|
On April 13 2013 17:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 10:42 archwaykitten wrote:
The Sentry is the most interesting unit in the game. The fact that we've had many, many discussions like this one about how it ended up indirectly defining the entire design of the race sort of proves that. The sentry is incredibly mico intensive and skill based, and its abilities allow for a wider range of tactical options than any other unit in the game. A lowly Stalker (non-Blink) is actually more micro intensive than a Sentry, as it lends itself more to traditional RTS micro techniques like kiting, splitting, target firing or eliminating overkill shots. Casting spells - especially with smartcasting in SC2 - isn't "micro". It's just decision making. The difference between a good Forcefield and a bad Forcefield is in the decision where to place it, not in players' physical abilities such as handspeed or multitasking.
this is so wrong . try to forcefield a marine marauder army that runs away . you dont need decision making you need speed and precision , thats not decision making .
|
i think the TL:DR is
I hate having to all in zergs / terran op.
|
in addition to, I still don't understand why you didnt mention PvP at all. There's nothing wrong with that match up?
|
I have to say, I'm surprised this article got so much attention when so much of it is quite literally wrong.
First off, a huge part of it is complaining about WOL gameplay. Well, nobody has ever said WOL was perfect especially at the end there where infestors completely warped the game. Why waste so much time on WOL? It contributes nothing.
The real meat of the article is only the last few paragraphs which are poorly supported and completely subjective.
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.
This is just your opinion and a nonsensical one at that. The GSL and GSTL have shown protosses with a lot of unique builds based off the mothership core, either with a fast pressure with a mothership core causing significant damage or a greedy economic based play with mothership core as the only defense (see the DT rush).
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.
Again another blanket statement without any real support. A conclusion with a lot of assertions that can be easily picked apart. Sentries are necessary given how weak warpgate units are. The balance of protoss revolves how bad for the cost warp-gate units are. Without sentries, protoss cannot hold off early pushes with their crappy gate units. However, once warpgates come into play, the protoss have a couple of production cycles of being extremely powerful as warpgates negate travel distances and allow protoss to have an extremely strong effective army size that ignores travel distance. Then they become weak again as other races have tier 2 tech that counters gateway units (such as stim). After this point, gateway units get better as protoss gets upgrades in tier 3 from forges and twilight council.
This inherent design of protoss creates interesting games, especially with mothership core giving the protoss early-pressure that they lacked before. There is now much more of a back and forth in PvX matchups. With the mothership core, Protoss can choose to be strong or weak early game at the cost of economy and then vacilitate between weak and strong depending on when they get their gateway tech and upgrades.
The mention of Parting's immortal all-in exaggerates the strength of sentries. Parting's immortal all-in was a result of the metagame and WOL balance which made zerg tier 3 unbeatable which was also possible because queens were too powerful at defense, allowing the zerg to use more larva to drone which lead to an insurmountable economic lead past 10 minutes. Parting's all-in was beatable as startale_curious showed the last GSL season and even more so now with the new tech zerg got.
Parting's all-in was in fact overused because Protoss had no early-game way to punish a greedy zerg taking a quick third on many maps as well as protoss having no way to take on the zerg on an even economy in tier 3.
That all changed with HOTS thanks to the mothership core and new units, tweaks.
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.
It was a rant. I just can't believe it got so much attention when it was so poorly reasoned.
|
On April 14 2013 03:06 Diogenes wrote:I have to say, I'm surprised this article got so much attention when so much of it is quite literally wrong. First off, a huge part of it is complaining about WOL gameplay. Well, nobody has ever said WOL was perfect especially at the end there where infestors completely warped the game. Why waste so much time on WOL? It contributes nothing. The real meat of the article is only the last few paragraphs which are poorly supported and completely subjective. Show nested quote +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. This is just your opinion and a nonsensical one at that. The GSL and GSTL have shown protosses with a lot of unique builds based off the mothership core, either with a fast pressure with a mothership core causing significant damage or a greedy economic based play with mothership core as the only defense (see the DT rush). Show nested quote +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.
Again another blanket statement without any real support. A conclusion with a lot of assertions that can be easily picked apart. Sentries are necessary given how weak warpgate units are. The balance of protoss revolves how bad for the cost warp-gate units are. Without sentries, protoss cannot hold off early pushes with their crappy gate units. However, once warpgates come into play, the protoss have a couple of production cycles of being extremely powerful as warpgates negate travel distances and allow protoss to have an extremely strong effective army size that ignores travel distance. Then they become weak again as other races have tier 2 tech that counters gateway units (such as stim). After this point, gateway units get better as protoss gets upgrades in tier 3 from forges and twilight council. This inherent design of protoss creates interesting games, especially with mothership core giving the protoss early-pressure that they lacked before. There is now much more of a back and forth in PvX matchups. With the mothership core, Protoss can choose to be strong or weak early game at the cost of economy and then vacilitate between weak and strong depending on when they get their gateway tech and upgrades. The mention of Parting's immortal all-in exaggerates the strength of sentries. Parting's immortal all-in was a result of the metagame and WOL balance which made zerg tier 3 unbeatable which was also possible because queens were too powerful at defense, allowing the zerg to use more larva to drone which lead to an insurmountable economic lead past 10 minutes. Parting's all-in was beatable as startale_curious showed the last GSL season and even more so now with the new tech zerg got. Parting's all-in was in fact overused because Protoss had no early-game way to punish a greedy zerg taking a quick third on many maps as well as protoss having no way to take on the zerg on an even economy in tier 3. That all changed with HOTS thanks to the mothership core and new units, tweaks. Show nested quote +
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.
It was a rant. I just can't believe it got so much attention when it was so poorly reasoned.
Obviously it is my opinion, but all we've seen so far from protoss players are people metagaming what they know their opponent will do. I want to see strong, standard play that the MSC allows. I want to see play that you can do, even if your opponent knows you're going to do it. With build's like MC's stargate plays, or the tails DT drop build, it works if the other guy screws up, but if he doesn't you're boned.
You COULD nerf protoss t3 and add in more valuable units like the reaver, and change up tech paths etc, if you give protoss more evenly distributed strength throughout the game. I don't believe the MSC will be enough to even the odds in the early game, given that you can't really do anything with it except recall. If it's supposed to allow you to go kill the other guy when you spot him doing something questionable, it doesn't work. The potential for losing your sentries means that the first two times you send it out, you can't afford to use time bomb at all.
You're right about Parting's all in, but what got us to that point of unbeatable late game zerg? Blizzard's thought process on nerfing protoss early game, and buffing zerg early game. Multiple blink nerfs, warpgate nerfs, sentry dps nerfs, zealot build time nerfs, pylon radius nerfs, etc. It all added up to that. Blizzard kept taking from protoss based on terrans and zergs inability to stop warpgate rushes that abused sentries.
I just don't think the MSC and the stargate buffs were as good as a rebalance of units and static D early game, and detection regardless of tech path would be.
|
On April 13 2013 17:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 10:42 archwaykitten wrote:
The Sentry is the most interesting unit in the game. The fact that we've had many, many discussions like this one about how it ended up indirectly defining the entire design of the race sort of proves that. The sentry is incredibly mico intensive and skill based, and its abilities allow for a wider range of tactical options than any other unit in the game. A lowly Stalker (non-Blink) is actually more micro intensive than a Sentry, as it lends itself more to traditional RTS micro techniques like kiting, splitting, target firing or eliminating overkill shots. Casting spells - especially with smartcasting in SC2 - isn't "micro". It's just decision making. The difference between a good Forcefield and a bad Forcefield is in the decision where to place it, not in players' physical abilities such as handspeed or multitasking. Also, even if it were interesting and race-defining - which I kind of agree with - it doesn't mean it's interesting in the correct way, in a way that makes the race appealing to play and watch. The fact that it can do some wacky stuff is deceptive. Sentry actually encourages very conservative positioning and movement, even when it is used offensively.
Well, micro intensity has never really been formally defined, but I'd say things beating on other things is more continuous entertainment and more continuous player/spectator involvement. Forcefields are usually temporarily appreciated because of how they trap the armies. Really great Forcefields are cathartic when it gets to the fish in a barrel point. A lot of people particularly enjoy the FFs, but its ubiquity is not necessary. It might've been better to make Immortal Gateway and Sentry Robo, or something like that.
|
I agree in that I do feel that Protoss is under-represented in tournament data, I also feel that Zerg has traditionally been the "strongest race." That being said, with mention of risks and early game, I do feel that Terran does have its limitations. Terran is very similar to very early protoss in that it needs to be training its units from its prod facilities. If Terran goes for any early aggression and loses its army (which happens) it generally results in a loss because they lack the means to reproduce their army fast enough (if a proper punishment is to be delivered). Thats plenty of risk if you ask me. I honestly feel that what Zerg and Protoss need, more than anything, is simply just more units, Terran has more units than any other race (last time I checked) and I feel the niche roles and specific compositions help diversify gameplay. With that, however, I think that We haven't seen a lot of Terran's possible compositions because most of them just arent necessary, you typically see the same old compositions from Protoss and Zerg - due largely to their more limited pool of units. This debate could go on forever though, but one things for sure, Idra is a poor sport and a sour loser, and more than likely a virgin. Thanks for your time.
|
On April 14 2013 04:36 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 17:58 Talin wrote:On April 13 2013 10:42 archwaykitten wrote:
The Sentry is the most interesting unit in the game. The fact that we've had many, many discussions like this one about how it ended up indirectly defining the entire design of the race sort of proves that. The sentry is incredibly mico intensive and skill based, and its abilities allow for a wider range of tactical options than any other unit in the game. A lowly Stalker (non-Blink) is actually more micro intensive than a Sentry, as it lends itself more to traditional RTS micro techniques like kiting, splitting, target firing or eliminating overkill shots. Casting spells - especially with smartcasting in SC2 - isn't "micro". It's just decision making. The difference between a good Forcefield and a bad Forcefield is in the decision where to place it, not in players' physical abilities such as handspeed or multitasking. Also, even if it were interesting and race-defining - which I kind of agree with - it doesn't mean it's interesting in the correct way, in a way that makes the race appealing to play and watch. The fact that it can do some wacky stuff is deceptive. Sentry actually encourages very conservative positioning and movement, even when it is used offensively. Well, micro intensity has never really been formally defined, but I'd say things beating on other things is more continuous entertainment and more continuous player/spectator involvement. Forcefields are usually temporarily appreciated because of how they trap the armies. Really great Forcefields are cathartic when it gets to the fish in a barrel point. A lot of people particularly enjoy the FFs, but its ubiquity is not necessary. It might've been better to make Immortal Gateway and Sentry Robo, or something like that.
I've always felt that way about the sentry and immortal as well, but immortals would have to be toned down quite a bit.
|
On April 12 2013 12:12 JSK wrote:
This is a fantastically well-written post and deserves attention.
This ^^
I agree with the OP, even if it is slightly harsh.
Im inches from masters in HOTS as random but was Toss in WOL and am probably going to switch over to Toss in HOTS once I get master again.
I like the feel of toss with the warping in (I liked being able to warp from low ground to high ground especially + I love warp prisms) and I like how 1 probe can start multiple buildings.
I like how shields regen and microing the first few stalkers I get vs marines or lings etc.
I like chronoboost (but would like something else to do with the energy).
I like most toss abilities (especially blink).
BUT the OP is right. The reason I am playing random in HOTS is because I find the other races reward multitasking so much more. You can actually move around on the map without fear of a faster army being able to surround you or backstab you whenever they want.
When I am toss I am always thinking if this goes to a base race odds are I will lose, even if I am winning.
If I split up my army it will leave my main army too weak as all my units rely on each other.
If I push out I must be sure my army is better as I cant retreat.
If I don't push out he can get ahead with MULES/Larva.
If he all ins I have to already have cannons, forcefields or (said tech) out ahead of time, I cant just micro my way out of it.
Most annoyingly. When I play T or Z I am happy to play a similar game every time, making minor adjustments based on how the game is going.
When I play Protoss I feel I have to do some gimicky build to get ahead, then I can go on and play out the game.
Overall SC2 is still my favorite game and I am still going to play it but I do feel protoss is fundamentally flawed, even if it has been patched up really nicely in terms of balance.
|
On April 14 2013 05:05 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 04:36 Cloak wrote:On April 13 2013 17:58 Talin wrote:On April 13 2013 10:42 archwaykitten wrote:
The Sentry is the most interesting unit in the game. The fact that we've had many, many discussions like this one about how it ended up indirectly defining the entire design of the race sort of proves that. The sentry is incredibly mico intensive and skill based, and its abilities allow for a wider range of tactical options than any other unit in the game. A lowly Stalker (non-Blink) is actually more micro intensive than a Sentry, as it lends itself more to traditional RTS micro techniques like kiting, splitting, target firing or eliminating overkill shots. Casting spells - especially with smartcasting in SC2 - isn't "micro". It's just decision making. The difference between a good Forcefield and a bad Forcefield is in the decision where to place it, not in players' physical abilities such as handspeed or multitasking. Also, even if it were interesting and race-defining - which I kind of agree with - it doesn't mean it's interesting in the correct way, in a way that makes the race appealing to play and watch. The fact that it can do some wacky stuff is deceptive. Sentry actually encourages very conservative positioning and movement, even when it is used offensively. Well, micro intensity has never really been formally defined, but I'd say things beating on other things is more continuous entertainment and more continuous player/spectator involvement. Forcefields are usually temporarily appreciated because of how they trap the armies. Really great Forcefields are cathartic when it gets to the fish in a barrel point. A lot of people particularly enjoy the FFs, but its ubiquity is not necessary. It might've been better to make Immortal Gateway and Sentry Robo, or something like that. I've always felt that way about the sentry and immortal as well, but immortals would have to be toned down quite a bit.
Actually, I don't know if you've heard, but the OneGoal Project has actually taken into account (and tested a large number of) the changes that have been run through the comments. Warp Gate was reworked to have a longer cooldown, Colossus is much more potent against clusters of troops, Immortals at Gateway and Sentry at Robo... I highly suggest reading through some of the changes in the main post.
|
Immortals have been tricky to balance as a gateway unit. But it is definitely possible with some tweaks.
|
I see 3 protoss playstyles: gimmicky, allinish and camping. this is frustrating to play and to play against. maybe the mothership core provides now a patchwerk solution, but I dont think it will last without fundamental changes.
and edit: this thread is not the first one about this subject. this talk about protoss design goes on for a long time now. but I dont expect any changes tbh
|
On April 14 2013 10:33 eMGmoG wrote:
I see 3 protoss playstyles: gimmicky, allinish and camping. this is frustrating to play and to play against.
I feel you're right on the money with this. Gimmicks either work or don't work that's the point and I'm fine with that. Allins however net me the most hateful BM from people saying Protoss is OP allins can't be stopped etc. And when i macro up while building a deathball and harassing I get BM again saying that using a deathball is terrible. People seem to really hate playing against Protoss.
|
Great post! Very well written and articulate!
It's a shame Protoss has the stereotype of being gimmicky, or the race that has to all-in. I love Protoss, and they're my favorite race, but I don't get the self-satisfaction of playing them, so I've switched to Terran.
Nonetheless, great post!
|
On April 14 2013 11:39 Diaresta wrote:
Great post! Very well written and articulate!
It's a shame Protoss has the stereotype of being gimmicky, or the race that has to all-in. I love Protoss, and they're my favorite race, but I don't get the self-satisfaction of playing them, so I've switched to Terran.
Nonetheless, great post!
Thanks. Hopefully we'll get some more consistent tools that allow us to express our playstyles better someday.
|
Yes! I've always been saying Protoss is a gimicky race. Almost every win relies on some sort of gimmick mechanic that hasn't been scouted.
The geniuses at blizzard must've known though, they probably wanted protoss to be the "more easily accessible" race.
|
Personally I was very disappointed when I saw that Blizzard was not going to do something about Warpgate tech when they had the chance in the HOTS beta. HOTS was Blizzards chance to really fix the issues with protoss, but they chose to do basically nothing about it. HOTS is still a pretty good game, but it's blatantly obvious that any matchup involving protoss is inferior to the other ones, both to play and to spectate.
|
On April 12 2013 13:50 ETisME wrote:
I don't know why people would enjoy playing as protoss to be honest.
I play all 3 races at low diamond level and protoss matchup is just way behind than other matchups in terms of fun.
PvP is boring, PvZ is even worse.
there are too little multi tasking other than defending drops, run bys etc. both of which are from the opponent.
The late game mass chargelot warp in also requires little attention compared to all other form of harassment because chargetlots are just really good mineral dump.
there are not enough multi tasking strategy that requires toss to have an active mulit tasking, the only one is the stargate phenoix style etc
I could describe the myriad of considerations from early early game pvp, to early game, to mid game to late. And no multi-tasking except with stargate units?
Ill just address all of your points with this: random low-diamond player.
|
On April 14 2013 20:06 Xahhk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 13:50 ETisME wrote:
I don't know why people would enjoy playing as protoss to be honest.
I play all 3 races at low diamond level and protoss matchup is just way behind than other matchups in terms of fun.
PvP is boring, PvZ is even worse.
there are too little multi tasking other than defending drops, run bys etc. both of which are from the opponent.
The late game mass chargelot warp in also requires little attention compared to all other form of harassment because chargetlots are just really good mineral dump.
there are not enough multi tasking strategy that requires toss to have an active mulit tasking, the only one is the stargate phenoix style etc I could describe the myriad of considerations from early early game pvp, to early game, to mid game to late. And no multi-tasking except with stargate units? Ill just address all of your points with this: random low-diamond player.
He didn't say no multi tasking. He said there are very few strats that require the protoss to actively multi task aside from reactively.
And since the majority of toss builds rely on allinish timing or turtling, he is largely right.
How about you try addressing his points instead of being a twat.
|
On April 13 2013 05:48 -_- wrote:
All Protoss problems stem from the warpgate.
Protoss can warp in at his opponent's base, thus Protoss is as strong offensively as it is defensively.
As a result, Terran and Zerg must ALWAYS have the stronger army at every point in the game. If they didn't, Protoss would simply win at the point when he was stronger with a warp in at his opponent's base.
Because of this, the fundamental rule of PvX is that P should never attack, because his opponent always the stronger army.
This is actually true as far as gateway units are concerned (it doesn't apply to normally produced units like robo or stargate units).
That's why when you look at the army value when a Protoss does a 4gate, 6-8 gate all-in, he can have double the army value in pure gateway units and still only win like 50% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
