|
On November 10 2011 23:04 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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.
I don't really have much to add to this debate, because I think DarkPlasmaBall has a good grasp of reality, but I wanted to point out that if you're trying to be persuasive, typing EVERY other WORD in ALL caps DOESN'T help. In my mind, you're just shouting random words because you think that makes them truer.
|
On November 10 2011 23:15 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 23:04 petro1987 wrote:On November 10 2011 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall 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:
[quote]
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. I don't really have much to add to this debate, because I think DarkPlasmaBall has a good grasp of reality, but I wanted to point out that if you're trying to be persuasive, typing EVERY other WORD in ALL caps DOESN'T help. In my mind, you're just shouting random words because you think that makes them truer.
Sorry If it seems that I'm shouting. That was not my intention. Maybe bold would express better what I meant. But they are not random words at all. They are the words that have a stronger meaning and I capsed them to make them easier to spot.
About you not having nothing to add to the debate and agreeing with DarkPlasmaBall. Well, your P avatar says it all.
|
This argument is ridiculous. Every race has their styles and quirks, and saying that toss has no/easy micro is just ignorant. Sure, a line of ff's isn't too hard, but cutting a moving army isn't easy. And when a T bio ball just stands there, sure storms are easy, but when moving can be tricky, especially if I keep my HT's away to avoid EMP's and by the time they slowly float within range, the army has moved. DarkPlasmaBall just offered some examples of P micro, and you guys seem to pretend that those things don't exist. Just because you don't see blink vT doesn't make it not there or not intensive. And claiming that T is waaaaaay more micro intensive is sort of silly, you just have ways to spam apm. Stutter stepping is not hard, it just ramps up your apm. And also, keep in mind that often times a toss a-moves because we have to leave the screen that the battle takes place on to warp in units. We can't just hotkey and spam unit production.
I will definitely not claim that one race is harder than an another, but just keep in mind that every race has ways to micro. Don't pretend that one race is just pushing the easy button
|
And what's with being dismissive of another poster's opinion because of his icon? The Dragoon next to my name doesn't have any bearing on the argument, except to the extent that I know that Protoss micro is demanding from personal experience. No one's dismissing your arguments because your SCV marks you as pro-Terran biased, are they?
|
My honest opinion is that Blizzard may be directing their attention to the wrong matchup. It is true that Terran is the best performing race in Korea, however the PvT matchup in particular has stabilized ever since the 1-1-1 started to get held consistently following the immortal range upgrade and meta-game developments.
Furthermore, there has been a shift to larger maps to help with both PvT and TvZ; and its forcing Terran into late game scenarios against Protoss where cannons/pylons/templar start to put a ticking timer in the Terran players head as he realizes "the longer we stay maxed, the more bank and gateways he accumulates, and the easier it is for him to remax at my doorstep". This thought process in turn forces Terran into aggressive play vs. a well positioned Protoss (exp: chasing a toss army that has a litter of templar behind it) - which can lead to extremely unfavorable trades.
In summary PvT being in favor of Terran was all about early and mid game pressure, and with the map changes I'm not sure there's much else Blizzard needs to do.
On the other hand, PvZ is an extremely tough matchup for Protoss. Zerg has a laundry list of builds that gives them the most important thing in a RTS - map control for almost every stage of the game vs. Protoss.
This list goes from speedling expands to fast 3 base roach to the currently popular muta switch. Using this denial of information and counter attack potential, its allowed Zergs to power drones while keeping protoss completely in the dark as to what is happening on the map. This in turn forces Protoss into guessing when the Zerg is weak.
Currently the only style that gives Protoss information and map control is stargate play, and very few have been able to make it work despite the hundreds of level top players who have tried. The lack of map control styles for Protoss in the PvZ matchup (such as hellion play) - is truly troubling. In some cases it is causing protoss players - extremely skilled ones - to devolve their strategies into a variety of 2 base timing attacks that hope to cripple or kill the zerg outright before the zerg has gained access to one of their stronger map control styles - 3 base roach/muta switch.
I'm not sure how to fix this matchup, I think the oracle will help a lot in hots. However, save for a few new builds (+1 zealots), there seems to be very little hope for the PvZ matchup, as tosses struggle in finding a style that gives them enough map control and information to safely transition into lategame vs. Zerg.
|
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? :[
QFT  finally someone said what we all were thinking. theres nothing protoss can do against a thor bc raven ghost army unless of course your a prodigy like EG.Axslave.
|
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? :[
I know right T_T
At the same time zerg late game armies are widely considered to be inexpensive, weak, and there only to be remaxed upon losing it. Makes no sense to me ><.
|
IMO, if chargelots did not automatically make contact, the matchup along with this patch would be perfect. Zealots are just a little bit broken in their pvt role due to the fact that 1. They deal a significant amount of damage 2. They tank an incredible amount of damage 3. Due to the past patch that gave them auto hit with charge, marauders, the ideal unit to deal with the protoss army, are now basically hard countered by them, and their synergy with aoe. It's kind of broken for a melee unit to have a passive ability to just automatically deal damage. I never understood how that could be implemented in a game. It makes the protoss army so a move friendly because there is almost 0 risk with leading with zealots because they will always pay for themselves with damage dealt/tanked for the aoe behind them. They basically negate most of the advantages of kiting. Not to mention how awkward it is to realize that a terran is kiting nonstop vs a mass of chargelots that the protoss player might not even be microing at all.There is no way a terran player is going to circumvent or outmaneuver chargelots to snipe colosus,ht,stalkers with bio, in a realistically cost efficient fashion. Also, in other aspects of the game, such as terran drops, zealot warp ins are just like, ok i warped in zealots, i can look away now, while the terran player has to either lift off or spend time microing vs a unit that will hit him anyway. It's a bit silly imo. I mean chargelots can hit fleeing zerglings.. lol. I know it soundslike massive QQ but I'm actually being realistic imo. Chargelots usually do 3x dps of most ranged low tier units, and automatically hit, so the fact that they are melee is almost ignored. Lastly, the fact that the chargelot patch was implemented solely to counter marine marauder micro is the dumbest part. Anti micro patch ftw.
|
On November 11 2011 01:21 bLo0d wrote:
IMO, if chargelots did not automatically make contact, the matchup along with this patch would be perfect. Zealots are just a little bit broken in their pvt role due to the fact that 1. They deal a significant amount of damage 2. They tank an incredible amount of damage 3. Due to the past patch that gave them auto hit with charge, marauders, the ideal unit to deal with the protoss army, are now basically hard countered by them, and their synergy with aoe. It's kind of broken for a melee unit to have a passive ability to just automatically deal damage. I never understood how that could be implemented in a game. It makes the protoss army so a move friendly because there is almost 0 risk with leading with zealots because they will always pay for themselves with damage dealt/tanked for the aoe behind them. They basically negate most of the advantages of kiting. Not to mention how awkward it is to realize that a terran is kiting nonstop vs a mass of chargelots that the protoss player might not even be microing at all.There is no way a terran player is going to circumvent or outmaneuver chargelots to snipe colosus,ht,stalkers with bio, in a realistically cost efficient fashion. Also, in other aspects of the game, such as terran drops, zealot warp ins are just like, ok i warped in zealots, i can look away now, while the terran player has to either lift off or spend time microing vs a unit that will hit him anyway. It's a bit silly imo. I mean chargelots can hit fleeing zerglings.. lol. I know it soundslike massive QQ but I'm actually being realistic imo. Chargelots usually do 3x dps of most ranged low tier units, and automatically hit, so the fact that they are melee is almost ignored. Lastly, the fact that the chargelot patch was implemented solely to counter marine marauder micro is the dumbest part. Anti micro patch ftw.
the marauder also has mass hp and is guranteed doing dmg..
|
On November 11 2011 00:32 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
And what's with being dismissive of another poster's opinion because of his icon? The Dragoon next to my name doesn't have any bearing on the argument, except to the extent that I know that Protoss micro is demanding from personal experience. No one's dismissing your arguments because your SCV marks you as pro-Terran biased, are they?
You read too much into what I said. I just said that because you are a P (what I inferred from your avatar) it's kinda obvious that you would agree with DarkPlasmaBall.
|
On November 11 2011 01:21 bLo0d wrote:
IMO, if chargelots did not automatically make contact, the matchup along with this patch would be perfect. Zealots are just a little bit broken in their pvt role due to the fact that 1. They deal a significant amount of damage 2. They tank an incredible amount of damage 3. Due to the past patch that gave them auto hit with charge, marauders, the ideal unit to deal with the protoss army, are now basically hard countered by them, and their synergy with aoe. It's kind of broken for a melee unit to have a passive ability to just automatically deal damage. I never understood how that could be implemented in a game. It makes the protoss army so a move friendly because there is almost 0 risk with leading with zealots because they will always pay for themselves with damage dealt/tanked for the aoe behind them. They basically negate most of the advantages of kiting. Not to mention how awkward it is to realize that a terran is kiting nonstop vs a mass of chargelots that the protoss player might not even be microing at all.There is no way a terran player is going to circumvent or outmaneuver chargelots to snipe colosus,ht,stalkers with bio, in a realistically cost efficient fashion. Also, in other aspects of the game, such as terran drops, zealot warp ins are just like, ok i warped in zealots, i can look away now, while the terran player has to either lift off or spend time microing vs a unit that will hit him anyway. It's a bit silly imo. I mean chargelots can hit fleeing zerglings.. lol. I know it soundslike massive QQ but I'm actually being realistic imo. Chargelots usually do 3x dps of most ranged low tier units, and automatically hit, so the fact that they are melee is almost ignored. Lastly, the fact that the chargelot patch was implemented solely to counter marine marauder micro is the dumbest part. Anti micro patch ftw.
* A 100 mineral zealot still does less dps than 100 minerals of marines, and that's without considering the time it takes for a zealot to get in position to hit a moving target
* Marines have a "guaranteed hit," do you want to nerf marines and give them a missile instead?
* Marauders are supposed to be countered by zealots.
You should try to be more fair with your complaints, as the numbers are not on your side at all on this one.
|
On November 11 2011 01:21 bLo0d wrote:
IMO, if chargelots did not automatically make contact, the matchup along with this patch would be perfect. Zealots are just a little bit broken in their pvt role due to the fact that 1. They deal a significant amount of damage 2. They tank an incredible amount of damage 3. Due to the past patch that gave them auto hit with charge, marauders, the ideal unit to deal with the protoss army, are now basically hard countered by them, and their synergy with aoe. It's kind of broken for a melee unit to have a passive ability to just automatically deal damage. I never understood how that could be implemented in a game. It makes the protoss army so a move friendly because there is almost 0 risk with leading with zealots because they will always pay for themselves with damage dealt/tanked for the aoe behind them. They basically negate most of the advantages of kiting. Not to mention how awkward it is to realize that a terran is kiting nonstop vs a mass of chargelots that the protoss player might not even be microing at all.There is no way a terran player is going to circumvent or outmaneuver chargelots to snipe colosus,ht,stalkers with bio, in a realistically cost efficient fashion. Also, in other aspects of the game, such as terran drops, zealot warp ins are just like, ok i warped in zealots, i can look away now, while the terran player has to either lift off or spend time microing vs a unit that will hit him anyway. It's a bit silly imo. I mean chargelots can hit fleeing zerglings.. lol. I know it soundslike massive QQ but I'm actually being realistic imo. Chargelots usually do 3x dps of most ranged low tier units, and automatically hit, so the fact that they are melee is almost ignored. Lastly, the fact that the chargelot patch was implemented solely to counter marine marauder micro is the dumbest part. Anti micro patch ftw.
The autohit ability is a logical extension of the concept of charge. you are correct that its rare for a melee unit to autohit, it is also rare however for ranged units (Stimmed MM) to be faster than a fully upgraded melee unit (chargelot that is not in charge animation).
Trust me, you want charge in the game, because if it wasn't for charge, Zealots would still have the leg enhancement ability, and yes that would force protoss into microing more, it would also make it impossible for Bio terran to ever exist. This is because with the new pathing in SC2, zealots that moves near the speed of a speedling will quickly surround the entire terran ball and cut it down while no amount of stim will allow you to kite/escape.
If you want a melee unit that is both slower and doesn't autohit vs. a ranged unit, well, then yes you're just mass QQing.
|
On November 11 2011 01:21 bLo0d wrote:
Wall of text
And the same kitting that happened before the 1.3 patch still works now, the dps of a microed bio ball will kill huge amounts of zealots with then doing very little damage.
Of course you need room to do that, but thats what some guys already said, zealots need to be at least a little cost effective right?
|
On November 11 2011 01:04 Juanald 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? :[ QFT finally someone said what we all were thinking. theres nothing protoss can do against a thor bc raven ghost army unless of course your a prodigy like EG.Axslave.
Thor BC Raven and Ghost vs P? Axslav prodigy? Are you serious or being sarcastic... it's hard to get that sometimes.
PS: I hope you are being sarcastic.
|
On November 11 2011 01:28 willyallthewei wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 01:21 bLo0d wrote:
IMO, if chargelots did not automatically make contact, the matchup along with this patch would be perfect. Zealots are just a little bit broken in their pvt role due to the fact that 1. They deal a significant amount of damage 2. They tank an incredible amount of damage 3. Due to the past patch that gave them auto hit with charge, marauders, the ideal unit to deal with the protoss army, are now basically hard countered by them, and their synergy with aoe. It's kind of broken for a melee unit to have a passive ability to just automatically deal damage. I never understood how that could be implemented in a game. It makes the protoss army so a move friendly because there is almost 0 risk with leading with zealots because they will always pay for themselves with damage dealt/tanked for the aoe behind them. They basically negate most of the advantages of kiting. Not to mention how awkward it is to realize that a terran is kiting nonstop vs a mass of chargelots that the protoss player might not even be microing at all.There is no way a terran player is going to circumvent or outmaneuver chargelots to snipe colosus,ht,stalkers with bio, in a realistically cost efficient fashion. Also, in other aspects of the game, such as terran drops, zealot warp ins are just like, ok i warped in zealots, i can look away now, while the terran player has to either lift off or spend time microing vs a unit that will hit him anyway. It's a bit silly imo. I mean chargelots can hit fleeing zerglings.. lol. I know it soundslike massive QQ but I'm actually being realistic imo. Chargelots usually do 3x dps of most ranged low tier units, and automatically hit, so the fact that they are melee is almost ignored. Lastly, the fact that the chargelot patch was implemented solely to counter marine marauder micro is the dumbest part. Anti micro patch ftw. The autohit ability is a logical extension of the concept of charge. you are correct that its rare for a melee unit to autohit, it is also rare however for ranged units (Stimmed MM) to be faster than a fully upgraded melee unit (chargelot that is not in charge animation). Trust me, you want charge in the game, because if it wasn't for charge, Zealots would still have the leg enhancement ability, and yes that would force protoss into microing more, it would also make it impossible for Bio terran to ever exist. This is because with the new pathing in SC2, zealots that moves near the speed of a speedling will quickly surround the entire terran ball and cut it down while no amount of stim will allow you to kite/escape. If you want a melee unit that is both slower and doesn't autohit vs. a ranged unit, well, then yes you're just mass QQing.
Perfect analysis of the zealot in sc2. OP should read, understand, and absorb.
|
Hm its not so much the zealot ability itself , its the lack of micro needed from the p to utilize it. If they made charge an ability that had to be activated, then it would at least require micro. For example, pressing c and left clicking a destination would charge the nearest target. That actually sounds reasonable. What are your guys thoughts on this? Idk if its necessary to add credibility to myself but I'm high masters, gm mmr. Just sayin that cuz I want serious responses is all.
|
On November 11 2011 01:50 bLo0d wrote:
Hm its not so much the zealot ability itself , its the lack of micro needed from the p to utilize it.
Unless you're using Zealots on their own, you have to micro them quite a bit to put them all in front of your ranged units, to spread them out effectively so they don't melt to EMP + MM DPS and then move them back if T starts to kite, if your FFs hinder you/aren't amazing or if some of your support falls.
When used as warp-ins lategame for harassment, they take about as much micro as any other harassment unit beside maybe Phoenixes or Blink Stalkers.
Chargelots take no less micro than Speedlings, nor any other melee unit.
|
On November 11 2011 00:56 willyallthewei wrote:
My honest opinion is that Blizzard may be directing their attention to the wrong matchup. It is true that Terran is the best performing race in Korea, however the PvT matchup in particular has stabilized ever since the 1-1-1 started to get held consistently following the immortal range upgrade and meta-game developments.
Furthermore, there has been a shift to larger maps to help with both PvT and TvZ; and its forcing Terran into late game scenarios against Protoss where cannons/pylons/templar start to put a ticking timer in the Terran players head as he realizes "the longer we stay maxed, the more bank and gateways he accumulates, and the easier it is for him to remax at my doorstep". This thought process in turn forces Terran into aggressive play vs. a well positioned Protoss (exp: chasing a toss army that has a litter of templar behind it) - which can lead to extremely unfavorable trades.
In summary PvT being in favor of Terran was all about early and mid game pressure, and with the map changes I'm not sure there's much else Blizzard needs to do.
On the other hand, PvZ is an extremely tough matchup for Protoss. Zerg has a laundry list of builds that gives them the most important thing in a RTS - map control for almost every stage of the game vs. Protoss.
This list goes from speedling expands to fast 3 base roach to the currently popular muta switch. Using this denial of information and counter attack potential, its allowed Zergs to power drones while keeping protoss completely in the dark as to what is happening on the map. This in turn forces Protoss into guessing when the Zerg is weak.
Currently the only style that gives Protoss information and map control is stargate play, and very few have been able to make it work despite the hundreds of level top players who have tried. The lack of map control styles for Protoss in the PvZ matchup (such as hellion play) - is truly troubling. In some cases it is causing protoss players - extremely skilled ones - to devolve their strategies into a variety of 2 base timing attacks that hope to cripple or kill the zerg outright before the zerg has gained access to one of their stronger map control styles - 3 base roach/muta switch.
I'm not sure how to fix this matchup, I think the oracle will help a lot in hots. However, save for a few new builds (+1 zealots), there seems to be very little hope for the PvZ matchup, as tosses struggle in finding a style that gives them enough map control and information to safely transition into lategame vs. Zerg.
Really nice and true thoughts about the current State of PvZ !
I can suggest you, what I does nowadays is to get a 4 min Forge, 5 min StarGate and move out to Cannon Expand.
Nexus will be placed ~ 5:30, get a VoidRay after for Defense, and a Phoenix to Scout. Finally get a Robo after Scout gone.
Sadly this Wonderful Expand+Scout Build cannot deal with 3 BaSe "Mass Worker Inject" either...
Disgustingly Protoss has no chance to keep up with 3 BaSe "Mass Worker Inject", even with a Forge FE we are getting MOAR behind ! On the Top of all that we have NO Unit to Harras Zerg's Workers... DTs and StarGate pressure are just Ridiculously suicidal (I mean Come on 400 Resource VoidRay is held back by a 150 Resource Queen, Disgusting...)
Sadly I have to say, that Protoss has 1 chance (But Only 1 !!!) That is to go Forge FE, and at 11-12 min there is Tiny Window, when you are "almost" as strong as a Zerg. THIS is the time to Allin or Expand ! The End...
Otherwise you just will be Demolished by 200 Supply after 13 min, when you are at ~120 !!! Damn Equal LoL
|
On November 11 2011 02:02 SzaszaG wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2011 00:56 willyallthewei wrote:
My honest opinion is that Blizzard may be directing their attention to the wrong matchup. It is true that Terran is the best performing race in Korea, however the PvT matchup in particular has stabilized ever since the 1-1-1 started to get held consistently following the immortal range upgrade and meta-game developments.
Furthermore, there has been a shift to larger maps to help with both PvT and TvZ; and its forcing Terran into late game scenarios against Protoss where cannons/pylons/templar start to put a ticking timer in the Terran players head as he realizes "the longer we stay maxed, the more bank and gateways he accumulates, and the easier it is for him to remax at my doorstep". This thought process in turn forces Terran into aggressive play vs. a well positioned Protoss (exp: chasing a toss army that has a litter of templar behind it) - which can lead to extremely unfavorable trades.
In summary PvT being in favor of Terran was all about early and mid game pressure, and with the map changes I'm not sure there's much else Blizzard needs to do.
On the other hand, PvZ is an extremely tough matchup for Protoss. Zerg has a laundry list of builds that gives them the most important thing in a RTS - map control for almost every stage of the game vs. Protoss.
This list goes from speedling expands to fast 3 base roach to the currently popular muta switch. Using this denial of information and counter attack potential, its allowed Zergs to power drones while keeping protoss completely in the dark as to what is happening on the map. This in turn forces Protoss into guessing when the Zerg is weak.
Currently the only style that gives Protoss information and map control is stargate play, and very few have been able to make it work despite the hundreds of level top players who have tried. The lack of map control styles for Protoss in the PvZ matchup (such as hellion play) - is truly troubling. In some cases it is causing protoss players - extremely skilled ones - to devolve their strategies into a variety of 2 base timing attacks that hope to cripple or kill the zerg outright before the zerg has gained access to one of their stronger map control styles - 3 base roach/muta switch.
I'm not sure how to fix this matchup, I think the oracle will help a lot in hots. However, save for a few new builds (+1 zealots), there seems to be very little hope for the PvZ matchup, as tosses struggle in finding a style that gives them enough map control and information to safely transition into lategame vs. Zerg. Really nice and true thoughts about the current State of PvZ ! I can suggest you, what I does nowadays is to get a 4 min Forge, 5 min StarGate and move out to Cannon Expand. Nexus will be placed ~ 5:30, get a VoidRay after for Defense, and a Phoenix to Scout. Finally get a Robo after Scout gone. Sadly this Wonderful Expand+Scout Build cannot deal with 3 BaSe "Mass Worker Inject" either... Disgustingly Protoss has no chance to keep up with 3 BaSe "Mass Worker Inject", even with a Forge FE we are getting MOAR behind ! On the Top of all that we have NO Unit to Harras Zerg's Workers... DTs and StarGate pressure are just Ridiculously suicidal (I mean Come on 400 Resource VoidRay is held back by a 150 Resource Queen, Disgusting...) Sadly I have to say, that Protoss has 1 chance (But Only 1 !!!) That is to go Forge FE, and at 11-12 min there is Tiny Window, when you are "almost" as strong as a Zerg. THIS is the time to Allin or Expand ! The End... Otherwise you just will be Demolished by 200 Supply after 13 min, when you are at ~120 !!! Damn Equal LoL
Want some cheese to go with your whine?
|
On November 10 2011 23:04 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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.
Have you read the past few pages of this thread (where we've talked about the macro mechanics of Terran and Protoss, especially at the lower levels)? It was proposed that macroing as Terran was significantly harder than it was as Protoss at the lower level- originally with no supporting evidence whatsoever. That statement was merely thrown out there, and everyone (appropriately) ridiculed it (including myself), and then someone asked me to explain why that statement was worthy of ridicule (as if it was my job to refute someone else's claim, rather than that person's job to support his own).
Even though the other guy (I think it was IIIIIIIII but I'm not sure- feel free to check up on this) decided not to back up his statement, I decided to refute it anyway. I pointed out that keeping up your macro as a Terran player (especially during battle) is arguably easier, because you can use hotkeys (e.g. 1AAAADDDD) and don't have to look off screen for a proxy pylon to warp in (which is obviously something you don't want to do if you need to micro units). Furthermore, while it's not ideal, lower level players can actually queue Terran units in their unit-producing structures a few seconds (or longer) before the units pop out, so that their macro doesn't miss a beat. However, a Protoss can't ever queue gateway units; to keep up with Terran macro, a Protoss player has to hit the warpgate cooldown timings almost perfectly every time.
This was not to propose that Protoss is automatically harder to play than Terran; it was merely to shut down the (undefended) statement that Terran macro is *obviously* harder than Protoss macro. Obviously, at the lower levels, nobody is going to macro perfectly anyway (making the discussion of race imbalance less relevant). Furthermore, at the higher levels, we see Terran and Protoss macro about even (further discrediting the statement that Terran macro is worse- or else they would always be behind in supply). So I consider these arguments and the stereotypical pro-game to be pretty strong evidences against the claim that Terran macro is overwhelmingly more difficult than Protoss macro.
And this is all stuff that I had said before. And I understand your desire for good arguments (I have that same need). I just think you're a little late to the party And for the record, there wasn't really much controversy over my arguments >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
