On December 20 2017 16:27 CharAznable2 wrote: Remember that one time that Scarlett won against DRG using protoss? Or that one time she put so many stasis ward on the map that I thought sc2 would crash, because the bs level was so high.
You never see someone saying to a terran: when behind, ghost academy or banshee Or to a zerg: when behind, burrowed infestor or roach... But protoss? When behind, Dark shrine. Don`t know how many times it saved protoss players life. The only unit I don`t rage is the zealot, because he is like a cool warrior. Every other protoss unit almost gave me heart attack of stress sometime between those 7 years of sc2, chrono boost and warp in mechanic, photon overcharge, MSC and proxy pylon shenanigans (I`m looking at you, cliff of shakuras plateau) included.
Are you seriously blaming Protoss for having a way of coming back from behind in a lost game ? Terrans have literally been winning lost games since forever with mules. This is the worst thing about Protoss you could have complained about, congratz !
it's 2017 and some people still don't understand how Mules work..
On December 20 2017 13:56 youngjiddle wrote: wow, just wow, the protoss hate as a whole still exists and not only the article but the comments in this thread is great proof. really triggered some people to come out and admit it.
losing never feels good, but I think for low level players losing to strategies and micro is more frustrating than losing to being outmacroed. In this way, they hate protoss.
It's you're fault and only you're fault if you can't learn the game, the race, and the ins and outs of it. For example I was frustrated with widow mine drops until I learned the timing at which they could arrive (4:30 or whatever it's going to be earlier now) and the strategy no longer was frustrating to lose to.
Yet low level zerg players fail to scout with their overlords to see 8 gates on 2 bases super fast ect. ect. ect.
get good or whine about the race as a whole I guess is still their answer.
On December 19 2017 22:41 stilt wrote: Seeing those "magnificent" timing attacks is quite frustrating, this gameplay is only about tricks, gimmicks, timings
strategy isn't a gimmick, nor is it a trick.
You're missing the point.
Mizenhauer's article isn't talking about how people losing to Protoss, or hatred of Protoss in general. It's talking about how the fans dislike watching Protoss play, specifically how they dislike watching professionals win with Protoss.
How many times has one of those builds left the audience feeling like THEY were the ones who had been mugged?
This line is obviously not referring to ladder losses, but rather community disgust towards Protoss bullshit at the highest levels of competitive SC2. Same goes for the rest of the article.
You're just attacking a strawman of "lol everyone who disagrees is a noob and needs to get good," and come off as a Protoss apologist (deliberately or not I will not speculate).
Now it's certainly possible, even probable, that the hostile comments and such are from people who hate Protoss as a result of losing on ladder........but that's an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Characterizing them all as such without a shred of proof is the very definition of a strawman.
And I believe the popular term for Protoss "strategy" would be "bullshit." Why that term is popular at all is the real question here.
This won't turn into a discussion because I'm not interested in having one, but I don't exactly appreciate it when someone tells another person what my article is about when they are just plain wrong.
The point of this article was to point out that the lack of understanding as to how playing Protoss brings a unique set of challenges that make the race difficult and rewarding to play as well as how the traits inherent to Protoss make the race interesting to watch at a professional level.
The reason I illustrated this with professional games is because it created a far better article then me lecturing readers while referencing "that one ladder game I played where the Protoss..." This way everyone can relate to the examples and remember how they felt when watching these games/moments and hopefully look at them in a different light having read the article.
I dislike skytoss and blink/immortal/high templar from the end of HotS as much as anyone, but the tldr of the article is that it's a mixed bag and it's worth it to take the good with the bad because Protoss isn't as bad as we all think.
On December 20 2017 16:27 CharAznable2 wrote: Remember that one time that Scarlett won against DRG using protoss? Or that one time she put so many stasis ward on the map that I thought sc2 would crash, because the bs level was so high.
You never see someone saying to a terran: when behind, ghost academy or banshee Or to a zerg: when behind, burrowed infestor or roach... But protoss? When behind, Dark shrine. Don`t know how many times it saved protoss players life. The only unit I don`t rage is the zealot, because he is like a cool warrior. Every other protoss unit almost gave me heart attack of stress sometime between those 7 years of sc2, chrono boost and warp in mechanic, photon overcharge, MSC and proxy pylon shenanigans (I`m looking at you, cliff of shakuras plateau) included.
Are you seriously blaming Protoss for having a way of coming back from behind in a lost game ? Terrans have literally been winning lost games since forever with mules. This is the worst thing about Protoss you could have complained about, congratz !
Im blaming how effective a last second dark shrine effect can have in comparison to a cloaked banshee or ghost that run out of energy or zerg units that need to unburrow to attack. Mules or idle larva are macro mechanics that can have a comeback effect, protoss had for 5 years a good chrono boost that could remake their probes too. It seems people forget about that fact.
What I am saying is protoss was balanced around bs spells and mechanics that gave rage to protoss players and protoss opponents alike. Nothing wrong to say that.
This simple graph says it all: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/. There is no massive imbalance in the game. If one race is slightly OP all the time it might be Zerg. PvZ was almost all the years significantly below 50 %.
On December 20 2017 14:55 pvsnp wrote: This line is obviously not referring to ladder losses, but rather community disgust towards Protoss bullshit at the highest levels of competitive SC2. Same goes for the rest of the article.
You're just attacking a strawman of "lol everyone who disagrees is a noob and needs to get good," and come off as a Protoss apologist (deliberately or not I will not speculate).
Now it's certainly possible, even probable, that the hostile comments and such are from people who hate Protoss as a result of losing on ladder........but that's an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Characterizing them all as such without a shred of proof is the very definition of a strawman.
And I believe the popular term for Protoss "strategy" would be "bullshit." Why that term is popular at all is the real question here.
no, rts fans don't call it bullshit, and you should grow up and stop calling it bullshit like a child.
I disagree with the idea of there even being a "Protoss apologist". You shouldn't have to apologize for playing one of the games main races, fuck off tbh.
On December 20 2017 13:56 youngjiddle wrote: wow, just wow, the protoss hate as a whole still exists and not only the article but the comments in this thread is great proof. really triggered some people to come out and admit it.
losing never feels good, but I think for low level players losing to strategies and micro is more frustrating than losing to being outmacroed. In this way, they hate protoss.
It's you're fault and only you're fault if you can't learn the game, the race, and the ins and outs of it. For example I was frustrated with widow mine drops until I learned the timing at which they could arrive (4:30 or whatever it's going to be earlier now) and the strategy no longer was frustrating to lose to.
Yet low level zerg players fail to scout with their overlords to see 8 gates on 2 bases super fast ect. ect. ect.
get good or whine about the race as a whole I guess is still their answer.
On December 19 2017 22:41 stilt wrote: Seeing those "magnificent" timing attacks is quite frustrating, this gameplay is only about tricks, gimmicks, timings
strategy isn't a gimmick, nor is it a trick.
You're missing the point.
Mizenhauer's article isn't talking about how people losing to Protoss, or hatred of Protoss in general. It's talking about how the fans dislike watching Protoss play, specifically how they dislike watching professionals win with Protoss.
How many times has one of those builds left the audience feeling like THEY were the ones who had been mugged?
This line is obviously not referring to ladder losses, but rather community disgust towards Protoss bullshit at the highest levels of competitive SC2. Same goes for the rest of the article.
You're just attacking a strawman of "lol everyone who disagrees is a noob and needs to get good," and come off as a Protoss apologist (deliberately or not I will not speculate).
Now it's certainly possible, even probable, that the hostile comments and such are from people who hate Protoss as a result of losing on ladder........but that's an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Characterizing them all as such without a shred of proof is the very definition of a strawman.
And I believe the popular term for Protoss "strategy" would be "bullshit." Why that term is popular at all is the real question here.
This won't turn into a discussion because I'm not interested in having one, but I don't exactly appreciate it when someone tells another person what my article is about when they are just plain wrong.
The point of this article was to point out that the lack of understanding as to how playing Protoss brings a unique set of challenges that make the race difficult and rewarding to play as well as how the traits inherent to Protoss make the race interesting to watch at a professional level.
The reason I illustrated this with professional games is because it created a far better article then me lecturing readers while referencing "that one ladder game I played where the Protoss..." This way everyone can relate to the examples and remember how they felt when watching these games/moments and hopefully look at them in a different light having read the article.
I dislike skytoss and blink/immortal/high templar from the end of HotS as much as anyone, but the tldr of the article is that it's a mixed bag and it's worth it to take the good with the bad because Protoss isn't as bad as we all think.
thanks Mizenhauer, you're my heart shaker, shaker.
Some of this can actually be blamed on the terrans and zergs. Some of the "protoss bullshit" over the years has been things the other races could counter by playing safer. But they often feel entitled to playing a greedier build than they really should. They choose to play as greedy as possible and try to figure out the absolute minimum amount of defense necessary to survive with perfect play, and then they frequently don't have perfect play and they just lose. This isn't true of every protoss strategy. Some of them the other races are trying to hard counter from the start and it's still hard for them, but at least it's often fair, even if the games are unsatisfying. Like the article says, people forget how difficult it is for protoss and how perfectly they must play, and so they continually think of protoss success as the expected outcome, because XYZ protoss builds are bullshit, and they continually think of terran/zerg successful defense as exceptional victories. But the truth is both players are equally on the knife's edge and the win rates are there to prove it. Only a few individual players have risen above and they should get credit as individuals.
Anyway, getting back to my point, if terrans and zergs weren't always seeking out the perfect defense, which either means an instant loss if done incorrectly or a virtual free win if done correctly, then there would have been periods of more normal ZvP and TvP games, going into mid or late game with only a slight advantage for one player, and plenty of opportunity for each player to outplay the other in a more complete game.
Zergs especially have this idea of building every drone they possibly can, losing repeatedly because of too many drones, until they feel like they've determined the number of drones they're entitled to get. And if they lose with that many drones, they stop adjusting drone numbers but rather blame some imperfection in their play. They're not interested in styles that increase survival rates if it means they don't get a virtual free win after they repel the protoss bullshit.
Imho protoss doesn't fit well the actual lotv mechanics. Eco boost, new units and new mechanics made terrans and zergs way more similiar to each other: solid core of units (read cheap all-round good units) and units that add something powerful to the composition. Protoss is still old "rush-to-high-tier units" style like on wol and hots that were good since in early game on hots there was not so much aggression (or just protoss had good defensive options - FFE good times). Now protoss has to rely on gateway units to hold aggressive opening (boosted by new eco that helps especially cheap and fast mineral units - rines- lings) and to gain control of the game peace, with lots of subsequent problems. You buff a gate units and it changes heavy the early game, especially because terrans and zergs styles changes dramatically accordinly (protoss op hysteria).
So protoss are forced to run to high tier units, face overwhelming unit production from other races, need to outsmart or outmicro opponent to gain best benefit from poor designed gateway units in order to still run to storms, colossus, carriers.
An heavy redesign is still needed, but at concept level not at unit level. Protoss has to stop being the race with "less but powerful units" and being the race with another kind of identity that suits more the current game and the new peace.
On December 20 2017 14:55 pvsnp wrote: This line is obviously not referring to ladder losses, but rather community disgust towards Protoss bullshit at the highest levels of competitive SC2. Same goes for the rest of the article.
You're just attacking a strawman of "lol everyone who disagrees is a noob and needs to get good," and come off as a Protoss apologist (deliberately or not I will not speculate).
Now it's certainly possible, even probable, that the hostile comments and such are from people who hate Protoss as a result of losing on ladder........but that's an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Characterizing them all as such without a shred of proof is the very definition of a strawman.
And I believe the popular term for Protoss "strategy" would be "bullshit." Why that term is popular at all is the real question here.
fuck off tbh
Your eloquence moves me. Truly moves me. The beauty, the intelligence, the sophistication.....
In my oppinion there are different kinds of skill, and the races just need different sets of abilities from players.
If repetetive and precise macro is your strength - and creating build orders & playing scrappy game is your weakness, you should play zerg.
If high APM in fights - micro & macro when it counts is your strength, and you like strong and agressive playstyles in the early to midgame - then Terran will perform well.
If you play reactively, know army compositions well and can devise strategies on the fly & thrive in a scrappy game - then protoss will do well.
What Mizen is saying in this article, if you actually read it, is that poetry from the second half of the 18th century is still incomplete. Also, I read his mind the other day, and he likes chocolate.
Good read, I liked the quotes and some of the examples but when it comes down to it, SC2 is just an unforgiving and brutal game for all match-ups, full stop. In my opinion, there are too many decisive check-mate or crippling moves that all sides can inflict on each other.
Didn't scout it coming? massive worker losses/ded Out of position? " " " " Not looking or slow reaction? " " " "
All races have the ability to annihilate worker lines for about 400-600 resources invested. Losing 16 workers in 10 seconds before the 8 minute mark is always going to be a pretty tough if your opponent doesn't make a significant fuck up or two. Yes we all whine but despite all this, Protoss does seem gets the most hate.
I think the main reason for this (aside from racist xenophobia ) is because of how the stantard protoss early/mid game aggression + harass mechanics play out and how they make you feel. It has nothing to with balance or being OP but rather the helpless sensation that results when P R O T O S S E D happens to you. For me personally, P > T > Z when it comes to each respective races ability to make me call BS. I also feel this way a lot when a ball of stimmed bio army shreds my ling/bling/queens while I'm waiting for hydras to come out.
Much of this stems from the warp-in mechanic but it's not pylon warp-ins themselves anymore, it's that pesky prism which is so fast, with it's super quick warp-in mechanic + ranged pick-up. If you're not there to shoo away the prism on the edge of your base, 8 zealots/adepts in your mineral line +/- a frontal attack.
In addition, having your army force-fielded then blinked on when you try to pick-up or whittled down while waiting for a ravager bile to clear them feels awful coz (before massive units are out) you can only counter it prior to it happening and once it's happened the counter play is not that effective (compared to say queens/spores vs. liberators. or splitting vs. banelines) I'm not saying the mechanics take don't take skill - Watching Parting execute his god tier soul-filled forcefields was breathtaking + effectively controlling large armies with multipe abilities/spell castors is also impressive.
Ultimately I think the bullshit feeling comes when Protoss catches you on the back foot, even ever so slightly. Be it a warp-prism in the mane, blink stalker attack, shade on top of your army + phoenix pick-up or oracles flying into your mineral line. Your army gets shredded and prism warp-ins make it very hard to re-take the initiative and once they're in, you feel like there's nothing you can do. ergo people call protoss bullshit.
In versions gone by, much of strength of protoss was offset (probably too much so in the early game) by the weakness of gateway units and the high cost + specialized nature of their tech. in WoL/HoTS you couldn't afford to get twilight and robo within 20s of each other, meaning you exposed yourself in other ways, to cloak for example. With LoTV econ, this exposure is greatly reduced. I've seen players open stargate, get twilight + dt shrine a robo + prism then drop a third and even if the DTs do minimal damage, P still transitions with at only a slight disadvantage and sometimes a worker lead. Compare this to a zerg who opts to go for units instead of drones, if you don't do damage the counter-attack can be crippling. Same goes for a 2-base terran push that fails to damage the economy or kill a base. I've played games in all of these situations, and I think you are a lot more behind as Z/T. Granted the situation was made worse by photon overcharge (see Zest's early LoTV games going up to 3 bases/8 gates/Twilight/Robo colossus/double forge off like 3-4 gateway units).
I agree with the sentiment that protoss needs to be respected and that many players are simply too greedy sometimes. This 1A sentiment is boring and old, I've missed a crucial forcefield, feedback, widow mine pickup enough times to know much of their strength rests on a knife edge. However, with the current patch at least in TvP at the moment, two base/5 rax Terrans with stim/+1/cs are being slaughtered by chargelot/blink/prism comps with no upgrades. This is not T being caught out on the map mind you, but with all units sitting at home behind a bunker. For me, it breaks the basic RTS concept that if you choose to invest in an extra bases/workers you shouldn't also be able to have the stronger army (at least until your econ advantage has kicked). For any race to be able to move out on three bases and kill you while you're defending on two bases with better tech and a larger army is not how RTS should work (with the exceptions of zerg needing an extra base by design and if you fuck up of course). Did you ever see a terran go fast 3 cc then move out and kill a two-base protoss with upgrades and tech in the early midgame?
Watching Maru vs. herO and Zest vs. TY IEM PyeongChang quals today, I became surer of this opinion. See game 2 of Maru vs. herO on Odessey especially. herO gets up three bases, a 15 worker advantage, then with un-upgraded blink, charge and a prism, proceeds to dismantle Maru who is on two bases with superior tech and upgrades. Yes, you can argue T should have built bunkers/turrets to survive but when you're already a base down and 15 workers should you really be investing in defensive structures? P will have their 4th up while you're building your third, chrono out double upgrades and head into their deadly endgame tech.
This meta needs time to settle and I don't think any further changes should be made yet. This isn't the place for design/balance suggestions but I think most of the Protoss BS arsenal is in a good state (oracles and adepts are in a better spot IMO and shield batteries are effective early game but not large armies) the main exceptions are the strength of the warp-prism and blink stalkers. I think to give the prism a 1-1.5s delay in transitioning in and out of pylon mode would be worth testing (think siege tank/liberator siege time) and possibly looking at either the cost of blink / its cooldown or its travel range would be good ways of avoiding a nerf to stalker damage because it's just too easy to burst things down and get away atm.
On December 18 2017 23:57 ihatevideogames wrote: The fact that this article even exists shows there's a serious issue with the race's design in the first place.
Careful captain obvious, every time I mentioned a flaw in Protoss design, although being so clearly visible its basically saying IN YOUR FACE - i was warned or banned. After years of trying to cope with toss I just concluded this is the way protoss is designed and then this game design doesn't fit what I expected of that game. So I quit playing SC2 MP. Since English isnt my native language, I had always trouble expressing my frustration without sounding biased. I played all 3 races from 2012 on, all macro games and diamond league. I hate cheese. But all these years 2012-2016 it was kinda obvious from a player and a viewer perspective, that protoss was DESIGNED to be gimmicky and therefore an annoyance to other players. It is designed to be "mean" or sometimes "unfair", since its execution is in some strategies way more easy then the scouting or defending. I pointed out many strategies that players can execute with 50 apm and no skill and still win, cause they hide something somewhere and surprise you. The amount of games I lost, although trying to be map aware, scout, micro/macro my heart out at 150+ APM (without spam clicking, at least that were the numbers what SC2 gears/sceleigh told me those days)... it was just frustrating. Thousands of hours put into a game, because whenever I complained here, I got tips like "you need to do this or that to prevent that", so I tried, I learned and I also learned Protoss players will find another loophole just to pull off another dirty game. The title suggests we need to understand something. No we really dont. There are players who are actually good at this game and players who are not. Those who are not will try to avoid the meta and a "fair" macro game and because of the game design and more "cheese" or "Bullsht" avaliable to protoss, those players will flee more to Protoss then to other races.
What if Protoss was designed more like the crybaby in me wanted? I guess those players would have switched... either races (then the game experience wouln't change at all, it would just become less predictable with other races) or the game (to an easier one).
Also in all those years playing Starcraft 2 from Bronze to Diamond (well I was even masters at some point, but only because I tried to prove that with BS tactics you can get to masters EZPZ... i won't mention the race I tried that with ;-) ) I did another fun research. At the game start I always asked something like "hey gl hf mate!"... and after a couple of seconds "may I ask where u from". And then I wrote down which country has which preferred strategy. You may think that is silly, but there are specific race choices (correlations that is) for each country in each level (gold, plat, dia) and then there are also strategy choices. So if you wanna be mean, I had a little advantage in some games.
So if we talk about Protoss... or bullshit... be aware that one of the most interesting correlations is with french and russian players. French usually play zerg or toss, not many play terran. Russians play all races across, mostly toss. IF you ever stumble accross a russian protoss... be aware of the cheese incoming. I couldnt believe it but out of over 1200 games I played against a player that said he is russian and was protoss, I actually only managed to play only 2 games that were pure macro based and didn't have any BS involved.
There are reasons that this game isn't popular anymore. BS is one thing, not only Protoss BS but mostly I guess. The other thing is its being too complex for the current player generation. If you look at other games they are getting "consolized" left and right. And one other thing is it being way too volatile. Games you ought to win you lose in a second because of one little mistake, although you ganed your advantage 15 minutes long through little mistakese the opponent made and in the end you get rewarded by being protossed or whatever the terms are for the other races. But isnt that the case in every strategy game?
I recently started enjoying watchin SC:BW again. If you look at the battles, the game itself. The macro... Nothing there is volatile, everything seems skillbased. Noone loses a whole game because of a "single misclick" (which it usually isn't but it feels like it). The damage output is higher in some units, yet the battle needs much more control in many ways to actually win. Strategic positioning is more important and controls a map, not totally irrelevant like in sc2. Where you can set up tanks or whatever and still the opponent can walk over you in seconds if its the wrong race...
So... if we ban protoss does that mean we have to ban specific strategies... or nations... or leave the game be and conclude "well its the way the game is designed... we either deal with it (and that players (not judging their character here) or we move on to another game"
To me the combination of a wide variety of deadly cheeses (from cannon rushes at the lower skill bracket that you didnt scout to technical all ins later on) that you can easily miss or just the cheesu openings that randomly kill you(dts and oracles) combined with tge fact that their lategame is just unbeatable sometimes makes them the worst race to play against imo.
For every cheese you lose to, you probably hold and beat a cheese, from every time protoss wins because they randomly went super greedy you beat a protoss, for every lategame loss you might win easily in the midgame. All those losses just end up feeling terrible regardless.
EPT
) is because of how the stantard protoss early/mid game aggression + harass mechanics play out and how they make you feel. It has nothing to with balance or being OP but rather the helpless sensation that results when P R O T O S S E D happens to you. For me personally, P > T > Z when it comes to each respective races ability to make me call BS. I also feel this way a lot when a ball of stimmed bio army shreds my ling/bling/queens while I'm waiting for hydras to come out.
