Yet another major over without a decent Protoss showing (that said, respect to Harstem for 3-1 Reynor).
Hero beating Maru 3-2 but losing to Heromarine 3-1 hurt Auir's feelings and Classic losing to Dark feels standard.
It all looks so familiar; Protoss competes, wins and loses on very shaky ground; inconsistent performances and showings.
Yes Clem is deserving, yes Serral is one of the greatest to ever touch the game, yes Dark has a consistency that is astounding, Solar has always been an elite, Cure is a very sound Terran, Byun is a gifted player etc… etc… but beneath all of this is the truth that the flimsiness of Protoss design is what hinders the race being competitive and not the race’s pilots.
1) Zerg and Terran have incredible players right now 2) Protoss internationally have lost several championship contending players 3) Protoss pros are just worse at the game? 4) The observation made is this; how often do we see a Zerg or Terran player under heavy pressure, even losing and rally to come back or stabilize, now consider the scenario with Protoss. The range for stabilization and back and forth play is less with Protoss. This is because of the now well established limitations imposed on gateway units due to the power of the warp in mechanic.
Now let me be clear; I play random, I do not care for Protoss particularly, I just want the pro scene to be viable for all races and exhibit the most competitive games possible. I also do not expect radical changes to the game to address this issue.
Just spitballing here; but one thought I had was to allow Protoss to train ‘Elder’ gateway units from closed gateways after Twilight Council is warped in. Elder gateway units would be the same as normal gateway units but are trained (the way units are trained before warpgate is researched and the way P units are trained in BW) and have a small percentage greater Hp and /or dps than normal gateway units (a reasonable small % wld need to determined). They could look basically the same but be identified by a small color/ graphic change. Of course train time could be addressed also. A P player would open or close gates depending on their build.
Hate the idea? Sure, but Protoss need something! What does everyone think? What other reasons are there for the lack of success of Protoss?
I think there are a lot of things that have changed with the game and the race that make it see less success (And i don't buy that Protoss isn't doing well simply cus they lost their best players, Zest and sOs had many more tournament wins and success in HotS than LotV, even though they were playing 2x as many years in LotV than HotS)
For example a couple years ago, Protoss used to open up with a good amount of varied builds, such as proxy Oracle openers, but now that's not standard and from what i've heard from pros, it seems that the only way to play Protoss at the pro level is to mainly play straight up macro. That's limiting especially at a top level.
Protoss used to have strong openers and really strong timings/all-ins throughout SC2 since WoL, but they always get nerfed. So Protoss has weaker peaks, but they still have the punishing and steep lows of the race. Now Protoss usually has to sit back and isn't very scary in the early or mid game, rather they are fragile until they get more tech units. How many times do you see a early Zerg Ravager push kill a Protoss and make it look nearly impossible to defend, and how many times do you see a Protoss try a supposedly "strong" push with gateways/immortals/WP, and it looks closee to breaking the Zerg but they just keep having enough Roach/ling reinforcements to hold it off from doing any real drone damage?
I think Protoss is definitely in a much more doable place thanks to the latest patch (though the problem was introduced in the first place by nerfing Overcharge without giving nearly enough to compensate, thus making PvT extremely hard as the winrate seem to have been around 40% only, which for the history of SC2 is relatively VERY imbalanced judging from the stats the blizzard team would share about the state of balance). But Protoss is still very fragile and punishing. I think honestly Protoss is the hardest race to play at the top top level.
It makes sense because Protoss has so many different units and abilities with such great potential, but with most players who aren't super fast or incredible with micro, you don't usually see Protoss show off what it can do. But when played by someone as fast and good at multi-tasking and control as someone like say Reynor, you start seeing what Protoss really could be if it had a Serral/Maru/Reynor/Clem type player. So, perhaps it really is just that Protoss never had a player on that level of crazy skill. Protoss as a race has so many different things you can be good at, and we see this through how each Protoss player's skillset varies much more than say Terran players do from other Terrans. We just haven't really seen a Protoss player have it all.
On a side note, maps are always a factor. For a long time people have wondered how do you make a Protoss favored map, without simply making the map have more closed spaces which also favors Terran? Well the answer is have huge maps where warpin, recall, etc. become more powerful, such as Radhuset. Ok what do we do about Terran's immobility on such huge maps? Re-introduce Terran-favored map features such as cliffs spread out around the middle of the map or near some far away late-game expansions so that it's easier for Terran to hold positions, harass, etc. so that Protoss/Zerg don't just get free bases too easily. Re-introduce chokes/ramps/highground for far away bases. Stop making every expansion so open, which promotes deathball gameplay and favors Zerg (especially hard to defend vs cracklings for example). I know that a few years ago, the reason expansions are open is so that it's easier to threaten a Zerg base, since Zerg was so strong at the time. However, having expansion options with chokes/ramps for example would help Terran and Protoss more than Zerg. There's a lot of map features and ideas that are very common in BW maps and even earlier SC2 maps that promote spread out gameplay, that just got phased out and to me it feels like mapmakers just forget those are options or forget that maybe the reason they got phased out was for a valid reason at the time, but no longer holds anymore with the current state of the game/design/balance.
On December 20 2023 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think there are a lot of things that have changed with the game and the race that make it see less success (And i don't buy that Protoss isn't doing well simply cus they lost their best players, Zest and sOs had many more tournament wins and success in HotS than LotV, even though they were playing 2x as many years in LotV than HotS)
For example a couple years ago, Protoss used to open up with a good amount of varied builds, such as proxy Oracle openers, but now that's not standard and from what i've heard from pros, it seems that the only way to play Protoss at the pro level is to mainly play straight up macro. That's limiting especially at a top level.
Protoss used to have strong openers and really strong timings/all-ins throughout SC2 since WoL, but they always get nerfed. So Protoss has weaker peaks, but they still have the punishing and steep lows of the race. Now Protoss usually has to sit back and isn't very scary in the early or mid game, rather they are fragile until they get more tech units. How many times do you see a early Zerg Ravager push kill a Protoss and make it look nearly impossible to defend, and how many times do you see a Protoss try a supposedly "strong" push with gateways/immortals/WP, and it looks closee to breaking the Zerg but they just keep having enough Roach/ling reinforcements to hold it off from doing any real drone damage?
I think Protoss is definitely in a much more doable place thanks to the latest patch (though the problem was introduced in the first place by nerfing Overcharge without giving nearly enough to compensate, thus making PvT extremely hard as the winrate seem to have been around 40% only, which for the history of SC2 is relatively VERY imbalanced judging from the stats the blizzard team would share about the state of balance). But Protoss is still very fragile and punishing. I think honestly Protoss is the hardest race to play at the top top level.
It makes sense because Protoss has so many different units and abilities with such great potential, but with most players who aren't super fast or incredible with micro, you don't usually see Protoss show off what it can do. But when played by someone as fast and good at multi-tasking and control as someone like say Reynor, you start seeing what Protoss really could be if it had a Serral/Maru/Reynor/Clem type player. So, perhaps it really is just that Protoss never had a player on that level of crazy skill. Protoss as a race has so many different things you can be good at, and we see this through how each Protoss player's skillset varies much more than say Terran players do from other Terrans. We just haven't really seen a Protoss player have it all.
On a side note, maps are always a factor. For a long time people have wondered how do you make a Protoss favored map, without simply making the map have more closed spaces which also favors Terran? Well the answer is have huge maps where warpin, recall, etc. become more powerful, such as Radhuset. Ok what do we do about Terran's immobility on such huge maps? Re-introduce Terran-favored map features such as cliffs spread out around the middle of the map or near some far away late-game expansions so that it's easier for Terran to hold positions, harass, etc. so that Protoss/Zerg don't just get free bases too easily. Re-introduce chokes/ramps/highground for far away bases. Stop making every expansion so open, which promotes deathball gameplay and favors Zerg (especially hard to defend vs cracklings for example). I know that a few years ago, the reason expansions are open is so that it's easier to threaten a Zerg base, since Zerg was so strong at the time. However, having expansion options with chokes/ramps for example would help Terran and Protoss more than Zerg. There's a lot of map features and ideas that are very common in BW maps and even earlier SC2 maps that promote spread out gameplay, that just got phased out and to me it feels like mapmakers just forget those are options or forget that maybe the reason they got phased out was for a valid reason at the time, but no longer holds anymore with the current state of the game/design/balance.
The Maps point is very interesting, well articulated. Perhaps Protoss could be slightly buffed by increasing the Protoss favored maps slightly in the manner you suggested.
I think the only reason we don't think Protoss is the mostest OPest race ever is because we don't get to see MaxPax decimate the competition at a live event.
On December 20 2023 12:59 Blargh wrote: I think the only reason we don't think Protoss is the mostest OPest race ever is because we don't get to see MaxPax decimate the competition at a live event.
Maxpax can't even win much online besides open cups and the one pigsty and it's extremely obvious from his few interviews that he has bad anxiety. He would do terrible in at least his first 4-5 offline events and even after he adjusts he would only have the chance to win that he currently has for the bigger online events which is pretty low. He won one this year but he notably didn't play any top Zergs and Maru was being a Kong in international events.
Fun Fact, overall Protoss had higher Win % than Terran during this tournament (excluding mirrors) Source: liquipedia.net
Zerg: 52,7% (Won 49/93 games, 30/52 vs Terran and 19/41 vs Protoss) Protoss: 48,9% (Won 43/88 games, 21/47 vs Terran and 22/41 vs Zerg) Terran: 48,5% (Won 48/99 games, 22/52 vs Zerg and 26/47 vs Protoss)
Protoss doesn't just need one or two minor buffs to be more competitive. The entire race would need to be reworked so that it isn't as dependent on power units that are easily hard-countered in the late-game, and so that Gateway units are more than just cannon fodder for those power units. This isn't an easy fix and it would require Blizzard to be actively engaged in redeveloping the game, which they clearly aren't.
The hyper-aggression that MaxPax and herO use in the mid-game is great for weekly tournaments with shorter formats, and it's very entertaining to watch, but it's never going to be sustainable over tournaments that have multiple Bo5 and Bo7 series. Good players will drag them into the late-game and Protoss isn't equipped for it.
On December 20 2023 12:59 Blargh wrote: I think the only reason we don't think Protoss is the mostest OPest race ever is because we don't get to see MaxPax decimate the competition at a live event.
On December 20 2023 17:12 Ch3rry wrote: Fun Fact, overall Protoss had higher Win % than Terran during this tournament (excluding mirrors) Source: liquipedia.net
Zerg: 52,7% (Won 49/93 games, 30/52 vs Terran and 19/41 vs Protoss) Protoss: 48,9% (Won 43/88 games, 21/47 vs Terran and 22/41 vs Zerg) Terran: 48,5% (Won 48/99 games, 22/52 vs Zerg and 26/47 vs Protoss)
This is turbo useless as a stat, pvt and pvz were both below 50% its just that tvz was even worse than pvt or pvz but terran had 1 favored mu by the stats.
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
The odd ball out of this equation is Maxpax, who MIGHT be good enough to beat these players and upset the established hierarchy, but due to his own personal reasons he doesn't play at LAN events so its impossible to know. Is him not playing at LAN events a balance problem?
The other European Protoss players are hopeless. We can't expect them to upset the EU Zergs, that's been a hopeless case for years now.
What do you guys want to happen? A balance patch that makes Protoss so much stronger that these players start beating the very best Zergs and Terrans? What do you even want them to do to make that happen? What sort of minor change could you possibly do that could possibly tip the balance so that Classic can beat Serral, that won't have massive repercussions all the way through the pro scene where Protoss already outnumbers the other races at the lower rungs of any big tournament?
I know what I'd like to see happen. It's the same thing I've wanted since WoL, I want Warp Gate redesigned so it isn't a core mechanic of the race and to see Protoss Gateway units buffed to compensate. But since that's obviously never going to happen and most Protoss players don't even WANT that change to start with (even though it's the CLEAR AND OBVIOUS way to make Protoss better at the highest level without breaking them at the levels below it) so I'm out of ideas of what else could possibly done to give Protoss at the highest level that edge so that Classic can finally beat Seral and Dark without making Protoss dominate everyone all the way down the ladder. I'm open to hearing ideas. SPECIFIC ideas.
If you guys don't have them, then I honestly don't know what you expect to happen.
I say: its all a matter of perspective. Its just a game guys. Relax.
Create a "last surviving Protoss" award/trophy for events. It'll kinda be like the in-season tournament the NBA now runs. Call it the "Patry Cup".. the last name of the 1st ever Starleague champion, Guilliame Patry.
Congratz to Classic... the Patry Cup winner of Dreamhack Atlanta 2023! ! !
I eulogized his futile run through the impossible task of winning Dreamhack Atlanta.
Let's all have a moment of silence for the tragic losses of the many great Protoss players in this event. These players fought a futile battle knowing their only honour would be that of surviving longer than any other Protoss.
The last flame of hope extinguished after the last Protoss victory on Oceanborn by Classic in the RO8. Classic's big win that got him to the RO8, further than any other Protoss, was not broadcast. The greatest Protoss victory goes unseen, unrecognized, unaffirmed. Decades from now people will begin to claim the Protoss never existed and that Aiur was always the land of the Zerg. Soon we will see claims that the slaughter of the Protoss on Aiur never happened.
The Protoss are indeed a forgotten people.
Think of the Protoss according to the ancient teachings of the Khala and ancient video game traditions of the 1970s. At the dawn of the game industry the player/combatant put a quarter into a cabinet size machine KNOWING the machine's purpose was to end their game as fast as possible to take another quarter from them ASAP.
We know these great Protoss players are marching to their inevitable death. No different than any player who ever put a quarter into a "Space Invaders" arcade machine in 1978. The first born are the first to come full circle. As 1978's Darth Vader said: "The Cycle Is Complete".
The Protoss are the traditional , first born along many different dimensions of thinking.
1979... 1978 ... kinda the same. you guys get it. I can prove they are the same if requested. Anyhow, "Game Over".
On December 20 2023 19:46 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
The odd ball out of this equation is Maxpax, who MIGHT be good enough to beat these players and upset the established hierarchy, but due to his own personal reasons he doesn't play at LAN events so its impossible to know. Is him not playing at LAN events a balance problem?
The other European Protoss players are hopeless. We can't expect them to upset the EU Zergs, that's been a hopeless case for years now.
What do you guys want to happen? A balance patch that makes Protoss so much stronger that these players start beating the very best Zergs and Terrans? What do you even want them to do to make that happen? What sort of minor change could you possibly do that could possibly tip the balance so that Classic can beat Serral, that won't have massive repercussions all the way through the pro scene where Protoss already outnumbers the other races at the lower rungs of any big tournament?
I know what I'd like to see happen. It's the same thing I've wanted since WoL, I want Warp Gate redesigned so it isn't a core mechanic of the race and to see Protoss Gateway units buffed to compensate. But since that's obviously never going to happen and most Protoss players don't even WANT that change to start with (even though it's the CLEAR AND OBVIOUS way to make Protoss better at the highest level without breaking them at the levels below it) so I'm out of ideas of what else could possibly done to give Protoss at the highest level that edge so that Classic can finally beat Seral and Dark without making Protoss dominate everyone all the way down the ladder. I'm open to hearing ideas. SPECIFIC ideas.
If you guys don't have them, then I honestly don't know what you expect to happen.
Did you read my suggestion in the OP? 'Elder' Gateway units? Is it sooo terrible? It could work though right and major redesign wld not be necessary.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
Seriously though, buff the Zealot. in Brood War the sight of 3+ Zealots gave me PTSD as a Terran player. In SC2, Zealots look like marshmellows to me. Perhaps Add health, add damage, make zealot upgrades add more damage or shield... do something.
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
Classic: 5 time premier tournament champion herO: 8 time premier tournament champion
Why are you so certain that these players are just worse than Cure, Maru, Dark etc? The only argument for that would be their performance in the last few years but those has been affected by balance (actually herO even showed last year that he has the skill to win tournaments LOL). Historical precedent definitely indicates they should be competing for championships
No longer a valid thing to say, the balance seems fine at the moment. Zerg is probably the weakest race (but not by enough that they get to say something).
On December 20 2023 22:22 Nebuchad wrote: No longer a valid thing to say, the balance seems fine at the moment. Zerg is probably the weakest race (but not by enough that they get to say something).
Balance right now is fine, but (this is just one man's opinion) Protoss balance was horrible for 5+ years. All the incentive to play Protoss as a Pro was just sucked away and ignored for to long.
On December 20 2023 22:22 Nebuchad wrote: No longer a valid thing to say, the balance seems fine at the moment. Zerg is probably the weakest race (but not by enough that they get to say something).
Balance right now is fine, but (this is just one man's opinion) Protoss balance was horrible for 5+ years. All the incentive to play Protoss as a Pro was just sucked away and ignored for to long.
On December 20 2023 22:22 Nebuchad wrote: No longer a valid thing to say, the balance seems fine at the moment. Zerg is probably the weakest race (but not by enough that they get to say something).
PvZ at dh was 46% and tvz was at 43% or smth overall i dont think zerg is anywhere near the weakest race.
Protoss players just not playing well. Look at ladder mostly Toss. Also look at Reynor vs solar/serral. He is offracing and taking maps of them. Protoss has all the tools in my opinion.
On December 20 2023 22:22 Nebuchad wrote: No longer a valid thing to say, the balance seems fine at the moment. Zerg is probably the weakest race (but not by enough that they get to say something).
PvZ at dh was 46% and tvz was at 43% or smth overall i dont think zerg is anywhere near the weakest race.
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
Classic: 5 time premier tournament champion herO: 8 time premier tournament champion
Why are you so certain that these players are just worse than Cure, Maru, Dark etc? The only argument for that would be their performance in the last few years but those has been affected by balance (actually herO even showed last year that he has the skill to win tournaments LOL). Historical precedent definitely indicates they should be competing for championships
Oh and what happened about 5 years ago that changed everything?
Oh yea, SERRAL happened. Ever since Serral came to prominence and changed the way that pros played Zerg, Protoss stopped winning.
You think balance shifted? What I saw was the skill cap of the pros kept going up and up thanks in large part to the rise of Serral and the reaction of the Koreans to counter what he was doing and when that happened Protoss got largely left behind.
Protoss got largely left behind because Protoss is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed in its design to keep it from competing at THAT high of a skill ceiling.
You can't fix that with a balance patch. You can't. You need much larger redesigns to the core of how the race works, and that isn't going to happen at this stage in the game's development.
You guys might want to call this a balance problem. I don't. I call it the pros skill level just finally got high enough that the fundamental problems in Protoss design that have been there from the start are impossible to ignore any longer. But we're also at the point where it's both too late to do anything about them because Blizzard abandoned SC2 proper, and there's still a large contingent of Protoss players in the community that are in denial about what needs to happen.
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
Classic: 5 time premier tournament champion herO: 8 time premier tournament champion
Why are you so certain that these players are just worse than Cure, Maru, Dark etc? The only argument for that would be their performance in the last few years but those has been affected by balance (actually herO even showed last year that he has the skill to win tournaments LOL). Historical precedent definitely indicates they should be competing for championships
Oh and what happened about 5 years ago that changed everything?
Oh yea, SERRAL happened. Ever since Serral came to prominence and changed the way that pros played Zerg, Protoss stopped winning.
You think balance shifted? What I saw was the skill cap of the pros kept going up and up thanks in large part to the rise of Serral and the reaction of the Koreans to counter what he was doing and when that happened Protoss got largely left behind.
Protoss got largely left behind because Protoss is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed in its design to keep it from competing at THAT high of a skill ceiling.
You can't fix that with a balance patch. You can't. You need much larger redesigns to the core of how the race works, and that isn't going to happen at this stage in the game's development.
You guys might want to call this a balance problem. I don't. I call it the pros skill level just finally got high enough that the fundamental problems in Protoss design that have been there from the start are impossible to ignore any longer. But we're also at the point where it's both too late to do anything about them because Blizzard abandoned SC2 proper, and there's still a large contingent of Protoss players in the community that are in denial about what needs to happen.
This is obviously not the case. The main thing that sets protoss back in terms of high level of play is that mistakes are almost always game changing. You will lose the game if you miss one widow mine, the terran will not lose the game if they mess up their mine drop. You will lose the game if your colossus is misplaced, the terran will not lose the game if they lose a medivac full of units. You'll notice that as well by how long players stay in games where they are at a disadvantage. Terrans and zergs, vs protoss, know that it's very likely that they come back, because they're just one mistake away from coming back. The fact that your mistakes cost you more is not a "ceiling". You could always not lose to the drop, you could always not misplace the colossus, you could always not let the other guy back into the game. And it's definitely something that balance can have an impact on, as we have seen other periods of the game where interactions between races were different.
If we had AIs playing the game perfectly I think zerg would be the best race, as it's the most reactive, then protoss and then terran. But the gap between protoss and zerg would be much smaller than the gap between protoss and terran.
The race with the worst design is terran, by quite some distance.
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
Classic: 5 time premier tournament champion herO: 8 time premier tournament champion
Why are you so certain that these players are just worse than Cure, Maru, Dark etc? The only argument for that would be their performance in the last few years but those has been affected by balance (actually herO even showed last year that he has the skill to win tournaments LOL). Historical precedent definitely indicates they should be competing for championships
Oh and what happened about 5 years ago that changed everything?
Oh yea, SERRAL happened. Ever since Serral came to prominence and changed the way that pros played Zerg, Protoss stopped winning.
You think balance shifted? What I saw was the skill cap of the pros kept going up and up thanks in large part to the rise of Serral and the reaction of the Koreans to counter what he was doing and when that happened Protoss got largely left behind.
Protoss got largely left behind because Protoss is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed in its design to keep it from competing at THAT high of a skill ceiling.
You can't fix that with a balance patch. You can't. You need much larger redesigns to the core of how the race works, and that isn't going to happen at this stage in the game's development.
You guys might want to call this a balance problem. I don't. I call it the pros skill level just finally got high enough that the fundamental problems in Protoss design that have been there from the start are impossible to ignore any longer. But we're also at the point where it's both too late to do anything about them because Blizzard abandoned SC2 proper, and there's still a large contingent of Protoss players in the community that are in denial about what needs to happen.
I dont think you can put that onto serral, balance for sure shifted.
We us protoss lost most of our builds due to complaining from the other 2 races
We lost the adept Phoenix timing build vs terran because they refuse to adapt/change their build. Terran knew this timing attack was coming every game and yet they still insist to do a double medivac drop which gets shuts down every single time even though they knew the Protoss was opening up with Phoenix
We also lost the immortal sentry build because Zergs while they couldn’t hold it on a consistent basis, meanwhile Protoss still instant lose to a simple Zergling runby if their wall instant perfect
Then we lost our double star gate voidtau build as well
Now we are stuck with this very predictable build cause everything else has been nerf to the ground
On December 21 2023 04:19 BjoernK wrote: It does not help the the currently best Protoss player in the world does not want to show his face.
At this point it has become clear MaxPax isn't the best protoss in the world. His performance in DH:EU is pretty telling, the stakes were higher than his usual cups and he couldn't deliver. Plus, the most likely scenario for him not showing up offline is some form of anxiety, so it's very doubtful he would be able to play his best sc offline. Even for "normal" players like Clem who rose in skill, it took time for him to have an international offline performance as good as his EPT:EU runs.
Balance / design preventing protoss to reach higher skill ceiling aside, Trap / Zest / PartinG / Neeb not playing anymore doesn't help protoss results wise.
Regarding redesigning Warpgate so that Gateway units can be stronger:
Interestingly, Warp-in did get nerfed in LotV, so that warping in at far pylons is much slower. This made it so that early gateway pushes/all-ins weren't as scary and powerful like they were in WoL/HotS. This allowed them, in theory, to buff Protoss in other ways.
However, instead of making Gateway units or Gateway comps stronger, what did they do? 1) They offset the weaker warp-ins at non-powered Pylons by making Warp Prism have an even stronger and faster warp-in speed. So now, you have timings that can have even stronger warp-ins, but they at least come a bit less early and require Robo tech. However I'm not sure if this is the direction people wanted things to really go haha. We could have buffed Zealots by 10 Shield potentially for example (remember, the original reason they were nerfed from BW values is because proxy gates were too strong in WoL beta!!), or buffed Gateway units slightly more in some way. (Hallucinations doing 10% damage?). 2) They made it so that you can boost pylons with Nexus/Warpgate near them, so that warp-ing in defensively was stronger than it was before, which addressed the vulnerability/fragility of Protoss vs multi-prong harass. This was good and in the right direction ofc.
Just mentioning this because it's clear to me that the community and balance team often forget the reason certain changes are made, and then try other things that don't really fix things and make things even messier. I hope people can re-consider if Warp Prism having a super strong/fast warp-in is the direction we really wanted, or if that should be nerfed so that Gateway comps can be slightly stronger somehow.
@MJG I totally agree, it's such a natural thing in games when you see "Massive" units, they are affected less by certain abilities. We already have this precedent in the game, like Massive units stomping FFs. I don't think Vipers should counter Colossus so hard (and the Mothership, but at least we buffed it). Is it so hard to make it so that Abduct for example only pulls Massive units half or 2/3 the distance?
Another thing people seem to have forgotten is why Abduct was introduced in the game in the first place. It was added to HotS as a way to discourage WoL deathballs, where the colossus deathballs were a staple. However, we aren't really having this deathball issue anymore. Instead, it's discouraging protoss players from being active with their armies because it's easy to get Abducted and heavily punished and potentially surrounded. Remember that we already also reworked Colossus damage to be more as an anti-light spell in LotV. There's many ways to play around Colossus besides needing as hard a counter as Abduct. I know that if you're godlike you can use a WP to pick the Colossus back up and drop it to safety, but that's very hard to do and not super reliable with how fragile a WP is.
The other issue with Abduct is that it's unfortunately really good at picking apart small fortifications or small armies, which is directly going against LotV's goals in making the game have more spread out gameplay with smaller skirmishes (like BW). Because what is the answer to Abduct? One answer is Feedback ofc, but the other answer is just have an even bigger deathball so that even if they Abduct, you still have enough big power units to win a fight. Abduct is unfortunately very good at small armies trying to hold bases or zone out areas of the map because there will be few siege/power units and you can easily abduct them all. So then protoss rather ball their army up so they have their HTs ready to feedback the Vipers, thus... just promoting deathballs anyways?
Abduct really really needs to be looked at. Of course, we can compensate by buffing Zerg in some other way.
And same with Neural Parasite - we could balance this ability much better and less volatile by making it less effective vs Massive units, but compensate by making it more effective vs other units. Basically, it could have a shorter duration for Massive units, but a bit longer for normal units. Or have a shorter duration for Massive units (like half or 2/3) and decrease the spell cost from 100 to 75.
I don't know what to tell you. The best Protoss player in an offline tournament is Reynor. Draw your own conclusions on what that means and how we got here.
With the game at this stage I wouldn't count on new players at this level so unfortunately it is what it is.
The whole race being redesigned isn't going to happen.
If the solution is buff Protoss to the point Astrea can take a series of Serral -> No thanks.
On December 21 2023 08:51 Herringbone wrote: I don't know what to tell you. The best Protoss player in an offline tournament is Reynor. Draw your own conclusions on what that means and how we got here.
With the game at this stage I wouldn't count on new players at this level so unfortunately it is what it is.
The whole race being redesigned isn't going to happen.
If the solution is buff Protoss to the point Astrea can take a series of Serral -> No thanks.
On December 20 2023 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think there are a lot of things that have changed with the game and the race that make it see less success (And i don't buy that Protoss isn't doing well simply cus they lost their best players, Zest and sOs had many more tournament wins and success in HotS than LotV, even though they were playing 2x as many years in LotV than HotS)
For example a couple years ago, Protoss used to open up with a good amount of varied builds, such as proxy Oracle openers, but now that's not standard and from what i've heard from pros, it seems that the only way to play Protoss at the pro level is to mainly play straight up macro. That's limiting especially at a top level.
Protoss used to have strong openers and really strong timings/all-ins throughout SC2 since WoL, but they always get nerfed. So Protoss has weaker peaks, but they still have the punishing and steep lows of the race. Now Protoss usually has to sit back and isn't very scary in the early or mid game, rather they are fragile until they get more tech units. How many times do you see a early Zerg Ravager push kill a Protoss and make it look nearly impossible to defend, and how many times do you see a Protoss try a supposedly "strong" push with gateways/immortals/WP, and it looks closee to breaking the Zerg but they just keep having enough Roach/ling reinforcements to hold it off from doing any real drone damage?
I think Protoss is definitely in a much more doable place thanks to the latest patch (though the problem was introduced in the first place by nerfing Overcharge without giving nearly enough to compensate, thus making PvT extremely hard as the winrate seem to have been around 40% only, which for the history of SC2 is relatively VERY imbalanced judging from the stats the blizzard team would share about the state of balance). But Protoss is still very fragile and punishing. I think honestly Protoss is the hardest race to play at the top top level.
It makes sense because Protoss has so many different units and abilities with such great potential, but with most players who aren't super fast or incredible with micro, you don't usually see Protoss show off what it can do. But when played by someone as fast and good at multi-tasking and control as someone like say Reynor, you start seeing what Protoss really could be if it had a Serral/Maru/Reynor/Clem type player. So, perhaps it really is just that Protoss never had a player on that level of crazy skill. Protoss as a race has so many different things you can be good at, and we see this through how each Protoss player's skillset varies much more than say Terran players do from other Terrans. We just haven't really seen a Protoss player have it all.
On a side note, maps are always a factor. For a long time people have wondered how do you make a Protoss favored map, without simply making the map have more closed spaces which also favors Terran? Well the answer is have huge maps where warpin, recall, etc. become more powerful, such as Radhuset. Ok what do we do about Terran's immobility on such huge maps? Re-introduce Terran-favored map features such as cliffs spread out around the middle of the map or near some far away late-game expansions so that it's easier for Terran to hold positions, harass, etc. so that Protoss/Zerg don't just get free bases too easily. Re-introduce chokes/ramps/highground for far away bases. Stop making every expansion so open, which promotes deathball gameplay and favors Zerg (especially hard to defend vs cracklings for example). I know that a few years ago, the reason expansions are open is so that it's easier to threaten a Zerg base, since Zerg was so strong at the time. However, having expansion options with chokes/ramps for example would help Terran and Protoss more than Zerg. There's a lot of map features and ideas that are very common in BW maps and even earlier SC2 maps that promote spread out gameplay, that just got phased out and to me it feels like mapmakers just forget those are options or forget that maybe the reason they got phased out was for a valid reason at the time, but no longer holds anymore with the current state of the game/design/balance.
Some nice, well thought-out ideas there sir
Alternatively, and something I’ve advocated for forever, cut the cord tethering map makers and the map pool to adhering to certain standards, but most notably the idea every map has to, as close as possible be good for every matchup. This gives us a map pool where experimentation to say, help Protoss in PvZ is really hamstrung by likely creating problems in TvP, to take one example.
I’d propose having a larger map pool, for a bit of variety. The majority would be XvX standard maps which we have now, then a sprinkling of tailored racial matchup maps, then maybe a few XvX non-standard maps to round it out, something a bit different like a Golden Wall.
A map built for PvZ/ZvP would only be rolled for that matchup of course, so players don’t have to learn a million maps that are wonkily balanced for them.
I think more map variety would improve the game from an entertainment PoV anyway, but also open the balancing by map toolkit in a way SC2 has thus far never been able to do.
Protoss is not going to get the root and branch redesign that many (most?) think is what it would need to bring more parity at the top level, but perhaps a little masking of its struggles by clever map makers could bear some fruit.
Unfortunately that pathway is also strangled by the current philosophy of how maps are built around all matchups, and how they are rolled.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
On December 21 2023 10:27 THERIDDLER wrote: Please allow hacks to be used in live events. I want to see be able to see maxpax compete.
What makes you think MaxPax is hacking? I mean, it's an interesting take on why he isn't competing offline, but he plays so many online tournaments his opponents would notice it if he was hacking
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it.
I couldn't think of any minor changes to Terran that would have the desired impact.
I can tell you the problem though: Protoss is too reliant on Disruptors for late-game AoE.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
How does Reynor, who clearly has a pro level PvZ, to the degree that Solar considers it some of the best around, beating Serral in one game go against what I said?
As I said I’m going off intuition, and intuition is often wrong so I’d be interested to see the numbers and what Protoss win rates look like in Bo1, Bo3 and Bo5/7 and see if they’re stable over a long period, my instinct is that there’s a drop off and that’s due to racial strengths and weaknesses, but if it’s not the case, or if someone else has an alternative hypothesis I’d be very interested to hear it
Wasn't meant to go against anything you said in particular. Just to throw in that if Reynor or someone new, similar skilled would go tryhard on Protoss there are possibilites. Especially with the Reynor style of a zerging Protoss which is IMO not that build / trick dependant but very APM / speed dependant
On December 21 2023 19:11 Harris1st wrote: Wasn't meant to go against anything you said in particular. Just to throw in that if Reynor or someone new, similar skilled would go tryhard on Protoss there are possibilites. Especially with the Reynor style of a zerging Protoss which is IMO not that build / trick dependant but very APM / speed dependant
Okay why the hell are ppl calling it reynor Style when that is the herO Style that Made him win tournaments when He came back, also what makes you think herO aint as skilled when He Has shown He was able to win Premier Events before. It's kinda maddening to read some Takes Here.
I'm an ardent BW follower but have next to nothing knowledge about SC2 meta, but from reading over the years from ppl in the SC2 community it always strikes me how staggeringly similar the two games are re Protoss.
On players: - is the predominant race at low levels but has the least success at pro level - is considered the easiest race to play (the "ape" race) - "Protoss pros are just not as good as Zerg and Terran pros"
On gameplay: - relies heavily on Gateway units and some mid game power units, can't compete with Zerg and Terran in the late game (if not accumulating a significant advantage earlier) - has the least ability to come back - relies on trickery/gambling the most to earn an advantage, can't just play straight up macro and outpower Zerg and Terran - has vastly different units and styles, leading to Protoss players being good at different things, instead of all players (relatively) focusing and mastering on one (or fewer) thing like Zerg and Terran - has decent win rate overall (but still the worst among 3 races), but tends to fall apart in tournaments when longer series Bo3/5/7 comes to play
When you have such similarities between the two games then it very likely goes back to the core of how each race functions. Like, Terran relies on the ranged and heavy firepower of a critical mass. Zerg relies on pure number from the unstoppable macro engine. And Protoss relies on the trickery and magic of some specific units. Among them, one style has to be more/less successful than the others, and as we have seen the same trends in two different games with 30+ years of history combined, I think it's safe to say the root of the problem is fundamental design.
On December 21 2023 20:13 TMNT wrote: I'm an ardent BW follower but have next to nothing knowledge about SC2 meta, but from reading over the years from ppl in the SC2 community it always strikes me how staggeringly similar the two games are re Protoss.
On players: - is the predominant race at low levels but has the least success at pro level - is considered the easiest race to play (the "ape" race) - "Protoss pros are just not as good as Zerg and Terran pros"
On gameplay: - relies heavily on Gateway units and some mid game power units, can't compete with Zerg and Terran in the late game (if not accumulating a significant advantage earlier) - has the least ability to come back - relies on trickery/gambling the most to earn an advantage, can't just play straight up macro and outpower Zerg and Terran - has vastly different units and styles, leading to Protoss players being good at different things, instead of all players (relatively) focusing and mastering on one (or fewer) thing like Zerg and Terran - has decent win rate overall (but still the worst among 3 races), but tends to fall apart in tournaments when longer series Bo3/5/7 comes to play
When you have such similarities between the two games then it very likely goes back to the core of how each race functions. Like, Terran relies on the ranged and heavy firepower of a critical mass. Zerg relies on pure number from the unstoppable macro engine. And Protoss relies on the trickery and magic of some specific units. Among them, one style has to be more/less successful than the others, and as we have seen the same trends in two different games with 30+ years of history combined, I think it's safe to say the root of the problem is fundamental design.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
I mean, it's not like Reynor randomly rolled Protoss, he's semi-consistently practicing it for 1.5 years now. Also winning a single map isn't that special, even Showtime won a map against Serral in 4 out of the last 7 series they played
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
I mean, it's not like Reynor randomly rolled Protoss, he's semi-consistently practicing it for 1.5 years now. Also winning a single map isn't that special, even Showtime won a map against Serral in 4 out of the last 7 series they played
I did not check all the games (obviously) but my gut feeling says that when Serral (or any other top macro late game Zerg) loses to Protoss, it's because of a timing attack that either crippled or killed and not because of a 35 min macro showdown. Just a gut feeling though.
On another note, while thinking about that matchup, a lot of Protoss lose cause they had one or two holes in their defenses and let Zerglings in the mineral line. Now a lot of Protoss try runbys with Zealots and sometimes the odd warpprims to the main. What stops Protoss players to have like 2-4 warpprims and a ton of gateways to do this simultaneously in multiple base like Terran does with Medivacs? Zerglings suck vs Zealots, Banelings are expensive and Roaches have to be micro'ed which gets difficult in 2-4 places at once. Just thinking out loud. Maybe a stupid thought.
Also on the note of Reynor style Protoss. Yes other Protoss do this. I think Zest made it popular even before herO? Not sure. Lets just call it the swarmy Protoss style
Unless I'm reading Liquipedia wrong, 2023 appears to be the first year in SC2 history where Protoss has not won a single premier-level tournament. Which, I don't know, I agree fundamentally with Lambo that it doesn't really matter whether or not Protoss players are worse than Zerg and Terran, fundamentally it's not good for the scene player- and spectator- wise for there to be less matchup diversity in tournaments and for it to feel like one race doesn't have a chance to win tournaments. I find myself watching later stages of tournaments where there are no Protoss less, because I eventually get tired of TvZ.
Unlike most Sad Protoss, though, I don't think the problem is that fundamental or hopeless. It's probably true that Protoss in both BW and SC2 is also going to be at least a little weaker in longer series and tournaments due to design, but it's also clear if you look at the history of SC2 that Protoss has been able to compete very well over the years.
The problem at this stage in the game is clearly (clearly!) not Warp Gate (proposals to nerf Warp Gate or make Gateway units stronger have been around since 2010 and are probably my most hated SC2 meme). Gatewayman styles reliant on the power of Warp Gate are one of the main things keeping Protoss competitive at the moment, and they're also extremely dynamic and fun to watch. Taking that away from Protoss would be utterly devastating and pointless and also terribly un-fun.
It's largely a few "shatter points" of fragility where Protoss can just rapidly die even after getting very far ahead due to losing a few power units or not having strong enough defense (due to Overcharge nerfs) or losing all their workers to things like Widow Mines or losing the one Warp Prism or being over-reliant in the late game on inconsistent units like Disruptors. PvZ is largely in a good place design and even balance-wise, but PvT is just an incredibly frustrating matchup to watch at the pro level.
If there's a fundamental underlying problem, imo, it's simply that Protoss has been consistently undertuned throughout LotV due to memories of the strength of Protoss all-ins and deathballs in HotS and WoL. Everyone remembers when Colossus was dominant and un-fun and death-ball-y, so no one wants to buff Colossus even when they're self-evidently fragile and both races have strong counters to them at multiple stages of the game. Everyone remembers MC and sOs winning whole tournaments off of repeated Stalker all-ins, so no one wants to buff Stalkers or Zealots even in late game and even when it's clear that Zealot and Stalker all-ins have simply not been a big problem for a very long while.
But fundamentally Protoss and especially Protoss aggression is just weaker with the economy model of LotV and we're no longer in a world where a minor buff to a Gateway unit or a Robo unit would lead at the pro level to unstoppable deathballs or all-ins that would have players tearing their hair out. Zerg and Terran balance changes have felt perfectly comfortable buffing already strong units and risking powerful all-ins, but for whatever reason that hasn't been true for Protoss.
But with all those things a few targeted buffs and nerfs could honestly do the trick just fine. The last patch helped a lot and moved in the right direction, but it's clear that it wasn't enough, especially in PvT. Small buffs to a few Gateway units would be simple and have a big impact (if you don't want to buff Zealots or Stalkers, the proposals to make Sentries more useful and buff guardian shield seems like a good idea). Some kind of small nerf to Widow Mines vs Protoss would also not be gamebreaking. Hell, there are probably at least a half dozen Protoss units (Immortals! Phoenix! Sentries! et cetera) you could give minor buffs too and it wouldn't break anything.
It's perfectly possible that the problem will solve itself eventually with maps and creativity, but the Balance Council should think seriously about plugging a few holes in Protoss. Ultimately, not just for Protoss, but for the good of the scene overall. We need at least a few Protoss champions next year.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
I mean, it's not like Reynor randomly rolled Protoss, he's semi-consistently practicing it for 1.5 years now. Also winning a single map isn't that special, even Showtime won a map against Serral in 4 out of the last 7 series they played
I did not check all the games (obviously) but my gut feeling says that when Serral (or any other top macro late game Zerg) loses to Protoss, it's because of a timing attack that either crippled or killed and not because of a 35 min macro showdown. Just a gut feeling though.
35 minute macro showdown on a map extremely good for late game Protoss where you can't even die early on. I don't think that's a more "pure" indicator of skill than a timing attack. Reynor specifically said he tried it only because of the map and didn't attempt it on any other map. Usually the map gets vetoed in PvZ which is why we haven't seen other Protosses do it
It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
was Reynor's win on teh "its the map" match.... was it the result of a timing push?
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: 2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
intersting points. Actions always speak louder than words.
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
What he is telling is that He doesnt Like zvz understandably so, and the map was very good for protoss, otherwise this is a bunch of nonsense in a Post. Also it would be more comparable to a toss Training zerg and swapping to it vs another toss on a heavy zerg favored map to avoid PvP and Not the hurr Durr lets See a toss winning a zvt vs Maru.
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
What he is telling is that He doesnt Like zvz understandably so, and the map was very good for protoss, otherwise this is a bunch of nonsense in a Post. Also it would be more comparable to a toss Training zerg and swapping to it vs another toss on a heavy zerg favored map to avoid PvP and Not the hurr Durr lets See a toss winning a zvt vs Maru.
Sorry. Have it your way. Let's see Classic win a z v p vs Hero or vice versa in a tournament with real money on the line.
On December 21 2023 22:49 Captain Peabody wrote: Unless I'm reading Liquipedia wrong, 2023 appears to be the first year in SC2 history where Protoss has not won a single premier-level tournament. Which, I don't know, I agree fundamentally with Lambo that it doesn't really matter whether or not Protoss players are worse than Zerg and Terran, fundamentally it's not good for the scene player- and spectator- wise for there to be less matchup diversity in tournaments and for it to feel like one race doesn't have a chance to win tournaments. I find myself watching later stages of tournaments where there are no Protoss less, because I eventually get tired of TvZ.
Unlike most Sad Protoss, though, I don't think the problem is that fundamental or hopeless. It's probably true that Protoss in both BW and SC2 is also going to be at least a little weaker in longer series and tournaments due to design, but it's also clear if you look at the history of SC2 that Protoss has been able to compete very well over the years.
The problem at this stage in the game is clearly (clearly!) not Warp Gate (proposals to nerf Warp Gate or make Gateway units stronger have been around since 2010 and are probably my most hated SC2 meme). Gatewayman styles reliant on the power of Warp Gate are one of the main things keeping Protoss competitive at the moment, and they're also extremely dynamic and fun to watch. Taking that away from Protoss would be utterly devastating and pointless and also terribly un-fun.
It's largely a few "shatter points" of fragility where Protoss can just rapidly die even after getting very far ahead due to losing a few power units or not having strong enough defense (due to Overcharge nerfs) or losing all their workers to things like Widow Mines or losing the one Warp Prism or being over-reliant in the late game on inconsistent units like Disruptors. PvZ is largely in a good place design and even balance-wise, but PvT is just an incredibly frustrating matchup to watch at the pro level.
If there's a fundamental underlying problem, imo, it's simply that Protoss has been consistently undertuned throughout LotV due to memories of the strength of Protoss all-ins and deathballs in HotS and WoL. Everyone remembers when Colossus was dominant and un-fun and death-ball-y, so no one wants to buff Colossus even when they're self-evidently fragile and both races have strong counters to them at multiple stages of the game. Everyone remembers MC and sOs winning whole tournaments off of repeated Stalker all-ins, so no one wants to buff Stalkers or Zealots even in late game and even when it's clear that Zealot and Stalker all-ins have simply not been a big problem for a very long while.
But fundamentally Protoss and especially Protoss aggression is just weaker with the economy model of LotV and we're no longer in a world where a minor buff to a Gateway unit or a Robo unit would lead at the pro level to unstoppable deathballs or all-ins that would have players tearing their hair out. Zerg and Terran balance changes have felt perfectly comfortable buffing already strong units and risking powerful all-ins, but for whatever reason that hasn't been true for Protoss.
But with all those things a few targeted buffs and nerfs could honestly do the trick just fine. The last patch helped a lot and moved in the right direction, but it's clear that it wasn't enough, especially in PvT. Small buffs to a few Gateway units would be simple and have a big impact (if you don't want to buff Zealots or Stalkers, the proposals to make Sentries more useful and buff guardian shield seems like a good idea). Some kind of small nerf to Widow Mines vs Protoss would also not be gamebreaking. Hell, there are probably at least a half dozen Protoss units (Immortals! Phoenix! Sentries! et cetera) you could give minor buffs too and it wouldn't break anything.
It's perfectly possible that the problem will solve itself eventually with maps and creativity, but the Balance Council should think seriously about plugging a few holes in Protoss. Ultimately, not just for Protoss, but for the good of the scene overall. We need at least a few Protoss champions next year.
Well said, agree with all of this and also been trying to voice similar things recently. Protoss lacks potency early on, other than 3-4 gate blink openers which could kill if you micro/read very well. But other than that, anytime Protoss tries to do a "strong" push, it's ultimately not very scary but yet VERY committal and pretty all-in. Compare that to the flexibility of Terran and Zerg early pushes and how scary they are and how NOT all-in they are. And totally agree on the Colossus as well. You could easily rework the damage for example from 10 (+5 vs Light) to 11 (+4 vs Light), and maybe also nerf/rework Abduct so that it only pulls Massive units half or 2/3 the distance. Protoss is definitely undertuned (hence all the true memes about Protoss getting nerfed anytime they find success with something). PvT is roughly balanced? Oh let's heavily nerf Overcharge and make P very vulnerable early on and have a 40% winrate vs T. And only give tiny things to compensate that are definitely not enough at all. (Thankfully the current patch helped much more). They had a problem with Overcharge out-healing DPS, they couldn't even compensate by making Overcharge last 1 second longer or something. That's how undertuned/biased that change was.
On December 21 2023 20:13 TMNT wrote: I'm an ardent BW follower but have next to nothing knowledge about SC2 meta, but from reading over the years from ppl in the SC2 community it always strikes me how staggeringly similar the two games are re Protoss.
On players: - is the predominant race at low levels but has the least success at pro level - is considered the easiest race to play (the "ape" race) - "Protoss pros are just not as good as Zerg and Terran pros"
On gameplay: - relies heavily on Gateway units and some mid game power units, can't compete with Zerg and Terran in the late game (if not accumulating a significant advantage earlier) - has the least ability to come back - relies on trickery/gambling the most to earn an advantage, can't just play straight up macro and outpower Zerg and Terran - has vastly different units and styles, leading to Protoss players being good at different things, instead of all players (relatively) focusing and mastering on one (or fewer) thing like Zerg and Terran - has decent win rate overall (but still the worst among 3 races), but tends to fall apart in tournaments when longer series Bo3/5/7 comes to play
When you have such similarities between the two games then it very likely goes back to the core of how each race functions. Like, Terran relies on the ranged and heavy firepower of a critical mass. Zerg relies on pure number from the unstoppable macro engine. And Protoss relies on the trickery and magic of some specific units. Among them, one style has to be more/less successful than the others, and as we have seen the same trends in two different games with 30+ years of history combined, I think it's safe to say the root of the problem is fundamental design.
Appreciate your reply, as someone who doesn't watch much BW (but likes it), the similitaries are really staggering and interesting, and definitely safe to make this conclusion.
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
Race picking on specific maps has been banned in starleagues since BW in the early 2000s otherwise we definitely would have seen what Reynors currently doing in the KR scene at some point. It was likely banned because it would have the potential to create very silly situations where we are watching two players off race against each other with no prep because they planned a snipe build.
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
What he is telling is that He doesnt Like zvz understandably so, and the map was very good for protoss, otherwise this is a bunch of nonsense in a Post. Also it would be more comparable to a toss Training zerg and swapping to it vs another toss on a heavy zerg favored map to avoid PvP and Not the hurr Durr lets See a toss winning a zvt vs Maru.
Sorry. Have it your way. Let's see Classic win a z v p vs Hero or vice versa in a tournament with real money on the line.
you mean a map? I mean none of the kr tosses are really playing offrace like reynor is so prob wont happen but could easily happen if they would do i bet (but they'd need to hate pvp like reynor does zvz).
On December 22 2023 02:47 Locutus_ wrote: MaxPax not playing lans also hurts toss's results in general
Imagine if Clem didnt play, and Maxpax played instead. Or if Serral didnt, and Maxpax played instead. We would surely be seeing more green and less of some other color painted in semifinals, at least, for sure.
Reynor also choosing to play toss some times tells something about balance
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
Race picking on specific maps has been banned in starleagues since BW in the early 2000s otherwise we definitely would have seen what Reynors currently doing in the KR scene at some point. It was likely banned because it would have the potential to create very silly situations where we are watching two players off race against each other with no prep because they planned a snipe build.
Reminds me of the boring young link (vs Jigglypuff or another young link I am not sure) in smash bros melee between Armada and Mango (or was it Hungrybox?). It was not Armada’s main char but he learned how to play this specific matchup just to counter this other top player. It resulted in ultra boring wars of attrition
I won't lie, part of why I can't wait for Stormgate is because it's going to be fun studying how the people who think protoss players just all happen to suck react to the changes in the hierarchy
On December 22 2023 04:07 Nebuchad wrote: I won't lie, part of why I can't wait for Stormgate is because it's going to be fun studying how the people who think protoss players just all happen to suck react to the changes in the hierarchy
That's an absolutely irrelevant comparison since the games are different. There are no two RTS' in existence where the exact same strengths of players translate 1 to 1. You could be a GOD at Warcraft 3 and only a mid level pro at SC2 and vice versa.
SC1 to SC2 is probably the closest you'll get and I think all of us here would agree that even those games don't translate 1 to 1 with each other.
On December 22 2023 04:07 Nebuchad wrote: I won't lie, part of why I can't wait for Stormgate is because it's going to be fun studying how the people who think protoss players just all happen to suck react to the changes in the hierarchy
They're going to be different. I would expect one constant though is you're still going to have to appear in person to play offline tournaments, which you might find impacts your statement.
If Stormgate is good enough to attract new blood, the top dogs will probably be those new and younger players compared to the old sc players. Unless it’s not as mechanical as sc (from what I have read it’s more like wc3 so there is hope for older players)
On December 22 2023 04:07 Nebuchad wrote: I won't lie, part of why I can't wait for Stormgate is because it's going to be fun studying how the people who think protoss players just all happen to suck react to the changes in the hierarchy
That's an absolutely irrelevant comparison since the games are different. There are no two RTS' in existence where the exact same strengths of players translate 1 to 1. You could be a GOD at Warcraft 3 and only a mid level pro at SC2 and vice versa.
SC1 to SC2 is probably the closest you'll get and I think all of us here would agree that even those games don't translate 1 to 1 with each other.
That considered guys like Stats and Classic were pretty damn accomplished BW players, in a way more mechanically demanding game.
I doubt Protoss players are struggling from a lack of mechanical chops
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: It's a very strange opinion to discount or disregard what Reynor is doing regarding this topic.
In THEORY, the best way to understand the true balance of the races would be to observe someone with identical skills at all three races play against others at the elite level. Obviously this is impossible, but what Reynor is doing is the closest thing we will see.
1. His Play. Facts are (1) he is better at zerg than he is protoss, (2) he would be better at protoss if he had been playing it as his main race over his career instead of zerg, (3) he and other pro's have said he doesn't have a great understanding of the complexity of the protoss race and actual builds as others playing protoss at this level. My opinions are he would have won a similar number of premier tournaments if he had choosen protoss instead of zerg and he is showing it's primarily a skill gap in players why we're not seeing protoss tournament wins.
Discounting his wins are bizarre. "It was the map". What a stupid thing to say. I'd love to see protoss (or really anyone else) practice some zerg and take on Maru because the map is a zerg map. "Winning a single map isn't that special". It's freaking Serral. His career record against protoss is insane. Harstem is not top level, but he frequently states that he hasn't taken a map off serral in a tournament since 2017 I believe. "Timing attack is a more "pure" skill indicator". In one way, but this is exactly the point that proves Reynor would be a monster if he was an actual protoss. His build orders are not tight and he doesn't have the experience to play that way, yet he can still win.
2. What he is telling us. This is probably the most important thing and I don't see it brought up. Reynor knows the game better than everyone on this form. He is making the active choice to play protoss instead of z v z against elite players in big tournaments with real money on the line. He's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias.
Reasonable to have opinions on the topic. But when Reynor is doing something we've never seen before that seems pretty relevant to the conversation, it sure seems like balance whining when people pretend it doesn't matter.
Race picking on specific maps has been banned in starleagues since BW in the early 2000s otherwise we definitely would have seen what Reynors currently doing in the KR scene at some point. It was likely banned because it would have the potential to create very silly situations where we are watching two players off race against each other with no prep because they planned a snipe build.
Reminds me of the boring young link (vs Jigglypuff or another young link I am not sure) in smash bros melee between Armada and Mango (or was it Hungrybox?). It was not Armada’s main char but he learned how to play this specific matchup just to counter this other top player. It resulted in ultra boring wars of attrition
That has to do with the SSBM characters and nothing to do with SC2
Reynor winning the odd game with Protoss doesn't really mean anything because nobody is arguing that Protoss players are unable to consistently win a game or a Bo3 series against the best Zerg and Terran players. MaxPax does it every week in the ESL weeklies.
The problem is that Protoss doesn't seem to do well once tournaments have multiple Bo5 or Bo7 stages, and I think that has more to do with Protoss being overly reliant on power-units and trickery than it has to do with player skill. If Reynor starts winning multiple Bo5 or Bo7 series with Protoss, then we can talk about player skill, but talking about player skill off the back of Reynor's odd victories seems a bit presumptuous.
If I absolutely had to suggest a minor change then I'd modify the Viper so that Abduct can't be used on Massive units. I personally believe that the Viper is too good at single-handedly dismantling late-game Protoss armies and that some of that power needs to be taken away.
But like I said earlier, the fact that Protoss is so dependent on power-units is the real problem, and that would require a major overhaul of the race to fix, which we both know isn't going to happen. Que sera sera. I'll just continue turning off major tournaments once all the Protoss players are eliminated.
And then Protoss still lose to Terran and whine about it. Balance on a greater scale through all matchups and all game phases seems pretty decent right now. Protoss needs some new blood (probably not happening) since pretty much all Protoss players are returnees (Koreans) or old school veterans (Europe)
If someone could crunch the numbers I’d be very interested
My instinct is that Protoss is potent but fragile, and this fragility is exposed the longer a series is due to them being heavily reliant on gambits and trickery. You can’t turn up and do a Serral or a Maru and yeah have a few pocket builds but largely just do your thing and outplay people with raw mechanics.
Thus Protoss can be hugely overrepresented at GM level (Bo1), put up decent matchup stats in many a tournament (often on the back of Bo3s in a group phase) and generally not win tournaments as often because we’re into Bo5 or Bo7 territory.
I think the lack of new blood is also a factor but I mean, it’s not like much of the cream of the Terran or Zerg crop are new faces either.
Well, Reynors Protoss recently won vs Serral in a 35 min macro match so that gotta mean something right?
I mean, it's not like Reynor randomly rolled Protoss, he's semi-consistently practicing it for 1.5 years now. Also winning a single map isn't that special, even Showtime won a map against Serral in 4 out of the last 7 series they played
I did not check all the games (obviously) but my gut feeling says that when Serral (or any other top macro late game Zerg) loses to Protoss, it's because of a timing attack that either crippled or killed and not because of a 35 min macro showdown. Just a gut feeling though.
35 minute macro showdown on a map extremely good for late game Protoss where you can't even die early on. I don't think that's a more "pure" indicator of skill than a timing attack. Reynor specifically said he tried it only because of the map and didn't attempt it on any other map. Usually the map gets vetoed in PvZ which is why we haven't seen other Protosses do it
So you are saying Protoss is fine and Protoss players are fine just the mappool sucks for Protoss?
On December 22 2023 17:37 MJG wrote: Reynor winning the odd game with Protoss doesn't really mean anything because nobody is arguing that Protoss players are unable to consistently win a game or a Bo3 series against the best Zerg and Terran players. MaxPax does it every week in the ESL weeklies.
The problem is that Protoss doesn't seem to do well once tournaments have multiple Bo5 or Bo7 stages, and I think that has more to do with Protoss being overly reliant on power-units and trickery than it has to do with player skill. If Reynor starts winning multiple Bo5 or Bo7 series with Protoss, then we can talk about player skill, but talking about player skill off the back of Reynor's odd victories seems a bit presumptuous.
And I mean Reynor only has one professional standard Protoss matchup, which also happens to be his main, with all the Zergy knowledge he has of what he doesn’t like facing. That he said he only employed because he felt the mirror felt conflippy at a time.
It’s cool to see, indeed I think it’s overly elevated because after such a long period you’d think you’d see more people having done it, but I don’t think it says much about balance. As Flash doing Flash things didn’t really say much in BW. A long-term full time pro stretching their matchups at a pro level from 3 to 4 isn’t really that insane if we consider it like that.
Whereas if Reynor rapidly was able to get to decent pro and beyond with Protoss outright, maybe that says something about ‘player skill’.
Although personally I agree with you, although I await the data, there feels a drop off from Bo1, 3, 5 and beyond with Toss.
Ideally in an RTS people with different skillsets can prosper, but it feels the skills Toss does reward are more brittle, and thus you see them being competitive enough overall, but not at the business end of things. I think the best encapsulation of this is one of Zest’s Katowice runs, he had a razor tight build, took some scalps and got totally dismantled in the finals having shown his hand.
And overall it feels it’s been more prevalent a factor in PvZ than PvT, the latter waxes and wanes but you have periods where Toss players are actively expert at it and can take anyone, and be 55/45 or 60/40 in my internal betting (Trap’s peak springs to mind). I really can’t even remember the last time that was the case with PvZ.
I guess the dynamic of the matchup has a lot to do with it. You can’t really do much with non-commital pushes, you can’t really sit back and be passive. There’s nothing new under the sun after years of the game and the top Zergs are so good at reading what Toss are trying to do that your chances of hoodwinking them consistently to win say, a Bo7 are just that bit lower than doing so in a Bo3.
Also I guess by a Bo7 you’re seeing a scraping of the barrel in terms of viable wonky builds, and if you’re playing stock standard you’re still probably not trading 50/50 with a top Zerg anyway
On December 21 2023 22:49 Captain Peabody wrote: Unless I'm reading Liquipedia wrong, 2023 appears to be the first year in SC2 history where Protoss has not won a single premier-level tournament. Which, I don't know, I agree fundamentally with Lambo that it doesn't really matter whether or not Protoss players are worse than Zerg and Terran, fundamentally it's not good for the scene player- and spectator- wise for there to be less matchup diversity in tournaments and for it to feel like one race doesn't have a chance to win tournaments. I find myself watching later stages of tournaments where there are no Protoss less, because I eventually get tired of TvZ.
Unlike most Sad Protoss, though, I don't think the problem is that fundamental or hopeless. It's probably true that Protoss in both BW and SC2 is also going to be at least a little weaker in longer series and tournaments due to design, but it's also clear if you look at the history of SC2 that Protoss has been able to compete very well over the years.
The problem at this stage in the game is clearly (clearly!) not Warp Gate (proposals to nerf Warp Gate or make Gateway units stronger have been around since 2010 and are probably my most hated SC2 meme). Gatewayman styles reliant on the power of Warp Gate are one of the main things keeping Protoss competitive at the moment, and they're also extremely dynamic and fun to watch. Taking that away from Protoss would be utterly devastating and pointless and also terribly un-fun.
It's largely a few "shatter points" of fragility where Protoss can just rapidly die even after getting very far ahead due to losing a few power units or not having strong enough defense (due to Overcharge nerfs) or losing all their workers to things like Widow Mines or losing the one Warp Prism or being over-reliant in the late game on inconsistent units like Disruptors. PvZ is largely in a good place design and even balance-wise, but PvT is just an incredibly frustrating matchup to watch at the pro level.
If there's a fundamental underlying problem, imo, it's simply that Protoss has been consistently undertuned throughout LotV due to memories of the strength of Protoss all-ins and deathballs in HotS and WoL. Everyone remembers when Colossus was dominant and un-fun and death-ball-y, so no one wants to buff Colossus even when they're self-evidently fragile and both races have strong counters to them at multiple stages of the game. Everyone remembers MC and sOs winning whole tournaments off of repeated Stalker all-ins, so no one wants to buff Stalkers or Zealots even in late game and even when it's clear that Zealot and Stalker all-ins have simply not been a big problem for a very long while.
But fundamentally Protoss and especially Protoss aggression is just weaker with the economy model of LotV and we're no longer in a world where a minor buff to a Gateway unit or a Robo unit would lead at the pro level to unstoppable deathballs or all-ins that would have players tearing their hair out. Zerg and Terran balance changes have felt perfectly comfortable buffing already strong units and risking powerful all-ins, but for whatever reason that hasn't been true for Protoss.
But with all those things a few targeted buffs and nerfs could honestly do the trick just fine. The last patch helped a lot and moved in the right direction, but it's clear that it wasn't enough, especially in PvT. Small buffs to a few Gateway units would be simple and have a big impact (if you don't want to buff Zealots or Stalkers, the proposals to make Sentries more useful and buff guardian shield seems like a good idea). Some kind of small nerf to Widow Mines vs Protoss would also not be gamebreaking. Hell, there are probably at least a half dozen Protoss units (Immortals! Phoenix! Sentries! et cetera) you could give minor buffs too and it wouldn't break anything.
It's perfectly possible that the problem will solve itself eventually with maps and creativity, but the Balance Council should think seriously about plugging a few holes in Protoss. Ultimately, not just for Protoss, but for the good of the scene overall. We need at least a few Protoss champions next year.
Well said, agree with all of this and also been trying to voice similar things recently. Protoss lacks potency early on, other than 3-4 gate blink openers which could kill if you micro/read very well. But other than that, anytime Protoss tries to do a "strong" push, it's ultimately not very scary but yet VERY committal and pretty all-in. Compare that to the flexibility of Terran and Zerg early pushes and how scary they are and how NOT all-in they are. And totally agree on the Colossus as well. You could easily rework the damage for example from 10 (+5 vs Light) to 11 (+4 vs Light), and maybe also nerf/rework Abduct so that it only pulls Massive units half or 2/3 the distance. Protoss is definitely undertuned (hence all the true memes about Protoss getting nerfed anytime they find success with something). PvT is roughly balanced? Oh let's heavily nerf Overcharge and make P very vulnerable early on and have a 40% winrate vs T. And only give tiny things to compensate that are definitely not enough at all. (Thankfully the current patch helped much more). They had a problem with Overcharge out-healing DPS, they couldn't even compensate by making Overcharge last 1 second longer or something. That's how undertuned/biased that change was.
On December 21 2023 20:13 TMNT wrote: I'm an ardent BW follower but have next to nothing knowledge about SC2 meta, but from reading over the years from ppl in the SC2 community it always strikes me how staggeringly similar the two games are re Protoss.
On players: - is the predominant race at low levels but has the least success at pro level - is considered the easiest race to play (the "ape" race) - "Protoss pros are just not as good as Zerg and Terran pros"
On gameplay: - relies heavily on Gateway units and some mid game power units, can't compete with Zerg and Terran in the late game (if not accumulating a significant advantage earlier) - has the least ability to come back - relies on trickery/gambling the most to earn an advantage, can't just play straight up macro and outpower Zerg and Terran - has vastly different units and styles, leading to Protoss players being good at different things, instead of all players (relatively) focusing and mastering on one (or fewer) thing like Zerg and Terran - has decent win rate overall (but still the worst among 3 races), but tends to fall apart in tournaments when longer series Bo3/5/7 comes to play
When you have such similarities between the two games then it very likely goes back to the core of how each race functions. Like, Terran relies on the ranged and heavy firepower of a critical mass. Zerg relies on pure number from the unstoppable macro engine. And Protoss relies on the trickery and magic of some specific units. Among them, one style has to be more/less successful than the others, and as we have seen the same trends in two different games with 30+ years of history combined, I think it's safe to say the root of the problem is fundamental design.
Appreciate your reply, as someone who doesn't watch much BW (but likes it), the similitaries are really staggering and interesting, and definitely safe to make this conclusion.
Fascinating reads, this is the type of nuanced discussion we need, no butthurt bias, just good sound observations.
bring back mothership core/nexus cannon bring back strong collosi, they are a boring unit, but it's a steady, reliable backbone to all ground based comps bring back Rain. Only he can save Protoss.
Could revert of battery ovecharge's nerf help? Or a partial revert maybe. Protoss often die to terran's timing attacks, this could help to stabilize Protoss' early game.
A 2023 with 0 premier wins and 1 second place finish. It feels like things get worse every year and it's just plain bad for the tournaments, the viewers and the game At this point I am all for the suggestion of buffing toss to a point where they make every final in 2024. Make it like that super tournament with 7/8 toss players and a year of marine and ling tears. Just give toss one year of lifting trophys!
On a more serious note I think there has been some really good observations and suggestions in this thread, e.g. on map changes, viper abduct etc.
I think the Clem vs Serral (and also vs Dark) games in Atlanta was insanely good and great to watch from a viewer perspective. I just wish the 3rd race could make these finals now and then and give the same intensity for us viewers.
how to fix protoss Lower the energy/time for some abilities Storm, Sentry hallucination, shield Lower the build time for support units sentry, collosus, HT -------- 2seconds each these are key units that need to be faster on the battlefield.
increase viper abduct energy to 125 from 75 this wont make abduct all that good so often in the match.
Protoss doesn't just need one or two minor buffs to be more competitive. The entire race would need to be reworked so that it isn't as dependent on power units that are easily hard-countered in the late-game, and so that Gateway units are more than just cannon fodder for those power units. This isn't an easy fix and it would require Blizzard to be actively engaged in redeveloping the game, which they clearly aren't.
The hyper-aggression that MaxPax and herO use in the mid-game is great for weekly tournaments with shorter formats, and it's very entertaining to watch, but it's never going to be sustainable over tournaments that have multiple Bo5 and Bo7 series. Good players will drag them into the late-game and Protoss isn't equipped for it.
I'll add that on top of being extraordinarily difficult to execute on it's own just trading evenly or at a slight deficit, it's always just a single bad click away at any point to result in an unrecoverable state.
More on the general topic I've always felt that protoss win percentage tends to follow the percentage of mistakes for the game (from both players). Meaning that if both players play perfectly then P tends to be fucked.
This is reflected pretty well over the years talking to competitors when you ask them about a loss and what they could have done better, especially in "close games". Many will just point to a specific moment or perhaps a bad decision. You'll almost never come across a Z or T that says they felt they played perfectly but still lost, where as P seems to have that happen quite a bit.
It's easy to just point the finger at copium or players but the real issue is that the intended design and/or numbers just don't work out.
On December 20 2023 17:46 MJG wrote: I posted this in the Sad Zealot Fan Club but it fits here just as well:
Protoss doesn't just need one or two minor buffs to be more competitive. The entire race would need to be reworked so that it isn't as dependent on power units that are easily hard-countered in the late-game, and so that Gateway units are more than just cannon fodder for those power units. This isn't an easy fix and it would require Blizzard to be actively engaged in redeveloping the game, which they clearly aren't.
The hyper-aggression that MaxPax and herO use in the mid-game is great for weekly tournaments with shorter formats, and it's very entertaining to watch, but it's never going to be sustainable over tournaments that have multiple Bo5 and Bo7 series. Good players will drag them into the late-game and Protoss isn't equipped for it.
I'll add that on top of being extraordinarily difficult to execute on it's own just trading evenly or at a slight deficit, it's always just a single bad click away at any point to result in an unrecoverable state.
More on the general topic I've always felt that protoss win percentage tends to follow the percentage of mistakes for the game (from both players). Meaning that if both players play perfectly then P tends to be fucked.
This is reflected pretty well over the years talking to competitors when you ask them about a loss and what they could have done better, especially in "close games". Many will just point to a specific moment or perhaps a bad decision. You'll almost never come across a Z or T that says they felt they played perfectly but still lost, where as P seems to have that happen quite a bit.
It's easy to just point the finger at copium or players but the real issue is that the intended design and/or numbers just don't work out.
Indeed, I mean Trap got fucking stomped in his two GSL finals but especially in one (think it was Dark?) I thought he actually played pretty decently. But he still got stomped anyway.
Your timing gets sniffed out early, or even delayed 20 seconds and it doesn’t do anything, one runby gets through your wall and you’re dead.
Protoss aggression often requires commitment, if scouted can be impotent and conversely they’re super dependent on perfect positioning to hold defensively too
On December 20 2023 17:46 MJG wrote: I posted this in the Sad Zealot Fan Club but it fits here just as well:
Protoss doesn't just need one or two minor buffs to be more competitive. The entire race would need to be reworked so that it isn't as dependent on power units that are easily hard-countered in the late-game, and so that Gateway units are more than just cannon fodder for those power units. This isn't an easy fix and it would require Blizzard to be actively engaged in redeveloping the game, which they clearly aren't.
The hyper-aggression that MaxPax and herO use in the mid-game is great for weekly tournaments with shorter formats, and it's very entertaining to watch, but it's never going to be sustainable over tournaments that have multiple Bo5 and Bo7 series. Good players will drag them into the late-game and Protoss isn't equipped for it.
I'll add that on top of being extraordinarily difficult to execute on it's own just trading evenly or at a slight deficit, it's always just a single bad click away at any point to result in an unrecoverable state.
More on the general topic I've always felt that protoss win percentage tends to follow the percentage of mistakes for the game (from both players). Meaning that if both players play perfectly then P tends to be fucked.
This is reflected pretty well over the years talking to competitors when you ask them about a loss and what they could have done better, especially in "close games". Many will just point to a specific moment or perhaps a bad decision. You'll almost never come across a Z or T that says they felt they played perfectly but still lost, where as P seems to have that happen quite a bit.
It's easy to just point the finger at copium or players but the real issue is that the intended design and/or numbers just don't work out.
Indeed, I mean Trap got fucking stomped in his two GSL finals but especially in one (think it was Dark?) I thought he actually played pretty decently. But he still got stomped anyway.
Your timing gets sniffed out early, or even delayed 20 seconds and it doesn’t do anything, one runby gets through your wall and you’re dead.
Protoss aggression often requires commitment, if scouted can be impotent and conversely they’re super dependent on perfect positioning to hold defensively too
In Trap's case he stomped the same players that stomped him in GSL finals, regularly in tier 2 events (won even a bo7 finals against Serral), so I think in his case it was more nerves than balance.
Trap's 6 premier wins and 3 GSL second places were mostly PvP and PvT based besides his 4:3 final wins over Reynor and Serral. It was probably nerves to some extent but I think it was mainly just a result of Protoss' in general struggles in big playoff bo5+ matches vs Zergs. If Toss had a 50% winrate in premier m PvZ ro8+/playoff matches from 2018-2022 Toss would be viewed as tied for the strongest race instead of the weakest.
On December 24 2023 06:37 JJH777 wrote: Trap's 6 premier wins and 3 GSL second places were mostly PvP and PvT based besides his 4:3 final wins over Reynor and Serral. It was probably nerves to some extent but I think it was mainly just a result of Protoss' in general struggles in big playoff bo5+ matches vs Zergs. If Toss had a 50% winrate in premier m PvZ ro8+/playoff matches from 2018-2022 Toss would be viewed as tied for the strongest race instead of the weakest.
My memory of the chronology may be wrong, but I got the impression Trap worked damn hard to get his PvZ to the shape where he was winning versus those guys, but in doing so his previously stellar PvT slipped a bit to merely good.
I think it was the GSL Cure won, but it was really an ideal bracket for Trap and I think he maybe takes that one if his PvT was at his peak level.
Not super relevant to the topic but any chance to talk up Trap I’ll take!
On December 24 2023 12:42 WombaT wrote: I enjoy Parting’s work but he’s not even been a top 3 Toss in forever, now I think of it maybe since WoL
Yeah and the only other peak he had that i recall is like, he got to a Top 4 in GSL around 2020? When he was doing his blink micro/reads in PvT and killing terrans like Innov and Maru? But that's all... even Creator got to a grand finals... Parting is really cool to watch but he's below Hero/Trap/Classic/Stats, and with Creator's performance since 2022 I don't know if Parting is even above Creator now lol, probably the same tier.
On December 24 2023 06:37 JJH777 wrote: Trap's 6 premier wins and 3 GSL second places were mostly PvP and PvT based besides his 4:3 final wins over Reynor and Serral. It was probably nerves to some extent but I think it was mainly just a result of Protoss' in general struggles in big playoff bo5+ matches vs Zergs. If Toss had a 50% winrate in premier m PvZ ro8+/playoff matches from 2018-2022 Toss would be viewed as tied for the strongest race instead of the weakest.
My memory of the chronology may be wrong, but I got the impression Trap worked damn hard to get his PvZ to the shape where he was winning versus those guys, but in doing so his previously stellar PvT slipped a bit to merely good.
I think it was the GSL Cure won, but it was really an ideal bracket for Trap and I think he maybe takes that one if his PvT was at his peak level.
Not super relevant to the topic but any chance to talk up Trap I’ll take!
Yea trap worked so hard his record against rogue went from 0-15 in matches to 10-0 in matches right after the 4.12.0 patch (4 protoss buffs and 3 zerg nerfs)
Btw, with the addition of the Cyclone giving Terran a strong and accessible way to deal with Adept-allins, how about we finally give a small buff to Glaives for Adepts? Since Adept pushes vs Zerg aren't very strong (even after killing 25 drones Zerg is only a little behind and can still comeback if they have 30 drones still), a slight buff would seem to make sense. It wouldn't suddenly make Adept all-ins vs Terran too strong or anything, they have WMs, Marauders, and now they have the Cyclone too.
This would be a way to make Gateway comps stronger and more versatile. The buff could give slightly more attack speed, or perhaps it could give +10 HP or Shield to Adepts. Something that would make Adepts more of a viable alternative unit to use for your comp, and give more ways to use it in the midgame and later.
Seeing Astrea use Adept based Gateway comps (in addition to Colossus tech) vs Terran was really cool. Using Shade to make Tanks splash and kill their own marines, and if they unsiege then you can attack in, you could even time a 2nd Shade with the rest so that as soon as they unsiege you're already ontop. Making this kind of alternate style to play would be really cool.
Since Terran has additional ways to push Protoss early on, I think it would be fitting if Protoss was given additional options too, especially since Terran pushes have gotten stronger since the Overcharge nerf and indirect buffs to Interference Matrix pushes.
Buffing Glaive slightly and making Adept more usable in later stages of the game would also give Protoss a cheaper and more accessible and reactive way to deal with mass Crackling runbys into the lategame, without having to leave behind Archons/Colossus at home. Mass crackling seems to be a bit problematic vs Protoss right now, so this would address that.
It shouldn't cause an issue in PvP either as we pretty much never see Adepts used in PvP, and Protoss has many ways to deal with Adepts.
On December 24 2023 06:37 JJH777 wrote: Trap's 6 premier wins and 3 GSL second places were mostly PvP and PvT based besides his 4:3 final wins over Reynor and Serral. It was probably nerves to some extent but I think it was mainly just a result of Protoss' in general struggles in big playoff bo5+ matches vs Zergs. If Toss had a 50% winrate in premier m PvZ ro8+/playoff matches from 2018-2022 Toss would be viewed as tied for the strongest race instead of the weakest.
My memory of the chronology may be wrong, but I got the impression Trap worked damn hard to get his PvZ to the shape where he was winning versus those guys, but in doing so his previously stellar PvT slipped a bit to merely good.
I think it was the GSL Cure won, but it was really an ideal bracket for Trap and I think he maybe takes that one if his PvT was at his peak level.
Not super relevant to the topic but any chance to talk up Trap I’ll take!
Yea trap worked so hard his record against rogue went from 0-15 in matches to 10-0 in matches right after the 4.12.0 patch (4 protoss buffs and 3 zerg nerfs)
Wait really? Wow that's insane. I remember Trap would beat Rogue sometimes and mainly attributed it to Rogue bustering sometimes as he does, but looking back, it's a pretty insane feat considering how strong Zerg was at the time, I guess Trap was actually just that good.
On December 24 2023 06:37 JJH777 wrote: Trap's 6 premier wins and 3 GSL second places were mostly PvP and PvT based besides his 4:3 final wins over Reynor and Serral. It was probably nerves to some extent but I think it was mainly just a result of Protoss' in general struggles in big playoff bo5+ matches vs Zergs. If Toss had a 50% winrate in premier m PvZ ro8+/playoff matches from 2018-2022 Toss would be viewed as tied for the strongest race instead of the weakest.
My memory of the chronology may be wrong, but I got the impression Trap worked damn hard to get his PvZ to the shape where he was winning versus those guys, but in doing so his previously stellar PvT slipped a bit to merely good.
I think it was the GSL Cure won, but it was really an ideal bracket for Trap and I think he maybe takes that one if his PvT was at his peak level.
Not super relevant to the topic but any chance to talk up Trap I’ll take!
Yea trap worked so hard his record against rogue went from 0-15 in matches to 10-0 in matches right after the 4.12.0 patch (4 protoss buffs and 3 zerg nerfs)
Personally, I don't think it's about balance and not about the players playing the game. In my opinion, Protoss has always been the more gimmicky race compared to the other two races. That's awesome if the game is shaken up once in a while, but the more the game is figured out, the less these gimmicky playstyles pay off.
For that to change, a balance patch or two won't be enough. Protoss would have to be reworked to an extend Blizzard hadn't even managed to achieve with the addons, even less would that be achievable with a simple patch. And with the current state of the game and the interest from Blizzard, it's hard to imagine that this is far beyond of what we can expect.
I am more and more impressed with the people frequenting TL, these threads often devolve into balance muck. This has remained pretty civil and has not only Protoss players contributing and suggesting feasible changes (gate way trained units or more P favored maps or even complete reworks). Everyone who has commented here has a sincere interest in the game being in a more healthy state (for the professional level). Let us hope there is time, people and room to introduce positive changes.
On December 26 2023 12:16 AxiomB wrote: I am more and more impressed with the people frequenting TL, these threads often devolve into balance muck. This has remained pretty civil and has not only Protoss players contributing and suggesting feasible changes (gate way trained units or more P favored maps or even complete reworks). Everyone who has commented here has a sincere interest in the game being in a more healthy state (for the professional level). Let us hope there is time, people and room to introduce positive changes.
Yeah well said, beats some of the myopic whiny/angry discussions we get elsewhere
My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
On December 27 2023 05:49 Pentarp wrote: My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
Colossi have already been nerfed into irrelevance.
On December 25 2023 18:15 omop wrote: They should by reverting all innecessary nerfs they have made to protoss. Like why immortal (or warp prism) cost was increased in the first place?
Because Zergs were complaining they couldn’t handle the 2 base immortal all in attack. (Terran played a small part as well due to the proxy Robo immortal timing)
We Protoss need our immortal timing build and proxy void shield battery build back. Because this current “meta”, Protoss has nothing to threaten Zerg/terran with
On December 25 2023 18:15 omop wrote: They should by reverting all innecessary nerfs they have made to protoss. Like why immortal (or warp prism) cost was increased in the first place?
Because Zergs were complaining they couldn’t handle the 2 base immortal all in attack. (Terran played a small part as well due to the proxy Robo immortal timing)
We Protoss need our immortal timing build and proxy void shield battery build back. Because this current “meta”, Protoss has nothing to threaten Zerg/terran with
Something but not proxy Void/battery builds. Godawful to watch and play against
On December 25 2023 18:15 omop wrote: They should by reverting all innecessary nerfs they have made to protoss. Like why immortal (or warp prism) cost was increased in the first place?
Because Zergs were complaining they couldn’t handle the 2 base immortal all in attack. (Terran played a small part as well due to the proxy Robo immortal timing)
We Protoss need our immortal timing build and proxy void shield battery build back. Because this current “meta”, Protoss has nothing to threaten Zerg/terran with
Not too much if you are a top 20 player. However, ladder protoss, and in the lower rungs of the professional scene, still has plenty of early threat.
And proxy voidray / immortal was the worst nonsense to play against, and severely detracted from the ladder experience. I don't ask for HotS swarmhost back, please don't ask for that proxy battery s***.
I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
honestly on ladder it seems i play 6protoss 3 terrans and maybe 1 zerg player (once in a while), it kinda getting ridiciouless with the amount of whine we are getting from toss, while 5k+ you are facing pretty much only toss and terran...
On December 28 2023 15:33 dph114 wrote: honestly on ladder it seems i play 6protoss 3 terrans and maybe 1 zerg player (once in a while), it kinda getting ridiciouless with the amount of whine we are getting from toss, while 5k+ you are facing pretty much only toss and terran...
So you would agree that with the large amounts of Protoss players, we should see a similar overrepresentation of Protoss at the very top if the game was perfectly balanced.
I know that you want to play the "Protoss is so strong, everyone can climb to my MMR with them, the best players are just worse and thus cannot win tournaments" card, but that is such an incredibly stupid argument that I am going to humor you in assuming that this is not what you were going for.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Would it, though? If we remove the 3 Protoss players with the best results in the last 4 years, we would be looking at exactly 0 Protoss Premier tournament victories outside of the NA regional tournaments. The same cannot be said about Zerg or Terran.
Similarly, if we remove the 3 best players of every race, the top 5 players would look like this: Protoss: Showtime, Creator, Astrea, Nightmare, Skillous Terran: Cure, Oliveira, Heromarine, Gumiho, Bunny Zerg: Reynor, Shin, Lambo, Elazer, DRG That is with the ranking taken off Aligulac. You could swap any of Dark/Reynor/Solar around to determine your top 3 Zerg alongside Serral, but it wouldn't make much of a difference. You could also swap out any of the Terrans for Spirit or Ryung, for example. Again, it wouldn't make much of a difference because you simply cannot do the same for Protoss. Do you seriously think that in such an environment, Showtime and Creator would suddenly start winning Premier tournaments left and right?
On December 28 2023 15:33 dph114 wrote: honestly on ladder it seems i play 6protoss 3 terrans and maybe 1 zerg player (once in a while), it kinda getting ridiciouless with the amount of whine we are getting from toss, while 5k+ you are facing pretty much only toss and terran...
So you would agree that with the large amounts of Protoss players, we should see a similar overrepresentation of Protoss at the very top if the game was perfectly balanced.
I know that you want to play the "Protoss is so strong, everyone can climb to my MMR with them, the best players are just worse and thus cannot win tournaments" card, but that is such an incredibly stupid argument that I am going to humor you in assuming that this is not what you were going for.
Never said that, but there are far more terrans than tosses overall on ladder, so based on your claim that more of one race should produce more high level players, yet for some reason thats not the case and mid level pro play is dominated by toss.
To me personally it looks like the actual top level is dominated by few players, that are so far ahead of everyone else, that it literally doesnt matter how much you are going to buff the of races. Serral and Clem are miles ahead (rn) of everyone else and it doesnt matter what race they are playing.
On December 28 2023 15:33 dph114 wrote: honestly on ladder it seems i play 6protoss 3 terrans and maybe 1 zerg player (once in a while), it kinda getting ridiciouless with the amount of whine we are getting from toss, while 5k+ you are facing pretty much only toss and terran...
So you would agree that with the large amounts of Protoss players, we should see a similar overrepresentation of Protoss at the very top if the game was perfectly balanced.
I know that you want to play the "Protoss is so strong, everyone can climb to my MMR with them, the best players are just worse and thus cannot win tournaments" card, but that is such an incredibly stupid argument that I am going to humor you in assuming that this is not what you were going for.
Never said that, but there are far more terrans than tosses overall on ladder, so based on your claim that more of one race should produce more high level players, yet for some reason thats not the case and mid level pro play is dominated by toss.
To me personally it looks like the actual top level is dominated by few players, that are so far ahead of everyone else, that it literally doesnt matter how much you are going to buff the of races. Serral and Clem are miles ahead (rn) of everyone else and it doesnt matter what race they are playing.
I do still think Protoss has low lows and not very high highs, and that it's a fragile and very punishing race at the top level, BUT -
I also do think that Protoss at a theoretical top top level, a level that's nearly unrealistic to achieve without someone with Serral/Maru mechanics and play as well as genius play like sOs, would be the strongest race. I think this because of the high potential of Protoss units, aggro/rush builds, as well as macro play, and that it's mainly limited by being too unrealistic to master everything (I feel you can be a top Zerg or Terran without mastering everything like you would have to as Protoss). And i think this even more after seeing someone with Reynor's skill and particularly high level of mechanics be able to play PvZ as good as he does. Like he isn't a protoss player, so yes sometimes he can make critical flubs like blinking his 12 stalkers down to try to pick off a muta vs Solar and losing them all, but aside from that his play is top level. So imagine if he did practice Protoss as his main race, what Protoss could be like. It was amazing watching him control 2 armies vs Serral on Radhuset, especially because Protoss armies already have SO many different units/abilities that it's hard to split and control each one so well.
On December 28 2023 18:27 RKC wrote: Maybe most casuals don't play Zerg because droning and massing Queens to victory isn't at all fun...
(At least BW Zerg has knife-edge moments that gives us off some thrills and chills even in imba matchups like ZvP)
More like understanding when you need to drone/scout/creep isn't always fun when you don't have thousands of games under your belt or Serral/Reynor level mechanics. And then dying to random ladder builds or death-balls because you read the game wrong. But sure, what you said--that accounts for the tremendous ladder imbalance.
On December 28 2023 15:33 dph114 wrote: honestly on ladder it seems i play 6protoss 3 terrans and maybe 1 zerg player (once in a while), it kinda getting ridiciouless with the amount of whine we are getting from toss, while 5k+ you are facing pretty much only toss and terran...
So you would agree that with the large amounts of Protoss players, we should see a similar overrepresentation of Protoss at the very top if the game was perfectly balanced.
I know that you want to play the "Protoss is so strong, everyone can climb to my MMR with them, the best players are just worse and thus cannot win tournaments" card, but that is such an incredibly stupid argument that I am going to humor you in assuming that this is not what you were going for.
Never said that, but there are far more terrans than tosses overall on ladder, so based on your claim that more of one race should produce more high level players, yet for some reason thats not the case and mid level pro play is dominated by toss.
To me personally it looks like the actual top level is dominated by few players, that are so far ahead of everyone else, that it literally doesnt matter how much you are going to buff the of races. Serral and Clem are miles ahead (rn) of everyone else and it doesnt matter what race they are playing.
I do still think Protoss has low lows and not very high highs, and that it's a fragile and very punishing race at the top level, BUT -
I also do think that Protoss at a theoretical top top level, a level that's nearly unrealistic to achieve without someone with Serral/Maru mechanics and play as well as genius play like sOs, would be the strongest race. I think this because of the high potential of Protoss units, aggro/rush builds, as well as macro play, and that it's mainly limited by being too unrealistic to master everything (I feel you can be a top Zerg or Terran without mastering everything like you would have to as Protoss). And i think this even more after seeing someone with Reynor's skill and particularly high level of mechanics be able to play PvZ as good as he does. Like he isn't a protoss player, so yes sometimes he can make critical flubs like blinking his 12 stalkers down to try to pick off a muta vs Solar and losing them all, but aside from that his play is top level. So imagine if he did practice Protoss as his main race, what Protoss could be like. It was amazing watching him control 2 armies vs Serral on Radhuset, especially because Protoss armies already have SO many different units/abilities that it's hard to split and control each one so well.
This is an interesting take. In terms of innovative game play, the last major shift was when herO discovered and utilised 'Zerg Protoss' (Pure probing + rapidly expanding whilst relying on only gateway units to posture against Z and T). Fascinatingly enough he exhibited this style right after his military service and had decent success with it - quite an accomplishment!
Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
Some of the issues for Protoss that makes it hard to win is
1) chrono boost has diminished returns as the game goes on. Absolutely useless in the late game. While as injects/scan/mules are op in comparison in the late stages
2) once Protoss suffers any economy damage the game is pretty much over. Whereas is the Zergs or terrans loses 20-30 workers they are still in the game
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters
Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
It might be because AlphaStar's transition was into blink stalker micro in a ~270 degree arc in a space that took at least three screens to cover, and human players can't do that.
More realistically, its strategy space was limited to the PvP mirror, and iirc constrained to playing only against other AlphaStar lines during its learning process. So I don't know that it ever had to try its weird mass probe opening against something like a Dark Templar rush. And it definitely wasn't tested against early pool builds from Zerg.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great (top 15 all time), but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great, but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Yeah but Rain had already declined a bit by the end of HotS. You of all people should know this as you wrote this
Rain was long past his initial peak era of 2012-2013, when he became the first KeSPA elephant to truly master and start the Association's conquest of the SC2 scene. After a dominant stretch where he won the OSL and WCS Asia, he had a far less impressive 2014 where he only managed a few top-four finishes at best.
in the Maru vs Rain game analysis post. So it's far from guaranteed he'd have made a significant difference if he sticked with sc2. Also small correction, Inno also made a 3rd finals (vs Soulkey) and Classic also won 2 korean leagues during that period (gsl/ssl).
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great, but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Yeah but Rain had already declined a bit by the end of HotS. You of all people should know this as you wrote this
Rain was long past his initial peak era of 2012-2013, when he became the first KeSPA elephant to truly master and start the Association's conquest of the SC2 scene. After a dominant stretch where he won the OSL and WCS Asia, he had a far less impressive 2014 where he only managed a few top-four finishes at best.
in the Maru vs Rain game analysis post. So it's far from guaranteed he'd have made a significant difference if he sticked with sc2. Also small correction, Inno also made a 3rd finals (vs Soulkey) and Classic also won 2 korean leagues during that period (gsl/ssl).
In the six months before the end of hots, Rain won gsl, made the seminfinals of ssl (lost 3-4 to herO) and won HSC (whatever that means to you). Rain surely would have beaten ByuL again if he had advanced, so i see no reason why you got that impression.
And you are correct with the Classic/inno updates. writing posts about 10 year old sc2 ten minutes after waking up not ideal.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great, but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Yeah but Rain had already declined a bit by the end of HotS. You of all people should know this as you wrote this
Rain was long past his initial peak era of 2012-2013, when he became the first KeSPA elephant to truly master and start the Association's conquest of the SC2 scene. After a dominant stretch where he won the OSL and WCS Asia, he had a far less impressive 2014 where he only managed a few top-four finishes at best.
in the Maru vs Rain game analysis post. So it's far from guaranteed he'd have made a significant difference if he sticked with sc2. Also small correction, Inno also made a 3rd finals (vs Soulkey) and Classic also won 2 korean leagues during that period (gsl/ssl).
In the six months before the end of hots, Rain won gsl, made the seminfinals of ssl (lost 3-4 to herO) and won HSC (whatever that means to you). Rain surely would have beaten ByuL again if he had advanced, so i see no reason why you got that impression.
And you are correct with the Classic/inno updates. writing posts about 10 year old sc2 ten minutes after waking up not ideal.
Yeah, Rain was great for sure, but if Zest and Classic struggled to replicate their HotS success in LotV I'm not sure I would have given Rain significantly higher chances. They all seemed to be at around the same level in HotS
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great (top 15 all time), but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Oh I don’t forget :p I’m intrigued what he would have done in a parallel universe where Kespa BW continued as he’s a tremendous talent.
He usually gets my vote for a greatest StarCraft player across both titles, having won titles in both, but also in some style. Flash is a bit underrated as an SC2 player, he was still a top player just he was never going to be well, Flash and I feel people overlook him for not hitting those heights.
I wouldn’t doubt Rain’s abiiity, I just frankly feel Toss has often been quite weak in Legacy and hasn’t always suited his style either. SoS, with a completely different style didn’t hit the same heights either.
You’d probably see Protoss being more competitive at the top end if he had stayed, although nothing as occasionally dominant as a Mary or a Serral type
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great (top 15 all time), but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Oh I don’t forget :p I’m intrigued what he would have done in a parallel universe where Kespa BW continued as he’s a tremendous talent.
He usually gets my vote for a greatest StarCraft player across both titles, having won titles in both, but also in some style. Flash is a bit underrated as an SC2 player, he was still a top player just he was never going to be well, Flash and I feel people overlook him for not hitting those heights.
I wouldn’t doubt Rain’s abiiity, I just frankly feel Toss has often been quite weak in Legacy and hasn’t always suited his style either. SoS, with a completely different style didn’t hit the same heights either.
You’d probably see Protoss being more competitive at the top end if he had stayed, although nothing as occasionally dominant as a Mary or a Serral type
I agree with the general sentiment that Toss has been awful in Lotv. 2016-2018 Stats has to rank among the highest peaks of all time and it's only gotten worse since. I think Rain's versatility would have given him a shot at reaching those heights. He won OSL five months after making his SC2 debut and didn't waste much time winning ASL when he went back to BW.
On a separate note, a lot of Rain's wins are terrible games (because they are so one sided). He's right up there alongside Inno and Mvp when it comes to players who were so much better than their peers when at their best.
Lastly, sOs was never a particularly strong player mechanically. His fingers worked well at HotS speed, but he was pretty exposed in Lotv once things really started speeding up in 2017/18. Doesn't take away from his incredible achievements, but Lotv has done a similar thing to lots of players who relied on brains rather than dexterity.
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great (top 15 all time), but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Oh I don’t forget :p I’m intrigued what he would have done in a parallel universe where Kespa BW continued as he’s a tremendous talent.
He usually gets my vote for a greatest StarCraft player across both titles, having won titles in both, but also in some style. Flash is a bit underrated as an SC2 player, he was still a top player just he was never going to be well, Flash and I feel people overlook him for not hitting those heights.
I wouldn’t doubt Rain’s abiiity, I just frankly feel Toss has often been quite weak in Legacy and hasn’t always suited his style either. SoS, with a completely different style didn’t hit the same heights either.
You’d probably see Protoss being more competitive at the top end if he had stayed, although nothing as occasionally dominant as a Mary or a Serral type
I agree with the general sentiment that Toss has been awful in Lotv. 2016-2018 Stats has to rank among the highest peaks of all time and it's only gotten worse since. I think Rain's versatility would have given him a shot at reaching those heights. He won OSL five months after making his SC2 debut and didn't waste much time winning ASL when he went back to BW.
On a separate note, a lot of Rain's wins are terrible games (because they are so one sided). He's right up there alongside Inno and Mvp when it comes to players who were so much better than their peers when at their best.
Lastly, sOs was never a particularly strong player mechanically. His fingers worked well at HotS speed, but he was pretty exposed in Lotv once things really started speeding up in 2017/18. Doesn't take away from his incredible achievements, but Lotv has done a similar thing to lots of players who relied on brains rather than dexterity.
I suppose he did make a proxy Nexus build work so I have to give him some props.
I think $O$ in particular struggled because his strengths were doing funky things in that low-mid game transition period. He was never really a hardcore cheeser like a Has, never a reactive macro stalwart like a Rain or a Stats but he could cause chaos in that aforementioned period and knew how to navigate it better than his opponents.
Whereas in Legacy that period doesn’t really exist due to the eco changes, well it’s my working theory anyway
On December 28 2023 05:36 ScrappyRabbit wrote: I do wonder how different all of this would be if Rain had stuck with SC2 -- he seemed like he was on his way to being a GOAT candidate as a well-rounded, macro Protoss. I think one of the general points here, that 1-2 absolute outlier humans like a Serral or a Maru can make discussing overall racial balance tricky, is absolutely valid. Pull the top 3 players from every race and the scene would look WILDLY different.
Rain was a monster but I don’t think he was considerably better at that style than Stats in his pomp. An extra player of that calibre would help of course!
On December 31 2023 01:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On December 30 2023 15:43 AxiomB wrote:
On December 30 2023 00:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: You guys are so serious. Take a break and have a laugh guys.
To me, the perspective here is all wrong. Attempting to Make a living on this game via winning pro events is less viable every quarter of every year. Relax , and just have fun. Treat the game as its creators originally intended in 1998. It is a never-perfectly-balanced fuster cluck. Diverse race always means less balance.
This is how you have fun with an old game with a 25+ year history of greatness. Silly Stupid, Giggly Fun.
On December 29 2023 21:36 AxiomB wrote: Which makes me wonder - are there other highly effective styles of Protoss not yet discovered? Styles/ play patterns that could increase Protoss' winrate in majors? It is possible I guess.
AlphaStar proved there are undiscovered styles. Its fast expand Protoss would be vulnerable to early attack. The AIs seemingly totally bizarre way of defending and mass accelerated probe building actually worked. The AI always lost a few probes to early aggression but still ended up with more probes and a better economy even DURING the attacks.
We are having fun discussing serious matters Why do you think the top level players do not copy the fast expansion style of AlphaStar with Protoss?
good question. inertia perhaps? AlphaStar was over building probes on 1 base and long distance mining before its 2nd base was up.
If AlphaStar were still being funded it'd be finding new strats. There are new undiscovered strats out there.
AlphaStar did some pretty nifty things can’t deny it was a fascinating experiment while it lasted.
It did seem to have most of its successes via inhuman precision and calculus, or being extremely off-meta which is maybe why we didn’t see much adoption of its play styles by even the best human players.
2017-18 Stats was great (top 15 all time), but Rain won gsl, osl and reached the finals of another osl in less than four years. Only Inno and maru won 2 korean leagues (gsl/gsl and osl/ssl) respectively during that period (neither made a third finals). Rain also went over to BW post casting/surgery and almost immediately became a top tier player (including winning asl). He's one of the greatest natural talents in rts history, but people forget this when the games happened 10 years ago.
Oh I don’t forget :p I’m intrigued what he would have done in a parallel universe where Kespa BW continued as he’s a tremendous talent.
He usually gets my vote for a greatest StarCraft player across both titles, having won titles in both, but also in some style. Flash is a bit underrated as an SC2 player, he was still a top player just he was never going to be well, Flash and I feel people overlook him for not hitting those heights.
I wouldn’t doubt Rain’s abiiity, I just frankly feel Toss has often been quite weak in Legacy and hasn’t always suited his style either. SoS, with a completely different style didn’t hit the same heights either.
You’d probably see Protoss being more competitive at the top end if he had stayed, although nothing as occasionally dominant as a Mary or a Serral type
I agree with the general sentiment that Toss has been awful in Lotv. 2016-2018 Stats has to rank among the highest peaks of all time and it's only gotten worse since. I think Rain's versatility would have given him a shot at reaching those heights. He won OSL five months after making his SC2 debut and didn't waste much time winning ASL when he went back to BW.
On a separate note, a lot of Rain's wins are terrible games (because they are so one sided). He's right up there alongside Inno and Mvp when it comes to players who were so much better than their peers when at their best.
Lastly, sOs was never a particularly strong player mechanically. His fingers worked well at HotS speed, but he was pretty exposed in Lotv once things really started speeding up in 2017/18. Doesn't take away from his incredible achievements, but Lotv has done a similar thing to lots of players who relied on brains rather than dexterity.
I suppose he did make a proxy Nexus build work so I have to give him some props.
I think $O$ in particular struggled because his strengths were doing funky things in that low-mid game transition period. He was never really a hardcore cheeser like a Has, never a reactive macro stalwart like a Rain or a Stats but he could cause chaos in that aforementioned period and knew how to navigate it better than his opponents.
Whereas in Legacy that period doesn’t really exist due to the eco changes, well it’s my working theory anyway
He did well early on. He reached two Code S finals in 2016 and 2017 respectively, only missed out on Blizzcon because of Rogue and then made it to the finals of two weekenders. Things changed a lot in the years that followed and it rarely seemed like he was all that competitive
It reminds of how most people think the players who last a long time in professional sports are those who don't depend primarily on athleticism. The true is, those players eventually reach a point where they've slow down to the point that they can no longer compete at the required speed. It's the more athletic players who last the longest because even if their physical abilities fade, they had the a big advantage to begin with and they fall back to the baseline instead of dropping off a cliff.
On December 27 2023 05:49 Pentarp wrote: My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
Colossi have already been nerfed into irrelevance.
Colossi still need Terrans to make vikings. You're acting like colossi are never made in PvT at the pro levels. That would be the definition of relevance.
On December 27 2023 05:49 Pentarp wrote: My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
Colossi have already been nerfed into irrelevance.
Colossi still need Terrans to make vikings. You're acting like colossi are never made in PvT at the pro levels. That would be the definition of relevance.
That’s only if Protoss Survive to the late game. Colossi are literally trash for the investment. How many times have we since Protoss literally lose when defending their 3rd but raven instantly disable all the colossi and terran just Stim a move to victory
Unless we make tournament series all bo3's, even the finals. Then we have to give Protoss back what makes them win consistently. LotV economy is actually pretty strong for Protoss. The reason Protoss falls off is that they are the race in need of the most workers in the late game, because its army efficiency lacks. And this eats into the army count. Now you also have the fact that all Protoss units have received supply nerfs in an effort to remove the death ball, or whatever logic. This makes the Protoss late game army absolutely nonexistent. Did we have 3supply disruptor,4supply tempest,6supply new mothership/8supply old mothership,3supply voidray, then it would be a different story. This is why I lost faith in Protoss since Stats and after Zest gave us the Adept nerf. Though hope was sort of restored with PartinG, because he showed us that Protoss skill can also lead to consistent wins via aggro builds, mind games and breaking the mental of opponents. I didn't jump on the Trap band wagon, because I don't think this style wins tournaments for Protoss anymore, it is more that the opponents played subpar. Trap can't beat a Maru or Serral in form. Now herO performed an actual Protoss miracle, I never believed, but you could see in his control of the game that he was outplaying a player like Maru. Watch that finals and see his control, he willed his way to the win. I did not see this level of TvP, since TY vs PartinG. We see it with Maxpax as well, the way for Protoss to win vs Terran is through insane control and mind games. The way I would describe the PartinG way to win, is that he's winning even before entering the game of Starcraft and that is one way to subgo the balance of the game. The players were always there, but if you remove every single thing that has allowed a player to win, then it shouldn't surprise you when a player is suddenly not able to win. It's a kind of opposite Darwinism...
On January 02 2024 11:06 ejozl wrote: Unless we make tournament series all bo3's, even the finals. Then we have to give Protoss back what makes them win consistently. LotV economy is actually pretty strong for Protoss. The reason Protoss falls off is that they are the race in need of the most workers in the late game, because its army efficiency lacks. And this eats into the army count. Now you also have the fact that all Protoss units have received supply nerfs in an effort to remove the death ball, or whatever logic. This makes the Protoss late game army absolutely nonexistent. Did we have 3supply disruptor,4supply tempest,6supply new mothership/8supply old mothership,3supply voidray, then it would be a different story. This is why I lost faith in Protoss since Stats and after Zest gave us the Adept nerf. Though hope was sort of restored with PartinG, because he showed us that Protoss skill can also lead to consistent wins via aggro builds, mind games and breaking the mental of opponents. I didn't jump on the Trap band wagon, because I don't think this style wins tournaments for Protoss anymore, it is more that the opponents played subpar. Trap can't beat a Maru or Serral in form. Now herO performed an actual Protoss miracle, I never believed, but you could see in his control of the game that he was outplaying a player like Maru. Watch that finals and see his control, he willed his way to the win. I did not see this level of TvP, since TY vs PartinG. We see it with Maxpax as well, the way for Protoss to win vs Terran is through insane control and mind games. The way I would describe the PartinG way to win, is that he's winning even before entering the game of Starcraft and that is one way to subgo the balance of the game. The players were always there, but if you remove every single thing that has allowed a player to win, then it shouldn't surprise you when a player is suddenly not able to win. It's a kind of opposite Darwinism...
Plenty of points I agree with you on there but Trap had one of the more consistent spans of any Protoss players ever at his pomp. Someone can make a miracle run at a tournament where their opponents don’t play their best StarCraft, but not a really consistently productive 18 months/2 years
Parting’s probably as overrated as Trap is underrated.
On December 27 2023 05:49 Pentarp wrote: My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
Colossi have already been nerfed into irrelevance.
Colossi still need Terrans to make vikings. You're acting like colossi are never made in PvT at the pro levels. That would be the definition of relevance.
They only get made because there isn't a better option in the early-game. Once armies get bigger, Disruptors become the dominant option, and Disruptors are so hit-or-miss that they're the epitome of why Protoss can never be consistent without a massive overhaul.
On January 02 2024 11:06 ejozl wrote: Unless we make tournament series all bo3's, even the finals. Then we have to give Protoss back what makes them win consistently. LotV economy is actually pretty strong for Protoss. The reason Protoss falls off is that they are the race in need of the most workers in the late game, because its army efficiency lacks. And this eats into the army count. Now you also have the fact that all Protoss units have received supply nerfs in an effort to remove the death ball, or whatever logic. This makes the Protoss late game army absolutely nonexistent. Did we have 3supply disruptor,4supply tempest,6supply new mothership/8supply old mothership,3supply voidray, then it would be a different story. This is why I lost faith in Protoss since Stats and after Zest gave us the Adept nerf. Though hope was sort of restored with PartinG, because he showed us that Protoss skill can also lead to consistent wins via aggro builds, mind games and breaking the mental of opponents. I didn't jump on the Trap band wagon, because I don't think this style wins tournaments for Protoss anymore, it is more that the opponents played subpar. Trap can't beat a Maru or Serral in form. Now herO performed an actual Protoss miracle, I never believed, but you could see in his control of the game that he was outplaying a player like Maru. Watch that finals and see his control, he willed his way to the win. I did not see this level of TvP, since TY vs PartinG. We see it with Maxpax as well, the way for Protoss to win vs Terran is through insane control and mind games. The way I would describe the PartinG way to win, is that he's winning even before entering the game of Starcraft and that is one way to subgo the balance of the game. The players were always there, but if you remove every single thing that has allowed a player to win, then it shouldn't surprise you when a player is suddenly not able to win. It's a kind of opposite Darwinism...
Plenty of points I agree with you on there but Trap had one of the more consistent spans of any Protoss players ever at his pomp. Someone can make a miracle run at a tournament where their opponents don’t play their best StarCraft, but not a really consistently productive 18 months/2 years
Parting’s probably as overrated as Trap is underrated.
I agree, I was underrating Trap, I'm just stating my opinion on his style. People mentioned Rain earlier and I have the same opinion there. They could do great, but could never beat a peak form Serral or Maru. Partly due to the nature of Protoss and partly because you need more than just the ability to play straight up.
On January 02 2024 11:06 ejozl wrote: Unless we make tournament series all bo3's, even the finals. Then we have to give Protoss back what makes them win consistently. LotV economy is actually pretty strong for Protoss. The reason Protoss falls off is that they are the race in need of the most workers in the late game, because its army efficiency lacks. And this eats into the army count. Now you also have the fact that all Protoss units have received supply nerfs in an effort to remove the death ball, or whatever logic. This makes the Protoss late game army absolutely nonexistent. Did we have 3supply disruptor,4supply tempest,6supply new mothership/8supply old mothership,3supply voidray, then it would be a different story. This is why I lost faith in Protoss since Stats and after Zest gave us the Adept nerf. Though hope was sort of restored with PartinG, because he showed us that Protoss skill can also lead to consistent wins via aggro builds, mind games and breaking the mental of opponents. I didn't jump on the Trap band wagon, because I don't think this style wins tournaments for Protoss anymore, it is more that the opponents played subpar. Trap can't beat a Maru or Serral in form. Now herO performed an actual Protoss miracle, I never believed, but you could see in his control of the game that he was outplaying a player like Maru. Watch that finals and see his control, he willed his way to the win. I did not see this level of TvP, since TY vs PartinG. We see it with Maxpax as well, the way for Protoss to win vs Terran is through insane control and mind games. The way I would describe the PartinG way to win, is that he's winning even before entering the game of Starcraft and that is one way to subgo the balance of the game. The players were always there, but if you remove every single thing that has allowed a player to win, then it shouldn't surprise you when a player is suddenly not able to win. It's a kind of opposite Darwinism...
Plenty of points I agree with you on there but Trap had one of the more consistent spans of any Protoss players ever at his pomp. Someone can make a miracle run at a tournament where their opponents don’t play their best StarCraft, but not a really consistently productive 18 months/2 years
Parting’s probably as overrated as Trap is underrated.
I agree, I was underrating Trap, I'm just stating my opinion on his style. People mentioned Rain earlier and I have the same opinion there. They could do great, but could never beat a peak form Serral or Maru. Partly due to the nature of Protoss and partly because you need more than just the ability to play straight up.
Rain was an absolute monster at his peak, IMO top 10 no worries.
But I also agree aye, I think for a Protoss to truly be absolutely dominant they have to master the extremes in a way other races don’t. To have a Maru/Serral level presence you’d need a player who could play defensive macro styles to Rain or Stat’s level, but also have at least one, ideally all of Parting or herO’s aggression in the pocket, or sOs’ mid-game mastery in your locker.
And there’s just no way that’s happening. They’re such divergent styles, with very different skill sets that to have one player who can do them all is just such a tall order.
On December 27 2023 05:49 Pentarp wrote: My concern is the fact that Protoss was over-represented in the ESL qualifiers. So a buff to Protoss can hurt viewership with non-stop PvP like the ZvZs in BL/infestor and Swarmhost eras.
Instead, Protoss needs tweaks to benefit from higher skill levels.
Also, Protoss deathballs need to end. Deathballs are the antithesis to RTS; a deathball can be considered 1 giant hero unit. For example, collosi shouldn't be able to walk over other units; its a terrible design that promotes deathballs. Buffs can be given to compensate, but atleast now they will require more control - which will reward higher skill and punish lower skill.
Colossi have already been nerfed into irrelevance.
Colossi still need Terrans to make vikings. You're acting like colossi are never made in PvT at the pro levels. That would be the definition of relevance.
That’s only if Protoss Survive to the late game. Colossi are literally trash for the investment. How many times have we since Protoss literally lose when defending their 3rd but raven instantly disable all the colossi and terran just Stim a move to victory
Fact that collosi are being used is proof that theyre not "irrelevant". Raven timing was nerfed as well. Crying about irrelevance while still seeing use in pro games is hilarious.
Your original complaint was about Colossus death-balls and that's the context I was referring to when I stated that Colossi have been nerfed into irrelevance. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
Parting and Trap are overrated. Their level may be consistent for long periods. But they never hit the peaks of hero, Classic, Rain, Zest and sOs in prime form.
Both are the Zerg equivalents of Byul in SC2 and soma and hero in BW. Or BW Toss equivalent of Best.
On January 03 2024 22:57 RKC wrote: Parting and Trap are overrated. Their level may be consistent for long periods. But they never hit the peaks of hero, Classic, Rain, Zest and sOs in prime form.
Both are the Zerg equivalents of Byul in SC2 and soma and hero in BW. Or BW Toss equivalent of Best.
You're insulting ByuL's 2015 by mentioning it alongside Trap and PartinG. Neither of them achieved anything close to making 3 Code S/SSL finals in a six month period.
Also one can make the argument that those Protoss players were great, but none really prospered in eras where Protoss was generally doing badly to the degree Trap did. Or Trap just peaked as a player in an era that was getting weaker
Aside from winning a bunch of internationals Trap made 10+ GSL Ro8s in a row, a record that sadly won’t be beaten with format changes.
Trap’s baseline Code S for this period is a really good run for Parting, I don’t think they’re really that comparable at all
On January 04 2024 07:06 WombaT wrote: If anything it speaks to how underrated Byul is
Also one can make the argument that those Protoss players were great, but none really prospered in eras where Protoss was generally doing badly to the degree Trap did. Or Trap just peaked as a player in an era that was getting weaker
Aside from winning a bunch of internationals Trap made 10+ GSL Ro8s in a row, a record that sadly won’t be beaten with format changes.
Trap’s baseline Code S for this period is a really good run for Parting, I don’t think they’re really that comparable at all
Trap's greatest achievement was being eliminated in 9-12th place for a million consecutive Code S seasons which got everyone mad because we ranked him as the 9th best player in every power rank for nearly an entire year.
I will say, Trap's late career resurgence is extremely impressive. I think the "protoss not being good" factor is somewhat balanced by the fact that Trap's success came as more and more players were heading to military and a lot of great players (soO, Stats, Inno etc) weren't so great anymore, but he outperformed his peers (other Protoss) during that stretch by an amount that I would deem not insignificant.
Byul is a level below Rogue, Dark, and The-One-Who-Shalt-Not-Be-Named. The same way that Trap and Parting are a level below Zest, Classic, hero, etc. It's all relative. It's not fair to simply compare players across different races based on quantity of trophies or deep runs. Where each player ranks in their own race tier list is a fairer reflection of their standing.
(That said, I do think Trap is one or half a level higher than Parting.)
On January 05 2024 01:55 RKC wrote: Byul is a level below Rogue, Dark, and The-One-Who-Shalt-Not-Be-Named. The same way that Trap and Parting are a level below Zest, Classic, hero, etc. It's all relative. It's not fair to simply compare players across different races based on quantity of trophies or deep runs. Where each player ranks in their own race tier list is a fairer reflection of their standing.
(That said, I do think Trap is one or half a level higher than Parting.)
On January 04 2024 07:06 WombaT wrote: If anything it speaks to how underrated Byul is
Also one can make the argument that those Protoss players were great, but none really prospered in eras where Protoss was generally doing badly to the degree Trap did. Or Trap just peaked as a player in an era that was getting weaker
Aside from winning a bunch of internationals Trap made 10+ GSL Ro8s in a row, a record that sadly won’t be beaten with format changes.
Trap’s baseline Code S for this period is a really good run for Parting, I don’t think they’re really that comparable at all
Trap's greatest achievement was being eliminated in 9-12th place for a million consecutive Code S seasons which got everyone mad because we ranked him as the 9th best player in every power rank for nearly an entire year.
I will say, Trap's late career resurgence is extremely impressive. I think the "protoss not being good" factor is somewhat balanced by the fact that Trap's success came as more and more players were heading to military and a lot of great players (soO, Stats, Inno etc) weren't so great anymore, but he outperformed his peers (other Protoss) during that stretch by an amount that I would deem not insignificant.
Yeah, they had him outdone in the more cutthroat era, which trumps him outdoing them in a less competitive era where they’d already climbed most mountains so maybe weren’t as motivated too.
I sometimes wonder if something just mentally clicked in Trap, perhaps in the latter day post-Kespa era just suited him better, as it suited a player like Inno less. Mentality and liberation to do your best can be a strange and unpredictable beast, look at TY when military service loomed and he started casting, people assumed (not me :p) that he was done as a competitive player but he posted some of his best results in years.
@RKC yeah fair, I do consider Trap very underrated but not to the extent I put him above those players. But I do think there’s a pretty sizeable gap between him and Parting. If Trap maybe squeezes into an S rank of Protoss players throughout SC2’s history, below those big boys (joke intended) no way Parting does
Don’t wanna seem down on the guy, great player and fun guy to boot. Also think the mists of time have pigeonholed him as a very aggressive, cheesy player but when he first burst onto the scene his Templar-focused macro style in PvT he showed great chops and evolved the game in that direction too
ByuL is a very forgettable player for me. He didn't win anything, his biggest achievement is trying to be SoO? He was very hyped, beeing a Kespa player, but I was never very impressed. Meanwhile Trap and PartinG are actual legends. Trap is arguably the best Toss of LotV, though people don't care about Toss players in this installment. And PartinG had 10 ro16 Code S in a row, when gsl was the most competitive. He contributes enormously to the meta. He has been the best player at different times with crazy peaks. And he has been relevant in all of the 3 installments.
On January 05 2024 06:24 ejozl wrote: ByuL is a very forgettable player for me. He didn't win anything, his biggest achievement is trying to be SoO? He was very hyped, beeing a Kespa player, but I was never very impressed. Meanwhile Trap and PartinG are actual legends. Trap is arguably the best Toss of LotV, though people don't care about Toss players in this installment. And PartinG had 10 ro16 Code S in a row, when gsl was the most competitive. He contributes enormously to the meta. He has been the best player at different times with crazy peaks. And he has been relevant in all of the 3 installments.
ByuL's legacy is that he is the best muta Zerg in StarCraft II history alongside DRG. He played some of the purest muta/ling/bane vs bio you'll ever see in 2015 and was one of the best Zergs at battling mech during his peak. Sadly, ByuL really struggled in Lotv because mutas were useless in 2016. But, the moment they became viable, ByuL immediately became a top 10 player in the world. That's how good he was with the unit. As far as Zergs go, he's an icon in his own right.
On January 05 2024 06:24 ejozl wrote: ByuL is a very forgettable player for me. He didn't win anything, his biggest achievement is trying to be SoO? He was very hyped, beeing a Kespa player, but I was never very impressed. Meanwhile Trap and PartinG are actual legends. Trap is arguably the best Toss of LotV, though people don't care about Toss players in this installment. And PartinG had 10 ro16 Code S in a row, when gsl was the most competitive. He contributes enormously to the meta. He has been the best player at different times with crazy peaks. And he has been relevant in all of the 3 installments.
ByuL's legacy is that he is the best muta Zerg in StarCraft II history alongside DRG. He played some of the purest muta/ling/bane vs bio you'll ever see in 2015 and was one of the best Zergs at battling mech during his peak. Sadly, ByuL really struggled in Lotv because mutas were useless in 2016. But, the moment they became viable, ByuL immediately became a top 10 player in the world. That's how good he was with the unit. As far as Zergs go, he's an icon in his own right.
Spoken like a true archivist, and 100% on the money
1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
2) Artosis weighs in on the Protoss thing!
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
On January 06 2024 19:56 ScrappyRabbit wrote: 1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
I disagree, Stats for the first 2 years of LotV was definitely the most consistent top player and had the highest number of top finishes, and even in 2018 was the third wheel behind Maru and Serral. Whether that's still relevant to today's environment is questionable though, as it was on a completely different balance patch.
Trap also got really unlucky that he couldn't replicate his success in the tier 1 event, if he had won the GSL finals against Dark, his streak would have gone down in history as one of the most dominant streaks of any player ever
I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
The part of Artosis' argument that he didn't want to touch was the part that Protoss' design is offensive focused, (whereas Zerg is more defensive), and that Blizzard has SPECIFICALLY targetted turtley Protoss play with numerous balance changes because defensive Protoss play always ends up in one specific spot: mass Carriers. The community doesn't WANT mass Carriers. Tournaments don't want mass Carriers because it fucks with their scheduling and it's dreadfully boring to watch.
So defensive Protoss play styles have been specifically targetted over the years to keep them from becoming the norm because we don't want mass Carriers to be the meta way to play the race, but because of the way that Protoss is designed on the ground (around Warp Gate) we won't have a defensive playstyle that focuses on ground based armies emerge from the meta and stick around for any period of time because Protoss armies are not designed around LOTV maps and economy.
So Artosis isn't wrong, in the points he brings up, but his argument is incomplete because he doesn't address the WHY we dont see more defensive Protoss players in the game right now. It's not a simple matter of "well more players simply need to adopt this playstyle philosophy" because it's been specifically targeted to not work.
I think Artosis' take is a pretty good one--though I think it's a little overstated when it comes to SC2's whole lifespan. Protoss certainly used to win especially weekend LANs and World Championships on the back primarily of aggression. But I think it's fair to say that the current "era" of SC2 has been defined by these rock-solid GOAT players who excel at defense and macro even while also throwing in cheese regularly; and certainly that same era has seen Protoss gradually falling off from being competitive.
As a basic theory too it explains very well and succinctly why there are so many Protoss players who excel at lower levels and even in early rounds of tournaments but fall off at the top. I think he's very right that it's not even a matter of pure skill, but a matter of two different style- and skill-sets. The optimal practice and play for even a bit below the top is just different from optimal practice and play for the very top, and I think that's a very important piece of the puzzle. That difference I think isn't just a pure matter of defense or offensive but also of high-risk/high-reward styles as opposed to more redundant styles.
Of course, the normal thing that happens with the top players is that they at some point get good enough that they can make that transition to playing optimally for the top while still being generally good enough to beat everyone below them. Maru, Serral, Reynor, Byun, and Clem all have in common that they started out being known as cheesy or aggressive players and then transitioned their practice and style and skillset to being great all-arounders. One might even argue that that's the normative pattern for great players in SC2 generally. So the question still remains why so very few Protoss players have ever made that transition; it can't just be because they came up playing aggressively.
It's at that point one could start arguing that Protoss is in some way just more generally fragile and hard to play "immaculately" in this rock-solid way. Harder isn't impossible; but it's definitely notable in my mind that even the top players Artosis names could come off as rather shaky at times. Trap played a more defensive style, but he still died a lot to random Raven pushes and mine drops and things like that. Weirdly maybe Zest felt the least fragile of any Protoss I've seen; I think he had a real idea of how to craft builds and styles to make games more "stable" and redundant even if they sometimes felt less sharp. One could of course say similar things about Stats. And hell, even the herO style was so successful in large part because even if it was a little more aggressive it wasn't just cheese and helped Protoss defense by keeping battles on the other side of the map and allowed Protoss to win in a grindier way that wasn't just predicated on making or not making a single mistake.
So overall while I don't think it really explains (let alone justifies) Protoss not winning tournaments, I think it's some helpful theorycrafting not just for why Protoss isn't winning, but also for how you might make Protoss more competitive at the top level, by buffing/rewarding things that are used more defensively or in more redundant styles. Yet another reason why the super battery nerf is one of the worst changes of all time.
On January 06 2024 19:56 ScrappyRabbit wrote: 1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
I disagree, Stats for the first 2 years of LotV was definitely the most consistent top player and had the highest number of top finishes, and even in 2018 was the third wheel behind Maru and Serral. Whether that's still relevant to today's environment is questionable though, as it was on a completely different balance patch.
Trap also got really unlucky that he couldn't replicate his success in the tier 1 event, if he had won the GSL finals against Dark, his streak would have gone down in history as one of the most dominant streaks of any player ever
Stat's 2016-2018 is almost as good as Dark's entire career when looking at the number of finals reached in GSL/WC Type events
On January 06 2024 19:56 ScrappyRabbit wrote: 1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
I disagree, Stats for the first 2 years of LotV was definitely the most consistent top player and had the highest number of top finishes, and even in 2018 was the third wheel behind Maru and Serral. Whether that's still relevant to today's environment is questionable though, as it was on a completely different balance patch.
Trap also got really unlucky that he couldn't replicate his success in the tier 1 event, if he had won the GSL finals against Dark, his streak would have gone down in history as one of the most dominant streaks of any player ever
Stat's 2016-2018 is almost as good as Dark's entire career when looking at the number of finals reached in GSL/WC Type events
On January 06 2024 19:56 ScrappyRabbit wrote: 1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
I disagree, Stats for the first 2 years of LotV was definitely the most consistent top player and had the highest number of top finishes, and even in 2018 was the third wheel behind Maru and Serral. Whether that's still relevant to today's environment is questionable though, as it was on a completely different balance patch.
Trap also got really unlucky that he couldn't replicate his success in the tier 1 event, if he had won the GSL finals against Dark, his streak would have gone down in history as one of the most dominant streaks of any player ever
Stat's 2016-2018 is almost as good as Dark's entire career when looking at the number of finals reached in GSL/WC Type events
*I could be very wrong about the Dark numbers, but adding teams to a player's liquipedia makes sorting through results so much less enjoyable.
Actually Stats even made 3 wc finals - vs soO, vs TY and vs Serral. Sadly didn't manage to take one
You are correct, which makes what Stats did even more impressive. I opted not to include the 2019 event since I wanted to stick to a three year peak. But, Stats was damn good no matter how you slice it.
Some interesting recent discussion for sure, not much to disagree with!
I think Zest, as MC before him were not always the best players picking Protoss, but perhaps the best, most influential players at discovering, shaping and running with what the race’s strengths and weaknesses were. sOs to an even more madcap degree at times.
It would be a stretch to say a Stats, who maybe is a more mechanically skilled exponent of StarCraft, is stylistically bringing a knife to a gunfight. They can make it work, and have although there are periods where it’s not especially effective due to patches/metas etc. I’d say the relatively recent past is one where Protoss feels especially fragile playing a defensive macro kind of game.
On January 06 2024 19:56 ScrappyRabbit wrote: 1) Re: ByUL: His SSL Semifinals G7 (G5?) vs. Innovation that went to full split-map mech turtle, with Inno in control the whole game until he FORGOT LEVEL 3 ARMOR, will always be a legendary one.
He makes good points, and I think stops short of fully going for it -- his big point is that herO, Parting, and Classic (to an extent) were always a bit overrated and not as good as Zest (who was his own thing), and Trap, Stats, and Rain, with the latter three being the best defensive/macro Protoss players of all time and, as Artosis puts it "guys who were legit best in the world candidates."
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Personally, I would call Zest the best Protoss of all time because he was the best at using Protoss' greatest strength, its versatility, and using it to constantly stay a step ahead of his opponents by being on the absolute bleeding edge of the meta. If Rain had stuck with SC2, it could be a different story.
I disagree, Stats for the first 2 years of LotV was definitely the most consistent top player and had the highest number of top finishes, and even in 2018 was the third wheel behind Maru and Serral. Whether that's still relevant to today's environment is questionable though, as it was on a completely different balance patch.
Trap also got really unlucky that he couldn't replicate his success in the tier 1 event, if he had won the GSL finals against Dark, his streak would have gone down in history as one of the most dominant streaks of any player ever
Stat's 2016-2018 is almost as good as Dark's entire career when looking at the number of finals reached in GSL/WC Type events
*I could be very wrong about the Dark numbers, but adding teams to a player's liquipedia makes sorting through results so much less enjoyable.
I knew I was opening myself up when I put Dark in a GOAT-adjacent discussion. Stats was definitely impressive, super-impressive, during his peak, but at the end of the day we're talking about 1 SSL win and 1 GSL win. This is your Protoss GOAT? In some ways, Stats always being RIGHT THERE but never able to make it to the point where he was winning tournament after tournament hits on the crux of what we're talking about here -- there have been and are a lot of really great and really successful Protoss players, but when we're talking about the **absolute** top of the mountain they just aren't there in the same way. I would agree that the overall design of Protoss encourages more aggressive play, especially with the warp-in mechanic and the unmatched variety in the early/early-mid game, and the very very very best players seem to be the ones who can consistently thrive in late game with more "one size fits all" builds (with bespoke builds mixed in at key times in a Bo5/Bo7, of course.)
I don't believe they call themselves the cabal, but then I don't think any organization does. So the way to determine if they're a cabal is by their actions. So you decide. I like to call them the cabal because it is funny, they're so far a detriment to the game and should clean up their act. But of course I don't hate them personally, but you can see a diplomatic game playing out and that could never lead to the best version of the game possible. They like to make changes to make things more like BW. But guess what, what made BW great was a lead designer like Robert Pardo sitting down by himself making sheet after sheet to determine what the different stats on the units should be like. Today you would call this kind of person an Icefrog. If BW was made by a democratic council, it would've turned out a cluster fuck.
On January 09 2024 11:40 AxiomB wrote: Can we get the community balance team to contribute to the discussion? Or is the Zerg International Cabal real?
The Zerg cabal is very happy with the answer that Protoss is not underpowered at all, but that the Protoss talent pool is simply not up to T and Z standards. Maybe we could nerf battery overcharge a little more I am having too good of a time defending ravager 'all ins' that smoothly transition to a perfectly fine Zerg midgame )
On January 09 2024 11:40 AxiomB wrote: Can we get the community balance team to contribute to the discussion? Or is the Zerg International Cabal real?
The unpaid selfexploiters community balance team, by and large is avoiding public statements. This not only gives them "trust me bro" levels of credibility, but also allows them to completely avoid taking responsibility for their balancing decisions.
A fact I completely understand, looking at some of the vile shit, some cretins spew on the internet. And utterly detest for the lack of accountability. At the same time. The be honest, Im glad Im not personally in their shoes.
On December 22 2023 01:28 Herringbone wrote: Reynor's telling us that he doesn't think Protoss is unable to win at the highest levels. If a race, that he is worse at, was unplayable at this level he wouldn't be playing it when the alternative is playing as a top 3 in the world zerg. Believe someone's actions over their words. This is way more relevant than the "Ghosts/Carriers/Banelings OP" noise that originates in bias. .
Reynor in an interview actually did say protoss is fucked over in the PvT match-up, hahaha. There's a reason reynor only plays Protoss when it's vs. a Zerg opponent not a Terran one.
I would counter by saying that as great as those three were, with the POSSIBLE exception of Rain, they were never at a true top level the way Maru, Innovation, Serral, Rogue, Dark, and some other top guys have been -- as great as they were, Protoss doesn't seem to reward great "all-around" play quite at the level of the other two races, but we've seen more guys with more gimmicky styles (Parting -- MOBA-Toss, sOs -- Loki-Toss, et cetera) have huge success at the highest levels, although, as Artosis notes, their success was more fleeting.
Idk why people complain about toss when they are the weakest race And rabbit is right There`s the Serral, Rogue, Inno, Maru (i wonder if his injuries are starting to hurt), modern Dark tier -- massive gap -- the "Byun/Reynor tier" then the "her0 tier", the Clem tier, the Astrea tier and the Heromarine tier
People never address this stuff for various reasons and starts trolling when Her0 beats players like Heromarine...like...man, their skill gap is abysmal
On January 10 2024 03:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: What if EMP removed only 75 or even 50 shields? Would this make PvT more fair?
The easiest way to re-balance PvT without touching PvZ is probably to reduce or get rid of the (gimmicky?) “features” that Terran units have that work only against Protoss. AFAIK these are Ghosts EMP affecting shields and widow mine extra damage to shields. From these two I’d rather tune down the widow mine. It is just too cost-effective during the whole game for its cost and build time. It demolishes zealots with very few counterplay options, as these are almost unmicroable when they are charging. The only counterplay is not to engage, which is detrimental to the game. A single WM shot that hits 4 full-health zealots does 100+50+3*(40+25)=345 instant damage. That’s insane. Those same 4 zealots together would need almost 5 in-game seconds of fully attacking something to do the same damage. And cost 400 vs 75/25…
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
On January 10 2024 03:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: What if EMP removed only 75 or even 50 shields? Would this make PvT more fair?
The easiest way to re-balance PvT without touching PvZ is probably to reduce or get rid of the (gimmicky?) “features” that Terran units have that work only against Protoss. AFAIK these are Ghosts EMP affecting shields and widow mine extra damage to shields. From these two I’d rather tune down the widow mine. It is just too cost-effective during the whole game for its cost and build time. It demolishes zealots with very few counterplay options, as these are almost unmicroable when they are charging. The only counterplay is not to engage, which is detrimental to the game. A single WM shot that hits 4 full-health zealots does 100+50+3*(40+25)=345 instant damage. That’s insane. Those same 4 zealots together would need almost 5 in-game seconds of fully attacking something to do the same damage. And cost 400 vs 75/25…
Well, Zealots are not meant to counter WM. You can't just calculate that 1 Immortal can take out 20 WMs by himself and then compare the dmg and cost of this fight. Immortal dmg 1000s, WM dmg 0 -> How imba Otherwise I agree, WMs are shit and annoying and do too much (instant) dmg while also beeing a cloaked unit with very little investment and micro
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time, yet he would not be the best if he was put into current hockey in his prime. Same applies to the names mentioned earlier.
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time, yet he would not be the best if he was put into current hockey in his prime. Same applies to the names mentioned earlier.
Exactly this.
Football players like Pele and George Best wouldn't be anywhere near the required level in the current game, but they were absolute titans of their respective generations, and they're respected throughout the game as a result of that.
Maxpax and her0 both put in high level performances in the recent ESL open. Maxpax 3-0 Clem and her0 3-2 Dark. Interesting to see Maxpax use a mass disruptor strat given their significant nerf also. That said both Dark and Clem looked a little off their usual level.
On January 10 2024 03:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: What if EMP removed only 75 or even 50 shields? Would this make PvT more fair?
The easiest way to re-balance PvT without touching PvZ is probably to reduce or get rid of the (gimmicky?) “features” that Terran units have that work only against Protoss. AFAIK these are Ghosts EMP affecting shields and widow mine extra damage to shields. From these two I’d rather tune down the widow mine. It is just too cost-effective during the whole game for its cost and build time. It demolishes zealots with very few counterplay options, as these are almost unmicroable when they are charging. The only counterplay is not to engage, which is detrimental to the game. A single WM shot that hits 4 full-health zealots does 100+50+3*(40+25)=345 instant damage. That’s insane. Those same 4 zealots together would need almost 5 in-game seconds of fully attacking something to do the same damage. And cost 400 vs 75/25…
i like how you conviently forget that protoss have unit that can 1shot half of terran army in 1sec
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
Rain casually popped over to BW again and won an ASL, he’s a remarkably skillful RTS player
Like almost any field of human endeavour it gets optimised and improved with collective knowledge over time is all
On a purely technical wizardry level you could time travel any number of YouTube guitar players, hell myself back to the 70s and we’d be guitar gods amongst mortals
But that’s standing on the shoulders of giants, if you sent me back to the late 60s with my memory wiped, I’d almost 100% not beat Jimi Hendrix to the punch
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
Rain casually popped over to BW again and won an ASL, he’s a remarkably skillful RTS player
Like almost any field of human endeavour it gets optimised and improved with collective knowledge over time is all
On a purely technical wizardry level you could time travel any number of YouTube guitar players, hell myself back to the 70s and we’d be guitar gods amongst mortals
But that’s standing on the shoulders of giants, if you sent me back to the late 60s with my memory wiped, I’d almost 100% not beat Jimi Hendrix to the punch
Yes but sc2 only out for 14 years.
We started to talk about who are the best players of all time in sc2 for protoss.
I didn’t say they would not have the skills to become the best in todays sc2 but they just played in a lower level of skill compared to todays sc2. It’s just a fact. Like I said for this short time of sc2 we had zest proved in all eras which the others haven’t.
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
Rain casually popped over to BW again and won an ASL, he’s a remarkably skillful RTS player
Like almost any field of human endeavour it gets optimised and improved with collective knowledge over time is all
On a purely technical wizardry level you could time travel any number of YouTube guitar players, hell myself back to the 70s and we’d be guitar gods amongst mortals
But that’s standing on the shoulders of giants, if you sent me back to the late 60s with my memory wiped, I’d almost 100% not beat Jimi Hendrix to the punch
On January 11 2024 09:21 AxiomB wrote: Maxpax and her0 both put in high level performances in the recent ESL open. Maxpax 3-0 Clem and her0 3-2 Dark. Interesting to see Maxpax use a mass disruptor strat given their significant nerf also. That said both Dark and Clem looked a little off their usual level.
With the caveat that I have not watched those games, I'm not sure why it surprises you that Protoss continue to lean heavily on Disruptors despite the supply nerf. Colossi and High Templar did not get notably better in the matchup, and Disruptors still fill the same role of being the splash damage option that both deals enough damage to matter and has consistent enough output that Protoss doesn't have significant openings with no splash damage available.
On January 11 2024 09:21 AxiomB wrote: Maxpax and her0 both put in high level performances in the recent ESL open. Maxpax 3-0 Clem and her0 3-2 Dark. Interesting to see Maxpax use a mass disruptor strat given their significant nerf also. That said both Dark and Clem looked a little off their usual level.
With the caveat that I have not watched those games, I'm not sure why it surprises you that Protoss continue to lean heavily on Disruptors despite the supply nerf. Colossi and High Templar did not get notably better in the matchup, and Disruptors still fill the same role of being the splash damage option that both deals enough damage to matter and has consistent enough output that Protoss doesn't have significant openings with no splash damage available.
Man I really want some sort of buff to storm. Colossus is boring and sorta thematically dumb (so these giant things do bonus against light units?! ) and Disruptor spam is intrinsically high variance.
Some ideas for buffing storm 1. Return high templar energy upgrade (but correspondingly increase cost of feedback) 2. increase high templar health and remove high templar attack (lower attack priority) 3. Reduce research time for storm
On January 11 2024 09:21 AxiomB wrote: Maxpax and her0 both put in high level performances in the recent ESL open. Maxpax 3-0 Clem and her0 3-2 Dark. Interesting to see Maxpax use a mass disruptor strat given their significant nerf also. That said both Dark and Clem looked a little off their usual level.
With the caveat that I have not watched those games, I'm not sure why it surprises you that Protoss continue to lean heavily on Disruptors despite the supply nerf. Colossi and High Templar did not get notably better in the matchup, and Disruptors still fill the same role of being the splash damage option that both deals enough damage to matter and has consistent enough output that Protoss doesn't have significant openings with no splash damage available.
Man I really want some sort of buff to storm. Colossus is boring and sorta thematically dumb (so these giant things do bonus against light units?! ) and Disruptor spam is intrinsically high variance.
Some ideas for buffing storm 1. Return high templar energy upgrade (but correspondingly increase cost of feedback) 2. increase high templar health and remove high templar attack (lower attack priority) 3. Reduce research time for storm
1. warp in storm was was broken 2. warp in storm isnt coming back
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
The fact it was such an upset proves the point that it's harder for old guys. Also multiple pros have said they slowed down with age, like Inno and Dark. I trust them over you.
On January 11 2024 09:21 AxiomB wrote: Maxpax and her0 both put in high level performances in the recent ESL open. Maxpax 3-0 Clem and her0 3-2 Dark. Interesting to see Maxpax use a mass disruptor strat given their significant nerf also. That said both Dark and Clem looked a little off their usual level.
With the caveat that I have not watched those games, I'm not sure why it surprises you that Protoss continue to lean heavily on Disruptors despite the supply nerf. Colossi and High Templar did not get notably better in the matchup, and Disruptors still fill the same role of being the splash damage option that both deals enough damage to matter and has consistent enough output that Protoss doesn't have significant openings with no splash damage available.
Man I really want some sort of buff to storm. Colossus is boring and sorta thematically dumb (so these giant things do bonus against light units?! ) and Disruptor spam is intrinsically high variance.
Some ideas for buffing storm 1. Return high templar energy upgrade (but correspondingly increase cost of feedback) 2. increase high templar health and remove high templar attack (lower attack priority) 3. Reduce research time for storm
1. warp in storm was was broken 2. warp in storm isnt coming back
I think it would be ridiculously strong partly because disruptors exist now. Trying to navigate out on the map where a disruptor shot could pop out of fog, or templars with energy could be lurking basically anywhere would be a nightmare
One of those things historically that got almost insta-nerfed when Man Zenith gave a clinic abusing it, rather than leaving it for a while to see if people could (or couldn’t) figure out counter play.
Quite a common thing for Protoss, Zoigs get to have broken toys for months and months
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
The fact it was such an upset proves the point that it's harder for old guys. Also multiple pros have said they slowed down with age, like Inno and Dark. I trust them over you.
I don’t know if that’s age or just gradual burnout or motivation issues, those guys have a hell of a lot of miles on the clock after all.
Players are atop various games that are way older than conventional wisdom from years ago would have considered the cutoff of viability age wise after all
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
The fact it was such an upset proves the point that it's harder for old guys. Also multiple pros have said they slowed down with age, like Inno and Dark. I trust them over you.
I don’t know if that’s age or just gradual burnout or motivation issues, those guys have a hell of a lot of miles on the clock after all.
Players are atop various games that are way older than conventional wisdom from years ago would have considered the cutoff of viability age wise after all
From what I see, even Serral has slowed down a bit since his 21-22 yo years Prime is probably 20-22 since you are old enough for experience to matter, and almost at your fastest You can still be pretty fast until 25-26 but it’s still a decay It’s match-up dependent though, Ryung can still hang out in TvT because of his tactical mind since the match-up is relatively slow, but you see that he would dominate even more if he was younger (and he would struggle less in TvZ, albeit he has never been the best, even during the sniper incident)
On January 06 2024 20:56 AxiomB wrote: I still hold MC, Zest and Rain as the best Protoss players of all time in Sc2. Artosis said some good points, at least contributing to the need for Protoss change.
Sry but Rain and MC played about 10 years ago competitive SC2. The game is completely different and they never played at the current level skill wise. They were goats in their era no doubt but are they the best of all time? Definitely not u only can talk about Zest maybe stats who dominated in any era showing it vs any player Reynor,serral,Clem,dark,rogue to name a few.
Current skill is not necessarily better than back then tbh: most pros are too old to be in their prime and there is less competition all around. Plus since the meta / patches keep changing, it’s often more about reaching enough skill to dominate with the strongest race
Current skill is not better than back then? Are u serious? Do u even watch or play the game? Watch some FPV of clem,reynor,dark,maru then watch some games of 2012… u must be trolling. Too old to be in their prime? We talking about pc gaming not real sport. It’s about how much time u put into the game. Probably around 45-50 where age would start to matter if your hands become stiff. Just look ryung over 30+ years just beating Clem the current ”in his prime”.
The fact it was such an upset proves the point that it's harder for old guys. Also multiple pros have said they slowed down with age, like Inno and Dark. I trust them over you.
I don’t know if that’s age or just gradual burnout or motivation issues, those guys have a hell of a lot of miles on the clock after all.
Players are atop various games that are way older than conventional wisdom from years ago would have considered the cutoff of viability age wise after all
From what I see, even Serral has slowed down a bit since his 21-22 yo years Prime is probably 20-22 since you are old enough for experience to matter, and almost at your fastest You can still be pretty fast until 25-26 but it’s still a decay It’s match-up dependent though, Ryung can still hang out in TvT because of his tactical mind since the match-up is relatively slow, but you see that he would dominate even more if he was younger (and he would struggle less in TvZ, albeit he has never been the best, even during the sniper incident)
I wish I could be as slow as Serral :p
I reckon some of the absolute top guys do drop a little in raw speed, but it’s possible they’re adding some efficiency in their play so they’re just as quick at actually doing things.
Serral is clean as hell, Reynor’s always been quicker but it’s never super apparent if you’re not looking at FPVs or raw apm numbers.
I’m not a pro obviously but if you could over time clean up some of the spam and play more efficiently, it would seem worth doing to me from both a general economy of action thing, but also from a hand longevity sense. Be interested to know if folks have consciously tried this!
Or earlier Clem whose speed was insane, but had a certain sloppiness and if he couldn’t outspeed his opponent he’d eventually hit a brick wall. Now he’s still blazingly fast but it’s more considered and rounded, maybe a little less outright speed but utilised better
As I've gotten older, I haven't actually experienced my APM slowing down, but I've definitely experienced my reaction times slowing down, and that's had a massive impact.
On January 10 2024 03:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: What if EMP removed only 75 or even 50 shields? Would this make PvT more fair?
The easiest way to re-balance PvT without touching PvZ is probably to reduce or get rid of the (gimmicky?) “features” that Terran units have that work only against Protoss. AFAIK these are Ghosts EMP affecting shields and widow mine extra damage to shields. From these two I’d rather tune down the widow mine. It is just too cost-effective during the whole game for its cost and build time. It demolishes zealots with very few counterplay options, as these are almost unmicroable when they are charging. The only counterplay is not to engage, which is detrimental to the game. A single WM shot that hits 4 full-health zealots does 100+50+3*(40+25)=345 instant damage. That’s insane. Those same 4 zealots together would need almost 5 in-game seconds of fully attacking something to do the same damage. And cost 400 vs 75/25…
i like how you conviently forget that protoss have unit that can 1shot half of terran army in 1sec
Do you mean that the disruptor balanced everything? Then clearly not anymore, perhaps partially because of the recent nerf. But I do not think that reverting the nerf is a good idea. It favours too much a specific style. Whereas a small nerf to WMs damage against shields would strengthen zealots and therefore favour several Protoss styles.
On January 10 2024 03:42 ZeroByte13 wrote: What if EMP removed only 75 or even 50 shields? Would this make PvT more fair?
The easiest way to re-balance PvT without touching PvZ is probably to reduce or get rid of the (gimmicky?) “features” that Terran units have that work only against Protoss. AFAIK these are Ghosts EMP affecting shields and widow mine extra damage to shields. From these two I’d rather tune down the widow mine. It is just too cost-effective during the whole game for its cost and build time. It demolishes zealots with very few counterplay options, as these are almost unmicroable when they are charging. The only counterplay is not to engage, which is detrimental to the game. A single WM shot that hits 4 full-health zealots does 100+50+3*(40+25)=345 instant damage. That’s insane. Those same 4 zealots together would need almost 5 in-game seconds of fully attacking something to do the same damage. And cost 400 vs 75/25…
i like how you conviently forget that protoss have unit that can 1shot half of terran army in 1sec
Do you mean that the disruptor balanced everything? Then clearly not anymore, perhaps partially because of the recent nerf. But I do not think that reverting the nerf is a good idea. It favours too much a specific style. Whereas a small nerf to WMs damage against shields would strengthen zealots and therefore favour several Protoss styles.
I have long, long maintained that getting rid of charge and giving Zealots speedy legs would help
1. Makes them more microable, it’s less of a crap shoot where how they charge can win or lose a battle 2. Makes them generally faster, and gives more map coverage 3. They’ll move faster than the death ball so be less A-move friendly
But in general Protoss are ludicrously fragile due to years and years of consistently bad design decisions.
No other race is reliant on hit or miss AoE to nearly the same extent.
On the flip side when you do get to late game it’s sometimes absurdly difficult to ever engage a Protoss ball
1/2 disruptors you’re relying on huge hits and if they don’t land you might be overrun, but this flips when you have 8/9 and storm support
Classic v Solar : 2 - 1, nice games by Classic, using blink effectively, Solar looked average and far below the heights Zerg are capable of. Trigger v Cure: 0 - 2, Cure showing Korean Terran strength, basically bullying the Protoss, unfortunate, as Trigger played really well to qualify.
What we learnt;
Game 2 revealed Trigger has potential.
Classic still has the moments of brilliance (few and far between at the moment mind you) that saw the Chintoss once threaten finalists the globe over.
given the lack of any Protoss in the Ro8 at IEM Katowice and the lack of any Toss Premier wins since November 2022
and at least to break up the monotony of the random Terran balance whine threads that have popped up since Serral vs Maru
can we get that balance patch already?
as already stated and well argued many times before, there is no reason to believe that Protoss players are universally this much worse than Zerg/Terrans--and as Lambo very well stated, it doesn't really matter anyway, since for the good of the competitive scene and SC2 as an ESPORT all three races need to be viable at the highest level. And as well argued in this thread, there are plenty of even minor balance changes that could be made that would dramatically increase Protoss stability and viability particularly in TvP (which is the real problem match-up at the moment).
We Protoss are humble people. We're not asking for a patch or mappool that would make current Protoss players on the same level as Serral or Maru. We're not angling for GOAT status. We just want Protoss to have a chance.
On February 13 2024 06:12 Captain Peabody wrote: so
given the lack of any Protoss in the Ro8 at IEM Katowice and the lack of any Toss Premier wins since November 2022
and at least to break up the monotony of the random Terran balance whine threads that have popped up since Serral vs Maru
can we get that balance patch already?
as already stated and well argued many times before, there is no reason to believe that Protoss players are universally this much worse than Zerg/Terrans--and as Lambo very well stated, it doesn't really matter anyway, since for the good of the competitive scene and SC2 as an ESPORT all three races need to be viable at the highest level. And as well argued in this thread, there are plenty of even minor balance changes that could be made that would dramatically increase Protoss stability and viability particularly in TvP (which is the real problem match-up at the moment).
We Protoss are humble people. We're not asking for a patch or mappool that would make current Protoss players on the same level as Serral or Maru. We're not angling for GOAT status. We just want Protoss to have a chance.
Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
Something that gives Protoss a better defense without any influence to Protoss offensive capabilities would be nice. How that could work I'm not sure. Maybe give all shields (units and buildings) +1 when in Range of a Nexus or sth like that?
If you buff a unit even the slighest bit, Protoss will abuse it and the Book of Protoss BS will get a new edition
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
good point, the map design is just so bland and boring in SC2 it is astonishing. Why not make small, skirmish like maps or wild cross over canyons / islands or huge strategic positions like in WoL. It would shake up the meta, the gameplay and the winrates so much, no patch could ever acomplish.
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
good point, the map design is just so bland and boring in SC2 it is astonishing. Why not make small, skirmish like maps or wild cross over canyons / islands or huge strategic positions like in WoL. It would shake up the meta, the gameplay and the winrates so much, no patch could ever acomplish.
Uff small maps with 12 worker start is sure to spell disaster. Flashback to all those BS WoL maps...
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
Protoss wasn't winning anything big even when it was Stats, Zest, sOs, and Trap. There's no reason HerO shouldn't be a real contender for anything. The man won a recent (by Protoss standards) Code S.
Protoss needs a buff on the scale of bringing back the MSC or making Skytoss viable again (or give Protoss some viable groundtoss comp which would never happen).
Removing the MSC without real compensation was a catastrophic mistake. It was removed because it was too hard to use for non-pro players, but it's skill ceiling was high which means the top Protoss pros could make title runs off of it.
On February 13 2024 19:35 Harris1st wrote: Something that gives Protoss a better defense without any influence to Protoss offensive capabilities would be nice. How that could work I'm not sure. Maybe give all shields (units and buildings) +1 when in Range of a Nexus or sth like that?
If you buff a unit even the slighest bit, Protoss will abuse it and the Book of Protoss BS will get a new edition
Perhaps it’s due a new edition, it’s been a while since it was revised!
I guess before one patches, what are the actual issues?
PvT - I think it’s a combination of struggling to slow Terran powering outside of committing heavily, along with struggling to keep up if you do play a more passive macro style. Terrans have tools, and meta knowledge and improvements so they don’t take much damage from some oracles, or some forward stalkers. Committing heavily and not getting the requisite damage generally sees you steamrolled. Sitting back and Toss frequently gets killed in the phase where their third is up, maybe they’re eyeing up a fourth, their tech units are low in number and their army often isn’t too large due to necessary tech powering.
People may feel otherwise, but I find by far the most consistent way Protoss die in that matchup is right in that phase. Either a frontal push straight up kills them, or a drop manages to get in one of the gaps in defences in this relatively low-unit phase and does crippling damage.
PvZ - Much the same, except the killing blow usually comes later in the game. Or the Toss does a committed push that doesn’t work and dies to the counter a few minutes later. I think Protoss is less defensively vulnerable though, walling is much more effective against Zerg than Terran, as are forcefields. But Zerg outscaling Protoss is way more pronounced.
How does one go about fixing such issues? A battery buff does just straight-up help in PvT, because it bandaids the specific phase where Toss struggles. You also open up strats like Phoenix/Collosus again. I don’t know if I like super batteries being such a crutch, but if you’ve a broken leg a crutch is better than nothing.
PvZ defensive buffs help, I mean any kind of buff definitionally helps, but it still doesn’t directly deal with the scaling disparity. Although I suppose if you can cut a few more corners defensively that lets you do more on the offensive side of things.
I’d revert some nerfs, I think some things were over-nerfed, or two nerfs were employed when one was sufficient. Cannon rushes into prism/Immortal with batteries were silly, absolutely but battery changes somewhat fixed that anyway, but the Prism still got nerfs too. That would be something I could see reverted to give Toss a bit back, without swinging things too much.
Maybe, very very slightly cut recall’s cast time. Like buffing batteries a bit I don’t particularly like this, but recall is a bandaid to compensate for Zerg mobility, and Terran being able to split armies and still deal potent damage. Quite often the adventurous Protoss hits recall almost instantly when caught on the map, but still loses a big chunk of the force anyway as Toss units just melt to cracklings or upgraded bio. I believe they still should be punished, but if they cast it right away they should still salvage something. A very minor buff just makes it less risky to be on the map, or splitting your army and I think encourages more interesting and dynamic play.
I’d like to see a lategame stalker buff, just to see what happens. They scale pretty awfully, specially in PvT. An upgrade that boosts HP, movement speed and damage. Nothing potent enough to make them powerful en masse in late game, but a slight buff to making them scale slightly better, enable them to maybe be out sharking, etc. They’re too passively slow to do that currently without a ton of risk in many a lategame.
Others have mentioned bringing back the Mommaship core, I’m down for something like that, with a complete rework. Instead of a defensive bolsterer/debufferer, why not make it an offensive augmenter instead? Maybe it’s quite speedy and works as an initial scout, and it has a passive aura that boosts nearby units to the same speed? Maybe a very slight boost to vision range too? Or perhaps the unit itself has an extended vision range. You could poke around a bit more safely, and shark in the mid-lategame but it shouldn’t be a big buff to the Toss deathball, absolutely something I’d try to avoid when theorycrafting.
Some of these ideas are probably awful, but then again the developers thought reworking the cyclone was something worth doing so I feel emboldened to contribute my spitballing :p
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
I do agree Protoss needs a systematic re-design. They really should've done it with LotV. At this point it's impossible to ask them to fundamentally redesign a game that has been released for 14 years.
I don't think we need to buff Protoss to a point that second tier Protoss can hang with best of Terran and Zerg. Just a little push to help herO, Classic, MaxPax, Stats (and hopefully Parting soon) to be a bit more consistent in big tournament is all I am asking for. They have enough talents and skills to reasonably compete with anyone not name Serral (dude is just too singularly OP now).
I only want two small changes:
PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it reduce the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
That and plus some new maps that're a tiny bit more Protoss favored is probably all we need.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
I do agree Protoss needs a systematic re-design. They really should've done it with LotV. At this point it's impossible to ask them to fundamentally redesign a game that has been released for 14 years.
I don't think we need to buff Protoss to a point that second tier Protoss can hang with best of Terran and Zerg. Just a little push to help herO, Classic, MaxPax, Stats (and hopefully Parting soon) to be a bit more consistent in big tournament is all I am asking for. They have enough talents and skills to reasonably compete with anyone not name Serral (dude is just too singularly OP now).
I only want two small changes:
PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
That and plus some new maps that're a tiny bit more Protoss favored is probably all we need.
Guardian shield mitigating EMP in some fashion is a pretty good idea, wish I thought of it!
It shouldn’t impact EMP as a counter-caster spell, but in terms of draining army shields I quite like that suggestion for sure.
PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
Both of these are very good changes.
Also wish FF required 2 Corrosive Biles to knock them down.
Regarding Vipers and the Mothership in general. I've felt for a long time that the answer to the Mothership problem is to simply replace it with Arbiters. Scale down their abilities a bit and give Protoss a smaller version that is cheaper but also able to be produced in larger numbers.
This does 2 things. 1. It limits the hard counter capability of vipers to just eliminate the cloaking capability of the Mothership with one yank. Vipers would still be counters to Arbiters but it would require killing off more than one to completely disable the cloaking field.
2. It opens up Protoss late game by allowing you to use Recall with Arbiters like they had in Brood War. This ability would obviously require balancing, since it would be MUCH more powerful tactically on multiple Arbiters rather than one big Mothership. It should cost more energy and have a smaller effective radius.
Protoss' biggest main problem in late game scenarios is their over dependence on having a single deathball army. The Mothership exacerbates this problem to a hilarious degree, to the point where in the current state of the game it's simply a meme of a unit. We should be at least TRYING to open up options for Protoss to be able to operate smaller and self sufficient groups of units. Replacing the Mothership with Arbiters would do that, without giving Protoss anything new that they can abuse in the early game.
Protoss has to radically change their playstyle based on the matchup, on a fundamental mechanical level. Regardless of the patch this has been true. This has never been true for Z or T. The core mechanics are the same for them, so they get more out of their practice time. This also psychologically plays out in the patch history where P is seen as the antagonist race, which is forced to adapt to the other two.
On February 13 2024 23:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Regarding Vipers and the Mothership in general. I've felt for a long time that the answer to the Mothership problem is to simply replace it with Arbiters. Scale down their abilities a bit and give Protoss a smaller version that is cheaper but also able to be produced in larger numbers.
This does 2 things. 1. It limits the hard counter capability of vipers to just eliminate the cloaking capability of the Mothership with one yank. Vipers would still be counters to Arbiters but it would require killing off more than one to completely disable the cloaking field.
2. It opens up Protoss late game by allowing you to use Recall with Arbiters like they had in Brood War. This ability would obviously require balancing, since it would be MUCH more powerful tactically on multiple Arbiters rather than one big Mothership. It should cost more energy and have a smaller effective radius.
Protoss' biggest main problem in late game scenarios is their over dependence on having a single deathball army. The Mothership exacerbates this problem to a hilarious degree, to the point where in the current state of the game it's simply a meme of a unit. We should be at least TRYING to open up options for Protoss to be able to operate smaller and self sufficient groups of units. Replacing the Mothership with Arbiters would do that, without giving Protoss anything new that they can abuse in the early game.
I agree with everything you said. Ideally Protoss should be redesigned to try to avoid the over reliance on one deathball army. Amazingly and somewhat frustratingly, BW has solved the same problem 25 years ago with Arbiters. A lot of SC2's attempt at deviating from BW often ended up backfiring, this is just one of them.
I just think at the very least Mothership is a very cool unit in concept, and it suits Protoss' style in world building. If they want to keep it at least they should try to keep and explore its uniqueness. Allowing the gigantic ultimate air unit to be pulled away by a tiny tentacle is just too comical and ridiculous I never understand how they refuse to fix it.
Just revert the stalkers and let them 3 shot marines or revert the chargelot nerf. Those itself will help a lot in PVT which has been heavily terran favoured for years
Reduce the cost of immortal and prism so we have another opinion to threaten the Zerg. Or buff the carriers back
On February 13 2024 23:42 jpg06051992 wrote: PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
Both of these are very good changes.
Also wish FF required 2 Corrosive Biles to knock them down.
I agree with Viper not pulling MS. I haven't heard a good reason still for why it's so important for Zergs to be able to do that. I've heard some pros explain it but i still don't get it. At least make it so that if pulling a Heroic unit, it only pulls half distance.
I think Protoss doesn't need a full redesign, just some slight buffs would already go a huge way and probably be enough:
PvZ: -Vipers can't pull MS, or pulls half distance. If pushing this further, then make it so Abduct pulls Massive units half distance, but possibly buff the energy slightly or buff it in some way to make up for it
-Neural Parasite duration is only half when used on Massive unit. You can rebalance the energy cost or compensate in some way.
-Ravagers need 2 Bile to break 1 FF 1 Bile cannot break more than 1 FF. Your Forcefields will naturally touch each other in order to create a wall, and Bile is AOE. 1 Bile should not be able to break 2 FFs at once by aiming for the edge. If taking this further, make it so that when used on buildings, it only hits 1 building at a time... OR the next change:
-FF can be used to shield a building from a Bile. This way you have a way to protect your Batteries and Overcharge a little if from not being insta sniped by Bile.
-Possibly, nerf Baneling building damage from 80 to 70 or something. I think it's kinda of whack that the natural counter to banelings is walling and static defense, but it has an alternate attack that is specifically strong against clumped buildings. This makes it harder to defend vs cracklings running around lategame.
PvT: Even though I play Terran i have the least ideas here lol. -Maybe you can buff Overcharge to last 1-2 seconds longer, since it got straight up nerfed because Terrans were whining that they should be able to just force their all-in and attack in without having to pull back and wait 10 secs. (Even though it's pretty much always better and more worth it to wait it out vs the old stronger Overcharge if you can't snipe it...) So if the reasoning is that Terrans felt they should be able to out-DPS the healing rate of Overcharge, then doesn't it makes sense to compensate for it in another way, like letting it last 1-2 seconds longer? I know the balance council tried to compensate by doing things like giving Stasis Ward more sight range, slightly faster Observer and HT and Sentry movement, etc., but it still doesn't fill the gap in defense enough.
General: -QoL AI change for Shield Battery: If there is a Overcharged Battery and another Battery, the Overcharged Battery should take priority in healing units so it doesn't get wasted. I've seen this happen pretty commonly in pro games where a vital unit would have lived, but didn't because the normal Battery started healing it thus not allowing the Overcharge Battery to heal it without manually stopping the normal Battery (and what pro has ever managed to do that?).
-Sentry damage reverted from 6 to 8. This is a tiny change and will slightly help Gateway armies. The reason it was nerfed way back in WoL is because at the time, it was believed by some pros that mutas were too weak vs sentries and lost vs them (lol). Well with the current form of Muta, Protoss is having a lot of trouble vs them. A couple extra damage will not really solve anything but it also won't hurt anything it shouldn't, so why not? It also makes them slightly more useful even if they get EMP'd.
-Buff Glaive in a way that makes Adepts scale a little more past early/mid game. Adept based comps like in PvT are cool and unique and we should encourage unique tactics and comps (using the phase shift to splash tanks or force them to unsiege and stuff). Previously, Adepts were nerfed because all-ins they were too strong vs Terran. Now that the Terran has the new Cyclone which is very easily accessible and also hard counters Adepts, there is no worry in buffing Glaives. Also, Glaive pushes are known to not be particularly threatening to Zerg anyways, and a failed push can lead to a Zerg still coming back from a 25 vs 45 worker deficit to launch an all-in and win. Pretty wild if you ask me. Maybe Glaive can also give +1 range or +10 HP or shield or something.
On February 13 2024 23:42 jpg06051992 wrote: PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
Both of these are very good changes.
Also wish FF required 2 Corrosive Biles to knock them down.
I agree with Viper not pulling MS. I haven't heard a good reason still for why it's so important for Zergs to be able to do that. I've heard some pros explain it but i still don't get it. At least make it so that if pulling a Heroic unit, it only pulls half distance.
I think Protoss doesn't need a full redesign, just some slight buffs would already go a huge way and probably be enough:
PvZ: -Vipers can't pull MS, or pulls half distance. If pushing this further, then make it so Abduct pulls Massive units half distance, but possibly buff the energy slightly or buff it in some way to make up for it
-Neural Parasite duration is only half when used on Massive unit. You can rebalance the energy cost or compensate in some way.
-Ravagers need 2 Bile to break 1 FF 1 Bile cannot break more than 1 FF. Your Forcefields will naturally touch each other in order to create a wall, and Bile is AOE. 1 Bile should not be able to break 2 FFs at once by aiming for the edge. If taking this further, make it so that when used on buildings, it only hits 1 building at a time... OR the next change:
-FF can be used to shield a building from a Bile. This way you have a way to protect your Batteries and Overcharge a little if from not being insta sniped by Bile.
-Possibly, nerf Baneling building damage from 80 to 70 or something. I think it's kinda of whack that the natural counter to banelings is walling and static defense, but it has an alternate attack that is specifically strong against clumped buildings. This makes it harder to defend vs cracklings running around lategame.
PvT: Even though I play Terran i have the least ideas here lol. -Maybe you can buff Overcharge to last 1-2 seconds longer, since it got straight up nerfed because Terrans were whining that they should be able to just force their all-in and attack in without having to pull back and wait 10 secs. (Even though it's pretty much always better and more worth it to wait it out vs the old stronger Overcharge if you can't snipe it...) So if the reasoning is that Terrans felt they should be able to out-DPS the healing rate of Overcharge, then doesn't it makes sense to compensate for it in another way, like letting it last 1-2 seconds longer? I know the balance council tried to compensate by doing things like giving Stasis Ward more sight range, slightly faster Observer and HT and Sentry movement, etc., but it still doesn't fill the gap in defense enough.
General: -QoL AI change for Shield Battery: If there is a Overcharged Battery and another Battery, the Overcharged Battery should take priority in healing units so it doesn't get wasted. I've seen this happen pretty commonly in pro games where a vital unit would have lived, but didn't because the normal Battery started healing it thus not allowing the Overcharge Battery to heal it without manually stopping the normal Battery (and what pro has ever managed to do that?).
-Sentry damage reverted from 6 to 8. This is a tiny change and will slightly help Gateway armies. The reason it was nerfed way back in WoL is because at the time, it was believed by some pros that mutas were too weak vs sentries and lost vs them (lol). Well with the current form of Muta, Protoss is having a lot of trouble vs them. A couple extra damage will not really solve anything but it also won't hurt anything it shouldn't, so why not? It also makes them slightly more useful even if they get EMP'd.
-Buff Glaive in a way that makes Adepts scale a little more past early/mid game. Adept based comps like in PvT are cool and unique and we should encourage unique tactics and comps (using the phase shift to splash tanks or force them to unsiege and stuff). Previously, Adepts were nerfed because all-ins they were too strong vs Terran. Now that the Terran has the new Cyclone which is very easily accessible and also hard counters Adepts, there is no worry in buffing Glaives. Also, Glaive pushes are known to not be particularly threatening to Zerg anyways, and a failed push can lead to a Zerg still coming back from a 25 vs 45 worker deficit to launch an all-in and win. Pretty wild if you ask me. Maybe Glaive can also give +1 range or +10 HP or shield or something.
Agree with a bunch here, I especially like the idea that FF can bolster a building’s defence
Especially considering sentries are way less obligatory than they used to be, I can’t see this pushing the needle too much
On February 13 2024 23:42 jpg06051992 wrote: PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
Both of these are very good changes.
Also wish FF required 2 Corrosive Biles to knock them down.
I agree with Viper not pulling MS. I haven't heard a good reason still for why it's so important for Zergs to be able to do that. I've heard some pros explain it but i still don't get it. At least make it so that if pulling a Heroic unit, it only pulls half distance.
I think Protoss doesn't need a full redesign, just some slight buffs would already go a huge way and probably be enough:
PvZ: -Vipers can't pull MS, or pulls half distance. If pushing this further, then make it so Abduct pulls Massive units half distance, but possibly buff the energy slightly or buff it in some way to make up for it
-Neural Parasite duration is only half when used on Massive unit. You can rebalance the energy cost or compensate in some way.
-Ravagers need 2 Bile to break 1 FF 1 Bile cannot break more than 1 FF. Your Forcefields will naturally touch each other in order to create a wall, and Bile is AOE. 1 Bile should not be able to break 2 FFs at once by aiming for the edge. If taking this further, make it so that when used on buildings, it only hits 1 building at a time... OR the next change:
-FF can be used to shield a building from a Bile. This way you have a way to protect your Batteries and Overcharge a little if from not being insta sniped by Bile.
-Possibly, nerf Baneling building damage from 80 to 70 or something. I think it's kinda of whack that the natural counter to banelings is walling and static defense, but it has an alternate attack that is specifically strong against clumped buildings. This makes it harder to defend vs cracklings running around lategame.
PvT: Even though I play Terran i have the least ideas here lol. -Maybe you can buff Overcharge to last 1-2 seconds longer, since it got straight up nerfed because Terrans were whining that they should be able to just force their all-in and attack in without having to pull back and wait 10 secs. (Even though it's pretty much always better and more worth it to wait it out vs the old stronger Overcharge if you can't snipe it...) So if the reasoning is that Terrans felt they should be able to out-DPS the healing rate of Overcharge, then doesn't it makes sense to compensate for it in another way, like letting it last 1-2 seconds longer? I know the balance council tried to compensate by doing things like giving Stasis Ward more sight range, slightly faster Observer and HT and Sentry movement, etc., but it still doesn't fill the gap in defense enough.
General: -QoL AI change for Shield Battery: If there is a Overcharged Battery and another Battery, the Overcharged Battery should take priority in healing units so it doesn't get wasted. I've seen this happen pretty commonly in pro games where a vital unit would have lived, but didn't because the normal Battery started healing it thus not allowing the Overcharge Battery to heal it without manually stopping the normal Battery (and what pro has ever managed to do that?).
-Sentry damage reverted from 6 to 8. This is a tiny change and will slightly help Gateway armies. The reason it was nerfed way back in WoL is because at the time, it was believed by some pros that mutas were too weak vs sentries and lost vs them (lol). Well with the current form of Muta, Protoss is having a lot of trouble vs them. A couple extra damage will not really solve anything but it also won't hurt anything it shouldn't, so why not? It also makes them slightly more useful even if they get EMP'd.
-Buff Glaive in a way that makes Adepts scale a little more past early/mid game. Adept based comps like in PvT are cool and unique and we should encourage unique tactics and comps (using the phase shift to splash tanks or force them to unsiege and stuff). Previously, Adepts were nerfed because all-ins they were too strong vs Terran. Now that the Terran has the new Cyclone which is very easily accessible and also hard counters Adepts, there is no worry in buffing Glaives. Also, Glaive pushes are known to not be particularly threatening to Zerg anyways, and a failed push can lead to a Zerg still coming back from a 25 vs 45 worker deficit to launch an all-in and win. Pretty wild if you ask me. Maybe Glaive can also give +1 range or +10 HP or shield or something.
Some difficult things here. The FF / Bile interaction should stay as it is. Otherwise one pixel to the left/ right can decide games. Not instinctive. FF buildings... I don't know. Don't see that changing anything. Adepts/ Glaive: Can't really buff that straight up without making Adept all-ins vs Zerg OP. Can only maybe get a second upgrade in Templar Archives or DT Shrine for adepts?
All in all I doubt we'll see any changes at all here to be honest. Not sure how interested Microsoft is to keep SC2 alive. On the other hand there was recently a patch to Heroes of the Storm which was "dead" for 5+ years. Maybe Microsoft somehow sees a potential where Blizz saw none.
On February 13 2024 23:42 jpg06051992 wrote: PvZ: Vipers can't pull mothershop anymore. PvT: sentry guardian shield could partially negate EMP. maybe you need one EMP to break the shield first or it half the shield damage of EMP. something close to that nature.
Both of these are very good changes.
Also wish FF required 2 Corrosive Biles to knock them down.
I agree with Viper not pulling MS. I haven't heard a good reason still for why it's so important for Zergs to be able to do that. I've heard some pros explain it but i still don't get it. At least make it so that if pulling a Heroic unit, it only pulls half distance.
I think Protoss doesn't need a full redesign, just some slight buffs would already go a huge way and probably be enough:
PvZ: -Vipers can't pull MS, or pulls half distance. If pushing this further, then make it so Abduct pulls Massive units half distance, but possibly buff the energy slightly or buff it in some way to make up for it
-Neural Parasite duration is only half when used on Massive unit. You can rebalance the energy cost or compensate in some way.
-Ravagers need 2 Bile to break 1 FF 1 Bile cannot break more than 1 FF. Your Forcefields will naturally touch each other in order to create a wall, and Bile is AOE. 1 Bile should not be able to break 2 FFs at once by aiming for the edge. If taking this further, make it so that when used on buildings, it only hits 1 building at a time... OR the next change:
-FF can be used to shield a building from a Bile. This way you have a way to protect your Batteries and Overcharge a little if from not being insta sniped by Bile.
-Possibly, nerf Baneling building damage from 80 to 70 or something. I think it's kinda of whack that the natural counter to banelings is walling and static defense, but it has an alternate attack that is specifically strong against clumped buildings. This makes it harder to defend vs cracklings running around lategame.
PvT: Even though I play Terran i have the least ideas here lol. -Maybe you can buff Overcharge to last 1-2 seconds longer, since it got straight up nerfed because Terrans were whining that they should be able to just force their all-in and attack in without having to pull back and wait 10 secs. (Even though it's pretty much always better and more worth it to wait it out vs the old stronger Overcharge if you can't snipe it...) So if the reasoning is that Terrans felt they should be able to out-DPS the healing rate of Overcharge, then doesn't it makes sense to compensate for it in another way, like letting it last 1-2 seconds longer? I know the balance council tried to compensate by doing things like giving Stasis Ward more sight range, slightly faster Observer and HT and Sentry movement, etc., but it still doesn't fill the gap in defense enough.
General: -QoL AI change for Shield Battery: If there is a Overcharged Battery and another Battery, the Overcharged Battery should take priority in healing units so it doesn't get wasted. I've seen this happen pretty commonly in pro games where a vital unit would have lived, but didn't because the normal Battery started healing it thus not allowing the Overcharge Battery to heal it without manually stopping the normal Battery (and what pro has ever managed to do that?).
-Sentry damage reverted from 6 to 8. This is a tiny change and will slightly help Gateway armies. The reason it was nerfed way back in WoL is because at the time, it was believed by some pros that mutas were too weak vs sentries and lost vs them (lol). Well with the current form of Muta, Protoss is having a lot of trouble vs them. A couple extra damage will not really solve anything but it also won't hurt anything it shouldn't, so why not? It also makes them slightly more useful even if they get EMP'd.
-Buff Glaive in a way that makes Adepts scale a little more past early/mid game. Adept based comps like in PvT are cool and unique and we should encourage unique tactics and comps (using the phase shift to splash tanks or force them to unsiege and stuff). Previously, Adepts were nerfed because all-ins they were too strong vs Terran. Now that the Terran has the new Cyclone which is very easily accessible and also hard counters Adepts, there is no worry in buffing Glaives. Also, Glaive pushes are known to not be particularly threatening to Zerg anyways, and a failed push can lead to a Zerg still coming back from a 25 vs 45 worker deficit to launch an all-in and win. Pretty wild if you ask me. Maybe Glaive can also give +1 range or +10 HP or shield or something.
Some difficult things here. The FF / Bile interaction should stay as it is. Otherwise one pixel to the left/ right can decide games. Not instinctive. FF buildings... I don't know. Don't see that changing anything. Adepts/ Glaive: Can't really buff that straight up without making Adept all-ins vs Zerg OP. Can only maybe get a second upgrade in Templar Archives or DT Shrine for adepts?
All in all I doubt we'll see any changes at all here to be honest. Not sure how interested Microsoft is to keep SC2 alive. On the other hand there was recently a patch to Heroes of the Storm which was "dead" for 5+ years. Maybe Microsoft somehow sees a potential where Blizz saw none.
Hopefully we still get some scraps at least. But I’d long viewed StarCraft’s support as coming from two places, the passion of people in Blizzard for the game, and maintaining goodwill and Blizzard standards, not purely out of goodness of the heart but in cultivating a positive image.
Well one those folks aren’t there anymore, and two Blizzard have basically destroyed their reputation these last few years, continued SC support (or not) isn’t going to rehabilitate that
Honestly at this point I don't get what you guys want to actually happen. Let me ask everyone this question honestly. Who do you think SHOULD be winning these tournaments that plays Protoss currently. Honestly, who do you think is good enough to win these tournaments?
the Korean Protoss players can't beat Dark. They've proven that for years and years and years now. Dark just eats them and if Dark won't Serral will. Do you think this kind of one sided dominance is because of racial balance? Honestly. Do you think the only reason herO and Classic can't beat Dark and Serral is because their race is weaker?
Sure Maru has been showing some weaknesses lately due to his injury (and perhaps other issues) but does anyone think that an in shape Maru or Cure or Clem should lose to herO and Classic in a Bo7 and the only reason it isn't happening is because of racial balance?
Classic: 5 time premier tournament champion herO: 8 time premier tournament champion
Why are you so certain that these players are just worse than Cure, Maru, Dark etc? The only argument for that would be their performance in the last few years but those has been affected by balance (actually herO even showed last year that he has the skill to win tournaments LOL). Historical precedent definitely indicates they should be competing for championships
Oh and what happened about 5 years ago that changed everything?
Oh yea, SERRAL happened. Ever since Serral came to prominence and changed the way that pros played Zerg, Protoss stopped winning.
You think balance shifted? What I saw was the skill cap of the pros kept going up and up thanks in large part to the rise of Serral and the reaction of the Koreans to counter what he was doing and when that happened Protoss got largely left behind.
Protoss got largely left behind because Protoss is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed in its design to keep it from competing at THAT high of a skill ceiling.
You can't fix that with a balance patch. You can't. You need much larger redesigns to the core of how the race works, and that isn't going to happen at this stage in the game's development.
You guys might want to call this a balance problem. I don't. I call it the pros skill level just finally got high enough that the fundamental problems in Protoss design that have been there from the start are impossible to ignore any longer. But we're also at the point where it's both too late to do anything about them because Blizzard abandoned SC2 proper, and there's still a large contingent of Protoss players in the community that are in denial about what needs to happen.
What happened 5 years ago was patch 4.0.
Protoss:
- Colossus rework (nerf against non light, buffed against light) - Carrier nerf - Stalker rework (less dps but more damage) - Oracle big nerf (most important unit for Protoss at the time) - Adept nerf
Zerg:
Infestor buff Viper buff Lurker big buff SH nerf
Terran:
Raven rework (mech sustain + matrix) Liberator nerf Ghost big buff Mech big buff Mine nerf
Serral was already really strong at that point but the fact Neeb who was the number 1 foreigner protoss at the time fell down and Serral blew up isn't only because they've gotten better/worse.
On February 14 2024 22:02 imData wrote: Serral was already really strong at that point but the fact Neeb who was the number 1 foreigner protoss at the time fell down and Serral blew up isn't only because they've gotten better/worse.
On a more macro level, this is also the moment when it was made clear that nobody would stand for protoss. If a patch made Serral lose his status as top player, the community would react strongly against that, because he is so deserving. When Neeb got patched out, absolutely no one cared.
On February 14 2024 22:02 imData wrote: Serral was already really strong at that point but the fact Neeb who was the number 1 foreigner protoss at the time fell down and Serral blew up isn't only because they've gotten better/worse.
On a more macro level, this is also the moment when it was made clear that nobody would stand for protoss. If a patch made Serral lose his status as top player, the community would react strongly against that, because he is so deserving. When Neeb got patched out, absolutely no one cared.
I've said this over and over again in a lot of threads, but the core Starcraft community carried over a lot of really ingrained antipathy towards Protoss and Protoss players and that totally fucked Protoss in early Wings of Liberty, when Blizzard was patching to address both balance and perception of balance. From basically Day One, Blizzard was kind of treating Protoss like an unwanted stepchild, usually being fast and aggressive with nerfs when Protoss was strong and slow and hesitant with nerfs when Protoss was struggling.
EDIT: There's probably a very interesting sociology/psychology study to be done on the differences in group behavior (and the reasons for those differences) of players who identify as players of a specific race in Starcraft. Because back when Blizzard nerfed Observer speed because they felt Terrans were too frustrated by Observers barely escaping scans, Protoss players grumbled, but I don't think many expected anything. If Blizzard had nerfed scan radius because Protoss players were too frustrated by Observers barely dying at the edges of scans, Terran players would have fucking rioted.
On February 13 2024 23:50 Vindicare605 wrote:Protoss' biggest main problem in late game scenarios is their over dependence on having a single deathball army. The Mothership exacerbates this problem to a hilarious degree, to the point where in the current state of the game it's simply a meme of a unit. We should be at least TRYING to open up options for Protoss to be able to operate smaller and self sufficient groups of units. Replacing the Mothership with Arbiters would do that, without giving Protoss anything new that they can abuse in the early game.
Arbiters would not fix this. They would be used in combination with warp prisms to evacuate offensive warp-ins and generally avoid fights.
Fundamentally, Protoss cannot operate with smaller and self-sufficient groups of units until there are compositions of small groups of units that don't get absolutely bodied by comparable small groups of units from Terran or Zerg. The fact of the matter is that Zealots, Stalkers, and Archons simply do not have stat numbers in the right sizes and right proportions to allow them to fight Marines, Marauders, Zerglings, Roaches, Ravagers, Hydralisks, Banelings, etc., and mixing in Sentries and Adepts does not change anything. Protoss don't win "even" engagements without having a significant presence of splash damage support units, and the ones they do have all get significantly worse as the size of the engagement decreases.
Terran can roam the map with a Medivac and some 8 supply mix of Marines and Marauders, or 2 Medivacs and 16 supply of bio, and that's a threat that can go in, kill things, and get out without many losses.
Zerg can run around the map with Zerglings, or Roaches, etc., etc.
Protoss, if they're walking around the map with 2 High Templar or a Disruptor and 16 supply of Zealots and Stalkers isn't doing anything with that. The tech units there are just juicy targets insufficiently protected by the Zealots and Stalkers, while also not being effective. Two storms or one Purification Nova against ~20 supply or Terran or Zerg is a lot easier for the opponent to dodge without taking significant damage or losses, and then it's just a handful of Zealots and Stalkers being donated to the superior combat abilities of the low tech Terran or Zerg units.
The only way Protoss gets to roam the map with small, independent squads of units is if they have units that can more or less be a-moved into equally a-moved bio or low tech zerg and expect to trade evenly. And that will never happen, because at this point if you give Protoss players anything vaguely strong, they're going to forsake all of their inefficient, finicky, fragile options for heavy commitment into the thing that is actually good, usually in the form of an all in. And then the community will be outraged because Protoss will have a 48% winrate but mostly off of an all-in, and the thing gets nerfed.
Arbiters would not fix this. They would be used in combination with warp prisms to evacuate offensive warp-ins and generally avoid fights.
You're right. Arbiters alone would not fix this. If I had my way, Arbiters being reintroduced would go along with fundamental changes to how Warp Gate operates as well as a rebalancing of Protoss Gateway units to compensate for Warp Gate being reworked.
I do think however that since the Warp Gate changes that I want are such a divisive topic, that the Arbiter change would not be. I don't see why anyone at this stage of the game should be against replacing the Mothership with Arbiters. Does it fix everything that's wrong with Protoss? No. Is it a noticeable step in the right direction? I think so.
You can't balance the Mothership. At this point that should be obvious to everybody, it's a relic of a long since abandoned philosphy that every race needed a hero unit that was present back in early SC2 development. When the Thor's original hero concept was scrapped the Mothership's needed to follow but Blizzard stuck with it because "rule of cool." It's a failed concept. Get rid of it and give Protoss an actual unit that isn't so easily countered by a single spell.
Arbiters would not fix this. They would be used in combination with warp prisms to evacuate offensive warp-ins and generally avoid fights.
You're right. Arbiters alone would not fix this. If I had my way, Arbiters being reintroduced would go along with fundamental changes to how Warp Gate operates as well as a rebalancing of Protoss Gateway units to compensate for Warp Gate being reworked.
I do think however that since the Warp Gate changes that I want are such a divisive topic, that the Arbiter change would not be. I don't see why anyone at this stage of the game should be against replacing the Mothership with Arbiters. Does it fix everything that's wrong with Protoss? No. Is it a noticeable step in the right direction? I think so.
You can't balance the Mothership. At this point that should be obvious to everybody, it's a relic of a long since abandoned philosphy that every race needed a hero unit that was present back in early SC2 development. When the Thor's original hero concept was scrapped the Mothership's needed to follow but Blizzard stuck with it because "rule of cool." It's a failed concept. Get rid of it and give Protoss an actual unit that isn't so easily countered by a single spell.
Oh, I absolutely did not mean to give the impression that I was against trading the Mothership for the Arbiter. The Mothership being a one-of hero unit only made sense to any extent back in the pre-beta when it was demoed with the Planet Cracker ability to obliterate ground units and the Black Hole just instantly killed all air units in the area of effect.
Arbiters being reintroduced with Recall, a cloaking field, and some CC ability would do a lot for helping Protoss in the late game, but a lot of the problems the race currently faces preclude surviving to late game without already being terminally behind.
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
I really don't think it's that true. Yes, at the moment we only have a few players (okay, maybe one player) who are contending at the very top level, but the issue imo is less that a Protoss player isn't beating Serral in a Bo7 than that high-level tournaments see so little Protoss representation period.
There are plenty of up-and-coming Protoss players out there (arguably Protoss has the best player pool at the moment when it comes to freshness and potential), and the argument that, e.g. Showtime or Astrea or Skillous or Stats or Harstem or Classic or Creator are just in absolute terms worse than the kinds of Terran players who make Ro8s or Ro4s or even finals, the Bunnies and Heromarines and SHINs and Gumihos and Oliveiras of this world, is I think actually quite weak. High-level Starcraft is just a game by its nature with a lot of variation, and the skill level below the very top I think tends to be much closer than it's ever been to the point.
The goal, then, isn't necessarily to get Astrea to always beat Serral in a Bo3. The goal is to increase representation overall and let that play itself out in terms of who wins tournaments. If we buff Protoss to the point where consistent "second-tier" Protoss are actually consistently making deeper runs, then not only will that increase the chances of someone like herO winning a tournament here and there, but it will naturally have a series of carry-over effects that are much greater down the line. If there are consistently 4-5 Protoss in a Ro16, then that makes it more likely for there to be consistently 2 or 3 Protosses in the Ro8, which in turn makes it more likely that we'll see a Protoss in the finals which in turn makes it more likely we'll see a Protoss win a larger tournament. The last one may take a while, but fundamentally for me the balance problem is a viewer/ESPORTs problem, which is that it's not good for the game to not see any Protoss matchups deeper in tournaments.
Players have great unexpected runs all the time, and lots of second tier players have made the jump to tier one after getting some good luck or pulling things together at a tournament. The problem with Protoss atm imo is how consistently that doesn't happen with Protoss while it happens regularly with the other races. When is the last time we had a HeroMarine or SHIN or Gumihoesque tear by a Protoss player at a big tournament? When is the last time we had a Cure-like Protoss take a clear step up to the big leagues?
This, I think, is where balance becomes the obvious problem and/or answer. If Protoss is currently significantly more fragile, if smaller mistakes are punished much harder, then that goes a long way to explaining why we don't see these kinds of step-ups and miracle runs with Protoss players. Or even more clearly, such tears did happen with Protoss up until a few years ago, and then stopped very suddenly after a few balance changes. Even now, Protoss players do step up at tournaments and go on limited tears (see e.g. Showtime at many tournaments), but even when they do, they can't maintain the consistency needed to actually transfer that into a great run and/or placement. Hell, while Oliveira's miracle run is obviously the most radical kind of outlier, it's very hard to impossible to imagine a Protoss player going on a similar run, thanks to the current balance of the race.
So I really don't think the situation is at all hopeless or necessarily calls for much more than a series of calculated balance changes to reduce variability and fragility. But that should be our drumbeat and our goal, not the idea of buffing Toss until Harstem always beats Serral in Bo7s.
On February 14 2024 22:02 imData wrote: Serral was already really strong at that point but the fact Neeb who was the number 1 foreigner protoss at the time fell down and Serral blew up isn't only because they've gotten better/worse.
On a more macro level, this is also the moment when it was made clear that nobody would stand for protoss. If a patch made Serral lose his status as top player, the community would react strongly against that, because he is so deserving. When Neeb got patched out, absolutely no one cared.
I've said this over and over again in a lot of threads, but the core Starcraft community carried over a lot of really ingrained antipathy towards Protoss and Protoss players and that totally fucked Protoss in early Wings of Liberty, when Blizzard was patching to address both balance and perception of balance. From basically Day One, Blizzard was kind of treating Protoss like an unwanted stepchild, usually being fast and aggressive with nerfs when Protoss was strong and slow and hesitant with nerfs when Protoss was struggling.
EDIT: There's probably a very interesting sociology/psychology study to be done on the differences in group behavior (and the reasons for those differences) of players who identify as players of a specific race in Starcraft. Because back when Blizzard nerfed Observer speed because they felt Terrans were too frustrated by Observers barely escaping scans, Protoss players grumbled, but I don't think many expected anything. If Blizzard had nerfed scan radius because Protoss players were too frustrated by Observers barely dying at the edges of scans, Terran players would have fucking rioted.
On February 13 2024 23:50 Vindicare605 wrote:Protoss' biggest main problem in late game scenarios is their over dependence on having a single deathball army. The Mothership exacerbates this problem to a hilarious degree, to the point where in the current state of the game it's simply a meme of a unit. We should be at least TRYING to open up options for Protoss to be able to operate smaller and self sufficient groups of units. Replacing the Mothership with Arbiters would do that, without giving Protoss anything new that they can abuse in the early game.
Arbiters would not fix this. They would be used in combination with warp prisms to evacuate offensive warp-ins and generally avoid fights.
Fundamentally, Protoss cannot operate with smaller and self-sufficient groups of units until there are compositions of small groups of units that don't get absolutely bodied by comparable small groups of units from Terran or Zerg. The fact of the matter is that Zealots, Stalkers, and Archons simply do not have stat numbers in the right sizes and right proportions to allow them to fight Marines, Marauders, Zerglings, Roaches, Ravagers, Hydralisks, Banelings, etc., and mixing in Sentries and Adepts does not change anything. Protoss don't win "even" engagements without having a significant presence of splash damage support units, and the ones they do have all get significantly worse as the size of the engagement decreases.
Terran can roam the map with a Medivac and some 8 supply mix of Marines and Marauders, or 2 Medivacs and 16 supply of bio, and that's a threat that can go in, kill things, and get out without many losses.
Zerg can run around the map with Zerglings, or Roaches, etc., etc.
Protoss, if they're walking around the map with 2 High Templar or a Disruptor and 16 supply of Zealots and Stalkers isn't doing anything with that. The tech units there are just juicy targets insufficiently protected by the Zealots and Stalkers, while also not being effective. Two storms or one Purification Nova against ~20 supply or Terran or Zerg is a lot easier for the opponent to dodge without taking significant damage or losses, and then it's just a handful of Zealots and Stalkers being donated to the superior combat abilities of the low tech Terran or Zerg units.
The only way Protoss gets to roam the map with small, independent squads of units is if they have units that can more or less be a-moved into equally a-moved bio or low tech zerg and expect to trade evenly. And that will never happen, because at this point if you give Protoss players anything vaguely strong, they're going to forsake all of their inefficient, finicky, fragile options for heavy commitment into the thing that is actually good, usually in the form of an all in. And then the community will be outraged because Protoss will have a 48% winrate but mostly off of an all-in, and the thing gets nerfed.
Right, it seems like there's general agreement that a big part of the issue is the weakness of Gateway units leading to a reliance at key stages of the game on a few finicky counter-able tech units leading to Protoss just falling apart if those units die at critical moments.
I'm honestly not convinced that at this stage of the game it would really break anything to just straight up give small buffs to Stalkers or Zealots. LotV economy makes Protoss all-ins just massively weaker in general, as do the the Warp Gate changes that were already made. I don't really see Protoss all-ins being hugely stronger than comparable Terran and Zerg all-ins that no one seems to have a problem with. Inasmuch as Protoss players are still "cheesier" on average, I don't think it's because the all-ins are so much stronger relative to other races; I think it's because defensive play is so much weaker.
If we're worried about all-ins, though, there are ways to deal with that built into the game, such as buffing via upgrades rather than base stats. A lot of Gateway units scale significantly worse than comparable Toss and Terran units in the later game, and I'm not quite sure why. Indeed, given just how well base Terran and Zerg units scale into the late game, I don't really see what the problem would be with making Stalkers or Zealots even significantly stronger in those phases of the game.
Even if that's considered too dangerous, there are ways to maintain Toss' current design while giving buffs that mainly affect gateway units. One that's been frequently discussed over the years is a Sentry buff, either via a buff to Guardian Shield or some kind of later-game ability that increases the sustain of Gateway units in particular. Sentries are slow and clumsy and having snipeable sentries still maintains the basic Protoss vulnerability, but a Sentry is much cheaper and easier to replace than a Robo unit and pairs more naturally with Gateway units.
A more radical and probably broken idea that occurs to me is to simply make it easier to have more Warp Prisms active on the map at once. The Warp Prism plays an interesting role in dramatically strengthening the threat potential of even small groups of units via pickup micro and instant reinforce, and is biased toward Gateway units by its very nature. Even something as radical as moving the Warp Gate to the Stargate from the Robo (while probably increasing its cost) doesn't seem too crazy to me. While Warp Prisms are cost for cost more valuable than Medivacs, it's striking how little we see Protoss players having more than one Warp Prism for key chunks of the game, as opposed to the swarms of Medivacs dropping in different locations and making the main army just straight-up stronger. The reason of course isn't the cost or stats of the Warp Prism, but it being locked in the Robo along with all other important tech units. While there's a potential huge problem with strengthening Protoss all-ins there, it seems like in the mid to late game it would certainly help increase Protoss redundancy and micro-ability quite a bit.
That last one is probably a bad idea, but the point is once again just that there are options here, even with the current state of Protoss design.
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
I really don't think it's that true. Yes, at the moment we only have a few players (okay, maybe one player) who are contending at the very top level, but the issue imo is less that a Protoss player isn't beating Serral in a Bo7 than that high-level tournaments see so little Protoss representation period.
There are plenty of up-and-coming Protoss players out there (arguably Protoss has the best player pool at the moment when it comes to freshness and potential), and the argument that, e.g. Showtime or Astrea or Skillous or Stats or Harstem or Classic or Creator are just in absolute terms worse than the kinds of Terran players who make Ro8s or Ro4s or even finals, the Bunnies and Heromarines and SHINs and Gumihos and Oliveiras of this world, is I think actually quite weak. High-level Starcraft is just a game by its nature with a lot of variation, and the skill level below the very top I think tends to be much closer than it's ever been to the point.
The goal, then, isn't necessarily to get Astrea to always beat Serral in a Bo3. The goal is to increase representation overall and let that play itself out in terms of who wins tournaments. If we buff Protoss to the point where consistent "second-tier" Protoss are actually consistently making deeper runs, then not only will that increase the chances of someone like herO winning a tournament here and there, but it will naturally have a series of carry-over effects that are much greater down the line. If there are consistently 4-5 Protoss in a Ro16, then that makes it more likely for there to be consistently 2 or 3 Protosses in the Ro8, which in turn makes it more likely that we'll see a Protoss in the finals which in turn makes it more likely we'll see a Protoss win a larger tournament. The last one may take a while, but fundamentally for me the balance problem is a viewer/ESPORTs problem, which is that it's not good for the game to not see any Protoss matchups deeper in tournaments.
Players have great unexpected runs all the time, and lots of second tier players have made the jump to tier one after getting some good luck or pulling things together at a tournament. The problem with Protoss atm imo is how consistently that doesn't happen with Protoss while it happens regularly with the other races. When is the last time we had a HeroMarine or SHIN or Gumihoesque tear by a Protoss player at a big tournament? When is the last time we had a Cure-like Protoss take a clear step up to the big leagues?
This, I think, is where balance becomes the obvious problem and/or answer. If Protoss is currently significantly more fragile, if smaller mistakes are punished much harder, then that goes a long way to explaining why we don't see these kinds of step-ups and miracle runs with Protoss players. Or even more clearly, such tears did happen with Protoss up until a few years ago, and then stopped very suddenly after a few balance changes. Even now, Protoss players do step up at tournaments and go on limited tears (see e.g. Showtime at many tournaments), but even when they do, they can't maintain the consistency needed to actually transfer that into a great run and/or placement. Hell, while Oliveira's miracle run is obviously the most radical kind of outlier, it's very hard to impossible to imagine a Protoss player going on a similar run, thanks to the current balance of the race.
So I really don't think the situation is at all hopeless or necessarily calls for much more than a series of calculated balance changes to reduce variability and fragility. But that should be our drumbeat and our goal, not the idea of buffing Toss until Harstem always beats Serral in Bo7s.
Yeah well said man, can’t disagree with almost any of that really.
Especially when we consider that Toss has been very strong in GM representation for forever.
Of course there’s a gap to pro play, but Protoss players can’t simultaneously be worse to account for a lack of deep tournament runs, but not better and that accounts for their GM overrepresentation.
It’s something else, and I’d wager, and have long wagered that it’s relatively easier to get a high ranking a bit below the top, when you’re playing a bunch of Bo1 games. When players are that bit better, and you’re in series play, that’s when we see it tailing off.
Folks will point out that the likes of Trap, Parting etc aren’t around, and yeah they’re not. But the picture wasn’t all that much better then, a bit but not hugely. And people made the ‘Protoss players aren’t as good’ argument then, but after the fact point to departures as evidence that the Toss pool is diminished. I mean it is, but it’s kicking the ball down the road. Guys like Trap and Parting just aren’t as good as their equivalents, then it’s ’oh the players just aren’t as good, if only you had Trap and Parting still playing’. And so one and so forth.
My number one word for Protoss currently is fragile. You’re really playing on a knife edge, your offensive gambits aren’t really that potent anymore with years of patches and collective knowledge improvement. And playing defensively it’s hard to not just get outgrown, or to die to a big push, or take crippling damage from a drop or a runby.
It’s possible, but it’s considerably easier to live on the knife edge for the odd game, versus staying there for series after series in succession.
A relatively recent problem, but Protoss is kind of bad in both directions now.
Versus Zerg you were outmatched in defensive/reactionary growth games, and long have been. But you had a lot of potent builds and strategems to try to slow, or outright kill the Zerg. Through patching, and mostly player improvement, so much of those plays are either figured out or patched out and aren’t that effective.
Versus Terran it would swing a bit, sometimes you’d have aggressive metas, sometimes defensive. But usually Toss would be better than Terran in one of those areas. Now I’d argue it’s neither, and this is what sees Toss living on the edge in this matchup particularly. Terran is relatively free to power as Protoss lack tools to really slow that down, which also means Terran tends to outgrow Toss and frequently, frequently just kill them in that window before a 3rd or 4th base kicks in.
When Trap or Parting were in form a few years ago, you’d see very potent blink pressure builds, that sometimes would just shift to outright kill moves, mixed in with games where Toss would outgrow Terran by a base or two, and flooding outlying bases with Zealots, or DTs
I mean it’s not like Toss was winning every game, but they had better options. They could outgrow a Terran to the degree that they’d be reliably in the phase of the game where a positional mistake would lead to a disadvantage and openings for the opponent, rather than just outright death.
On February 13 2024 08:03 Nasigil wrote: Even if we get a much deserving patch, the only player that'll benefit from it and might actually making a break through in premiere tournaments is still just herO.
Classic showed flashes of brilliance when he beat Serral and Reynor in Gamers8 group stage but hasn't had much showing after that.
Showtime is just not on their level.
I really hope Stats and Parting could improve to a level that's similar to Classic. I have high hopes for Parting. sOs not so much. I don't think LotV allows for same kind of strategic depth that he's known for.
Do we know anything about Zest's future plan?
This is what I've been saying.
If you guys want to put out a balance patch to try and get Protoss a tournament win, you're going to need to buff Protoss so much that guys like Showtime, Astrea and Skillous are going to be able to beat Maru, Serral and Dark. Anything less and you'll still just be relying on herO to carry the entire race and if he gets cheesed or his cheese fails that's it, tournament over no Protoss advances.
I'd rather see Protoss changed at a fundamental level rather than just seeing balance patches thrown at them in a desperate attempt to up their winrate. If you wanted to give Protoss a handicap, a better way to do it would be to adjust the map pool. Why the hell do we still have Zerg favored map pools in major tournaments when Zerg has been by far the most successful race over the last 5 years?
I really don't think it's that true. Yes, at the moment we only have a few players (okay, maybe one player) who are contending at the very top level, but the issue imo is less that a Protoss player isn't beating Serral in a Bo7 than that high-level tournaments see so little Protoss representation period.
There are plenty of up-and-coming Protoss players out there (arguably Protoss has the best player pool at the moment when it comes to freshness and potential), and the argument that, e.g. Showtime or Astrea or Skillous or Stats or Harstem or Classic or Creator are just in absolute terms worse than the kinds of Terran players who make Ro8s or Ro4s or even finals, the Bunnies and Heromarines and SHINs and Gumihos and Oliveiras of this world, is I think actually quite weak. High-level Starcraft is just a game by its nature with a lot of variation, and the skill level below the very top I think tends to be much closer than it's ever been to the point.
The goal, then, isn't necessarily to get Astrea to always beat Serral in a Bo3. The goal is to increase representation overall and let that play itself out in terms of who wins tournaments. If we buff Protoss to the point where consistent "second-tier" Protoss are actually consistently making deeper runs, then not only will that increase the chances of someone like herO winning a tournament here and there, but it will naturally have a series of carry-over effects that are much greater down the line. If there are consistently 4-5 Protoss in a Ro16, then that makes it more likely for there to be consistently 2 or 3 Protosses in the Ro8, which in turn makes it more likely that we'll see a Protoss in the finals which in turn makes it more likely we'll see a Protoss win a larger tournament. The last one may take a while, but fundamentally for me the balance problem is a viewer/ESPORTs problem, which is that it's not good for the game to not see any Protoss matchups deeper in tournaments.
Players have great unexpected runs all the time, and lots of second tier players have made the jump to tier one after getting some good luck or pulling things together at a tournament. The problem with Protoss atm imo is how consistently that doesn't happen with Protoss while it happens regularly with the other races. When is the last time we had a HeroMarine or SHIN or Gumihoesque tear by a Protoss player at a big tournament? When is the last time we had a Cure-like Protoss take a clear step up to the big leagues?
This, I think, is where balance becomes the obvious problem and/or answer. If Protoss is currently significantly more fragile, if smaller mistakes are punished much harder, then that goes a long way to explaining why we don't see these kinds of step-ups and miracle runs with Protoss players. Or even more clearly, such tears did happen with Protoss up until a few years ago, and then stopped very suddenly after a few balance changes. Even now, Protoss players do step up at tournaments and go on limited tears (see e.g. Showtime at many tournaments), but even when they do, they can't maintain the consistency needed to actually transfer that into a great run and/or placement. Hell, while Oliveira's miracle run is obviously the most radical kind of outlier, it's very hard to impossible to imagine a Protoss player going on a similar run, thanks to the current balance of the race.
So I really don't think the situation is at all hopeless or necessarily calls for much more than a series of calculated balance changes to reduce variability and fragility. But that should be our drumbeat and our goal, not the idea of buffing Toss until Harstem always beats Serral in Bo7s.
I agree with the logic of your post. Which is why I generally don't think that Protoss really needs much in the way of "balancing." Revert the nerfs that Protoss has gotten in the last few patch cycles sure, bring them back to where they were when Trap was making his runs and I think that combined with the nerfs that Zerg and Terran have gotten since then should be enough for a Protoss like herO to stand a chance of making the top 4 or even a finals appearance.
I just don't think that's going to stop the Protoss crying though. I think people are still going to complain about Protoss losing until we see a multiple time GSL champ or world champ Protoss take the scene and I just don't see that happening without A: a massive breakout from a new player ala Clem or Reynor. B: massive buffs to Protoss to allow lower tier Protoss to compete with the best Terrans and Zergs or C: a fundamental redesign to Protoss to make it more rewarding to high skill in a macro game.
A: I don't think is likely, but it's possible. Maxpax could start playing offlines finally and he turns out to be worth the hype he gets on aligulac in a real tournament setting. B: is what I don't want to happen, but what I think is the most likely to get the Protoss crying to stop. C: is the outcome I want, and is the outcome I have wanted since WoL. C is the outcome I think is best for the game in the long term, because even if A happens, I don't think we'll get a consistent tournament winner, I think we'll get a flash in the pan moment for a tournament like what we used to get from Zest before the meta figures out whatever new innovation he comes up with and we go back to Protoss not winning. That's been the pattern of Protoss success that we have seen since WoL. That's the result of how Protoss is designed, and that's the main reason I want to see them redesigned.
Ive offered the "Automated Vespene Gaysers" as the solution, so basically what it means is, an upgrade, then you pay for each gayser, then it would cost 1 food permanently (till the gayser is empty), and work like in the campaign where the geysers get extracted from Orbit, you can think of the 1 food, the remote probe operator extracting the gayser.
You would say this is OP, and why ?... Its basically to prevent or somehow reduce the effect of losing mass probes to zergling or drops. Having to do 4 less works per base. And with each vespene upgrade this way costing 150 minerals, its basically the same 3 probes cost, just that they'd be "protected, and require only 2 food", this free some extra suppy for zealot runbys etc, For deathball airtoss, you can also get 200 supply airtoss already with everything already mined
Also frees a tiny bit more for endgame. But not much, as to be fair when i get Deathball i already mined everything and have already no probes or gas left to mine.
Allowing the gigantic ultimate air unit to be pulled away by a tiny tentacle is just too comical and ridiculous I never understand how they refuse to fix it.
Yeah if anything the Mothership already has "hero unit" label as it is the only unit in the game that can not be Neural Parasited.
It would be extremely easy to make it invulnerable to VIpers. It is just ridiculous. Also the latest changes suck, i would have double down on the mothership being strong, 8 food, more cost, and maybe its Wings Of Liberty Skills back, like the Black Hole ....
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
Allowing the gigantic ultimate air unit to be pulled away by a tiny tentacle is just too comical and ridiculous I never understand how they refuse to fix it.
Yeah if anything the Mothership already has "hero unit" label as it is the only unit in the game that can not be Neural Parasited.
It would be extremely easy to make it invulnerable to VIpers. It is just ridiculous. Also the latest changes suck, i would have double down on the mothership being strong, 8 food, more cost, and maybe its Wings Of Liberty Skills back, like the Black Hole ....
Yeah I can't believe that instead of just making it so that you can't abduct Mothership (like 99% of the cause behind "-400/400" even happening) and making it stronger and worth the 8 supply and cost, they decided to make it smaller and less cool... but still just as easily abductable lol.
I forgot that MS can't be NP'd, so they really should just apply it to Abduct too.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
I disagree for some reasons..
If you see Serral play, how often you feel he is the best Zerg, and how often do you feel he does mistakes ?, If you see him play you see a player the closest to perfection.
Now, how often do you see that on Protosses ?, ive only seen Classic sometimes, but other times he plays like crap...
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
I disagree for some reasons..
If you see Serral play, how often you feel he is the best Zerg, and how often do you feel he does mistakes ?, If you see him play you see a player the closest to perfection.
Now, how often do you see that on Protosses ?, ive only seen Classic sometimes, but other times he plays like crap...
The reason why this perception happens is also based on balance. What we consider as a mistake by a player is based on the consequences that this imperfect play will have on the rest of the game. If you lose a key unit as protoss, it's very likely that you're going to lose, so we see that as a huge mistake and we remember it. If you lose a key unit as zerg, that's obviously not great either, but you're not in such a bad situation, so after the game we might not even remember that it happened. If we had the same threshold for mistake for zerg as we do for protoss, Serral would be making more of those.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
We talked about this, predicted this was going to happen when Zest and Trap went to the military, Zoun retired, and Parting decided to play Stormgate after coming back from the military. We KNEW there was going to be a large glut of top Protoss players, we knew the faction's tournament success rate was going to suffer because of it. You can't tell me the reason Protoss is doing worse now than ever before is only about balance when MOST of their most successful players in the game's history aren't playing it right now.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with yo on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
That's okay, I was looking forward to seeing that but I'll manage with just having a better game, this part is not as important.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Playing Protoss and playing Zerg is also completely DIFFERENT so I wonder how you can so objectively determine that the Protoss players are so much less skilled
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Like I've been saying. I definitely agree that Protoss should have most if not all of its nerfs from the last couple patch cycles rolled back. I also think that in the 2024-2025 season, TLMC needs to make a firm commitment to changing the map pool so that it favors Protoss and starts disadvantaging Zerg. We've had 5 consecutive years of Zergs winning the most of any of the 3 races and it doesn't make any sense that outrageously rigged maps like Radhuset Station keep finding their way into the Premier map tournament pools when anybody with even the slightest bit of game experience can tell you it's a blatantly Zerg favored map.
I want these changes to happen because I think Protoss does need a little bit of help.
But I want people, especially Protoss fans to be realistic about what these buffs are going to do the tournament winrate: very little. It MIGHT give herO and Classic the boost they need to make a finals appearance, or even win a tournament if Maru and Serral get upset in previous rounds. It would help Stats a LOT if he could play his defensive macro style on maps where it wasn't so fucking hard for Protoss to hold a third base. But it won't give Protoss a positive winrate if the same 8 players from IEM Katowice are the ones that are going to keep qualifying for tournaments in the future, because players like Skillous, Astrea and Firefly, even though they are way better at the game than I can ever hope to be, are not players that are going to be a serious threat to Code S champions and multiple time world champion players like Dark, Serral, Maru, Reynor or Solar. We can give them a slight handicap in maps or even patch balance, but it won't shake things up that much.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Playing Protoss and playing Zerg is also completely DIFFERENT so I wonder how you can so objectively determine that the Protoss players are so much less skilled
That's easy. Every SC2 player plays every race. The players in SC2 get to PICK which race they think they have the best chance of winning with. Why do you think Reynor plays Protoss against Zerg? If the race is so fucking bad that no one can win with it, why does he CHOOSE to play PvZ instead of ZvZ?
If it was objectively true that Protoss was just a worse race to win with than Terran or Zerg, then players would be switching to Terran or Zerg. That doesn't happen because the players playing Protoss do so because Protoss is the race that THEY THINK gives them the best chance at winning. It's funny that I can point to at least a few examples of Terran or Zergs switching to Protoss and improving their pro success: Reynor, Scarlett, Minigun, Neeb. But I can't go back and find any example of the opposite happening except if you consider TLO or Gumiho sticking to Terran and Zerg after playing Random.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Hate to be that guy (ok no, I secretly love it), but quite a lot of the GOAT candidates for various races were all BW pros. Be it ones yet to break out when the switch happened, promising players who hadn’t fulfilled their potential, or merely solid A-teamers.
Of course, they are indeed different games with different skillsets. But the one thing you can rule out in SC2 to explain Protoss’ woes is a lack of mechanical chops. Rain, Stats, Classic were all solid BW pros getting match time.
I will add the important caveat that this is specific to folks saying those players don’t have the mechanics, I’m not saying that being good at BW should make you great at SC2. Raw mechanics is part of the skillset, it’s far from the only skill in such a complex game,
I think it’s observably a combination that Protoss doesn’t scale well versus the other races with raw mechanics, as well as gradually having chapter after chapter excised from the Protoss book of bullshit that was somewhat compensatory for that.
This dovetails rather neatly with what Neb said about mistakes. There are way more obviously game-crippling mistakes that Toss can make, and part of the reason they’re so crippling is because you can’t make up a deficit easily with raw mechanical outjousting your opponent.
With Zerg you can drone hard, make some gambles, hit every inject, have a few runbys to buy time. Terrans can go for broke and micro their little hearts out, drop everywhere and macro like machines.
As Toss can’t do these things remotely easily from a deficit in the game state, it’s super obvious what the mistakes they’re making to push them into it.
Lose some oracles in a PvZ while doing very little damage? Things are already looking very rough. Trying to pressure, or even worse, anll-in and lose your reinforcement Prism? Good luck! Get caught on the map in midgame, or out of position for an attack and you might already have sustained too much damage.
This is far from saying other races are all that forgiving of mistakes either, it’s just a brutal, cutthroat game overall.
They just don’t have the combination Toss does where they have to take risks with one, or a couple of hyper-specialised units that if they lose them it can be ruinous.
It could be that we're not seeing the full power of PartinG, sOs, Stats etc. because it's better worth it to go and win a stormgate tournament instead of struggling to get into code S, because the race is simply worse.
It's very important that there at least is a hope of a chance for Protoss. Pretty much since 2019 I've been jaded about Protoss doing anything in GSL. And I think the herO win was an absolute miracle run, in a similar vein to Oliveiras run in Katowce, and funnily enough they both required a Maru choking in the finals.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Hate to be that guy (ok no, I secretly love it), but quite a lot of the GOAT candidates for various races were all BW pros. Be it ones yet to break out when the switch happened, promising players who hadn’t fulfilled their potential, or merely solid A-teamers.
Of course, they are indeed different games with different skillsets. But the one thing you can rule out in SC2 to explain Protoss’ woes is a lack of mechanical chops. Rain, Stats, Classic were all solid BW pros getting match time.
I will add the important caveat that this is specific to folks saying those players don’t have the mechanics, I’m not saying that being good at BW should make you great at SC2. Raw mechanics is part of the skillset, it’s far from the only skill in such a complex game,
I think it’s observably a combination that Protoss doesn’t scale well versus the other races with raw mechanics, as well as gradually having chapter after chapter excised from the Protoss book of bullshit that was somewhat compensatory for that.
This dovetails rather neatly with what Neb said about mistakes. There are way more obviously game-crippling mistakes that Toss can make, and part of the reason they’re so crippling is because you can’t make up a deficit easily with raw mechanical outjousting your opponent.
With Zerg you can drone hard, make some gambles, hit every inject, have a few runbys to buy time. Terrans can go for broke and micro their little hearts out, drop everywhere and macro like machines.
As Toss can’t do these things remotely easily from a deficit in the game state, it’s super obvious what the mistakes they’re making to push them into it.
Lose some oracles in a PvZ while doing very little damage? Things are already looking very rough. Trying to pressure, or even worse, anll-in and lose your reinforcement Prism? Good luck! Get caught on the map in midgame, or out of position for an attack and you might already have sustained too much damage.
This is far from saying other races are all that forgiving of mistakes either, it’s just a brutal, cutthroat game overall.
They just don’t have the combination Toss does where they have to take risks with one, or a couple of hyper-specialised units that if they lose them it can be ruinous.
Wombat you know already how I'm going to respond to this.
THEN LETS FIX THE ACTUAL FUCKING PROBLEMS WITH PROTOSS THEN!
Stop fucking around with unit tweaks and numbers balancing when the core problem with the race is in its fundamental design. I've been saying that for 11 years!
Either accept that Protoss is broken at a fundamental design level (which requires overhauling the entire race to fix) or accept that Protoss in its current state is not going to consistently win unless they get blatantly favored balance changes that artificially inflate their winrate to a point where lower tier Protoss players can beat SC2 GOATS.
I said this several pages ago that this is where we are, and the same conclusion is the same as its ever been. This isn't a problem you're going to fix with a balance patch.You're either going to replace the problem with another one, or you're going to make small changes that don't change much in the grand scheme of things.
On February 20 2024 07:25 ejozl wrote: It could be that we're not seeing the full power of PartinG, sOs, Stats etc. because it's better worth it to go and win a stormgate tournament instead of struggling to get into code S, because the race is simply worse.
It's very important that there at least is a hope of a chance for Protoss. Pretty much since 2019 I've been jaded about Protoss doing anything in GSL. And I think the herO win was an absolute miracle run, in a similar vein to Oliveiras run in Katowce, and funnily enough they both required a Maru choking in the finals.
Giving up makes complete sense. Unless I have extremely nothing else to do, for the last three years I've just looked at the results of tournaments and then watched the games where something cool happened for protoss. Even as someone quite stubborn I can't imagine inflicting myself the pain of closely following a SC tournament these days when I know that it's much more likely that we'll have a Ro8 without protoss than a protoss winner.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Like I've been saying. I definitely agree that Protoss should have most if not all of its nerfs from the last couple patch cycles rolled back. I also think that in the 2024-2025 season, TLMC needs to make a firm commitment to changing the map pool so that it favors Protoss and starts disadvantaging Zerg. We've had 5 consecutive years of Zergs winning the most of any of the 3 races and it doesn't make any sense that outrageously rigged maps like Radhuset Station keep finding their way into the Premier map tournament pools when anybody with even the slightest bit of game experience can tell you it's a blatantly Zerg favored map.
I want these changes to happen because I think Protoss does need a little bit of help.
But I want people, especially Protoss fans to be realistic about what these buffs are going to do the tournament winrate: very little. It MIGHT give herO and Classic the boost they need to make a finals appearance, or even win a tournament if Maru and Serral get upset in previous rounds. It would help Stats a LOT if he could play his defensive macro style on maps where it wasn't so fucking hard for Protoss to hold a third base. But it won't give Protoss a positive winrate if the same 8 players from IEM Katowice are the ones that are going to keep qualifying for tournaments in the future, because players like Skillous, Astrea and Firefly, even though they are way better at the game than I can ever hope to be, are not players that are going to be a serious threat to Code S champions and multiple time world champion players like Dark, Serral, Maru, Reynor or Solar. We can give them a slight handicap in maps or even patch balance, but it won't shake things up that much.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Hate to be that guy (ok no, I secretly love it), but quite a lot of the GOAT candidates for various races were all BW pros. Be it ones yet to break out when the switch happened, promising players who hadn’t fulfilled their potential, or merely solid A-teamers.
Of course, they are indeed different games with different skillsets. But the one thing you can rule out in SC2 to explain Protoss’ woes is a lack of mechanical chops. Rain, Stats, Classic were all solid BW pros getting match time.
I will add the important caveat that this is specific to folks saying those players don’t have the mechanics, I’m not saying that being good at BW should make you great at SC2. Raw mechanics is part of the skillset, it’s far from the only skill in such a complex game,
I think it’s observably a combination that Protoss doesn’t scale well versus the other races with raw mechanics, as well as gradually having chapter after chapter excised from the Protoss book of bullshit that was somewhat compensatory for that.
This dovetails rather neatly with what Neb said about mistakes. There are way more obviously game-crippling mistakes that Toss can make, and part of the reason they’re so crippling is because you can’t make up a deficit easily with raw mechanical outjousting your opponent.
With Zerg you can drone hard, make some gambles, hit every inject, have a few runbys to buy time. Terrans can go for broke and micro their little hearts out, drop everywhere and macro like machines.
As Toss can’t do these things remotely easily from a deficit in the game state, it’s super obvious what the mistakes they’re making to push them into it.
Lose some oracles in a PvZ while doing very little damage? Things are already looking very rough. Trying to pressure, or even worse, anll-in and lose your reinforcement Prism? Good luck! Get caught on the map in midgame, or out of position for an attack and you might already have sustained too much damage.
This is far from saying other races are all that forgiving of mistakes either, it’s just a brutal, cutthroat game overall.
They just don’t have the combination Toss does where they have to take risks with one, or a couple of hyper-specialised units that if they lose them it can be ruinous.
Wombat you know already how I'm going to respond to this.
THEN LETS FIX THE ACTUAL FUCKING PROBLEMS WITH PROTOSS THEN!
Stop fucking around with unit tweaks and numbers balancing when the core problem with the race is in its fundamental design. I've been saying that for 11 years!
Either accept that Protoss is broken at a fundamental design level (which requires overhauling the entire race to fix) or accept that Protoss in its current state is not going to consistently win unless they get blatantly favored balance changes that artificially inflate their winrate to a point where lower tier Protoss players can beat SC2 GOATS.
I said this several pages ago that this is where we are, and the same conclusion is the same as its ever been. This isn't a problem you're going to fix with a balance patch.You're either going to replace the problem with another one, or you're going to make small changes that don't change much in the grand scheme of things.
Agreed, although it’s not just that that ship has already sailed, but it was in service for 40 years, decommissioned and scrapped and the materials reused to construct a building.
They already doubled down when building two expansions alas.
There’s probably some sweet spot where with some tweaks, especially to maps that herO and Classic can be threats, maybe Stats can get back to relevance and like, Showtime and a few others can have a little more success than they do.
I mean that trio are probably in the top 20/top 15 of a GOAT rank, although they’re not all in shape, I do recognise the latter as a factor.
The redesign is preferable but unlikely, I think it’s a reasonable expectation to move the needle just that little bit though. Moving the needle to somewhere approaching parity and you’re basically just making Protoss broken so I’m 100% agreed there.
I’m not the kind that dips out in tournaments as the last of the Protoss lambs are slaughtered, it’s not the biggest deal to me. But I do still think they’re weaker than they could be, while preserving fairness.
Especially as there’s really nobody coming up, if Protoss don’t achieve a better state while the aforementioned guys are still active, they’ll be extinct when they’re not.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Hate to be that guy (ok no, I secretly love it), but quite a lot of the GOAT candidates for various races were all BW pros. Be it ones yet to break out when the switch happened, promising players who hadn’t fulfilled their potential, or merely solid A-teamers.
Of course, they are indeed different games with different skillsets. But the one thing you can rule out in SC2 to explain Protoss’ woes is a lack of mechanical chops. Rain, Stats, Classic were all solid BW pros getting match time.
I will add the important caveat that this is specific to folks saying those players don’t have the mechanics, I’m not saying that being good at BW should make you great at SC2. Raw mechanics is part of the skillset, it’s far from the only skill in such a complex game,
I think it’s observably a combination that Protoss doesn’t scale well versus the other races with raw mechanics, as well as gradually having chapter after chapter excised from the Protoss book of bullshit that was somewhat compensatory for that.
This dovetails rather neatly with what Neb said about mistakes. There are way more obviously game-crippling mistakes that Toss can make, and part of the reason they’re so crippling is because you can’t make up a deficit easily with raw mechanical outjousting your opponent.
With Zerg you can drone hard, make some gambles, hit every inject, have a few runbys to buy time. Terrans can go for broke and micro their little hearts out, drop everywhere and macro like machines.
As Toss can’t do these things remotely easily from a deficit in the game state, it’s super obvious what the mistakes they’re making to push them into it.
Lose some oracles in a PvZ while doing very little damage? Things are already looking very rough. Trying to pressure, or even worse, anll-in and lose your reinforcement Prism? Good luck! Get caught on the map in midgame, or out of position for an attack and you might already have sustained too much damage.
This is far from saying other races are all that forgiving of mistakes either, it’s just a brutal, cutthroat game overall.
They just don’t have the combination Toss does where they have to take risks with one, or a couple of hyper-specialised units that if they lose them it can be ruinous.
Wombat you know already how I'm going to respond to this.
THEN LETS FIX THE ACTUAL FUCKING PROBLEMS WITH PROTOSS THEN!
Stop fucking around with unit tweaks and numbers balancing when the core problem with the race is in its fundamental design. I've been saying that for 11 years!
Either accept that Protoss is broken at a fundamental design level (which requires overhauling the entire race to fix) or accept that Protoss in its current state is not going to consistently win unless they get blatantly favored balance changes that artificially inflate their winrate to a point where lower tier Protoss players can beat SC2 GOATS.
I said this several pages ago that this is where we are, and the same conclusion is the same as its ever been. This isn't a problem you're going to fix with a balance patch.You're either going to replace the problem with another one, or you're going to make small changes that don't change much in the grand scheme of things.
Especially as there’s really nobody coming up, if Protoss don’t achieve a better state while the aforementioned guys are still active, they’ll be extinct when they’re not.
Which is all the more reason why a redesign should be done sooner rather than later.
We have 13 almost 14 years of hard evidence to look at for why Protoss design in Starcraft 2 doesn't work. We could have another 13 or 14 years of trying to balance around this fundamental design problem and we still won't come up with an answer.
What do people actually mean with redesign?, Protoss received plenty of redesigns, more than the other two races and I think it made the race the coolest. That was until the tools started to get tuned down because of Terran+Zerg bias.
On February 19 2024 10:26 Vindicare605 wrote: [quote]
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Hate to be that guy (ok no, I secretly love it), but quite a lot of the GOAT candidates for various races were all BW pros. Be it ones yet to break out when the switch happened, promising players who hadn’t fulfilled their potential, or merely solid A-teamers.
Of course, they are indeed different games with different skillsets. But the one thing you can rule out in SC2 to explain Protoss’ woes is a lack of mechanical chops. Rain, Stats, Classic were all solid BW pros getting match time.
I will add the important caveat that this is specific to folks saying those players don’t have the mechanics, I’m not saying that being good at BW should make you great at SC2. Raw mechanics is part of the skillset, it’s far from the only skill in such a complex game,
I think it’s observably a combination that Protoss doesn’t scale well versus the other races with raw mechanics, as well as gradually having chapter after chapter excised from the Protoss book of bullshit that was somewhat compensatory for that.
This dovetails rather neatly with what Neb said about mistakes. There are way more obviously game-crippling mistakes that Toss can make, and part of the reason they’re so crippling is because you can’t make up a deficit easily with raw mechanical outjousting your opponent.
With Zerg you can drone hard, make some gambles, hit every inject, have a few runbys to buy time. Terrans can go for broke and micro their little hearts out, drop everywhere and macro like machines.
As Toss can’t do these things remotely easily from a deficit in the game state, it’s super obvious what the mistakes they’re making to push them into it.
Lose some oracles in a PvZ while doing very little damage? Things are already looking very rough. Trying to pressure, or even worse, anll-in and lose your reinforcement Prism? Good luck! Get caught on the map in midgame, or out of position for an attack and you might already have sustained too much damage.
This is far from saying other races are all that forgiving of mistakes either, it’s just a brutal, cutthroat game overall.
They just don’t have the combination Toss does where they have to take risks with one, or a couple of hyper-specialised units that if they lose them it can be ruinous.
Wombat you know already how I'm going to respond to this.
THEN LETS FIX THE ACTUAL FUCKING PROBLEMS WITH PROTOSS THEN!
Stop fucking around with unit tweaks and numbers balancing when the core problem with the race is in its fundamental design. I've been saying that for 11 years!
Either accept that Protoss is broken at a fundamental design level (which requires overhauling the entire race to fix) or accept that Protoss in its current state is not going to consistently win unless they get blatantly favored balance changes that artificially inflate their winrate to a point where lower tier Protoss players can beat SC2 GOATS.
I said this several pages ago that this is where we are, and the same conclusion is the same as its ever been. This isn't a problem you're going to fix with a balance patch.You're either going to replace the problem with another one, or you're going to make small changes that don't change much in the grand scheme of things.
Especially as there’s really nobody coming up, if Protoss don’t achieve a better state while the aforementioned guys are still active, they’ll be extinct when they’re not.
Which is all the more reason why a redesign should be done sooner rather than later.
We have 13 almost 14 years of hard evidence to look at for why Protoss design in Starcraft 2 doesn't work. We could have another 13 or 14 years of trying to balance around this fundamental design problem and we still won't come up with an answer.
Aye, unfortunately Blizzard hold the keys to the kingdom
God knows it would be an unholy shitshow to get parsed and implemented, but I’ve definitely heard tons of great critique on Protoss core design over the years, and enough good suggestions from enough people that the raw material does exist to radically change fix Protoss. Hell I may even have had at least one sensible idea!
The daed game may be too alive to drag folks away from stock SC2, with a still appreciable pro scene going, but perhaps one day it would be doable.
But unless Blizzard open it up so modded versions of the game can implement other necessary things, like a 3rd party ladder, I dunno how you’d ever give such a project legs.
Even now, I’d be more enthused to return to active competitive RTS play if Protoss’ core design wasn’t so fucking atrocious.
On February 20 2024 22:42 ejozl wrote: What do people actually mean with redesign?, Protoss received plenty of redesigns, more than the other two races and I think it made the race the coolest. That was until the tools started to get tuned down because of Terran+Zerg bias.
Protoss needs Warp Gate tech taken off of the Cybernetics Core and reworked to be a late game mechanic. They've needed this since WoL. Until this happens, Protoss Gateway units will never be as cost efficient as Zerg and Terran early and midgame units, because if they were Warp Gate all ins would be too powerful.
So. Protoss has since WoL been designed around Gateway combat units like Zealots and Stalkers being cost inefficient units that require support units from the Robotics Facility (or even things like Sentries) to be with them in order to be able to fight at later stages of the game.
This interdependence of Protoss units needing slow and immobile support units leads to Protoss Deathballs. They are strong in a direct engagement, but are much weaker when forced to split apart and fight in smaller groups. This dynamic has ALWAYS existed with Protoss, but when the game's meta got spread out and more and more emphasis was put on smaller skirmishes and map control with the LOTV Economy changes it became more and more of a problem which brings us to where we are today.
If you look back at some of the posts that Wombat has made about how Protoss gets punished a lot more heavily for making mistakes, when key units get picked off or are out of position. This is why.
Protoss design, neccessitates that Protoss army compositions be together and in certain ratios in order to be effective. They can't just mass up a large number of low cost units and strike over and over again the way Zerg and Terran can because their army roster isn't designed to work like that past the early game. That's all because of the way Warp Gate works.
Protoss air compositions aren't any better since aside from the Phoenix and Carrier none of their air units have any real tactical flexibility. The Oracle, Void Ray, Tempest and Mothership all have VERY specific uses and require being in carefully mixed unit compositions to be effective. Basically they don't work if they are not in a big deathball. Phoenixes are great but they are harrassment tools mainly that have finite situations they are useful in just like Mutalisks and Banshees are.
So what Protoss needs, is a fundamental redesign of how its army roster operates. Gateway units need to be able to more robust and tactically flexible at all stages of the game. In order for that to happen Warp Gate needs to be removed from the early game. It can still be available in the game but not in the early game. Once Gateway units are adjusted this way, it opens up the possibility of changing Protoss Support units since they are now no longer needed to be used as the primary backbone of Protoss ground armies in the mid and late game.
One of the big changes I'd push for just as an example is I'd move the Immortal to the Gateway from the Robotics Facility, (which is where it originally was just btw) but require a Robotics Facility to be built in order to train them. This is something you could NEVER do with the way Warp Gate works now since warping in Immortals in the midgame would be way too strong. But if Warp Gate wasn't a factor in those early game situations, I don't see why you couldn't train Immortals from Gateways in the normal way which frees up Robotics facilities for more Observers and Warp Prism use.
Once Warp Gate is no longer the big ball and chain mechanic that Protoss is designed and balanced around, the possibilities for what you could do to improve them for the modern meta game are vast.
On February 20 2024 22:42 ejozl wrote: What do people actually mean with redesign?, Protoss received plenty of redesigns, more than the other two races and I think it made the race the coolest. That was until the tools started to get tuned down because of Terran+Zerg bias.
Their absolute core design is an issue, it’s something of a 1-2 punch.
1. Warpgate from close to the beginning of a game negates reinforcement distance, and this has always caused issues. Gateway units have to be nerfed compare to their counterpart stock units because WG rushes would be unstoppable otherwise.
2. As gateway units kinda suck, Protoss absolutely requires potent AoE. Which has seen them fluctuate over the years, at times maybe being too potent in turtling to enough AoE and sending out the deathball, in other times where strats and metas develop that Toss just can’t get enough reliable AoE out, they’re extremely fragile. We’re in the latter phase currently IMO, least in PvT. For periods of WoL/HoTS Toss was also super reliant on forcefields and chokes to survive certain periods, as gateway units would get mashed.
3. As the games have got faster, in HoTS with new units and offensive options, and in Legacy where the eco ramps up faster, gateway units sucking becomes even more noticeable. Protoss either just straight-up can’t hold certain pushes when they’re still largely on gateway units, or they struggle to defend multiple positions while in that game state. So you see Mothership core added as a bandaid, pylon cannons, battery overcharge and other IMao just unsatisfying mechanics being added. But without those Protoss just outright dies. You end up in a scenario where if batteries are too strong, or too weak Protoss itself can fluctuate between too strong, and pitifully weak. Again, current PvT I believe the primary issue is that batteries are too weak, and Protoss continually die to pushes, or drops when trying to secure their 3rd and before they have too much tech out.
So that’s (generally) what people are talking about with Protoss’ core design being flawed.
It’s not all bad, one of the frustrations I have is that Toss has some of the best-designed units in the game, with character, good strength/weakness balance and some interesting and also fun abilities.
Phoenixes - Genuinely my favourite unit in SC2, outside of Phoenix war metas. One of the only harassment units in the game you have to control to do damage with, outside of sniping overlords, where you can just sorta leave them there. They have lots of utility, they can lift critical units in an engagement, like a siege tank or a sentry with Guardian Shield, they’re good defensively in stopping them at source, or lifting widow mines. You can drag mines and you can even save high-value units of your own if your opponent is lacking anti air.
Oracles - IMO one of the most fun spellcasters in the game. They’re also one of the few who are better outside of direct engagements, with the occasional exception you actively want them flying around, zapping the odd worker or stasising a mineral line. If defences are tight, you want them giving you the indirect map control of stasis traps, or poking around and tagging army and tech if you can. That’s cool to me, most other casters have at least some harassment potential, but are optimally used when part of a big fight, not so Oracles.
(Blink) Stalkers - Gotta love my teleporting robot spiders. I like how they have a niche in circumventing terrain, one that may require another unit to spot. I also like how they scale, because they have very clear strengths and weaknesses and they end up shifting roles as a game progresses. They’re potent enough to poke a Terran or Zerg, and sometimes just go full all-in, but equally when damage starts scaling against you, no amount of saves from blink micro can win a fight. They’re speedy enough that with the addition of blink they can give you map presence, but they’re not fast enough to outrun lings or stimmed bio even with a blink, so you have to be careful not to overextend. They gradually morph into a shielding force/hit squad on high value units when you get to later game where their low DPS doesn’t scale. Blink micro is just outright some of the most fun micro in the game, what the pros do is crazy and also, it absolutely requires your attention at all times too, which is an element I like and share with my love of the Phoenix.
This is very much the pity, I do genuinely think Protoss has some of the best designed units in the game, but they sit on top of a flawed foundation.
I will also add that I know people love the splitting and stutter-step shenanigans, and I too find bio micro exceptionally satisfying. At a core design level I also feel giving Terran a 3 unit MMM combo that has huge DPS, is insanely microable, mobile and the medivac negates the risk/reward of stim to some degree, was a mistake.
Protoss are so reliant on AoE because they can’t do shit against bio with their core, way, way less microable units. Zergs need something like banes because balled MMM just utterly shreds lings.
I’ve lived both sides of the coin, my MMR was pretty equivalent with both T and P, my best matchups PvT and TvP. With Terran you have those times where you just fucking melt to Colossus/storm and latterly disruptors and . But anyone who’s played Toss to like any level at all has had times where you’re caught and a Terran just melts your army, or you’re trying to pursue and your opponent kites you effectively infinitely and there is absolutely shit all you can do about it except hope your opponent forgets how to stutter-step.
I will die on this hill that Terran bio is also a core issue with the balance of the game, or at least the fun/design aspect of it. If you effectively make one race incredibly microable and glass cannons, you have to give the other factions strong 1A options because they cannot overcome your basic units with their own units micro ceiling.
On February 20 2024 22:42 ejozl wrote: What do people actually mean with redesign?, Protoss received plenty of redesigns, more than the other two races and I think it made the race the coolest. That was until the tools started to get tuned down because of Terran+Zerg bias.
I will die on this hill that Terran bio is also a core issue with the balance of the game, or at least the fun/design aspect of it. If you effectively make one race incredibly microable and glass cannons, you have to give the other factions strong 1A options because they cannot overcome your basic units with their own units micro ceiling.
I agree with you, but this isn't an easy issue to fix.
First of all Zerg, has an easy 1A answer to Bio that absolutely SLAUGHTERS it if they are not micro'd in the Baneling. If you think that Terran Bio is a gameplay issue, then I'd counter that the Baneling is as big of one if not bigger.
The other problem is that Zerg and Protoss are able to rapidly reinforce their forces so quickly, that Terran is put in a situation where its armies HAVE to be able to trade cost efficiently, because if they can't they will die and then be out produced via the Larva or wait a second... WARP GATE mechanics drowning them in units.
So IMO one of the side effects of redesigning Warp Gate is that you are able to allow Protoss Gateway units to actually be strong 1A counters to Terran Bio (or at least a lot more so than they are right now) because if Protoss doesn't have the ability to instantly replace and reinforce in one click any unit it loses in an even trade with a Terran army, Terran isn't in such a position where they NEED such cost efficient trades to stay even.
Protoss has needed help for a while but hopefully we can also get away from giant maps where all the bases are wrapped around the edges (mapmakers tried to make it seem like maps aren't as big anymore but then there's nothing but empty space in the middle so they still feel massive...).
Also Terran clicks medi/lib/BC around edge of map to avoid vision already anyway, guess where 99% of possible expansions this season are... (some maps still give a triangle 3rd or a half base gold in the middle. there are practically 0 other full bases that aren't touching the edge of the map in some way).
We just need smaller maps. That's really it. And by smaller I don't mean main to main rush distance, I mean having bases IN the map, not just around the map. When protoss recalls, they are almost guarenteed to be going as far away from the place they want to attack as possible, since expanding often mirrors two players and when you're going around the edge of the map... anyway it's not that hard to see if you're willing to have a good-faith discussion about it. That's not even counting the very large number of players who hate getting cheesed by Protoss that don't think they deserve anything just because of their own ladder games.
Disclaimer: Rarely play Sc2 anymore - when I do I play protoss. I am however a long time viewer with a wish for a balanced game and somewhat equal representation of all three races.
Having witnessed yet another premier with Protoss getting demolished I find it difficult to have faith in this issue ever being solved. 5 years of underperformance culminating in a 2023 with 0 premier wins and 1 second place finish and a balance council who clearly have not been able to find the solutions.
On the good side it seems most people at least finally agree there is an issue (although there still seem to be a fair share of "Just player material" - "Toss fine on lower levels" - "If only MaxPax.." sort of comments). Yes, player material is at its worst state ever and noone has an interest in skewing balance so that 2nd tier players can beat Serral....but something really needs to be done.
It's fun to chat about a complete redesign of the race but clearly it's never going to happen, so I agree that map design, reverse some nerfs and looking into the robo dependance would be a great way to go - rather sooner than later. I love a good TvZ and its intensity but when every tournament comes down to endless waves of banelings rolling into a terran base it's kind of grueling from a viewers perspective
On February 20 2024 22:42 ejozl wrote: What do people actually mean with redesign?, Protoss received plenty of redesigns, more than the other two races and I think it made the race the coolest. That was until the tools started to get tuned down because of Terran+Zerg bias.
Protoss needs Warp Gate tech taken off of the Cybernetics Core and reworked to be a late game mechanic. They've needed this since WoL. Until this happens, Protoss Gateway units will never be as cost efficient as Zerg and Terran early and midgame units, because if they were Warp Gate all ins would be too powerful.
So. Protoss has since WoL been designed around Gateway combat units like Zealots and Stalkers being cost inefficient units that require support units from the Robotics Facility (or even things like Sentries) to be with them in order to be able to fight at later stages of the game.
This interdependence of Protoss units needing slow and immobile support units leads to Protoss Deathballs. They are strong in a direct engagement, but are much weaker when forced to split apart and fight in smaller groups. This dynamic has ALWAYS existed with Protoss, but when the game's meta got spread out and more and more emphasis was put on smaller skirmishes and map control with the LOTV Economy changes it became more and more of a problem which brings us to where we are today.
If you look back at some of the posts that Wombat has made about how Protoss gets punished a lot more heavily for making mistakes, when key units get picked off or are out of position. This is why.
Protoss design, neccessitates that Protoss army compositions be together and in certain ratios in order to be effective. They can't just mass up a large number of low cost units and strike over and over again the way Zerg and Terran can because their army roster isn't designed to work like that past the early game. That's all because of the way Warp Gate works.
Protoss air compositions aren't any better since aside from the Phoenix and Carrier none of their air units have any real tactical flexibility. The Oracle, Void Ray, Tempest and Mothership all have VERY specific uses and require being in carefully mixed unit compositions to be effective. Basically they don't work if they are not in a big deathball. Phoenixes are great but they are harrassment tools mainly that have finite situations they are useful in just like Mutalisks and Banshees are.
So what Protoss needs, is a fundamental redesign of how its army roster operates. Gateway units need to be able to more robust and tactically flexible at all stages of the game. In order for that to happen Warp Gate needs to be removed from the early game. It can still be available in the game but not in the early game. Once Gateway units are adjusted this way, it opens up the possibility of changing Protoss Support units since they are now no longer needed to be used as the primary backbone of Protoss ground armies in the mid and late game.
One of the big changes I'd push for just as an example is I'd move the Immortal to the Gateway from the Robotics Facility, (which is where it originally was just btw) but require a Robotics Facility to be built in order to train them. This is something you could NEVER do with the way Warp Gate works now since warping in Immortals in the midgame would be way too strong. But if Warp Gate wasn't a factor in those early game situations, I don't see why you couldn't train Immortals from Gateways in the normal way which frees up Robotics facilities for more Observers and Warp Prism use.
Once Warp Gate is no longer the big ball and chain mechanic that Protoss is designed and balanced around, the possibilities for what you could do to improve them for the modern meta game are vast.
Thank you for this post, I was nodding the whole time reading it. This is the exact problem statement and the solution that is going around the TL for many years now. Sad that there is no chance now for this to be realized. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened to SC2 if this changes were implemented with LotV.
On February 20 2024 23:42 WombaT wrote: I will die on this hill that Terran bio is also a core issue with the balance of the game, or at least the fun/design aspect of it. If you effectively make one race incredibly microable and glass cannons, you have to give the other factions strong 1A options because they cannot overcome your basic units with their own units micro ceiling.
Since more or less day 1, I have been on the hill that Terran bio is too strong from a design perspective. Marauders are very good. I have no idea who thought concussive shell as a passive ability that removed opponents' ability to micro on a very microable unit was a good idea.
But Marines are strong enough that the balance of game is warped around them, and Blizzard contorted themselves into knots to avoid nerfing them*. It's not just the stats, which are already very good. Nobody talks about it anymore, but Marines are one of very few hitscan units. The only other one I can name offhand is the Siege Tank. Neither of them waste any damage on overkill, and Siege Tanks ate multiple nerfs to bring their damage down from 60 to 35 (+15 armored) early in Wings of Liberty. The Marine was never touched.
There is a defunct video from 2010 or so where somebody edited Hydralisks to have the exact same stats as Marines and set balls of Marines and Hydralisks against each other. The only difference was that the Marines were hitscan and the edited Hydralisks had very fast projectiles. The Marines won, and it wasn't even close. IIRC, around 25% of the Marines survived.
To make other ranged units trade approximately evenly with Marines, their stats would need to be inflated beyond what looks like parity on paper to account for the increased efficiency of. The end result is that we're stuck with Zerg and Protoss having massively powerful splash damage that they have no real choice but to rely on to fight Terran Bio with anything approaching cost efficiency.
On February 18 2024 18:25 AxiomB wrote: If the results of Protoss players at Katowice:
106 games played by Protoss with only 38 wins only 2 Protoss in the round of 12 no Protoss past the round of 12
does not influence the balance team to address Protoss, nothing will.
This is a bunch of bullshit without context though.
There were 8 Protoss at IEM Katowice.
Astrea, Skillous, Showtime, Trigger, herO, Stats, Firefly and Cyan.
Let's look at how each of them did individually.
Trigger went 3-9 in Group A. He lost to HeroMarine, Solar, Gumiho, Scarlett and beat Spirit. Did Trigger lose to any player in this group that he should have beaten? No.
Stats went 2-10 in Group of Death #1(B) where he took maps off of Cure and Oliveira. Stats had an EXTREMELY difficult group but Stats is also just coming back from the Korean army, so it's not a surprise to anyone that actually watched that he didn't do any better.
Astrea, Firefly and Skillous were all in the same group (C). So realistically all 3 of them could have advanced from this group except there was a problem. SERRAL was in this group. So was Byun who managed to beat all of them. Does anyone realistically think that Serral or Byun should have lost their advancing spot to one of these 3 Protoss? Collectively these 3 Protoss all scored 5 wins a piece (15-21 overall) but most of these wins were in PvP against each other so their win/loss record doesn't matter since they all lost to Serral and Byun. All 3 of these Protoss players defeated the last place finisher of this group Kelazhur who dropped out 1-10 from this group.
Group of Death #2 (D) had herO, Cyan and Showtime in it, but it also had Dark and Maru in it. Maru actually dropped a series here to Cyan in probably the biggest upset in the tournament, but went nearly undefeated (dropping 1 map to herO) against everyone else so it didn't matter. Just like group C. The win/loss of the Protoss in this group, doesn't really matter since most of the matches they played were against each other. But even still Protoss did manage to knock out Reynor in this group with Showtime playing better than I've seen of him in years. But it wasn't enough when he was probably the 5th weakest player in this group when he would have been the third strongest player in Group C or the 4th strongest player in Group A.
Had Katowice spread the Protoss out more evenly so that instead of there being 6 Protoss in Groups C and D only 2 in A or B there would have been more opportunities for Protoss to upset weaker Zergs and Terrans to claim more spots in the final rounds. But unfortunately due to the retarded groupings that we ended up with, 6/8 Protoss players got put in the same groups as 3/4 of our final 4 players with only Cure being the exception. Now you could make the argument that having 6/8 Protoss in the same 2 groups increased the likelihood that we'd have SOME Protoss in the Ro12 instead of none, and maybe there's some truth to that, but it also all but guaranteed that we'd get Protoss players eliminating each other in PvP games instead of actually seeing matches that would showcase balance issues.
As lopsided as the overall stats are, it doesn't take much effort at all to see WHY it happened and why it doesn't have anything to do with balance. Protoss was NEVER going to do well at Katowice. The result we got was actually pretty good all things considered.
I'm not saying that there isn't a balance problem. There obviously is, but trying to use Katowice as some kind of evidence to support that Protoss is struggling is invalid. Having watched the entire tournament, I can easily easily say that the reason Protoss got its ass kicked at this tournament wasn't because of balance. It was because they had much weaker players in unfairly stacked groups. A balance patch wouldn't have done anything here to change the result.
This is a fair post to recognise the few P players in the round of 12. Well put. I propose the Katowice results are not black and white evidence but the cherry on top of the cumulative evidence that P needs a tiny tiny buff at the elite level.
Every time you say things like "Does anyone think that X should have lost to Y", it is a reflexion of what happened in the past. You think that Serral and Byun should easily beat the protosses that they play because you have watched Serral and Byun play before and they were beating the protosses that they played. It is an argument that stems from balance, it's not separated from it.
Oh come off of it.
Do you really think that Skillous would have stood any better of a chance against Dark if Disruptors and Shield Overcharge was unnerfed? Do you think it would have made a lick of difference if Serral couldn't abduct Motherships with Vipers like this thread keeps talking about? Do you really think these Protoss would have beaten him otherwise?
This is what I meant when I said a few pages back, about what it's going to take for the Protoss crying to stop. You guys want to completely ignore the OBVIOUS lack of high quality Protoss players compared to what Terran and Zerg have, and want to just buff Protoss so much that guys with no career accomplishments can hang with the GOATS of Starcraft 2 just for the sake of it.
If that's what you want just come out and say that's what you want. You want to rig the game so that Protoss wins and you don't care if you break the game's balance to do it. Stop it with this disingenous argument that Protoss is losing these tournaments because their players with no career accomplishments never had any because the race is always imbalanced.
What I want is for Stormgate to be a better game than Starcraft 2, and for the majority of players to switch (especially protoss players). Then I want to see people who currently play protoss beat other players that are oBviOuSly mOre dEseRviNg than them because they play in another race setup, and I want to see you or people like you explain why these people suddenly got more skillful. I think I'm going to have a fun time reading that.
You're hopeless man. If this is actually what you consider logic, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything with you on this topic.
The games are DIFFERENT. TOO DIFFERENT for you to EVER try and make comparisons between skill levels of the players involved.
It's like saying that if Lebron James switched to Soccer he'd be the best player in the game there, or vice versa because both games involve putting a ball in a net.
We had the Brood War pros swap over to SC2, and guess what? The goats of SC2 are all players that never played Brood War professionally. Want to know why that is? Because Brood War and SC2 are DIFFERENT games. Stormgate and SC2 are DIFFERENT games.
Playing Protoss and playing Zerg is also completely DIFFERENT so I wonder how you can so objectively determine that the Protoss players are so much less skilled
The only objectiv reason I can come up with is that there is no particular Protoss ahead of the pack. It's just the pack. Serral is objectively the best Zerg atm. Nobody can argue that. Same with Maru. Both are head and shoulders above the rest. Protoss got herO who is probably the best by the smallest of margins
I recognize that any buff to Protoss must suit at least the following 3 conditions:
1) It cannot exacerbate the state of Protoss being played predominantly on ladder, ie it cannot be a buff that can be exploited by the majority of the player base, I would argue it should therefore only be a buff that can be effectively utilized by elite players.
2) It cannot drastically affect PvT and PvZ winrates. There is some evidence to suggest that PvZ is currently slightly P favored at the moment anyway, that said, I would suggest any buff to P should only increase win rates by P ever so slightly against T and Z, maby only a 2% winrate increase.
3) Given the highly detailed description of the issues P face outlined by others above, particularly against T it has to be a gateway unit that goes a tiny way to mitigating the issues P has relying so heavily on splash.
With this in mind I came up with a buff to charge that may suit the above.
Make Zealot Charge give same running speed (charge not activated) at present and an activated ability that once activated increases Zealot speed to current charge speed for 1.5 seconds (at present Charge is a passive ability), same cool down at present (7 seconds). Naturally numbers could be adjusted to make reasonable.
Suits Category 1: to effectively use Zealots with charge as an activated ability, a player would need a higher apm to stagger charging zealots in groups (less derping, less wasted charge movement, more effective connects, charging to retreat would also become an option). This ‘buff’ would actually tax many average P players to use effectively to leverage an advantage.
Suits Category 2: As the numbers are basically the same as at present this change would only affect when Zealots charge and how (away or towards). It is a tiny buff that I cannot see radically changing PvT or PvZ but it may just be enough to give elite players a little more control over engagements.
Suits Category 3: It is a gateway unit buff that could go small way to addressing gateway unit flimsiness, charging to attack or retreat would make Zealot death rate lower and increase decision making, adding greater control to a unit that is just thrown away atm.
Overall: Whilst I recognize P already have so many spells and activated abilities it is a very slight buff to the Zealot and would be interesting to see how it would play out.
Just an idea, but any change to P must be within these tiny margins. How do you all think about such a buff to the Zealot?
Honestly, I've wondered whether we could try to give Protoss level 4 Forge upgrades, including level 4 Shield Upgrades. This would be a blanket buff to all Protoss ground units but would be a buff that would only kick in, in the late game which is the portion of the game where Gateway units currently feel pretty useless. This would be a slight buff also to Skytoss as well, but it would be very slight, and perhaps the level 4 shield upgrades could be expensive enough that it would be a large investment to get.
I like this idea for a few reasons.
#1 it buffs Protoss late game without buffing Skytoss as much. No one likes mass Carrier metas, and we don't want to see that be the encouraged way to play if we are buffing Protoss late game.
#2 the knobs on this buff are VERY tweakable. If the upgrades turn out to be too strong, we can make them cost more and take longer to research to compensate for how strong they are. If they turn out to be not that strong, we can make them less expensive.
#3. This sort of buff DOES NOT buff Protoss in the portions of the game where they are at their strongest.
#4. This buff would not affect the one problematic late game ground unit for Protoss in the Disruptor since as far as I know Purification Nova doesn't benefit from upgrades.
#5. This buff wouldn't change any of the interactions between the different spell casters, it might even encourage more spellcaster use from opponents in order to counter it.
This is an idea that would require thorough testing on the PTR to see how it works. But it's the only idea I personally can come up with of a way to buff Protoss in what I consider a meaningful way without upsetting the balance of the metagame in ways that we don't want. This wouldn't solve the problems Protoss has in the early or midgame, and I don't really have good answers for how to solve those besides adjusting the maps. But it would address what I think is the biggest weakness in Protoss design right now which is how badly their ground units scale late into a game.
I don't think the balance is currently as bad as people are making it out to be, it's been years since the game has been this good. The main thing that's currently needed is a slight nerf to terran in TvP, and then the game would be in a decent state.
On February 21 2024 21:10 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think the balance is currently as bad as people are making it out to be, it's been years since the game has been this good. The main thing that's currently needed is a slight nerf to terran in TvP, and then the game would be in a decent state.
Define slight? Nerfing Ghosts wouldn't help Protoss defend against the various timing pushes that keep killing them because Terran doesn't use Ghosts in timing attacks.
What else would you nerf that wouldn't upset the balance in TvZ? It's not like Zerg needs any help right now.
On February 21 2024 21:10 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think the balance is currently as bad as people are making it out to be, it's been years since the game has been this good. The main thing that's currently needed is a slight nerf to terran in TvP, and then the game would be in a decent state.
Define slight? Nerfing Ghosts wouldn't help Protoss defend against the various timing pushes that keep killing them because Terran doesn't use Ghosts in timing attacks.
What else would you nerf that wouldn't upset the balance in TvZ? It's not like Zerg needs any help right now.
I don't know and tbh I don't really care that much anymore. It's just that I'm reading stuff like adding upgrades and while it sounds like a cool idea I don't think that protoss is lagging this far behind.
On February 21 2024 20:32 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly, I've wondered whether we could try to give Protoss level 4 Forge upgrades, including level 4 Shield Upgrades. This would be a blanket buff to all Protoss ground units but would be a buff that would only kick in, in the late game which is the portion of the game where Gateway units currently feel pretty useless. This would be a slight buff also to Skytoss as well, but it would be very slight, and perhaps the level 4 shield upgrades could be expensive enough that it would be a large investment to get.
I like this idea for a few reasons.
#1 it buffs Protoss late game without buffing Skytoss as much. No one likes mass Carrier metas, and we don't want to see that be the encouraged way to play if we are buffing Protoss late game.
#2 the knobs on this buff are VERY tweakable. If the upgrades turn out to be too strong, we can make them cost more and take longer to research to compensate for how strong they are. If they turn out to be not that strong, we can make them less expensive.
#3. This sort of buff DOES NOT buff Protoss in the portions of the game where they are at their strongest.
#4. This buff would not affect the one problematic late game ground unit for Protoss in the Disruptor since as far as I know Purification Nova doesn't benefit from upgrades.
#5. This buff wouldn't change any of the interactions between the different spell casters, it might even encourage more spellcaster use from opponents in order to counter it.
This is an idea that would require thorough testing on the PTR to see how it works. But it's the only idea I personally can come up with of a way to buff Protoss in what I consider a meaningful way without upsetting the balance of the metagame in ways that we don't want. This wouldn't solve the problems Protoss has in the early or midgame, and I don't really have good answers for how to solve those besides adjusting the maps. But it would address what I think is the biggest weakness in Protoss design right now which is how badly their ground units scale late into a game.
I would be in favor of a level 4 shield upgrade only. I am not sure if it would be enough, perhaps a level 4 shield upgrade and activated charge for zealots? what u think?
On February 21 2024 20:32 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly, I've wondered whether we could try to give Protoss level 4 Forge upgrades, including level 4 Shield Upgrades. This would be a blanket buff to all Protoss ground units but would be a buff that would only kick in, in the late game which is the portion of the game where Gateway units currently feel pretty useless. This would be a slight buff also to Skytoss as well, but it would be very slight, and perhaps the level 4 shield upgrades could be expensive enough that it would be a large investment to get.
I like this idea for a few reasons.
#1 it buffs Protoss late game without buffing Skytoss as much. No one likes mass Carrier metas, and we don't want to see that be the encouraged way to play if we are buffing Protoss late game.
#2 the knobs on this buff are VERY tweakable. If the upgrades turn out to be too strong, we can make them cost more and take longer to research to compensate for how strong they are. If they turn out to be not that strong, we can make them less expensive.
#3. This sort of buff DOES NOT buff Protoss in the portions of the game where they are at their strongest.
#4. This buff would not affect the one problematic late game ground unit for Protoss in the Disruptor since as far as I know Purification Nova doesn't benefit from upgrades.
#5. This buff wouldn't change any of the interactions between the different spell casters, it might even encourage more spellcaster use from opponents in order to counter it.
This is an idea that would require thorough testing on the PTR to see how it works. But it's the only idea I personally can come up with of a way to buff Protoss in what I consider a meaningful way without upsetting the balance of the metagame in ways that we don't want. This wouldn't solve the problems Protoss has in the early or midgame, and I don't really have good answers for how to solve those besides adjusting the maps. But it would address what I think is the biggest weakness in Protoss design right now which is how badly their ground units scale late into a game.
I would be in favor of a level 4 shield upgrade only. I am not sure if it would be enough, perhaps a level 4 shield upgrade and activated charge for zealots? what u think?
I don't like the idea of buffing the Zealot without addressing Warp Gate. If I've learned anything from so many years of following Starcraft it's that any tweaks to the most basic of units are the ones that can have the biggest unintended impacts. I mean just look what happened when Charge had its guaranteed damage roll whenever it activated.
If we reworked Warp Gate like I've been saying forever that they should do, then I'm down to go crazy on ideas for how to buff the Zealot and the Stalker.
On February 21 2024 21:45 Harris1st wrote: Give shields +1 when in vicinity of a nexus (thinking tank range, maybe slightly less. 10-12 range)
I like the idea but I'm starting to get the nauseous feeling I get when I look at Queens. We've given the Nexus Recall, Battery Overcharge, Chronoboost and now we want to add a shield radius to it also? When is it too much to just keep stacking all of the defensive power of a race on one unit or in this case building? There's gotta be a better solution.
On February 20 2024 23:42 WombaT wrote: I will die on this hill that Terran bio is also a core issue with the balance of the game, or at least the fun/design aspect of it. If you effectively make one race incredibly microable and glass cannons, you have to give the other factions strong 1A options because they cannot overcome your basic units with their own units micro ceiling.
Since more or less day 1, I have been on the hill that Terran bio is too strong from a design perspective. Marauders are very good. I have no idea who thought concussive shell as a passive ability that removed opponents' ability to micro on a very microable unit was a good idea.
But Marines are strong enough that the balance of game is warped around them, and Blizzard contorted themselves into knots to avoid nerfing them*. It's not just the stats, which are already very good. Nobody talks about it anymore, but Marines are one of very few hitscan units. The only other one I can name offhand is the Siege Tank. Neither of them waste any damage on overkill, and Siege Tanks ate multiple nerfs to bring their damage down from 60 to 35 (+15 armored) early in Wings of Liberty. The Marine was never touched.
There is a defunct video from 2010 or so where somebody edited Hydralisks to have the exact same stats as Marines and set balls of Marines and Hydralisks against each other. The only difference was that the Marines were hitscan and the edited Hydralisks had very fast projectiles. The Marines won, and it wasn't even close. IIRC, around 25% of the Marines survived.
To make other ranged units trade approximately evenly with Marines, their stats would need to be inflated beyond what looks like parity on paper to account for the increased efficiency of. The end result is that we're stuck with Zerg and Protoss having massively powerful splash damage that they have no real choice but to rely on to fight Terran Bio with anything approaching cost efficiency.
Yeah I hadn’t really thought about that, but yeah that’s a very good point.
On February 21 2024 21:10 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think the balance is currently as bad as people are making it out to be, it's been years since the game has been this good. The main thing that's currently needed is a slight nerf to terran in TvP, and then the game would be in a decent state.
Define slight? Nerfing Ghosts wouldn't help Protoss defend against the various timing pushes that keep killing them because Terran doesn't use Ghosts in timing attacks.
What else would you nerf that wouldn't upset the balance in TvZ? It's not like Zerg needs any help right now.
I don't know and tbh I don't really care that much anymore. It's just that I'm reading stuff like adding upgrades and while it sounds like a cool idea I don't think that protoss is lagging this far behind.
Well that's why I like this idea because it's easy to toggle to get just right. If you feel the buff is too crazy, you could go with just level 4 armor or level 4 shield upgrades.
I settled on Forge upgrades because it's the one place I think we can do something meaningful without buffing Protoss in the areas they don't need help.
i like the idea of giving Protoss a buff rather than your suggestion of nerfing Terran because I don't want to upset the balance of TvZ. Whenever I see all of these garbage posts on reddit about nerfing the Ghost or the Widow Mine for the sake of PvT it gets me annoyed because it's as if these guys don't realize that those nerfs would just make TvZ imbalanced in Zerg's favor and Zerg CLEARLY doesn't need the help.
Ultimately there's also the philosophy that I want to encourage Protoss to play more macro games, and fewer games that are dependent on build order wins and timing windows. Maybe, just maybe if Protoss gets a little nudge in the late game something unexpected might happen that breaks open one of the match ups and we can get some actual metagame evolution. I don't think improving Protoss at what they are already good at is going to do anything like that.
Pretty reasonable suggestions IMO. And Yeah, and it’s not just a pure balance thing either. Plenty of us Protoss scum actually like playing macro games, managing macro and microing and all those good things.
Also on a lesser but still relevant sense, Protoss’ racial identity makes no sense anymore. ‘Oh they’re the big scary psionic and technically advanced aliens I mentioned sir. Yeah their military doctrine revolves around trickery and gambling, despite their superior technology. Yeah me either.’
On February 22 2024 08:53 WombaT wrote: Pretty reasonable suggestions IMO. And Yeah, and it’s not just a pure balance thing either. Plenty of us Protoss scum actually like playing macro games, managing macro and microing and all those good things.
Also on a lesser but still relevant sense, Protoss’ racial identity makes no sense anymore. ‘Oh they’re the big scary psionic and technically advanced aliens I mentioned sir. Yeah their military doctrine revolves around trickery and gambling, despite their superior technology. Yeah me either.’
Oh the race flavor also plays into why I like this idea because I think it makes perfect sense that the "advanced" race would have an advanced upgrade level that the other races couldn't get to also.
It fits their racial identity in a way that anything that buffs the book of Protoss bullshit wouldn't.
It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
I don't agree with this at all, except the part where Brood War Protoss plays differently, that part is true although there's a lot of similarities too.
I don't know where this idea comes from that SC: Brood War Terran plays more similar to SC2 Protoss. That is totally bonkers. SC2 Terran plays more like Brood War Terran.
I think the main difference is the PvT match up. In Brood War, the Protoss is in the one that is expected to outgrow, outmine and harass the Terran. Terran wants to go for a large push on a maxed out army and win with cost effectiveness. This is similar to how PvT USED to be back in like WoL only with the roles swapped, but that's not anything like how PvT is now.
TvZ in Brood War actually looks a LOT like TvZ in SC2, especially in the current meta, what with Lurkers being the meta in Brood War with Mutalisks falling in and out of favor, just like SC2.
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
I don't agree with this at all, except the part where Brood War Protoss plays differently, that part is true.
I don't know where this idea comes from that SC: Brood War Terran plays more similar to SC2 Protoss. That is totally bonkers. SC2 Terran plays more like Brood War Terran.
I think the main difference is the PvT match up. In Brood War, the Protoss is in the one that is expected to outgrow, outmine and harass the Terran. Terran wants to go for a large push on a maxed out army and win with cost effectiveness. This is similar to how PvT USED to be back in like WoL only with the roles swapped, but that's not anything like how PvT is now.
TvZ in Brood War actually looks a LOT like TvZ in SC2, especially in the current meta, what with Lurkers being the meta in Brood War with Mutalisks falling in and out of favor, just like SC2.
Yeah that’s one I never got either. What about SC2 Protoss is meant to be similar to BW Terran?
The mirrors and TvZ have similar vibes if not the same strats between the games, but PvZ and PvT are wildly different, especially these days.
I remember distinctly people saying Flash would have been better with Protoss as it would suit his skillset better and I just never really saw that myself.
Apart from a galaxy brain, itself not quite as developed in a new game as in BW, being a monster at macro and in general mechanically was pretty high up in his attributes, why play the race that scales the worst with it.
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
I don't agree with this at all, except the part where Brood War Protoss plays differently, that part is true.
I don't know where this idea comes from that SC: Brood War Terran plays more similar to SC2 Protoss. That is totally bonkers. SC2 Terran plays more like Brood War Terran.
I think the main difference is the PvT match up. In Brood War, the Protoss is in the one that is expected to outgrow, outmine and harass the Terran. Terran wants to go for a large push on a maxed out army and win with cost effectiveness. This is similar to how PvT USED to be back in like WoL only with the roles swapped, but that's not anything like how PvT is now.
TvZ in Brood War actually looks a LOT like TvZ in SC2, especially in the current meta, what with Lurkers being the meta in Brood War with Mutalisks falling in and out of favor, just like SC2.
Yeah that’s one I never got either. What about SC2 Protoss is meant to be similar to BW Terran?
The mirrors and TvZ have similar vibes if not the same strats between the games, but PvZ and PvT are wildly different, especially these days.
I remember distinctly people saying Flash would have been better with Protoss as it would suit his skillset better and I just never really saw that myself.
Apart from a galaxy brain, itself not quite as developed in a new game as in BW, being a monster at macro and in general mechanically was pretty high up in his attributes, why play the race that scales the worst with it.
I think people are suggesting that Flash being so good at planning out tournament series and playing with a variety of openers including a lot that are very risky is what would make him a potent Protoss player in SC2. And I'd agree with that ,except Flash could play ANY race if he wanted to because Flash has a vast and varied skill set that he could apply to any of the races.
Flash played fucking Random at the pro level in Brood War. It's absurd to think he couldn't play ANY of the races successfully in SC2 if he really went for it.
I think the idea is that Protoss used to be the cost efficient race and so you macro up and get to 200 supply and win. So that is similar to BW mech.
When you talk about WG mechanic being problematic, we are simply talking about the Warp Prism, right? We almost don't see proxy gates incorperated into macro play. But yes, Warp Prism is basically the Mothership Core, hero unit of today. It's the strongest unit in the game and if you play Protoss without it, you are simply missing out. You have Blink for all your units and fast Warp-in. But how many Warp-in allins do we really see where a gateway unit buff would destroy the meta?, we have 4Gate Blink, we have some Adept + Prism strong attacks vs. Zerg. There are more timings, but it becomes harder to think them up. I think a bigger reason why we cannot buff Gateway units, is because the economy is switched. In HotS Terran used to be up half a base and these days it is Protoss that is up bases. We have almost the same units, but the economy favours Protoss in the early+mid games. When we had the Marauder split attack, the issue was Protoss overwhelming Terrans with units, rather than Terrans dying to all-ins.
Both Terran and Protoss cannot move out on the map vs. Zerg, because of the existence of Zerglings, but Terran make use of Medivacs, which makes it viable to harass all over. Protoss can do the same to an extend when they have Twilight Upgrades. Protoss mobility is actually stronger than ever and it even surpasses Terran, so it does also not hold up the theory that LotV economy makes it so Protoss cannot keep up. Protoss has a lot of issues, but I don't think it's the Warp Gate mechanic or that they lack mobility, though the race is fickle with almost no defenders advantage and a small amount of units. The current issues with Protoss imo. is defenders advantage, Shield Battery nerf (this also means that Protoss cannot be greedy and then capitalize on stronger eco in LotV), non-Warp Gate units are absolutely atrocious. Immortal cost the same as an Ultralisk and is a sitting duck that doesn't even serve its purpose of destroying Lurkers/Tanks, because those units also destroy the Immortal. The Colossus is single purposed, but is pretty strong at this function. The Disruptor is now just weak, it's a worse Siege Tank/Liberator that requires more effort to have work. Void Ray, Carrier doesn't win you games if the opponent is half way decent. When Z/T hits 3/3 then Protoss is also nerfed because Shields scale badly. EMP+Fungal delete Protoss units, while Storm just tickles Zerg/Terran units. And we also have the supply nerfs, making the maxed out Protoss army absolutely miniscule. So Toss needs to win before 3/3 for the opponents and with a strong eco that is hard to get because we don't have Battery Overcharge and units like Disruptor to actually deal with the spamming of low tier units that aren't Light (Colossus can deal with Light units).
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
I don't agree with this at all, except the part where Brood War Protoss plays differently, that part is true.
I don't know where this idea comes from that SC: Brood War Terran plays more similar to SC2 Protoss. That is totally bonkers. SC2 Terran plays more like Brood War Terran.
I think the main difference is the PvT match up. In Brood War, the Protoss is in the one that is expected to outgrow, outmine and harass the Terran. Terran wants to go for a large push on a maxed out army and win with cost effectiveness. This is similar to how PvT USED to be back in like WoL only with the roles swapped, but that's not anything like how PvT is now.
TvZ in Brood War actually looks a LOT like TvZ in SC2, especially in the current meta, what with Lurkers being the meta in Brood War with Mutalisks falling in and out of favor, just like SC2.
Yeah that’s one I never got either. What about SC2 Protoss is meant to be similar to BW Terran?
The mirrors and TvZ have similar vibes if not the same strats between the games, but PvZ and PvT are wildly different, especially these days.
I remember distinctly people saying Flash would have been better with Protoss as it would suit his skillset better and I just never really saw that myself.
Apart from a galaxy brain, itself not quite as developed in a new game as in BW, being a monster at macro and in general mechanically was pretty high up in his attributes, why play the race that scales the worst with it.
Okay I see, people were saying that but the idea is a bit dubious. Well, it's better than me misremembering, I'll take it
I might be wrong about this cause I don't know BW that much but it's my understanding that in BW protoss plays quite differently, and it's terran that is the most similar to SC2 protoss. I believe I remember conversations about this when Classic switched to toss and Flash didn't, people were saying that Flash would be better suited to play SC2 protoss (but it was a while ago I definitely could be misremembering).
If it's true that also would go neatly with my theory, in that it shows to me that people will just like TvZ as a default, no matter what the gameplay is.
No, the saying of "Flash should play Protoss" was nonsense. It only stems from a time when PvT is all about Protoss getting to that 200 supply high tech army and move out, which was kinda like BW TvP Terran was all about getting 200 supply high upgrade mech army move out. There was some resemblance but that's where it ends. Everything else between BW Terran and SC2 Protoss is vastly different.
about "people just like TvZ as a default":
In BW all three non-mirror matchup are very entertaining to watch, if you make a list of Top 100 BW games you will have a healthy mix of TvZ, PvT and PvZ (and some mirror matchups), I wouldn't say TvZ is better than the other two non-mirror, it probably only gets the edge because as I said, Terran and Zerg has most of the legendary players, so naturally TvZ tends to produce more iconic matches. But in SC2, for most of its life span TvZ is just by far the best matchup from viewer's perspective, it's entertaining and engaging from early to late game, constant actions around the map, lots of multi-prong skirmishes and epic large engagements. Also T and Z has the best players.
On the other hand, PvT and PvZ had quite a long period of time of being just not very interesting to watch, you either get some kind of timing all in or it's turtling to late game. It could produce some nice games but no where near the level of TvZ. It has a lot to do with Protoss design that just encourages turtling and deathball, and it was a subject of heavy criticism. For me it's really when LotV came around that most Protoss games started to get as entertaining to watch as TvZ.
Yes, this whole mindset of "the viewer likes TvZ" is probably responsible for a lot of the latency that we got with solving protoss issues. If it's a common understanding that people want to watch TvZ anyway, there's no real urgency to making protoss competitive.
The flash should've played toss came from the turtle into deathball era which people attribute as more similar to mech in bw.
Remember we used to have double the minerals on each patch so holding 3 bases forever was a pretty good strategy lol. So the idea was flash should play the race that he could just build up the perfect army, the ultimate weapon, if you will
Not to mention the bio micro requirements have always been insanely high, which did not necessarily suit flash either.
On February 23 2024 00:22 Nebuchad wrote: Yes, this whole mindset of "the viewer likes TvZ" is probably responsible for a lot of the latency that we got with solving protoss issues. If it's a common understanding that people want to watch TvZ anyway, there's no real urgency to making protoss competitive.
And now you're finally speaking to where I'm at because this is exactly how I feel.
If Protoss' shit design is what makes Protoss not as fun to watch as Terran and Zerg, and people, especially Blizzard, are resistant to changing Protoss' shit design because they think Warp Gate is too cool of an idea to get rid of; then I don't care if Protoss doesn't win as much as the other races.
At the level that 99.9% of the players playing the game are playing at, Protoss IS balanced, in fact it's doing quite well. It's only at the top level of the pro scene where Protoss isn't balanced, and at that level how fun the race is to watch, matters because at that level Starcraft needs to be fun to watch if its going to be successful and self-sustaining as an esport.
So to make it clear. I'd love to see Protoss competitive and winning tournaments. But if we're just to keep repeating:
On February 22 2024 23:38 Nasigil wrote:
On the other hand, PvT and PvZ had quite a long period of time of being just not very interesting to watch, you either get some kind of timing all in or it's turtling to late game. It could produce some nice games but no where near the level of TvZ. It has a lot to do with Protoss design that just encourages turtling and deathball, and it was a subject of heavy criticism. For me it's really when LotV came around that most Protoss games started to get as entertaining to watch as TvZ.
this cycle over and over again, then I'm far less motivated to see yet another attempt to bring parity to the winrates at the top level when we have 13 years of evidence that you CAN'T balance this design at this level. I'm tired of seeing us spinning around in a circle to come back to this same conclusion over and over again.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
That doesn't make the argument fall apart, you're not participating in discussions about protoss lore or BW protoss, you're specifically talking about the things that you dislike. A race whose design is ruined by warpgate, whose players are less deserving and should make way to the more deserving TvZ match-up, which can only obtain balanced results if it's massively overpowered... I think there's a common stem to all of these opinions, it's your desire to be watching something else.
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
That doesn't make the argument fall apart, you're not participating in discussions about protoss lore or BW protoss, you're specifically talking about the things that you dislike. A race whose design is ruined by warpgate, whose players are less deserving and should make way to the more deserving TvZ match-up, which can only obtain balanced results if it's massively overpowered... I think there's a common stem to all of these opinions, it's your desire to be watching something else.
If my options are watching Protoss flounder out of tournaments because all of their best players are either retired or in the military or buffing Protoss so much so that I have to watch the best players I've ever seen play this game lose to some bullshit overpowered timing that was intentionally made bullshit and overpowered JUST to appease people like you that want to see Protoss win tournaments and don't care how they do it, then you're damn straight I'd rather be watching the former.
Also you keep trying to use the word "deserving." It is totally irrelevant to this conversation and it has always been. Every player in the pro scene is deserving, and never have I once said that any player doesn't DESERVE to win. But the reality is that not every player is going to be ABLE to win, because not every player is good enough to win. I watch many kinds of professional sports, and guys work their asses off every single year in every single sport across every single country in the civilized world, there are always ALWAYS ALWAYS going to be way more losers than winners. That's the nature of the beast.
Don't try and twist my saying that player A is not as good of a player as player B into me saying that player A is less deserving as player B. Sports isn't about watching every deserving player get their moment to stand with the gold medal in their teeth. Sports is about watching the struggle and seeing who prevails anyway and the pure competition that goes along with it.
You fuck with that competition for the sake of parity, and you destroy any reason to give those victories any sort of respect.
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
That doesn't make the argument fall apart, you're not participating in discussions about protoss lore or BW protoss, you're specifically talking about the things that you dislike. A race whose design is ruined by warpgate, whose players are less deserving and should make way to the more deserving TvZ match-up, which can only obtain balanced results if it's massively overpowered... I think there's a common stem to all of these opinions, it's your desire to be watching something else.
If my options are watching Protoss flounder out of tournaments because all of their best players are either retired or in the military or buffing Protoss so much so that I have to watch the best players I've ever seen play this game lose to some bullshit overpowered timing that was intentionally made bullshit and overpowered JUST to appease people like you that want to see Protoss win tournaments and don't care how they do it, then you're damn straight I'd rather be watching the former.
Also you keep trying to use the word "deserving." It is totally irrelevant to this conversation and it has always been. Every player in the pro scene is deserving, and never have I once said that any player doesn't DESERVE to win. But the reality is that not every player is going to be ABLE to win, because not every player is good enough to win. I watch many kinds of professional sports, and guys work their asses off every single year in every single sport across every single country in the civilized world, there are always ALWAYS ALWAYS going to be way more losers than winners. That's the nature of the beast.
Don't try and twist my saying that player A is not as good of a player as player B into me saying that player A is less deserving as player B. Sports isn't about watching every deserving player get their moment to stand with the gold medal in their teeth. Sports is about watching the struggle and seeing who prevails anyway and the pure competition that goes along with it.
You fuck with that compeitition for the sake of parity, and you destroy any reason to give those victories any sort of respect.
That's good, I'm glad we agree on what you think.
The distinction that you made between deserving to win and being good enough to win is escaping me. What is someone who isn't deserving of winning, if not someone who isn't good enough to win?
I agree with you that when parity is in question victories shouldn't be given a ton of respect, which is why I haven't been giving a ton of respect to tournament wins in the last five years.
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
That doesn't make the argument fall apart, you're not participating in discussions about protoss lore or BW protoss, you're specifically talking about the things that you dislike. A race whose design is ruined by warpgate, whose players are less deserving and should make way to the more deserving TvZ match-up, which can only obtain balanced results if it's massively overpowered... I think there's a common stem to all of these opinions, it's your desire to be watching something else.
If my options are watching Protoss flounder out of tournaments because all of their best players are either retired or in the military or buffing Protoss so much so that I have to watch the best players I've ever seen play this game lose to some bullshit overpowered timing that was intentionally made bullshit and overpowered JUST to appease people like you that want to see Protoss win tournaments and don't care how they do it, then you're damn straight I'd rather be watching the former.
Also you keep trying to use the word "deserving." It is totally irrelevant to this conversation and it has always been. Every player in the pro scene is deserving, and never have I once said that any player doesn't DESERVE to win. But the reality is that not every player is going to be ABLE to win, because not every player is good enough to win. I watch many kinds of professional sports, and guys work their asses off every single year in every single sport across every single country in the civilized world, there are always ALWAYS ALWAYS going to be way more losers than winners. That's the nature of the beast.
Don't try and twist my saying that player A is not as good of a player as player B into me saying that player A is less deserving as player B. Sports isn't about watching every deserving player get their moment to stand with the gold medal in their teeth. Sports is about watching the struggle and seeing who prevails anyway and the pure competition that goes along with it.
You fuck with that compeitition for the sake of parity, and you destroy any reason to give those victories any sort of respect.
That's good, I'm glad we agree on what you think.
The distinction that you made between deserving to win and being good enough to win is escaping me. What is someone who isn't deserving of winning, if not someone who isn't good enough to win?
On the chance you're asking me this genuinely because you don't know, let me try to actually explain it. You must not watch a lot of sports because this is true of every sport.
If you watch an event like the Olympics. At the Olympics, you have athletes gathering from all over the world just to compete at their one event as a representative of their country. Just BEING at the olympics is an accomplishment, because these athletes had to win out over every other athlete in their country just for the honor of competing at that one event. To even be in a position where you're trying to qualify for the Olympics, you have to be training and practicing every day. Your life needs to be that sport just to have a chance of making it to the Olympics, just once. There are people that work like this every single day and never even make it that far. Just like there are players right now playing SC2 with aspirations of one day competing at IEM that never will.
So you work every single day, and you somehow qualify for the Olympics. This is your big chance to compete in front of the entire world for your country and you go out and compete, you try your hardest, you put every ounce of strength into your body that you have been carefully and with great discipline honing just for this moment and you go out there and something like this happens:
Did you deserve to win? Did you pour every part of yourself into this one moment with the desire of winning? Yes. Did it matter? No, because how could you have expected to win, when this man who worked just as hard as you did, was clearly so much better than you were and no matter how hard you worked, you were never going to catch him.
That is sports. That is competition.Multiply this same feeling hundreds, thousands and millions of times over and that's the struggle of what it means to compete in sports. The pure human spirit that's on display of watching people struggle every single day just for that chance to win is why they are thrilling to watch. But at the end of the day, only a very small group of what was already a very small group is going to be able to taste victory. It can't be any other way.
I'll never be a professional athlete because I'm not good enough to be a professional athlete, I'll never compete at IEM because I'm not good enough of a Starcraft player to ever even have a hope of qualifying. The guys that are good enough to qualify, most of them will never be good enough to actually win. The ones that are good enough to actually have a chance of winning, an even smaller number of them will ever be good enough to win twice.
It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
I kinda agree with the idea that Warp gate is a initially cool design idea that makes it almost impossible to properly balance Protoss and ruins the entertaining value of Protoss games compared to other races.
But Protoss in BW doesn't have warp gates and looks like a thoroughly well designed race (at least PvZ and PvT in BW are awesome to watch), however it also suffers the same fate of easy to learn for casual players but hard to consistently perform on highest level. I wonder what part of design contributes to that.
On February 23 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that you dislike protoss so much makes it so that you might not the best person to ask when it comes to how to change protoss in this game?
Here's where that little argument falls apart. I love Protoss in Brood War. On a thematic and lore side of things, I adore Protoss. When I think back to the first time I played Protoss in middle school and the first time I heard the iconic warping in of a building with the Protoss music playing in the background I still get chills of nostalgia.
I don't hate Protoss. I hate what Blizzard DID to Protoss in Starcraft 2. There is a huge difference. I want the race to be better than it is currently along with everybody else in this thread. But I honestly don't see any other way to do this and do it right long term without fixing what has always been a mistake with SC2's design for Protoss. We've tried every other option and it hasn't worked.
I’ll chip in as a historic Protoss player in both BW (casually) and SC2 more competitively, it’s just irked me forever.
I’m sure I have posts bemoaning the constrictive box that warpgate puts the race in, as long as a decade ago.
Relatively speaking, I was pretty decent mechanically in terms of macro. My micro was pretty damn solid from years of WC3, I always felt these were just less relevant because I picked Protoss and I was just gimped for choosing the race I felt was the coolest aesthetically. I basically got my Terran up to my Protoss level in less than a month.
There’s been a dual issue forever with Protoss design, especially noticeable on ladder with its Bo1 versus many non-repeating opponents (until very higher MMR). The skill floor to be decent is lower, I think most would agree, equally the achievable ceiling is also lower.
Thus it’s easier to hit a GM level as Protoss, but when you hit a level where a Serral can just read you look a book, you fall off hugely when your Book of Bullshit starts falling off.
However it’s done, it would have, and would still be good for the game if Protoss was both harder to play, but also scaled better, especially mechanically.
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
On February 22 2024 20:40 ejozl wrote: I think the idea is that Protoss used to be the cost efficient race and so you macro up and get to 200 supply and win. So that is similar to BW mech.
When you talk about WG mechanic being problematic, we are simply talking about the Warp Prism, right? We almost don't see proxy gates incorperated into macro play. But yes, Warp Prism is basically the Mothership Core, hero unit of today. It's the strongest unit in the game and if you play Protoss without it, you are simply missing out. You have Blink for all your units and fast Warp-in. But how many Warp-in allins do we really see where a gateway unit buff would destroy the meta?, we have 4Gate Blink, we have some Adept + Prism strong attacks vs. Zerg. There are more timings, but it becomes harder to think them up. I think a bigger reason why we cannot buff Gateway units, is because the economy is switched. In HotS Terran used to be up half a base and these days it is Protoss that is up bases. We have almost the same units, but the economy favours Protoss in the early+mid games. When we had the Marauder split attack, the issue was Protoss overwhelming Terrans with units, rather than Terrans dying to all-ins.
Both Terran and Protoss cannot move out on the map vs. Zerg, because of the existence of Zerglings, but Terran make use of Medivacs, which makes it viable to harass all over. Protoss can do the same to an extend when they have Twilight Upgrades. Protoss mobility is actually stronger than ever and it even surpasses Terran, so it does also not hold up the theory that LotV economy makes it so Protoss cannot keep up. Protoss has a lot of issues, but I don't think it's the Warp Gate mechanic or that they lack mobility, though the race is fickle with almost no defenders advantage and a small amount of units. The current issues with Protoss imo. is defenders advantage, Shield Battery nerf (this also means that Protoss cannot be greedy and then capitalize on stronger eco in LotV), non-Warp Gate units are absolutely atrocious. Immortal cost the same as an Ultralisk and is a sitting duck that doesn't even serve its purpose of destroying Lurkers/Tanks, because those units also destroy the Immortal. The Colossus is single purposed, but is pretty strong at this function. The Disruptor is now just weak, it's a worse Siege Tank/Liberator that requires more effort to have work. Void Ray, Carrier doesn't win you games if the opponent is half way decent. When Z/T hits 3/3 then Protoss is also nerfed because Shields scale badly. EMP+Fungal delete Protoss units, while Storm just tickles Zerg/Terran units. And we also have the supply nerfs, making the maxed out Protoss army absolutely miniscule. So Toss needs to win before 3/3 for the opponents and with a strong eco that is hard to get because we don't have Battery Overcharge and units like Disruptor to actually deal with the spamming of low tier units that aren't Light (Colossus can deal with Light units).
Good post. We Protoss keep getting nerfs and there was no buffs to counteract it. Just nerfs across the board for years. While terran and Zergs do they nerfs, but they also get buffs to counteract it.
All Protoss units has been nerfed that it’s literally so trash against the other races.
First buff Protoss need is to revert the cost increase on immortal and warp prism. That nerf was dumb as fuck back then, it sure as well is dumb as fuck now. That was a different build, we could threaten Zerg and terran with. Now every game is garbage stargate opening, and seriously give the dps back to the oracle. Why should Protoss only early harass unit be so trash while widow mines and bane lings literally demolish toss mineral line within seconds
And also give back our REAL carriers. Not these trash carriers and long intercept building time
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
I suppose I can accept that there are two different ways to look at sports, because they stem from the same place of fair competition over everything else.
Either everyone deserves to win, or no one deserves to win. I can accept that. You think nobody at the Olympics deserves to win until they do. I believe everyone who's worked hard enough to make it to the Olympics deserves to win.
I suppose we're just putting our value in different places. But it fundamentally goes to the same place.
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
I suppose I can accept that there are two different ways to look at sports, because they stem from the same place of fair competition over everything else.
Either everyone deserves to win, or no one deserves to win. I can accept that. You think nobody at the Olympics deserves to win until they do. I believe everyone who's worked hard enough to make it to the Olympics deserves to win.
I suppose we're just putting our value in different places. But it fundamentally goes to the same place.
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
Even tennis doesn’t fully fit here. They slowed grass courts down over the years, while a surface like clay remained largely unchanged.
So Roger Federer goes from being absolutely unassailable on the surface, to beatable by a baseline grinder like Nadal, or a defensive counter-puncher like Murray or Djokovic.
Which I think is at least somewhat analogous to balancing a video game. See also golfs attempts to adjust courses so guys who can blast it an extra 50 metres don’t dominate players who have a better short game.
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
Even tennis doesn’t fully fit here. They slowed grass courts down over the years, while a surface like clay remained largely unchanged.
So Roger Federer goes from being absolutely unassailable on the surface, to beatable by a baseline grinder like Nadal, or a defensive counter-puncher like Murray or Djokovic.
Which I think is at least somewhat analogous to balancing a video game. See also golfs attempts to adjust courses so guys who can blast it an extra 50 metres don’t dominate players who have a better short game.
Did they make those changes specifically to give other people a better chance? That's embarrassing if they did, I don't follow either of these sports so I don't know
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
Even tennis doesn’t fully fit here. They slowed grass courts down over the years, while a surface like clay remained largely unchanged.
So Roger Federer goes from being absolutely unassailable on the surface, to beatable by a baseline grinder like Nadal, or a defensive counter-puncher like Murray or Djokovic.
Which I think is at least somewhat analogous to balancing a video game. See also golfs attempts to adjust courses so guys who can blast it an extra 50 metres don’t dominate players who have a better short game.
Did they make those changes specifically to give other people a better chance? That's embarrassing if they did, I don't follow either of these sports so I don't know
I’m unsure why specifically, my best case is that slower = more epic rallies and that’s more entertaining to the average viewer.
So I don’t think it was intentionally targeted in any sense, but it was a de facto nerf for Federer’s strengths versus the competition.
On February 23 2024 07:05 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't, no. I don't get why you say yes at "Did you deserve to win". I don't see why you would deserve to win just because you poured every part of yourself into this one moment. You deserve to be there and to participate, and you are, and you do. But there's a win condition and someone else is meeting it better than you are, so considering that there's only one winner I don't see why you would be deserving to win when they're there being better than you.
Because I don't believe that what someone deserves is based on what they are blessed with, and what the final outcome of a fair competition is.
I believe that every person who makes it to the Olympics, who has devoted their entire lives to the pursuit of their singular passion. That are obsessed enough with it, to make it to the event in the first place and has done all of the work neccessary to get that chance to win. I believe all of them DESERVE to win.
Sports is all about watching all of these people who are equally deserving of winning, fight it out until only one person actually DOES win.
Winning doesn't make someone deserving. It's everything you do, to give yourself a chance of winning that makes you deserving. Losing doesn't mean you didn't deserve to win, it means you just didn't win.
Not everyone in this world gets what they deserve. Not everyone who gets something in this life truly deserved it. The best we can do is to make the competition for everybody to have a chance at being the one to win, as fair as possible.
Okay so you are just using deserve in a way that is specific to you. When the rest of us say deserve to win, we're referring to being good enough to win. The notion that in an equal situation, this person ought to win over this person, because they're better.
One of the coolest things about sports in general is that nobody ever deserves to win. We put people in the same conditions, we have them compete, and then we see who gets there. Some people get there more often than others, and they become champions, but once they're champions we don't give them a headstart on the next run because they deserve it, we still put them in the same situation as the others.
This is all great, and then some of you will be attracted to games in which the same people win every time like tennis because you like simple hierarchies, and some of us will be attracted to games in which the edges are slim like hockey because there's tension and suspense. All of that is very common (and please don't react to me trashing tennis that's mainly directed at my dad who will never read this :D ).
Even tennis doesn’t fully fit here. They slowed grass courts down over the years, while a surface like clay remained largely unchanged.
So Roger Federer goes from being absolutely unassailable on the surface, to beatable by a baseline grinder like Nadal, or a defensive counter-puncher like Murray or Djokovic.
Which I think is at least somewhat analogous to balancing a video game. See also golfs attempts to adjust courses so guys who can blast it an extra 50 metres don’t dominate players who have a better short game.
Did they make those changes specifically to give other people a better chance? That's embarrassing if they did, I don't follow either of these sports so I don't know
This is VERY common in pro sports. Pro Sports adjust the rules all the time, for any variety of reasons. You look at how NBA Basketball was played in the early 2000's and it looks NOTHING like how it looks today. You watch an NFL game from the 1990's and it looks very different from how it's played now.
The NBA is the sport that I've followed the most in my life so I can come up with all kinds of ways the NBA has tweaked the game for a reason good or bad, much like the way Starcraft has been changed through balance changes. Some rule changes like additional penalties for dirty fouls would be kind of like Starcraft patching a cheese build out of the game because it was getting oppressive and hurting how people viewed the game.
Other times they change the game with rules about how defense can be played to encourage scoring, not unlike what SC2 did to encourage games to speed up through the LOTV Economy changes. Not every change the NBA has made has made the game better in my opinion, but some parts of it has.
On February 22 2024 10:33 Nasigil wrote: It's interesting that, although SC2 and BW are very different in terms of balance and design, but through out the decade long life span of both games, the races ended up behaving almost the same: it's a long history of Zerg and Terran bonjwas taking turns to dominate, and Protoss just plays a supporting role.
There were some great Protoss players emerging from time to time, but they never really reached the consistent and all-around dominance of the likes of Boxer, Savior, iloveoov, Nada, Flash, Jaedong, Mvp, Innovation, Rogue, Maru and Serral in their prime.
And somehow, Protoss in both games are considered the easier and OP race for casual players.
There's probably something in the core design of Protoss across two games that make them easier to learn but harder to reach the ceiling as high as other two races.
Protoss's racial identity of a core army of high durability, low damage output, relatively slow units is simply not good in an RTS that looks like Starcraft. Protoss is forever chasing high damage units that are wrecking their economy - Zerglings, Vultures, Hellions and Cyclones, stimmed bio in SC2, Hydralisk in BW - with slower units that are not super effective at killing the things they're being sent to stop.
When windows of opportunity to get damage done are small, fast units with high damage output are more effective than slow units with a lot of health. Zerglings, Vultures, Hellions and Cyclones, BW Hydralisks, and SC2 bio can get in, do damage, and leave with minimal casualties. Protoss needs either a larger window for Zealots and Dragoons or Stalkers to get in, kill workers or buildings or they need to commit expensive, vulnerable tech units like High Templar.
Sort of related, people sometimes compare mass warp-ins with a prism to mass drops from Terran or Nydus Worms from Zerg, but unlike those, a mass warp-in has no exit strategy. Outside of what fits in the prism, those units are dying in the enemy base.
The other thing that really stands out to me as a shared weakness of Protoss across both games is that the Zealot is absolute trash before it gets its relatively high tech speed upgrade. Cost for cost, Psi for Supply for Control, Zealots do not effectively fight anything a Terran or Zerg is going to be fielding in the early game. Not Zerglings, not Marines, not tier 1.5 units with speed upgrades like Hydralisks, not Roaches (especially on creep). Zealots don't effectively present an offensive threat. They also are not effective scouts, being expensive, relatively slow, and easy for Terran and Zerg to kill without permitting vision. There are exceptions in BW when Protoss wants to donate a bunch of Zealots in something of a tempo play, but generally speaking unless the defending player was excessively greedy or completely botches things it's going to be *incredibly* cost inefficient for the Protoss.
Somehow, in addition to not being good units for being sent across the map, Zealots are somehow worse defensively. All of those units the other races might be fielding can either run pass Zealots if the Protoss does not have a tight wall and then run circles in the Protoss base scouting and harassing workers, or just kite and kill the Zealots outright.
The cherry on top of the cake of Zealot uselessness is that incredibly, they don't have any synergy whatsoever with Protoss defensive structures. Shield Batteries do not stop Zealots from being abused by fast ranged units and do not prevent fast units running past the Zealots. Photon Cannons can deter runbys, but have a really terrible interaction with Zealots regarding ranged units where either the Cannons can cover the Zealots or the Zealots can cover the Cannons, but not both.
There's an extended rant for subscribers of my Patreon on the functionality of Photon Cannons which I do not feel like typing, but here's the tl;dr. The main selling point of Photon Cannons is that they hit both air and ground but don't excel against either, but it's very rare that you need both anti-air and anti-ground static defense in the same spot. The end result is that Photon Cannons are effectively overpriced and underpowered compared to the static defenses of Terran and Zerg. It's kind of insult to injury when you consider that the Zealot is also bad for defending. + Show Spoiler +
I am aware that offensive use of Protoss defensive structures is a thing, but this post is about why Protoss struggles with having a stable, sort of generic macro play that wins tournaments
In total, Protoss is not built to be a good race for skilled players. It is bad at doing a lot of the things that skilled players are doing that normal players aren't, such as detached harassment forces, eking more effectiveness out of units with better control, and defending against sharp timing attacks.
In SC2, Protoss has historically been very good for sharp timing attacks, except that basically every time one is developed that can outright win games, it gets nerfed until it needs to be all-in to work. It's beyond the scope of this post, but I can't imagine that not being able to present a lethal threat without being all-in in any way helps Protoss get to the midgame in a comfortable position.
Ye, Bisu's build is called the revolution in BW. But in SC2 when Tosses remodel the game, it just gets nerfed..
Post Charge Zlots are better on the offensive, they can kill stuff, while they are slow to kill, whereas on defense, they just get kited to death. They run out of battery,cannon and ranged unit ranges. You can say the same about Adepts, their Shade makes them very proactive, so by deciding where you fight, they are stronger, meaning that they are stronger on offense as well. So mb if you think Warp Gate research is a problem, mb by scaling back these abilities, they could have stat boosts.
The defensive units are so bad, Immortal, Disruptor, Sentry, Void Ray and Stalkers that we see Protoss defend with Colossus, Phoenix, Cannons, Batteries and HT's.
Innovation/revolution is done with existing units. If you come with a new strategy with a unit that just got 20 buffs, thats not innovation thats abusing a patch. Remember how hero came up with "revolutionary PvZ with mass gateway!" after 2 zealot buffs, 1 stalker buff and 5 sentry buffs?
I remember Sentry buffs, he doesn't use Sentries though and I also think those buffs were after as well. I'm not just talking about herO, also the Zest Adepts.
On February 23 2024 23:50 THERIDDLER wrote: Innovation/revolution is done with existing units. If you come with a new strategy with a unit that just got 20 buffs, thats not innovation thats abusing a patch. Remember how hero came up with "revolutionary PvZ with mass gateway!" after 2 zealot buffs, 1 stalker buff and 5 sentry buffs?
Are you living in an alternative reality? The only change that got introduced at that time was that Queens couldn't transfuse off-creep anymore
On February 23 2024 23:55 ejozl wrote: I remember Sentry buffs, he doesn't use Sentries though and I also think those buffs were after as well. I'm not just talking about herO, also the Zest Adepts.
yea zest adept builds back in 2020 is a pretty good example. he has always been a build innovator
Toss has also had multiple bandages that held them together ripped off. MSC completely removed and force fields much easier to deal with has killed off a lot of sentry shenanigans that used to let P move out against Z.
But really Kyad's post is pretty accurate most of the units are just bad and the race doesn't scale as well with player skill overall.
Protoss hasn't won a premier ever since the same year that the cabal made their first patch in 2022.
Protoss without herO hasn't won a GSL-caliber-or-higher tournament ever since Stats won GSL in 2017.
Protoss hasn't won a world championship, or similar event since LotV.
Always, there's talk about skill level in relation to balance, so how about we actually try to do something about it?
Larvae produce 75% of what it did in HotS, and the MULE is even stronger, so actually if LotV Chrono is to be as strong as it was in WoL it should probably last 22 seconds. Now it's not exactly fair, because we also got Recall and Overcharge now. But I suggest we make Chrono cost 25E like it did in WoL and have the duration be 11 seconds. It'd be ever so slightly stronger than it is now, but it would also require a lot more busy work, especially more attention if you want your upgrades to finish at the same times as currently.
Personally, I would like no cooldowns on the other Nexus spells and have them cost more, so that the spells are balanced around energy rather than cooldowns, but I'll forfeit this idea, as it is probably too hard to convince ppl of this idea.
Protoss upgrades should have the same research times as the other races, Chrono Boost is supposed to be a boost, a boon for the race, not something that you invest in so that you catch up to the other two races. I wouldn't mind a slight cost nerf (25/25) and (50/50) on the 2nd and 3rd tier weapon upgrades, it's clearly the strongest Protoss upgrade.
Gateway units are the high attention Protoss units, barring a few others, like it or not Zealots are peak Protoss skill. It's not because Zealots aren't a-move units, but because it's what top pros use to force Zergs and Terrans to spend extra attention. Fighting many places at the same time both favours Protoss, but it also requires high skill from the Protoss, since fighting at many places is obviously multi task intensive. Increase Zealots shields from 50->60. This was the original value, but was nerfed due to Zlot rushes, this is not much of an issue anymore, in fact, it would be cool to see more Protoss cheeses. Protoss early games is extremely fragile on the defensive, and on the offensive, it's just cool to see, and it's actually kind of iconic Protoss to be on the offensive in this stage. Once upgrades kick in, this change won't have much effect, since Shields won't be upgraded until late, late into the game and when Protoss is already winning.
A few other things you can focus on: Protoss late game suffers from supply bloat, Void Rays, Disruptors and Tempests could all use a -1 supply buff, and it wouldn't break the game.
Ppl wanna nerf EMP, I don't think this is a good idea, though you could nerf the AoE so that it only removes 60 shields pr. EMP. I do think EMP should be more of an anti caster spell, having it also hit shields should be more of a neat feature of the spell, rather than the sole reason you get it. EMP should remove 200 energy from a unit, so that if you actually manage to hit the HT, you can't still get hit by a Storm from the very same unit. A better nerf is to remove some of the movement speed that the unit received, the Ghost is currently too strong in two matchups and this would require Terrans to be more delicate with their Ghost usage. Liberators would be more of a must to protect them, and Disruptors would actually serve as a counter to the unit, since the Ghost would have a harder time running away from the novas. The inherent mobius reactor is also bullshit, the same for the Infestor, the same for the Raven, but this is also a larger fought battle, which I probably won't win. If you wanna further nerf the Ghost, you could make it Light, but then I would advise also to nerf the Infestor, Fungal is OP in its current state, the +1 range buff in the last patch was such a cabal move.
Why not buff chrono a bit so it scales with more nexuses? More duration or even a slight extra boost on production? Or more potent but shorter, so that really good players can get more from it, but it requires a bit of extra attention to do so.
I’m not sure what it would look like, but it’s the macro mechanic that really drops off the longer the game runs
I think the problem is already fixed, protoss used to be very underpowered but now the balance is mostly fine. The only data point that we don't have a ton of information on is Maxpax vs Serral, but herO did 2-3 vs Serral and he could have won that series so I imagine Maxpax has a shot too. It makes a lot of sense that our odds of winning a live event decrease when Maxpax doesn't participate.
the 200 supply limit is a bit of an issue in LotV. It's so easy to reach these days and MULEs are by far the strongest macro mechanic when it's reached. Increasing the supply, or making 6 patch expansions more common on maps, would fix this.
On August 20 2024 20:39 Nebuchad wrote: I think the problem is already fixed, protoss used to be very underpowered but now the balance is mostly fine. The only data point that we don't have a ton of information on is Maxpax vs Serral, but herO did 2-3 vs Serral and he could have won that series so I imagine Maxpax has a shot too. It makes a lot of sense that our odds of winning a live event decrease when Maxpax doesn't participate.
I think the biggest issues are cetain phases of the game just being not really nice to watch/play esp stuff like pvz super lategame when it ever happens (yay infestor viper vs skytoss storm) and pvt when the mass lib phase is being reached and you have the toss always try to get disruptor hits in and disengage.
On August 20 2024 20:26 ejozl wrote: Protoss hasn't won a premier ever since the same year that the cabal made their first patch in 2022.
I shouldn't be surprised given that some members of the "community" balance council played under the <TossOP> clantag.
More seriously, the economic/game design changes made when Legacy of the Void was released definitely hurt Protoss the most. You can tell from how many band-aids Blizzard has had to slap on Protoss just to get the race into a playable state, and even the band-aids have changed massively over the years. I think you'd have to redesign the race from the ground up to address that, and that simply isn't going to happen. It's basically a race of gimmicks held together by other gimmicks!
I'm just glad that the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit remains incredibly fun to play on ladder!
On August 20 2024 20:26 ejozl wrote: Protoss hasn't won a premier ever since the same year that the cabal made their first patch in 2022.
I shouldn't be surprised given that some members of the "community" balance council played under the <TossOP> clantag.
More seriously, the economic/game design changes made when Legacy of the Void was released definitely hurt Protoss the most. You can tell from how many band-aids Blizzard has had to slap on Protoss just to get the race into a playable state, and even the band-aids have changed massively over the years. I think you'd have to redesign the race from the ground up to address that, and that simply isn't going to happen. It's basically a race of gimmicks held together by other gimmicks!
I'm just glad that the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit remains incredibly fun to play on ladder!
Isn’t Harstem on it too?
I actually think balance is maybe better than when Trap was making multiple GSL finals, won two Super Tournaments, a Dreamhack etc.
Going back to what ejozl said, sure Protoss aren’t winning many tournaments, but what tournaments should they be winning? herO is the exception, very much from the rule. No other player has returned to being a champ contender after military service.
Stats and Classic show flashes, they’re clearly not the players they once were. Zest is away, Zoun was gradually getting there, made a ST final, he’s gone. Parting’s also gone, Trap’s only just back. MaxPax doesn’t play offline tournaments.
I do agree with yourself on core design too, for sure. Equally I think the actual balance is good enough that if they had a few more in-shape championship contender level players you’d see those results pick up.
herO hasn’t exactly underperformed in these big events either. Katowice he got out of the group of death, only to immediately run into Cure in playoffs (if memory serves). Here he took many notable scalps and made a Ro4. Hardly a catastrophe
I think we should delete disruptors and rebalance to account for the loss.
disruptors are intrinsically high variance units with an all or nothing damage type. imo the problem is with protoss isn't that it is underpowered but rather that it lacks consistency. to me the difference between hero and clem isn't so much that clem crushes hero in games (outside of this tournament), but rather that clem can reliably beat lower rated players while hero will reasonably frequently lose to them (just look at the past few GSLs).
On August 20 2024 22:22 angry_maia wrote: [...] disruptors are intrinsically high variance units with an all or nothing damage type. [...]
I totally agree. But I have the impression that counter micro to negate nova damage improved way more than the micro and army movement when using disruptors. Of course it's probably super hard but so are many things in sc2. I feel it's very rare to see a protoss use and time multiple novas to enable and cover for example offensive stalker actions. Also I think disruptor plus templar make a good combo by covering forward disruptors via storm. I actually am of the opinion that (big/diverse) army control is where top protoss can still improve a lot. For example, how often do you see a colossus trailing behind starting to shot a cc while the charge into the terran base is still ongoing, the terran hangs on by a thread and in the end wins the game with the follow up counter aggression? The Colossus is often a key unit in fights and thus to micro it properly offers a lot of rewards. For some reason I think of tank micro vs banelings to compare it to.
I don't say this is true, just an impression I have for quite some time now. Also, of course, it's probably very, very hard. And, of course, I'm a noob
I think in korea at least, protoss have the strongest lineup. HerO, classic, trap and stats vs. maru, gumiho and cure, vs. dark, solar, soo and rogue. Still protoss almost never win, meanwhile the terrans and zergs all do and they let anyone in on it.
HerO rly outmicros everyone if you look in this tournament. Hero vs. cure felt like maxpax vs. soul. With little better balance hero would more consistently beat maru instead of the other way round. Only the young guns are a threat for him, maxpax, reynor, clem and serral. But he still never wins the premiers, barring that one time.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/disciple/PX/qqzealot2.jpg)
