|
On April 13 2013 19:35 xsnac 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. 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 .
The main difference is that casting forcefields is something you do and are done with afterwards. You cut off an army focus it and go back to macroing. When you are fighting with pure stalkers you have to pursue to get in range target fire and kite back if the bio army turns to fight and then you do the same thing again. It needs way more constant attention and it takes more skill to do it while keeping up macro than sitting back with sentries waiting for the battle.
|
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.
I couldn't agree more to that. Traditional RTS micro is what makes games exciting and shows true skill.
Too bad not enough people share the same opinion 
|
On April 14 2013 20:23 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 20:06 Xahhk wrote: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.
Considering one of the most popular builds these days on ladder in TvP is a DT drop/harass w/ WP, I'd say there is a lot of multi-tasking that Protoss can do, and hasn't fully explored yet. You can do that throughout a game if they really wanted to multi-task.
|
I just love how we have a thread like this every couple weeks but Blizzard just keeps ignoring it, god knows they whould not want to change the holy Browders "Cool" warpgate design.
|
Like many I really do not like the overall design of Protoss - warp tech, FF and Colossi are just horrible in an RTS. Just wish people would boycott them so we could have 3 proper races in sc2, not going to happen I know, shame.
|
I would love if somehow gateways became viable, and warp gates were kept the same but generally used for harass purposes or super fast units and Protoss could actually make macro decisions rather than just w zzzzzzzzz all the time.
|
There is some truth to these statements, and some of it which really does seem like non-existent issues to me. For instance, regarding "no multitasking" I feel that it was improved significantly in HotS. MC's Stargate expand build might be another "gimmick" as you guys use so liberally in this thread, but it's "gimmicks" like this that you realize protoss can require tons of multitasking. Taking the example of MC's stargate expand, here's what you should do-
1. Have a stalker poking the front, kiting marines
2. Have a hallucination fly in to tank a mine shot
3. Fly in your oracle to scout/harass
4. Be macroing back in the base (adding phoenixes, adding production, probing, creating a sizeable ground force)
5. Use phoenixes to control air spaces in case of drops.
However, one thing about protoss is that the mirror is easily the worst. Yes, worse than ZvZ. Despite Muta wars being utterly retarded (I've watched the games), at least ZvZ can have an epic early game with ling-bling battles. PvP early game is slightly less of a coinflip with the mothership core for defence (bless you nexus cannon), but in the late game, literally nothing beats massed void rays with storm support. Nothing. And given the nature of the void rays where microing can frequently hurt you more than it helps you, a mirror-monobattle of void rays is seriously some of the most annoying and mindless games I've ever played.
|
On April 15 2013 01:29 xAdra wrote:
However, one thing about protoss is that the mirror is easily the worst. Yes, worse than ZvZ. Despite Muta wars being utterly retarded (I've watched the games), at least ZvZ can have an epic early game with ling-bling battles. PvP early game is slightly less of a coinflip with the mothership core for defence (bless you nexus cannon), but in the late game, literally nothing beats massed void rays with storm support. Nothing. And given the nature of the void rays where microing can frequently hurt you more than it helps you, a mirror-monobattle of void rays is seriously some of the most annoying and mindless games I've ever played.
I dont really get why people considered PvP early game so conflippy.
I think to execute and hold early game aggression was pretty hard and not really coinflippy at all just because you cant go 1 gate fe. Most people actually execute cheeses pretty badly (like 4 gates with the first warp in at 5:57 in masters), and so are their holds. Generally i dont understand all the hate against cheese and early game all ins, it is part of the game and can be enjoyed (personally i don't cheese anymore since several months), but most people just hate against it.
To this stargate thing, personally i think this is very gimmicky play, if you fail to do damage (my point of view is this just happens when your opponent executes well and is not making mistakes) you're so far behind that this opens a huge timing for terran to just kill you (all games i watched (some against mvp) ended with mc failing after he didnt kill a good amount of scvs).
Personally i consider protoss the most gimmicky race and i agree with some points but i dont think that protoss has to multitask less i think this depends highly on the playstyle you chose.
At least that are my 2 pence
|
I was going to write my own thread on the subject of Protoss, but I feel this thread is so well presented I may as well just add to the discussion here.
Protoss as a race is best embodied by MC. MC is both the most consistent and the least consistent protoss player around. He will often ace his group with amazing builds and timings and then a few weeks later lose to players that he is in theory much, much better than and fall out of a group or tourney extremely early. This also applies to basically every matchup for Protoss and the fact that they have three totally different styles that require different skillsets for each one. It's not uncommon for the average Protoss player to have two good matchups and one awful one on ladder for example, much more so than the other two races.
It's important to note that I don't want to discuss balance, but I do feel like certain metagame shifts can be extremely good for Protoss. I dont think anything is particularly imbalanced, but I do feel that the metagame heavily favours Protoss in TvP right now and at the same time it heavily favours Zerg in ZvP. This is a stark contrast to two or three weeks ago when the complete opposite was true. There are situations in lategame TvP where the Protoss player is totally helpless as well, at the mercy of his opponents micro.
Lets first examine the current state of PvT. I'm by heart a Terran player, however my PvT is leaps and bounds better than my TvP. The reason for this was in order to tackle my weak TvP I wanted to learn the Protoss openers and try to find the weak points so that I could exploit them. The problem I found though is many of the weakpoints are simply build order losses, with basically nothing the Protoss player can do to stop the loss. Things like hellion drops and really early (pre msc) all ins are great for Terran, but the Protoss player can't stop them. He basically needs to just accept those losses and play to the meta where most Terrans dont do those types of builds.
The list of dangerous Protoss openers against Terran right now is HUGE. 1base proxy oracles, blink all ins, 1base immortal busts are all very good and look very similar in terms of initial setups, so Terran needs to scout very, very effectively to spot the all in. The second part is that those all ins all require totally different setups for defense from the Terran, guess wrong and you lose. Moving onto two base play Protoss can open with all sorts of DT drops modified off Tails initial build (Which is genius). They can open two base Colossus, they can fake Colossus and go into templar and even then they could just open straight up with templar. Hell even a delayed oracle opener can be really really good. The variations in terms of openers Protoss against Terran that are all very good and very viable is beyond extreme, and the vast majority of them are also extremely safe and very difficult to punish.
The single thing that ties all these openers together is the mothership core. Typically in the past Terran would try to hit a small 1-2 minute window where the Protoss was vulnerable in order to do damage, or even win the game. Many of the builds like 2 base Colossus and double forge HT openers had a small window for the Terran to try and exploit. The Terran still needed to have excellent scouting and play extremely well to hit that timing, and at the same time the Protoss had various tools available to delay and stall out until they got the tech they needed to hold. This led to some very exciting games that would settle down after the window went away. Now though the MSC basically removes that window by forcing the Terran to back off for 1-2 minutes at a time (depending on msc energy) while at the same time making drops much much more risky. The crazy amount of greed Protoss can get away with, and the amount of viable openers is very stressful for your average Terran player right now.
The Terran side of things is basically the heavy one base openers like Hellion drops and bunker rushes. If you want to play a more standard game though you're in a ton of trouble. The widow mine drops have been mostly figured out, it's not really a fully viable opener anymore (especially with tails DT drops out there). This leaves you with a standard +1 4 medivac timing, but with a MSC that just gets shut down extremely hard. You see the problem here? Terran players have very few options for aggressive builds and rely heavily on taking advantage of Protoss mistakes, while at the same time a bad read from the Terran results in a near instant loss. This problem is even more compounded by how strong the lategame Protoss army is even without micro is extremely scary.
I dont really want to go into too much detail with PvZ and PvP, but I'll touch on it a bit. PvZ right now is FFE into immortal all in or pray you can hold a third base. Zerg has adapted to the skytoss strats by using a ling/hydra timing to really nullify that idea very, very early on and deny the Protoss a third base. PvP is basically stargate or bust now and the game very closely resembles the boring snoozefest that is ZvZ and muta vs. muta battles.
The real Problem with Protoss? The obvious ones are warpgate, FF and Colossus. Colossus being easily the worst unit in the game. Not only does it cause huge win/loss states for races that react properly/or incorrectly to their presence on the field they totally screw up the balance of air units in the game. Anti air units have to be balanced around being good anti air units AND being good anti Colossus units without being too powerful in one aspect or another. The best example are Void Rays, which are great against Colossus but they also crush Corrupters and Vikings. Capital Ships stand no chance in the current metagame because of just how insanely good anti has to be to deal with Colossus for another example.
The other things people don't seem to talk about are just how extremely black and white all the Protoss units counters/units they counter situations are. This leads to micro and control either needing to be Korean level good, or just not very impactful (most late game Protoss matchups don't require much control, although there are some situations like HT vs. vipers etc). This also leads to unit mixtures needing to be just about perfect from whoever the Protoss is fighting. Terran needs the right mix of Vikings/Ghosts/Marines/Marauders to combat the lategame toss army properly, any mistake here and Terran makes his job much, much more difficult. If the Terran gets it right though the Protoss player loses complete control of the fight and the game.
Chargelots wreck marauders, in large numbers equal supply marauders will kill themselves from stim and take nearly the whole map to either win the fight or lose it. In most cases though you dont have an entire map to kite back and the Zealots win easily. Chargelots at the same time gets wrecked by marines or hellbats, so if your splash gets taken out/disabled and you can't cut his marine numbers down you're going to lose the game badly.
Stalkers are pretty weak overall, but they're great vs. roaches with good control. Put them up against well upgrade Marines, Marauders or hydra's though and they melt into a pile of shattered Protoss dreams.
Then you have units like Immortals who are capable of racking up 30+ kills on units like roaches/marauders/stalkers if they're well protected. They are so strong and so very underrated. At the same time though rely on them too heavily and you expose yourself to large numbers of very cheap light units like chargelots/marines/zerglings.
Archons are another unit that is either game endingly good or causing you a near instant loss. Archons can clean up marauders/a few marines like nobodies business. Have 5 archons left against 18 injured marauders and 4 marines with 4-5medivacs? no problem for the archons. Get them emped at the start of the fight though and watch your 1500 gas go right up in smoke.
Lets wrap this up now. Basically everything about Protoss is complete feast or famine. They have almost nothing that provides stability to their matchups and they lean so heavily on the metagame it's not even funny. The worst part about Protoss though is that your victory depends almost entirely on what your opponent does and not what you yourself do. This needs to change, and soon.
|
On April 12 2013 13:32 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 13:18 Whitewing wrote: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.
And hes boned if your scout isn't denied, which is pretty much the crux for an all-in (on ladder) working. He's gambling just as big as the Protoss is, except you'll probably face that gamble in 1 of 10 games or less.
|
its a race like this that want me to stop play starcraft2 all together BUT THEY ARE NO OTHER RTS THERE, no, i dont count red alert or crap games like that, they are even worse but its really sad seeing SC2 beeing a prequel and not a sequel..........REALLY the game is garbage compared to broodwar, why did blizzrd change so much
|
On April 15 2013 02:48 Foxxan wrote:
its a race like this that want me to stop play starcraft2 all together BUT THEY ARE NO OTHER RTS THERE, no, i dont count red alert or crap games like that, they are even worse but its really sad seeing SC2 beeing a prequel and not a sequel..........REALLY the game is garbage compared to broodwar, why did blizzrd change so much
Because SC2 is supposed to be sequel, there must be enough changes, so it doesn't qualify only as an expansion.
On a different note, I'm not happy with how HotS protoss is developed, that's why I haven't bought this expansion yet. Waste of money if the race design isn't changed. OP excellently describes some of the major problems.
|
I play Protoss but I can't stand watching it anymore. And I loved to in BW :'(
|
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!
for me it comes down to the macro mechanics.
Chronoboost just fails compared to the other to, i was hoping for HotS to fix this however Blizz didn't.
Larva both supports agressiv as does it economic play.
Mules both support agressiv as does it economic play.
Chronoboost supports agressiv play, but no way it is as good for economic play compared to the other 2.
Chronoboost gives timeframes for Protoss in the metagame to win with crisp timing attacks, until they are figured out.
Than it is back to the board until you figure out something to surprise again, because if your timing fails there is no economic follow up.
I mean look how WoL went, Protoss was by far the worst Race doing in early times of WoL.
Until one Protoss who understood the design of P most (MC) grabbed his wins with exactly this, sharp timings.
If you leave MC out which P has done anything really major, that can not be just classified as a short time lucky run?
(compared to the other races)
|
I think they should make Forcefield an upgrade like Hallucination was, 200m-200g and 60s-90s at the Cybernetics Core. Make Sentries cost a lot less, say 75/50.
The reason for this is three-fold:
a Sentry is a very viable unit without Forcefield because Hallucination and Guardian Shield are already very good utilities from the start; the additional price reduction will encourage players to get more sentries with their armies for those support utilities without gutting their ability to: quickly tech up, cost effectively defend early game/mid-game or not be forced into a timing attack because they made so many Sentries.
b If a Protoss forgoes the FF research it could weaken his standard powerball and yet it can provide opportunities to create better compositions with other gas heavy units that Protoss sorely need in the match ups (ex. would be making Stalkers more effective vs. air plays like Voids or Mutas). It can also provide a more effective mineral dump than Zealots in the late game because you generally need that Guardian Shield and Forcefield at that time but it's too damn expensive to keep getting Sentries.
c One of the offsets is that when a Protoss decides to do a timing without FF on their Sentries their more powerful army has slightly less control. This prevents the full dependence on the the FFs to determine the outcome and grants both opponents opportunities to have more dynamic and interesting encounters. It also gives a slightly higher skill-cap because takes skill knowing when to get and not get FF, such as when scouting and defending an all-in or signifying the opponent that has proper scouting that you are performing an all in.
|
United States7483 Posts
On April 15 2013 03:43 BeyondCtrL wrote:
I think they should make Forcefield an upgrade like Hallucination was, 200m-200g and 60s-90s at the Cybernetics Core. Make Sentries cost a lot less, say 75/50.
The reason for this is three-fold:
a Sentry is a very viable unit without Forcefield because Hallucination and Guardian Shield are already very good utilities from the start; the additional price reduction will encourage players to get more sentries with their armies for those support utilities without gutting their ability to: quickly tech up, cost effectively defend early game/mid-game or not be forced into a timing attack because they made so many Sentries.
b If a Protoss forgoes the FF research it could weaken his standard powerball and yet it can provide opportunities to create better compositions with other gas heavy units that Protoss sorely need in the match ups (ex. would be making Stalkers more effective vs. air plays like Voids or Mutas). It can also provide a more effective mineral dump than Zealots in the late game because you generally need that Guardian Shield and Forcefield at that time but it's too damn expensive to keep getting Sentries.
c One of the offsets is that when a Protoss decides to do a timing without FF on their Sentries their more powerful army has slightly less control. This prevents the full dependence on the the FFs to determine the outcome and grants both opponents opportunities to have more dynamic and interesting encounters. It also gives a slightly higher skill-cap because takes skill knowing when to get and not get FF, such as when scouting and defending an all-in or signifying the opponent that has proper scouting that you are performing an all in.
You'd kill PvP. No thanks.
|
I dont think there is a problem with protoss at all (except for their unbelievably broken late game compositions but thats another story)
I played Terran for 3 years (masters level for 2 years) and with the introduction of global play i decided to learn protoss on a different server. Well needless to say I got to masters level in about 150 games played.
Things I've noticed:
PvZ is always a standard macro game unless zerg does some weird all in.
TvZ you might as well do a strong 1 base opening into late expansion. Terran's best chance of beating this is a 2rax 1 gas open (most terrans 1rax expand)
PvP well this is a joke at my current skill level. You can 4gate just like WoL except the MSC makes it even more powerful.
Maybe this is why people seem to consider protoss a gimmicky race. They have really powerful options that dont require a heavy economy to execute. IMO this leads to players developing bad habits and becoming complacent with a certain play style that will get them quick wins on the ladder, but will not improve their gameplay in the long run. Every strategy gets figured out eventually which is why fundamental play is always the best way to go in the long run.
So my point is the problem lies with the players, not with the race having the wrong units or mechanics. Personally I play protoss without forcefields so I would love to see them removed.
And these people lobbying to get reavers back in the game. . . go play the SC2:BW mod.
|
On April 15 2013 03:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:43 BeyondCtrL wrote:
I think they should make Forcefield an upgrade like Hallucination was, 200m-200g and 60s-90s at the Cybernetics Core. Make Sentries cost a lot less, say 75/50.
The reason for this is three-fold:
a Sentry is a very viable unit without Forcefield because Hallucination and Guardian Shield are already very good utilities from the start; the additional price reduction will encourage players to get more sentries with their armies for those support utilities without gutting their ability to: quickly tech up, cost effectively defend early game/mid-game or not be forced into a timing attack because they made so many Sentries.
b If a Protoss forgoes the FF research it could weaken his standard powerball and yet it can provide opportunities to create better compositions with other gas heavy units that Protoss sorely need in the match ups (ex. would be making Stalkers more effective vs. air plays like Voids or Mutas). It can also provide a more effective mineral dump than Zealots in the late game because you generally need that Guardian Shield and Forcefield at that time but it's too damn expensive to keep getting Sentries.
c One of the offsets is that when a Protoss decides to do a timing without FF on their Sentries their more powerful army has slightly less control. This prevents the full dependence on the the FFs to determine the outcome and grants both opponents opportunities to have more dynamic and interesting encounters. It also gives a slightly higher skill-cap because takes skill knowing when to get and not get FF, such as when scouting and defending an all-in or signifying the opponent that has proper scouting that you are performing an all in. You'd kill PvP. No thanks.
Ya, if you're still dying to 4-gates - something that is already possible to hold without FF. Without FF but cheaper Sentry you can for example get Guardian Shield, Robo and Immortal out a lot quicker.
|
[QUOTE]On April 15 2013 03:52 TheIceMan86 wrote:
Things I've noticed:
PvZ is always a standard macro game unless zerg does some weird all in.
TvZ you might as well do a strong 1 base opening into late expansion. Terran's best chance of beating this is a 2rax 1 gas open (most terrans 1rax expand)
PvP well this is a joke at my current skill level. You can 4gate just like WoL except the MSC makes it even more powerful.
So my point is the problem lies with the players, not with the race having the wrong units or mechanics. Personally I play protoss without forcefields so I would love to see them removed.
/QUOTE]
Sorry i don't want to verbally offend you by any means but:
4 gate just works because people tend to play greedy a safe pvp opening should deal with this no problem (Even 1 gate stargate can people are just way too greedy) it got even worse with the msc not better and the high ground warp in was making it even worse. Without sentries against good opponents pvp and pvt (unless you go some kind of templar style)
would be not playable. The balance kinda is around the sentry its not even forcefield guardian shield aswell (and protoss did the worst of all races in gsl)
So youre basically drawing conclusions off your own (no offense withouy saying im better or worse) bad level of play wich leads to: All protoss players don't know the game (or ar bad dunno but your text basically leads to one of those two).
I just think this is not the way to look at it sorry.
|
I'm not offended at all bro.
My protoss is garbage compared to my Terran, I said things that were based off my current skill level which is masters. You're absolutely right about 4gate working against people being greedy in PvP. The point I was making is that on the ladder people tend to play the style they are most comfortable with. . . and since Protoss has many 1 base options and strong 2 base timings people will tend to use those the most leaving the rest of their game under developed. It doesn't mean that the race is lacking because there are some pretty sick Protoss players out there in the GSL, pro-league etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
