The answer to your question is there. Protoss is doing bad at the best level because the top 5 of the race has done consistently worse than the top 5 of the other two races since 2018.
You obviously don't care about that, but it's getting tiresome that you guys keep pretending you don't know what you're talking about.
I think the problem for protoss is just being bad against zerg... its fine vs terran if not better, but I think very few people who believe the race is strong enough versus zerg play protoss at a high level. Also the fast expanding nature of LOTV just helps zerg imo thats what the race is designed to do.
There's not even enough data to say that. It could also be that the very top of zerg players is just better than the very top of protoss players at the game. We cannot positively state that if Serral had chosen protoss instead of zerg he wouldn't be dominating, there's no direct evidence of that.
All we can state is that there's not a ton of hope and that we should behave accordingly.
Thats why observation, logic, and actual in game experience with the races at a high level are important instead of just being a pure data nerd. You hear that all the time there's not enough data to tell this, not enough data to claim that...
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
Clearly there is a disconnect between Protoss as a ladder race and as a competitive race. Looking at Aligulac, it's frequently the lagging race (consistently since the March 28, 2018 stat update and for long periods before that), yet has the highest percentage of mirror matches indicating a large portion of active players that are able to make it to a high level of play with them. This would seem to speak to them being easier to play at a high level but falling off at the highest level, so what's going on with them? Like I'm sure everyone else here, I have some thoughts
Macro Protoss base building is more forgiving. A single Probe can set an entire base to be built in seconds and then return to mining. Zerg loses workers to build a structure and requires use of Queens' abilities to maximize territory where something can be built and having larva to actually use for building. Terran is in between with each structure concurrently built eating up worker time, but ultimately the SCV returns to the active and available population. If you fall behind, a Probe can quickly spend your money, it's harder for Terran or Zerg to similarly rapidly build structures without harming economy or army in the event you fell behind.
Similarly, unit production requires less effort for Toss thanks to warpgate allowing money to quickly be spent at the cost of building some excess gateways and a pylon somewhere on the map. They are also the weakest with their tech/power units building out slowly from structures that are normally quite limited in total amount available at any given time. While Zerg has the most powerful production capability, it requires a player to be good with their injects to get the most benefit. Terran is again somewhere in the middle balancing out reactors vs tech labs and how many of each production structure. So at low levels a Protoss can spend money faster to get units on the field and at less effort than their opponents, while at high levels and the relative weakness of those same units they fall behind, being limited by the production of more powerful units, DTs and HTs the obvious exception.
So, overall weaker players have more leeway with Protoss to build bases and get an army onto the field. At the highest level where these strengths really don't matter as the limitations for Terran and Zerg macro don't really factor due to strong player mechanics the more flexible production of the other two races provides them more options
Micro: Terran bio and basically all Zerg composition benefit from player control. Even when the composition used by Zerg relies more on slow or by nature static units (Brood Lords, Lurkers) the need to pair them with spell casters to maximize efficiency keeps micro requirements throughout. Terran mech is more about positioning with the units needing less babying in combat and is different skill set to learn.
Protoss meanwhile, Zealots are dumbfire missiles, particularly after charge. DTs can micro some but really it's just about closing the distance and then running away as they lack the agility of Speedlings. Blink Stalkers can be very micro intensive but the gains are limited due to the inherent lack of power of the unit, meaning it's best to either use blink to pounce on or run away from an army. Since Barrier is not on demand Immortals lack options, Colossi have never particularly required micro. Prism juggling introduces some micro, but with the range nerf and cost increase it also creates a lot of vulnerability. The spell casters of course do require micro but since storm doesn't stack, feedback doesn't kill anything, Terran units are all ranged and Zerg has Ravagers, and disruptors become prohibitive at large numbers you just expend your abilities at the start of a fight and then try to pick good targets thereafter. There's also the fact that the core of the Protoss army is weak and the race is entirely dependent on splash, so unlike Terran and Zerg small detachment forces can't really do that much versus the cost of the units in that force.
Again we're in a situation where at lower levels, Protoss works better with limited control and benefits less from improved mechanics as you skill up
Decision making/Tech: Zerg is incredibly flexible. Terran has rigid tracks but it's not too costly to switch between them and you can dip in between them to mix things up. Protoss tech is expensive, rigid, and easily scoutable the better you get. At low levels the power of Protoss splash evaporates armies and being able to scout is a skill people are trying to learn so being scoutable isn't really an issue. At high levels you can open up the Book, but at the highest level the other races have seen the tricks and learned the counters, additionally you have limited ability to really switch it up.
Taking everything together, Protoss is more forgiving on errors in macro, does better with poorer micro, and the rigid decision making makes it more straightforward to learn and play while learning granting ladder players many advantages over the other races. As you get better all of these things don't really matter and become more limitations, showing weaknesses at the highest level since the things that made the other races appear weaker at lower level don't matter at the highest level due to the increase in player skill and ability
On December 12 2021 02:33 NinjaNight wrote: [quote]
I think the problem for protoss is just being bad against zerg... its fine vs terran if not better, but I think very few people who believe the race is strong enough versus zerg play protoss at a high level. Also the fast expanding nature of LOTV just helps zerg imo thats what the race is designed to do.
There's not even enough data to say that. It could also be that the very top of zerg players is just better than the very top of protoss players at the game. We cannot positively state that if Serral had chosen protoss instead of zerg he wouldn't be dominating, there's no direct evidence of that.
All we can state is that there's not a ton of hope and that we should behave accordingly.
Thats why observation, logic, and actual in game experience with the races at a high level are important instead of just being a pure data nerd. You hear that all the time there's not enough data to tell this, not enough data to claim that...
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
There's not even enough data to say that. It could also be that the very top of zerg players is just better than the very top of protoss players at the game. We cannot positively state that if Serral had chosen protoss instead of zerg he wouldn't be dominating, there's no direct evidence of that.
All we can state is that there's not a ton of hope and that we should behave accordingly.
Thats why observation, logic, and actual in game experience with the races at a high level are important instead of just being a pure data nerd. You hear that all the time there's not enough data to tell this, not enough data to claim that...
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
That is exactly correct I just have no idea how to convince that guy of it. It's not acceptable for any race in this game to have such a problem.
Yes, we need a buff for protoss that only affects top tier matchups such as Trap vs Serral, without affecting the general balance of the ladder or lower tier matchups such as Trap vs Reynor.
On December 16 2021 17:11 Ronski wrote: Yes, we need a buff for protoss that only affects top tier matchups such as Trap vs Serral, without affecting the general balance of the ladder or lower tier matchups such as Trap vs Reynor.
It's not about buffing you troll.
It's about replacing mechanics that are easy to use and powerful but rely on the enemy messing up with mechanics that are more solid, maybe a bit weaker but with higher skill ceiling.
Simple examples again: weaken AoE and forcefield, increase mobility and core fighting unit strength.
With mobility and gateway units that don't have to run away from fights without AoE the natural skill ceiling is already much higher, because army movement alone and the ability to not having to micro every single squad and still have them trade somewhat effectively will enable players to try and outsmart their opponents using those tools.
On December 16 2021 00:46 Elantris wrote: Why would you even care about GM ladder population? This is a problem for a very small amount of people meanwhile protoss tournament perfomance problems affect all the viewers.
I tell you why. Because this absolutely irrelevant GM ladder distribution is last resort for toss haters.
Protoss tournament results affect even smaller amount of players. Sorry for me playing the game and not just watching and wanting to have a better ladder experience. (fun fact, I main Protoss)
You enjoy protoss ladder experience?
No? But at the same time I see who I am able to defeat just by marching across the map. which is the issue - yes, top level Protoss require buff, FFS don't buff Protoss on the ladder.
On December 16 2021 10:08 xPrimuSx wrote: Clearly there is a disconnect between Protoss as a ladder race and as a competitive race. Looking at Aligulac, it's frequently the lagging race (consistently since the March 28, 2018 stat update and for long periods before that), yet has the highest percentage of mirror matches indicating a large portion of active players that are able to make it to a high level of play with them. This would seem to speak to them being easier to play at a high level but falling off at the highest level, so what's going on with them? Like I'm sure everyone else here, I have some thoughts
Macro Protoss base building is more forgiving. A single Probe can set an entire base to be built in seconds and then return to mining. Zerg loses workers to build a structure and requires use of Queens' abilities to maximize territory where something can be built and having larva to actually use for building. Terran is in between with each structure concurrently built eating up worker time, but ultimately the SCV returns to the active and available population. If you fall behind, a Probe can quickly spend your money, it's harder for Terran or Zerg to similarly rapidly build structures without harming economy or army in the event you fell behind.
Similarly, unit production requires less effort for Toss thanks to warpgate allowing money to quickly be spent at the cost of building some excess gateways and a pylon somewhere on the map. They are also the weakest with their tech/power units building out slowly from structures that are normally quite limited in total amount available at any given time. While Zerg has the most powerful production capability, it requires a player to be good with their injects to get the most benefit. Terran is again somewhere in the middle balancing out reactors vs tech labs and how many of each production structure. So at low levels a Protoss can spend money faster to get units on the field and at less effort than their opponents, while at high levels and the relative weakness of those same units they fall behind, being limited by the production of more powerful units, DTs and HTs the obvious exception.
So, overall weaker players have more leeway with Protoss to build bases and get an army onto the field. At the highest level where these strengths really don't matter as the limitations for Terran and Zerg macro don't really factor due to strong player mechanics the more flexible production of the other two races provides them more options
Micro: Terran bio and basically all Zerg composition benefit from player control. Even when the composition used by Zerg relies more on slow or by nature static units (Brood Lords, Lurkers) the need to pair them with spell casters to maximize efficiency keeps micro requirements throughout. Terran mech is more about positioning with the units needing less babying in combat and is different skill set to learn.
Protoss meanwhile, Zealots are dumbfire missiles, particularly after charge. DTs can micro some but really it's just about closing the distance and then running away as they lack the agility of Speedlings. Blink Stalkers can be very micro intensive but the gains are limited due to the inherent lack of power of the unit, meaning it's best to either use blink to pounce on or run away from an army. Since Barrier is not on demand Immortals lack options, Colossi have never particularly required micro. Prism juggling introduces some micro, but with the range nerf and cost increase it also creates a lot of vulnerability. The spell casters of course do require micro but since storm doesn't stack, feedback doesn't kill anything, Terran units are all ranged and Zerg has Ravagers, and disruptors become prohibitive at large numbers you just expend your abilities at the start of a fight and then try to pick good targets thereafter. There's also the fact that the core of the Protoss army is weak and the race is entirely dependent on splash, so unlike Terran and Zerg small detachment forces can't really do that much versus the cost of the units in that force.
Again we're in a situation where at lower levels, Protoss works better with limited control and benefits less from improved mechanics as you skill up
Decision making/Tech: Zerg is incredibly flexible. Terran has rigid tracks but it's not too costly to switch between them and you can dip in between them to mix things up. Protoss tech is expensive, rigid, and easily scoutable the better you get. At low levels the power of Protoss splash evaporates armies and being able to scout is a skill people are trying to learn so being scoutable isn't really an issue. At high levels you can open up the Book, but at the highest level the other races have seen the tricks and learned the counters, additionally you have limited ability to really switch it up.
Taking everything together, Protoss is more forgiving on errors in macro, does better with poorer micro, and the rigid decision making makes it more straightforward to learn and play while learning granting ladder players many advantages over the other races. As you get better all of these things don't really matter and become more limitations, showing weaknesses at the highest level since the things that made the other races appear weaker at lower level don't matter at the highest level due to the increase in player skill and ability
Protoss macro is actually less forgiving, yes, sure, you can easily build buildings, but the issue is you have to use chrono properly, you have to evaluate the time of robo/stargate properly. It is way more punishing because these structures produce the key units, other races don't have such key units. If you properly macroed from the rest of the buildings you still have strong bio - sure, without tanks/medevacs it's less viable but it works. FFS 3-rax push works while gateway push is like - sure, uh, yeah, i need a robo unit there.
Also you don't have any "catch up" mechanic in the terms of workers. If zerg loses 20 drones, they can rebuild them most of the time right away. Probes? Nah. SCVs? Terran goes MULEs. Protoss economic is the most weak to the harassment.
Obviously some of these won't apply to the top level, but saying Protoss macro is the least (yea, i'm an idiot) most forgiving isn't exactly true. Especially when you go as general as you go.
Edit> similarly zerg macro is more and less forgiving - depends how you look at it. You can easily tech switch, you can build shitload of units at a time, you can replace workers quickly. At the same time the most valuable resource of Zerg is larvae. If you don't have any when you need to produce units(be it attacking/workers/support) then you're most probably dead as 1 queen per hatchery won't be sufficient(meaning the production of queens).
Every race has its own pros and cons and you can't say that Protoss macro is the most forgiving when there are aspects of it which makes it the opposite.
Disagree about Protoss micro. Zerg definitely requires less micro than Protoss. Zerg is mostly about setting up good engagements and multitasking but there's very little actual unit micro compared to Protoss.
There's not even enough data to say that. It could also be that the very top of zerg players is just better than the very top of protoss players at the game. We cannot positively state that if Serral had chosen protoss instead of zerg he wouldn't be dominating, there's no direct evidence of that.
All we can state is that there's not a ton of hope and that we should behave accordingly.
Thats why observation, logic, and actual in game experience with the races at a high level are important instead of just being a pure data nerd. You hear that all the time there's not enough data to tell this, not enough data to claim that...
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
It is extremely obvious that at the top level of play protoss doesn't win, I've been saying that throughout the thread and it's the reason why I'm not watching Starcraft. This guy is trying to demonstrate to me that this can only be due to race and not to the fact that 5 or 6 people at the highest level are just better than the rest and happen to not play protoss, which he doesn't need to do and he obviously doesn't have evidence for because there's no way to have evidence for that.
I think almost every single one of my posts in this thread contains the idea that protoss is weak at top level, it is kind of impressive that you would manage to miss that.
On December 16 2021 21:19 Charoisaur wrote: Disagree about Protoss micro. Zerg definitely requires less micro than Protoss. Zerg is mostly about setting up good engagements and multitasking but there's very little actual unit micro compared to Protoss.
True for the midgame (well except maybe the void styles), but i'd say the lategame caster army from zerg does require more than a little :D
As much as I'm glad that protoss weakness is finally being address after like 4 years here on TL instead of being frowned upon as a balance whining, this is all moot since Blizzard will never patch the game again. PvZ will remain as a broken matchup at the top competitive levels for good.
All I am seeing in this thread is people showing evidence again and again to support that protoss is too weak against zerg in the highest level, but zerg fan bois just completely evade the issue (we all know why) and instead argue that buffs and changes cannot be made because it will affect the balance in the lower tiers ("OMG...TOO MANY PROTOSSES IN EUROPE GOLD LEAGUE!"), like anyone f cares 😂 let's just all leave the game and let starcraft be a zvz fest.
On November 14 2021 07:12 Woosixion wrote: if you ask me, as the easiest race this is exactly what they deserve.. easier/less stressful wins against the vast majority of starcraft players but hitting a wall at the tippity top
So you just want one of the three races to simply not be viable at the top? That's a weird way of looking at things.
On December 12 2021 02:42 NinjaNight wrote: [quote]
Thats why observation, logic, and actual in game experience with the races at a high level are important instead of just being a pure data nerd. You hear that all the time there's not enough data to tell this, not enough data to claim that...
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
It is extremely obvious that at the top level of play protoss doesn't win, I've been saying that throughout the thread and it's the reason why I'm not watching Starcraft. This guy is trying to demonstrate to me that this can only be due to race and not to the fact that 5 or 6 people at the highest level are just better than the rest and happen to not play protoss, which he doesn't need to do and he obviously doesn't have evidence for because there's no way to have evidence for that.
I think almost every single one of my posts in this thread contains the idea that protoss is weak at top level, it is kind of impressive that you would manage to miss that.
Your refusal to accept anything as evidence doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. You always ignore the Trap vs Serral conundrum for instance and cherry pick anything else to detract from the overall idea. Here you have a similarly skilled player getting demolished, it IS evidence even if its not perfect proof. Evidence doesn't mean the same thing as complete proof maybe thats your problem. As he said there's plenty of clear evidence that protoss relies on the zerg to make major mistakes in perception otherwise zerg will pretty much always win.
On December 16 2021 19:30 deacon.frost wrote: Protoss macro is actually less forgiving, yes, sure, you can easily build buildings, but the issue is you have to use chrono properly, you have to evaluate the time of robo/stargate properly. It is way more punishing because these structures produce the key units, other races don't have such key units. If you properly macroed from the rest of the buildings you still have strong bio - sure, without tanks/medevacs it's less viable but it works. FFS 3-rax push works while gateway push is like - sure, uh, yeah, i need a robo unit there.
Also you don't have any "catch up" mechanic in the terms of workers. If zerg loses 20 drones, they can rebuild them most of the time right away. Probes? Nah. SCVs? Terran goes MULEs. Protoss economic is the most weak to the harassment.
Obviously some of these won't apply to the top level, but saying Protoss macro is the least (yea, i'm an idiot) most forgiving isn't exactly true. Especially when you go as general as you go.
Edit> similarly zerg macro is more and less forgiving - depends how you look at it. You can easily tech switch, you can build shitload of units at a time, you can replace workers quickly. At the same time the most valuable resource of Zerg is larvae. If you don't have any when you need to produce units(be it attacking/workers/support) then you're most probably dead as 1 queen per hatchery won't be sufficient(meaning the production of queens).
Every race has its own pros and cons and you can't say that Protoss macro is the most forgiving when there are aspects of it which makes it the opposite.
I feel I wasn't fully clear in my post, I'm talking about the game as a whole trying to look at how Protoss can dominate the ladder (looking at all players) and have favorable odds in match-ups (looking at the top several hundred players) yet still be the consistent lagging race (looking only at the top 5 players of each race) for years. For players of lower skill level Protoss has a much more straightforward economy and macro mechanics that hurt you less for not keeping up with. Even pros will have Nexuses with tons of energy and no one really makes a big deal of it. If you're floating a ton of resources Protoss has an easier time dumping it into infrastructure and units that can quickly be on the battlefield across most skill levels.
If you don't chrono something you're a lot less behind then missing injects or not using MULEs. Of course, as you get higher in skill the weaknesses of Protoss macro become more apparent since players for the other races aren't making those kinds of errors, I stated as much at the end of what I wrote. Still, even for the highest end of the ladder there is still a large difference between them and pros, just take a look at any of PiGs "pro player does something stupid on the ladder" videos where due to superior mechanics and decision making the pro still wins a good chunk of the time despite doing a bunch of stupid stuff and playing with an assortment of limitations.
On December 16 2021 21:19 Charoisaur wrote: Disagree about Protoss micro. Zerg definitely requires less micro than Protoss. Zerg is mostly about setting up good engagements and multitasking but there's very little actual unit micro compared to Protoss.
Already commented on darklycid with regards to late game PvZ, but even in early or midgame plays Queen transfusion, Muta-Ling-Bling style compositions require effort to control and move around, just like MMM because if you're not keeping them on the move and forcing the opponent to have to be everywhere too, you're losing out on a lot of the power of the army. Protoss units mostly get micro from spell usage which is going to have a hard limit in a battle because energy eventually runs out. How many times have we seen Toss armies evaporate once they're out of storms and forcefields? Other ways of micro have been nerfed considerably, Blink, Prism juggling, etc. Again, my general point that at lower skills levels Protoss tends to have higher power with less control, making Protoss feel a lot stronger until you get to the highest skill levels were everyone has good control so the over reliance Protoss has on power units makes them more vulnerable.
It's that general reason why though I liked the idea as suggested a few times in this thread of something like making Guardian Shield reduce melee damage too, ultimately I feel it's a bad idea because it's another binary skill that will help pros but likely disproportionately help ladder players generating more "Protoss OP, must nerf!" whining.
There's no level of observation or logic that will allow you to answer this type of question, and if you've ever heard 80% of pros talk you know that in game experience increases your bias rather than the quality of your data.
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
It is extremely obvious that at the top level of play protoss doesn't win, I've been saying that throughout the thread and it's the reason why I'm not watching Starcraft. This guy is trying to demonstrate to me that this can only be due to race and not to the fact that 5 or 6 people at the highest level are just better than the rest and happen to not play protoss, which he doesn't need to do and he obviously doesn't have evidence for because there's no way to have evidence for that.
I think almost every single one of my posts in this thread contains the idea that protoss is weak at top level, it is kind of impressive that you would manage to miss that.
Your refusal to accept anything as evidence doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. You always ignore the Trap vs Serral conundrum for instance and cherry pick anything else to detract from the overall idea. Here you have a similarly skilled player getting demolished, it IS evidence even if its not perfect proof. Evidence doesn't mean the same thing as complete proof maybe thats your problem. As he said there's plenty of clear evidence that protoss relies on the zerg to make major mistakes in perception otherwise zerg will pretty much always win.
If you don't have complete proof do you acknowledge that there's a possibility that the other scenario is right?
On November 14 2021 07:12 Woosixion wrote: if you ask me, as the easiest race this is exactly what they deserve.. easier/less stressful wins against the vast majority of starcraft players but hitting a wall at the tippity top
So you just want one of the three races to simply not be viable at the top? That's a weird way of looking at things.
How could protoss not be viable at the top when the top made more money than the other races this year though? The premise that protoss are not successful at the top level while still being too present in GM / ladder is false. That does not mean that balance / design can't be improved though, it is true that the PvZ match-up has become painful to watch (and probably play) although it's somewhat balanced
On November 14 2021 07:12 Woosixion wrote: if you ask me, as the easiest race this is exactly what they deserve.. easier/less stressful wins against the vast majority of starcraft players but hitting a wall at the tippity top
So you just want one of the three races to simply not be viable at the top? That's a weird way of looking at things.
How could protoss not be viable at the top when the top made more money than the other races this year though? The premise that protoss are not successful at the top level while still being too present in GM / ladder is false. That does not mean that balance / design can't be improved though, it is true that the PvZ match-up has become painful to watch (and probably play) although it's somewhat balanced
Not commenting on any of that, merely the fact that he doesn't want one of the 3 core races of a video game to be viable at the top, which is a really weird thing to want. "I wish this game had less variety"
On December 13 2021 01:13 NinjaNight wrote: [quote]
That I can't agree with, there's almost always a way to answer anything correctly that we can directly experience. Wombat and Fanatic Templar had very good posts to counter you.
Also the simplest strong evidence of protoss's weakness in this matchup is Serral. I'm watching him 4-0 Trap right now in TSL 8, the only protoss who has been very successful this year. Serral almost always absolutely demolishes protoss in particular while he struggles plenty vs terran and zerg. He shows just how helpless protoss is when zerg plays correctly.
I don't know what argument you think you're answering but it's not the argument I have. It is obvious that protoss is by miles the weakest race at the very highest level of play. This doesn't answer the question of whether it happens because protoss is weak or because the few people who have enough skill to be at the highest level of play, let's say 5 or 6 people, just coincidentally all happened to not pick protoss at the start of the game years ago.
This is a question that can't be answered. We cannot directly experience a world in which Serral chose to play protoss instead of zerg. That's the entirety of the issue. Maybe if Serral was protoss and Trap was zerg Serral would still have 4-0ed in this match, and we would be having a thread about how zerg can't win at the top level. Or maybe not. It's impossible to say.
We don't have to say it, however, since either way the end result is that protoss is not winning, and you and I are rooting for protoss. As a consequence, I once again did the sane thing this afternoon and I didn't watch Trap play vs Serral, which means I had a much happier afternoon than you
First of all if a race is strong enough its extremely unlikely the good people just decided not to pick it, generally player strength will average out pretty closely with similarly strong races. There's too large of a player pool for that.
We don't need to directly experience such a world, the player who is taking 70% of protoss tournament wins (Trap) consistently being crushed like a bronze league noob demonstrates the race is just bad.
Not really true, because we're talking about a very limited sample size of players. But again I'm not sure why you're so invested in the difference between the two, it weakens your argument for no discernable gain.
I think you're looking at only the small amount of top pros in saying very limited sample size of players? But there are millions of players who have played this game and any one of them could've decided to pursue tournament winnings or a pro career which must inevitably be narrowed down to a small amount of players at the highest level. So yes if a race isn't too weak the players who chose it won't be abnormally unskilled. There are clearly lots of high level protoss players on the ladder yet the race gets crushed against a zerg who can play quite correctly.
It doesn't matter anyway, even the fact that this thread is so active right now with so many people discussing what problems make this race the weakest in the game shows that its not an issue of the best players happening to not choose protoss. If that was the case it would be clear that the race is fine but its players are just getting outplayed. That is not the case, again Trap should not be constantly getting roflstomped by Serral like he's nothing.
No the fact that many people are posting in this thread isn't evidence of anything, you're getting desperate to prove something that you don't need to prove and I don't know why you're doing it.
He was right in his last post though. There is clear evidence that at the highest level, specifically talking about ZvP if both play perfectly, there is not chance for Protoss to win, no matter how they play. Toss can only rely on the Zerg to make a mistake in the perception of the game. Take Trap vs Reynor and Trap vs Serral as examples I think that tells the whole story. Trap won against Reynor because he caught him off guard with timing attacks which the Zerg didnt anticipate properly = Zergs mistake, well punished. But against Serral, a lot more solid player with perfect game awareness, he looked like a diamond scrub, and he didnt necesarily even have to play trash, just he didnt manage to outsmart the Zerg. Is this how they game is supposed to be? When both players play solid one race is clearly superior by design so they auto-win if they other race does not surprise them? Its bullshit, but its how it is. I remember times in SC2 when even ZvT was eft up... Just get them before ultras or get them before brood/infestor. Those kind of things are just unfair because on the highest level where least mistakes are made they always favor the race which is the most forgiving and with the most macro potential. Now in current state of the game ZvT is okay, but ZvP is a joke and everyone sees that. There is no protoss in the world who can beat a Zerg if both are highest level and both play an even game, no one. And its not like Serral is unbeatable, its just that in ZvP by design and macro mechanics its a requirement for Protoss to surprise this kind of player because they are playing at a disadvantage for most of the game. Its stupid. Will it ever change? No, but why close our eyes against it?
To sum it up in RTS I think that on the highest level if one player has better tools at their disposal then the other, its a problem and clear inbalance and its what ZvP has been for ages. Those two races are polar opposites and while there are tactics the Protoss can use to exploit this in their advantages, they are less and less effective the higher level your opponent is. That is why there is such a huge discrepancy between standard ladder and top players. The skill cap of the Zerg is just too high compared to Protoss....
It is extremely obvious that at the top level of play protoss doesn't win, I've been saying that throughout the thread and it's the reason why I'm not watching Starcraft. This guy is trying to demonstrate to me that this can only be due to race and not to the fact that 5 or 6 people at the highest level are just better than the rest and happen to not play protoss, which he doesn't need to do and he obviously doesn't have evidence for because there's no way to have evidence for that.
I think almost every single one of my posts in this thread contains the idea that protoss is weak at top level, it is kind of impressive that you would manage to miss that.
Your refusal to accept anything as evidence doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. You always ignore the Trap vs Serral conundrum for instance and cherry pick anything else to detract from the overall idea. Here you have a similarly skilled player getting demolished, it IS evidence even if its not perfect proof. Evidence doesn't mean the same thing as complete proof maybe thats your problem. As he said there's plenty of clear evidence that protoss relies on the zerg to make major mistakes in perception otherwise zerg will pretty much always win.
If you don't have complete proof do you acknowledge that there's a possibility that the other scenario is right?
Yes I wouldn't say its impossible but it should be very unlikely, and if you understand the game well you can tell from watching high level PvZs that its not purely inferior player skill and zerg truly does have the advantage.
On November 14 2021 07:12 Woosixion wrote: if you ask me, as the easiest race this is exactly what they deserve.. easier/less stressful wins against the vast majority of starcraft players but hitting a wall at the tippity top
siriously? in late game, protoss is the hardest to handle, while Zerg basically A move and terran only manage marines and some passive units, protoss needs to handle so much fine unit micro (disruptors, storms, forcefields etc).
EPT
