|
Blizzard is putting in their best effort to make LotV good. Thanks Blizz
|
On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote:
The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into.
Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc.
|
On December 21 2014 23:32 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote:
The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into. Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc.
Their reasoning was that the nexus was imbalanced as far as I recall. The old version of photon overcharge that could be cast on any building anywhere from any nexus led to problems with proxies. So they made that Nexus hopping MsC which they scrapped due to the recall being too strong as far as I remember. I think it just appeared simpler to balance midway in the development to make it a unit. Putting these things on the nexus imposes the risk that massing nexi (e.g as lategame mineral only PO-static defense; having infinite get out of jail cards in the lategame through recall; having infinite mana through the manatransfer spell they once had on the MsC) becomes broken and the abilities need to be nerfed. (Their old argument about why the overseer has to suck if it doesnt cost supply). Which then may render them useless early.
|
Why are changes to a game that's not even out cared about? I could see it there were a few of us playing it but since no one is... why does it matter?
|
On December 22 2014 00:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 23:32 Grumbels wrote:On December 21 2014 22:47 ejozl wrote:
The Nexus Recall was the thing I was most hyped for in HotS. I hope a redesign for MothershipCore/Mothership is something they will look into. Starbow has functioning recall, a nexus ability that recalls only a few units in exchange for energy. But I think that the reason Blizzard prefers the mothership core over incorporating its abilities in the nexus is because the former is a fully functional unit that is identifiable and can be marketed as separate content for the expansion etc. Their reasoning was that the nexus was imbalanced as far as I recall. The old version of photon overcharge that could be cast on any building anywhere from any nexus led to problems with proxies. So they made that Nexus hopping MsC which they scrapped due to the recall being too strong as far as I remember. I think it just appeared simpler to balance midway in the development to make it a unit. Putting these things on the nexus imposes the risk that massing nexi (e.g as lategame mineral only PO-static defense; having infinite get out of jail cards in the lategame through recall; having infinite mana through the manatransfer spell they once had on the MsC) becomes broken and the abilities need to be nerfed. (Their old argument about why the overseer has to suck if it doesnt cost supply). Which then may render them useless early.
As far as I know the initial design was mass recall on the nexus for 75 energy; then the design was a mothership core that could teleport between nexuses and eventually they switched to the current mobile mothership core.
Kim: Since MLG we’ve changed a lot of the Heart of the Swarm game. And some of the tweaks that we made are: The Mothership Core - We had a problem, internally, of it being a new unit, we put so much effort into it. It’s a full caster, but it doesn’t feel like a new unit, because it is attached to the nexus in this current build. We changed it, so that it moves at a very slow speed. In doing this change there is some stuff that we have to look out for. So for example, if air to air distance is a little to close between you and your opponent, can actually be used easily as an offensive unit. So there is some stuff that we are watching carefully, but at the same time we do want it feeling like a unit. And if it moves then it kind of does feel like a new unit, so that’s why we changed that.
I don't remember everything David Kim says about gameplay to be honest, but the "MsC has to be a unit" stuck with me. It might be the case that there were also various balance concerns, but the only thing I recall is that there was a lot of initial discussion on TL about building macro nexuses and so on. I think my personal suggestion was to give a shared cooldown to the mass recall ability to prevent it from being broken, but then Blizzard came out with the mothership core which not only solved those issues but also added a new unit to the game. I don't think photon overcharge as a nexus ability with cast range would have been difficult to balance in my opinion, but Blizzard probably cares about making abilities with either infinite range or with visible short range in order to make it clearer for players, so maybe they felt it was a problem.
|
On December 22 2014 00:44 atuor wrote:
Why are changes to a game that's not even out cared about? I could see it there were a few of us playing it but since no one is... why does it matter?
Because passion!
|
On December 21 2014 18:40 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. You do see them send out continents (  ) of other units though, dts, zealot, oracle, phoenix, blink stalkers. Not sure if it affects your point though.
Whoops! Fixed.
On December 21 2014 20:14 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. ... Well you cannot send them because these slow units are kamikaze units in fact. They are meant to bomb the target and never return where a good Terran player returns(!!!) with their drop(ideally with all units). This is not possible with slow units and concussive shells. How are you supposed to retreat with immortals when there are 2 stimmed marauders? Or with zealots? Zerglings/roaches stops these units from retreating too. That is why we see immortal drops, because with WP you can take them back. Zerg has super mobile army(and creep spread) so they actually can retreat just with the army itself(all core units have speed buff(zergling, baneling, roach, hydra) or high speed from the start(mutalisk)), Terran has medevacs and stim. Protoss does not have anything like this. They used to have the recall from Mothership but actual version of recall cannot support 2 mobile groups(where you could, in theory, with full MS, recall 2 groups). But because MS is so stupidly overpriced and useless, nobody was using it(well, some players were using it from time to time, I remember some PvZ on Taldarim Altar where Grubby(I think) used this recall strategy). If you want from P players mobile skirmish scenarios, you need to add the option to retreat, that is why we have the recall and MSC, stupid and idiotic solution, but it works. Oracle is fast(and flies) and can retreat -> it is used for harassment, blink stalkers are fast and have blink, phoenixes = oracles, DTs have stealth. And that is it. Zealots cannot retreat(usually), templars? Sentries? Colossi? Immortals? Only in combination with warp prism and very rarely, because then these expensive(!) units miss in defense. Damn SC2 bug with turning off the ability to switch keyboard ><
Are you just trying to reinforce my entire point? You just restated my post, fleshed out in further detail, on what is wrong with Protoss.
On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins.
Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off.
Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ.
Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played.
1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here.
2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument.
3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game.
How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
|
On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable.
1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere.
2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios.
3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 22 2014 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable. 1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere. 2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios. 3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose.
1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss.
2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense.
3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable.
Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
|
On December 22 2014 03:24 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable. 1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere. 2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios. 3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose. 1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss. 2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense. 3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable. Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now.
Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it."
I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
|
On December 21 2014 05:04 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2014 04:25 bigbadgreen wrote:
An idea I've been thinking of to change the warpgate mechanic a bit would be to increase the amount of time it takes a unit to warp in based on how far it is from the gate that it is warping from. You could buff warpgate units a bit to offset the disadvantage of not being able to reinforce their army as quickly.
This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in. I think Blizzard stated they did not like how easy it was to defend against ling run bys, etc. and that it felt as if other races struggled at punishing toss. Cant' remember where I read that as I still think they are damn useful, but I don't think they'd particularly like your decision.
If they want to weaken runby defense they should look at forcefields and how easily 2 sentries can prevent any aggression and not hamper warpgates. I play zerg and i'm less worried about a round of warpins than i am about getting my units trapped next to a nexus cannon. Recall also defeats runbys. If they are worried about this then why do they keep introducing mechanics to the contrary.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 22 2014 03:39 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 03:24 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable. 1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere. 2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios. 3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose. 1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss. 2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense. 3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable. Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now. Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it." I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point.
Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones.
|
Yeah dude, if you have to be a dick, you need to at least be GM <3
|
@FabledIntegral and @DarkLordOlli
Nah, you guys are both wrong.
|
On December 22 2014 04:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 03:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 03:24 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable. 1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere. 2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios. 3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose. 1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss. 2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense. 3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable. Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now. Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it." I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point. Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones.
Indeed, only as a response to your even better "I'm sorry, I was assuming you knew how the game was played." You know, it's actually very true that the better you are, the more you understand the intricacies of the race. You experience all facets of the game, not just the few you watch on stream.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 22 2014 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 04:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 03:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 03:24 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 22 2014 01:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 22 2014 01:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 22:22 DarkLordOlli wrote:On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote:
[quote]
Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game.
Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss.
One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate.
But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race.
That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates.I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. 1) Not at all. By lategame, depending on the map, map vision for Zerg and Terran become notably stronger than that for Protoss, via the usage of creep, overlords, and Sensor Towers. Terran also uses Planetaries on fringe bases to help protect from light harassment. You can try to "mass proxy pylon" strat around the map, but this is extremely map dependent (super large, 4 player maps only), and both packs of lings and medivac drops often pick this off. 2) Terran deathball in TvP is playable but hardly the norm. There are select few players that do it (and do it well), but the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats that aim to keep down the opponents econ. 3) Even Swarmhost "deathballs" (which are absolutely awful, imo), still rely on multi pronged attacks from other units. I'd have to simply say you're wrong with how you're suggesting Protoss is played. 1) Observers, pylons everywhere to give map vision, units around the map, watch towers. Good players will get themselves map vision, that has absolutely nothing to do with their race. You have no argument here. 2) This is entirely irrelevant since we were talking about lategame scenarios. Ghost/viking is the standard TvP lategame army. How terran gets to that army, whether it is by slowing the protoss down with mass MMMM drops (which HAS to slow them down significantly) or by playing a passive game, all of this is completely, 100% irrelevant. Why? Because we're only talking lategame armies. And the go-to TvP lategame army is a ghost/viking deathball. It's the standard, it's the norm. Whether or not, or how, a game gets there is irrelevant to our argument. 3) They help, but they don't rely on them. The goal of Swarmhost deathballs is to create an unbeatable army that will, no matter how long it takes, render the opponent with no resources. If both players mine out the map, and they can't kill your units while you can (with vipers), it's very simply impossible for you to lose the game. How any of this is relevant to my original point (that protoss is no more likely to transition to a deathball type of army than the other two races) is questionable. 1. That's a dumb statement. Races are inherently different and have different strengths. To say I have "no argument here" is blindly assuming all races are equal and it only takes being a "good" player to accomplish this, which is the opposite point you've just tried to make elsewhere. 2. In no way did you appropriately state why it's irrelevant. Yes, I was talking lategame scenarios. 3. Of course they rely on them... what. You can't say it's "impossible" to lose the game either, as even when Zergs get their "ideal" army they more often than not lose. 1) Sorry, I was assuming you understood that protoss, just as the other two races, has the tools necessary to give themselves map vision. Considering I just listed them for you, that is. Good players will, regardless of their race, take advantage of these tools. You should try paying attention to what good protoss players do and learn to understand how absolutely essential map vision is for protoss. 2) There was no need to since it was never part of the discussion. Unless you actually think that "the predominant playstyle is keeping up mass pressure with multipronged attacks / high micro strats" in TvP lategame scenarios. If you do think that then you couldn't be more wrong. So you basically started talking about lategame armies and once you get called out on fallacies in your statements, you start talking about a midgame-oriented strategy. That makes zero sense. 3) This is wrong. The end. If the ultimate swarmhost/viper/corruptor/mass static defense army lost to anything, the playstyle wouldn't be viable. Anyway, this discussion has dragged on for way too long. I'm not interested in picking apart every single one of your fallacies, I won't be able to convince you anyway. Let's let people actually discuss LotV now. Another one of the idiotic "here's why your wrong, I get the last word, now we drop it." I hope this isn't your profile. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2238223/1/DarkLordOlli/. Because it's pretty sad for someone to be so aggressive / arrogant about knowing the game well if they have never even made Masters. I play Random at high masters / low GM with season average <100 APM. I get by entirely though game knowledge and reading situations, that's my strongest point. Ah, good stuff. Arguing from what you think is higher authority. That's about as good an argument as your previous ones. Indeed, only as a response to your even better "I'm sorry, I was assuming you knew how the game was played." You know, it's actually very true that the better you are, the more you understand the intricacies of the race. You experience all facets of the game, not just the few you watch on stream.
How convenient then that I listed them for you. A fact that you keep avoiding.
|
could you guys flame each other per pm? This is getting stupid, even more so considering i can't report both of you
|
Austria24417 Posts
|
Call to authority is a bit unwelcome on TL. Also: alot of TL posters, and high level analysts have proven that you don't need a high ladder rank to understand SC2 very well on an analytical level. I remember Day9 stating this a few years ago since he has alot of experience and interaction with lower ranked players.
Especially as an observer who has some analytical knowledge.
To come back to the argument: I think we have seen alot of pure lategame and early-mid allin deathballs of P and it seems to be the most effective way to at least stay alive. The more spread out and multitasking P styles are something we see more and more vs mech play and swarmohost turtling but more often then not P still needs to build up a supply efficient deathball army behind the harassment and zealot runbys. It's not like with T mmm where the whole army is split up on the map or with Mutalingbaneling. P multitask/harass style doesnt build up enough momentum to be able to deal with straight up roach ling hydra busts or anything T can frontally throw at them. In the end P still needs to build those high tech units even in the more mobile styles. They only do it slower in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
