On March 12 2022 00:03 Nebuchad wrote: You ask "why bother trying anything else" rhetorically but I already gave you an answer. If you mostly lose vs the very best players using that strategy, then that's an incentive to try something else.
And how often are you (not you personally but the hypothetical player we're discussing) playing against the best player? Let's not confused the general player population with the very small segment of players who are consistently reaching that top level of competition. If 8 out of 10 games you're meeting opponents that you can beat with the "convenient" skytoss build, then you do that. If you're losing only 20% of the time against the handful of players who are capable of consistently winning against skytoss, then I consider that pretty good odds. It doesn't encourage you to experiment.
Plus, this game simply cannot just be sustain with the top 1% of players. At the lower level there's no question that Skytoss is by far the best strategy to use, and that's really the issue. There's no denying that the PvZ meta has stagnated on the Protoss side for years. On the Zerg side there has been numerous changes in how to play the match up, with even microbial shroud/mass queen getting a fair amount of play recently. Why is this? Again this is because there's no obvious best way for zerg to fight skytoss, so it encourages experimentation. The moment Skytoss stops becoming the "default" option is the moment where the experimentation on the Toss side can begin. I'm not convince that with all the options that Protoss has at their disposal they can't put together a ground-based style that can go toe to toe with Zerg in the late game.
Last time I played the hypothetical player who doesn't play against the best was losing to my three adepts one oracle third base into only carriers build, I have zero interest in how balance affects him and you should too.
On March 12 2022 00:16 Nebuchad wrote: Last time I played the hypothetical player who doesn't play against the best was losing to my three adepts one oracle third base into only carriers build, I have zero interest in how balance affects him and you should too.
Ok so I don't care about the player at your level perhaps. But if I'm a mid level pro and I play in a tournament, how often am I running into a Dark or a Serral? Or it is more likely that I'll play a Ragnarok or Lambo, who are both solid players but I know that my Skytoss style can reliably beat? If I'm a smart player I'm going to play the strat that gives me the best overall chance of success, and for now that's Skytoss.
On March 12 2022 00:03 Nebuchad wrote: You ask "why bother trying anything else" rhetorically but I already gave you an answer. If you mostly lose vs the very best players using that strategy, then that's an incentive to try something else.
And how often are you (not you personally but the hypothetical player we're discussing) playing against the best player? Let's not confused the general player population with the very small segment of players who are consistently reaching that top level of competition. If 8 out of 10 games you're meeting opponents that you can beat with the "convenient" skytoss build, then you do that. If you're losing only 20% of the time against the handful of players who are capable of consistently winning against skytoss, then I consider that pretty good odds. It doesn't encourage you to experiment.
Plus, this game simply cannot just be sustain with the top 1% of players. At the lower level there's no question that Skytoss is by far the best strategy to use, and that's really the issue.
If pros earned their money through winning as many ladder games as they could over a season sure. Playing the odds with a stable strategy that works against most people and is pretty safe to cheese is the way to go.
They earn the big bucks, and the prestige from peaking at big tournaments though.
Trap and Zest know the ceiling where playing the odds isn’t enough, they’ve been smacked around enough by big Zergs (and taken the odd scalp) over the last couple of years.
They’ve 100% been experimenting, they both know that to take a Katowice or Code S there’s a high likelihood they can’t just dodge all the Zergs
They just haven’t found anything that reliably works, yet.
It’s worth noting that Zest refined the hell out of Skytoss to get it to its current state of use and stability.
What about if I'm the very best protoss and I play thé best zergs consistently? Wouldn't I then try ground, see that it's viable against the best players, and then conclude that it's therefore also viable against weaker zergs, at which point other protosses then adopt my build?
Also who is this second tier protoss who wins consistently against second tier zergs? Are you sure you're not talking about a top tier protoss winning against second tier zergs, but protoss has been underperforming so much lately that you view their top tier as similar level to zerg's second tier? I tried Mana, Harstem, Skillous, Gerald, and none of them have a winning record against Lambo or Elazer.
meh I think it's disengenuous to act as though Protoss is unique in having less strategic diversity in the ultra-late-game. All three races have ultra-late-game "peak" compositions where things settle down somewhat and the focus moves to holding ground with static d and slightly adjusting the comp in order to respond to slight adjustments in the enemy's comp or get an edge and preparing for army wipes and rebuilds. This happens just as much with Protoss as any other race, with the balance of disruptors, HTs, Carriers, Tempests, Archons, Voids, Immortals, Stalkers, etc depending on exactly what the Zerg is doing. Protoss comps in general are more "deathbally," but that's true in other phases of the game too and you definitely have late-game harass, etc.
The "problem" with Skytoss wasn't that it existed as a late-game comp but that with the Void opener Protoss could essentially vault into a strong lategame composition so much faster than the enemy that the opponent could not possibly have their own late-game composition ready and therefore most of the late-game strategic stuff doesn't apply. In effect it turns a late-game composition into a mid-game composition. There's a somewhat analogous position with Zergs rushing to Hive, but Skytoss is just a more stable and all-around (and less strategically complex) comp than being able to quickly get Lurkers with upgrades or a few BLs out.
If you can delay Toss getting into their late-game comp, though, by the time they do the game will be in a very different state and things will be generally more interesting.
There's an argument to be made that all ultra-late-game stuff should be rebalanced and changed (generally in SC2 Tier 3 stuff is much stronger relative to Tier 1 and 2 than it is in BW, as is Static D, and that changes the game a lot and makes late-game arguably more passive and different from other phases of the game), but just changing Protoss wouldn't accomplish that.
On March 12 2022 01:36 Riner1212 wrote: my only concern is that for queen transfuse. what if they get over lord to drop creep on them... during their early cheeses.
They would need lair for creep (overlord or nydus) which is OK. It delays the all in. It‘s not like you are not able to do any cheese or all on builds anymore. You have to adjust some things.
On March 12 2022 01:36 Riner1212 wrote: my only concern is that for queen transfuse. what if they get over lord to drop creep on them... during their early cheeses.
They would need lair for creep (overlord or nydus) which is OK. It delays the all in. It‘s not like you are not able to do any cheese or all on builds anymore. You have to adjust some things.
Yeah Zerg can still allin it’s just that they can’t do it unreasonably fast any more.
On March 10 2022 03:49 Jerubaal wrote: While that's a good analysis, you're slightly overselling Skytoss. It wasn't some great build Protoss did because it was so strong. They went that build because everything else was terrible.
Well at a high level yes in low gm and below they go it because it’s extremely effective at non pro levels of play.
Obv still quite early but this PvZ btw Harstem & Lambo on the new patch seems quite promising:
If Harstem's approach is right, the Void Ray will still contribute to stabilizing Toss early game, but going mass Voids early on will be difficult/unrewarding and it will be very difficult to transition straight into Carriers. At least in these games, tho, Protoss seems to be in a better econ position overall, and so able to play a true mid-game a lot more.
Seems pretty ideal to me, but we'll have to see how it turns out.
On March 12 2022 21:33 Jerubaal wrote: I feel like so many fucked up design/balance choices have revolved around Zergs lack of early anti air.
Yeah 100% especially as expansions have given either boosts to existing air units or whole new air units to play with.
Yes, Air units mustn t be as important than ground units. In my mind Carrier for example could cost 1 supply but each time you buy an interceptor, you increase the supply by +X. Kind of flying factory. But I have to say i m not really interesting in viewing air fights so....
Then even if patchs aren t fully usefull directly, maybe if community, casters and pros react well afterall, Activision could let the game evolve in different hands increasing the replayability of the game... Which is actually really suffering
EPT
