|
Hello TL, I'm Zero, a mid masters protoss main who's been playing protoss since WoL release. I'm trying to open up some discussion about the general design of the early game in SC2, and how it pertains to each matchup. In a nutshell, I'm here to talk about how the sentry, MSC, and protoss in general are panning out as ideas. Before we start with that, I'd like to take a trip down memory lane, and see if anything looks familiar to you.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bJjsxBJ.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B4smtUc.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/stWzZJh.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I8S6XWC.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
I think you can see what I'm getting at here. Historically protoss is known as the gimmick race, the easy to play but hard to win with race. Why is this? I believe it's because of a reliance on mechanics like warp tech, sentries, and MSC's. MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss, but why aren't safer players as successful with this race? Every protoss player has felt the sting caused by reliance on these mechanics. Remember how protoss fared at the tournament level throughout WoL? Here's a refresher:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M2LVcq8.jpg)
Source: http://imgur.com/a/1iwo8
In terms of overall results, protoss had the worst consistency. I feel that this trend will continue for protoss in the future, unless blizzard addresses the early game viability of protoss non-committal aggression and economy. I like the design of the sentry and the implementation of an early game caster for protoss, but at the same time, this is the bane of protoss players everywhere. One of my friends who played BW commonly refers to this game as ZvT, and while it's a bit of frustrated humor on his part, how far is it from the truth?
On paper, the early game of protoss is inkeeping with excellent design. Theoretically you want your players to have weak units that require strong play to utilize properly. This certainly seems to hold true for early and mid tier protoss units, but not so much higher tier ones. However, when examining the game as a whole with Zerg and Terran also included, it's obvious that this mentality went missing somewhere along the line for those races. Where is the risk for early tier terran and zerg players? What keeps them honest? Right now, the answer seems to be nothing, and it's bad for players and viewers alike. This promotes a deathball style of gameplay, instead of many back and forth action packed engagements across the map.
Let's take the non mirror matchups for protoss as examples. Starting with PvZ, we can see that throughout the course of WoL, as changes were made and players got stronger, we moved more and more toward a deathball style of play. New strategies were discovered for protoss, and promptly figured out or nerfed, and thus abandoned. Fast forward to the end of WoL, and you get what I'm talking about. PvZ turned into FFE vs 3 hatch fast hive, and games were being decided in a matter of seconds in one huge battle between 15 and 20 minutes.
It was boring to watch, boring to play as, and boring to play against. I feel it's a direct symptom of protoss reliance on gimmickry in general. If that's not enough to convince you, let's look at PvT. The standard right now is exactly the same as it was in WoL, except terrans just add widow mines instead of floating their factory around scouting. This might seem all fine and dandy, but let's have a closer look at what's going on. The deciding factors in every PvT are the same: how well does protoss defend aggression, and can he take his third? If a build doesn't allow these things, it's just not used.
On the terran end of things, he's teching, double upgrading, expanding, attacking, all at the same time. There's tons of variation to be had, and plenty of stylistic choice. Identifying and destroying all ins are as simple as counting pylons, taking a tower, and scanning. You never have to deviate very far from the main build order to hold off aggression, even when unexpected. The same holds true for PvZ. Is this really a good design for a game, is this fun to watch and to play? Does it promote more diverse gameplay? The answer is no.
I assert that the lack of non committal aggression for protoss is extremely detrimental to the development of SC2 as a whole. Think about all the resources blizzard has spent tweaking and changing and nerfing and buffing because of the implementation and the mentality of things like the oracle, sentry, tempest, MSC, and warp tech. Think about all the matchups shifted, all the styles learned and forgotten because they weren't viable anymore, all the resources wasted arriving at a game barely more well designed than it was on release. I'd argue that we've reached the other end of the spectrum, where instead of fast losses on steppes of war, we have long, boring games on bigger maps that neither player can end.
We've all experienced it and felt it, one way or another. The circular logic for blizzard when it comes to protoss makes no sense. Do we have sentries and MSC and warpgate because gateway units are weak, or do we have weak gateway units because we have sentries and MSC? The effects of this are extremely far reaching in the context of SC2. Strong t3 is a necessity because of this early game weakness, and so strong counters to those like the viking and the ghost are necessary. The list goes on and on, but I think you get the idea. Am I the only one around here who feels that the game would have been much more enjoyable over the past few years if protoss never had the sentry or warp tech, or at least different versions of them that lent themselves to aggression?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZJJJUXm.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
Did blizzard nerf too hard and too soon? Are these design flaws from a failed blueprint of protoss? Does this warrant protoss buffs, or t/z nerfs? Is there a problem at all? If something has to be changed, I would advocate nerfing things in general, because of the philosophy on strategy games I have. I still firmly believe things should be weak in general, and games should be balanced at the top level of play. I don't believe adding new units or mechanics is the answer, and I think the MSC can attest to that.
So far, no new options have been discovered as a result of the MSC. It's just allowing worse players to survive attacks and make mistakes, it's the opposite of what it was intended to do, and a clear representation of why power creep is bad. The MSC is a power creep solution to the problem the sentry creates, or tries to solve (still not sure which). No aggressive openers have yet been discovered as a result of the MSC, and no greedier defensive plays have been seen to be possible because of it.
I believe that SC2 has suffered tremendous damage as a skill based game because of the design of early game protoss. Some parts of it deemed too weak, some deemed too strong. It's led to tons of changes that wouldn't otherwise have happened if z/t early game was more inkeeping with the design of protoss.
Think of all the changes that could come about, with the removal of sentries and warptech, and the rebalancing of the early game. Reavers instead of colossi, protoss t3 nerfs in general, both gateway and forge expands viable in PvZ, etc.
This doesn't even go into what could be improved upon about macro mechanics and the 3 base model in general, but I'll leave that for another thread, I think.
In conclusion, I feel more and more that the game would be much more strategically diverse without forcefield, MSC, and all the problems that spew from mechanics like these. There will be a wall for every protoss player, a ceiling they reach where their shenanigans are no longer effective, and they'll be lost. They'll wander TL strategy looking for ideas on what to do after they hold off that figurative 6 pool without losing a single unit, to come away empty handed. They'll explore and try new ways of standard play, and disheartened, come to the same conclusions that everyone came to long ago, that protoss is indeed the gimmick race, easy to play and hard to win with. I fear this will be true as long as tournaments have anything but single elimination formats.
I hope this didn't come off as too much of a rant or a whine to you, and hopefully it was an interesting read.
|
This is a fantastically well-written post and deserves attention.
Part of me believes it and part of me wants to believe that some of this has changed in HOTS. I am a Masters Protoss as well, and I do feel that the MSC has allowed me to play passive, macro games to a better degree than in WOL, thus making me less reliant on those gimmicky all-in builds and thereby more consistent...
But at the same time I do feel what you're saying. Even those gimmicky all-ins are often much worse now. Gateway all-ins against Terran feel impossible now and have always been pretty bad against Zerg. Even builds such as the Parting immortal/sentry can be stopped by swarm hosts. And Protoss has never really been able to macro evenly with the larvae mechanic and mules. It makes for a truly awkward feeling game sometimes - the kind of awkward where you feel forced to perform the kind of gimmicky plays that seem necessary to stay even. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
|
Good post but I think protoss players need more time to learn how to use the mothership core. I think that is the key to early game aggression that doesn't make or break you.
|
On April 12 2013 12:12 JSK wrote:
This is a fantastically well-written post and deserves attention.
Part of me believes it and part of me wants to believe that some of this has changed in HOTS. I am a Masters Protoss as well, and I do feel that the MSC has allowed me to play passive, macro games to a better degree than in WOL, thus making me less reliant on those gimmicky all-in builds and thereby more consistent...
But at the same time I do feel what you're saying. Even those gimmicky all-ins are often much worse now. Gateway all-ins against Terran feel impossible now and have always been pretty bad against Zerg. Even builds such as the Parting immortal/sentry can be stopped by swarm hosts. And Protoss has never really been able to macro evenly with the larvae mechanic and mules. It makes for a truly awkward feeling game sometimes - the kind of awkward where you feel forced to perform the kind of gimmicky plays that seem necessary to stay even. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.
Thanks. I feel like the MSC was meant to achieve something like making gateway expands more viable in PvZ or give protoss the ability to punish greedy terrans, but to me it feels like it didn't do any of those things. Good protoss players weren't having trouble initially stopping all ins, they were having trouble getting a lead and keeping it afterward. The MSC only helps you hold it off, at about what the cost would have been in WoL, it's just simpler to do. That's part of why I feel it was a bad change.
|
On April 12 2013 12:16 HeeroFX wrote:
Good post but I think protoss players need more time to learn how to use the mothership core. I think that is the key to early game aggression that doesn't make or break you.
I spent a lot of time working with it in PvZ, and I've found that often times if the zerg reacts properly (especially in a gateway expand situation) you're very far behind. I think it feels that way because if you use it to augment your army (more than the dps) by using time bomb, you aren't able to recall away when you get into a bad situation. My conclusion is that FFE is still better, so I've gone back to falling in line.
|
United States7483 Posts
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding.
|
On April 12 2013 12:31 Whitewing wrote:
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding.
I feel like MC's play was more a metagame build than what's going to be standard. As is, nothing greedier is viable imo. It's still 1g expo + tech + 3 gates into blabla midgame.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:35 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:31 Whitewing wrote:
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding. I feel like MC's play was more a metagame build than what's going to be standard. As is, nothing greedier is viable imo. It's still 1g expo + tech + 3 gates into blabla midgame.
I've been doing a lot of 1 gate expand into robo into double forge into more gates lately, that's way more greedy (that's double forge and robo bay on 1 gateway). I frequently finish 3/3 before my opponent is half way to 2/2, and that's if he goes double e-bay, if not, he's boned on upgrades.
3/3 Chargelots +guardian shield vs 1/1 marines is the most one sided slaughter you've ever seen, even if the zealots are at a lower count than they might have otherwise have been.
Greed doesn't have to be purely economic, it can be tech based too.
|
I dont really agree with some of the things you say. You kind of exaggerate how much a Terran or Zerg player can actually do, and without a doubt there are plenty of things that keep Terran players honest, and to some extent in a more indirect way Zerg is also kept honest. The mothership core and the oracle both are steps forward in terms of non committal aggression and I don't think we need anything more yet. Protoss is fun to watch in my opinion and has improved greatly since the release of hots. I don't want to call this biased because I don't think it is, but this is definitely just your opinion and I feel that most of what you say is exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Maybe we can have this discussion later because right now it's too early to tell the effects that hots will have on Protoss.
|
On April 12 2013 12:38 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:35 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 12:31 Whitewing wrote:
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding. I feel like MC's play was more a metagame build than what's going to be standard. As is, nothing greedier is viable imo. It's still 1g expo + tech + 3 gates into blabla midgame. I've been doing a lot of 1 gate expand into robo into double forge into more gates lately, that's way more greedy (that's double forge and robo bay on 1 gateway). I frequently finish 3/3 before my opponent is half way to 2/2, and that's if he goes double e-bay, if not, he's boned on upgrades. 3/3 Chargelots +guardian shield vs 1/1 marines is the most one sided slaughter you've ever seen, even if the zealots are at a lower count than they might have otherwise have been. Greed doesn't have to be purely economic, it can be tech based too.
I feel like this rolls over and dies to... well anything the terran does though. You're also forced to do it blind that early, and double forges are a liability against a lot of builds.
|
On April 12 2013 12:39 MateShade wrote:
I dont really agree with some of the things you say. You kind of exaggerate how much a Terran or Zerg player can actually do, and without a doubt there are plenty of things that keep Terran players honest, and to some extent in a more indirect way Zerg is also kept honest. The mothership core and the oracle both are steps forward in terms of non committal aggression and I don't think we need anything more yet. Protoss is fun to watch in my opinion and has improved greatly since the release of hots. I don't want to call this biased because I don't think it is, but this is definitely just your opinion and I feel that most of what you say is exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Maybe we can have this discussion later because right now it's too early to tell the effects that hots will have on Protoss.
I disagree fundamentally because the idea of the MSC is a broken one. Until you can both time bomb and recall in a single fight early on, nothing much can really change, it's just adding a little dps to your army that otherwise wouldn't be there. It's not enough to turn the tide of a fight. The oracle is something similar in that, for one it's a coin flip. When it works it does huge damage, but when it's prepared for, there's not a lot you can do about it. Sure the detection is great, and it somewhat opens up stargate in PvP, but that's about it. It seems like a bandaid change that blizzard opted to give protoss instead of detection at every tech path.
|
I found myself agreeing with most everything aside from replacing the Colossus and that the MSC does not allow early aggression. I remember asking here a while back why Protoss Gateway is so weak and why could it not be buffed? The answer was simply because of Warpgate, not even so much Sentry anymore. It makes sense too. I feel like Warpgate is a double-edged sword for the design because it's so incredibly useful, but too incredibly exploitable. Balance in WoL had to really walk a thin line to actually work because warping in Brood War Zealots with Charge could really be too strong then. However, I feel like now with the return of the Hellbat (Firebat) and return of the Widow Mine (S-Mine), Zealots could use a buff because THEY HAVE TURNED INTO CANNON FODDER. I used to have an expectation that every unit I made would matter and that preserving them would be useful, but in the end Protoss Zealots are basically no different than any Zerg unit. Think about it: losing a Stalker hurts, losing a Sentry hurts, losing an Immortal sucks, losing a Colossus REALLY sucks - but losing a Zealot is absolutely expected. Furthermore, Zealots can't really do much aside from absorb damage and maybe do preliminary damage; they are simply liquidated too quickly now and what makes that worse is that the Protoss army is built around having Zealots deal damage and absorb it, while ranged units deal the greater damage.
^TLDR: Warpgate research used to qualify the idea of weaker Protoss units, but now with the addition of extra options/buffs to other races' anti-light units, Zealots could really use a buff to become something aside from cannon fodder.
|
It has nothing to do with imbalance/nerfs/buffs, SC2 Protoss is just the worst designed race by far. What you have said has been stated many times over, but nothing has been done even going into HotS. I appreciate your effort, though. More time or development of "metagame" will not make Protoss plays more interesting or skill-based.
The MSC is the prime example of a unit that was added because the Protoss race was (and still is, sadly) a broken race. It only puts a bandaid on the issues ever present in WoL that are only slightly hidden in HotS.
|
On April 12 2013 12:52 Jasiwel wrote:
I found myself agreeing with most everything aside from replacing the Colossus and that the MSC does not allow early aggression. I remember asking here a while back why Protoss Gateway is so weak and why could it not be buffed? The answer was simply because of Warpgate, not even so much Sentry anymore. It makes sense too. I feel like Warpgate is a double-edged sword for the design because it's so incredibly useful, but too incredibly exploitable. Balance in WoL had to really walk a thin line to actually work because warping in Brood War Zealots with Charge could really be too strong then. However, I feel like now with the return of the Hellbat (Firebat) and return of the Widow Mine (S-Mine), Zealots could use a buff because THEY HAVE TURNED INTO CANNON FODDER. I used to have an expectation that every unit I made would matter and that preserving them would be useful, but in the end Protoss Zealots are basically no different than any Zerg unit. Think about it: losing a Stalker hurts, losing a Sentry hurts, losing an Immortal sucks, losing a Colossus REALLY sucks - but losing a Zealot is absolutely expected. Furthermore, Zealots can't really do much aside from absorb damage and maybe do preliminary damage; they are simply liquidated too quickly now and what makes that worse is that the Protoss army is built around having Zealots deal damage and absorb it, while ranged units deal the greater damage.
^TLDR: Warpgate research used to qualify the idea of weaker Protoss units, but now with the addition of extra options/buffs to other races' anti-light units, Zealots could really use a buff to become something aside from cannon fodder.
On the topic of replacing colossi, some nerfs would have to happen to late game powerhouses like that unit if you buff protoss early game, or nerf the other races early game.
|
Great read, really good explanation of most protoss issues.
Msc was a great step into the right direction, but cannot address by it's own the critical problems with the race.
About terrans or Z's having to play "honest", that's because P have strong all-ins. Every commit from the protoss player is all-inish unless is already considerably ahead. That do not mean the race is weak, no, but as the op said, the race lack if a "flow" of play, compared to the other 2 races.
I invite any Sc2 fan to check the late protoss wins in the late PvX match ups at the highest level. Every one of those include some cheese, gimmiky, all-inish play. From the victory of Rain vs Flash, Flying vs DRG, SoS vs Soo, or SoS vs MKP.
And once those gimmicks get figured out, I place my bets on the fate of protoss at the top level as the same as the late WoL.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 12 2013 12:43 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:38 Whitewing wrote:On April 12 2013 12:35 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 12:31 Whitewing wrote:
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding. I feel like MC's play was more a metagame build than what's going to be standard. As is, nothing greedier is viable imo. It's still 1g expo + tech + 3 gates into blabla midgame. I've been doing a lot of 1 gate expand into robo into double forge into more gates lately, that's way more greedy (that's double forge and robo bay on 1 gateway). I frequently finish 3/3 before my opponent is half way to 2/2, and that's if he goes double e-bay, if not, he's boned on upgrades. 3/3 Chargelots +guardian shield vs 1/1 marines is the most one sided slaughter you've ever seen, even if the zealots are at a lower count than they might have otherwise have been. Greed doesn't have to be purely economic, it can be tech based too. I feel like this rolls over and dies to... well anything the terran does though. You're also forced to do it blind that early, and double forges are a liability against a lot of builds.
You'd think that, but it's not blind, nor does it auto-die. You scout early and see if he's going for gas or a gasless expand. If it's a gasless expand, (you're going 2 gas on 15 supply, 2 probes in each), you make a stargate and go for oracles while expanding. If he took gas, the build is completely safe because the msc + 2 sentries (I build exactly 2) is enough to hold of basically any agression he can throw at you off of a gas based build. You do build a robo early after all, and get observers. If it seems like he's doing an all-in, you're fine. You can also build cannons in an emergency. My winrate on ladder in PvT right now is around 80%, and that's at a reasonably high masters level. There's basically nothing terran can do to crush you as long as you defend well, at least until later on. Your ridiculously good upgrades help secure a 3rd base and help the really scary drop timings before you can have high templar everywhere.
Most common aggression I run into is widow mine drops with bio poking at the front, and that can be held fairly easily with decent micro and the nexus cannon.
|
If you want to play heavy aggressive, play a heavy chargelot/archon/blink stlaker/upgrade style. You can be all over the map, proxy pylons everywhere, warp ins everywhere, constant counter attacks. Vs T of course. Keep him on the backfoot. Of course, you can't actually *start* this style until you get near 3 base, which is why you need a third base relatively early.
This is the style I play and I've had quite a bit of success, even more so now with the MSC, although widow mine drops can be a pain. Just tech up to 3 base 7gate, twilight/robo, get slightly late colossi, while all chorno on double ups/charge then blink. Proxy pylons all over to scout for incoming drops, as they are killed, replace them. You know if he has a lot of units in his dropship that he will have a smaller army. Also use pylosn as scouters in front of your nat and third to see when they are coming.
Really it's just mass pylons everywhere instead of building them in your base. Makes toss fun to play imo. Note I haven't been able to beat yet marine/marauder/medivac/hellbat/scv allin on 2 base when I try this style, although I think I could have if I didn't blow chunks in the engagements and have lapses in macro.
On April 12 2013 12:46 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:39 MateShade wrote:
I dont really agree with some of the things you say. You kind of exaggerate how much a Terran or Zerg player can actually do, and without a doubt there are plenty of things that keep Terran players honest, and to some extent in a more indirect way Zerg is also kept honest. The mothership core and the oracle both are steps forward in terms of non committal aggression and I don't think we need anything more yet. Protoss is fun to watch in my opinion and has improved greatly since the release of hots. I don't want to call this biased because I don't think it is, but this is definitely just your opinion and I feel that most of what you say is exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Maybe we can have this discussion later because right now it's too early to tell the effects that hots will have on Protoss. I disagree fundamentally because the idea of the MSC is a broken one. Until you can both time bomb and recall in a single fight early on, nothing much can really change, it's just adding a little dps to your army that otherwise wouldn't be there. It's not enough to turn the tide of a fight. The oracle is something similar in that, for one it's a coin flip. When it works it does huge damage, but when it's prepared for, there's not a lot you can do about it. Sure the detection is great, and it somewhat opens up stargate in PvP, but that's about it. It seems like a bandaid change that blizzard opted to give protoss instead of detection at every tech path.
How in the world you can say a time warp or recall doesn't change things :S. That's utterly insane. A single time warp can allow all your units to retreat. It can cause you to get awesome FF's. Not to mention you have an air unit super early game that can fire upon ground... and wow, if you use all your FF's, and you have none left, before your last wave runs out... RECALL?!
|
On April 12 2013 13:01 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:52 Jasiwel wrote:
I found myself agreeing with most everything aside from replacing the Colossus and that the MSC does not allow early aggression. I remember asking here a while back why Protoss Gateway is so weak and why could it not be buffed? The answer was simply because of Warpgate, not even so much Sentry anymore. It makes sense too. I feel like Warpgate is a double-edged sword for the design because it's so incredibly useful, but too incredibly exploitable. Balance in WoL had to really walk a thin line to actually work because warping in Brood War Zealots with Charge could really be too strong then. However, I feel like now with the return of the Hellbat (Firebat) and return of the Widow Mine (S-Mine), Zealots could use a buff because THEY HAVE TURNED INTO CANNON FODDER. I used to have an expectation that every unit I made would matter and that preserving them would be useful, but in the end Protoss Zealots are basically no different than any Zerg unit. Think about it: losing a Stalker hurts, losing a Sentry hurts, losing an Immortal sucks, losing a Colossus REALLY sucks - but losing a Zealot is absolutely expected. Furthermore, Zealots can't really do much aside from absorb damage and maybe do preliminary damage; they are simply liquidated too quickly now and what makes that worse is that the Protoss army is built around having Zealots deal damage and absorb it, while ranged units deal the greater damage.
^TLDR: Warpgate research used to qualify the idea of weaker Protoss units, but now with the addition of extra options/buffs to other races' anti-light units, Zealots could really use a buff to become something aside from cannon fodder. On the topic of replacing colossi, some nerfs would have to happen to late game powerhouses like that unit if you buff protoss early game, or nerf the other races early game.
I could definitely agree with there being some changes done to the Colossus, but I don't know if nerf is quite the word I would use. Redesign is honestly what comes to mind when I think of what could be Legacy of the Void material. I like that the Colossus can climb up/down cliffs and can deal splash damage the way it does; it's awesome to watch in my opinion. However, I don't like the topheaviness and the cumbersome design. Lose your Zealots and Archons? Welp, your Colossus is screwed and so is your army. Colossus too slow to Micro, but not worth investing a Warp Prism for? Too bad. Your opponent has Vikings to counter your Colossus? Have to focus those down first with your Stalkers before targeting the massive Bio ball systematically killing of your army. Those Medivacs that your Stalkers aren't killing because of Vikings? They aren't helping. You see the problem I have with that?
I think what should happen is for the Colossus to remain a Tier 3 in LotV, but changed design-wise to be less cumbersome and more awesome, let's go with "Giraffe" for name's sake. The Giraffe is still taller than the other Protoss units, but only 3/4 the height of its Colossus predecessor. It can still climb walls and is a bit faster, however, it has less armor and health. It still deals splash damage in the same fashion as before, though the range has been nerfed by 1 (though the upgrade remains unchanged). The biggest change lies in a new shielding system derived from the Immortal called, let's say, "Phase Shields" that reduces incoming light/splash/aoe damage by a certain percentage/math. Furthermore, either the Giraffe will not be targetable by Anti-Air or it will be targetable by Anti-Air with the Anti-Air damage being done to it only a fraction of its regular power.
Granted, you can't really full-proof TheoryCraft at all, but the point is that the Colossus aesthetically and conceptual is pretty cool. It's implementation and resulting effects to balance, however, aren't exactly the best that we want it to be.
I only reject the Reaver because SC2 is built around clustered armies, which Blizzard said they are not ever going to plan changing for SC2. I also find the concept of having half of the workers dying because one drop couldn't be prevented kind of disturbing. Yes, that also includes the Widow Mine, but that's a considerably different and unrelated argument.
|
On April 12 2013 13:18 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:43 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 12:38 Whitewing wrote:On April 12 2013 12:35 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 12:31 Whitewing wrote:
The MSC does allow for more greedy play in PvT, but I'm not sure if it'll remain that way when terran players get better at defending oracle harass without widow mines and go back to gasless expanding. I feel like MC's play was more a metagame build than what's going to be standard. As is, nothing greedier is viable imo. It's still 1g expo + tech + 3 gates into blabla midgame. I've been doing a lot of 1 gate expand into robo into double forge into more gates lately, that's way more greedy (that's double forge and robo bay on 1 gateway). I frequently finish 3/3 before my opponent is half way to 2/2, and that's if he goes double e-bay, if not, he's boned on upgrades. 3/3 Chargelots +guardian shield vs 1/1 marines is the most one sided slaughter you've ever seen, even if the zealots are at a lower count than they might have otherwise have been. Greed doesn't have to be purely economic, it can be tech based too. I feel like this rolls over and dies to... well anything the terran does though. You're also forced to do it blind that early, and double forges are a liability against a lot of builds. You'd think that, but it's not blind, nor does it auto-die. You scout early and see if he's going for gas or a gasless expand. If it's a gasless expand, (you're going 2 gas on 15 supply, 2 probes in each), you make a stargate and go for oracles while expanding. If he took gas, the build is completely safe because the msc + 2 sentries (I build exactly 2) is enough to hold of basically any agression he can throw at you off of a gas based build. You do build a robo early after all, and get observers. If it seems like he's doing an all-in, you're fine. You can also build cannons in an emergency. My winrate on ladder in PvT right now is around 80%, and that's at a reasonably high masters level. There's basically nothing terran can do to crush you as long as you defend well, at least until later on. Your ridiculously good upgrades help secure a 3rd base and help the really scary drop timings before you can have high templar everywhere. Most common aggression I run into is widow mine drops with bio poking at the front, and that can be held fairly easily with decent micro and the nexus cannon.
I think any 2 rax or denying of the scout into some trickery would keep that build from being mainstream. The two forges that early are a huge commitment. A big part of the traditional double forge build centers around a few cool ideas:
Your obs gets there before the forges are done, so you can cancel one
Your 1-1 finishes right as the 10 minute medivac timing hits (yours won't have 2-2 by then)
Gas timings work out nicely so that you can zealot spam
All in all, if your scout gets denied and he goes 1-1-1 or a dedicated 3 rax you're boned with two forges that early.
|
+1 to OP, I agree whole heartedly with this post, unfortunately though the Blizzard we have come to know has most likely washed their hands of Protoss' problems and concerns and lets be honest, its going to be at least 3-4 months before the first legitimate balance patch, and as far as the "genera" sc2 crowd is concerned, they are all being brainwashed into believing that zerg is somehow the worst race right now which is a mind boggling notion to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
