|
On September 16 2016 02:30 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote:
but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard.
|
The tankivacs are gone, the tankivacs are gone! Everybody the tankivacs are gone!
I think that given some time people will find a way to make early game attacking a thing in TvT.
The strat I think is reactor marine expand (like the TvZ 2-1-1 of today) but make a siege tank instead of a starport then move out with the marines and siege tank, rallying in cyclones. Or perhaps to make the cyclone first, I don't know the banshee or liberator rush timing.
There is a lot of potential for early game fighting with a tank, marine, cyclone + air composition in <40 army supply situations.
I'm actually so hype.
|
On September 16 2016 02:34 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:30 Edowyth wrote:On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote:
but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting). Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard.
How are protoss "imbalanced" vs zerg?? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
Also, since when is the Immortal "OP" ? Who decided it ?
They should simply remove protoss and make you happy, right?
|
On September 15 2016 03:52 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
|
On September 16 2016 02:30 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote:
but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
The thing is no protoss players know what the hell they wan't, probably because they don't really want anything , I think they are the most complete race so far and design changes aren´t quite as needed (and if they are they mostly to improve the MU from the perspective of the other race).
Mech changes (mostly tank, BC and cyclone ones) have been asked for a while already, the same thing with zerg (mostly hydra), theres no real "we want this" from the protoss side like these ones.
I've read some changes to early game so protoss doesn't depends on the MsC, but then again the big majority that DON'T want the MsC changed are protoss players themselves so I have no idea what they could really ask.
|
On September 16 2016 03:20 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 03:52 petro1987 wrote:On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play? Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted.
|
On September 10 2016 05:12 ShamanElemental1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 03:53 avilo wrote:
Ravagers not being armored with tankivac removed is pretty bad. These things need to be armored they have already been too strong for ages.
It's just a massable unit with a free spell on cooldown. With buffs to infestor burrow cast on top of this...i mean that's just really bad and poorly thought out. The only other mech counter as Zerg is Vipers and Brood Lords. So basically i have to either turtle to hive or rush to vipers... Infestors dont counter mech... why would you even mention them. And if they dont give tools to counter mech then you dont get the buff to mech, ( like that sweet damage to siege tanks ) or they will have to nerf stuff from terran side. I know you are pretty low IQ but if you havent noticed this cycle in sc2... PS. Noticed how nobody is complaining that the current tank is better then BW because it has the same power but also SMART TARGETING ! Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 03:58 The Bottle wrote:
@Edowyth: You're right, acceleration probably has a much bigger impact on those situations I illustrated than speed (though I still think the new speed will change these engagements to some degree).
I don't think corruptors are too weak anti-air. Their armor is incredible (2 base) and they own most things in the sky (with a couple exceptions, mainly void rays, but they do own voids without their anti-armor buff).
I'm also not sure if banelings need any buffs at all. DK's reasoning for buffing them was that roach ravager was too heavily in the ZvT meta, but that's hardly true right now; ling bane is used a ton against terran bio now. Plus burrowed fungal growths is already a tremendous buff against bio IMO. Corrupters are super bad. Even in mass numbers they hardly kill anything because they are either to slow or the other units like voids and vikings kill them. GO TO THE TESTER AND SEE HOW MANY CORRUPTERS YOU NEED TO 1 SHOT A LIBERATOR. Zerg AA is bad, everyone knows this. The Corrupters are really good vs Carriers and Battlecruiser because they have bonus damage vs massive.
I disagree with this sentiment, between parasitic bomb, fungal, queen range, lib aa nerfs and zergs usual economic lead Zerg usualy has access to all the tools they need in the way of aa. It's also important to keep in mind that Zerg has very strong advantages in other places that also help them deal with air. The ability to bank huge resources and field a large air army very quickly as well as tech switch between air and ground is not to be underestimated. Often Zerg can force there oponents unit comp to answer ground or air effectively than emediatly tech switch to counter it. Curupters benefit greatly from this, even if they don't match up to the efficiency of other air units it's often possible for Zerg to quickly out mass thier oponents air and over run it. If that's not possible than powerful aa spells can oftentimes. Supplement Zerg aa quit well.
|
On September 16 2016 02:30 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote:
but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Of course there are few protoss changes because ALL protoss units are viable. Maybe with the exeption of the VR and the carrier that are getting love in the test map.
Changing protoss for the better would mean taking a look at MSC and PO, but blizz just love their fantastic "shooting supply" mechanic so i don't think that's ever gonna happen. Even if, truth to be told, it would be extremely easy (changing the PO to a shield battery spell, and make the adept a strong frontliner/defensive unit instead of yet another harass unit)
|
so as it turns out, opening swarm hosts against mech is pretty decent. strong tanks, armored ravagers? no problem. swarm hosts flying locusts devastate tanks and because they can't be picked up, SH can actually run around and attack from multiple angles as a mobile harasser. I use cheaper SH to transition into faster hive tech and ultras, if you maintain your SH's and don't let them die, you can build up to about 8 or so and use the flying locusts to target fire command centers and force mech to spread themselves too thin, making ultras better. 100/75 is so much more cost efficient off 2 base that helps transition to 3 and 4 base.
|
On September 16 2016 04:21 emc wrote:
so as it turns out, opening swarm hosts against mech is pretty decent. strong tanks, armored ravagers? no problem. swarm hosts flying locusts devastate tanks and because they can't be picked up, SH can actually run around and attack from multiple angles as a mobile harasser. I use cheaper SH to transition into faster hive tech and ultras, if you maintain your SH's and don't let them die, you can build up to about 8 or so and use the flying locusts to target fire command centers and force mech to spread themselves too thin, making ultras better. 100/75 is so much more cost efficient off 2 base that helps transition to 3 and 4 base.
Hey, kudos for actually trying out the map before complaining about mech. Also, ravagers aren't armored anymore as of today (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20748937821).
|
On September 16 2016 02:54 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:34 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 16 2016 02:30 Edowyth wrote:On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote:
but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting). Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard. How are protoss "imbalanced" vs zerg?? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/Also, since when is the Immortal "OP" ? Who decided it ? They should simply remove protoss and make you happy, right?
I'm talking about imbalanced as in current community sentiment that Adepts are too good at applying pressure and Immortal heavy compositions are fantastic against anything Zerg can field that isn't 15 + Lurkers and even then sufficient numbers of Immortals (especially with Adepts and Archons) pretty much rolls over any Zerg ground army at all.
I don't really think Zerg is totally balanced vs Terran at the moment despite the pro level being relatively stable, pretty widely accepted that Ultralisks and Brood Lord tech switches are imba vs Terran, just because Terran has options to end the game before that point only points to a balance in numbers, hardly balanced design. I don't call Ultralisks balanced against Terran just because Terran can all in in the mid game reliably well and keep the win rates around 50%. Just like I don't call Immortal heavy compositions or Adepts balanced vs Zerg just because Zerg can win early on in the game or secure a massive economy lead (almost always due to total blunders by the Protoss player)
|
Yes I wouldn't balance the game according to the community sentiment though, otherwise you could erase Protoss from Sc2 
|
On September 16 2016 03:37 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:20 eviltomahawk wrote:On September 15 2016 03:52 petro1987 wrote:On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play? Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed. Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted.
Off of the top of my head:
Game 1 of Mvp vs Life from the 2012 GSL finals
Game 1 of Mvp vs Nestea from the 2011 Blizzcon finals
MKP vs DRG from MLG
Gumiho vs Ret
Leenock vs Nada
That time when Nestea used SO MANY BANELINGS against Nada's mech
There are more, but it's a pain to go through old vods, especially those that have been lost through defunct MLG, GOMtv, or old Twitch.tv vod services.
|
There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
|
On September 16 2016 06:16 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:37 petro1987 wrote:On September 16 2016 03:20 eviltomahawk wrote:On September 15 2016 03:52 petro1987 wrote:On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play? Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed. Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted. Off of the top of my head: Game 1 of Mvp vs Life from the 2012 GSL finalsGame 1 of Mvp vs Nestea from the 2011 Blizzcon finalsMKP vs DRG from MLGGumiho vs RetLeenock vs NadaThat time when Nestea used SO MANY BANELINGS against Nada's mechThere are more, but it's a pain to go through old vods, especially those that have been lost through defunct MLG, GOMtv, or old Twitch.tv vod services.
So from thousands of pro games, you have less than 10 games to show and claim that mech was viable in TvZ. Well, if your definition of viability is that it's not impossible to win a game, then by all means it's viable. Can I also say that bio is viable in BW TvP then? I've seen some games where pros win with deep six strategy.
|
On September 16 2016 06:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
You seem to have completely past over half of the comments about mech and ravens.
Tank based mech is actually super squishy because everything counter the tank, in HotS after they nerfed the SH they only partially nerfed the raven, and with the same 3 full base economy (as oposed to current 60% base economy) a mech player could sit behing PF and turrets and mass ravens.
Right now that isn't possible becuase we have:
1.- New economy, you need to keep securing base or you won't have enough economy to make a mech army (wich by the way is super expensive).
2.- Nerfed ravens.
3.- Stronger lategame in the zerg specially considering the addition of PB.
Tanks have a lot of counter, these days I've seen Vibe (who have played exclusively the test map since it matchmaking came online) and he has been countering mech styles with ling/bane into fast hive for vipers and broodlords.
|
On September 16 2016 06:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
"[...] Invincible that can only be countered [...]" So which one was it? Invincible or counterable?
|
Every games of the final between Life and MVP was mech as far as I remember. There are tons of other mech games in TvZ in WoL, I don't think you followed the scene very well at the time. While not the majority of games, there were a lot of mech games, depending on the maps, usually starting by the 2 factory blue flame hellions opening.
|
On September 16 2016 06:06 VHbb wrote:Yes I wouldn't balance the game according to the community sentiment though, otherwise you could erase Protoss from Sc2
If this happened I would be so sad I would not have any ridicules cheese builds to complain about and then exploit when I off race. I also would have no one to drop !!
|
On September 16 2016 02:34 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
Well, I'm not really concerned about balance. I want improvements to the race that seem fun and interesting. Changes to the design of both the adept and the immortal could excite me -- a really late blink and a poorly-thought-out tempest change (among others) simply don't.
Lexender wrote:
The thing is no protoss players know what the hell they wan't
Well, lots of Protoss players know what they want ... it's just that we're different people so we all want different kinds of things.
Arguably, there's a lot of similarity between what Protoss players want and what others want for / from Protoss:
- Weaker / removed PO
- Weaker / removed early-game attacks (shades, pulsar beam, the silly tempest ability they added)
- Power reduced in late-game compositions (MS, Tempests, Storm death-ball)
in exchange for:
- Stronger defensive early-game units
- More flexible mid-game gateway units (movers-and-shooters)
- Better distinction between tech paths
Protoss has just as many weird design choices (if not more) as any other race. Why was nothing terribly exciting done here? Just because they're doing well balance-wise hardly means that they don't need design work.
Among other things, all of these abilities contribute to Protoss' late-game power:
- revelation impossible to do anything about
- storm has immense range and damage as well as being "stockpile-able" through the energy mechanic so that very little supply is devoted to extremely powerful zone control
- cannons are the best late-game defensive (zoning) structures because they shoot both up and down
- purification nova is a very-long ranged zoning tool that has the potential to end the game with every shot, as well as making certain units from the opponent completely defunct
- Protoss units generally have the highest health, so in a late-game battle with multiple abilities, tons of micro, and more than even top pros can handle ... Protoss armies simply tend to live the longest
Protoss, as a race, has the weirdest power curve you can imagine. Early game attacks are immensely strong (and what everyone's going for at or near the top), but Protoss without a threat of early pressure is so far behind in the mid-game. Meanwhile, their late game is oppressively strong if the map isn't so heavily spread out that their death-ball can't answer threats everywhere at once (with tempests' range, PO, and tanky adept / difficult to kill DT warp-ins -- the map has to be spread out widely indeed).
Protoss is arguably the most ridiculously designed race of them all. It depends upon early-game attacks (or the immense threat thereof) to influences the rest of the game while having a ridiculously poor mid-game and a too-strong deathball in the late game ...
And looking at representation data on ladders (including how the race is split up among leagues) Protoss is not only currently the least-fun race (least played by far and decreasing overall share over time), but it's also the hardest race to play in the lower range (being short in representation from Masters all the way to the bottom of the ladder).
So, even if they don't want to do the things that I've pointed out, Blizzard should really try to excite Protoss players ... or the game is headed for more of the same frustrations we've all pointed out recently and that have labelled Protoss as the "gimmicky", "all-in", and "a-move" race since the beginning of WoL.
Protoss could absolutely have work done to make it a better race. For the sake of the game, I hope the work gets done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
