|
how does protoss dictate anything in tvp? terran either expands or 1/1/1's and either protoss has to react to a 1 base allin, or a 2 base push...not usually the other way around. terran just has to make bunkers while protoss has to change tech, etc
|
On December 10 2011 12:17 ChineseWife wrote:
how does protoss dictate anything in tvp? terran either expands or 1/1/1's and either protoss has to react to a 1 base allin, or a 2 base push...not usually the other way around. terran just has to make bunkers while protoss has to change tech, etc
Um, you can go whatever you want as protoss... it's up to the terran to respond to it. If P goes colossus T has to go vikings or they die. If P goes templars T has to get ghosts or they die. Terran has the option to go... bio or bio. You don't see protoss having to react to something the terran makes.
|
On December 10 2011 12:17 ChineseWife wrote:
how does protoss dictate anything in tvp? terran either expands or 1/1/1's and either protoss has to react to a 1 base allin, or a 2 base push...not usually the other way around. terran just has to make bunkers while protoss has to change tech, etc
There are so many protoss all-ins, like proxy void ray, warp prism all-in, warp prism immortals, blink stalkers, any many more. These dictate how terran has to defend.
|
On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. + Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea.
Well obviously no one is complaining about it warpgates being bad, but if someone is saying that protoss has to put their attention on warping in some units to reinforce their armies during a fight, which could cause them not to micro efficiently during the battle and potentially lose it because their attention has to be elsewhere. Also saying that terran has it easier to macro because they can just hotkey tab their production during a battle gives them an edge in engagements.
I am not suggesting protoss players to use gateways over warpgates, but even you have to realize how weird argument it is to say that protoss is at disadvantage because they have to divert their attention from the battle if they want to warp in some units, even though they have the choice to not to use warpgates and get on even ground with terran using gateways during battle.
I don't believe that cooldown/buildtime is that big of an issue, because protoss can use chrono boost to catch up with the lost production time and if we were to say it would be an 200/200 supply army clash there wouldn't be any issues with changing warpgates to gateways since you can't produce anything until some of your units die, but I think that is little bit besides the point but still relevant enough to be noted.
|
On December 10 2011 19:29 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. + Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea. Well obviously no one is complaining about it warpgates being bad, but if someone is saying that protoss has to put their attention on warping in some units to reinforce their armies during a fight, which could cause them not to micro efficiently during the battle and potentially lose it because their attention has to be elsewhere. Also saying that terran has it easier to macro because they can just hotkey tab their production during a battle gives them an edge in engagements. I am not suggesting protoss players to use gateways over warpgates, but even you have to realize how weird argument it is to say that protoss is at disadvantage because they have to divert their attention from the battle if they want to warp in some units, even though they have the choice to not to use warpgates and get on even ground with terran using gateways during battle. I don't believe that cooldown/buildtime is that big of an issue, because protoss can use chrono boost to catch up with the lost production time and if we were to say it would be an 200/200 supply army clash there wouldn't be any issues with changing warpgates to gateways since you can't produce anything until some of your units die, but I think that is little bit besides the point but still relevant enough to be noted.
that would be acceptable if Protoss was balanced around warpgates and gateways.
But since Protoss is balanced for warpgates, and instant reinforcements, using gateways will put you behind.
|
On December 10 2011 19:41 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 19:29 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:
[quote]
The irony in this post is astounding.
What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. + Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea. Well obviously no one is complaining about it warpgates being bad, but if someone is saying that protoss has to put their attention on warping in some units to reinforce their armies during a fight, which could cause them not to micro efficiently during the battle and potentially lose it because their attention has to be elsewhere. Also saying that terran has it easier to macro because they can just hotkey tab their production during a battle gives them an edge in engagements. I am not suggesting protoss players to use gateways over warpgates, but even you have to realize how weird argument it is to say that protoss is at disadvantage because they have to divert their attention from the battle if they want to warp in some units, even though they have the choice to not to use warpgates and get on even ground with terran using gateways during battle. I don't believe that cooldown/buildtime is that big of an issue, because protoss can use chrono boost to catch up with the lost production time and if we were to say it would be an 200/200 supply army clash there wouldn't be any issues with changing warpgates to gateways since you can't produce anything until some of your units die, but I think that is little bit besides the point but still relevant enough to be noted. that would be acceptable if Protoss was balanced around warpgates and gateways. But since Protoss is balanced for warpgates, and instant reinforcements, using gateways will put you behind.
Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with this. Putting warpgates into gateways is essentially submitting that you're a bad Protoss, and doing so will not make you a better player.
Not related to your post, but something that keeps cropping up in those patch threads (for god knows what reason why). I think Terrans are most frustrated right now with Protoss, not because the overall winrate dropped to 49%, but because the matchup swung a full 10 percentage points in a single month. I honestly don't think Terrans would have many issues with being on the losing end of the balance, within 3-4%, but it's that wild swing that has everybody in a roar.
|
I'm glad the last few patches have started to balance things out a little more evenly.
I think one thing we all have to remember is it's quite dependent on the players who are playing as well. At different times a swell of good players for a certain race could be playing during a given period. This doesn't mean that a race is imbalanced; it just means that a lot of good players are playing that race.
Of course many issues do deal with balanced, but the community as a whole goes into an uproar over statistics when many hidden factors may have a role instead of just racial imbalance.
Just my two cents worth. 
|
On December 10 2011 19:29 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. + Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea. Well obviously no one is complaining about it warpgates being bad, but if someone is saying that protoss has to put their attention on warping in some units to reinforce their armies during a fight, which could cause them not to micro efficiently during the battle and potentially lose it because their attention has to be elsewhere. Also saying that terran has it easier to macro because they can just hotkey tab their production during a battle gives them an edge in engagements. I am not suggesting protoss players to use gateways over warpgates, but even you have to realize how weird argument it is to say that protoss is at disadvantage because they have to divert their attention from the battle if they want to warp in some units, even though they have the choice to not to use warpgates and get on even ground with terran using gateways during battle. I don't believe that cooldown/buildtime is that big of an issue, because protoss can use chrono boost to catch up with the lost production time and if we were to say it would be an 200/200 supply army clash there wouldn't be any issues with changing warpgates to gateways since you can't produce anything until some of your units die, but I think that is little bit besides the point but still relevant enough to be noted.
You've clearly only read the last few posts. The original argument is that Protoss units can't micro like marine/marauder can (i.e. Terran have to micro way more than Protoss), and it's simply assumed the Protoss is chilling, hurling waves of chargelot/archon at the Terran. The Protoss macro mechanics conveniently left out; almost implying a Terran is required to have 200 apm and a Protoss 30.
And your argument insinuates the Protoss has <100 APM, horrible hotkeys, is fighting a high master league Terran when the Protoss is gold league, and floats 1~2k minerals every battle because he can't warp in simultaneously whilst maneuvering/micro'ing. (Though there are still a ton of high level Protoss pros who won't warp-in until the engagement is almost over) Chronoboosting warp gates, like dropping mules and injecting is a requirement, not an added advantage. You don't even understand why warp gates are way better, and I'll needlessly add another paragraph explaining it to you when really you're just wrong and seemingly have little understanding of the race/match-up.
|
If you're going to argue that protoss macro mechancis are harder because they have to go to a pylon to warp in, you also have to take into account how much easier it makes it to macro protoss when they can frontload all their production which allows them to get away with a lot less planning, have more units coming from the same structure or don't require tech labs or reactors set up properly, added to the fact that you can stack up warp gates as close as you want with no regard to base sim city or pathing blocking your units in.
Considering those advantages, I think having to look away from the battle to warp in is a small disadvantage, especially because of the way the protoss autopilot.
|
Protoss are onfire héhé
|
With protoss doing so well lately, I wonder why there are still so many protoss cheesers...
|
On December 10 2011 07:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:46 freetgy wrote:
in a balanced game the have to be balance swings in positive and negative for all races and matchups.
if one races always stays dominant in a match up that is a true exposure of imbalance.
it isn't balanced when one races always shave like 53 vs. 47 the whole year balance comes
From the fluctuations between those intervals, because this shows that each races has the tools change the metagame at least for a short time.
and this month is the first time the rates for terran are going even close to down under 50% and this was needed for a very long time and needs to go at least for some weeks hopefully so the terran players start to evolve because they are forced to because 0815 play isn't working anymore. While normally I agree with the last paragraph, I am hesitant in this case. When you look at patch and map history, what you see is a bunch of nerfs for Terran which greatly alter the direction of the metagame. However, when you look at the graph, at worst you would see Terran numbers within a few percentage points after the patch. Every time the metagame was patched away from Terran, they evolved to find new ways to win and stay on top. However, for the first time, Terran finds itself not able to adapt quickly enough to the most recent changes. What was once a gradual decline over the course of 2-3 months, bringing rates back into relative balance, we now have a matchup that has swung almost 10 percentage points in a single month against Terran. When you look at the history of all the matchups, that is HUGE and not generally a characteristic of Terran response to forced metagame shifts. To bring that into perspective: the next** biggest swing in a matchup came in January 2011, TvZ, of almost 5 percentage points. **If you go back further, you get some results in the 8 percentage point range, but that was in Sept-Oct 2010, which can probably be explained by pure evolution of tournament play and the emergence of Korean GSL influence.
While normally I would agree with you, you also have to consider that double forge and warp prism play just kicked in. Protoss for the first time in PvT has a sort of macro build that is not evolved around "I hope he doesn't now if I'm going the charge/templar or the robo route".
Naturally Terran should temporary struggle against such a huge metagame change, nerf or not!
|
On December 11 2011 04:26 Dalavita wrote:
If you're going to argue that protoss macro mechancis are harder because they have to go to a pylon to warp in, you also have to take into account how much easier it makes it to macro protoss when they can frontload all their production which allows them to get away with a lot less planning, have more units coming from the same structure or don't require tech labs or reactors set up properly, added to the fact that you can stack up warp gates as close as you want with no regard to base sim city or pathing blocking your units in.
Considering those advantages, I think having to look away from the battle to warp in is a small disadvantage, especially because of the way the protoss autopilot.
1. trapping units happens with gates in the early game and with robo.
2. It only frontloads their production the first time you warp in, also warp does not stack and if you miss your timing you're significantly behind so no we don't have more from the same structure.
3. terrans can queue so they don't lose any time and can do this when they have spare apm.
4. imagine if every time you engaged you had to mule 4-10 times to get troops instead of pressing 3 buttons while keeping your focus on the army
I'm not arguing imbalance but more the lack of imbalance here.
|
Only thing that concerns me is that it seems at the diamond and master level, it's really hard for the Terran player later in the game. At pro level it may very well be balanced, but it seems the micro is more taxing and unforgiving for Terrans and so if you aren't at pro level mechanics you can get into some pretty bad situations.
You need to be able to control at least 3 groups of units, even 4-- Bio, vikings, ghosts, and if you are stutter stepping without your medivacs in another control group controlled individually your army effectiveness will be a lot worse. You need to unclump your bio, use vikings to target down collosi as fast as possible, while using ghosts to emp HT and sentries.
Now don't get me wrong, P has a lot of micro to do as well, but having sub par control doesn't cost the P as much as it does the T. Is it nice to have your collosi in a good position? yea. And it's nice to blink your low health stalkers, feed back medivacs, and etc, but the main thing toss has to do is hit their storms. And it really only takes 1 good storm to kill a big chunk of the Terran's army. Emping a large group of zealots pales in comparison to storming a large group of marines. Zealots, toss's first unit and core of their army, stay tough all game long especially with guardian shield and the fact that in all liklihood they will have better upgrades.
Late game Marines get slaughtered in mass by Collosi and Ht while maradaurs do very little dmg to zealots. Is it hard for toss when puma is instantly double sniping every ht that falls out of your warp prism before it can do anything, while simultaneously dodging storms and dropping your main? Sure is, but what about the rest of us? To us we are just facing a mountain of an army that we can't seem to kill. The biggest problem is that we can only go bio. Mech is flat out terrible-- said by many pro gamers including one Major, and Battlecruisers and Thors are counterd by any composition of the toss army.
My 2 cents is that they should make changes that keep the pro level the way it is-- I liked the balance system in bw that t>z, z<p, p<t, but make things a little less daunting for lower level Terrans.
|
On December 05 2011 20:30 secretary bird wrote:
They need to reduce bunker build time obviously. This will fix everything. Oh and make Archons better against air and worse against ground.
biggest troll ever
|
On December 11 2011 01:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 19:41 freetgy wrote:On December 10 2011 19:29 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:
[quote]
Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith.
If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. + Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea. Well obviously no one is complaining about it warpgates being bad, but if someone is saying that protoss has to put their attention on warping in some units to reinforce their armies during a fight, which could cause them not to micro efficiently during the battle and potentially lose it because their attention has to be elsewhere. Also saying that terran has it easier to macro because they can just hotkey tab their production during a battle gives them an edge in engagements. I am not suggesting protoss players to use gateways over warpgates, but even you have to realize how weird argument it is to say that protoss is at disadvantage because they have to divert their attention from the battle if they want to warp in some units, even though they have the choice to not to use warpgates and get on even ground with terran using gateways during battle. I don't believe that cooldown/buildtime is that big of an issue, because protoss can use chrono boost to catch up with the lost production time and if we were to say it would be an 200/200 supply army clash there wouldn't be any issues with changing warpgates to gateways since you can't produce anything until some of your units die, but I think that is little bit besides the point but still relevant enough to be noted. that would be acceptable if Protoss was balanced around warpgates and gateways. But since Protoss is balanced for warpgates, and instant reinforcements, using gateways will put you behind. Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with this. Putting warpgates into gateways is essentially submitting that you're a bad Protoss, and doing so will not make you a better player. Not related to your post, but something that keeps cropping up in those patch threads (for god knows what reason why). I think Terrans are most frustrated right now with Protoss, not because the overall winrate dropped to 49%, but because the matchup swung a full 10 percentage points in a single month. I honestly don't think Terrans would have many issues with being on the losing end of the balance, within 3-4%, but it's that wild swing that has everybody in a roar.
I really disagree. Terrans especially in the lower leagues have been complaining about TvP lategame for a longgggggggg time. This balance patch and the winrates basically let them justify their whining further.
Some of what they say is justified in my opinion, especially the ease of late game Protoss vs Terran. but it's just very annoying to see whining all over the threads.
|
On December 11 2011 14:53 K3Nyy wrote:
I really disagree. Terrans especially in the lower leagues have been complaining about TvP lategame for a longgggggggg time. This balance patch and the winrates basically let them justify their whining further.
Some of what they say is justified in my opinion, especially the ease of late game Protoss vs Terran. but it's just very annoying to see whining all over the threads.
this will never change, as long as Terran stays on Bio till lategame.
you can't have the advantage in early mid and lategame by staying with essentially the same core composition from the beginning.
Obviously splash will kick in on the protoss side more on more and make the life harder for the Bio player.
no balance patch will change that.
|
On December 11 2011 16:13 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 14:53 K3Nyy wrote:
I really disagree. Terrans especially in the lower leagues have been complaining about TvP lategame for a longgggggggg time. This balance patch and the winrates basically let them justify their whining further.
Some of what they say is justified in my opinion, especially the ease of late game Protoss vs Terran. but it's just very annoying to see whining all over the threads.
this will never change, as long as Terran stays on Bio till lategame. you can't have the advantage in early mid and lategame by staying with essentially the same core composition from the beginning. Obviously splash will kick in on the protoss side more on more and make the life harder for the Bio player. no balance patch will change that.
lol, what else is the terran supposed to do? o.O
|
On December 11 2011 16:24 doko100 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2011 16:13 freetgy wrote:On December 11 2011 14:53 K3Nyy wrote:
I really disagree. Terrans especially in the lower leagues have been complaining about TvP lategame for a longgggggggg time. This balance patch and the winrates basically let them justify their whining further.
Some of what they say is justified in my opinion, especially the ease of late game Protoss vs Terran. but it's just very annoying to see whining all over the threads.
this will never change, as long as Terran stays on Bio till lategame. you can't have the advantage in early mid and lategame by staying with essentially the same core composition from the beginning. Obviously splash will kick in on the protoss side more on more and make the life harder for the Bio player. no balance patch will change that. lol, what else is the terran supposed to do? o.O
win or cripple the protoss under 15 mins. Constant aggression is a mainstay in T v P. I was really frustrated with the matchup until i watched iAmJeffrey's replay in the strat section which showed some really good aggression that involved timing and positioning.
In other words.. play better !
|
I'm... not sure if people are reading the graphs right. Especially the terran whiners... not sure how you can be pessimistic about your race when there's a big blue line hovering over everything else in any graph with a blue line lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
