|
On April 12 2013 14:23 AxionSteel wrote:
Whilst I agree that protoss is a very poorly designed race (which has been discussed for aaaaages, nothing new here) a lot of this is still whining. For example this conclusion
" 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. "
that's just absolutely rubbish. If protoss players have problems playing standard and winning consistently, it's only at the very top in Korea, and that may not be the case in HotS anyway. Any random protoss nobody can come to team liquid and learn standard play and improve dramatically and have lots of success.
You missed the TLPD chart huh? Your erroneous hunch < data. Looks like the problem isn't just at the very top in Korea at all.
When he says "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" it is a very true statement. That standard play sounds awesome, but you'd be hard pressed to find any Protoss player that won any major tournament relying on "standard play"
MC won a GSL 6 gating July. Parting "soul trained" his way through Zerg with the Immortal-all in on his way to winning the BWCS. Seed dominated MC with a Warp Prism 4 Gate. The list goes on and on...
Protoss winrates jump whenever some new fancy timing comes out. And fall when that timing is figured out.
This has been the history of Protoss.
Now I'm not sure I agree with the OP that much about the game design decisions Blizzard has made. I actually like Warpgate, Colossus and Forcefields.
The MSC is terrible though, it is way too strong defensively, and ruins all early game pressure a Terran can do against a Protoss player and makes the game stale and boring.
"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. " This is a great point, but I feel it is reflected even more in PvT (maybe because I do more timings versus Zerg than Terran). You spend 15 minutes building up for a game to be decided by a a few EMPs or Storms. It makes the game really boring. The MSC, Pylon changes and Widow Mines make it even more likely to happen as the early timings and pressure are less effective for both sides.
|
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners.
|
On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners.
What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that.
What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means?
On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you.
|
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
|
On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings?
Edit: Besides, MC just had a ton of success in PvT by metagaming his opponents heavily. Do you really think his success in that matchup will last?
|
On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings?
His point was addressing how your post was structured, rather than specifically the matchup.
And I agree with him, you make some really strong points that I quoted above in my post, but then you make some really questionable conclusions.
|
On April 12 2013 14:48 JSK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners. What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that. What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means? On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you.
If I was a whiner I would QQ, but I just try to improve and leave the design and balance to those who actually have control over it. If you dont like the design of the game no-one is forcing you to play. Having said that, the OP has a point but unless we get a totally redesigned SC2 it is the way it is. HOTS has opened up things a bit more for Protoss which is a good thing (step in the right direction).
|
On April 12 2013 14:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings? His point was addressing how your post was structured, rather than specifically the matchup. And I agree with him, you make some really strong points that I quoted above in my post, but then you make some really questionable conclusions.
I don't see how it's questionable. There aren't any builds that allow you to take a third at a reasonable time, so what reigns is the strongest 2 base build: double forge.
|
I agree that warp gates and forcefield in their current form both limited the potential of non-committal aggression in WoL, leading to more stale games. For me, PvZ, PvT, and PvP have always been the least interesting matchups to watch in WoL.
I'm not sure how the MSC and protoss changes affect this in HotS. Protoss could remain essentially the same race, or recall on the MSC and photon overcharge could increase the ability of protoss to be aggressive throughout the game. I think it's probably best to wait for the metagame to develop further before judging.
|
On April 12 2013 15:00 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings? His point was addressing how your post was structured, rather than specifically the matchup. And I agree with him, you make some really strong points that I quoted above in my post, but then you make some really questionable conclusions. I don't see how it's questionable. There aren't any builds that allow you to take a third at a reasonable time, so what reigns is the strongest 2 base build: double forge.
For instance, you could argue that MC has been successful with his trickery, yet macro Protoss players or builds have not been nearly as successful. Which is entirely true, and fits with the theme.
By suggesting that the only build used in PvT are focused on how well a Protoss defends aggression and takes a third, you're basically saying that the trickery and allin's MC uses don't work. Except they did, because he is the most successful Protoss player in SC2 history.
Also that point is weak because it TvP could be summed up by stating any build has to fit the criteria of "how much damage do you do to the Protoss with harass and how long can you delay his third" If a build doesn't do these things, it isn't used, because you have to set the Protoss player behind to win.
In that instance you are essentially mistaking metagame stagnation with race design. The problem isn't either race individually it is the result of the interaction of both races together and metagame stagnation. Terran players have the tools to do damage to set the Protoss player behind, and must do so because a Terran has a hard time competing with a Protoss player on equal economic footing.
|
On April 12 2013 14:59 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:48 JSK wrote:On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners. What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that. What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means? On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you. If I was a whiner I would QQ, but I just try to improve and leave the design and balance to those who actually have control over it. If you dont like the design of the game no-one is forcing you to play.
Sorry bud no one is talking about being forced to play the game, we're just discussing it. I try to improve as well and not liking the design of Protoss as a whole hasn't kept me from playing it, nor will it make me switch races.
Your red-herring arguments are absolutely ridiculous. Not answering my questions and switching to ad-hominem attacks about qqing are simply pathetic. Either contribute or leave.
You didn't answer my question. (you were too busy ignoring the questions I posed to you and childishly telling me not to play the game if I don't like it.) How could Terran and Zerg also be labelled as "gimmicky"?
|
On April 12 2013 14:59 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:48 JSK wrote:On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners. What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that. What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means? On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you. If I was a whiner I would QQ, but I just try to improve and leave the design and balance to those who actually have control over it. If you dont like the design of the game no-one is forcing you to play.
If no one complained about the state of Wings of Liberty at various points in its lifespan then we'd have a shit game today.
|
On April 12 2013 15:06 rift wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:59 Parcelleus wrote:On April 12 2013 14:48 JSK wrote:On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners. What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that. What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means? On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you. If I was a whiner I would QQ, but I just try to improve and leave the design and balance to those who actually have control over it. If you dont like the design of the game no-one is forcing you to play. If no one complained about the state of Wings of Liberty at various points in its lifespan then we'd have a shit game today.
True, hopefully Blizzard takes note. Things can always be better and I think Blizz have shown they have their heart (no pun intended) in the right place and make efforts to keep this game interesting. I think HOTS makes for a much better RTS than WoL did, so that at least is promising.
|
On April 12 2013 15:03 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 15:00 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings? His point was addressing how your post was structured, rather than specifically the matchup. And I agree with him, you make some really strong points that I quoted above in my post, but then you make some really questionable conclusions. I don't see how it's questionable. There aren't any builds that allow you to take a third at a reasonable time, so what reigns is the strongest 2 base build: double forge. For instance, you could argue that MC has been successful with his trickery, yet macro Protoss players or builds have not been nearly as successful. Which is entirely true, and fits with the theme. By suggesting that the only build used in PvT are focused on how well a Protoss defends aggression and takes a third, you're basically saying that the trickery and allin's MC uses don't work. Except they did, because he is the most successful Protoss player in history. Also that point is weak because it TvP could be summed up by stating any build has to fit the criteria of "how much damage do you do to the Protoss with harass and how long can you delay his third" If a build doesn't do these things, it isn't used, because you have to set the Protoss player behind to win. In that instance you are essentially mistaking metagame stagnation with race design. The problem isn't either race individually it is the result of the interaction of both races together and metagame stagnation. Terran players have the tools to do damage to set the Protoss player behind, and must do so because a Terran has a hard time competing with a Protoss player on equal economic footing (hence why Terran expands to their natural and 3rd faster).
I thought the part about macro protoss players having less success was pretty obvious, but I can edit it in. The point is that double forge is a bit of greed and trickery that protoss players shouldn't be able to get away with, but through luck or whatever reason, they've been getting away with it for ages. However, as soon as more terrans start delaying upgrades in favor of 8-9 minute timing attacks it'll fall through.
|
On April 12 2013 15:05 JSK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:59 Parcelleus wrote:On April 12 2013 14:48 JSK wrote:On April 12 2013 14:41 Parcelleus wrote:
Whine thread, 'gimmicky race' , that whiny label could also be used on Terran and Zerg, by other whiners. What an incredibly childish response. The three races are entirely different. You don't understand the game and your post brings nothing to this discussion. Dismissing out of hand what the author is trying to initiate a discussion on is ridiculous because the author isn't even claiming that Protoss is underpowered. He's claiming that it's inconsistent - overpowered in silly ways and underpowered in silly ways that make it difficult to play a "standard" style without having to come up with silly bullshit like warp prism sentry all-ins and then cycling them out once the metagame catches up. He backs up what he's saying, but you didn't address any of that. What's more, this is far from the first time that this issue has been noted. Why don't you enlighten us on how Terran and Zerg can be labelled as "gimmicky"? Do you even know what "gimmicky" means? On second though, perhaps you should just go back to www.starcraft2.com.The forums there are much more suitable for you. If I was a whiner I would QQ, but I just try to improve and leave the design and balance to those who actually have control over it. If you dont like the design of the game no-one is forcing you to play. Sorry bud no one is talking about being forced to play the game, we're just discussing it. I try to improve as well and not liking the design of Protoss as a whole hasn't kept me from playing it, nor will it make me switch races. Your red-herring arguments are absolutely ridiculous. Not answering my questions and switching to ad-hominem attacks about qqing are simply pathetic. Either contribute or leave. You didn't answer my question. (you were too busy ignoring the questions I posed to you and childishly telling me not to play the game if I don't like it.) How could Terran and Zerg also be labelled as "gimmicky"?
Trolls like you are hilarious.
|
On April 12 2013 15:11 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 15:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 12 2013 15:00 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings? His point was addressing how your post was structured, rather than specifically the matchup. And I agree with him, you make some really strong points that I quoted above in my post, but then you make some really questionable conclusions. I don't see how it's questionable. There aren't any builds that allow you to take a third at a reasonable time, so what reigns is the strongest 2 base build: double forge. For instance, you could argue that MC has been successful with his trickery, yet macro Protoss players or builds have not been nearly as successful. Which is entirely true, and fits with the theme. By suggesting that the only build used in PvT are focused on how well a Protoss defends aggression and takes a third, you're basically saying that the trickery and allin's MC uses don't work. Except they did, because he is the most successful Protoss player in history. Also that point is weak because it TvP could be summed up by stating any build has to fit the criteria of "how much damage do you do to the Protoss with harass and how long can you delay his third" If a build doesn't do these things, it isn't used, because you have to set the Protoss player behind to win. In that instance you are essentially mistaking metagame stagnation with race design. The problem isn't either race individually it is the result of the interaction of both races together and metagame stagnation. Terran players have the tools to do damage to set the Protoss player behind, and must do so because a Terran has a hard time competing with a Protoss player on equal economic footing (hence why Terran expands to their natural and 3rd faster). I thought the part about macro protoss players having less success was pretty obvious, but I can edit it in. The point is that double forge is a bit of greed and trickery that protoss players shouldn't be able to get away with, but through luck or whatever reason, they've been getting away with it for ages. However, as soon as more terrans start delaying upgrades in favor of 8-9 minute timing attacks it'll fall through.
I find that the Double Forge executed really well is safe, while 8-9 minute Terran timings are bad. They come before Medivacs are out (in standard play), and thus have no way to heal Stim, and can't lift units trapped in Force Fields. I remember clearly playing a German High Master play who moved out his forces just as his Medivacs were building. It looked like he planned to camp outside my base and attack when the Medivacs arrived. But I met him in the field, cut up his forces with Force Fields and annihilated his MM force with Zealot/Stalker/Sentry.
My understanding of PvT isn't that great and I'm not that good of a player so I don't really know to be honest. Perhaps you are right.
|
Protoss will always be the gimmick race because of the design you have mentioned. Throughout the evolution of the metagame they will have small successes due to new strategies that can not yet be identified. But once all of the builds have been discovered and the appropriate scouting + responses have been established, they stand no chance. Especially against zerg, due to the massive disparity in macro mechanics. I personally find it sad that one of the few ways a Protoss can consistently win is by only tricking their opponents.
|
On April 12 2013 15:22 PandaTank wrote:
Especially against zerg, due to the massive disparity in macro mechanics.
Interesting post, especially about the macro mechanics. But can you answer this question for me: Obviously Terran a similar (though slightly less) disparity in macro mechanics, but they seem to be handle Zerg without relying on timings, it would seem to me that this because Terran has much better ways to harass and be aggressive without committing, is this correct?
|
When you see Zerg able to take fast 3 you know something is wrong. LOL.
MSC doesn't solve the early aggression from Z. Because Z are capable in tech switch.
Let's look back at MC vs DRG Code S match. MC opened up with SG (5 Phx) into Robo and DRG opt for the usual lings/hydra. DRG defended well without taking any significant damage while constant engaging MC thinking DRG will stick to same lings/hydra while switch into muta. From there, MC never come back once mass muta is out. And due to certain maps, you WILL NOT be able to secure 3rd. And since MC on 1 SG, it's almost impossible to seat back and defend.
So what? Base race. Protoss always lose on a base race with mass muta Z. Once plyon's are down, you can't warp more units. What Z do is MASS SPINES and win.
|
On April 12 2013 14:53 ThaReckoning wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 14:51 Salivanth wrote:
"MC, the king of trickery and 2 base play, has been extremely successful over a long career with protoss..."
"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."
That is completely inconsistent, and to be honest, it ruined the post for me.
You don't think it's just a little gimmicky that modern PvT revolves around attacking the terran when you have 3-3 but he doesn't, and when you have both storm and colossi, but he doesn't have both ghosts and vikings? Edit: Besides, MC just had a ton of success in PvT by metagaming his opponents heavily. Do you really think his success in that matchup will last?
How is that a gimmick? It's a large timing. There are some definite flaws in Protoss design, but I'm not even sure what this is really addressing. What's a gimmick in your eyes? What do you mean by macro play? Cause I think if you have 3-3 on 3-4 bases, that's as macro as you can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
