent period now I havn't considered players like MC and Alicia as the biggest protoss heroes, with that mantle being taken up by the first 3 you mention. My personal favorite is JYP because I have trouble against zerg, but sage and hero are definitely in the same league.
New? Maybe. Successful? Hardly. What top end ZvPers and TvPers have these players beaten? They sport 50 percent and sometimes even lower winrates, JYP is ok vs zerg but he has like a 24 percent winrate vs terran...he will get nowhere in GSL. Sage is Alicia 2.0 and is on a 6 game losing streak vs zerg anyway.
On September 20 2011 08:33 MK4512 wrote: I don't feel at all that protoss is losing because they don't macro, that was 3-4 seasons ago toss that all'nd every game. MC is still better than everyone up there, excluding Sage potentially, IMO. People are waaaaaaaaaaay too quick to cross off players (MVP anyone?)
"Every Protoss strat is cheese/all-in/unsafe" - some bitter zerg player
I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Zergs managed by complaining until Blizz buffed the hell out of infestors.
On September 20 2011 08:11 Ghola wrote: Mc hasn't been doing that coin flippy bullshit since season 3
Yes, he has. I see him DT, 2 star, really unsafe early expands, etc. He still does all that stupid shit he's been doing, he's just not winning now.
Oh no! He build DT's one game and did a 1 gate expo LEARN TO PLAY SAFE MC!!. MVP does tons of risky bunker rushes, cheese, 1 base all in vs huk, but you revere him why? BECAUSE TERRAN ALL INS DON'T SUCK.
It's not 1 game, he does it a lot. Most protoss do. Don't get mad at me; its just a fact. Protoss players do stupid stuff in a lot of their series because they feel they need to be able to cut corners in macro games and as that's gotten figured out, they are more and more getting punished for it. Also, I never said I revere MVP. Yeah, he takes risks from time to time and I think they pay off more for terran that protoss right now (take for instance that proxy 11/11 he does versus zerg - that's certainly risky but almost every zerg hatch firsts, so it's an auto win, and I don't think that's right either; also 1/1/1 is very strong versus protoss, and that's not being punished yet because people haven't figured out how to do it)
I don't see how saying "X player takes a lot of risks and is successful" nullifies the fact that most protoss players do risky stuff a lot to get free advantages. Yeah, it sucks that terran all ins are safer and very powerful, but if you take a big risk, you should get smashed down. How long have we seen just about every protoss 6 gate or DT rush or something similar 2/3 games versus zergs and just about every time they go for that late game they just win? Yeah, it's super good when your DT opener pays off or your 1 rax expo isn't punished, or your 6 gate works, etc. However, basing the majority of a Bo3 on that style of play is just not a strong way to play.
On September 19 2011 18:40 Asha` wrote: HongUn didn't even get a mention despite being the 2nd best toss of sc2 and arguably the best of the last few months? xD
notsureifsrs.jpeg
HongUn has his moments, he's just consistently average. Any game I watch including HongUn is completely lack luster. I used to be a big fan of the guy when he did double forge play before it was adapted by Tyler, and thought it was genius. Since then he's just been following the standards. There's nothing wrong with that, but in no means should he be crowned the 2nd best toss of sc2 or even close to the best in the last few months.
I personally think if results continue to post up the way they do, HuK will probably take the roll of best Protoss in the world, but it all depends on how the Korean meta-game shifts with the next patch.
If we look at the achievements and we exclude MC, Hongun is by FAR the best protoss, with 2 semi-finals and a ro8. And by the way he's the most consistent (well genious somehow manage to stay in code S too, but...). It's like if the best terran players in term of achievement were ensare and clide
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs got buffed and protoss got nerfed Don't worry, sooner or later blizz will get their heads out of their asses
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Zergs managed by complaining until Blizz buffed the hell out of infestors.
It was a mixture of patching and people figuring things out. Baneling drops for instance was something that developed naturally and a key thing people were telling zerg users was to use drops. People have been telling protoss players to use the warp prism more and now finally do we see more uses of it, with Hero v Idra being a prime example of its potential, and that's before any patch.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Zergs managed by complaining until Blizz buffed the hell out of infestors.
It was a mixture of patching and people figuring things out. Baneling drops for instance was something that developed naturally and a key thing people were telling zerg users was to use drops. People have been telling protoss players to use the warp prism more and now finally do we see more uses of it, with Hero v Idra being a prime example of its potential, and that's before any patch.
The patch literally would've had no impact on that game because Idra just let the warp prism sit there for 10 minutes. It's health meant nothing. It's cute play but even if it evolves into the metagame it will just get blind countered by zergs anyway.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
Combat-EX beats a lot of top level zergs who go infestor BL by splitting his army and blinking in to their bases to snipe tech/hatches and blinking away; and combat ex is terrible.
Stalkers are amazingly strong and moblie; I don't know what you're talking about. DO you remember the game at MLG columbus where MC went just mass stalker with blink versus IdrA while IdrA had a huge macro advantage and fucking hydra/infestor (which are both supposed to be zergs answer to a lot of stalkers) and still lost horribly? Yeah, stalkers are shit. Get the fuck out of here.
Have you watched HerO fucking shit on zergs using Warp prism zeal? Have you watched MC fucking cleave a mineral line even though they had anti air there with phoenix? Have you seen Korean Protoss's lift infestors with spread out phoenix in teh late game and molest the rest of the army? Have you seen KewiKaki lol at every zerg once he has a mothership? What about SaSe and those (im guessing you would say) terrible carriers? I could go on...
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
Combat-EX beats a lot of top level zergs who go infestor BL by splitting his army and blinking in to their bases to snipe tech/hatches and blinking away; and combat ex is terrible.
Stalkers are amazingly strong and moblie; I don't know what you're talking about. DO you remember the game at MLG columbus where MC went just mass stalker with blink versus IdrA while IdrA had a huge macro advantage and fucking hydra/infestor (which are both supposed to be zergs answer to a lot of stalkers) and still lost horribly? Yeah, stalkers are shit. Get the fuck out of here.
Have you watched HerO fucking shit on zergs using Warp prism zeal? Have you watched MC fucking cleave a mineral line even though they had anti air there with phoenix? Have you seen Korean Protoss's lift infestors with spread out phoenix in teh late game and molest the rest of the army? Have you seen KewiKaki lol at every zerg once he has a mothership? What about SaSe and those (im guessing you would say) terrible carriers? I could go on...
I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers. And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me. Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Zergs managed by complaining until Blizz buffed the hell out of infestors.
It was a mixture of patching and people figuring things out. Baneling drops for instance was something that developed naturally and a key thing people were telling zerg users was to use drops. People have been telling protoss players to use the warp prism more and now finally do we see more uses of it, with Hero v Idra being a prime example of its potential, and that's before any patch.
The patch literally would've had no impact on that game because Idra just let the warp prism sit there for 10 minutes. It's health meant nothing. It's cute play but even if it evolves into the metagame it will just get blind countered by zergs anyway.
Of course it worked because the opponent messed up. That's the basis of all victories and defeats. It's not like Hero perfected warp prism play either. He just showed us the potential of it, and once people realize the potential, the play will develop naturally, regardless of zergs trying to counter something or not, and thus, the metagame advances.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Zergs managed by complaining until Blizz buffed the hell out of infestors.
It was a mixture of patching and people figuring things out. Baneling drops for instance was something that developed naturally and a key thing people were telling zerg users was to use drops. People have been telling protoss players to use the warp prism more and now finally do we see more uses of it, with Hero v Idra being a prime example of its potential, and that's before any patch.
The patch literally would've had no impact on that game because Idra just let the warp prism sit there for 10 minutes. It's health meant nothing. It's cute play but even if it evolves into the metagame it will just get blind countered by zergs anyway.
Of course it worked because the opponent messed up. That's the basis of all victories and defeats. It's not like Hero perfected warp prism play either. He just showed us the potential of it, and once people realize the potential, the play will develop naturally, regardless of zergs trying to counter something or not, and thus, the metagame advances.
Then zergs learn to build 4 corruptors to kill warp prisms and build a couple spines and we're back to square 1. Kind of like with MC's stargate play.
On September 20 2011 09:37 Jinivus wrote: Then zergs learn to build 4 corruptors to kill warp prisms and build a couple spines and we're back to square 1. Kind of like with MC's stargate play.
I'm not even going to bother trying to theorycraft all the different counters and counter-counters with the still unexplored warp prism play. Just wait and see, and you might be pleasantly surprised, naysayer.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them.
What pro level non ladder game did SaSe beat a good zerg with carriers? Seriously please tell me. And what supposed good ZvPers has combatex beaten with all his awfulness. Has he ever even faced a korean? Also, Idra had 3dts killing his army with no vision while more dts ripped up his expos. Hence why he lost the game.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
Combat-EX beats a lot of top level zergs who go infestor BL by splitting his army and blinking in to their bases to snipe tech/hatches and blinking away; and combat ex is terrible.
i loled so hard xD
it is not very hard to split you army when you know what the fuck he is doing and where his unit is, by just watching the stream
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
I think he just said hydras are terrible, and that by the way hydra engaged in not the best place and got stomp by dt harass. And for the great unit control, when hero made warp prism harrass I was more like : "idra has a terrible multitasking" than "thoses drops looks powerfull" (wheras when you look at medivacs drops you're like "damn this is so powerfull").
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
Combat-EX beats a lot of top level zergs who go infestor BL by splitting his army and blinking in to their bases to snipe tech/hatches and blinking away; and combat ex is terrible.
i loled so hard xD
it is not very hard to split you army when you know what the fuck he is doing and where his unit is, by just watching the stream
Yeah, its easier to do that way, but infestor brood lord is so slow, it's still very hard to deal with. If you're on the offensive and a protoss blinks up with 20 blink stalkers and snipes your hatches, what do you do? You can retreat and hold them off with your infestors, sure, but you're just giving him more time to build templar to emp or build void rays, or whatever. You can go through with a baserace, but a protoss is goign to win that race. There are a ton of unexplored things in this matchup that people aren't willing to touch.
As to carriers, I don't know if SaSe's usesd them in code A, but he beats very good koreans on the ladder with it, watch his stream. Just because he hasn't used it in a stage match doesn't mean it's not good.
As to blink stalkers; watch puzzle versus sheth (sheth gets rolled by pretty much pure stalkers and is considered to be one of if not the best foreign ZvP's)
People see HerO's great Warp Prism Harass (pre patch) and not just versus IdrA and completely ignore it.
I don't understand how people are arguing that protoss don't have any options...
i honestly believe that excluding huk and puzzle,pretty much all the code A protoss players show more potential and skill than the code S ones.
hongun, genius, and killer quite frankly do not impress me, they bore me, and hongun at times even angers me.
we're over a year into this game and those 3 players are still winning with "dirty builds" to stay in code S. hongun has been voidray and blink stalker allining from the dawn of time and somehow his opponents havnt caught on that hes gonna do one of those lol
genius also has been doing voidray allins, and although it bores me to be watching this from the most elite players in korea, im not angry at him because if he didnt do them then he woulda just died to an even more aggravating 1/1/1 allin from virus.
but i sincerely hope that these new code A players, along with the patch. bring hope to protoss in the GSL
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
Combat-EX beats a lot of top level zergs who go infestor BL by splitting his army and blinking in to their bases to snipe tech/hatches and blinking away; and combat ex is terrible.
i loled so hard xD
it is not very hard to split you army when you know what the fuck he is doing and where his unit is, by just watching the stream
You know we're doomed when someone uses CombatEx as an example.
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Managed to whine their way out of nerfs, petitioned for nerfs for other races, and cried their why to easier double expansion builds and other buffs. Yeah, zerg evolved. Evolved the art of lobbying for changes.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
PvZ, to me, seems like a match-up that is going to balance itself through metagame changes. I watch the new Protoss heroes PvZ and get hope. However, I do think Terran early game is too strong versus Protoss. Not that Protoss doesn't necessarily have a counter, but it's near impossible to determine which all-in the Terran is doing when they have a plethora of all-ins to choose from that look very similar.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
I am putting my faith in Genius. He is not the type to play fancy styles, but he has a wide variety of builds and he is an ex progamer. I hope he can come up with some nice builds and innovate.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
The amount of stupid in this thread is staggering.
Pretty obvious that a lot of people believe Protoss is fine, it's just the players that suck and need to l2p to catch up; and then the other camp believes Protoss is broken and needs patching up to be competitive. As it is with most believes, neither side cares what the hell the opposite has to say, so why is this even an open discussion, one can only wonder.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
I think you sir are stuck in the mindset 6 mnoth ago when zergs were going roach/hydra/corruptors every game. Now days zerg have baneling drops to deal with deathballs as well as infestor based play. Deathball is no longer deathy.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
On September 19 2011 19:11 n0ah wrote: A little piece of me died today as I watched SlayerSAlicia hold his head in his hands. ='(
I don't even know what to feel about MC. It's like I don't even want to play this game anymore...
Lol.
You should have played Zerg during the beginning of this game. You come off as being pretty spoiled, if this makes you want to quit the game then Zerg during 1.00 would have made you want to quit life.
Heh... I actually did play zerg at the beginning of the game and played protoss the past 9 months or so. I got the worst of both worlds, but yeah you're right Zerg at release was way more rage inducing than protoss is now.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
If you watched that video, you would've realized Combatex lost his army over and over again. The reason why he won was because he outmacroed the hell outta the Zerg. It was like 5 base Protoss vs 4 base Zerg if I remember correctly.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
If you watched that video, you would've realized Combatex lost his army over and over again. The reason why he won was because he outmacroed the hell outta the Zerg. It was like 5 base Protoss vs 4 base Zerg if I remember correctly.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
You make it sound like its so easy for protoss to take a 'safe, easy third'.
For example, after forge expand, the typical response is fast 3 hatch. Basically the zerg can get a third base up so easy and get up to 50-60 drones really fast. After that is when you will be trying to take your third.
Then theres a ton of stuff zerg can do to well.. basically kill you.
Mass roach (losira style), infestor/ling with infested terrans, and many others.
And once you are on 3 bases, if the game goes after that a 4th base is even harder to take.
Maybe the protoss race isn't weak, but the maps just make the race feel weak due to extremely hard third bases on most maps to defend early on vs what I listed above.
But then again I don't know if easy third bases would balance the game either.
MC doesn't practice so he gets knocked down to Code B. + everyone has caught on to his style. Pretty sure tyler got a lot of hate for saying he takes to many risks. Sometimes you win GSL championships, othertimes you get knocked out of GSL.
And Alicia... just got slammed lol. SeleCt such a baller. That was some scary ghost control. But we will see Both them again.
I'm waiting to see how Sage does in a Bo3 and not bo1 teamleague.
JYP has a little ways to go, but he will be code S in the next 2 months. of the 12 that qualified for code A, 5 were Protoss. And they are all sick good.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
If you watched that video, you would've realized Combatex lost his army over and over again. The reason why he won was because he outmacroed the hell outta the Zerg. It was like 5 base Protoss vs 4 base Zerg if I remember correctly.
he does it alot, this isn't 1 game...
Can you link me a game besides that video where he does that?
I feel like all of your arguments are extremely biased and some even outdated.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
You make it sound like its so easy for protoss to take a 'safe, easy third'.
For example, after forge expand, the typical response is fast 3 hatch. Basically the zerg can get a third base up so easy and get up to 50-60 drones really fast. After that is when you will be trying to take your third.
Then theres a ton of stuff zerg can do to well.. basically kill you.
Mass roach (losira style), infestor/ling with infested terrans, and many others.
And once you are on 3 bases, if the game goes after that a 4th base is even harder to take.
Maybe the protoss race isn't weak, but the maps just make the race feel weak due to extremely hard third bases on most maps to defend early on vs what I listed above.
But then again I don't know if easy third bases would balance the game either.
No, it's not super easy to take a third, and it shouldnt be, because once you do as protoss your probability of winning shoot WAY up
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
[quote] IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
[quote]
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
If you watched that video, you would've realized Combatex lost his army over and over again. The reason why he won was because he outmacroed the hell outta the Zerg. It was like 5 base Protoss vs 4 base Zerg if I remember correctly.
he does it alot, this isn't 1 game...
Can you link me a game besides that video where he does that?
I feel like all of your arguments are extremely biased and some even outdated.
Do you think I keep replays of combatex? watch his stream, he does it all the time.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
You make it sound like its so easy for protoss to take a 'safe, easy third'.
For example, after forge expand, the typical response is fast 3 hatch. Basically the zerg can get a third base up so easy and get up to 50-60 drones really fast. After that is when you will be trying to take your third.
Then theres a ton of stuff zerg can do to well.. basically kill you.
Mass roach (losira style), infestor/ling with infested terrans, and many others.
And once you are on 3 bases, if the game goes after that a 4th base is even harder to take.
Maybe the protoss race isn't weak, but the maps just make the race feel weak due to extremely hard third bases on most maps to defend early on vs what I listed above.
But then again I don't know if easy third bases would balance the game either.
No, it's not super easy to take a third, and it shouldnt be, because once you do as protoss your probability of winning shoot WAY up
So protosses shouldn't be able to take a third base?
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
yes he does, watch his stream, you can see him rage as he loses to random protoss every day.
No he doesn't, at least not in tournaments. Ladder is completely different, I saw him leave a game vs zerg with a maxed army just because it was out of position.
And if you don't think Protoss never loses to Zerg after being on 3 base, you're ridiculously wrong. Infestor Broodlord beats any maxed Protoss ground army.
I'm going to keep coming back to this. Totally ignoring all the other ways protoss can pretty easily deal with BL/infestor (phoenix, mothership, etc)... COMBAT EX in his tiny little head has come up with a way to beat bl/infestor using just mass stalkers, and combat ex is horrible. So no, it does not.
.............are you serious? Combat ex does not play against Korean Zergs omfg this post makes me so sad...
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
You make it sound like its so easy for protoss to take a 'safe, easy third'.
For example, after forge expand, the typical response is fast 3 hatch. Basically the zerg can get a third base up so easy and get up to 50-60 drones really fast. After that is when you will be trying to take your third.
Then theres a ton of stuff zerg can do to well.. basically kill you.
Mass roach (losira style), infestor/ling with infested terrans, and many others.
And once you are on 3 bases, if the game goes after that a 4th base is even harder to take.
Maybe the protoss race isn't weak, but the maps just make the race feel weak due to extremely hard third bases on most maps to defend early on vs what I listed above.
But then again I don't know if easy third bases would balance the game either.
No, it's not super easy to take a third, and it shouldnt be, because once you do as protoss your probability of winning shoot WAY up
So protosses shouldn't be able to take a third base?
I don't understand what you are saying right now
Im saying it should be hard for protoss to secure a third base because once they do their late game kicks in and is quite a bit stronger than zergs; that is to say zerg needs to secure an advantage in the midgame (when protoss is on 2 base) to be able to do anything late game (when he is on 3 basee). If it was really easy to take a third then protoss would have a huge advantage over zerg
On September 20 2011 13:53 GMonster wrote: MC doesn't practice so he gets knocked down to Code B. + everyone has caught on to his style. Pretty sure tyler got a lot of hate for saying he takes to many risks. Sometimes you win GSL championships, othertimes you get knocked out of GSL.
You do realize Tyler hasn't done anything in SC2, and he's also the guy who thinks 1 base Robotics is an answer to an 1-1-1 all-in, right?
I mean, pretending people like Tyler or CombatEX (lol?) are somehow comparable to MC or Alicia is pretty hilarious, but you probably should keep it to blogs or something.
On September 20 2011 14:11 Benzzro wrote: If the Zerg has BL + Infestor + supporting units like lings, mass blink stalkers will not beat it unless the Zerg miss micros.
Well it does, because brood lord infestor is slow as shit. It's the same dynamic zerg players were using back when ZvZ was pretty much only roach infestor. If you go for brood lords I base race with you and I win the base race or you back off and I get to prepare corrupters while having dealt damage to you.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
You make it sound like its so easy for protoss to take a 'safe, easy third'.
For example, after forge expand, the typical response is fast 3 hatch. Basically the zerg can get a third base up so easy and get up to 50-60 drones really fast. After that is when you will be trying to take your third.
Then theres a ton of stuff zerg can do to well.. basically kill you.
Mass roach (losira style), infestor/ling with infested terrans, and many others.
And once you are on 3 bases, if the game goes after that a 4th base is even harder to take.
Maybe the protoss race isn't weak, but the maps just make the race feel weak due to extremely hard third bases on most maps to defend early on vs what I listed above.
But then again I don't know if easy third bases would balance the game either.
No, it's not super easy to take a third, and it shouldnt be, because once you do as protoss your probability of winning shoot WAY up
So protosses shouldn't be able to take a third base?
I don't understand what you are saying right now
Im saying it should be hard for protoss to secure a third base because once they do their late game kicks in and is quite a bit stronger than zergs; that is to say zerg needs to secure an advantage in the midgame (when protoss is on 2 base) to be able to do anything late game (when he is on 3 basee). If it was really easy to take a third then protoss would have a huge advantage over zerg
Mostly it just feels like at the moment if you don't take that greedy third and wait too long or try really hard to secure the third, you get behind really fast vs zerg because of how fast they can out-macro you.
That's why you see a lot of greedy third bases instead of safe third bases.
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
On September 20 2011 14:11 Benzzro wrote: If the Zerg has BL + Infestor + supporting units like lings, mass blink stalkers will not beat it unless the Zerg miss micros.
Well it does, because brood lord infestor is slow as shit. It's the same dynamic zerg players were using back when ZvZ was pretty much only roach infestor. If you go for brood lords I base race with you and I win the base race or you back off and I get to prepare corrupters while having dealt damage to you.
Also, who said Korean Zergs?
You were talking about a straight up battle? You never mentioned base trading...
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
Are you another diamond league telling everyone they are wrong?
Any kind of pressure makes it hard for Protoss to max on 3 bases. it's not impossible, but they'll surely not have the gas for Void Rays and Templar. Broodlord/Infestor will beat it.
If Protoss go for a base trade on the maps which allow it, they'll kill one of Zerg's 4-5 bases whereas if the Zerg kills the Protoss' 3rd, it's over. If he turns around, as long as Zerg isn't caught out of position, they'll win.
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Your example is identical to mine. Extremely bad players can deal with equally bad Zerg lategame, so what, who cares about that. If you want to talk about whether the game is balanced or not at highest level, you shouldn't be looking at random NA GM's or 'well liked' players, you should be looking at someone who actually, you know, can compete against the absolute top of the crop - which is GSL Code S.
You can tell me about how good Kiwikaki's mothership play is after he wins a BO5 or a few against someone like Polt or Losira; your other example SaSe has just lost to a Zerg who had been in a slump for a year now; HerO is decent, but he's never played against top calibre players, in fact, he lost to Thorzain pretty convincingly (fyi, MC whom you seem to consider a 'bad' player absolutely annihilated Thorzain not TOO long ago).
At any rate, I don't really want to argue whether the game is balanced right now or not, because it's a pretty goddamn pointless conversation anyway - but please, stop disrespecting world class players like MC and Alicia by comparing them to random NA ladder heroes. It's pretty ridiculous.
edit: by the way, the recent wins Protoss did get, are all from 'gimmicky' play based around hidden tech and new timing pushes, not 'straight up' games - even though you keep going on about how gimmicky and coinflippy play is 'bad' and the reason as to why former Protoss champions aren't doing well right now.
I'm only in diamond so take my words with a grain of salt, but I have zero problems in pvz. In fact, it's my best mu I feel. What not many people realize is that high Templar are just good against every single Zerg unit. It deals a ton of damage to the slow bl,feedbacks the infestor, and are very good against swarms especially. When I see a zerg going infestors, which is like everypvz, I don't even other going colossus tech, and I'll just mass ht. Seriously, try it sometime. It makes infesters ezpz.
Just watch Liquid`Hero play against zerg and mimic, get use to not A moving into your opponents when Collusi get removed in Heart of the Swarm, also PvT might need some changes, ghosts are incredibly strong right now, although most protoss players barely split their units up.
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Are u idra in disguise ?
He said combat ex is terrible, yet, he uses him as a referrence/example like what combat ex does would work nicely in high lv tournament.
On September 20 2011 14:53 HEROwithNOlegacy wrote: Just watch Liquid`Hero play against zerg and mimic, get use to not A moving into your opponents when Collusi get removed in Heart of the Swarm, also PvT might need some changes, ghosts are incredibly strong right now, although most protoss players barely split their units up.
lolwut? Colossus is getting removed? did I miss something?
On September 20 2011 14:52 Soulish wrote: I'm only in diamond so take my words with a grain of salt, but I have zero problems in pvz. In fact, it's my best mu I feel. What not many people realize is that high Templar are just good against every single Zerg unit. It deals a ton of damage to the slow bl,feedbacks the infestor, and are very good against swarms especially. When I see a zerg going infestors, which is like everypvz, I don't even other going colossus tech, and I'll just mass ht. Seriously, try it sometime. It makes infesters ezpz.
Thanks for solving all the protoss problems.. in diamond.
I can't beat a zerg to save myself in masters but I too could probably thrash the ones at your level which means nothing.
Better Zerg players know when to build drones and can easily macro up a lead over toss.
On September 20 2011 14:53 HEROwithNOlegacy wrote: Just watch Liquid`Hero play against zerg and mimic, get use to not A moving into your opponents when Collusi get removed in Heart of the Swarm, also PvT might need some changes, ghosts are incredibly strong right now, although most protoss players barely split their units up.
I'm sorry, but the most critical problem with PvT is currently the 1-1-1. MvP has stated that he thinks that players that use the build should be disqualified from tournaments. Ghosts are strong, yes, but they are nothing compared to the 1-1-1.
I also find your suggestion that Protoss players "get use to not A moving" amusing, considering that all Protoss engagements up to and often including Colossus battles are highly dependent on the Protoss player placing good Forcefields and properly microing their units, especially Stalkers. A Protoss who a-moves is very likely to lose their entire army, because although Forcefields are incredibly strong, the rest of the Protoss army is rather weak.
I will agree that Hero is an excellent player, though.
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Are u idra in disguise ?
He said combat ex is terrible, yet, he uses him as a referrence/example like what combat ex does would work nicely in high lv tournament.
Just because the player isn't amazing does that mean the strategy is shit? Was Daezang as good as bisu? No, but he created the build Bisu became famous for. Jaedong and savior were using 5 hatch hydra>muta almost a year before it became a mainstay of the matchup sparingly. The best players don't use the best builds all the time. The blink stalker basetrade scenario makes perfect sense for the protoss as the slow nature of infestor/BL makes the zerg choose between agressiveness and passivity and the blink stalkers huge mobility allows them to quickly snipe tech/hatches and get out. Zerg players have been using the same logic against BL's for a long time in ZvZ. Protoss players don't want to try new stuff out; they want their old stuff to win all the time again.
On September 20 2011 14:52 Soulish wrote: I'm only in diamond so take my words with a grain of salt, but I have zero problems in pvz. In fact, it's my best mu I feel. What not many people realize is that high Templar are just good against every single Zerg unit. It deals a ton of damage to the slow bl,feedbacks the infestor, and are very good against swarms especially. When I see a zerg going infestors, which is like everypvz, I don't even other going colossus tech, and I'll just mass ht. Seriously, try it sometime. It makes infesters ezpz.
Thanks for solving all the protoss problems.. in diamond.
I can't beat a zerg to save myself in masters but I too could probably thrash the ones at your level which means nothing.
Better Zerg players know when to build drones and can easily macro up a lead over toss.
No need to be a dick bro.. He said he was diamond, so his advice might helps people bronze-Diamond.
But i will agree with you In Masters it is pretty ridiculous ATM, Lets see how the patch helps us out
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Are u idra in disguise ?
He said combat ex is terrible, yet, he uses him as a referrence/example like what combat ex does would work nicely in high lv tournament.
Just because the player isn't amazing does that mean the strategy is shit? Was Daezang as good as bisu? No, but he created the build Bisu became famous for. Jaedong and savior were using 5 hatch hydra>muta almost a year before it became a mainstay of the matchup sparingly. The best players don't use the best builds all the time. The blink stalker basetrade scenario makes perfect sense for the protoss as the slow nature of infestor/BL makes the zerg choose between agressiveness and passivity and the blink stalkers huge mobility allows them to quickly snipe tech/hatches and get out. Zerg players have been using the same logic against BL's for a long time in ZvZ. Protoss players don't want to try new stuff out; they want their old stuff to win all the time again.
As stated before, Any smart zerg would just snipe the expansion and run back home. Idially, They could just leave some units to kill off the Protoss and go home to protect their hatches...
The patch probably wont change much in pvz, since fungal still kills protoss units with the same amount of fungals. If the NP change goes thru though, my ZvP's gonna be thoroughly fucked.
On September 20 2011 14:52 Soulish wrote: I'm only in diamond so take my words with a grain of salt, but I have zero problems in pvz. In fact, it's my best mu I feel. What not many people realize is that high Templar are just good against every single Zerg unit. It deals a ton of damage to the slow bl,feedbacks the infestor, and are very good against swarms especially. When I see a zerg going infestors, which is like everypvz, I don't even other going colossus tech, and I'll just mass ht. Seriously, try it sometime. It makes infesters ezpz.
Thanks for solving all the protoss problems.. in diamond.
I can't beat a zerg to save myself in masters but I too could probably thrash the ones at your level which means nothing.
Better Zerg players know when to build drones and can easily macro up a lead over toss.
No need to be a dick bro.. He said he was diamond, so his advice might helps people bronze-Diamond.
But i will agree with you In Masters it is pretty ridiculous ATM, Lets see how the patch helps us out
Not trying to be a dick.. just blunt.
Just find it so hard to win unless I manage to trick the Zerg nowadays. Looking forward to the patch too although I think It will mainly help with Terran..
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Are u idra in disguise ?
He said combat ex is terrible, yet, he uses him as a referrence/example like what combat ex does would work nicely in high lv tournament.
Just because the player isn't amazing does that mean the strategy is shit? Was Daezang as good as bisu? No, but he created the build Bisu became famous for. Jaedong and savior were using 5 hatch hydra>muta almost a year before it became a mainstay of the matchup sparingly. The best players don't use the best builds all the time. The blink stalker basetrade scenario makes perfect sense for the protoss as the slow nature of infestor/BL makes the zerg choose between agressiveness and passivity and the blink stalkers huge mobility allows them to quickly snipe tech/hatches and get out. Zerg players have been using the same logic against BL's for a long time in ZvZ. Protoss players don't want to try new stuff out; they want their old stuff to win all the time again.
Yea, send a group of stalkers out while zerg units are all over the map ready for counter with better economy + faster production.smart choice.
That is not new stuff its been there and its hardly worked.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
Everyone ignores the fact that Terran and Zerg get a early game defensive structure after their first unit building - rax to bunker, and pool to spine. Protoss gets nothing. This makes early Protoss expos, the ones that beat 1/1/1, vulnerable to 2 or 3 rax timings. This is compounded by the ghost issue, where early expos are typically defended by sentries.... which of course, can be nullified by ghosts at a timing where no other significant defense can be had by Protoss. Terran has a build that kills Protoss if they're too greedy (2 or 3 rax), and they have a build that kills if you're too conservative (1/1/1). The problem is that there's no Protoss build that walks the middle line that's safe to both.
So yes, Robo detection kinda sucks, and Ghosts are kinda imba, but that does nothing to say about the problems P's having with Zergs. I dont think its a problem with unit inefficiency or anything like that - its simply that all early expansion builds by toss either involve a forge, are unsafe, or are too slow. Forge completely forgoes any early aggression and allows the zerg to RESPOND to your economic play with an EVEN MORE economic play. 1 gate expo dies to many, many pushes that aren't even all-in. And the safest openings that still preserve some semblance of map presence (3gate expo) are way too slow. And don't even have map presence. Huk's all sentry push-outs are suicidal sometimes (sorry Huk).
Terran expos (Marauder expand vP, reactor Hellions vZ, etc.) and Zerg expos (speedling expo) can keep map presence while expanding and being safe because they can respond to a scouted pressure with spines and bunkers. How many 4gates have we seen defended by a spine or bunker defense? All of them, nowadays.
It is my challenge to you players to find a Protoss build that can expand reasonably quickly, maintain map presence to be able to scout pressure, and respond to it in time.
I don't think it can be done currently. Any build that wants to have any map presence at all must include a gateway or two. If the expansion comes any later than after the 2nd production building its just too slow to keep up with the other races. With that small number of units, you can't be safe to an attack, because there's no reactive structure you can build (forge + cannons takes too long since the cannons cant be started until after the forge is done).
So yeah. Protoss can't expand early enough to keep up while maintaining map presence. Not map CONTROL, just PRESENCE. Zerg gets a free 3rd against a forge expo, now that spores root quickly and zergs have figured out the air timings. Forge just delays your aggression too much. Non-forge openings rely on units, which are expensive and must be kept at home to be defensive, giving up the initiative, since early units are slow and pressure is usually a one way trip. Non-forge openings also cannot respond to pressure by dropping efficient defensive structures, so you have to pre-prepare with extra units/production/a forge.
TLDR: It's impossible to play a safe, reactive Protoss style that keeps up economically.
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
races arent fine, but i agree that maps dont help deal with this
I think that the issues with PvT is obvious, the PvZ issues have begun to unfold with the current ineffectiveness of the deathball. Before, the problems still existed it's just that Protosses could rely on the deathball (and 4gates) to win, simply because standard games were just not really possible due to a zerg's ability to control the map and easily outmacro protosses simply because of race mechanics (thus the need to rely on the 200 max supply cap in order to gain an advantage). Most Protosses didn't want to have to use such a bland metagame style, but it was necessary if you wanted to win. Now that zergs are using infestors way more in addition to optional baneling drops, deathballs no longer work, and aren't even near cost effective. The general understanding the protoss units cost more but are better no longer applies, because while you can micro your units to make them more effective, fungal growth prevents you from doing this and results in protoss units dying extremely easily as they are unable to be used to their highest potential.
In game 2 of the HerO vs IdrA series at Dreamhack, the only reason HerO was able to pull off the victory (aside from being a godly hero with near PERFECT control and execution) was because he was able to feedback IdrA's infestors before they could really do the devastating damage that they could've. If IdrA had been less rambo with his infestors and had kept them farther behind his army until HerO's high templar (which were actually standing in front of his army) had been taken out. It would've been extremely easy to do that since the high templar were extremely vulnerable, since HerO's only chance of getting the feedbacks off were if they were in the front lines, despite this being a huge risk. He took the risk, however, and was greatly rewarded. If those infestors hadn't been donated to Aiur, then HerO's 4th base defensives probably would've fallen as HerO was barely able to pull it off. Oh wait, why was HerO in any trouble at all? Maybe it's because having 3rd bases still puts you at a disadvantage against a zerg who has more bases (which they will no doubt have if you try and take a 3rd, unless they're extremely dense). Anyways, back to the point, fungal growth (and neural on colossi) negate a protoss' ability to be cost effective with their units, which kind of defeats the purpose of their race and makes you rely on "gimmicky" strategies that are based on tricking your opponent, since beating them in a straight up fight isn't an option (even if you both have equal levels of skill).
I think getting hallucination verse terran early on will become key, I would absolutely love if blizzard did some changes to warp gate and changed some timings around. For eg. gateways before warp gate research, make units at normal gateway speed. After warp gate research, gateways get the current warpgate timings to make units.
So for example, the cooldown of a warp gate is now the building time of the gateway unit etc(maybe even less for the gateway). While the warp gate will get the gateway timer cooldown. I think it will sprout new innovation, instead of just having warp gates going all the time, having to switch between gateway production to warp gate defence/offence could give protoss that early gate boost that I think they need at the moment (coming from a zerg).
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point.
And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk.
Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
On September 20 2011 09:17 MrProb wrote: I lol'd at ppl who said that Protoss players need to find something new and innovative.
List all the protoss units here and u'll see why they cant be innovative.
1.The race itself lacked mobility.Most units are slow the ones that fast do pathetic dps such as Stalker or Phoenix.
2.Protoss cant split army AT ALL its an auto GG if u lose a considered amount of Sentries or Stalkers because protoss is one of the hardest and slowest to get 2nd, 3rd or 4th base w/o already securing a significant lead thus lowest income of 3 races.While Terran can afford to lose some Medivacs full of marines as long as they managed to harass abit (which most likely will cuz they're the most cost effective combo in the game) and Zerg have speedlings, baneling mines, Mutas or even Infestor harass.They can also afford to lose bunch of zerglings cuz most of the time they'll be ahead of their opponents on income(at least against protoss).
People were saying that zergs would have to innovate when they were struggling, and a lot of people were using the same arguments you are.
In the end, zergs managed.
Don't worry, you'll get there.
Managed to whine their way out of nerfs, petitioned for nerfs for other races, and cried their why to easier double expansion builds and other buffs. Yeah, zerg evolved. Evolved the art of lobbying for changes.
Zerg, the political party. You heard it here first folks.
Well yes, I forgot to talk about Warp Gates, forgive me for that, but with trying to cover all those points I must have omitted a couple. It does unfortunately feel like gateway units are innately underpowered because of Warp Gate tech.
Also it is specifically because of WG tech that protoss don't have a fast harass unit from gateway. and no fast harass unit means no map control. Zerg has zerglings, terran has hellions, later on zerg can transition into mutalisk.
Protoss do have a fast harass unit that could get some map control, the Phoenix, however they don't cut it because of the following reasons.
Phoenix cost too much, and thus close the door behind more combinations/innovations that protoss need. Phoenix cost too much for what they do. Phoenix don't harass as efficient as other counterparts. Hellions can kill workers extremely easy, even after the BFH nerf, zergling if they get into a mineral line can cause havoc, mutalisks can not only run amok in a mineral line but they can even snipe buildings.
The phoenix costs 150 M and 100 G, that is 50 M more then a muta, while for the zerg it is ok because of the swarming power of zerglings and banelings, it is not good for the protoss, who relies on a mix of high gas units to be effective. Also while mutas in large numbers can snipe buildings, reinforcements and workers quickly, the phoenix feels a bit slower and clumsy because it needs to graviton units to kill them, and they can't even target buildings.
I think Phoenix could be a fantastic harass unit, but the price point needs to be adjusted so it doesn't hurt the rest of the army composition, graviton beam could be made cheaper. And the protoss needs another detection, either from GW or SG so they don't die to banshees while they try to harass with phoenix.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point.
And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk.
Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
You forgot a thing man, that the terran "base"units wreack the protoss "gate" units. You cannot watch only the time of production of barracks and warp without take a look to the effectiveness. Your point of view can be right only if i could warp marine/marauder by my gate...
Destructicon for President (or maybe Blizzard's lead Games Dev), is all I can say.
Also, Red Alert is right that as it is Protoss T1 units cannot beat Terran T1 units head on in equal cost, because then the warp gate mechanic would make PvT favoured in Protoss' favour too much. However, there is currently a vast discrepancy in cost efficiency of Terran vs Protoss, and while there must be some (or Warp Gate must be changed/moved to Twilight Council etc), at the moment I feel there is too much.
On September 20 2011 13:53 GMonster wrote: MC doesn't practice so he gets knocked down to Code B. + everyone has caught on to his style. Pretty sure tyler got a lot of hate for saying he takes to many risks. Sometimes you win GSL championships, othertimes you get knocked out of GSL.
And Alicia... just got slammed lol. SeleCt such a baller. That was some scary ghost control. But we will see Both them again.
I'm waiting to see how Sage does in a Bo3 and not bo1 teamleague.
JYP has a little ways to go, but he will be code S in the next 2 months. of the 12 that qualified for code A, 5 were Protoss. And they are all sick good.
I've seen what Sage does to Jinro in a best of 24 , quite a lot. Amazing play.
There are a few problems with Protoss that the other races can easily exploit.
The main one as I see it is that Protoss units are the most expensive in the game and by virtue of that tend to always be outnumbered. Gateway units simply do not have enough numbers or power by themselves to adequately fight the armies of the other races.
Zerg has the worst units in the game but compensate for this by always having numerical superiority, map vision and counter attack options. A Roach will never beat a Stalker but at they can easily out number them.
Terran has some of the most cost efficient units in the game. Just look at the Marine. A Stalker costs 125/50 and yet just two Marines at 100/0 have double the dps (14 compared 6.9 vs non-armoured targets, 20 if you count stim). There's an even more stark comparison to be made between the Marauder and the Stalker. Though they fulfil generally the same role (anti-armour) and have relatively even costs (a Marauder is 25/25 less at 100/25) there is no comparing a Marauder to a Stalker in terms of raw damage. The Marauder is significantly more powerful - 13.4 dps (an incredible 23.4 when stimmed) versus the Stalker's 9.7 dps versus armoured targets.
This forces the Protoss to rely on other more powerful units to compensate for the weakness of their main army. The best example of this is the Colossus, which is extraordinarily powerful. The problem here is that the Colossus is easily countered - mass Vikings (and to a lesser extent Corruptors) can render a Colossus completely useless, thus forcing the Protoss to fight on (un)equal ground.
Another problem that many are aware of is the lack of a truly viable unit for harassment purposes and this is one of main reasons why Protoss are struggling versus Zerg. The main units usually cited are Phoenixes and Dark Templar. Neither of these are particularly appealing options as they force you down alternatively (and costly) tech paths that can significantly lower the strength of your main army. They're also relatively easily countered. The recent changes to the Warp Prism should help though it still requires you to occupy your most important production structure for 50 seconds). Blizzard have stated they're aware of this and perhaps will introduce such a unit in HOTS.
Full disclosure - I'm a gold league Protoss player so I'm very open to being entirely wrong on everything I've said here, but I've tried to present my perspective as free from bias as possible.
A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
The warp gate shouldn't be such early tech anyway, it's completely fucking stupid. Protoss units should be strong and importantly - LESS MOBILE. Who at Blizzard had the smart idea of letting them completely ignore distances early game? Note in BW that the recall ability is at the very top of the tech tree because that kind of ability is very very powerful; ditto for Nydus Canal and that's mostly a defensive structure anyway.
Mobility is something Blizzard have got wrong throughout SC2 design. From allowing an early game harass unit to jump and cliffs and ignore chokes to the extremely small maps they originally expected people to play on, it's like they don't even take it into consideration.
On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote: A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
i know right ? zerg didnt get buff or patched at all they figured everything out by themselves !
On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote: A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
Actually, I still believe that Zerg is a fundamentally broken race, but they got a huge buff by way of the Infestor which compensates for the other flaws, and they are just less broken than Protoss are because they have no Warp Gate mechanic equivalent which Blizzard overcompensated for. Because Infestors are rarely used in GSL, especially because almost all Zergs follow Nestea's lead and his style doesn't use them often, Zerg is losing out almost as much as Protoss. Two things Protoss and Zerg have in common at the moment is that they're very unforgiving, compared to Terran where it is easier to make mistakes and get away with them, eg losing dropships when harassing, losing a couple of tanks due to mismicro/bad positioning etc.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss.
This happens the other way round as well. If I go 1 rax expo and the toss goes 3 gate robo they are going to have a larger army value than me when they go for their 1 base all in push.
I don't see a problem with this. If one player pursues economy, and the other goes for army size, there SHOULD be a period where the guy on one base has a larger army. The economy based player is aiming at a later point in the game where his economy will enable him to get ahead in army size. Until that point he is behind in army and tech. This is the game working as intended.
On September 20 2011 20:43 suejak wrote: A lot of these Protoss doomsday prophets sure sound like zergs a few months ago: our race is fundamentally broken in x way, and the only solution is redesign. Stop telling us to innovate because we've tried everything; our race just missed x, y, and z necessary things.
Meanwhile, zergs STILL don't have a new way to scout early on (or in general) -- something that was supposedly required to save a badly designed race. And zergs sure aren't doing badly anymore. What happened?
Well, you can claim a lot of things happened, and you'd be right. But the point is that it worked out, and it doesn't seem like it worked out because zerg was redesigned.
Actually, I still believe that Zerg is a fundamentally broken race, but they got a huge buff by way of the Infestor which compensates for the other flaws, and they are just less broken than Protoss are because they have no Warp Gate mechanic equivalent which Blizzard overcompensated for. Because Infestors are rarely used in GSL, especially because almost all Zergs follow Nestea's lead and his style doesn't use them often, Zerg is losing out almost as much as Protoss. Two things Protoss and Zerg have in common at the moment is that they're very unforgiving, compared to Terran where it is easier to make mistakes and get away with them, eg losing dropships when harassing, losing a couple of tanks due to mismicro/bad positioning etc.
How is it forgiving when you lose dropships or tanks? Terran doesn't have a magic revive button, the units and the resources are still lost...
i dont know if it has been discussed already or not but blizzard tries to make every unit somewhat useable...what about the carrier?! yea its a good unit and does lots of damage but why is it not used at all ( at least in gsl and big tourneys that is) it seems like the whole carrier tech is useless because terran already has vikings against colossus and if you go hts they still have marines and ghosts -.-
I feel like there's a good deal of people looking at the problem from a very wrong angle here.
Two sentries have gas cost equivalent to 8 roaches, 8 marauders or a colossus, etc (200). A fully saturated base gives you 228gas/minute, so every 2 sentries or 4 stalkers you force the P to make, you have his tech delayed by a minute.
If you look at something like Colossus against Hydra - how cost-efficient the army trading is for P at that tier, or Void against Roach one could conclude pretty safely that gateway units are something protoss players don't want to stay on any longer than they absolutely have to.
Remember the HuK's PvT game on Dreamhack Valencia? The one where he went mass gateway ball sentry/stalker to attempt to punish the terran FE. He was all-in the second he produced those units. As he pulled back, the game was over.
As a protoss I'm always looking ways to cut back on sentries and stalkers throughout the game, to get some better units out faster, and to lead the tech. It's fun to roast 10 hydras to burn 500 gas from a zerg with colossus, rather than to have sentries and stalkers burned with hydra ling with sickeningly cost inefficient engagements. Or infestor ling for that matter.
This is why protoss prefers to play extremely passively in the early game. The only "innovation" that we are looking for either has us faster on more geysers, or has us somehow utilize zealots better to save more gas for a faster tech in the early- and early midgame. There's nothing else to innovate with. Nobody cares for a mothership or carrier, as they don't answer to any of the problems.
Considering all this, why would a terran ever 1rax FE against toss anyways, as their bioball is their core dps throughout the game? Doesn't lead you guys in a horrible midgame trying to counter Colossi with Vikings and Marauders and then running into HT and Chargelot transition that came up that much faster?
Same for zergs. On ladder I can get away with so greedy play, things like 1 sentry 3 zealot nexus, and then get badmannered as I amove my deathball 4 minutes earlier. :D
Against good zergs and terrans who know how to abuse the cost of building gateway units, it becomes a completely different story. And all it takes is to make units early, and pressure early, pull back and macro behind it. P doesn't dictate the game anymore at all, P has to react, and typically it starts spiraling down the slope of having to resupply inefficient gateway ball all game long.
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
yeah would be interesting to see what would happen to the "metagame". would be interesting to be able to forge expand in nearly all pvzs...cant see it happening :-/
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
And yet, he stills hates protoss the most for some twisted reason (maybe a carryover from playing terran in BW?). And his legions of mindless followers parrot everything he says- "protoss players are dumb herp derp, protoss is EZ mode herp derp." Even if he was winning 100% against toss he'll still keep doing that. That's pretty much why I'm no longer a fan of his to be honest.
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
The "use more warp prisms" thing really is the new nydus worm. Anyways, just watching Terrans use some Ravens makes me ask why they have auto-turrets when the race clearly doesn't need them. A Protoss version of auto-turrets would be great as an ability for warp prisms in the expansion. You could drop them in a mineral line without worrying about diminishing your already small army early on in the game and they last ages, forcing your opponent to split their army at least a little bit.
On September 20 2011 21:46 AnalThermometer wrote: The "use more warp prisms" thing really is the new nydus worm. Anyways, just watching Terrans use some Ravens makes me ask why they have auto-turrets when the race clearly doesn't need them. A Protoss version of auto-turrets would be great as an ability for warp prisms in the expansion. You could drop them in a mineral line without worrying about diminishing your already small army early on in the game and they last ages, forcing your opponent to split their army at least a little bit.
Its funny huh ? cc can upgrade and have 3 cool abilities : instant 100minerals(depot), scan anywhere and the imba mule.
they also have air transportation that can heals.
their detection can also research for some defensive purposes or offensive purposes.
their caster also comes equip with EMP rounds.A skill that does instant AOE dmg against protoss other than its main purpose.
STIM, arguably the best skill ever in starcraft universe.
Protoss air transportation? warp prism ? research speed LOL !
Protoss detector Observer ? research speed LOL ! (altho i think observer is one of the best unit in SC + cost effective)
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
On September 20 2011 22:04 Zeon0 wrote: gsl spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
On September 20 2011 20:33 Xaeldaren wrote: There are a few problems with Protoss that the other races can easily exploit.
The main one as I see it is that Protoss units are the most expensive in the game and by virtue of that tend to always be outnumbered. Gateway units simply do not have enough numbers or power by themselves to adequately fight the armies of the other races.
Zerg has the worst units in the game but compensate for this by always having numerical superiority, map vision and counter attack options. A Roach will never beat a Stalker but at they can easily out number them.
Terran has some of the most cost efficient units in the game. Just look at the Marine. A Stalker costs 125/50 and yet just two Marines at 100/0 have double the dps (14 compared 6.9 vs non-armoured targets, 20 if you count stim). There's an even more stark comparison to be made between the Marauder and the Stalker. Though they fulfil generally the same role (anti-armour) and have relatively even costs (a Marauder is 25/25 less at 100/25) there is no comparing a Marauder to a Stalker in terms of raw damage. The Marauder is significantly more powerful - 13.4 dps (an incredible 23.4 when stimmed) versus the Stalker's 9.7 dps versus armoured targets.
This forces the Protoss to rely on other more powerful units to compensate for the weakness of their main army. The best example of this is the Colossus, which is extraordinarily powerful. The problem here is that the Colossus is easily countered - mass Vikings (and to a lesser extent Corruptors) can render a Colossus completely useless, thus forcing the Protoss to fight on (un)equal ground.
Another problem that many are aware of is the lack of a truly viable unit for harassment purposes and this is one of main reasons why Protoss are struggling versus Zerg. The main units usually cited are Phoenixes and Dark Templar. Neither of these are particularly appealing options as they force you down alternatively (and costly) tech paths that can significantly lower the strength of your main army. They're also relatively easily countered. The recent changes to the Warp Prism should help though it still requires you to occupy your most important production structure for 50 seconds). Blizzard have stated they're aware of this and perhaps will introduce such a unit in HOTS.
Full disclosure - I'm a gold league Protoss player so I'm very open to being entirely wrong on everything I've said here, but I've tried to present my perspective as free from bias as possible.
Roaches do beat stalkers btw lol. Give them both 2/2 upgrades and lock the stalkers in place with fungal and stalkers are helpless against roaches which are nearly half the cost. In the typical deathball they're basically a big meat shield for colossi that also do good damage only because of the range superiority in huge numbers. Having 200/200 roach with some infestors barrel down on your 110 supply stalker army is never fun.
On September 20 2011 14:52 Soulish wrote: I'm only in diamond so take my words with a grain of salt, but I have zero problems in pvz. In fact, it's my best mu I feel. What not many people realize is that high Templar are just good against every single Zerg unit. It deals a ton of damage to the slow bl,feedbacks the infestor, and are very good against swarms especially. When I see a zerg going infestors, which is like everypvz, I don't even other going colossus tech, and I'll just mass ht. Seriously, try it sometime. It makes infesters ezpz.
They can just as easily go roach infestor and bully you, deny your third, while massing bases and teching up to broodlords. HT blow against 3 speed 145 HP units who can also regen and get out of forcefields.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
On September 20 2011 14:20 Zombie_Velociraptor wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:16 Arisen wrote:
On September 20 2011 14:13 dooraven wrote: lmao at people suggesting CombatEX is anywhere near Korean Protosses.
I don't think anyone has ever said that. I said that combat ex is horrible and still can beat broodlord infestor with blink stalkers.
You know, I can win with 4-gates only in Bronze League. I think Protoss players should just learn to 4-gate properly and their win rates will be fine again.
...
He's in GM league? Lets look past that example. I was using combat ex to show that even extremely bad players can pretty easily deal with zerg lategame. Lets take a well liked player; a very good player. Kiwikaki. Kiwi gets out a mothership, vortexes your shit and wins the game. That's just how it happens. I don't think I've ever seen him lose after a mothership was out. Beyond that, I've seen him (and many others) win with straight up with straight up colossus/ht/blink (usually games that go to this stage go to the protoss), HerO uses WP's, SaSe uses carriers, lots of people use phoenix...how many ways do you want to crush infestor/broodlord?
Are u idra in disguise ?
He said combat ex is terrible, yet, he uses him as a referrence/example like what combat ex does would work nicely in high lv tournament.
Just because the player isn't amazing does that mean the strategy is shit? Was Daezang as good as bisu? No, but he created the build Bisu became famous for. Jaedong and savior were using 5 hatch hydra>muta almost a year before it became a mainstay of the matchup sparingly. The best players don't use the best builds all the time. The blink stalker basetrade scenario makes perfect sense for the protoss as the slow nature of infestor/BL makes the zerg choose between agressiveness and passivity and the blink stalkers huge mobility allows them to quickly snipe tech/hatches and get out. Zerg players have been using the same logic against BL's for a long time in ZvZ. Protoss players don't want to try new stuff out; they want their old stuff to win all the time again.
I saw some of Combatex's games, and when Destiny decided to pressure in midgame with roach infestor, him trying to base race didn't work out so hot.
On September 20 2011 21:46 AnalThermometer wrote: The "use more warp prisms" thing really is the new nydus worm. Anyways, just watching Terrans use some Ravens makes me ask why they have auto-turrets when the race clearly doesn't need them. A Protoss version of auto-turrets would be great as an ability for warp prisms in the expansion. You could drop them in a mineral line without worrying about diminishing your already small army early on in the game and they last ages, forcing your opponent to split their army at least a little bit.
Its funny huh ? cc can upgrade and have 3 cool abilities : instant 100minerals(depot), scan anywhere and the imba mule.
they also have air transportation that can heals.
their detection can also research for some defensive purposes or offensive purposes.
their caster also comes equip with EMP rounds.A skill that does instant AOE dmg against protoss other than its main purpose.
STIM, arguably the best skill ever in starcraft universe.
Protoss air transportation? warp prism ? research speed LOL !
Protoss detector Observer ? research speed LOL ! (altho i think observer is one of the best unit in SC + cost effective)
Really? I'm not going to get into the whole race vs race debate but protoss has chronoboost which can be used on any unit or upgrade. Plus warpgate is very arguably the best upgrade (not stim) in the game. I strongly believe that protoss have just become complacent in their strategies because they worked so well for months. Now that T/Z are finally adapting (bringing back 1-1-1, yes it is an old build and protoss figured out how to beat it before...) they are reluctant to deviate from outdated styles and builds. I'm not saying protoss isn't weak atm (at least at the pro level) but I just think the average toss user needs to experiment some more before crying for blizz fixes.
cannon'll be crushed by siege tank everytime man...
Really? I'm not going to get into the whole race vs race debate but protoss has chronoboost which can be used on any unit or upgrade. Plus warpgate is very arguably the best upgrade (not stim) in the game. I strongly believe that protoss have just become complacent in their strategies because they worked so well for months. Now that T/Z are finally adapting (bringing back 1-1-1, yes it is an old build and protoss figured out how to beat it before...) they are reluctant to deviate from outdated styles and builds. I'm not saying protoss isn't weak atm (at least at the pro level) but I just think the average toss user needs to experiment some more before crying for blizz fixes.
Seriusly... i'm tired to read thing like this... go to a krean PRO player that WORKS on this game and tell him "experiment before cry"! He play 16h/day.. go to tell him!
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point.
And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk.
Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
You forgot a thing man, that the terran "base"units wreack the protoss "gate" units. You cannot watch only the time of production of barracks and warp without take a look to the effectiveness. Your point of view can be right only if i could warp marine/marauder by my gate...
Isn't the guy just noting how warpgate necessitates protoss units to be beefy but low in damage output? While terran units are produced less quickly + walk distance but 'rape'. He's not whining about anything.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
ne thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
Why would you mention that you're "almost masters" when you then go on to destroy any credibility you have anyway? You're saying protoss players should counter a push including siege tanks, which usually hits moments before siege research finishes, with cannons?
You might as well tell people you're a creationist, then expect them to listen to your thoughts on natural science.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
and thus you are so far behind that you will still lose
On September 20 2011 22:04 Zeon0 wrote: gsl spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
defended ? he didnt even attack you... you build cannons thus wasted resources while he can just switch tech or to macro.
PLUS 1/1/1 IS NOT AN ALL INNNNNNNNNN.
they can transition out of it np as long as they do some dmg/gain some advantages with it.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
ne thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
Why would you mention that you're "almost masters" when you then go on to destroy any credibility you have anyway? You're saying protoss players should counter a push including siege tanks, which usually hits moments before siege research finishes, with cannons?
You might as well tell people you're a creationist, then expect them to listen to your thoughts on natural science.
Again, this is why I don't post much around here. I'm not trying to argue. If you can't figure out the reason why I mentioned cannons is to negate the fact that the OP says you MUST get a robo and obs out for detection, then I don't know what you're reading. I even mentioned this in my post.
On September 20 2011 22:04 Zeon0 wrote: gsl spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss.
This happens the other way round as well. If I go 1 rax expo and the toss goes 3 gate robo they are going to have a larger army value than me when they go for their 1 base all in push.
I don't see a problem with this. If one player pursues economy, and the other goes for army size, there SHOULD be a period where the guy on one base has a larger army. The economy based player is aiming at a later point in the game where his economy will enable him to get ahead in army size. Until that point he is behind in army and tech. This is the game working as intended.
Yes, and no. There should indeed be a time when a one-basing player's army is bigger than the early expander.
The problem comes in 1-1-1 where Protoss 1-gate expands, the natural has paid for itself 3x over, and yet the Protoss loses anyway. The problem comes in games like MC vs Puma on Xel'naga when the Protoss defends the initial big push, ends up 30+ supply ahead, and then loses to wave 2 anyway.
3-gate robo vs 1 rax expo has a really slim timing window to do damage, and if the Protoss loses its entire army, it's over. This simply isn't comparable to the leeway Terran has with 1-1-1.
There are even more comparisons that skew the situation in favour of the Terran. Terran can always scout when Protoss are expanding as toss can't build a CC in their own base. Protoss either have to expand blindly, or wait for an observer. Terrans also do very nicely in 1 base vs 1 base situations due to the fact they get ~180 minerals per minute extra due to MULEs. Terrans can also fly away their orbital if they forsee things going badly (imagine how easily MC would have won that game vs Puma if, instead of sacking his Nexus and then beating Puma's army, he could have flown it away and then beaten Puma's army).
So sure, a 1-baser will have a bigger army than the eco player for a while. But let's not pretend Protoss and Terran have comparable options or timing windows here.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
ne thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
Why would you mention that you're "almost masters" when you then go on to destroy any credibility you have anyway? You're saying protoss players should counter a push including siege tanks, which usually hits moments before siege research finishes, with cannons?
You might as well tell people you're a creationist, then expect them to listen to your thoughts on natural science.
Again, this is why I don't post much around here. I'm not trying to argue. If you can't figure out the reason why I mentioned cannons is to negate the fact that the OP says you MUST get a robo and obs out for detection, then I don't know what you're reading. I even mentioned this in my post.
If you use cannons instead of robo, how do you even know if your opponent is going 1/1/1? One of the biggest reasons why 1/1/1 is so powerful is because protoss can't scout it unless he invest in a BO puts him behind against standard builds.
I mean, I'm glad you're so gosu you can hold off 1/1/1 with whatever stuff you use. But you do realize that on the pro level, players actually cut off scouting and hide whatever BO they use, right?
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
how am i contradicting myself? Turtling and then moving out to get your army smashed or smash opposing army so a GG can be called isnt a macro game - it's a 3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in. I want to see real macro games, and i want to watch games that give both players of any race as much opportunities to show off their skills as possible. If i wanted to watch players macro up an army and go trade it in the middle, treating it as another resource, i might as well go spectate simcity network
give players a defensive map and they will turtle. Give players a defensive map that allows for some funky ledge drops, weird harassment routes and other attack paths and players will have to step up their harassment and multitasking while maintaining good macro. BW-style, multi-pronged action all over the map, 2/3 army battles + heavy harassment style
1a2a3a one army syndrome is mostly caused by the current mappool that allows or even favours this kind of play, and that is why i brought that up. Why take an exe or 2 if you can turtle up with 1 or 2 bases and then roll out with a well-spread death ball? Or counter-composition? What can your opponent do? Outexpand? If one scouts an expansion it's a good time to move out and blast it, no? Map architecture when it comes down to counterattacks also sucks in most cases, and it's very predictable which route opponent will choose in short, certain maps force certail playstyle/playstyles, and the crap we are seeing now is caused by that, so it's time to look for other maps, because patching game balance wont change anything
any more doubts or missinterpretations of my opinion? please, do let me know
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
ne thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
Why would you mention that you're "almost masters" when you then go on to destroy any credibility you have anyway? You're saying protoss players should counter a push including siege tanks, which usually hits moments before siege research finishes, with cannons?
You might as well tell people you're a creationist, then expect them to listen to your thoughts on natural science.
Again, this is why I don't post much around here. I'm not trying to argue. If you can't figure out the reason why I mentioned cannons is to negate the fact that the OP says you MUST get a robo and obs out for detection, then I don't know what you're reading. I even mentioned this in my post.
If you use cannons instead of robo, how do you even know if your opponent is going 1/1/1? One of the biggest reasons why 1/1/1 is so powerful is because protoss can't scout it unless he invest in a BO puts him behind against standard builds.
I mean, I'm glad you're so gosu you can hold off 1/1/1 with whatever stuff you use. But you do realize that on the pro level, players actually cut off scouting and hide whatever BO they use, right?
I'm not saying you can't get a robo and obs for scouting. I'm saying you don't have to rely on it for detection. An investment in a robo also means an immortal or 2, which doesn't hurt against the siege tanks.
All any of this is proving is how flexible Protoss is in the early game. As long as the majority of your defense, if the Terran is happening to 1/1/1 is zealots and cannons, then you should be fine.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
ne thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
Why would you mention that you're "almost masters" when you then go on to destroy any credibility you have anyway? You're saying protoss players should counter a push including siege tanks, which usually hits moments before siege research finishes, with cannons?
You might as well tell people you're a creationist, then expect them to listen to your thoughts on natural science.
Again, this is why I don't post much around here. I'm not trying to argue. If you can't figure out the reason why I mentioned cannons is to negate the fact that the OP says you MUST get a robo and obs out for detection, then I don't know what you're reading. I even mentioned this in my post.
If you use cannons instead of robo, how do you even know if your opponent is going 1/1/1? One of the biggest reasons why 1/1/1 is so powerful is because protoss can't scout it unless he invest in a BO puts him behind against standard builds.
I mean, I'm glad you're so gosu you can hold off 1/1/1 with whatever stuff you use. But you do realize that on the pro level, players actually cut off scouting and hide whatever BO they use, right?
I'm not saying you can't get a robo and obs for scouting. I'm saying you don't have to rely on it for detection. An investment in a robo also means an immortal or 2, which doesn't hurt against the siege tanks.
All any of this is proving is how flexible Protoss is in the early game. As long as the majority of your defense, if the Terran is happening to 1/1/1 is zealots and cannons, then you should be fine.
Hello, mr. Theorycrafter, I shall introduce a new product to you: build order tester! With this tester, you can check how many cannons can be up when you are awaiting for the cruel 1/1/1! The results will surprise you badly!
Ever wondered why oGsMC never went cannon expo before? Take a nice little guess.
You don't know?
Fine, I shall tell you.
Forge expo delays the entire tech line of protoss. Do you need me to say anything else?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Please do go through, step by step. I will be particularly interested to hear how the static, range 7 cannons will deal with the range 13 sieged tanks.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
Actually, cannons are terrible versus 1-1-1 because of siege tanks. Vision is not a problem because, he has both banshees and/or ravens to provide vision.
Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Really? Flying actually give vision farther than their attack range, and can very well provide vision up ramps without getting fired at by cannons or enemy units. If the enemy units move in front of cannons to fire at the air units, they get rained upon by the waiting bio+ tanks.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
Well you aren't, the two most ideal maps for 1/1/1 don't have elevated expansions, and even if they did it wouldn't work. If you seriously can't see why building cannons against 1 base allin, WITH TANKS AND BANSHEES is an inept idea then you are either trolling or just insane.
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
how am i contradicting myself? Turtling and then moving out to get your army smashed or smash opposing army so a GG can be called isnt a macro game - it's a 3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in. I want to see real macro games, and i want to watch games that give both players of any race as much opportunities to show off their skills as possible. If i wanted to watch players macro up an army and go trade it in the middle, treating it as another resource, i might as well go spectate simcity network
give players a defensive map and they will turtle. Give players a defensive map that allows for some funky ledge drops, weird harassment routes and other attack paths and players will have to step up their harassment and multitasking while maintaining good macro. BW-style, multi-pronged action all over the map, 2/3 army battles + heavy harassment style
1a2a3a one army syndrome is mostly caused by the current mappool that allows or even favours this kind of play, and that is why i brought that up. Why take an exe or 2 if you can turtle up with 1 or 2 bases and then roll out with a well-spread death ball? Or counter-composition? What can your opponent do? Outexpand? If one scouts an expansion it's a good time to move out and blast it, no? Map architecture when it comes down to counterattacks also sucks in most cases, and it's very predictable which route opponent will choose in short, certain maps force certail playstyle/playstyles, and the crap we are seeing now is caused by that, so it's time to look for other maps, because patching game balance wont change anything
any more doubts or missinterpretations of my opinion? please, do let me know
I'm VERY familar with BW maps... the good well balanced BW maps do not work the same in SC2. The most popular/balanced maps are ones like Fighting Spirit/Circuit Breaker and 1. They still allow a Terran to turtle easily, 2. they don't have any special harassment options like high ground above natural, 3. there's barely any terrain variation in the middle.. it's almost totally flat. Your problems are with THE GAME ITSELF. All the things you are talking about is part of the SC2 design not strictly the maps - the game will never be like BW with any type of maps.
Not to say that BW doesn't have variation in maps, but they are infact the imbalanced ones. However the difference being imbalance in BW was more easily overcome with skill. Some of the most interesting maps in recent years like Outsider were imbalanced but still produced very fun games. In contrast players getting rolled over in timing attacks is not very fun games to watch at all.
Btw you're pretty hilarious with '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in', if anyone was unaware that you're talking total bullshit then that line should show it. I suppose Flash plays all-in every game? I don't misinterpret your opinion it's just total bullshit, as i said show me a map design that promotes any of what you are saying.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
you are here to troll nothing else. think about it...you 1gate expand build a robo and 2 more gates and you die to 1/1/1. why on earth would you build a forge+cannon (300! minerals and 150 of them wasted because its just a techbuilding)?! i think investing it in 3 zealots would be a better choice
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
Lol. You're senseless I see. Go mass lings against my colossus heavy deathball, I'm sure it helps. A lot.
Terran is busy taking care of cannons? This only makes it worse bro, more tanks and Marines will be here for reinforcement. That's bad news. Really bad ones. And judging from your game sense, the cannons will be at the natural hmm? Guess what semi retarded terrans do in this case? Contain the fuck out of you and mass expand.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Lol, do you know how much a cannon cost? They don't cost 50 energy. Also, a retarded Terran would seige up behind your wall of cannons, which equates to throwing away 300~600 minerals away. How would that help in stopping the 1/1/1?
Okay, Mr. Lol, you do realize that most maps have elevated natural expansions. How do you presume our Mr. Terran will have vision for his siege tanks? With Banshees perhaps? Do you really think he wants to sacrifice a banshee just to have vision to take out a cannon or two?
Also, now that you've expanded, you have the resources to build up a much bigger army while the Terran is delayed taking care of the cannons. It may even give you enough time to pop out a second immortal for those pesky bunkers.
Give it a shot. I'm here to help, not make your life some ongoing debate about how it won't work.
I'd say you're an obvious troll who enjoys ridiculing players with terrible ideas. Cannons do not stop a 1-1-1, they are exceptionally bad against it.
Do you even have the game installed?
Its not even worth point out that a banshee for 2 cannons is a favorable trade for terran, except he doesnt have to trade anything because of scan.
Yea I agree. The future of P is with these guys/types of players. I was never a big fan of MC precisely why he's failing so hard now. He was winning with all-ins/all-inish play. I never understood why he got so much praise while players like Polt/Optimus got so much hate even when Polt evolved past it while MC never did.
On September 20 2011 23:39 oxxo wrote: Yea I agree. The future of P is with these guys/types of players. I was never a big fan of MC precisely why he's failing so hard now. He was winning with all-ins/all-inish play. I never understood why he got so much praise while players like Polt/Optimus got so much hate even when Polt evolved past it while MC never did.
When's the last time you saw MC do an all in during GSL? During foreign tourneys he barely does either. It's ok if you just hate MC but you might want to make valid criticisms so you don't look like a complete jealous douche. Even during his GSL wins, he did all ins, yes. BUT HE DID MANY MACRO GAMES TOO. Also...the future of P is dead if it's with these players since they couldn't beat a good Korean Terran to save their life (hero jyp) and have 50 percentish and below winrates.
On September 20 2011 23:39 oxxo wrote: Yea I agree. The future of P is with these guys/types of players. I was never a big fan of MC precisely why he's failing so hard now. He was winning with all-ins/all-inish play. I never understood why he got so much praise while players like Polt/Optimus got so much hate even when Polt evolved past it while MC never did.
MC only pulled out allins when opponents couldnt handle them. He still won plenty of macro games too.
Terran seems to be not broken but i would say a far more completed race than any other, if you saw the GSL code S today (20th September) with the really long game i forget who played, but Terran can seem to get to stages in the game which no other race can. Such as they may begin with mech or bio then slowly tip towards mech and end up going sky Terran!! I find TvT such an interesting match up where there is so much that can happen, eg. drops, siege lines, banshees, hellions, nukes, hunter seekers etc. But with other races more importantly with Protoss it literally NEVER gets to this stage in the game and this just shows that something isn't right with the race. I think its fair to say i have NEVER seen carriers used in any high level match up or have i encountered any out of the ordinary unit compositions. Just my thoughts on the matter
The patch had some significant changes that could help protoss out in the PvT matchup.
1) Guardian shield will reduce siege tank dmg now 2) Immortal range has increased 3) Rax takes longer to build so timings will be slightly later.
I believe protoss do have a lot of room for innovation. You need to look at what protoss could potentially do/use but do not. Carriers, mothership, warp prisms, pheonix are all very much underused.
Although I despise the term 1-1-1 to refer to Terrans 1-base marine/tank/banshee/raven timing push, One thing the Terran does not have when they do this push is a viking a pheonix or two could lift up seige tanks and/or shoot down the raven and banshees. Increased range on immortals means tanks can die easier without putting the immortals in as much danger.
I understand that a mothership and carriers take a long time to build, but they are both amazing units. When is the last time a high level protoss actually spent a good amount of time experimenting with them? This is where innovation comes from.
On September 21 2011 00:16 cyrex wrote: The patch had some significant changes that could help protoss out in the PvT matchup.
1) Guardian shield will reduce siege tank dmg now 2) Immortal range has increased 3) Rax takes longer to build so timings will be slightly later.
These are not significant changes. They are minor changes that would be used to fix a very small balance tip. A significant balance change would be increasing stalker armor by one, zealot health by 10, and removing concussive grenades.
Squanzo, you are mind fucking everyone in this thread. I'm only mid masters but please tel me how your cannon strat works. You said cannons in ramp, how do you stop the bNshee from giving the this vision?? If you even manage to do thT, how would you break free from your base??
If I was terran I'd wish the p went for cannons, that is just me though
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
how am i contradicting myself? Turtling and then moving out to get your army smashed or smash opposing army so a GG can be called isnt a macro game - it's a 3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in. I want to see real macro games, and i want to watch games that give both players of any race as much opportunities to show off their skills as possible. If i wanted to watch players macro up an army and go trade it in the middle, treating it as another resource, i might as well go spectate simcity network
give players a defensive map and they will turtle. Give players a defensive map that allows for some funky ledge drops, weird harassment routes and other attack paths and players will have to step up their harassment and multitasking while maintaining good macro. BW-style, multi-pronged action all over the map, 2/3 army battles + heavy harassment style
1a2a3a one army syndrome is mostly caused by the current mappool that allows or even favours this kind of play, and that is why i brought that up. Why take an exe or 2 if you can turtle up with 1 or 2 bases and then roll out with a well-spread death ball? Or counter-composition? What can your opponent do? Outexpand? If one scouts an expansion it's a good time to move out and blast it, no? Map architecture when it comes down to counterattacks also sucks in most cases, and it's very predictable which route opponent will choose in short, certain maps force certail playstyle/playstyles, and the crap we are seeing now is caused by that, so it's time to look for other maps, because patching game balance wont change anything
any more doubts or missinterpretations of my opinion? please, do let me know
I'm VERY familar with BW maps... the good well balanced BW maps do not work the same in SC2. The most popular/balanced maps are ones like Fighting Spirit/Circuit Breaker and 1. They still allow a Terran to turtle easily, 2. they don't have any special harassment options like high ground above natural, 3. there's barely any terrain variation in the middle.. it's almost totally flat. Your problems are with THE GAME ITSELF. All the things you are talking about is part of the SC2 design not strictly the maps - the game will never be like BW with any type of maps.
Not to say that BW doesn't have variation in maps, but they are infact the imbalanced ones. However the difference being imbalance in BW was more easily overcome with skill. Some of the most interesting maps in recent years like Outsider were imbalanced but still produced very fun games. In contrast players getting rolled over in timing attacks is not very fun games to watch at all.
Btw you're pretty hilarious with '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in', if anyone was unaware that you're talking total bullshit then that line should show it. I suppose Flash plays all-in every game? I don't misinterpret your opinion it's just total bullshit, as i said show me a map design that promotes any of what you are saying.
1. i dont want BW-like maps, i know they're mostly flat. I said bw-like >> action << as in "multi-pronged war" all over the map, if you will, please 2. yes it will, if you encourage more harassing 3. the '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in' thingy is how i feel about the game and my opinion on it, and i dont see how it is hilarious. Majority of games i witnessed can be described this way: duders get bases. Duders get army. Duders clash after 20-30 minutes, guy that loses the most leaves. No action in-between. No nothing. Just 1 battle. Basicly someone boxes his army, moves out, and 2 minutes later someone leaves the game. Works like an all-in, but dragged over 20+ minutes, so id rather watch someone simply 6 rax or cannon rush. Sure, there are exceptions in how games look... mostly when someone is using harass based play, no? Also, no reason in making this one ad hominem, because, as pointed, that is my opinion on how the game looks right now, and i know a lot of people that share this opinion - both newly introduced to starcraft as well as players i talked to during spectated events 4. no clue, im not a mapmaker. But i do think community did not give maps with ledges or a lot of chokes too many chances, dont you agree? Most people just call imba because of tanks
and yes, i do think you missinterpreted, because you did need an explanation, so you can call your 'bullshit'
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Maybe what you're saying about terran is indeed true, but I don't understand the sentiments on PvZ. There still comes a point where you can't kill a protoss army (imo). Maybe 6 gating and 4 gating aren't as viable as they once were, but you don't need them. Yes, zerg winrates are a lot better lately, but all those wins are coming from huge victories in the midgame. If protoss takes a third at a good time (not super greedy), they're in great shape. Lategame when you are responsible about feedbacks and focus infestors down, zergs still has still not found a way to kill a fully developed protoss army that is well controlled that I've seen.
Also, I don't know why so many people refuse to use motherships. I watch kiwi and rsvp roll kids all the time with mothership. Vortex leaves you safe versus both corruptors and infestor NP (I've never seen NP actually work versus the mothership when the protoss knew how to use his mothership well(
there is no good time to take a third as protoss. you either take a super greedy one and hope to god you arent attacked, or you will be constantly pressured and denied your third base.
and if you are lucky enough to take a third, it will be when your opponent is on, or taking their fourth or fifth base
I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
how am i contradicting myself? Turtling and then moving out to get your army smashed or smash opposing army so a GG can be called isnt a macro game - it's a 3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in. I want to see real macro games, and i want to watch games that give both players of any race as much opportunities to show off their skills as possible. If i wanted to watch players macro up an army and go trade it in the middle, treating it as another resource, i might as well go spectate simcity network
give players a defensive map and they will turtle. Give players a defensive map that allows for some funky ledge drops, weird harassment routes and other attack paths and players will have to step up their harassment and multitasking while maintaining good macro. BW-style, multi-pronged action all over the map, 2/3 army battles + heavy harassment style
1a2a3a one army syndrome is mostly caused by the current mappool that allows or even favours this kind of play, and that is why i brought that up. Why take an exe or 2 if you can turtle up with 1 or 2 bases and then roll out with a well-spread death ball? Or counter-composition? What can your opponent do? Outexpand? If one scouts an expansion it's a good time to move out and blast it, no? Map architecture when it comes down to counterattacks also sucks in most cases, and it's very predictable which route opponent will choose in short, certain maps force certail playstyle/playstyles, and the crap we are seeing now is caused by that, so it's time to look for other maps, because patching game balance wont change anything
any more doubts or missinterpretations of my opinion? please, do let me know
I'm VERY familar with BW maps... the good well balanced BW maps do not work the same in SC2. The most popular/balanced maps are ones like Fighting Spirit/Circuit Breaker and 1. They still allow a Terran to turtle easily, 2. they don't have any special harassment options like high ground above natural, 3. there's barely any terrain variation in the middle.. it's almost totally flat. Your problems are with THE GAME ITSELF. All the things you are talking about is part of the SC2 design not strictly the maps - the game will never be like BW with any type of maps.
Not to say that BW doesn't have variation in maps, but they are infact the imbalanced ones. However the difference being imbalance in BW was more easily overcome with skill. Some of the most interesting maps in recent years like Outsider were imbalanced but still produced very fun games. In contrast players getting rolled over in timing attacks is not very fun games to watch at all.
Btw you're pretty hilarious with '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in', if anyone was unaware that you're talking total bullshit then that line should show it. I suppose Flash plays all-in every game? I don't misinterpret your opinion it's just total bullshit, as i said show me a map design that promotes any of what you are saying.
1. i dont want BW-like maps, i know they're mostly flat. I said bw-like >> action << as in "multi-pronged war" all over the map, if you will, please 2. yes it will, if you encourage more harassing 3. the '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in' thingy is how i feel about the game and my opinion on it, and i dont see how it is hilarious. Majority of games i witnessed can be described this way: duders get bases. Duders get army. Duders clash after 20-30 minutes, guy that loses the most leaves. No action in-between. No nothing. Just 1 battle. Basicly someone boxes his army, moves out, and 2 minutes later someone leaves the game. Works like an all-in, but dragged over 20+ minutes, so id rather watch someone simply 6 rax or cannon rush. Sure, there are exceptions in how games look... mostly when someone is using harass based play, no? Also, no reason in making this one ad hominem, because, as pointed, that is my opinion on how the game looks right now, and i know a lot of people that share this opinion - both newly introduced to starcraft as well as players i talked to during spectated events 4. no clue, im not a mapmaker. But i do think community did not give maps with ledges or a lot of chokes too many chances, dont you agree? Most people just call imba because of tanks
and yes, i do think you missinterpreted, because you did need an explanation, so you can call your 'bullshit'
It would be imbalanced because of tanks and other units, it's not just an assumption it would be.. the discussion is Protoss being potentially underpowered and your idea is to create maps with more chokes and ledges? I'm not going to respond to any of your stupid post because its fundamentally flawed.
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
Zerg was buffed and Protoss was nerfed thru patches too, dont forget that.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Just for the record, if you build your Robo after the Nexus, and scout with your first observer, then you die to cloaked Banshees. The Banshee arrives in your base as your observer is halfway across the map in most cases.
But being a Diamond Protoss, I'm sure you'd know such a popular and consistent timing, wouldn't you?
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
So you found out not only that protoss players are bad in general but even that protoss opponents you face on EU ladder do better than top koreans.
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
No one cares about your condescending diamond level theorycraft on what Pro players should do. Seriously this post is just offensively bad and you basically imply pro protoss players just sit around jerking off all day and not trying to come up with something new. MC has innovated with his stargate play, phoenix chargelot, etc. What else is there? There aren't any more pro terrans or zergs so why according to you is there no one coming up with better builds? Maybe because there aren't any.
Yes zerg struggled and they GOT BUFFED WHILE TOSS GOT NERFED. NICE INNOVATION THERE. Why don't we revert these patches because after all the genius and talented progamer zergs and their innovative awesomeness will be fine I'm sure. The argument that terran and zerg progamers at the highest level are simply more talented than protoss players, in such great quantity is absolute bullshit and makes no sense.
On September 20 2011 17:51 necrimanci wrote: races are fine - maps are broken
read something here and watch some games before post =)
or you could assume that the game is fine but maps are broken. All we need are defensive maps that provide a vide variety of harassment options, so you cant just turtle mindlessly, no? Will force macro games, will force harass-based play, will force multitasking, will provide more safe openings, will make the game more enjoyable to watch and will stop the shitty stagnation based off 1a2a3a one army play
also, riveting argument, o'bard - if only everyone were as witty as you and propose reading a forum full of imba-cryers and game spectating as a first step to posting
What are you talking about? You don't want people to turtle.. but you want macro games. You want a 'defensive map' but you want to force multitasking and harassment. You're basically contradicting yourself, not to mention including things that are totally unrelated to the map like units all on 1 group. Explain a map design that somehow includes all of this with zero changes to the rest of the game.
how am i contradicting myself? Turtling and then moving out to get your army smashed or smash opposing army so a GG can be called isnt a macro game - it's a 3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in. I want to see real macro games, and i want to watch games that give both players of any race as much opportunities to show off their skills as possible. If i wanted to watch players macro up an army and go trade it in the middle, treating it as another resource, i might as well go spectate simcity network
give players a defensive map and they will turtle. Give players a defensive map that allows for some funky ledge drops, weird harassment routes and other attack paths and players will have to step up their harassment and multitasking while maintaining good macro. BW-style, multi-pronged action all over the map, 2/3 army battles + heavy harassment style
1a2a3a one army syndrome is mostly caused by the current mappool that allows or even favours this kind of play, and that is why i brought that up. Why take an exe or 2 if you can turtle up with 1 or 2 bases and then roll out with a well-spread death ball? Or counter-composition? What can your opponent do? Outexpand? If one scouts an expansion it's a good time to move out and blast it, no? Map architecture when it comes down to counterattacks also sucks in most cases, and it's very predictable which route opponent will choose in short, certain maps force certail playstyle/playstyles, and the crap we are seeing now is caused by that, so it's time to look for other maps, because patching game balance wont change anything
any more doubts or missinterpretations of my opinion? please, do let me know
I'm VERY familar with BW maps... the good well balanced BW maps do not work the same in SC2. The most popular/balanced maps are ones like Fighting Spirit/Circuit Breaker and 1. They still allow a Terran to turtle easily, 2. they don't have any special harassment options like high ground above natural, 3. there's barely any terrain variation in the middle.. it's almost totally flat. Your problems are with THE GAME ITSELF. All the things you are talking about is part of the SC2 design not strictly the maps - the game will never be like BW with any type of maps.
Not to say that BW doesn't have variation in maps, but they are infact the imbalanced ones. However the difference being imbalance in BW was more easily overcome with skill. Some of the most interesting maps in recent years like Outsider were imbalanced but still produced very fun games. In contrast players getting rolled over in timing attacks is not very fun games to watch at all.
Btw you're pretty hilarious with '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in', if anyone was unaware that you're talking total bullshit then that line should show it. I suppose Flash plays all-in every game? I don't misinterpret your opinion it's just total bullshit, as i said show me a map design that promotes any of what you are saying.
1. i dont want BW-like maps, i know they're mostly flat. I said bw-like >> action << as in "multi-pronged war" all over the map, if you will, please 2. yes it will, if you encourage more harassing 3. the '3, 4, 5 or 6 base all in' thingy is how i feel about the game and my opinion on it, and i dont see how it is hilarious. Majority of games i witnessed can be described this way: duders get bases. Duders get army. Duders clash after 20-30 minutes, guy that loses the most leaves. No action in-between. No nothing. Just 1 battle. Basicly someone boxes his army, moves out, and 2 minutes later someone leaves the game. Works like an all-in, but dragged over 20+ minutes, so id rather watch someone simply 6 rax or cannon rush. Sure, there are exceptions in how games look... mostly when someone is using harass based play, no? Also, no reason in making this one ad hominem, because, as pointed, that is my opinion on how the game looks right now, and i know a lot of people that share this opinion - both newly introduced to starcraft as well as players i talked to during spectated events 4. no clue, im not a mapmaker. But i do think community did not give maps with ledges or a lot of chokes too many chances, dont you agree? Most people just call imba because of tanks
and yes, i do think you missinterpreted, because you did need an explanation, so you can call your 'bullshit'
It would be imbalanced because of tanks and other units, it's not just an assumption it would be.. the discussion is Protoss being potentially underpowered and your idea is to create maps with more chokes and ledges? I'm not going to respond to any of your stupid post because its fundamentally flawed.
as seen by top protoss players, mostly korean, slowing down the terran push seems to be the 'go-to' thingy as far as a form of 1-1-1 is concerned, agree?
therefore - if we dont want to revamp early game for a whole race - a map that is more defensive is needed, so that terran can be slowed down with his pulled scvs mid-field, so that the protoss can muster up a bigger force to deal with the push, agree?
this can be achieved by pumpin out more chokes, walls, ledges all over the map, but it should come at a price - bases easier to harass, because defensive map would encourage more turtling, and we dont want turtling, agree?
now explain how is this reasoning fundamentally flawed. Also note ledges dont only make tanks good, they also make air units good, cause they block ground movement, which then makes it harder to counter air untis with ground units... which MAYBE even opens up air play for protoss late game? I dont know, do you? Dont you want to test it?
and please, bring something constructive to your posts, your opinion or an argument. It's a forum, no? Based on what i typed at the beginning of this reply i made a short statement regarding maps being imbalanced. Then i had to explain it. Then i had to explain a bw point i made that isnt related to this, but was related to how i perceive the game. Then i got ridiculed and had to explain again. And now you reply again, with yet another non-constructive post, trying to shut down my argument... I would really like to know your opinion and argumetns, becasue you seem to disagree that tinkering with maps would be a worthwhile thing or you think that it is pointless... and yet only other option is through changing and rebalancing early game for a whole race, or changing how other race(s? i think Z is fine, tho) functions, while we still have 2 expansions packs ahead of us
tho, i must compliment you for not pulling the 'what leage are you in?' and 'how old are you?' cards
but i'll pull out a card you just played: it's pointless to discuss anything with a guy that doesnt use any arguments, so im not going to respond to any of your stupid posts
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Just for the record, if you build your Robo after the Nexus, and scout with your first observer, then you die to cloaked Banshees. The Banshee arrives in your base as your observer is halfway across the map in most cases.
But being a Diamond Protoss, I'm sure you'd know such a popular and consistent timing, wouldn't you?
Not to mention that cannons at the front of your base are worse than useless against tanks with siege mode. Not only do they do nothing, but they take up a lot of money that could have gone towards more zealots, which are very good to have a lot of against a 1/1/1.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Just for the record, if you build your Robo after the Nexus, and scout with your first observer, then you die to cloaked Banshees. The Banshee arrives in your base as your observer is halfway across the map in most cases.
But being a Diamond Protoss, I'm sure you'd know such a popular and consistent timing, wouldn't you?
I'm not a Protoss (you don't read, do you). But I'll entertain you.
The banshee arrives, but cloak is not finished. You can fend it off. Meanwhile, make another observer, it's only 25/75. You may have to pull probes for a second or two for it to finish. Meanwhile, you're up a base and the Terran is either going 1/1/1 or expanding.
But continue your elitist condescending tone as you reply.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading.
I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Just for the record, if you build your Robo after the Nexus, and scout with your first observer, then you die to cloaked Banshees. The Banshee arrives in your base as your observer is halfway across the map in most cases.
But being a Diamond Protoss, I'm sure you'd know such a popular and consistent timing, wouldn't you?
I'm not a Protoss (you don't read, do you). But I'll entertain you.
The banshee arrives, but cloak is not finished. You can fend it off. Meanwhile, make another observer, it's only 25/75. You may have to pull probes for a second or two for it to finish. Meanwhile, you're up a base and the Terran is either going 1/1/1 or expanding.
But continue your elitist condescending tone as you reply.
Your trolling is uncalled for here. Try posting your cannon build in the strategy forum, people there will actually enjoy it, some way or another.
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
I'm not convinced that protoss is underpowered, or that there is no more room for innovation. Most protoss players still rely on large deathball armies or strong warpgate based timing attacks. The carrier and mothership are still relatively un-explored, as is warpprism harassment. You can't claim that all of the possible options for all protoss units have been explored, the game is way to complex for that.
Zerg for instance has been using all of its units since beta, the main things that have changed are how those units are used with other units, such as baneling bombs, infestor Broodlord, etc.. The units themselves haven't changed much, but rather how they were used.
You claim that protoss t1-1.5 units are not cost efficient compared with their terran and zerg equivalents. I'll support that claim, but argue for a reasoning behind this discrepancy. The t1-1.5 discrepancy stems from the terrible design feature that is warpgates. The ability to have your production center anywhere you have a pylon is arguably the most powerful mechanic in the game. You also have to consider the fact that the front loaded nature of warpgate production means that there is only a 5 second turn around time on resource return. The short turn around time on investment means that you can have units when and where you need them, and if you get supply blocked you will have those units 5 seconds after your pylons finish. These features make warpgates incredibly forgiving, and incredibly easy to use.
However, in order to balance the power of the production mechanic, gateway units had to be toned down. Imagine if terran could produce marines and marauders anywhere on the map, it would be completely broken. Well so would gateway units that are as cost efficient as z/t tier 1-1.5. Gateway units cannot be buffed until some other downside to warpgates is added. Ideally something that increases the skill ceiling for protoss.
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
I'm not convinced that protoss is underpowered, or that there is no more room for innovation. Most protoss players still rely on large deathball armies or strong warpgate based timing attacks. The carrier and mothership are still relatively un-explored, as is warpprism harassment. You can't claim that all of the possible options for all protoss units have been explored, the game is way to complex for that.
Zerg for instance has been using all of its units since beta, the main things that have changed are how those units are used with other units, such as baneling bombs, infestor Broodlord, etc.. The units themselves haven't changed much, but rather how they were used.
You claim that protoss t1-1.5 units are not cost efficient compared with their terran and zerg equivalents. I'll support that claim, but argue for a reasoning behind this discrepancy. The t1-1.5 discrepancy stems from the terrible design feature that is warpgates. The ability to have your production center anywhere you have a pylon is arguably the most powerful mechanic in the game. You also have to consider the fact that the front loaded nature of warpgate production means that there is only a 5 second turn around time on resource return. The short turn around time on investment means that you can have units when and where you need them, and if you get supply blocked you will have those units 5 seconds after your pylons finish. These features make warpgates incredibly forgiving, and incredibly easy to use.
However, in order to balance the power of the production mechanic, gateway units had to be toned down. Imagine if terran could produce marines and marauders anywhere on the map, it would be completely broken. Well so would gateway units that are as cost efficient as z/t tier 1-1.5. Gateway units cannot be buffed until some other downside to warpgates is added. Ideally something that increases the skill ceiling for protoss.
STOP TELLING TOSS PLAYERS TO USE MOTHERSHIPS AND CARRIERS!!! Seriously. Even Blizzard admits some units (mothership and carrier) aren't useful/intended in high level play and they don't care. The one use mothership had got nerfed(archon toilet) because blizzard wants it to be a useless piece of shit.
As for the bolded part, by that logic, we should never have any patches at all because the race can always do SOMETHING different.
I've just finished reading the whole post for the second time and I have to say, amazing job! Please, please, please keep doing nice articles like this! I love them! <3
I wish people would stop saying "Protoss players need to innovate", you don't realize how insulting it probably is to them, who train for 8+ hours per day to develop strategies and counters. Do you people really thing that, if there was a innovation left to do, it wouldn't have been done already?
Against a 1/1/1 phoenix won't help, they will be sniped by marines, a standard unit in the terran army, the phoenix won't even be able to take out a raven, the terran will mass repair with SCVs, and when the battle finally comes they put down a PDD or a Auto-turret and the protoss army is botched. The changes to guardian shield won't help the tanks still deal a horrific 50 damage versus armored, guardian will reduce it to 48, big deal, 1 extra immortal range won't help, they will still be focused and destroyed before they can reach the tank line.
And please stop mentioning Carriers and Motherships. Have you even thought out how bad they really are? Carriers cost a ton to build, take a eternity to field and are ridiculously easy to counter. Carriers are countered by the exact same unit that terrans make to counter colossus, and they always have plenty of them and, Vikings can be produced four times faster then carriers can be made.
The entire point of Mothership is to vortex, 2 EMPs render the Mothership totally worthless, it just becomes another huge meat shield that the Vikings will destroy with ease, EMPs can be cast from a huge range way higher then a MS can vortex. Also cloak is useless, the terran will surely have detection by this point, and you can't mass recall since you don't have any energy.
Also, I urge you to re-think the suggestion of "make maps custom tailored to be anti 1/1/1. If you haven't figured out yet I'll tell you now, the more chokes, ramps, etc a map has, the better it is for terran they can place tanks in strategic places and they are even harder to reach or to flank. You are also mistake in the assessment that, more chokes, ramps and high ground will slow down a terran 1/1/1, it won't they will have banshees and ravens to spot for the tanks, they will inch forward and still kill you.
Lastly, and why this really won't work. Tournaments are made many different and diversified maps in mind. They have both small maps and big maps, both short rush distance maps and macro style maps. You can't simply suggest that we remove all the maps in the tournament pool or re-work them, just so Protoss and Protoss only can have a chance against a 1/1/1, it is unrealistic. Lets just move to the root of the problem and fix protoss where it needs fixing. A couple of the previous nerfs that protoss have gotten should be reverted, and some more buffs are also in order.
Edit: Lastly, the reason why the protoss relies on big death ball armies on 200/200 supply is because, it is the only perceived way to compete. They really on this tactic because they can't innovate and/or explore.
Protoss can't get a combo of gateway, robo and stargate, because it is too gas expensive. Sentries cost 100 gas and you need 8 to 10, HT cost 150 gas and you need 4-8, stalkers cost 50 G and you need a couple to snipe drops, fight vikings and marauders. You harvest about 220 G per base, so it takes 3 working bases just to gather that much. If you want even more units, like phoenix, void rays and immortals, you need even more bases mining G, because Immortals, Void Rays and Phoenix cost 100 G each. Protoss armies aren't limited by lack of imagination or foresight they are limited by cost, they are way too damn gas expensive for it too work, they cost so much you can't experiment or innovate.
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. Carriers and motherships were tried extensively, many months ago.
I'm not claiming that Protoss players are smarter, but that they had to explore earlier because of the race design. There is no "go to" Protoss unit like MM or lings/roaches. If you make zealots and no stalkers, you die. If you make only stalkers, you die in the early game. If you make zealots and stalkers, but no sentries, you will die against early pushes (lings get in your mineral line or MM gets up your ramp).
There was a phase where carrier rush was being tried by many pros, but it simply did not pan out. The same goes for motherships.
I'm also not convinced that Warp Prisms will solve anything. It's definitely an improvement, but it will not shift the metagame, because it does not address Protoss' core design issues. There's still nothing cost efficient to drop in an enemy's base, and putting your HTs into a warp prism doesn't address the fact that ghost is just a better unit. It already requires more micro to use HTs when ghosts are on the field. Adding warp prisms to the equation is not helping the simple fact that ghosts are better statistically.
edit: Another insulting comment that comes up frequently is "Carriers have the highest DPS in the game."
They do 26 dps. A carrier with +3 air attack does less dps than a +0 thor. For every +1 armor the opponent has, the carrier loses 14 dps right away. This is disregarding the insane cost, and the fact that interceptors die very quickly in sc2 (unlike sc1, they do not recover HP).
In addition to it being a poor unit, it takes forever to come out, let alone a decent amount of them. And it also requires an upgrade + building interceptors.
In almost any situation where you made a carrier, even if you won the game - you would have been better served spending those resources on something else.
It's one of the worst units in the game, considering how you have to bend over backwards to get it, and once you do, it's subpar.
It pains me to have to constantly say and remind people how bad Carriers are, I quite like them but it is just too prohibitive to make them and the return is not great enough.
I really wish they would re-work carriers in a way so they are usable, nerf them a bit but at the same time reduce their cost, build time and give them something else unique so that people love making them, or do something so they are more cost effective or less easy to counter.
Its the same problem as with Battlecruiser, while an awesome unit with great DPS and a powerful single target ability, the BC is too expensive, takes too much time to build and is too easy to counter, again I'd prefer they get a nerf that results in build times and costs going down.
On September 21 2011 03:21 Destructicon wrote: It pains me to have to constantly say and remind people how bad Carriers are, I quite like them but it is just too prohibitive to make them and the return is not great enough.
I really wish they would re-work carriers in a way so they are usable, nerf them a bit but at the same time reduce their cost, build time and give them something else unique so that people love making them, or do something so they are more cost effective or less easy to counter.
Its the same problem as with Battlecruiser, while an awesome unit with great DPS and a powerful single target ability, the BC is too expensive, takes too much time to build and is too easy to counter, again I'd prefer they get a nerf that results in build times and costs going down.
i love making carriers and i think their design is fine. t he problem is that you are not able to use them in pvt because vikings may already be on the field. if they are not the terran usually has 1 starport with reactor.
On September 21 2011 03:21 Destructicon wrote: It pains me to have to constantly say and remind people how bad Carriers are, I quite like them but it is just too prohibitive to make them and the return is not great enough.
I really wish they would re-work carriers in a way so they are usable, nerf them a bit but at the same time reduce their cost, build time and give them something else unique so that people love making them, or do something so they are more cost effective or less easy to counter.
Its the same problem as with Battlecruiser, while an awesome unit with great DPS and a powerful single target ability, the BC is too expensive, takes too much time to build and is too easy to counter, again I'd prefer they get a nerf that results in build times and costs going down.
Their dps isn't even great for cost (read my post above please) so you can't nerf carriers even a bit and have them be viable. There's no area you could nerf, since dps is already low and interceptors die fast.
On September 20 2011 22:04 Zeon0 wrote: gsl spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
Actually I'm gonna mention it because in his game versus bomber his only errors were to block an Immortal (ok that cost him 100 mineral but that didn't changed anthing else in this game) and waste some forcefields (before going back home and get 200 energy fast). While it mabe had shocked you, thoses errors were like nothing (terran players makes errors too, it's just that they can get away with it). I was more imprssed by puzzle than by bomber in this game, puzzle had some good micro and even stomp the 2 prong attack from bomber (one in the back, and some marauders stimming in the natural).
The outcome of the game just came from the fact that bomber faked a 1-1-1 and let Puzzle make a safe buld while he was doing a greedy one, allowing him to have more supply the whole game. By the way I didn't watched it in detail but I have the impression that bomber's build was designed so he can scout the protoss before deciding wether make a 1-1-1 or an expand (well in this case he made an expand blindly, but his svc could have been in puzzle base at his time). This build won him the game, what happend later was just bomber playing safe and not allowing puzzle to get back in the game
On September 21 2011 03:05 Destructicon wrote: I wish people would stop saying "Protoss players need to innovate", you don't realize how insulting it probably is to them, who train for 8+ hours per day to develop strategies and counters. Do you people really thing that, if there was a innovation left to do, it wouldn't have been done already?
Against a 1/1/1 phoenix won't help, they will be sniped by marines, a standard unit in the terran army, the phoenix won't even be able to take out a raven, the terran will mass repair with SCVs, and when the battle finally comes they put down a PDD or a Auto-turret and the protoss army is botched. The changes to guardian shield won't help the tanks still deal a horrific 50 damage versus armored, guardian will reduce it to 48, big deal, 1 extra immortal range won't help, they will still be focused and destroyed before they can reach the tank line.
And please stop mentioning Carriers and Motherships. Have you even thought out how bad they really are? Carriers cost a ton to build, take a eternity to field and are ridiculously easy to counter. Carriers are countered by the exact same unit that terrans make to counter colossus, and they always have plenty of them and, Vikings can be produced four times faster then carriers can be made.
The entire point of Mothership is to vortex, 2 EMPs render the Mothership totally worthless, it just becomes another huge meat shield that the Vikings will destroy with ease, EMPs can be cast from a huge range way higher then a MS can vortex. Also cloak is useless, the terran will surely have detection by this point, and you can't mass recall since you don't have any energy.
Also, I urge you to re-think the suggestion of "make maps custom tailored to be anti 1/1/1. If you haven't figured out yet I'll tell you now, the more chokes, ramps, etc a map has, the better it is for terran they can place tanks in strategic places and they are even harder to reach or to flank. You are also mistake in the assessment that, more chokes, ramps and high ground will slow down a terran 1/1/1, it won't they will have banshees and ravens to spot for the tanks, they will inch forward and still kill you.
Lastly, and why this really won't work. Tournaments are made many different and diversified maps in mind. They have both small maps and big maps, both short rush distance maps and macro style maps. You can't simply suggest that we remove all the maps in the tournament pool or re-work them, just so Protoss and Protoss only can have a chance against a 1/1/1, it is unrealistic. Lets just move to the root of the problem and fix protoss where it needs fixing. A couple of the previous nerfs that protoss have gotten should be reverted, and some more buffs are also in order.
If the problem is a specific build, ie 1/1/1, and no one can find an answer to that specific build, then there is likely something that needs patched. But, saying that protoss no longer can innovate whatsoever and that all protoss problems need to be patched is just balance wine.
Edit: Lastly, the reason why the protoss relies on big death ball armies on 200/200 supply is because, it is the only perceived way to compete. They really on this tactic because they can't innovate and/or explore.
No, protoss relied on the 200/200 supply deathball because it was relatively easy to execute yet very strong. Taking 2-3 bases and turtling to 200/200 then walking across the map isn't very hard compared to coordinating multi-pronged drops or managing 5-6 bases. There was even a state of the game where Incontrol said that he hoped that blizzard would nerf the deathball because it was to borning and easy to execute. Trying to say that the deathball is the pinnacle of protoss innovation is really down playing the people who play the race.
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote: [quote]
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
I don't post much around here but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the issue.
I rarely play Protoss on the ladder, I'm more of an alternating Terran/Zerg player. While Terran in TvP, I've never done the 1/1/1 all in. I just don't feel like learning a strategy that's highly anticipated by the opponent, and I'd rather work on mechanics and play macro games anyway. (Btw, I'm high diamond/low masters, will probably be back in Masters this week).
One thing I never see anyone mention defending the 1/1/1... Cannons. OP makes an argument that you get pigeon holed into making a robotics for detection... cannons take care of this. If you expand and take 1 gas, you'll also have enough for warp and a handful of stalkers, but the majority of your defense should come from zealots and cannons. I've been 1/1/1'd multiple times while Protoss, and cannons were a huge part of my hold.
As for macro games and mauraders... I honestly don't see what players are complaining about. This is where I get frustrated listening to Protoss players. I've played against many Protoss that have learned you need to flank the army with a ball of chargelots to take out that kiting bioball. Use a damn warp prism. It's not that difficult. And if you're pumping attack and armor upgrades the EMP's become worthless against huge spread out Protoss armies with archons and lossus. Army position is important for Terran, so why shouldn't it be for Protoss?
I think if anything could use a buff for Protoss, it's hallucination. I think it costs way too much energy for a unit that barely survives in the later game.
As for ZvP, there's nothing to mention. The Infestor is the best unit in the game, and is a pivotal unit in all 3 matchups for Zerg. Something needs to be done about that unit. See the game 1 of MMA vs DRG in the IPL qualifier to see what I'm talking about.
we already had a troll with the idea of a forge. you do know that 1/1/1 is quite flexible...thats good. if the terran sees that you are building cannons he will be intelligent and expand.
Sooo... if he expands... then he's not all-ining anymore... and thus you've defended it?
Well you are in a situation where he is up one base.. With 2 orbitals calling down mules. You are on one base with .. Cannons... On top of that, cannons doesnt help very much against seige tanks. If he sees your are cannoning he can just park right outside your base and inch forward with siegetanks.. The cannons will not help you when you decide to egage his army because he will be out of range for them.
Thus cannon is even worse than observerver in the scernario where he still goes for the attack..
I never said, anywhere in my post, that the protoss should be working off 1 base. I even said "If you expand and take 1 gas..."
Do people even read anymore?
So what you are saying is that you are going to expand. Cannon main mineralline, cannon exp mineralline.. cannon base entrance. And expect to hold 1/1/1 with siege mode? Sorry, I missed that in your post. I just assumed you wouldnt do suggest something as stupid, as this.
Also, with all that minerals invested in your static defense this early, he could probably just go for 3 bases if he wants.. (if he didnt go 1/1/1).. if he did 1 1 1 he can just straightup kill you.
Grandmaster here btw.
I'm saying the safest build against Terran, to which I experienced, was a 1 gate expand. From there, you have a few options. If you noticed the Terran has walled off and you can't see anything, then it would be wise to get a robo and observer to scout. While scouting, you should drop a forge regardless (upgrades). If you happen to see the 1/1/1 build while scouting with your obs, a few well positioned cannons in the front of your natural is something I feel Protoss needs to do more often, and don't really consider too much when defending the 1/1/1.
Now you have an expansion, a 2nd and 3rd gate, and a robo. With cannons. And you're upgrading. I assumed that's what you all would think, when I say cannons to defend the 1/1/1. If I really have to go through step by step to explain why it would work, then we'll never get anywhere. Scouting and game sense is apart of the game. Why would I have to say "okay guys, scout. Now, use game sense." Seriously?
Just for the record, if you build your Robo after the Nexus, and scout with your first observer, then you die to cloaked Banshees. The Banshee arrives in your base as your observer is halfway across the map in most cases.
But being a Diamond Protoss, I'm sure you'd know such a popular and consistent timing, wouldn't you?
I'm not a Protoss (you don't read, do you). But I'll entertain you.
The banshee arrives, but cloak is not finished. You can fend it off. Meanwhile, make another observer, it's only 25/75. You may have to pull probes for a second or two for it to finish. Meanwhile, you're up a base and the Terran is either going 1/1/1 or expanding.
But continue your elitist condescending tone as you reply.
Well, you described yourself as an alternating Terran/Zerg player at a high diamond/low masters level, and said you rarely play Protoss. But you also referred to yourself defending 1/1/1 with cannons, so I assumed that was also at least somewhere in Diamond. Because otherwise, you know, your experience defending it is completely worthless. Sorry for making this assumption, if that's the case.
In any case, the standard after a relatively late Robo is making at least 2 observers, and 3 is what I would call safe. If you're going to make that many, why exactly would you need cannons? You started off this whole discussion by claiming that Protoss can rely on them for detection, but now it's suddenly 3 observers, forge, upgrades AND cannons?
Frankly, what you interpreted as condescension was me trying to just dismiss your idea by implying that you're terrible and have no idea what you're talking about. It's faster than demonstrating how you're wrong about pretty much everything. Like, the first sentence describing your awesome build claims that 1 Gate FE is safe, which it blatantly isn't.
On September 20 2011 22:04 Zeon0 wrote: gsl spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
please, please, please do never mention Puzzle in this thread anymore. Walling in you own Immortal, wasting 5 forcefields for nothing, forgeting a pylong at 26 supply and 4gating is just so bad, I cant find proper words for it^^
Actually I'm gonna mention it because in his game versus bomber his only errors were to block an Immortal (ok that cost him 100 mineral but that didn't changed anthing else in this game) and waste some forcefields (before going back home and get 200 energy fast). While it mabe had shocked you, thoses errors were like nothing (terran players makes errors too, it's just that they can get away with it). I was more imprssed by puzzle than by bomber in this game, puzzle had some good micro and even stomp the 2 prong attack from bomber (one in the back, and some marauders stimming in the natural).
The outcome of the game just came from the fact that bomber faked a 1-1-1 and let Puzzle make a safe buld while he was doing a greedy one, allowing him to have more supply the whole game. By the way I didn't watched it in detail but I have the impression that bomber's build was designed so he can scout the protoss before deciding wether make a 1-1-1 or an expand (well in this case he made an expand blindly, but his svc could have been in puzzle base at his time). This build won him the game, what happend later was just bomber playing safe and not allowing puzzle to get back in the game
I don't even think Bomber's build is greedy. It can defend pretty much every all-in or timing the Protoss can throw at him. Which is part of the problem I suppose.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Its not a balance whine if it is backed by theory crafting, cold hard numbers and facts. Everything I said in my initial post here where the facts, I explained in great detail why the protoss forces where inferior to their terran and zerg counterparts or just not cost effective. I explained why the units and strategies are too easy to counter.
The cold hard numbers and facts supporting my case are the number of terrans in Code S, the very low number of Protoss in Code S, the win ratio of Protoss at the moment, the clear lack of a Protoss GSL champ for a very long time, and the countless VoDs where you see Protoss suffering.
Even players we know and love have come forth and said that something is fundamentally broken, Naniwa said so in his DH interview.
Also, I didn't say that the 200/200 deathball was the pinnacle of innovation, I just said that, it is the only viable build at the moment that still works to some extent. Other strategies or unit compositions are either too ineffective or ridiculously expensive to pull of.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss.
This happens the other way round as well. If I go 1 rax expo and the toss goes 3 gate robo they are going to have a larger army value than me when they go for their 1 base all in push.
I don't see a problem with this. If one player pursues economy, and the other goes for army size, there SHOULD be a period where the guy on one base has a larger army. The economy based player is aiming at a later point in the game where his economy will enable him to get ahead in army size. Until that point he is behind in army and tech. This is the game working as intended.
That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that protoss held the expansion for most of the game. Usually if you hold onto an expansion for that long you should be ahead in supply. The guy focusing on army needs to hit a timing before the expansion kicks in and enables his opponent to have a better army.
This is why people usually immediately attack when they scout a fresh base... if they wait any longer they will lose their army advantage and if they take an expansion themselves they will be behind.
His point being is that a protoss can hold onto an expansion for ~7 minutes and still lose. I would think if someone held a fresh expansion for about 3 minutes you're pretty much screwed.
I'll start off by saying I'm not very good at theorycrafting nor at the game (diamond ish haven't played in months Protoss point of view) but what if Protoss aimed for a more tempo sort of play.
Let's say the standard protoss build is 1 gate FE. You're playing Terran and you can't scout his build might be 1-1-1 or something else. Can't you just stop probes at 36ish split to maximize mining at both bases. Power out units (no workers) with all you're chrono and have just a big army in time for the 1-1-1. I mean you cut probe production even if you don't know it's the 1-1-1 just to pump out a bigger army at that time. Sure he might be making SCV and have 2 orbitals but with powering from 2 base and chrono on warpgates could you not make a big enough army to stop the 1-1-1 or if he expands to make so much pressure as to gain a edge and restart probe production while solely chronoboosting your nexus for probes (disadvantage with upgrades since you're not chronoboosting them)
And hopefully the army you made gives you map control to expand faster. It's a crazy idea and I'm very open to critisism, but I haven't heard a lot about Protoss aiming for tempo based game plans. It might be that we can't control the game very well, or because we would need to cut probe production which is considered a big no-no in economy RTS games.
I know it sounds very bad to stop making probes for a time every game, but since chronoboost exist might as well use it to change up production timings and save money where we can on gateways/warpgates to make more units at a certain time interval vs certain builds. Surely scouting can be an issue with this type of play. But other then all ins no one ever stops to make workers except Zerg to throw funky timings with units at you. I was wondering if it could be possible for a Protoss equivalent vs Terran.
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work.
Believe it or not, it does. There's a Forge expand into 2 Stargate and 5/6 Gate Zealot warp-in all-in / high pressure build. It's extremely effective and strong, especially if the Zerg doesn't scout the 2 Stargates.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Actually - you are very incorrect. Blizzard does not change it based on an analysis. Though they will consider a good analysis on a build, they mainly work with percentages. They are in the business of balancing the game around percentages. At the end of the day, if they can say that the game is within 2% of being balanced at all skill-levels, they have kept their word in providing a competitive E-Sport.
How was Infestor / Broodlord proven to be broken through an analysis? When Terran starts making Ghosts, everything Zerg has begins to look like trash. Unfortunately, Ghost-Mech was largely unexplored at the time of David Kim mentioning a potential Infestor / Broodlord nerf.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
There are not 8191 possible unit compositions. You're counting {zealot; stalker; sentry} and {stalker; zealot; sentry} as different combinations.
And now, if you care at all about being the slightest bit realistic, exclude units that MUST be made (probe). Exclude either stalker, zealot or sentry, because you can't make 0 gate units and live past 2 minutes, unless you're in bronze league. Also allow for having an observer, which is a requirement. ~10 types to choose from.
And this is not even excluding the unrealistic scenarios, e.g. as getting only carriers and nothing else and having this be viable.
Let's be generous, and pretend that the composition will have 4 units.
This is far from exact, but much more realistic than your absurd estimate: 210 possible combinations.
You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
On September 21 2011 04:15 Destructicon wrote: You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
So why don't protoss players use this fact to confuse zerg players? Say leave only 1/3 or your standing army at the ramp so the zerg goes on and makes sporecrawlers and queens while you make probes.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Stop trolling. None of the things you mention were proven imbalanced the way you suggest. Which utterly makes no sense anyway since your mathematical model is off, not even considering restrictions on permutations whatsoever.
Subterfuge won't work in the above mentioned case because, the zerg will be on 3 bases to the protoss 2. If the Protoss goes for a forge fast expand the zerg can get a fast 3. If protoss goes for a 1 gate or 3 gate expand the zerg can still defend what comes out of it. So in 90% of the situations when a protoss gets his 2nd, the zerg will get his 3rd.
The zerg will only make 1-2 spores per hatch and queens don't interrupt drone production. The protoss will not gain anything from faking a DT or SG, or worst he leaves himself open to a devastating attack once the zerg is ready to either go for a kill or destroy the Protoss 3rd.
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote: Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote: I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
On September 21 2011 04:15 Destructicon wrote: You don't need to scout the 2 SGs to know it is coming.
You just scout and poke and pressure the front of the protoss base, and either you will sneak in some lings and scout it or more likely you'll see his army composition, if it has no or very little sentries/stlakers you know something is amiss.
The zerg then can assume two things DT or SG pressure. In both cases spore crawlers and extra queens are constructed + roaches to counter the zealots. Overlords are piled on top of the spore crawlers, the harass will come in and do very little damage or take too much damage.
And that's bullshit and the reason why people that are bad at playing the game shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote: Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote: I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him.
Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
Disclaimer: I am only Diamond, and I have not had the opportunity to read most of the thread to see if the discussion has happened already. I'm just posting my quick thoughts on the situation.
The way I see it, a large problem with Protoss centers around one idea: the split between the "main" units of your army (damage dealers) and the "supporting" units of your army (ones that let your damage dealers deal damage).
In Terran, your main damage dealers are Marines and Marauders. Ghosts, Medivacs, Vikings and Tanks support them. The main damage dealers are easily replaceable, and you don't need extremely large numbers of the supporting units in most cases in order to be effective. Large numbers of Barracks allow your damage dealers to be replaced easily, and the flexibility of the addon mechanic allows even the supporting units to be replaced quickly.
In Zerg, units tend to be able to fulfill multiple roles. Zerglings both act as main units when surrounding Fungaled units, or as supporting units when tanking Marine fire for Mutalisks to attack, for example. However, because of the Zerg production mechanic, outside of resources, all their units are limited by the same larvae, which gives them the ability to reproduce an army quickly (see the 300 food push patented by Zergs in late game).
However, in the Protoss army, Gateway units do not end up doing a majority of the damage for the army. Higher tech units, such as Colossus, Void Rays, Immortals and High Templar form a larger overall percentage of the damage for your army. Zealots and Stalkers form the supporting units of the group - Zealots by tanking damage and keeping units out of range of Colossus, and Stalkers by picking off the opposing supporting units such as Vikings, Ghosts, Infestors, Brood Lords, etc. Outside of High Templar, none of those units are easily replaceable as they all come from a separate production facility - one that is not feasible to get multiples of. This facilitates the "ball"-style play, where Protoss focus heavily on protecting their high tech units and going for strong timing pushes. Often, when a Protoss loses these key units in their army, they have a hard time coming back because Protoss can only replace their supporting units quickly.
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote: Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote: I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him.
Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
Thank you
Oh and the formula I used for counting unit combinations was n!/(k!*(n-k)!). Which means that I am not counting repeating combos, and ordering does not matter.
At least 90% of the unit compositions and timings have been figured out already. Its not silly to say so, you can notice it in the state of the game.
Fact, in TvP and especially with the threat of a 1/1/1 a protoss needs to get a robo, no robo, no detection, no surviving probes when the banshee hits. Already a large number of timings and possibilities for the protoss have to be thrown out the window. Now if you have made a robo you should also get immortals and colossus from them. Making a robo just for an obs is a huge waste. Making a stargate along that robo is limited in viability because SG units and robo units are very expensive and constrict the amount of sentries and HT you could get.
So by combining these, very simple to deduct facts, we conclude that there are a very limited number of option Protoss has in this situation. And it is quite the same for MMM+G + V against the deathball or zerg vs Protoss. Because of the constrictions and limitations of the Protoss race they have had to evolve in a certain way and those ways have already been figured out, and there is no room to innovate because of the above mentioned constrictions.
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
No one cares about your condescending diamond level theorycraft on what Pro players should do. Seriously this post is just offensively bad and you basically imply pro protoss players just sit around jerking off all day and not trying to come up with something new. MC has innovated with his stargate play, phoenix chargelot, etc. What else is there? There aren't any more pro terrans or zergs so why according to you is there no one coming up with better builds? Maybe because there aren't any.
Yes zerg struggled and they GOT BUFFED WHILE TOSS GOT NERFED. NICE INNOVATION THERE. Why don't we revert these patches because after all the genius and talented progamer zergs and their innovative awesomeness will be fine I'm sure. The argument that terran and zerg progamers at the highest level are simply more talented than protoss players, in such great quantity is absolute bullshit and makes no sense.
I totally agree with you, Jini.
Thats the problem of Idra fanboys. Everytime he comes with an excuse why protoss players are doing bad, people just repeat what he said before thinking.
Its like saying Idra is retarded because he cant beat any decent Protoss player nowadays. See how his excuse can work both ways?
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
All of what has been posted in this quote has been said before - however putting it all together into a single cohesive post that correlates all constraints to one another really shows how damning the situation with protoss is.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point.
And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk.
Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs.
You forgot a thing man, that the terran "base"units wreack the protoss "gate" units. You cannot watch only the time of production of barracks and warp without take a look to the effectiveness. Your point of view can be right only if i could warp marine/marauder by my gate...
What? The first thing I said was that protoss t1 units are cost ineffective against terran t1. Please read my post before criticizing it.
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
No one cares about your condescending diamond level theorycraft on what Pro players should do. Seriously this post is just offensively bad and you basically imply pro protoss players just sit around jerking off all day and not trying to come up with something new. MC has innovated with his stargate play, phoenix chargelot, etc. What else is there? There aren't any more pro terrans or zergs so why according to you is there no one coming up with better builds? Maybe because there aren't any.
Yes zerg struggled and they GOT BUFFED WHILE TOSS GOT NERFED. NICE INNOVATION THERE. Why don't we revert these patches because after all the genius and talented progamer zergs and their innovative awesomeness will be fine I'm sure. The argument that terran and zerg progamers at the highest level are simply more talented than protoss players, in such great quantity is absolute bullshit and makes no sense.
I totally agree with you, Jini.
Thats the problem of Idra fanboys. Everytime he comes with an excuse why protoss players are doing bad, people just repeat what he said before thinking.
Its like saying Idra is retarded because he cant beat any decent Protoss player nowadays. See how his excuse can work both ways?
I agree lol. IdrA calling others are retarded while he's just terrible. And IdrA fanboys just got brainwashed by him.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Don't talk. Protoss is not terran.
Your examples of protoss "imbalance" were perfectly fine in game and were knee jerk nerfs done by blizzard that were ill thought through.
To quote day9, "hes going colossus - void ray - high templar?" Yea the counter to that is to go fucking kill him.
Sorry the timing of these builds supersede the issues at the core of the units.
On September 21 2011 04:42 Destructicon wrote: At least 90% of the unit compositions and timings have been figured out already. Its not silly to say so, you can notice it in the state of the game.
Fact, in TvP and especially with the threat of a 1/1/1 a protoss needs to get a robo, no robo, no detection, no surviving probes when the banshee hits. Already a large number of timings and possibilities for the protoss have to be thrown out the window. Now if you have made a robo you should also get immortals and colossus from them. Making a robo just for an obs is a huge waste. Making a stargate along that robo is limited in viability because SG units and robo units are very expensive and constrict the amount of sentries and HT you could get.
So by combining these, very simple to deduct facts, we conclude that there are a very limited number of option Protoss has in this situation. And it is quite the same for MMM+G + V against the deathball or zerg vs Protoss. Because of the constrictions and limitations of the Protoss race they have had to evolve in a certain way and those ways have already been figured out, and there is no room to innovate because of the above mentioned constrictions.
Terran has two great advantages. One, everyone knows, their almost free scout. Secondly, they are the best at denying scout from the other two races.
Besides having to play in the dark, he can scout you easier.
Today, when Puzzle was playing against Bomber, Artosis was saying how great observers are. But, getting a robo, then an oberserver, set Puzzle behind. When his obs got to Bombers base, his CC was already landed, while Puzzles nexus was delayed.
So, Protoss has to play catch-up almost everytime or simply gamble.
I dont have the same level of game knowledge as some of you guys, but if supply depos couldnt get lowered down.Would it help anything?
On September 21 2011 04:57 RajaF wrote: So basically you guys are saying that most of the protoss problems come from lack of scouting and detection options?
just part of it.Protoss units are not very various. It work like combo and not much option to execute and harassing in game.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees.
I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough.
Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough.
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is:
sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions.
Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth?
If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players?
Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Don't talk. Protoss is not terran.
Your examples of protoss "imbalance" were perfectly fine in game and were knee jerk nerfs done by blizzard that were ill thought through.
To quote day9, "hes going colossus - void ray - high templar?" Yea the counter to that is to go fucking kill him.
Sorry the timing of these builds supersede the issues at the core of the units.
I dont know why u guys still reply to this Klystron guy or Squanzo guy. I read their first post then i know its best just to ignored them
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
There are no good protoss, their T and Z counterparts are just too good even though it's the same exact people that used to win before all the nerfs and buffs. But all of those people that are no longer winning are just collectively slumping, right?
It's funny how the 'protoss hopes' get huge props for defeating 30% winrate zergs in Code A Ro32, sometimes through huge mistakes from the zerg like Jookto v Jyp. Obviously the innovation protoss needs is to sneak nexuses that the zerg somehow never scouts and to hope that the zerg loses all of his full energy infestors for no reason before casting one fungal.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Ah - Fair enough. I believe we are talking about the same thing but saying different things about it.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
Yeah and I'm saying he's completely wrong about that being a higher chance.
On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote: Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now.
Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
Right.
sleeping is saying that:
It is more likely that Protoss players are straight up bad rather than them not being able to find strategies that can be solve the many difficulties that they are facing.
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote: Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote: I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him.
Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
Thank you
Oh and the formula I used for counting unit combinations was n!/(k!*(n-k)!). Which means that I am not counting repeating combos, and ordering does not matter.
You know that you were just calculating the number of subset of a set of 13 elements ? The answer is just 2^13, no need to use the other fomulas (btw sum(k=1...k=n, n!/(k!*(n-k)!)=2^n).
But anyawya the problem for protoss is not really the lategame army composition (a mix of vr, mothership, collosus and ht vs zerg is quite OP) but how to reach it without beeing destroyed by the zerg. And this add a lot of constraints (like for example not die on roach/ling all-in) and requirements (like expand as fast as possible), that hugely limits the options.
I'm having some success expanding after a Kowi opening (2gate 4 chronoboosted stalkers) and applying light pressure with them. I'll then base my robo timing on what information I gather from my pressure (marine & marauder count mostly). But this may not work at higher levels tho (Plat here).
On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote: Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income. You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries. To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe.
On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote: I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply.
Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out.
Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him.
Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point.
Thank you
Oh and the formula I used for counting unit combinations was n!/(k!*(n-k)!). Which means that I am not counting repeating combos, and ordering does not matter.
You know that you were just calculating the number of subset of a set of 13 elements ? The answer is just 2^13, no need to use the other fomulas (btw sum(k=1...k=n, n!/(k!*(n-k)!)=2^n).
But anyawya the problem for protoss is not really the lategame army composition (a mix of vr, mothership, collosus and ht vs zerg is quite OP) but how to reach it without beeing destroyed by the zerg. And this add a lot of constraints (like for example not die on roach/ling all-in) and requirements (like expand as fast as possible), that hugely limits the options.
I used the other notation because I thought it would be useful to see the number of 2,3,...n unit compositions independently.
Anyway I understand that it is not a lategame army composition. I chose unit composition as my example because it was easy to quantify the number of possible unit compositions. Quantifying other variables such as timings, when/what to chrono, scouting intel, etc.. is extremely difficult. The unit composition example was just a quick way to demonstrate that there are a lot of options in this game, and that there is no way that we have explored them all in a year.
Say your matchup is pvz, and you want to find the optimal strategy to survive a roach ling all in, and have the best possible economy after the all in. The fastest way that you could solve that optimization problem is to build a simulation that would play billions of games in which the ultimate goal is that one unit comp. Every game would have a small variation from the last game, exploring all of the options from when to expand to whether your 4th pylon should be placed on 30 supply or 31. Every iteration you pick the best combination of moves and then randomly change some. You do this over and over for billions of games until no small variations on the best strategy make it better. And even then, you have come up with 1 optimal strategy for 1 map, assuming that your opponent is going to do 1 all in. In reality finding the optimal strategy for every set of counter strategies is nigh impossible. There is no way in hell that anyone has fully explored any small part of this game in just a years time.
Just to actually address the OP, a lot of people are going to be very sad once these players go against anyone even remotely good. I'm guessing Hero and JYP can make the Up/Downs, Sage has a decent shot too if Yoda doesn't just 1/1/1 him out of the tournament.
But I'll be very surprised if any of them actually make it to Code S this season.
On September 21 2011 07:33 Toadvine wrote: Just to actually address the OP, a lot of people are going to be very sad once these players go against anyone even remotely good. I'm guessing Hero and JYP can make the Up/Downs, Sage has a decent shot too if Yoda doesn't just 1/1/1 him out of the tournament.
But I'll be very surprised if any of them actually make it to Code S this season.
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
While there are about 4829401985 things wrong with your post, most have been covered, but regarding your opinions on innovation, I tallied this a couple of weeks ago in the strategy thread; I don't know how it has changed now but here were the numbers I found:
I looked through the 75 most recent [G] threads and discovered: 8 PvP 9 PvZ 12 PvT 6 PvX That's already 35/75, so about 50% 6 TvT 8 TvZ 5 TvP 5 TvX So less innovation in every matchup, but not an embarrassing amount, now Zerg: 5 ZvZ 3 ZvP 3 ZvT 5 ZvX ...
Don't talk about innovation like zerg players are so brilliant when what really happened was that you got buffed and we got nerfed. Hell, you always had things like bling bombs which were more cost efficient than roach/hydra/corruptor and you didn't use them. Why don't you go read what Mana recently said on the matter (because he actually is in a position to talk)?
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
While there are about 4829401985 things wrong with your post, most have been covered, but regarding your opinions on innovation, I tallied this a couple of weeks ago in the strategy thread; I don't know how it has changed now but here were the numbers I found:
I looked through the 75 most recent [G] threads and discovered: 8 PvP 9 PvZ 12 PvT 6 PvX That's already 35/75, so about 50% 6 TvT 8 TvZ 5 TvP 5 TvX So less innovation in every matchup, but not an embarrassing amount, now Zerg: 5 ZvZ 3 ZvP 3 ZvT 5 ZvX ...
Don't talk about innovation like zerg players are so brilliant when what really happened was that you got buffed and we got nerfed. Hell, you always had things like bling bombs which were more cost efficient than roach/hydra/corruptor and you didn't use them. Why don't you go read what Mana recently said on the matter (because he actually is in a position to talk)?
It's true ... it's also proven too ... aka, mathematically and decision tree proven. When Zerg was complaining about Protoss' deathball, literally infestors were ridiculously untouched ... And it's completely true.
If you tried to grep the output files of all the replays, barely anyone on sc2replays tried infestors or ling bombs.
As for toss though, collosus did kill and termplars were good, but they were always being used. The only units that were practically never used were carriers and motherships.
Don't believe me? Take a random selection of 100 replay files of post-roach 4-range and pre-tmplar. Output the text of stats and grep for units used. Infestors were simply not even used very much =/
On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot! For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level.... just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time are they so afraid of playing macro games?! evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
While there are about 4829401985 things wrong with your post, most have been covered, but regarding your opinions on innovation, I tallied this a couple of weeks ago in the strategy thread; I don't know how it has changed now but here were the numbers I found:
I looked through the 75 most recent [G] threads and discovered: 8 PvP 9 PvZ 12 PvT 6 PvX That's already 35/75, so about 50% 6 TvT 8 TvZ 5 TvP 5 TvX So less innovation in every matchup, but not an embarrassing amount, now Zerg: 5 ZvZ 3 ZvP 3 ZvT 5 ZvX ...
Don't talk about innovation like zerg players are so brilliant when what really happened was that you got buffed and we got nerfed. Hell, you always had things like bling bombs which were more cost efficient than roach/hydra/corruptor and you didn't use them. Why don't you go read what Mana recently said on the matter (because he actually is in a position to talk)?
It's true ... it's also proven too ... aka, mathematically and decision tree proven. When Zerg was complaining about Protoss' deathball, literally infestors were ridiculously untouched ... And it's completely true.
If you tried to grep the output files of all the replays, barely anyone on sc2replays tried infestors or ling bombs.
As for toss though, collosus did kill and termplars were good, but they were always being used. The only units that were practically never used were carriers and motherships.
Don't believe me? Take a random selection of 100 replay files of post-roach 4-range and pre-tmplar. Output the text of stats and grep for units used. Infestors were simply not even used very much =/
Agree
some Z and T players in here just wanted to defend their races.
It's pretty clear that PvZ is fairly balanced (if anything slightly more favored of Z) at the pro level (GSL, MLG, etc...) Go watch any of the past 2 tournyes and you will see no Protoss's beating Terran and slightly more Zs beating Ps (Due to metagame imo not balance).
*EMP should Only take off energy, keep it at 75 energy and no upgrade and decrease the range a bit. Ghost still have Snipe which out ranges HT's feedback. If EMP continues to wipe out shields (counter every Protoss unit by starting the entire P army with half health) then it needs to have a range reduction, cost 125+ energy, and become an upgrade. Against Protoss it is the single strongest spell in the game as it allows one unit to counter every Protoss Unit and Strategy. This is beyond me why this hasn't been dealt with a long time, but now it will have to be or Protoss will be extinct in high level tourneys. Just my 2 cents, GL all hopefully we can some balance restored to the PvT matchup
Edit: Also for the overall future of SC2 as an esport please realize balancing this matchup is bigger than Terran players being able to roll Protoss every game in ladder (so please don't blindly defend your race with all Protoss suck and such.)
On September 21 2011 11:44 ZeromuS wrote: I for one am OK if protoss becomes a moot race in any high level tournament. The reason being that it will force one of 2 scenarios:
1) Players buckle down and get really really good 2) Blizzard decides that protoss isnt really that viable anymore and we get a "Protoss Patch"
At the moment, The game is no fun though. Hard to get good when you are constantly losing to less skilled players :/ (Thats how I feel atleast)
BTW: Before you guys Theory Craft, Could you please post your league.. It would help your arguments.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
On September 21 2011 11:37 Miller wrote: It's pretty clear that PvZ is fairly balanced (if anything slightly more favored of Z) at the pro level (GSL, MLG, etc...) Go watch any of the past 2 tournyes and you will see no Protoss's beating Terran and slightly more Zs beating Ps (Due to metagame imo not balance).
*EMP should Only take off energy, keep it at 75 energy and no upgrade and decrease the range a bit. Ghost still have Snipe which out ranges HT's feedback. If EMP continues to wipe out shields (counter every Protoss unit by starting the entire P army with half health) then it needs to have a range reduction, cost 125+ energy, and become an upgrade. Against Protoss it is the single strongest spell in the game as it allows one unit to counter every Protoss Unit and Strategy. This is beyond me why this hasn't been dealt with a long time, but now it will have to be or Protoss will be extinct in high level tourneys. Just my 2 cents, GL all hopefully we can some balance restored to the PvT matchup
Edit: Also for the overall future of SC2 as an esport please realize balancing this matchup is bigger than Terran players being able to roll Protoss every game in ladder (so please don't blindly defend your race with all Protoss suck and such.)
I'd rather EMP either be moved to the Raven or if EMP costs 125+ mana, then Storm costs 100+ and Fungal costs 125+.
Hell, I'd be fine with losing EMP altogether and having 250mm Cannon Strike back to a cooldown based ability and putting the range at 8.
I don't feel like everything from Terran and Protoss has been fully explored (can't really say the same about Zerg, which has been explored to hell and back).
I mean, Blizzard had to buff the Warp Prism to encourage Warp Prism play. But hey, who cares about Warp Prisms when you have a massive splash damage A-move siege unit in the Colossus instead? Storms and Colossi are really good. I don't really see Gateway units losing to Bio units because Chargelot Archon is AMAZINGLY strong. Players may not thing it, but with their durability, Zealots just TEAR through bio if left unkited. And if you do kite, you need to kite very well or else the rest of the army can still hit you while you kite the Zealots.
If I remember, Broodwar Protoss was focused heavily on Dragoons, Zealots, High Templar, some Dark Templar, the occasional Reaver, and Archons (obviously from leftover High Templar). Zerg usually responded with what? Hydras and Lurkers or Mutas and Lings right? (into Defilers and Ultras?) It feels like Protoss hasn't changed much but Zerg has changed a lot. A majority of their units are weaker but they have the Infestor with Neural Parasite and Fungal Growth, which is the thing that has been giving most Protoss players headaches... I don't know though... How much better/worse is the Stalker compared to a Dragoon?
In PvT it was the same but with more Reaver usage and Arbiters.
Terran used Tanks, Vultures, Goliaths, Science Vessels (for those damn Arbiters) and Marines in Bunkers (early game) in TvP... I recall quite a few Terrans crying that TvP is an absolute headache... (It could've just been low level whining). To be honest, Terran has gotten worse in that respect. The Hellion is good at harassing, yes, but I feel like Spider Mines gave your more safety, map control, and I also feel like Vultures were better overall in a battle. Tanks supposedly got better... But they do less per shot damage (but attack faster and have a better AI). Goliaths... Well Terran anti-air went to hell, but the ground damage I think went up significantly (at least when comparing Goliaths to Thors).
In Terran versus Zerg, they had the full mech, Bio, Bio mech timings, or the SK Terran. Marines obviously got much better... Medics are harder to get, but I'd be lying if I said they aren't better now than before. Vultures are good, but in this matchup Hellions are significantly better (even with the recent nerf, since you still roast Zerglings). Goliaths are much better than Thors (since they're cheaper and can actually fight Mutalisks decently even if they're spread out, which Thors can't do). Siege Tanks... Weaker vs Hydras (since you don't take nearly all of the Hydra's HP off and have the Marines finish it off), better overall... The Science Vessel was a hell of a lot better...
I feel like Robotics tech Protoss is better (except for harass, where Reavers just RAPED), otherwise not too much has changed except that Protoss can warp units right outside or inside your base... I feel the other 2 races went to hell... Marauders have more value in TvP and Marines are actually somewhat usable in the matchup, but I feel the reason for using them (other than that beginners suck ass at dealing with them) is the fact that Terran mech went to hell in WoL. Mech CAN work, don't get me wrong, but it's harder to pull off since it's hard to get the amount of mech units you want and you don't have Spider Mines to delay the Protoss push. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Terran Anti-air, again, went to hell. Against a passive Protoss, maybe it could work since the Terran would have more time to be safe to macro up and be a little greedier with their tech...
I'm really hoping the expansion will fix all of this, reintroduce a bunch of good, solid, all around units instead of these crazy amount of special situation units.
I just think every race needs to be reworked... Lots of nerfs and buffs are in order in addition to remakes...
On September 21 2011 11:37 Miller wrote: It's pretty clear that PvZ is fairly balanced (if anything slightly more favored of Z) at the pro level (GSL, MLG, etc...) Go watch any of the past 2 tournyes and you will see no Protoss's beating Terran and slightly more Zs beating Ps (Due to metagame imo not balance).
PvZ winrate in recent GSL was worse than PvT though...
On September 20 2011 08:11 Ghola wrote: Mc hasn't been doing that coin flippy bullshit since season 3
Yes, he has. I see him DT, 2 star, really unsafe early expands, etc. He still does all that stupid shit he's been doing, he's just not winning now.
Oh no! He build DT's one game and did a 1 gate expo LEARN TO PLAY SAFE MC!!. MVP does tons of risky bunker rushes, cheese, 1 base all in vs huk, but you revere him why? BECAUSE TERRAN ALL INS DON'T SUCK.
Yep, that's really it. Anybody calling MC an unsafe cheeser is just being blind to the way the game is designed. Something needs to happen... and something before HotS certainly.
no protoss for round of 16 just to show the imbalance. Marauders not being able to stim would really be a good change or Terran has to pick concussive or stim. not both.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
ColCruncher mean anything to you? lol
To be fair, I believe that was when Protoss air builds hadn't been figured out. That is, it was before Zergs realized that air play was legitimate and not cheesy and it was worthwhile to invest in a couple of Spores and an extra Queen before securing a third, assuming that a non-4gate, non-3gate Sentry Expand build had been scouted.
On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
ColCruncher mean anything to you? lol
To be fair, I believe that was when Protoss air builds hadn't been figured out. That is, it was before Zergs realized that air play was legitimate and not cheesy and it was worthwhile to invest in a couple of Spores and an extra Queen before securing a third, assuming that a non-4gate, non-3gate Sentry Expand build had been scouted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think it was pre-infestor zvp, where turtle deathball rolled roach/hydra/corrupter all day.
On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote: I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. Carriers and motherships were tried extensively, many months ago.
I'm not claiming that Protoss players are smarter, but that they had to explore earlier because of the race design. There is no "go to" Protoss unit like MM or lings/roaches. If you make zealots and no stalkers, you die. If you make only stalkers, you die in the early game. If you make zealots and stalkers, but no sentries, you will die against early pushes (lings get in your mineral line or MM gets up your ramp).
There was a phase where carrier rush was being tried by many pros, but it simply did not pan out. The same goes for motherships.
I'm also not convinced that Warp Prisms will solve anything. It's definitely an improvement, but it will not shift the metagame, because it does not address Protoss' core design issues. There's still nothing cost efficient to drop in an enemy's base, and putting your HTs into a warp prism doesn't address the fact that ghost is just a better unit. It already requires more micro to use HTs when ghosts are on the field. Adding warp prisms to the equation is not helping the simple fact that ghosts are better statistically.
edit: Another insulting comment that comes up frequently is "Carriers have the highest DPS in the game."
They do 26 dps. A carrier with +3 air attack does less dps than a +0 thor. For every +1 armor the opponent has, the carrier loses 14 dps right away. This is disregarding the insane cost, and the fact that interceptors die very quickly in sc2 (unlike sc1, they do not recover HP).
In addition to it being a poor unit, it takes forever to come out, let alone a decent amount of them. And it also requires an upgrade + building interceptors.
In almost any situation where you made a carrier, even if you won the game - you would have been better served spending those resources on something else.
It's one of the worst units in the game, considering how you have to bend over backwards to get it, and once you do, it's subpar.
Pretty much this. After reading the dps numbers on the carrier on liquipedia, it seems that for the purpose of killing heavy/armored units the voidray does much better than the carrier (esp massive). And for small light units, you are better off using collossus or templar.
The only thing going for the carrier is the interceptors' fucking up of AI.
I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
On September 21 2011 11:44 ZeromuS wrote: I for one am OK if protoss becomes a moot race in any high level tournament. The reason being that it will force one of 2 scenarios:
1) Players buckle down and get really really good 2) Blizzard decides that protoss isnt really that viable anymore and we get a "Protoss Patch"
Agreed. Being in this nebulous area where everyone sucks but it's still "too early" to tell whether it's a race viability issue or a player issue is unpleasant from a viewing perspective.
From a play perspective I'll still float at high masters off of gateway timing attacks and the stupidity of my opponents. That doesn't work anymore in GSL though!
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
Brood War PvT didn't have Vikings which are pretty much tailor made to shut down the type of play that makes Carriers effective.
What you said about Vikings is true, this is why the role of the carrier, its strengths and weaknesses need to be re-thinked, and also the interaction of stalkers, void rays and phoenixes with vikings need to be re-thinked so that you can make a new counter system that promotes some new kind of play other then deathballs vs bio balls.
Either that or adding a new protoss flying unit that would go well with carriers and protect them to a certain extent, and would require a different counter/ unit composition from the terran then marines/marauders ghosts and vikings.
I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
I made a post earlier about tosses taking a safe 3rd. I find Huks methods of expanding and general game management to be the way to go. That + the JYP and Hero style harassment.
On September 22 2011 00:41 Destructicon wrote: What you said about Vikings is true, this is why the role of the carrier, its strengths and weaknesses need to be re-thinked, and also the interaction of stalkers, void rays and phoenixes with vikings need to be re-thinked so that you can make a new counter system that promotes some new kind of play other then deathballs vs bio balls.
Either that or adding a new protoss flying unit that would go well with carriers and protect them to a certain extent, and would require a different counter/ unit composition from the terran then marines/marauders ghosts and vikings.
One could argue that the original designers of SCBW are far superior to those designers (cough) who designed command and conquer which is not on the same shelf as SCBW in any aspect. It was unfortunate that the original designers of SCBW somehow disappeared for whatever reason....
On September 21 2011 11:37 Miller wrote: It's pretty clear that PvZ is fairly balanced (if anything slightly more favored of Z) at the pro level (GSL, MLG, etc...) Go watch any of the past 2 tournyes and you will see no Protoss's beating Terran and slightly more Zs beating Ps (Due to metagame imo not balance).
*EMP should Only take off energy, keep it at 75 energy and no upgrade and decrease the range a bit. Ghost still have Snipe which out ranges HT's feedback. If EMP continues to wipe out shields (counter every Protoss unit by starting the entire P army with half health) then it needs to have a range reduction, cost 125+ energy, and become an upgrade. Against Protoss it is the single strongest spell in the game as it allows one unit to counter every Protoss Unit and Strategy. This is beyond me why this hasn't been dealt with a long time, but now it will have to be or Protoss will be extinct in high level tourneys. Just my 2 cents, GL all hopefully we can some balance restored to the PvT matchup
Edit: Also for the overall future of SC2 as an esport please realize balancing this matchup is bigger than Terran players being able to roll Protoss every game in ladder (so please don't blindly defend your race with all Protoss suck and such.)
I'd rather EMP either be moved to the Raven or if EMP costs 125+ mana, then Storm costs 100+ and Fungal costs 125+.
I respectfully disagree. I think spells are good for the overall metagame as they promote micromanagement, both to cast, counter and avoid the spell. They're one of the most interesting micro mechanics in SC2.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:Hell, I'd be fine with losing EMP altogether and having 250mm Cannon Strike back to a cooldown based ability and putting the range at 8.
It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. 250mm Strike Cannon does less damage than just attacking normally, and normal attacks have smart firing which eliminates overkill. What 250mm Strike Cannons do is they stun the enemy. The fact that it was a cooldown ability wasn't overpowered because even if the spell is researched it will only be used in very rare circumstances to stun colossus or kill immortals quickly (due to hardened shields). The reason the ability costs mana is to give the Thor mana so that they can be feedbacked. Protoss struggle with certain Thor timings and certain Thor builds, the mana was reintroduced so the Thor could be feedbacked and Protoss doesn't get rolled.
I'm not sure what the intended effect of putting the range of the attack at 8 is, you don't really say here. Recognize that the primary benefit of the ability is that it stuns units, so if the protoss tries to escape, then the thor can stun and kill the colossi.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I don't feel like everything from Terran and Protoss has been fully explored (can't really say the same about Zerg, which has been explored to hell and back).
This is something which has been coming up a lot in this thread. In my opinion, Protoss has explored their units more than any other army has. The units we don't see often are Carriers and Motherships. Motherships have been heavily explored and there is mixed feedback about them. I would not be surprised if some kind of Mothership innovation occurred, but the problem with the Mothership is that it is hard countered by the same units which counter colossi and Carriers. If you don't get Carriers when you tech to Motherships, they cost 850/750 to put one out (including Stargate and Fleet Beacon).
The cost to put a single Carrier out is 1050/750 including the cost of interceptors and the upgrade. I really don't think that Carrier play has been heavily explored since 1 gate expand openings and forge fast expand opening have become the norm. I look forward to seeing more 3 base Carrier games.
The problem with the Carrier is that each one costs 450/250 once fully upgraded and they do less damage than any other tier 3 unit despite doing 80 damage per "volley". They are not a Protoss ground unit, and require separate upgrades which is extremely expensive. Every point of armor on the opposing unit reduces the Carrier's damage by 16. So the Carrier does 64 damage to an unupgraded Marauder and does 16 damage total against 3/3 Marauders.
The difference between Protoss and the other races in terms of innovating strategies is how their tech tree works. Protoss can comfortably tech to everything in their arsenal every game because all their ground units benefit from upgrades and their air units do not need upgrades to contribute meaningfully (except the Carrier ofc). Protoss must build gateway units in order to survive until the midgame, and Protoss does not have map control until colossi come out if Zerg get ling or roach speed, or Terran builds Marauders. Protoss Tier 3 units are highly vulnerable, but put out high damage or provide specific utility (dts harass, mothership support spells). This means that they require gateway units as a meatshield in order to do their damage.
Now that Terran uses ghosts, all of their bio has been explored rather thoroughly. Terran mech play is currently in the process of being explored, and more players are using mech in every matchup. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's being done. "Sky Terran" requires units on the ground otherwise the opposing army can just run past it and destroy the Terran's base. Terran air units are not a good solo composition, but we are seeing more air units in TvT. There is probably room to innovate and explore, but we'll see.
The problem when discussing zerg "innovation" is that zerg is reactive in all matchups. This generally tends to mean that they choose an opening and then can't rely on having certain things even five minutes in the game. It's not always safe to take a third base and it's not always safe to tech to mutas against protoss on three bases. Zerg will constantly innovate every time the other races have a new build or composition because that's how zerg works. If terran is going MMM every game, then you're not going to see roach compositions doing well. If zergs say MMM is OP because zerg can't use roaches, then then Terran is fair is saying "maybe try ling/bling." We didn't see the current builds months ago when most zergs were having difficulties. Zerg has the most flexibility in how to construct their army and this is the type of innovation that zerg does.
Terran is always proactive, which means they decide which build to use and when to execute it. The other races just hang onto their hats and try to defend. This is not a bad thing, it's actually quite common in RTS. Terran innovation tends to be new timings for making certain tech, using certain units to secure expansions or figuring out how to achieve strong unit placement.
Protoss walks the middle. They are reactive against Terran and have less available in terms of what they can safely do. They need gateway units in order to expand thanks to marauder and they need detection at a certain point in order to defend banshees and ghosts (just in case). This is no different than zerg, except zerg has less to fear from marauder and zerg has an ee han timing with their mutas which tends to do very strong damage. In BW, Protoss had a similar timing with the reaver - maybe colossus harass could be used. I'm not going to say Protoss can or can't do certain things, just that it's not a simple matter of "use carriers lolol." Against zerg, Protoss are proactive, which means they will try to exploit timing windows to do certain damages. The difference is that Protoss can not recover from losing their whole army the way that Terran can, which means that Protoss must be careful not to over commit.
If I had a thesis for all the above, I just want to say that Protoss behaves differently in different matchups and Protoss uses every unit in their army because that's the way they were designed.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I mean, Blizzard had to buff the Warp Prism to encourage Warp Prism play. But hey, who cares about Warp Prisms when you have a massive splash damage A-move siege unit in the Colossus instead? Storms and Colossi are really good. I don't really see Gateway units losing to Bio units because Chargelot Archon is AMAZINGLY strong. Players may not thing it, but with their durability, Zealots just TEAR through bio if left unkited. And if you do kite, you need to kite very well or else the rest of the army can still hit you while you kite the Zealots.
Nobody at high levels "just a-moves" their entire army - any army. And damage is not the sole focus of RTS. If colossi are a-moved, then terran can stim and use stop-and-shoot micro to minimize damage from colossus while vikings tear all the colossi down. Both armies must be microed. Chargelot Archon IS very strong, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. But Chargelot Archon can be kited fairly well and is highly weak against ghosts. It is a very expensive composition which does not lend well to the protoss slowly building up higher tech units so they can win. Terran comes out on top if you keep trading armies like this. Every Terran will kite, what a silly thing to say "if left unkited" and "if you do kite."
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:If I remember, Broodwar Protoss was focused heavily on Dragoons, Zealots, High Templar, some Dark Templar, the occasional Reaver, and Archons (obviously from leftover High Templar). Zerg usually responded with what? Hydras and Lurkers or Mutas and Lings right? (into Defilers and Ultras?) It feels like Protoss hasn't changed much but Zerg has changed a lot. A majority of their units are weaker but they have the Infestor with Neural Parasite and Fungal Growth, which is the thing that has been giving most Protoss players headaches... I don't know though... How much better/worse is the Stalker compared to a Dragoon?
That was a different game. Zerg hasn't "innovated" since BW, they have different units. I was going to write a bit on this, but it's all irrelevant. Dragoons did 20 damage, but half against small units like workers, zerglings and marines; and 75% to medium units like hydras, goliaths and vultures. Stalkers do 10 damage, +4 against armored. Dragoons do much more damage than Stalkers against things like tanks (20 damage vs 14). It's hard to compare because BW damages were based on the size of the unit, but Dragoons had 20 base damage and that should answer most of your questions. Also, Dragoons did an extra +2 damage per weapon upgrade, whereas Stalkers only get +1. It's worthwhile to mention now that Zealots did 16 damage, and got +2 per weapon upgrade whereas now they do 8x2, +1 per weapon upgrade. This means that +1 Zealots will do 17 damage in BW and 16 damage in SC2 against 1 armor units.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:In PvT it was the same but with more Reaver usage and Arbiters.
Terran used Tanks, Vultures, Goliaths, Science Vessels (for those damn Arbiters) and Marines in Bunkers (early game) in TvP... I recall quite a few Terrans crying that TvP is an absolute headache... (It could've just been low level whining). To be honest, Terran has gotten worse in that respect. The Hellion is good at harassing, yes, but I feel like Spider Mines gave your more safety, map control, and I also feel like Vultures were better overall in a battle. Tanks supposedly got better... But they do less per shot damage (but attack faster and have a better AI). Goliaths... Well Terran anti-air went to hell, but the ground damage I think went up significantly (at least when comparing Goliaths to Thors).
Again, not relevant to the discussion. But I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate JangBi on taking the first Protoss OSL since Stork in August '08. I was a low level Terran in BW and I found the same stuff frustrating. But it wasn't my job to play, and at the highest levels of play it is clear that Protoss has the lowest win rate in BW. That's 14 Terran OSLs, 10 Zerg OSLs and 8 Protoss OSLs. Protoss won often early on and zerg didn't.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I feel like Robotics tech Protoss is better (except for harass, where Reavers just RAPED), otherwise not too much has changed except that Protoss can warp units right outside or inside your base... I feel the other 2 races went to hell... Marauders have more value in TvP and Marines are actually somewhat usable in the matchup, but I feel the reason for using them (other than that beginners suck ass at dealing with them) is the fact that Terran mech went to hell in WoL. Mech CAN work, don't get me wrong, but it's harder to pull off since it's hard to get the amount of mech units you want and you don't have Spider Mines to delay the Protoss push. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Terran Anti-air, again, went to hell. Against a passive Protoss, maybe it could work since the Terran would have more time to be safe to macro up and be a little greedier with their tech...
I think that Robotics is probably an improvement, but I think that if Reavers were in the game instead of Colossus that most players wouldn't mind. Reavers also can't get sniped by vikings (their shuttle could, but how many vikings do you make to kill a shuttle?). Marauders have turned the matchup on its head, it's not that marines are (much) better, it's more that it's worth investing in bio because it helps marauders too. Marauders take map control for the terran and don't sacrifice defense, wide variety of stable openings and effectiveness of low unit counts which has always been a Terran strength. Marauders make it more difficult to scout and expand, which was very important in BW. I'm not sure what type of map you need to make nexus first openings safe against marauders, but that type of map would likely benefit Protoss.
I agree that Terran mech is worse in WoL and I think it's a shame. I know that Spider Mines were frustrating, but they would definitely help Terran mech. Goliaths would be very nice anti-air for the Terran race in general, but I think the matchup it would benefit most is TvT. Terran mech still has time to macro up and get greedy tech, but a combination of no spider mines, chargelots, blink stalkers and immortals has made terran mech much less effective against late game protoss armies. Bio mech is strong against early game Protoss.
I'm hoping my insight as a random player is useful. I will admit that I favour Terran and that zerg is my weakest race in the interests of full disclosure. I suspect that we will see a ghost nerf coming up, but I think it's too late to nerf Marauders in WoL without upsetting overall game balance. I would also like to see some more experimentation with fleet beacon units, but I don't think it will change the current state of the game because they are late tech options and they are countered the same way colossi are. I'm not sure what kind of a buff I'd like to see, but I do think that ghosts and infestors are too strong against protoss (or in general).
In terms of the 1/1/1 opening - it is the hardest thing to hold. Everyone says different things, but I think the main problem is that Terran can choose which type of 1/1/1 they will throw at you after the Protoss puts down Robotics/Stargate. The safest route should involve Robotics in order to detect Banshees, but Observers are very easily sniped. The DPS of marines is incredibly high and guardian shield does much to mitigate this. The problem is that it hits at a time when Protoss is on 3 gateways and a tech structure or 5 gateways and it can hit with either cloaked banshees, tanks with siege, combat shield marines, or 3 rax marines as well as a bunch of SCVs. Protoss just can't match the production.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
This.
Protoss need to be able to find a safe opening which maximizes economy, lets them tech, and not instantly die. Mid-game colossus give map control to Protoss, which lets them expand and defend drops. This is the most fun part of the game for me when I play Terran. You know Protoss loses instantly if they push your front and you need to hurl drops at them while you mass vikings so you can challenge map control. This phase ends when you kill the colossi and have ghosts.
I am eager to see more of HerO's games because he seems to get the pressure expand PvZ. Infestors are sorda messing it up right now, but I think he's on the right track.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
Typically dealing with zerg fast thirds usually meant using DTs or stargate units all of which is negated by extra queens and a spore crawler. It's dumb that a zerg can respond to a fast expand with a third base because they know the protoss can't do much. DT and stargate units ARE our harass units. It's dumb to think we need a new one in the expansion. How about no DT shrine requirement? How about just rework the VR/phoenix?
You are right, if the protoss can't do much damage to slow the zerg with a 2 base timing and die to the counter attack, it is all-in. -_- Not exactly by choice, but it shows how stupid the situation is.
Including the warp prism, the problem is protoss harass viability being cost inefficient or being able to retreat. High risk, low reward. You can do a 8 marine drop, do tons of damage maybe lose half the marines and you'd still be okay. You can harass with mutas and lose nothing. You can counter attack with lings, LOSE ALL OF THEM AND DO NO DAMAGE and still be ok.
IMO perhaps protoss pressure timings have been nerfed way too much.
PvZ isn't that big of an issue though. But the P:2-base and Z:3-base phase is kind of unstable.
It was done in the beta by TLO, but speed prism colossus drops might use some more exploring maybe? Would that come too late though? When he did it, it didn't inspire much confidence though. Maybe we just need someone who can execute it better.
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
I think making the carrier suck was their revenge for us hating on the stupid tempest. I think the carrier can be viable if you also have the tech to deal with their counters. Carrier/HT/archon is pretty awesome. But insanely expensive. But I still think a build time reduction is needed.
On September 22 2011 01:19 Fuhrmaaj wrote: That was a different game. Zerg hasn't "innovated" since BW, they have different units. I was going to write a bit on this, but it's all irrelevant. Dragoons did 20 damage, but half against small units like workers, zerglings and marines; and 75% to medium units like hydras, goliaths and vultures. Stalkers do 10 damage, +4 against armored. Dragoons do much more damage than Stalkers against things like tanks (20 damage vs 14). It's hard to compare because BW damages were based on the size of the unit, but Dragoons had 20 base damage and that should answer most of your questions. Also, Dragoons did an extra +2 damage per weapon upgrade, whereas Stalkers only get +1. It's worthwhile to mention now that Zealots did 16 damage, and got +2 per weapon upgrade whereas now they do 8x2, +1 per weapon upgrade. This means that +1 Zealots will do 17 damage in BW and 16 damage in SC2 against 1 armor units.
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
Brood War PvT didn't have Vikings which are pretty much tailor made to shut down the type of play that makes Carriers effective.
Not to mention that Marines are common now, who shred Interceptors. Marines in BW would've dominated Interceptors too but bio in BW was hard to use and suicide vs Protoss AOE.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
You have some good points about the Voidray... not sure that it fills any of it's roles very well. They don't dish out enough damage quickly or move fast enough to be a microable unit where just one or a few can be scary.
After the range and Flux vane nerfs, it certainly isn't a scary base harassment unit late game. Mass voidray was a problem in team games I suppose, but 1v1 it is hurting for a speed boost or something.
Why bother "exploring" protoss when you can just learn terran and know that you're playing a race that already has well-known tools and techniques to deal with every game situation?
A lot of general game skill transfers from protoss to terran; the races are much more similar to one another than either is to zerg. It's a matter of a few weeks to switch to terran and immediately enjoy all of the well-known terran advantages. But the amount of time that it will take to "explore" protoss and somehow dream up as-yet-unforeseen techniques and tactics for winning versus terran and zerg is unguessable and no one can even say whether or not it's possible.
The only reason to stick with protoss is that you like the way the units and buildings look.
On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote: While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently. The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario. Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there? Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
You have some good points about the Voidray... not sure that it fills any of it's roles very well. They don't dish out enough damage quickly or move fast enough to be a microable unit where just one or a few can be scary.
After the range and Flux vane nerfs, it certainly isn't a scary base harassment unit late game. Mass voidray was a problem in team games I suppose, but 1v1 it is hurting for a speed boost or something.
Yes, i hate it since its first introduced.I mean if u ever follow BW scene even the slightest this kind of unit is the most STUPID thing to think of implementing into the game.Protoss has no kiting unit.Well they do (stalkers which can easily negate by SeigeTanks) but thats it while Terran has bunch of those in Marines, Marauders, Banshees, Vikings, Hellions basically covered both air and ground.
On September 20 2011 21:46 AnalThermometer wrote: The "use more warp prisms" thing really is the new nydus worm. Anyways, just watching Terrans use some Ravens makes me ask why they have auto-turrets when the race clearly doesn't need them. A Protoss version of auto-turrets would be great as an ability for warp prisms in the expansion. You could drop them in a mineral line without worrying about diminishing your already small army early on in the game and they last ages, forcing your opponent to split their army at least a little bit.
Sometimes it feels like the same reason Terran can lift buildings... but also repair them. If you can lift them, why be able to repair them too when the enemies' mineral dump is melee units?
The answer? The only thing I can imagine is overkill for racial differences. Blizzard wants to be damn sure they don't have problems losing critical buildings. Seems too much to be able to repair and fly away expansions though, when they are the only viable target if your (Z's and P's) attacking units are melee oriented in your race/build. Blizzard is saying, "We don't want Zerg or Protoss to easily take out a Terran expansion. We just don't want that to be in the game. They should focus on killing something else." Terran are meant to be floating across the galaxy, recycling garbage and living off whatever resources they can steal.
Same reason marines (tier 1) unit get stim and medivacs. Blizzard is saying "We want to be damn sure Terran can harass the crap out of Zerg and Protoss expansions, even if they are down to only minerals and little tech."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------OK, the stuff below is mostly for fun, but I'm serious about the Terran stuff above... it just seems kinda too much in the case of Terran---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are some of these design choices by Blizzard for the other races?
Protoss: 1. Blizzard wants to be damn sure Protoss can warp in across the map via the pylon power grid. Pylons do it. Warp prisms do it. Hell, at one time I think motherships did it. Blizzard is saying "Protoss are advanced psionic dudes that can appear anywhere. Be afraid of these aliens, be very afraid. Hide your kids, Hide your wife - Hide your kids, Hide your wife."
2. Blizz wants Protoss to not lose units. Shield regen on everything was buffed from BW. Shield batteries taken out, seen as not needed since shield regen was buffed. Blizzard saying perhaps "Hit and run, then macro for 5-10 seconds, recharge, then hit again". The Phoenix attack options being mana based seem to say the same thing. Blink stalkers with so much shields to HP ratio seems to point to the same thing. Mothership recall. Forcefield in a bad engagement and run away or regroup. They want Protoss to chip away at the enemy, but theoretically never lose units.
3. Blizz wants Protoss's tech to be expensive to get to. Everything costs a ton of gas. Sentries. Upgrades like charge, psi storm, and colossus thermal lance. Assimilators have a ton of HP... Protoss wants gas. Gas. GAAASSS.
Zerg?
1. Blizzard wants fast, swarming ground units to be running around causing havok confusing the enemy. Speedlings are ridiculously fast... seriously. Broodlings coming out of everything.
2. Creep is alive and is annoying for the enemy. Creep can stall other expansions. Creep gives vision. Creep speeds up your own Zerg units. Creep makes the map turn PURPLE. Blizzard is saying "Zerg is taking over your world... creep all over the fugging place".
3. Zerg can see you. Vision all over the place. Creep again. Overlords. Overseers. Changelings.
On September 22 2011 01:12 Avan wrote: LiquidHero and JYP are Aiur's last hope. All the other guys you've mentioned are poor players if compared to them.
On September 22 2011 01:12 Avan wrote: LiquidHero and JYP are Aiur's last hope. All the other guys you've mentioned are poor players if compared to them.
The patch doesn't really change too much, even at the pro level imo. Oh goody, Colossi don't get NP'd as easily. That's about the only significant change in this patch that helps Protoss, and only against Zerg, which is half as problematic as Terran.
DB has admitted on several occasions that Yes, Terran is too fucking good and too complete due to design flaws. The most recent I've seen was in an August interview with Gamespot:
DB: There's currently a concern with the Zerg Infestor's power fungal growth. I still hear a lot of complaints about the Zerg still not being strong enough, as well as Terrans still being too flexible. The latter's the most persistent one for the longest time. That's almost a design flaw not a balance flaw. We just have too many good units in that race. It's hard to cut units in that race and say, "I know you have a lot of good units, but we're killing two because [your race] is too good." (laughs) That's not going to work. And it's not fun to go, "Hey, you know that unit that was fun and useful? Well, we ruined it, so now your race is balanced." That feels terrible too. Those are some of the hot areas I've heard.
I've been saying this since the beta (not here mind you, for any smart asses who notice this account hasn't been here since early 2010 and wish to reply, though I have been reading on TL since 2005 or 2006), but the game, especially in regards to units, is designed poorly. Terran is perfection. Protoss is "protect the Tier 3 package or you get roflstomped by someone 5x worse than you" and Zerg is in between. It won't be until HOTS that with the removal and addition of units the game will become reasonably balanced, but that's assuming Blizzard doesn't screw up.
Zealots had 8x2 in BW FYI.
nope.avi
There was no x2 nonsense in BW. Zealots did a straight up 16 damage per attack. Did you play BW?
What really bothers me is that, fear buffing the protoss and zerg races now and/or nerfing terrans will be futile and a waste of time in the long run because. Terrans are actually the most complete race right now, as many people have pointed out before me, Terrans where probably the most focused upon because of the campaign and you can see it in the unit round up.
There was also this one time that Artosis and Tasteless where talking and the discussion ended up like, "if you could add a unit or a change to zerg, what would it be?", "what about protoss?". When they ended up talking about terran they couldn't find anything that terrans actually need, the race is that complete.
The thing is though, once HoS and LoV hit retail the zerg and protoss will get a lot of polish and a ton of new strengths and abilities, nerfing terran now just to buff them in 1 year's time seems like an awful waste of time.
Still though, I feel like some core problems should still be addressed, like the fact that GW units are especially held back because of Warp tech, the problem that EMP can counter protoss too easily and snipe can counter some zerg too easy and that fungal is still very strong vs protoss.
So basically, the rock<-paper<-scissors of the game atm is kind of broken because of the fact that, terrans have ghosts that atm counter infestors and HT, protoss and zerg have nothing to effectively counter ghosts, yet. That certain something might be a unit in the next expansion.
Toss is on its way back. If you look at the Korean ladder's top 12, there are only 2 more Terrans than there are Protoss's. I think it is far too soon for anyone to cry imbalance or lose hope.
Ninja edit: Well, this was the case a few days ago :D
On September 22 2011 05:51 zmansman17 wrote: Toss is on its way back. If you look at the Korean ladder's top 12, there are only 2 more Terrans than there are Protoss's. I think it is far too soon for anyone to cry imbalance or lose hope.
Wow you must be very strongly versed in Statistics.
On September 22 2011 05:21 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Zealots had 8x2 in BW FYI.
nope.avi
There was no x2 nonsense in BW. Zealots did a straight up 16 damage per attack. Did you play BW?
I pretty much agree with you in this thread, but here, you're wrong. Zealot
"The Zealot is the Protoss first tier melee unit. The Zealot's movement speed can be increased through the Leg Enhancements upgrade via Citadel of Adun. Each Zealot attack consists of 2 separate hits. Consequently they deal 2x 8 damage (or 2x 9 damage after +1 upgrade). This is important for damage calculations, because armor reduction is applied to each hit separately. "
On September 22 2011 05:21 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Zealots had 8x2 in BW FYI.
nope.avi
There was no x2 nonsense in BW. Zealots did a straight up 16 damage per attack. Did you play BW?
I pretty much agree with you in this thread, but here, you're wrong. Zealot
Woah, thanks for that. My brain asploded. I never realized that the Zealots did that, but I did mostly play Terran in BW so meh :S. I was so committed that the x2 stuff didn't exist in BW and that was Ownos possibly getting stuff confused with SC2, but woah I was wrong D:. My bad
On September 22 2011 05:47 Destructicon wrote: What really bothers me is that, fear buffing the protoss and zerg races now and/or nerfing terrans will be futile and a waste of time in the long run because. Terrans are actually the most complete race right now, as many people have pointed out before me, Terrans where probably the most focused upon because of the campaign and you can see it in the unit round up.
There was also this one time that Artosis and Tasteless where talking and the discussion ended up like, "if you could add a unit or a change to zerg, what would it be?", "what about protoss?". When they ended up talking about terran they couldn't find anything that terrans actually need, the race is that complete.
The thing is though, once HoS and LoV hit retail the zerg and protoss will get a lot of polish and a ton of new strengths and abilities, nerfing terran now just to buff them in 1 year's time seems like an awful waste of time.
Still though, I feel like some core problems should still be addressed, like the fact that GW units are especially held back because of Warp tech, the problem that EMP can counter protoss too easily and snipe can counter some zerg too easy and that fungal is still very strong vs protoss.
So basically, the rock<-paper<-scissors of the game atm is kind of broken because of the fact that, terrans have ghosts that atm counter infestors and HT, protoss and zerg have nothing to effectively counter ghosts, yet. That certain something might be a unit in the next expansion.
I really wish that this information had been made more clear when I started the game. I feel like I wasted a year with a race that won't really be ready for prime-time for another 2-3 years. I'm trying to play a game here, not train for the Olympics. I would have worked with the race that was complete if I'd known that there was such a discrepancy. Now I'm just inclined to check back a few months after the final expansion is released and see whether or not the game turned out to be worth playing.
You know with SC1, the Broodwar expansion was released in the same years as the basic game? By dragging out the expansion timetable for SC2 they just make me feel uninterested in the game. I want to play the finished, polished end-product, not the work-in-progress. SC2 beta never ended and won't for years to come.
I don't have any expectations anymore. At this point I just consider SC2 a badly made game, and for the sake of the scene, I hope the spectators don't catch on before HotS comes out.
While hero or JYP or Sage may be very talented and skilled, I won't believe any of them could potentially beat any of the top players of the other races. I can barely fathom the likes of Nestea, Losira, MVP, Bomber or Polt losing a BoX to a Protoss. They may score some wins against middle of the pack players, like + Show Spoiler +
HuK beating Zenio
today, but they won't be able to put a dent in someone without a pronounced weakness. Point in case - with all his awesome warp prism play, + Show Spoiler +
hero still got absolutely demolished by LosirA in the MLG Global Invitational
.
I really don't see any way of solving the current Protoss problems without some kind of substantial change. Tweaking build times and attack ranges isn't going to cut it, in my opinion. For example, something like Terrans not being able to lift CCs, while really drastic, would probably just make the game better in general. Or, from a different angle, no peripheral change is going to help a Protoss pressure a Zerg third without being all-in. The units are simply not there.
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.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
The few innovative protoss plays I know of were nerfed into obscurity almost as soon as they gained popularity (voidray nerfs, removal of KA, etc...). Blizzard has railroaded protoss down a set path in PvT via the application of nerfs to alternative tech routes protoss could choose.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
Terran are drastically less reliant on all ins and timing pushes now than they were in the beta. 1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL.
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.
I'm not sure why people throw HuK in with the "Protoss Innovators." JYP / Sage / Hero, yes they are all very advanced in their strategies and are pushing the current Protoss metagame to its limit. HuK? Not so much. He often plays very standard strategies with maybe a few risks that he protects with excellent unit control.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
Terran are drastically less reliant on all ins and timing pushes now than they were in the beta. 1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL.
I'm not sure you've been watching the GSL lately. Most of the TvPs in the current season have revolved around a 1-base timing push by the terran, and in several cases it's been 1/1/1.
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
Terran are drastically less reliant on all ins and timing pushes now than they were in the beta. 1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL.
The "THREAT" of 1-1-1 is as bad as the 1-1-1 itself. It requires a very specific counter that is both inefficient and even risky vs other styles of play that are not 1-1-1. If you see Puzzle vs Bomber, then you'll see what I mean. Puzzle blindly counters 1-1-1, Bomber takes an expansion and gets insanely far ahead.
If you followed the discussion threads regarding the coin toss situation of going 1 Gate FE or 15 Nexus to counter 1-1-1 but die to many other things, you would be aware of this. 1-1-1 is still being used, as a metagaming strategy. No Korean Protoss goes into a match confident that they will not get 1-1-1'd. Terrans exploit this.
I never noticed this before but there's a reaver in the last slide (5 sec before the end) The model exists!
Awesome to see that the Reaver model is actually there :D And the phase cannon thing didn't look to dumb... but man was the units/buildings odd looking in the beta/alpha or what?! Everything looked so big and clumpsy
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
They can't just come out and call imba on the air because that would reveal that they know that the emperor has no clothes. In the interest of keeping e-sports alive and continuing to earn a paycheck they have to represent that the matches are fair and competitive and the winner is always the best player. You can tell though that they're running out of excuses and it's getting harder for them to feel any sense of drama or suspense about the matches.
I feel like the GSL matches are getting even more stale and predictable for the commentators than they are for the regular viewers. It's bad when people who are basically professional SC2 promoters can't get excited about the highest level of SC2 play.
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
Skill and hard work are not really the same thing as innovation though. Sometimes it only takes one person to show how easy it is and others follow.
On September 22 2011 05:21 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Zealots had 8x2 in BW FYI.
nope.avi
There was no x2 nonsense in BW. Zealots did a straight up 16 damage per attack. Did you play BW?
I pretty much agree with you in this thread, but here, you're wrong. Zealot
Woah, thanks for that. My brain asploded. I never realized that the Zealots did that, but I did mostly play Terran in BW so meh :S. I was so committed that the x2 stuff didn't exist in BW and that was Ownos possibly getting stuff confused with SC2, but woah I was wrong D:. My bad
it's actually still different than Sc2 though, because zealots in bw didn't have this nonsense where they could end up hitting a probe once rather than twice if it runs past them. so basically they had a range of 1 rather than 0.
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
Skill and hard work are not really the same thing as innovation though. Sometimes it only takes one person to show how easy it is and others follow.
Ya...the BW story along these lines is the development of the Bisu Build that somewhat equalized PvZ. It took *9 years* after the release of BW, 6 years after the last BW balance patch, for Bisu to finally make that innovation.
I'm not waiting 6-9 years for someone to innovate up a way for protoss to become a playable race in SC2. I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall for all those years. And I'm definitely not going to pay money to GOM for 6-9 years to watch protoss get curbstomped almost every match. SC2 is neat but it's not so awesome that I'll patiently wait for a decade for it to be balanced.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
Terran are drastically less reliant on all ins and timing pushes now than they were in the beta. 1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL.
The "THREAT" of 1-1-1 is as bad as the 1-1-1 itself. It requires a very specific counter that is both inefficient and even risky vs other styles of play that are not 1-1-1. If you see Puzzle vs Bomber, then you'll see what I mean. Puzzle blindly counters 1-1-1, Bomber takes an expansion and gets insanely far ahead.
If you followed the discussion threads regarding the coin toss situation of going 1 Gate FE or 15 Nexus to counter 1-1-1 but die to many other things, you would be aware of this. 1-1-1 is still being used, as a metagaming strategy. No Korean Protoss goes into a match confident that they will not get 1-1-1'd. Terrans exploit this.
I wasn't talking about the 1/1/1 being OP or not at all. Terran play has evolved much more than protoss play has. Terran threatening one build while doing another is an example of that.
Anyways all I'm saying is I think things could change before too long. For all the "zerg tears lol" stuff that gets thrown around, people should actually learn from that and realize how silly it is to be so quick in saying one race is hopelessly underpowered.
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
Skill and hard work are not really the same thing as innovation though. Sometimes it only takes one person to show how easy it is and others follow.
Ya...the BW story along these lines is the development of the Bisu Build that somewhat equalized PvZ. It took *9 years* after the release of BW, 6 years after the last BW balance patch, for Bisu to finally make that innovation.
I'm not waiting 6-9 years for someone to innovate up a way for protoss to become a playable race in SC2. I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall for all those years. And I'm definitely not going to pay money to GOM for 6-9 years to watch protoss get curbstomped almost every match. SC2 is neat but it's not so awesome that I'll patiently wait for a decade for it to be balanced.
Agreed. Especially when zergs complained and got the fungal buff a short few months after the vr/colossus metagame was destroying them.
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
Skill and hard work are not really the same thing as innovation though. Sometimes it only takes one person to show how easy it is and others follow.
Ya...the BW story along these lines is the development of the Bisu Build that somewhat equalized PvZ. It took *9 years* after the release of BW, 6 years after the last BW balance patch, for Bisu to finally make that innovation.
I'm not waiting 6-9 years for someone to innovate up a way for protoss to become a playable race in SC2. I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall for all those years. And I'm definitely not going to pay money to GOM for 6-9 years to watch protoss get curbstomped almost every match. SC2 is neat but it's not so awesome that I'll patiently wait for a decade for it to be balanced.
That is a little ironic considering how BW is considered to be the pinnacle of rts balance.
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.
What's the big innovation that pro terrans have demonstrated in TvP again? Their best timing push (1/1/1 marine/tank/banshee) is from the beta, and MMMVG is from beta too.
Please, spell out exactly what the terran innovations versus protoss have been since beta.
Terran are drastically less reliant on all ins and timing pushes now than they were in the beta. 1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL.
The "THREAT" of 1-1-1 is as bad as the 1-1-1 itself. It requires a very specific counter that is both inefficient and even risky vs other styles of play that are not 1-1-1. If you see Puzzle vs Bomber, then you'll see what I mean. Puzzle blindly counters 1-1-1, Bomber takes an expansion and gets insanely far ahead.
If you followed the discussion threads regarding the coin toss situation of going 1 Gate FE or 15 Nexus to counter 1-1-1 but die to many other things, you would be aware of this. 1-1-1 is still being used, as a metagaming strategy. No Korean Protoss goes into a match confident that they will not get 1-1-1'd. Terrans exploit this.
I wasn't talking about the 1/1/1 being OP or not at all. Terran play has evolved much more than protoss play has. Terran threatening one build while doing another is an example of that.
Anyways all I'm saying is I think things could change before too long. For all the "zerg tears lol" stuff that gets thrown around, people should actually learn from that and realize how silly it is to be so quick in saying one race is hopelessly underpowered.
I was simply addressing your statement "1/1/1 may be OP but for some reason it is still not really used often in GSL."
You asked for a reason why it isn't used, and I gave it.
Please back up your statement about Terran play evolving much more than Protoss. Terran threatening one build but doing another is a terrible example. Are you telling me that as a Zerg or Protoss, you have never given the threat of one build but executed another? I'm not sure how this is unique to Terran, let alone a display of "metagame evolution". A really terrible example.
Terran's plethora of unit compositions / upgrades allow for a greater number of options and openings. Very few people would disagree that Terran has the most opening options of the 3 races. I would not label that as innovation at all, looking at the rigid tech paths of Protoss and "vulnerability" of Zerg early game, I would look at game design rather than praising Terrans for simply picking between their multitude of viable options.
In regards to innovation from a Protoss' perspective -- how much room for innovation do you have vs a Terran who may potentially 1-1-1 you for the win? Most of the builds you want to try will straight up die to the 1-1-1. The build to stop the 1-1-1, isn't the one you would pick if you knew he wasn't going to 1-1-1. You have very little room for flexibility. (Of course, the patch may change this)
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.
Yeah man, curse that sick Terran innovation, it only took them a year to figure out Ghosts and Hellions were good! At this rate, maybe they'll start building Ravens against Baneling bombs and DTs before HotS comes out!
It should be pointed out that Wolf's solution to the 1/1/1 (1 base Colossus rofl) is the only one that nobody ever tried in a televised game, that's how wrong it is. On one hand, it's really frustrating to hear various commentators effectively insult the skill and hard work of Protoss players by making these types of general statements. On the other, they will occasionally make fools out of themselves in a spectacular manner, like yesterday with Artosis' analysis of Puzzle vs Bomber, or today with Huk vs Virus g1. I sometimes wonder if they themselves even notice this.
They can't just come out and call imba on the air because that would reveal that they know that the emperor has no clothes. In the interest of keeping e-sports alive and continuing to earn a paycheck they have to represent that the matches are fair and competitive and the winner is always the best player. You can tell though that they're running out of excuses and it's getting harder for them to feel any sense of drama or suspense about the matches.
I feel like the GSL matches are getting even more stale and predictable for the commentators than they are for the regular viewers. It's bad when people who are basically professional SC2 promoters can't get excited about the highest level of SC2 play.
I agree that the commentators have to keep an air of optimism about the game's balance while on air, if only for job securities sake. But they (at least Artosis) know that something is rotten in the state of Starcraft. Listen to Artosis on the SotG from yesterday, he knows something id broken with Terran, he just can't say it when he's representing Gom.
This is a bit off topic but this thread got me thinkin. I'm a bit worried for the future of SC2 to be honest because even though balance has improved we're still quite far from where we would eventually like to be balance and metagame wise, but it's been 1½ year since the start of the beta. HotS is still probably at least 9 months away and when it comes out it's going to hit the reset button on balance. Then we have to wait another two years for LotV and then maybe a year after that we'll have a better balance situation.
Three expansions is too much, I hope they don't touch the multiplayer with LotV.
On September 22 2011 07:27 hugman wrote: This is a bit off topic but this thread got me thinkin. I'm a bit worried for the future of SC2 to be honest because even though balance has improved we're still quite far from where we would eventually like to be balance and metagame wise, but it's been 1½ year since the start of the beta. HotS is still probably at least 9 months away and when it comes out it's going to hit the reset button on balance. Then we have to wait another two years for LotV and then maybe a year after that we'll have a better balance situation.
Three expansions is too much, I hope they don't touch the multiplayer with LotV.
What if HotS fucks the game up so much that we need new units again. (Sorry - poking holes)
But yes, 3 expansions is definitely not something you want for long-term balance stability.
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%
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.
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 individual pro matches 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Of course we need to complain...the highest level of play is what we are watching and we're sick of TvT and 1/1/1. People aren't complaining because they are losing ladder games.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 15:46 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 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 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 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
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%
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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
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.
Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive.
Shows how biased especially many terran players around here are. Somehow it has become an accepted fact that the majority of "good" players switching over to SC2 chose terran. This is plain and simply FALSE. With the sole exception of MVP, there's no real high-level-BW-terran playing sc2 right now. For Protoss: Tester is a weak example, since he just doesn't care anymore (same as cool/fruitdealer), but SangHo is perfect. After his entrance into SC2 was announced, the thread back then exploded and everyone expected great results. What happened? He is struggling hard. There doesn't exist a logical explanation as to why - strangely - only those who chose terran became "good" over time.
Disregarding structural imbalance as the main cause of the weak protoss results also violates a very basic principle - Occam's razor: If there are several possible theories for a phenomenon, it's most likely that the one with the fewest assumptions is true. You could now try to construct sophisticated reasons as to why protoss players failed to adept to the hard macro-style of zerg and the flexible play of terran. Or you could accept the simplistic reason that they just have fewer options to work with in the first place. It makes much, much more logical sense to assume that all good players are (WERE!) evenly distributed over the races. Lower leagues, where personal preference comes into play, don't matter at all for this. But for the highest level of skill, it really should be assumed that - in the beginning - for each and every talented terran there was a talented protoss and zerg. Then and only THEN it is reasonable to assume that, over time when it turned out terran is both flexible and error-forgiving, more and more pro-gamers went with terran. But this does not explain the terran dominance right from release at all. Especially since during one period in beta terran was considered the worst race by a good margin (do people even remember this time?)
On September 22 2011 21:05 JustinMartin wrote: Huk missing! Patch 1.4 hwating!
You know, I've realized today that I hate the new patch. Reason being, it doesn't really address any of the important problems, and now we're going to have to suffer through a month of "give them time to adjust to the new patch" as Protoss players get owned left and right in the GSL.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Immortals are actually imba now. That would be nice, unlikely as it is.
Great post by sleepingdog, and great argument with Occam's razor. It's basically unrealistic to assume that, somehow all the good players went to Terran and all the bad players went to Protoss. Its unrealistic to assume Protoss should innovate when, there are no options left, nothing to innovate upon.
Basically its much easier to see that, Protoss is the weaker race, it has serious constraints that don't allow much room for innovation, its options are limited, it is too easily countered by too many things and all of this is backed by statistics and hard data.
Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive.
Well, if the thread wasn't populated only by Protoss players I would argue that :
Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races
is highly debatable at best, and ridiculous IMO.
SC2 talent needs to be measured by SC2 results. I don't think Killer has shown anything that would make me consider him any better than the zerg "B-teamers".
If BW history is the best way to evaluate players, can we all agree that MC was never that good?
Otherwise I agree with your post, but don't forget that in the world Protoss doesn't seem to be doing that bad (still bad, but not that bad). People are drawing conclusions from a relatively small number of players, so of course it's important to discuss if they're equally talented.
I liked the part on Occam's razor, but as a stats/finance major I believe in another principle, the idea that people are terrible at understanding randomness, and that sometimes numbers don't have to mean anything. Even in a perfectly balanced game things like this will happen.
Fact of the matter is though that, the only players that matter, are the korean protoss or the foreigners that went to korea to train, and this number of players is incidentally very small.
If the skill level of all the terran, zerg and protoss around the world was the same and the results are as they are today, then we wouldn't have to worry about protoss that much because it is still doing good in NA and EU. However NA and EU are somewhat insignificant because the highest level of play is in Korea, and this discussion was, all along about the highest level of play. Everyone says that EU and NA terrans and zerg are 1-2 months behind koreans.
If this is the case then once NA and EU players learn how to abuse all the protoss weaknesses as much as the koreans do, then you'll the the results.
On September 22 2011 21:47 Destructicon wrote: Fact of the matter is though that, the only players that matter, are the korean protoss or the foreigners that went to korea to train, and this number of players is incidentally very small.
If the skill level of all the terran, zerg and protoss around the world was the same and the results are as they are today, then we wouldn't have to worry about protoss that much because it is still doing good in NA and EU. However NA and EU are somewhat insignificant because the highest level of play is in Korea, and this discussion was, all along about the highest level of play. Everyone says that EU and NA terrans and zerg are 1-2 months behind koreans.
If this is the case then once NA and EU players learn how to abuse all the protoss weaknesses as much as the koreans do, then you'll the the results.
Actually I dont really recall any foreign Protoss getting good results lately, can you point it out for me?
Isn't that the account SaSe uses ... ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/
Isn't that the account SaSe uses ... ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/
....MacSed is a chinese player for Invictus Gaming.
You think he's good in ladder? You clearly have no idea. You should look up Nation Wars tournament and get vods/replays. Chinese players like XiGua and MacSed are vastly underrated.
Since beta, terran has been able to use almost all of their units effectively (battlecruiser and raven maybe being the exception). Zerg units have changed a lot but I think the general zerg style of scouting and countering without an exact "build" going into any game hasn't changed too much in the past year for example look at Fruitdealer (watch this again if you haven't in the past 5 minutes)+ Show Spoiler +
doing a lot of the same tactics and using the same units and style we see today.
Basically, the other 2 races have spent the last year refining while protoss has spent trying to innovate. This is why you see MC winning sometimes because he does something so radically different then what other races are used to seeing. He then loses months later because the other 2 races have refined solutions using the same units/basic build orders they have been for close to or over a year.
Protoss is extremely rigid in its unit production. You typically see terran have every production facility they need (rax fac port) by at least the time they have expanded. I have never once seen a toss use a viable strategy that involved them having a gate, robo and starport. For being so rigid, I still feel that protoss is that awkward inbetween of Reactive and Timings. I don't think that Protoss has devolped a true style for itself to refine, and thats what I believe to be the real cause of our frustrations.
Some thoughts, hastily put together while at work on my 3rd cup of coffee
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.
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.
Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive.
Shows how biased especially many terran players around here are. Somehow it has become an accepted fact that the majority of "good" players switching over to SC2 chose terran. This is plain and simply FALSE. With the sole exception of MVP, there's no real high-level-BW-terran playing sc2 right now. For Protoss: Tester is a weak example, since he just doesn't care anymore (same as cool/fruitdealer), but SangHo is perfect. After his entrance into SC2 was announced, the thread back then exploded and everyone expected great results. What happened? He is struggling hard. There doesn't exist a logical explanation as to why - strangely - only those who chose terran became "good" over time.
Disregarding structural imbalance as the main cause of the weak protoss results also violates a very basic principle - Occam's razor: If there are several possible theories for a phenomenon, it's most likely that the one with the fewest assumptions is true. You could now try to construct sophisticated reasons as to why protoss players failed to adept to the hard macro-style of zerg and the flexible play of terran. Or you could accept the simplistic reason that they just have fewer options to work with in the first place. It makes much, much more logical sense to assume that all good players are (WERE!) evenly distributed over the races. Lower leagues, where personal preference comes into play, don't matter at all for this. But for the highest level of skill, it really should be assumed that - in the beginning - for each and every talented terran there was a talented protoss and zerg. Then and only THEN it is reasonable to assume that, over time when it turned out terran is both flexible and error-forgiving, more and more pro-gamers went with terran. But this does not explain the terran dominance right from release at all. Especially since during one period in beta terran was considered the worst race by a good margin (do people even remember this time?)
replying to this too
No Sangho and Trickster were not better than Mvp. Also the arguement that more talented players play Terran was more true in BW (for various reasons, and it's pretty agreed upon) and most people didn't switch races. Guess what race DRG and Losira played in BW? Terran, and they're two of the best Zergs. Also, there are some players people seem to overlook as good BW players who switched over. Supernova was pretty decent, Puma was a practice bonjwa who all-killed in proleague (granted it was Ace). Also, a lot of people don't know but Silent_Control is in SC2 and on ST. He's a veeery good terran from BW http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/145_Control . Also, when people say things like NaDa, BoxeR, July, oh they were past their prime when they switched, this is true and BoxeR wasn't really even playing anymore, but NaDa at the time he switched he was still better than 99% of other people who switched. He was still regularly appearing and winning in Proleague, more than most players can say.
Isn't that the account SaSe uses ... ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/
....MacSed is a chinese player for Invictus Gaming.
You think he's good in ladder? You clearly have no idea. You should look up Nation Wars tournament and get vods/replays. Chinese players like XiGua and MacSed are vastly underrated.
He is apparently a chinese friend/aqcuaintance of SaSe from the WC3 days, and gave his korean account (NvMacSed) to SaSe.
On September 22 2011 19:48 Loodah wrote: Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea.
One trains with nestea and the others are not nearly at his level.
If terran players were simply more talented then this is what Code S and winrates in Korea would've looked like forever now. Even that shit doesn't account for the volume of terrans and lack of Protoss in Code S. Funny how Protoss have been revealed for being talentless hacks AFTER they've been nerfed into the ground. You think MC is less talented than Monster? You think Virus is more talented than Huk?
I must imagine it would be pretty insulting to progamers to say no talented people pick Protoss for whatever silly reason you come up with. It's not like there a few more great terran players, NO ONE that plays Protoss is competitive in Code S and AOL right now. To suggest that's purely coincidence is absolutely absurd.
On September 22 2011 21:35 MilesTeg wrote: I liked the part on Occam's razor, but as a stats/finance major I believe in another principle, the idea that people are terrible at understanding randomness, and that sometimes numbers don't have to mean anything. Even in a perfectly balanced game things like this will happen.
This opinion can only be countered by the death of the game. Well, even then I guess you could say "Even a perfectly balanced and completely awesome RTS might randomly die for no good reason. Oh well, just goes to show that anything can happen! What bad luck for Blizzard."
If enough people perceive the game to be imbalanced, then the truth doesn't matter. Tournament viewership will still decline and expansion sales revenue will still fall short. It doesn't matter whether it's because of some statistical "misunderstanding" or because Blizzard's designers did a bad job, or because of cosmic rays. If e-sports and the SC2 expansions fail because SC2 gets a reputation as a poorly-balanced game, then any argument to the effect that "well the game actually *was* well-balanced, but..." is meaningless.
It's not about achieving some mathematically-provable standard of balance. It's about a PR-campaign. Blizzard needs those high-level tournament number to break down such that each race gets a roughly-equal slice of victory pie (with the larger slice rotating to each race equally) of they're going to lose that PR battle -- and with it their customer base.
On September 22 2011 21:15 Destructicon wrote: Great post by sleepingdog, and great argument with Occam's razor. It's basically unrealistic to assume that, somehow all the good players went to Terran and all the bad players went to Protoss. Its unrealistic to assume Protoss should innovate when, there are no options left, nothing to innovate upon.
Basically its much easier to see that, Protoss is the weaker race, it has serious constraints that don't allow much room for innovation, its options are limited, it is too easily countered by too many things and all of this is backed by statistics and hard data.
I cannot speak for pvt as I see nothing left to save them. Ghosts own everything but colossus and vikings take care of those.
But, for zerg, I think the problem isn't really the units as much as it is getting the economy and production to get a army on the field and the ability to replace it if you lose a battle. Protosses often 2 base so they can get a big army, but once it dies they lose. Getting bases up safely is where the innovation needs to happen. I feel Huk has figured out a reasonable way to get that economy.
He simply simcities his way to a 3rd base. You see him al the time now on his stream putting cannons in between his 2nd and 3rd base, and later things like gateways and more cannons. Sorta like a forward base of operations. He is able to get a 3rd base up this way he couldn't otherwise do.
Also, he doesn't go crazy in unit warpins, just enough to keep himself safe and relying on cannons to beef up his defense. I feel protoss needs tech AND lots of gates to enter the mid game, but if they get enough gates and tech to enter the mid game they get struck on 2 base. This approach prevents this.
Once a protoss has a strong 3 base economy, the tech they need, and most importantly, a big army and the production needed, taking further bases isn't as difficult. It is all about getting over that hurtle and I feel Huk is at the very least, on the edge of solving this management style. I saw him beat many zergs on his stream with this style using multiple unit comps.
I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
For Protoss, myself and i feel many others are so use to the praise of MC but even MC himself is highly critical of his own recent play (i mean vs monster he ... kinda played really bad, not monster playing particularly good). You hear things about JYP and Sage and (somewhat) ZenexSickness being crazy good protosses who play different than any other protosses (which i guess makes sense that sage n jyp are still in code A) but it feel odd to put them on that level
On September 23 2011 00:20 Makura wrote: I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
For Protoss, myself and i feel many others are so use to the praise of MC but even MC himself is highly critical of his own recent play (i mean vs monster he ... kinda played really bad, not monster playing particularly good). You hear things about JYP and Sage and (somewhat) ZenexSickness being crazy good protosses who play different than any other protosses (which i guess makes sense that sage n jyp are still in code A) but it feel odd to put them on that level
Lol I'd like to see any protoss not play "kinda really bad" on the garbage that is Dual Sight.
On September 23 2011 00:20 Makura wrote: I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
For Protoss, myself and i feel many others are so use to the praise of MC but even MC himself is highly critical of his own recent play (i mean vs monster he ... kinda played really bad, not monster playing particularly good). You hear things about JYP and Sage and (somewhat) ZenexSickness being crazy good protosses who play different than any other protosses (which i guess makes sense that sage n jyp are still in code A) but it feel odd to put them on that level
I thought Puzzle would be great right after winning code A... I mean he played really well back then (even moving to SlayerS), also I was hoping for a code S JYP and maybe Huk getting to at least ro8. But after seeing MC drop I'm sure that this is gonna be another bad season for Toss (maybe Sage and JYP to up and down but no way they stand a chance to win code A imo)
On September 23 2011 00:20 Makura wrote: I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
For Protoss, myself and i feel many others are so use to the praise of MC but even MC himself is highly critical of his own recent play (i mean vs monster he ... kinda played really bad, not monster playing particularly good). You hear things about JYP and Sage and (somewhat) ZenexSickness being crazy good protosses who play different than any other protosses (which i guess makes sense that sage n jyp are still in code A) but it feel odd to put them on that level
I thought Puzzle would be great right after winning code A... I mean he played really well back then (even moving to SlayerS), also I was hoping for a code S JYP and maybe Huk getting to at least ro8. But after seeing MC drop I'm sure that this is gonna be another bad season for Toss (maybe Sage and JYP to up and down but no way they stand a chance to win code A imo)
I feel the same way unfortunately. After watching the games today I continue to feel frustrated and unhappy with protoss in the GSL and fear that there might come a time where we cant watch protoss for more than one series each GSL
There have been evolutions on both sides in pvz. It's not like we're all still trying to play like Cruncher did. None of the 4-6 month old builds are being used from any race in any matchup as far as I can tell.
On September 23 2011 22:36 KimJongChill wrote: MVPTails has a lot of potential. Don't wanna hype him up too much, but he has solid game sense and the ability to compete with the best.
i've seen enough GSTL games from not-so-famous players where they beat someone whom they shouldnt be able to, then ppl start talking about them/hype them up, then they just disappeared again cuz they never did good enough in individual league where best of 3 or best of 5 matches are used.
Did you guys see the games I saw? He won on Crossfire by blind countering 1-1-1
Then he beat Nestea because he just let him walk by with a ton of DTs into his main without detection. He lost his main - and Nestea STILL would have won with the drop if it didn't get caught with blink. Tails got lucky against Nestea
He showed a great defense against MVP. To call him the next protoss hero is a huge stretch. I really hope he continues to do well, but mechanically he didn't seem to have figured anything crazy out against Nestea.
On September 23 2011 00:20 Makura wrote: I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
Well, nobody... I think that's why this thread was created in the first place. To discuss who and if anyone, will be able to stand besides these names in the future. It's about talent and what could happen, not how it is now. That's why I don't really get the "JYP/Sage/HerO/whoever can't win GSL" answers. We kinda know they can't as of now. But yeah, the three names I wrote are the ones who have enough talent to be up there in some time imho. Together with Naniwa and SaSe, not because of talent, but the sheer determination those two guys have...
On September 25 2011 20:00 Djagulingu wrote: San and Tassadar in honorable mentions? Two of the biggest gimmicks that protoss has? Other than that, I completely agree with the post.
You mean San who won against Nestea in a straight up macro game (and against a lot of others, I can't remember him cheesing a whole lot, if at all) a couple of GSL seasons ago? Yeah, very gimmicky.
On September 25 2011 20:00 Djagulingu wrote: San and Tassadar in honorable mentions? Two of the biggest gimmicks that protoss has? Other than that, I completely agree with the post.
San is awesome. You wait, give it 2 seasons, PvP final MC v San!!!!!!!!!
The funny thing is that when u look at the protoss players there really isn't that much difference between foreigners and koreans. Only MC has managed to perform better then the others. The korean terrans and zergs are way better then the foreigners of their race. I think that this means that protoss doesn't have a lot of potential as a race.
I'm glad this thread went away from a balance discussion, which I might have unwittingly started, and put the spotlight more on the Protoss players.
I believe we should keep a close eye on, Naniwa, Hero, Sase.
Naniwa for a while didn't have a permanent gaming house in Korea where he could train, now he is at the MVP house, given some time so his training can kick in we can see greatness, Naniwa's determination is impressive.
Sase is also training hard doing ladder in Korea putting in long hours.
Hero is one of the most talented players we've seen with incredible control, micro, macro and harass.
We will hopefully see more greatness from them. I also probably excluded players like Huk, Sage and Genius. I don't know exactly how hard and how long they train, but I've heard good things about them.
In a couple of months we will hopefully see greatness from them, or at worst their performance will force a patch that fixes some of the protoss problems.
. Wasn't really expecting this, especially after the failure of the other tosses. He had a tough group too. I think TSL JYP is really good. Oz is average, kinda luck that got him that far imo. Sage seems good too. Hopefully a lot of tosses will get to next code S, but I am bit pessimistic since so many tosses in code S got dropped to the up and down matches.
On September 23 2011 00:20 Makura wrote: I'm a bit curious as to who the Protoss look at as there "good" players now. Terran its fairly obvious with MVP, Bomber, MMA n such Zerg Nestea, DRG Losira(?)
Well, nobody... I think that's why this thread was created in the first place. To discuss who and if anyone, will be able to stand besides these names in the future. It's about talent and what could happen, not how it is now. That's why I don't really get the "JYP/Sage/HerO/whoever can't win GSL" answers. We kinda know they can't as of now. But yeah, the three names I wrote are the ones who have enough talent to be up there in some time imho. Together with Naniwa and SaSe, not because of talent, but the sheer determination those two guys have...
Are you saying Sase isn't talented? Naniwa I could understand but Sase is 100% talent, he only practices on the ladder without any team or practice partners and still just destroys nerds left and right with unrefined builds and just free-form play.
On September 29 2011 00:48 infinity2k9 wrote: A fan of going blind nex first and winning or losing? Does it even matter what happens in the games to you guys.
How would you go a nexus first not blind? There's no way to scout anything useful before dropping the nexus even if you scout with one of your first 6 probes.
On September 29 2011 00:48 infinity2k9 wrote: A fan of going blind nex first and winning or losing? Does it even matter what happens in the games to you guys.
Isn't nexus first always blind? It's a risk he was willing to take. It's Antiga shipyard, probably the best map apart from Terminus/Tal'darim to do it on.
If you watch the 2nd game, you'll notice that Polt played so shitty that it didn't really matter what build Killer was doing.
On September 29 2011 00:48 infinity2k9 wrote: A fan of going blind nex first and winning or losing? Does it even matter what happens in the games to you guys.
Isn't nexus first always blind? It's a risk he was willing to take. It's Antiga shipyard, probably the best map apart from Terminus/Tal'darim to do it on.
If you watch the 2nd game, you'll notice that Polt played so shitty that it didn't really matter what build Killer was doing.
Yeah, and who knows, maybe in practice Killer noticed that Polt never scouts on Antiga Shipyard or something - we'll never really know why Polt played so strangely in the second game unless somebody (hopefully) interviews them.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Waxangel/dreamhack/dh_hero.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/treehugger/Sage3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/0/0c/Jypgstl-pxp.png)
![[image loading]](http://worldofstarcraft.org/wp-content/plugins/WPRobot3/images/293b6_starcraft_2__5510425940_9175ea3e9e.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YmLHv.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/flamewheel/JangBi_Templar.png)
