|
On February 12 2022 00:02 honorablemacroterran wrote:
I agree that Protoss design is bad, but do you really think it can fundamentally change at this point? One of my first posts in this thread made this point, but I think most Protoss players actually don't want that at all because they like it for what it is.
Hey I recognize your name from the Wardii stream, awesome of you to donate man 
I think people blow Protoss's bad design issues way out of proportion. Protoss is suffering from power creep, particularly Gateway units. Over time Zerg has just had to much practice dealing with Zealots, Stalkers, Adepts, and obviously Sentries which imo have suffered the most because of Ravagers coming into play.
The high level games of ZvP that I watch (literally every video on Cranky Ducklings which is all the Asia ESL matches, everything on Alpha X and when Wardii decides he's done posting ZvT and mirror matches) Gateway units still play a critical role, especially force fields, but they just seem lack luster to what's able to be put on the field right away.
I think if Gateway units received some minor buffs it would make a world of difference. Obviously the simple solution for ZvP is to nerf the Lurker in any manner of meaningful and already proposed ways. All from removing Talons (my choice) to a different poster here saying that maybe Storm should be buffed against Burrowed units which while I don't think it's an elegant change, I actually really like it because it's very ZvP targeted.
I'm really hoping we get the balance patch after IEM, and I'm really hoping that Protoss get's some good QoL buffs or even just some nerf reversals. If the upgrade and Prism nerfs were reverted I think that would really help out alot. Those were knee jerk reaction nerfs anyways.
|
On February 12 2022 01:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 00:02 honorablemacroterran wrote:
I agree that Protoss design is bad, but do you really think it can fundamentally change at this point? One of my first posts in this thread made this point, but I think most Protoss players actually don't want that at all because they like it for what it is. I'm really hoping we get the balance patch after IEM, and I'm really hoping that Protoss get's some good QoL buffs or even just some nerf reversals. If the upgrade and Prism nerfs were reverted I think that would really help out alot. Those were knee jerk reaction nerfs anyways.
Protoss is the last race in need of QoL buffs.
They're already easier to play.
Any protoss changes at this point should be a net benefit the players with top 10 control and spending, and no-one else, unless you want to see nearly every early match in every single cup be PvP.
Shifting power from sky + storm to ground armies that require more serious positioning is IMO a pretty necessary step for this.
|
On February 12 2022 02:45 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 01:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On February 12 2022 00:02 honorablemacroterran wrote:
I agree that Protoss design is bad, but do you really think it can fundamentally change at this point? One of my first posts in this thread made this point, but I think most Protoss players actually don't want that at all because they like it for what it is. I'm really hoping we get the balance patch after IEM, and I'm really hoping that Protoss get's some good QoL buffs or even just some nerf reversals. If the upgrade and Prism nerfs were reverted I think that would really help out alot. Those were knee jerk reaction nerfs anyways. Protoss is the last race in need of QoL buffs. They're already easier to play. Any protoss changes at this point should be a net benefit the players with top 10 control and spending, and no-one else, unless you want to see nearly every early match in every single cup be PvP. Shifting power from sky + storm to ground armies that require more serious positioning is IMO a pretty necessary step for this.
Be careful when you talk about, "easier to play" because that's really an eye of the beholder type of statement. I'll be the first one to admit that in terms of sheer APM/mechanical requirements, Protoss has a bit less to do, but I would argue that at the top 10 level Protoss is even harder to play because Protoss get less value out of their APM then Zerg and less value from their micro then Terran.
I mean, as far as QoL buffs are concerned, I'm pretty much only talking about small things like undoing the Warp Prism and upgrade nerf, just to give Protoss some additional ground harassment options and maybe some slightly sharper upgrade timings.
Massive redesigns I think are off the table forever, time to stop beating that dead horse about fundamentally altering Skytoss vs. Groundtoss or Warp Gate. Like yea I want them changed too but that ship has sailed and even if this magical balance patch does happen (please God let it happen..) I don't think that the current team will be even remotely capable of implementing such radical design changes.
Changes like that would take multitudes of patches and a year or more or high level play to flesh out. Alot of people don't remember back in the days of yore when Roaches were considered one of the worst units in the game. Then they got a +1 range buff and became a staple unit in all match ups. Starcraft 2 doesn't even need radical redesigns at this point.
By your own logic, why would Skytoss get power shifted away from it when concerning the top 10 players they make it look very manageable to deal with it, Serral makes it look just plain easy.
|
I think some people are missing something fundamental about this problem. I agree that it's harder for high level protoss players to differentiate themselves from less skilled Protoss players because quite frankly there is a limit to micro on a lot of their units. Let's say each race has a "power function" that is determined by the stats of its units and abilities, etc. as well as the individual players' skills. The "shape" of this function is determined by the actual game design, but you can tweak the values assigned to units and abilities, with player skill being exogeneous from this. I think what we're dealing with is something like the below.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oVs5nux.png)
The problem is with the design of Protoss, which causes the power curve to have the shape it does. The question is if you want to shift that green line up even higher just so the best players in the world no longer have an advantage when you get to the top ten players. Does that seem fair to you? That is what just buffing Protoss without reworking it would do.
|
Can't wait for katowice playoffs being even more zergy than blizzcon 2019 but toss haters here still will talk about some fairy design flaws! No my guys, it's very simple protoss is the most underpowered and hard to play race.
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
On February 12 2022 04:27 Elantris wrote:
Can't wait for katowice playoffs being even more zergy than blizzcon 2019 but toss haters here still will talk about some fairy design flaws! No my guys, it's very simple protoss is the most underpowered and hard to play race.
It is not the hardest race to play.
Most allusions to Protoss design flaws are very much with a mind of increasing the potential for skilled players to get the most mileage out of their skills.
What makes the race relatively easier to play at lower levels is precisely what makes it harder at S tier competition. It’s A-move friendly and its AoE shreds, until you’re playing a Maru or a Serral with a bunch of units you can only A-move with and they can dodge your AoE or snipe your casters reliably.
|
On February 12 2022 04:02 honorablemacroterran wrote:I think some people are missing something fundamental about this problem. I agree that it's harder for high level protoss players to differentiate themselves from less skilled Protoss players because quite frankly there is a limit to micro on a lot of their units. Let's say each race has a "power function" that is determined by the stats of its units and abilities, etc. as well as the individual players' skills. The "shape" of this function is determined by the actual game design, but you can tweak the values assigned to units and abilities, with player skill being exogeneous from this. I think what we're dealing with is something like the below. The problem is with the design of Protoss, which causes the power curve to have the shape it does. The question is if you want to shift that green line up even higher just so the best players in the world no longer have an advantage when you get to the top ten players. Does that seem fair to you? That is what just buffing Protoss without reworking it would do.
Yes it does seem fair, it's fair in the sense that all balance for the game is derived from players who are playing as close as possible to perfection. Everything below that can be countered by increased player skill.
If I have to clean my macro up a bit or play less greedy because Warp Prisms go back to 6 range and 200 minerals or whatever or because Gateway timings are stronger because the upgrade nerfs were reverted then why is that a bad thing? Taking away an unfair advantage for Zerg doesn't mean that you're giving Protoss an unfair advantage, it just levels the playing field.
This is just pure conjecture on my end, but If it positively impacts the pro scene, that means that tournaments stay stronger and retain stronger viewership. Protoss struggling to win major tournaments means more ZvZ and TvT in the later stages of tournament finals, more people are going to tune in for a greater variety of game types. I personally think that ZvT is the zenith of top level SC2 play but even sometimes I get a little irritated at Wardii for having 10 + ZvT on his Youtube and no ZvP.
|
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do.
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do.
Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger.
Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer.
And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps.
Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun.
There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good.
I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly.
|
On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly.
The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xKKJcum.jpg)
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
On February 12 2022 09:47 honorablemacroterran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly. The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder?
Ladder is ladder. It’s a whole bunch of blind 1v1s, it’s rather different from even weekender tournament play, even more different from GSL’s prep format.
Maru is not weak strategically/tactically, merely others are better in this domain. Quite a lot of players.
Considering Maru is the best, or close to the best in all mechanical aspects of the game, if he was similarly gifted in that domain he’d have ground the competition into dust.
Unless you’re doing the usual Terran martyr crap of ‘omg my stutter step micro’ despite making terrible strategic decisions.
TY was a better strategic/tactical player, who was worse mechanically. Rogue is better in that domain, Zest is better, sOS is better but so deficient mechanically it’s not super important. Dark is better, IMO. Serral is probably better.
None of those players are better than Maru IMO, they’re just stronger in that aspect of the game.
|
On February 12 2022 10:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 09:47 honorablemacroterran wrote:On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly. The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder? Ladder is ladder. It’s a whole bunch of blind 1v1s, it’s rather different from even weekender tournament play, even more different from GSL’s prep format. Maru is not weak strategically/tactically, merely others are better in this domain. Quite a lot of players. Considering Maru is the best, or close to the best in all mechanical aspects of the game, if he was similarly gifted in that domain he’d have ground the competition into dust. Unless you’re doing the usual Terran martyr crap of ‘omg my stutter step micro’ despite making terrible strategic decisions. TY was a better strategic/tactical player, who was worse mechanically. Rogue is better in that domain, Zest is better, sOS is better but so deficient mechanically it’s not super important. Dark is better, IMO. Serral is probably better. None of those players are better than Maru IMO, they’re just stronger in that aspect of the game.
Pretty outrageous opinion imo.
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
On February 12 2022 11:33 honorablemacroterran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 10:00 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 09:47 honorablemacroterran wrote:On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly. The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder? Ladder is ladder. It’s a whole bunch of blind 1v1s, it’s rather different from even weekender tournament play, even more different from GSL’s prep format. Maru is not weak strategically/tactically, merely others are better in this domain. Quite a lot of players. Considering Maru is the best, or close to the best in all mechanical aspects of the game, if he was similarly gifted in that domain he’d have ground the competition into dust. Unless you’re doing the usual Terran martyr crap of ‘omg my stutter step micro’ despite making terrible strategic decisions. TY was a better strategic/tactical player, who was worse mechanically. Rogue is better in that domain, Zest is better, sOS is better but so deficient mechanically it’s not super important. Dark is better, IMO. Serral is probably better. None of those players are better than Maru IMO, they’re just stronger in that aspect of the game. Pretty outrageous opinion imo.
What’s outrageous about it?
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
Maru is the greatest player in SC2’s history at executing things properly, he can be beaten by smart plays by people with greater strategic nous.
If that’s ‘outrageous’ it’s the Terran martyr complex in a nutshell.
|
On February 12 2022 11:40 WombaT wrote:
Maru is the greatest player in SC2’s history at executing things properly, he can be beaten by smart plays by people with greater strategic nous.
If that’s ‘outrageous’ it’s the Terran martyr complex in a nutshell.
He beat Serral with mech.
|
|
|
On February 12 2022 10:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 09:47 honorablemacroterran wrote:On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly. The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder? Ladder is ladder. It’s a whole bunch of blind 1v1s, it’s rather different from even weekender tournament play, even more different from GSL’s prep format. Maru is not weak strategically/tactically, merely others are better in this domain. Quite a lot of players. Considering Maru is the best, or close to the best in all mechanical aspects of the game, if he was similarly gifted in that domain he’d have ground the competition into dust. Unless you’re doing the usual Terran martyr crap of ‘omg my stutter step micro’ despite making terrible strategic decisions. TY was a better strategic/tactical player, who was worse mechanically. Rogue is better in that domain, Zest is better, sOS is better but so deficient mechanically it’s not super important. Dark is better, IMO. Serral is probably better. None of those players are better than Maru IMO, they’re just stronger in that aspect of the game.
I think you underrate his stratetical/tactical prowess - he's stubborn sometimes yes, but he also has a great range of strategies and knows when to mix it up and go for proxys, and during his 4-peat run had excellent series planning.
Not to mention those 30 minute lategames where he just makes correct decision after correct decision and knows exactly when to attack and when to defend, perfectly adapts his unit composition at all times etc.
I can see TY, Rogue and sOs being strategically better but hard disagree on the other players you mentioned
|
I wonder if terrans in general are under the impression that terran requires strategy or if it's just this guy. The relationship is basically the same as micro but in reverse.
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
On February 12 2022 21:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2022 10:00 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 09:47 honorablemacroterran wrote:On February 12 2022 08:48 WombaT wrote:On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do. Protoss can do some great things micro and control wise, it’s just a shame it doesn’t really scale as armies get bigger. Phoenixes and blink stalkers are real finesse units, you can really see the skill of a Trap or a Parting in those 60-90 supply skirmishes. Some folks get crazy stuff done with only a warp prism and a prayer. And even if it’s technically as difficult, controlling those technical lategame armies is never as visually impressive as Terran’s base unit micro, unless you’re watching from a player’s view. Same with lategame Zerg comps. Even Maru‘s mastery of defensive play with really technical armies is probably actually more impressive than some of his feats with bio, but it sure as hell isn’t as fun. There is also the whole strategy aspect to the game as well. Which for some reason is frequently neglected in talking about player skill. Maru is without peer mechanically, or that’s close to being the case, but a Zest can still be competitive by being a wizard at making builds and reading games well and by being tactically pretty darn good. I like how generally the game can accommodate different skillsets, albeit not perfectly. The reason it comes up is that all races require strategy but some require more micro than others. That is the thing that's different. Are you really suggesting that Maru has weaker strategy when he is the top Terran and the top Protoss on the ladder? Ladder is ladder. It’s a whole bunch of blind 1v1s, it’s rather different from even weekender tournament play, even more different from GSL’s prep format. Maru is not weak strategically/tactically, merely others are better in this domain. Quite a lot of players. Considering Maru is the best, or close to the best in all mechanical aspects of the game, if he was similarly gifted in that domain he’d have ground the competition into dust. Unless you’re doing the usual Terran martyr crap of ‘omg my stutter step micro’ despite making terrible strategic decisions. TY was a better strategic/tactical player, who was worse mechanically. Rogue is better in that domain, Zest is better, sOS is better but so deficient mechanically it’s not super important. Dark is better, IMO. Serral is probably better. None of those players are better than Maru IMO, they’re just stronger in that aspect of the game. I think you underrate his stratetical/tactical prowess - he's stubborn sometimes yes, but he also has a great range of strategies and knows when to mix it up and go for proxys, and during his 4-peat run had excellent series planning. Not to mention those 30 minute lategames where he just makes correct decision after correct decision and knows exactly when to attack and when to defend, perfectly adapts his unit composition at all times etc. I can see TY, Rogue and sOs being strategically better but hard disagree on the other players you mentioned
He’s still very good, amongst the very best. Some of his lategames are a series of perfect adaptations and positioning as you say.
His overall power hexagon is more well-rounded than basically anyone’s, but a few will have him beat on those specific stats. And it is a few.
The last player I think who was simultaneously the best mechanically and strategically/tactically was arguably Mvp, and that’s a bloody long time ago.
Innovation in his latter years, or Byun frequently these days are players who try to brute force it with mechanics than Maru would be.
Bit of a tangent but hey! Ultimately I think Protoss players may have to be stronger in planning series, and arguably tactically.
PvZ at the highest level is the most build/prep reliant matchup in the game, from one direction. ZvP and TvZ from either direction it’s a bonus to have tricky, smart builds but you can turn up and play a similar gameplan every set if you’re a Maru/Rogue calibre player.
PvP is the most see-sawing, technical mirror at times, and it’s the least liable to be brute-forced by better mechanics.
I quite like the idea that a race in an asymmetric strategy game is the tactical/decision race, one race is more micro mechanical focused and the other is more macro mechanic focused. That’s a reasonable template for a 3 faction strategy game, provided the divergence isn’t too extreme. The alternative is for each faction to have similar demands and rewards in all these areas while still being distinct flavour wise, which is also a fine template.
SC2 has some of the worst of both worlds. Terran requires both good unit control, but good macro and really good reads to boot.
Protoss has a niche as the build race but is so dependent on hiding intentions and gambling rather than doing it in a more flexible dynamic manner.
|
On February 12 2022 07:34 honorablemacroterran wrote:
If you buff Protoss across the board at all skill levels it will do more harm than good. They should have to micro like everyone else and then they can get the benefit of micro like everyone else.
Also, as I said before, to make Protoss more competitive with Maru the way the race currently is, it wouldn't just be unfair for lower levels, it would also be unfair for Maru because he actually has to control his units much more intensively than his Protoss opponents do.
I think Protoss is actaully reasonably competitive with Maru. Zest just beat him 3-1, and while Maru is def a favorite in a rematch, Zest is a live dog.
I think even at pro levels it's hard to argue that T is really favored over P, and I agree that just buffing P here would be totally unfair.
I think the only thing worth considering are Z nerfs AND P nerfs in a way that
1. makes ground based toss armies viable. I think this will just make better games.
2. not affect ZvT or PvT
A possible example is void rays require fleet beacon, and lurker unborrow speed is increased. The effect would be that disruptors can now fight lurkers better, at pro level play. I think ZvT is unaffected since i don't think unburrow helps you dodge snipe or tank shots very much. PvT is probably positively effected since we get rid of those disgusting void ray all-ins.
Finally, while I agree with your graph, I think it's exaggerated. I think there is a clear difference between top Protosses and the next 10. Like Zest, Showtime, Maxpax, and Trap (when he's on) are just CLEARLY better than the other protosses in the top 50. The graph you drew would suggest very little difference in their "power", but this is not the case as Zest and Trap hold the vast vast vast majority of Toss tournament wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/8iCaj10.jpeg)
