|
On November 10 2011 21:14 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +But using pro-level to balance the game is the key too, omg, there's so many terrans in GSL, most of them does not deserve to be code S.
sigh... That's not true at all. Name me some Code S terrans who don't deserve to be there. The race isn't imbalanced at GSL level, it's just the terran players are so good (which is why they're in Code S) as you can see this season the less good Terrans have dropped down and protoss players are finally picking up their game.
ok...ok...the worst blind is the one who did not want to see !
edit: Protoss in late game are strong aganis terran (who usually makes bio ball that gets owned by toss ball), but aganist a well composed Zerg army is pretty weak
|
On November 10 2011 21:01 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 20:55 rpgalon wrote:On November 10 2011 20:48 petro1987 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 08:51 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 07:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Oh, I thought it was because all the Terrans had already moved up into Code S.
Just kidding, but I feel that the necessary micro for both races is about even, and when Protoss don't hit forcefields or storms, they lose the game just as often as when Terrans don't split their units or cast EMPs. I think it averages out pretty well. No, the micro is NOT even. Terran has to micro way more, I thought that was common knowledge? Think about it, how much micro do you have to do with a zealot? Or with colossus? Point is you can get away with not microing as protoss. Your units are way more beefy and don't die as quick. A-move zealot/archon is brutal to deal with if you don't have perfect micro. NineteenSC2 already mentioned multiple necessary micro-moves for Protoss ("ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries"), which wasn't even all of them (moving colossi back against vikings, warp prism mechanics, etc.), so for you to suggest that Protoss only uses zealots, colossi, and archons (and therefore we only a-move) is ridiculous. Do you realize that Protoss has far more spells to cast? What does that mean to you?A lot of Protoss micro comes from the spellcasting aspect. A lot of the Terran micro comes from the splitting of the units (and not much else- just ghosts). Believe me, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that it probably evens out. If you think casting ff's or storms is hard micro.... Idk what to say. Spellcasting is probably the easiest micro in the game. And I never see ANY protoss use blink at all vs. terran lmao, so you can just rule that one out completely. Go to darglein's micro trainer and choose the terran one "death ball" or whatever it's called and see for yourself how much harder it is. The reason you think that spellcasting is easy is because the one spell you cast against Protoss is done instantaneously. And you're probably cloaked at the time. I find it hilarious that you think anybody can cast forcefields like MC. Try it some time. And try throwing down perfect storms on moving targets too. Let me know how it goes. I've played protoss before and I know for a fact that you're exaggerating. You really think it's hard to put a storm behind a clump of units? Really? Or make a line of force fields? Look, I realized I hit a nerve when I called your race easier to micro, and you have to "defend your honor" now, but there's a reason terran is the least played race now. You would think with all the terrans doing well in code S, people would want to play the race because people are obviously having success with it. People that think terran is stim + amove are just the whiny protoss kids that don't realize that only at the tip top level is terran actually good. Again, you saying that a spell is easy and you doing it easily are two different things. And again, actually throwing down all the forcefields and storms (wait, how do our spellcasters have any energy? is Terran doing something wrong?) as opposed to throwing down EMPs are much harder and take much more time. You haven't given a single example defending any of your ridiculous claims, whereas plenty of people disagreeing with you have easily refuted your arguments. Maybe once you learn how to play the game, you'll stop whining about your race- which is just silly, considering it's been statistically better at the pro-level than the other two for nearly the entire existence of SC2. But yes, cling on to the fact that Terran isn't played as frequently in the gold league, despite the fact that we've already proven Protoss macro is just as hard (if not harder) and the micro is at least just as demanding. Terran is simply not mechanically overwhelming, compared to Protoss. Maybe people aren't playing Terran because they don't find it as interesting. Maybe it doesn't suit their playstyle. It may have nothing to do with difficulty. Or maybe they just don't know about the 1-1-1, ghosts, and the fact that you can go all-in with your workers three time a game. Surely even a gold level player can do those things. Anyways, I'm going to take a break from this thread. It was fun. Oh God. Where can I start? So you are saying that there are WAY less T on ladder because it doesn't suit their playstyle. Really? Reallly? If by playstyle you mean that it doesn't suit them playing a MORE mechanical demanding race then I agree with you. You also say that it has been PROVEN that the P macro is just as hard (if not harder) then T macro and the micro is at least just as demanding. I'd love to hear how that was PROVEN seriously. I also don't get why some P players have to defend this thesis that P is just as mechanical demanding as T. In BW, it was pretty much accepted that T was more mechanical demanding than P and people wouldn't feel like they have to deny this. I choose P, because the units looks cooler, DT's are badass etc, and I love the P lore. I don't give a shit to how the race is played. maybe there is more people like me, and maybe that is why there is more P in the game than T yeah, bronze league is full of T, but that can be explained by the campaign I get what you're saying. But you also gotta realize that we are talking about a population here. The same way you think DT's are badass someone else may think that Ghosts are badass and the T lore is fun. In the whole population though, It would be likely that these numbers even out. There's another point. Most people beyond plat (especially diamond-masters) don't really keep playing a race because the lore is fun or because a unit is badass. They like to win. And P being the race that is less mechanical demanding, it just suits them better.
I chose protoss in the beginning because i played them in broodwar, i like their unit design and the lore, and i liked how they are played in bw.
After i invested time into playing Protoss i grew attached to the race and some of the units (blink stalker, phoenix, dt), even though i don't really like how they are currently being played. Terran would suit my style more, but i don't like the units and their micro as well as their design, but i think i would be more successful as Terran.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[
It's remainings of the time where zergs went hydras vs colossus and terrans mmm against colossus/ht.
|
On November 10 2011 21:38 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[ It's remainings of the time where zergs went hydras vs colossus and terrans mmm against colossus/ht.
Yeah, good old times...
but they lerned in a way that's not so easy to beat ! =P
|
On November 10 2011 21:38 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[ It's remainings of the time where zergs went hydras vs colossus and terrans mmm against colossus/ht.
Did i miss where Terran didn't build MMM against Protoss ? Yes with Ghosts and Vikings but still ...
|
On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[
Because nobody seems to care about the bad upgrade scaling of protoss.
1-1-1 Stalker are weaker against 1-1 Roaches compared to 0-0-0 Stalker against 0-0 Roaches (As an example).
Protoss units are very strong early game, but become weaker and weaker as the game goes on.
That's why we need units like collosus and hts to even the odds.
Once none of them are on the field, we get overrun in the lategame.
|
People always knew to build Vikings against Colossi and such its just that good players have so much practice against it now that they can counter if perfectly.
|
These seem like really small changes.... but all of a sudden Toss just got so much harder for me on ladder....... BTW, this is "meant" to be my strongest MU. I've played 8 toss players today and only won 2 of them......
|
On November 10 2011 22:06 Iatrik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[ Because nobody seems to care about the bad upgrade scaling of protoss. 1-1-1 Stalker are weaker against 1-1 Roaches compared to 0-0-0 Stalker against 0-0 Roaches (As an example). Protoss units are very strong early game, but become weaker and weaker as the game goes on. That's why we need units like collosus and hts to even the odds. Once none of them are on the field, we get overrun in the lategame.
Weak late game.... Have you tried chargelot/archon lately?
|
Well small changes still make a big difference we've seen that in all the patches so far.
|
On November 10 2011 22:06 Iatrik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[ Because nobody seems to care about the bad upgrade scaling of protoss. 1-1-1 Stalker are weaker against 1-1 Roaches compared to 0-0-0 Stalker against 0-0 Roaches (As an example). Protoss units are very strong early game, but become weaker and weaker as the game goes on. That's why we need units like collosus and hts to even the odds. Once none of them are on the field, we get overrun in the lategame.
That's one unit against one other unit, protoss units scale best with upgrades for the most part, especially against terran, immortals vs roaches, blink, charge, zealots vs lings, etc... Huge improvements with equal maxed upgrades compared to equal non-upgraded.
|
I actually think P has the strongest theoretical 200-army, due to the supply effectiveness of void rays. But in practice, it's hard to keep up with air upgrades.
|
On November 10 2011 20:48 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 08:51 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 07:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 07:39 Scufo wrote:On November 10 2011 07:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think I found your problems.
You're supposed to micro your units. And make ghosts and vikings instead of just tier one units against an entire Protoss deathball.
You're welcome. My point was, Protoss armies do much better than Terran ones with less-than-superb micro. It's a real problem for Plat-Diamond level players. There's a reason why Terran is the least played race there. Oh, I thought it was because all the Terrans had already moved up into Code S. Just kidding, but I feel that the necessary micro for both races is about even, and when Protoss don't hit forcefields or storms, they lose the game just as often as when Terrans don't split their units or cast EMPs. I think it averages out pretty well. No, the micro is NOT even. Terran has to micro way more, I thought that was common knowledge? Think about it, how much micro do you have to do with a zealot? Or with colossus? Point is you can get away with not microing as protoss. Your units are way more beefy and don't die as quick. A-move zealot/archon is brutal to deal with if you don't have perfect micro. NineteenSC2 already mentioned multiple necessary micro-moves for Protoss ("ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries"), which wasn't even all of them (moving colossi back against vikings, warp prism mechanics, etc.), so for you to suggest that Protoss only uses zealots, colossi, and archons (and therefore we only a-move) is ridiculous. Do you realize that Protoss has far more spells to cast? What does that mean to you?A lot of Protoss micro comes from the spellcasting aspect. A lot of the Terran micro comes from the splitting of the units (and not much else- just ghosts). Believe me, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that it probably evens out. If you think casting ff's or storms is hard micro.... Idk what to say. Spellcasting is probably the easiest micro in the game. And I never see ANY protoss use blink at all vs. terran lmao, so you can just rule that one out completely. Go to darglein's micro trainer and choose the terran one "death ball" or whatever it's called and see for yourself how much harder it is. The reason you think that spellcasting is easy is because the one spell you cast against Protoss is done instantaneously. And you're probably cloaked at the time. I find it hilarious that you think anybody can cast forcefields like MC. Try it some time. And try throwing down perfect storms on moving targets too. Let me know how it goes. I've played protoss before and I know for a fact that you're exaggerating. You really think it's hard to put a storm behind a clump of units? Really? Or make a line of force fields? Look, I realized I hit a nerve when I called your race easier to micro, and you have to "defend your honor" now, but there's a reason terran is the least played race now. You would think with all the terrans doing well in code S, people would want to play the race because people are obviously having success with it. People that think terran is stim + amove are just the whiny protoss kids that don't realize that only at the tip top level is terran actually good. Again, you saying that a spell is easy and you doing it easily are two different things. And again, actually throwing down all the forcefields and storms (wait, how do our spellcasters have any energy? is Terran doing something wrong?) as opposed to throwing down EMPs are much harder and take much more time. You haven't given a single example defending any of your ridiculous claims, whereas plenty of people disagreeing with you have easily refuted your arguments. Maybe once you learn how to play the game, you'll stop whining about your race- which is just silly, considering it's been statistically better at the pro-level than the other two for nearly the entire existence of SC2. But yes, cling on to the fact that Terran isn't played as frequently in the gold league, despite the fact that we've already proven Protoss macro is just as hard (if not harder) and the micro is at least just as demanding. Terran is simply not mechanically overwhelming, compared to Protoss. Maybe people aren't playing Terran because they don't find it as interesting. Maybe it doesn't suit their playstyle. It may have nothing to do with difficulty. Or maybe they just don't know about the 1-1-1, ghosts, and the fact that you can go all-in with your workers three time a game. Surely even a gold level player can do those things. Anyways, I'm going to take a break from this thread. It was fun. Oh God. Where can I start? So you are saying that there are WAY less T on ladder because it doesn't suit their playstyle. Really? Reallly? If by playstyle you mean that it doesn't suit them playing a MORE mechanical demanding race then I agree with you. You also say that it has been PROVEN that the P macro is just as hard (if not harder) then T macro and the micro is at least just as demanding. I'd love to hear how that was PROVEN seriously. I also don't get why some P players have to defend this thesis that P is just as mechanical demanding as T. In BW, it was pretty much accepted that T was more mechanical demanding than P and people wouldn't feel like they have to deny this.
If you'd love to hear the arguments for how Protoss macro and micro are as mechanically demanding as Terran, than read the thread. A bunch of people have listed out each race's necessary micro-units (including spellcasters), and a few people explained Protoss macro. I did both of them as well. I'm not going to re-type everything, but I would recommend you find them and read them if you're open-minded about the topic 
As to me defending Protoss mechanics: If someone made a claim (without actually posting an argument) that you felt was wrong, and you could (pretty easily) refute it... wouldn't you? ::shrugs:: I never say that Terran is super-easy to play. I just don't think they're overwhelmingly harder than Protoss to play, which is what the original claim was (and it's not even part of this nested quote- it's a completely different conversation that started several pages ago).
|
Protosses who go double forge and get shield/armor will now have 150 extra mins and gas (equivalent to 2 stalkers?) when they reach 3/0/3. A buff if a buff, but don't make this sound like more than it is. Shields are also cheaper, which means that shield upgrades are gonna be viable for the ultra late game P army.
The Terran nerf is more important. I frankly would have preferred an EMP ability neft (75 energy/shields taken out) instead of the radius neft, but still, EMP lategame was to simple of an ability to take out 1/3 of the P army health.
|
|
|
On November 10 2011 22:17 CatNzHat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:06 Iatrik wrote:On November 10 2011 21:22 Socke wrote:
i keep reading a bit of these kind of threads from time to time, and seriously: why are ppl saying p has the strongest lategame army when in fact it has the worst? :[ Because nobody seems to care about the bad upgrade scaling of protoss. 1-1-1 Stalker are weaker against 1-1 Roaches compared to 0-0-0 Stalker against 0-0 Roaches (As an example). Protoss units are very strong early game, but become weaker and weaker as the game goes on. That's why we need units like collosus and hts to even the odds. Once none of them are on the field, we get overrun in the lategame. That's one unit against one other unit, protoss units scale best with upgrades for the most part, especially against terran, immortals vs roaches, blink, charge, zealots vs lings, etc... Huge improvements with equal maxed upgrades compared to equal non-upgraded.
you realize zealots have 2 attacks, so one point of armor is worth 2 points of damage deficit? they get 2 point of damage (2*1) per upgrade level, that means that one armor upgrade for a ling absolutely nullifies one attack upgrade. they scale absolutely even with any other unit that has armor upgrades of the same level (a zealot with 3 attack upgrade will kill a zergling with 3 armor upgrade by 3 hits). the whole zealot +1 vs lings theory is based upon being one step ahead in upgrades, there is no scaling difference.
blink isn't an upgrade that can be described with numeric values, it's micro-strategic tool, that doesn't scale with anything other than the player's micro ability.
Coloxen scale well cuz they have 2*15 damage, and they get 2 damage per beam, which is not 10% damage upgrade, rather 13,3%, but again it's a double attack, so one point of armor upgrade is worth 2 points of damage deficit for a colossus. this means that a colossus with 2 attack upgrade would kill a 0 armor ling by one shot, but for a 2 armor ling it's still 2 hits. Colossus killing zerglings by one shot means that you need to be 2 steps ahead in attack upgrade than the zerg is in carapace upgrade, which is not really likely. Colossus effectively gets 2 points of extra damage per level at even upgrades per level.
Archon and immortals scale pretty well, because vs their special target they get more damage upgrade per level than the armor of the same level upgrade. However these with colossus are the expensive power units that have specific counters and you need to babysit them.
The whole protoss uprade strategy relies on being one steap ahead in upgrades, and has nothing to do with scaling, since the reason for their effectiveness are the health pools of basic terran/zerg units, which are adjusted this way.
Compare this whole protoss scaling situation, with the marauder, one basic terran unit, that gets 2 special abilities and healing in a standard army, is cheap and massable, and gets one point of extra damage at similar upgrades vs armored, so it already scales better than any basic protoss unit, without needing an upgrade advantage.
In upgrade advantage situations, the units with the least amount of basic attack damage scale the best. an immortal gets 10% bonus damage per upgrade, a marine gets 16,66%, a zergling gets 20% bonus per level vs zero armor (vs zealots marines actually get 20% damage upgrade per level and zerglings get 25% so it's even greater).
a marine with zero upgrades kills a 0 armor upgrade zealot in 29 hits, a marine with 1 attack upgrade kills him with 24 hit, a marine with 3 attack upgrade kills a zealot with 16 hits. this means that one marine with 3 upgrades kills a zealot more than 11 seconds faster than with 0 upgrades (without stim).
a zergling with 0 attack upgrade kills a zealot in 35 hits, a zergling with 3 attack upgrade kills a zealot in 21 hits, this means that a a zergling with full upgrades kills a zealot with 0 upgrades 10 seconds faster (without adrenal)
compare this with the zealot that has 3 upgrades and kills a zegling 1,2 seconds faster than with zero upgrades
also the zealot kills one marine with 3 hits even if the marine is 0/0, without combat shield, and the zealot has 3 attack upgrade. if the marine has combat shields, a 3/0 zealot kills him in 3 hits, a 2/0 zealot kills him with 4 hits which is again 1,2 second faster for THREE attack upgrades.
Okey this has possibly not much to do with the topic but you get the idea, protoss DOESNT scale better with upgrades than terran/zerg. in fact gateway units scale the worst compared to other races basic units.
|
On November 10 2011 22:39 Tommylew wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:19 Sbrubbles wrote:
Protosses who go double forge and get shield/armor will now have 150 extra mins and gas (equivalent to 2 stalkers?) when they reach 3/0/3. A buff if a buff, but don't make this sound like more than it is. Shields are also cheaper, which means that shield upgrades are gonna be viable for the ultra late game P army.
The Terran nerf is more important. I frankly would have preferred an EMP ability neft (75 energy/shields taken out) instead of the radius neft, but still, EMP lategame was to simple of an ability to take out 1/3 of the P army health. well im im not mistaken a stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas  so we can get an extra two sentries and one zealot or we can get one stalker and one obersver Game changing!!! But yeh not a big deal, can see Blizzard are updating slowly the weaker of the three races without doing a change that will make Protoss dominate over another race. With the last two patches we can see Blizzard are trying to fix it without braking soemthign else. Also can people who are not masters+ not bother posting about any type of balance, especially sying blah blah I always lose zvp, WELL I always lose pvz and so do many other protoss, everyone has a worse matchup and perhaps thats just yours, work on it instead of whining as balance doesnt really matter to anyone under masters its probably just cause you played shit. 1/3 of P army health along with any energy that units have like templars or sentries which we need late game or we will lose I would of prefered a cast range nerf so we can at least get a feedback off if we see a ghost coming wihtout its superior range due to cast size and general range of the spell See hwo this change goes.
it is a huge deal. I'll explain why.
Let's say, you want to build 50 probes and 2 zealots overall.
What will you do? You will first get 50 probes and then build 2 zealots.
Why? Because the order of getting your stuff can be very important.
You'll have a bigger economy compared to building your 2 zealots first.
Why do i talk about it?
If your overall goal is different, new paths to this goal are possible.
You might delay your gas, get more minerals early, get more workers early and your goal way quicker than before.
Or you can create a new reasonable goal, because of the timings, this change creates.
It's hard to explain in a foreign language, I'm sorry 
|
On November 10 2011 22:51 Iatrik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:39 Tommylew wrote:On November 10 2011 22:19 Sbrubbles wrote:
Protosses who go double forge and get shield/armor will now have 150 extra mins and gas (equivalent to 2 stalkers?) when they reach 3/0/3. A buff if a buff, but don't make this sound like more than it is. Shields are also cheaper, which means that shield upgrades are gonna be viable for the ultra late game P army.
The Terran nerf is more important. I frankly would have preferred an EMP ability neft (75 energy/shields taken out) instead of the radius neft, but still, EMP lategame was to simple of an ability to take out 1/3 of the P army health. well im im not mistaken a stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas so we can get an extra two sentries and one zealot or we can get one stalker and one obersver Game changing!!! But yeh not a big deal, can see Blizzard are updating slowly the weaker of the three races without doing a change that will make Protoss dominate over another race. With the last two patches we can see Blizzard are trying to fix it without braking soemthign else. Also can people who are not masters+ not bother posting about any type of balance, especially sying blah blah I always lose zvp, WELL I always lose pvz and so do many other protoss, everyone has a worse matchup and perhaps thats just yours, work on it instead of whining as balance doesnt really matter to anyone under masters its probably just cause you played shit. 1/3 of P army health along with any energy that units have like templars or sentries which we need late game or we will lose I would of prefered a cast range nerf so we can at least get a feedback off if we see a ghost coming wihtout its superior range due to cast size and general range of the spell See hwo this change goes. it is a huge deal. I'll explain why. Let's say, you want to build 50 probes and 2 zealots overall. What will you do? You will first get 50 probes and then build 2 zealots. Why? Because the order of getting your stuff can be very important. You'll have a bigger economy compared to building your 2 zealots first. Why do i talk about it? If your overall goal is different, new paths to this goal are possible. You might delay your gas, get more minerals early, get more workers early and your goal way quicker than before. Or you can create a new reasonable goal, because of the timings, this change creates. It's hard to explain in a foreign language, I'm sorry
This is theory, real game situation is absolutely different. If you're talking about 3/3 upgrades, then you're most likely on at least three bases and already has a army where getting 1 stalker + 1 sentry less means literally nothing. You can count how fast you mine 150/150 on three bases and see how much faster you will have these upgrades. If you're talking about 2/2 upgrades, which is much more logical for some timing attacks out of two bases, then it's only 50/50, again, totally marginal.
|
On November 10 2011 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 20:48 petro1987 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 09:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 09:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 08:51 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 07:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 07:39 Scufo wrote:
[quote]
My point was, Protoss armies do much better than Terran ones with less-than-superb micro. It's a real problem for Plat-Diamond level players. There's a reason why Terran is the least played race there. Oh, I thought it was because all the Terrans had already moved up into Code S. Just kidding, but I feel that the necessary micro for both races is about even, and when Protoss don't hit forcefields or storms, they lose the game just as often as when Terrans don't split their units or cast EMPs. I think it averages out pretty well. No, the micro is NOT even. Terran has to micro way more, I thought that was common knowledge? Think about it, how much micro do you have to do with a zealot? Or with colossus? Point is you can get away with not microing as protoss. Your units are way more beefy and don't die as quick. A-move zealot/archon is brutal to deal with if you don't have perfect micro. NineteenSC2 already mentioned multiple necessary micro-moves for Protoss ("ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries"), which wasn't even all of them (moving colossi back against vikings, warp prism mechanics, etc.), so for you to suggest that Protoss only uses zealots, colossi, and archons (and therefore we only a-move) is ridiculous. Do you realize that Protoss has far more spells to cast? What does that mean to you?A lot of Protoss micro comes from the spellcasting aspect. A lot of the Terran micro comes from the splitting of the units (and not much else- just ghosts). Believe me, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that it probably evens out. If you think casting ff's or storms is hard micro.... Idk what to say. Spellcasting is probably the easiest micro in the game. And I never see ANY protoss use blink at all vs. terran lmao, so you can just rule that one out completely. Go to darglein's micro trainer and choose the terran one "death ball" or whatever it's called and see for yourself how much harder it is. The reason you think that spellcasting is easy is because the one spell you cast against Protoss is done instantaneously. And you're probably cloaked at the time. I find it hilarious that you think anybody can cast forcefields like MC. Try it some time. And try throwing down perfect storms on moving targets too. Let me know how it goes. I've played protoss before and I know for a fact that you're exaggerating. You really think it's hard to put a storm behind a clump of units? Really? Or make a line of force fields? Look, I realized I hit a nerve when I called your race easier to micro, and you have to "defend your honor" now, but there's a reason terran is the least played race now. You would think with all the terrans doing well in code S, people would want to play the race because people are obviously having success with it. People that think terran is stim + amove are just the whiny protoss kids that don't realize that only at the tip top level is terran actually good. Again, you saying that a spell is easy and you doing it easily are two different things. And again, actually throwing down all the forcefields and storms (wait, how do our spellcasters have any energy? is Terran doing something wrong?) as opposed to throwing down EMPs are much harder and take much more time. You haven't given a single example defending any of your ridiculous claims, whereas plenty of people disagreeing with you have easily refuted your arguments. Maybe once you learn how to play the game, you'll stop whining about your race- which is just silly, considering it's been statistically better at the pro-level than the other two for nearly the entire existence of SC2. But yes, cling on to the fact that Terran isn't played as frequently in the gold league, despite the fact that we've already proven Protoss macro is just as hard (if not harder) and the micro is at least just as demanding. Terran is simply not mechanically overwhelming, compared to Protoss. Maybe people aren't playing Terran because they don't find it as interesting. Maybe it doesn't suit their playstyle. It may have nothing to do with difficulty. Or maybe they just don't know about the 1-1-1, ghosts, and the fact that you can go all-in with your workers three time a game. Surely even a gold level player can do those things. Anyways, I'm going to take a break from this thread. It was fun. Oh God. Where can I start? So you are saying that there are WAY less T on ladder because it doesn't suit their playstyle. Really? Reallly? If by playstyle you mean that it doesn't suit them playing a MORE mechanical demanding race then I agree with you. You also say that it has been PROVEN that the P macro is just as hard (if not harder) then T macro and the micro is at least just as demanding. I'd love to hear how that was PROVEN seriously. I also don't get why some P players have to defend this thesis that P is just as mechanical demanding as T. In BW, it was pretty much accepted that T was more mechanical demanding than P and people wouldn't feel like they have to deny this. If you'd love to hear the arguments for how Protoss macro and micro are as mechanically demanding as Terran, than read the thread. A bunch of people have listed out each race's necessary micro-units (including spellcasters), and a few people explained Protoss macro. I did both of them as well. I'm not going to re-type everything, but I would recommend you find them and read them if you're open-minded about the topic As to me defending Protoss mechanics: If someone made a claim (without actually posting an argument) that you felt was wrong, and you could (pretty easily) refute it... wouldn't you? ::shrugs:: I never say that Terran is super-easy to play. I just don't think they're overwhelmingly harder than Protoss to play, which is what the original claim was (and it's not even part of this nested quote- it's a completely different conversation that started several pages ago).
Ok. About the first part, I know you and others have written everything that must be macroed and microed for each race. But that's not an objective argument for your claim. Let's say I come here and say: T must micro marines and marauders and P must micro zealots and stalkers (just an example). So are they evenly mechanically demanding because they both have the same amount of units to micro? Like I said, just saying every unit that has to be microed doesn't prove anything. You then look at both lists and ARGUE that P is as mechanically demanding as T. Thats your OPINION on the subject, not a PROOF of anything.
Let's take a look what really means being more mechanically demanding. It means that you have to perform more effective actions in order to play even against an opponent of the same skill. If you actually wanna PROVE something, you gotta collect statistics of evenly skilled players (I would consider evenly skilled people with the same MMR on ladder) of both races (preferably a huge amount of data) and compare the number of effective actions they make.
|
On November 10 2011 22:51 Iatrik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:39 Tommylew wrote:On November 10 2011 22:19 Sbrubbles wrote:
Protosses who go double forge and get shield/armor will now have 150 extra mins and gas (equivalent to 2 stalkers?) when they reach 3/0/3. A buff if a buff, but don't make this sound like more than it is. Shields are also cheaper, which means that shield upgrades are gonna be viable for the ultra late game P army.
The Terran nerf is more important. I frankly would have preferred an EMP ability neft (75 energy/shields taken out) instead of the radius neft, but still, EMP lategame was to simple of an ability to take out 1/3 of the P army health. well im im not mistaken a stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas so we can get an extra two sentries and one zealot or we can get one stalker and one obersver Game changing!!! But yeh not a big deal, can see Blizzard are updating slowly the weaker of the three races without doing a change that will make Protoss dominate over another race. With the last two patches we can see Blizzard are trying to fix it without braking soemthign else. Also can people who are not masters+ not bother posting about any type of balance, especially sying blah blah I always lose zvp, WELL I always lose pvz and so do many other protoss, everyone has a worse matchup and perhaps thats just yours, work on it instead of whining as balance doesnt really matter to anyone under masters its probably just cause you played shit. 1/3 of P army health along with any energy that units have like templars or sentries which we need late game or we will lose I would of prefered a cast range nerf so we can at least get a feedback off if we see a ghost coming wihtout its superior range due to cast size and general range of the spell See hwo this change goes. it is a huge deal. I'll explain why. Let's say, you want to build 50 probes and 2 zealots overall. What will you do? You will first get 50 probes and then build 2 zealots. Why? Because the order of getting your stuff can be very important. You'll have a bigger economy compared to building your 2 zealots first. Why do i talk about it? If your overall goal is different, new paths to this goal are possible. You might delay your gas, get more minerals early, get more workers early and your goal way quicker than before. Or you can create a new reasonable goal, because of the timings, this change creates. It's hard to explain in a foreign language, I'm sorry
it's a good buff, but don't try to make it a huge deal- if the protoss goes for a strict upgrade timing, he will have ONE or not even one more units at the timing with the change (or 1-2 units more at a later 3/3 "timing", but by the time you get that that will only mean like 4 supply difference compared to like 140 or so- that's just an estimation, this is like a 3% difference at the full level upgrades which come late game)
if he doesn't go for a strict timing, they can start those upgrades like 10 seconds faster, the time that it takes to mine the cost difference of the new upgrades. you need to wait for one more mineral/gas return to start your upgrades. however this also means that you are not going for a strict upgrade timing and possibly you won't even be ahead in upgrades, so those 10 seconds don't mean much. you can also build 3-4 more probes this way... not bad, not bad, but definitely not a HUGE deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
