|
On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote:
So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about.
EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything.
It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless.
User was warned for this post
|
Korean Zergs need to get their act together! They've more or less been on the losing side to Protoss for 4 months now (except januar! <3) and losing to Terran since the beginning of time :p
Foreigners Zergs are doing much better vs other foreigners ! Which isn't really a surprise when you think of what great Zerg players we have on the foreinger scene. Stephano, Idra, Ret, Slush, Morrow, TLO, Sheth, Sen, Dimaga, Nerchio <3
Compared to Korea where the only Zerg's who didn't deliever a horrible performance this month are Nestea and DRG who of course are incredible beasts 
|
Blizzard, if you're reading this..
TvP fixes to early/late game:
Banshee from light to armored;
Buff Viking ground attack.
|
Lets not forget that these ratios are for pros or very high level people. I'd also like to see winrates for just plain old diamond or even platinum players. TvP and TvZ are still very very far from balanced unless you posses some insane multitasking and korean-like APM..... 
I really like the banshee/ viking upgrades posted right above me, I think that would be a great change.
|
Korean terrans own zergs too hard. Hard to see a way out of it without a buff. Perhaps it is time to revert some of the infestor-nerfs?
|
On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack.
Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them...
Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks.
TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me.
What league and server are you?
|
On March 02 2012 21:30 Gantritor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote:On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote:
So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about.
EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless.
Hold up, hold up... You don't have the slighest clue about protoss unit control? Pre-splits, preparing sentries, templars, blinking stalkers towards vikings without losing them to a swift stim, feedbacks, storms, forcefields, guardian shield while target firing the right units. On top of this you need to keep your observers alive, so you wont lose half your army to ghosts/banshee.
And to add insult to injury, you still need to place your units correctly (zealots at the front and such) and not a single time get a bad flank or a bad place to engage.
Yeah, obviously we're just a-moving, unlike terrans who throw some EMPs, fly in their vikings and start to kite with their MMM... Sounds reasonable to complain about unit control.
|
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you?
His suggestions arent that bad. A stalker buff vs banshees helps against the 1-1-1, and vikings will become less useless when protoss stops building colossi. I think it would also be a good change for lategame tvz where terran struggles with tech switches.
What league and server are you?
|
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:
Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them...
Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks.
That was probably his point to nerf Terran early game(Banshee) and buff late game (vikings).
|
On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you?
General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning.
This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going.
There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive).
This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs.
Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix.
It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides.
From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though.
Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you.
As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly.
I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues.
It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup.
|
If you look at tournament results Terran is the best race in Korea and the worst outside Korea, you cannot really fix that with patches.
|
On March 02 2012 22:05 marcesr wrote:
If you look at tournament results Terran is the best race in Korea and the worst outside Korea, you cannot really fix that with patches.
Well, that symptom is pretty easy to describe:
1 foreign zerg has won a major tournament outside of korea
no protoss or terran has... Terran is worst race (tied with protoss) outside of korea
does 1-0-0 describe anything statistically relevant? no!
|
On March 02 2012 21:59 Kira__ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? His suggestions arent that bad. A stalker buff vs banshees helps against the 1-1-1, and vikings will become less useless when protoss stops building colossi. I think it would also be a good change for lategame tvz where terran struggles with tech switches. What league and server are you?
I'm top 25Masters on EU. And I don't claim to know everything about balance at all. But I really don't see a reason to buff viking ground damage. I can see the issue with suddenly having 10vikings (20 supply) just hanging around with nothing to shoot. But you can basicly tell 2 things from that scenario:
- Your opponent made the better choice
- Watching alot of terran players blindly make vikings as support to their bioball tells how bio works vs gates. They are so effecient, that you can actually spare the extra supply, if you can keep your opponent from making colos. (I realize HT's are also a huge factor in this - but looking at the viking/colos thing alone). Besides... Vikings have fine armor and health. They can still tank chargelots and archons just fine. They're not as useless as corruptors.
The banshee thing would obviously be fine by me, since I'm protoss. But I think it's uncalled for. I rarely experience (see or play) terran players straight up win games on banshees anymore.
|
On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup.
This is a high quality post, in my opinion You're right on money with almost everything you mention
|
On March 02 2012 21:30 Gantritor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 19:56 DarQraven wrote:On March 02 2012 19:28 fiveohfive wrote:
So does anyone still want to argue that Protoss isn't a little too powerful in the T v P MU now? Oh, lets give it few more months first I guess, just to make sure Protoss has nothing to argue about.
EDIT: Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago David Kim said the T v P MU was fine? Hmmmmmmmmmm.......... Keke, loving this. Terran heavily favored for nine months straight? Protoss are just whining. Protoss has positive winrate for two months, for once? Protoss OP. I find it really hard to take this attitude seriously. Apart from the snipe change, nothing was patched in PvT since early November. Are you saying that Protoss has suddenly become more and more OP, even though there weren't any patch changes between november and a week ago? I say give this some time. For the three months that Protoss has had a positive PvT rate --in the graph--, there are actually only two months where the winrate is positive. If you look at the bars, you'll see the data for January 2012 once again show the matchup in favor of Terran by 56%. Hardly reason to call OP on anything. It's two years that protoss are a-moving in PvT. That's a fact. Win ratio are meaningless.
hahah no its not a fact. Go look at any good PvT'er and you'll see how much micro and good choices it take to win at that.
|
On March 02 2012 22:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 22:05 marcesr wrote:
If you look at tournament results Terran is the best race in Korea and the worst outside Korea, you cannot really fix that with patches. Well, that symptom is pretty easy to describe: 1 foreign zerg has won a major tournament outside of korea no protoss or terran has... Terran is worst race (tied with protoss) outside of korea does 1-0-0 describe anything statistically relevant? no!
Not really.
For 2011, only biggest tournaments
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
non Koreans:
race 1st place 2nd place
Terran 2 0
Zerg 5 3
Protoss 5 5
Koreans
Terran 18 11
Zerg 4 12
Protoss 4 7
|
On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup.
You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss.
|
On March 02 2012 22:21 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote:On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss.
Are you suggesting we 4gate Terran?
With Gate+Robo bust I assume you're referring to something along these lines and that only really does damage if the Terran doesn't know it's coming. Retreat lowground buildings to highground => Safe, cannot be busted anymore, still higher income than P due to double Mules.
|
On March 02 2012 22:10 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote:On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. This is a high quality post, in my opinion You're right on money with almost everything you mention
+1 and #1 Post here. This dude got the moves like Jagger for putting in so much good stuff in this post.
|
On March 02 2012 22:25 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 22:21 m0ck wrote:On March 02 2012 22:04 DarQraven wrote:On March 02 2012 21:54 Mentalizor wrote:On March 02 2012 21:33 StarscreamG1 wrote:Blizzard, if you're reading this.. TvP fixes to early/late game: Banshee from light to armored; Buff Viking ground attack. Lol, you're kidding right? Making banshees armored would actually make stalkers better against them... Making vikings better on ground? Are you kidding? It's not their real purpose, so it's obvious they should not have good ground attacks. TvP doesn't seem super imbalanced to me. What league and server are you? General concensus seems to be that PvT is not necessarily imbalanced percentage-wise, but timing wise. Short games are almost always won by the T, while, the longer the game goes, the more the P start winning. This shows a dynamic where Terran are very, very threatening to Protoss during the early and midgame, but it becomes hard to beat Protoss once they get their macro going. There can be all sort of explanations for this, though. Terrans love to jump on the "Protoss a-move OP, deathball untouchable" bandwagon, but as many players have demonstrated already, it is perfectly possible to beat P lategame. Harder, yes, but the same can be said about PvT early game and it is not impossible (see: Genius proxy Stargate vs Alive). This mostly seems to be players projecting their own ladder experiences onto these graphs. Meanwhile, statistics like game length do not take into account how the game actually got to that point - if the only reason PvT's ever get long is because a T failed their early/mid aggression and are behind economically, it should come as no surprise that they are losing out in the late game, for instance. Possible explanations like these would never surface from stats alone, so I really think this is up to Blizzard to analyze and fix. It really is a damn shame we have so few good Random players around, since I'd say those are the only ones who could really see the matchups honestly from both sides. From the Protoss perspective, Terran is just frustratingly strong early on. Your units are going to be running after them, not really hitting anything. You'll get dropped in multiple locations and even if you split your army up perfectly, you're still going to take more losses than the T because of the "T>P in low numbers" dynamic. This viewpoint completely discounts how the Terran is managing two drops/fights as well, though. Meanwhile, from the Terran perspective, deathballs can seem untouchable - as long as you're on the receiving end. From the P side of things, even with a 200/200 3/2 upgraded deathball, I still shit my pants right before I engage a Terran because even slight mistakes like getting EMP'd can completely destroy you. As for my own opinion: Tone down Terran early game threat/flexibility a bit (so that Protoss actually has reliable non-cheese ways of threatening a Terran early on, then take a look at if T can still beat P and make changes to P lategame accordingly. I don't suggest this approach because I want Terrans to stop allinning me or anything, but it just doesn't make sense to address lategame issues without a solid early game - the latter shapes the former, so you can't see them as separate issues. It seems like very bad game design to me to have one race play dominant 'attacker' for most of the game, while the other race only gets to play their strong suit once the other player has failed/been thwarted. That would create a very volatile and unforgiving matchup. You're forgetting the early gateway or gateway+robo busts that are very effective. It's not true that early/mid terran >>> protoss. Are you suggesting we 4gate Terran? With Gate+Robo bust I assume you're referring to something along these lines and that only really does damage if the Terran doesn't know it's coming. Retreat lowground buildings to highground => Safe, cannot be busted anymore, still higher income than P due to double Mules.
No, I'm referring to the 1-gate nexus into 7gate/8gate/robo busts. This GSL season have shown you many of these games. Although the 1-basing can certainly work (as shown by hero yesterday), but is much more of a risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
