|
4713 Posts
At least 90% of the unit compositions and timings have been figured out already. Its not silly to say so, you can notice it in the state of the game.
Fact, in TvP and especially with the threat of a 1/1/1 a protoss needs to get a robo, no robo, no detection, no surviving probes when the banshee hits.
Already a large number of timings and possibilities for the protoss have to be thrown out the window. Now if you have made a robo you should also get immortals and colossus from them. Making a robo just for an obs is a huge waste. Making a stargate along that robo is limited in viability because SG units and robo units are very expensive and constrict the amount of sentries and HT you could get.
So by combining these, very simple to deduct facts, we conclude that there are a very limited number of option Protoss has in this situation. And it is quite the same for MMM+G + V against the deathball or zerg vs Protoss. Because of the constrictions and limitations of the Protoss race they have had to evolve in a certain way and those ways have already been figured out, and there is no room to innovate because of the above mentioned constrictions.
|
On September 21 2011 04:41 eksert wrote:1 gone 4 to go:D I wish 16 terrans in ro16, i know it's hard but I HAVE HOPE 
I believe there is a group with only 1 Terran, so unfortunately we will be forced to watch a P/Z play.
|
On September 21 2011 02:17 Jinivus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote:
I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot!
For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating
For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ
For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT
Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level....
just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes
protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG
Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ
It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it
no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time
are they so afraid of playing macro games?!
evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
No one cares about your condescending diamond level theorycraft on what Pro players should do. Seriously this post is just offensively bad and you basically imply pro protoss players just sit around jerking off all day and not trying to come up with something new. MC has innovated with his stargate play, phoenix chargelot, etc. What else is there? There aren't any more pro terrans or zergs so why according to you is there no one coming up with better builds? Maybe because there aren't any. Yes zerg struggled and they GOT BUFFED WHILE TOSS GOT NERFED. NICE INNOVATION THERE. Why don't we revert these patches because after all the genius and talented progamer zergs and their innovative awesomeness will be fine I'm sure. The argument that terran and zerg progamers at the highest level are simply more talented than protoss players, in such great quantity is absolute bullshit and makes no sense.
I totally agree with you, Jini.
Thats the problem of Idra fanboys. Everytime he comes with an excuse why protoss players are doing bad, people just repeat what he said before thinking.
Its like saying Idra is retarded because he cant beat any decent Protoss player nowadays. See how his excuse can work both ways?
|
On September 20 2011 12:09 VTPerfect wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act. Well i'll be, quite the high level understanding of the game and refreshing when people keep saying a zealot beats 4 lings.
All of what has been posted in this quote has been said before - however putting it all together into a single cohesive post that correlates all constraints to one another really shows how damning the situation with protoss is.
|
On September 20 2011 20:05 WeaVerPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 18:35 Red Alert wrote:On September 20 2011 05:49 Destructicon wrote:
While I admire the original poster's attempt to inspire hope in the hearts of all the protoss players, the protoss community and all the protoss fans, I can't help but feel that these innovators, don't have anything to innovate upon and that our hopes will be dashed upon the rocks and will crumble to pieces.
I am going to try and say this cleanly and efficiently.
The problem with protoss is not the lack of innovation, it is the lack of strength and the multitude of weaknesses that can be exploited.
This problem is most evident in the TvP match up and is grotesquely blown out of proportion by the 1/1/1 style of opening and variations.
Problem number 1 (P1). The protoss tier 1 and 1.5 is week against a basic tier 1.5 terran army without the use of specialist units (sentries, HT), or higher tech (colossis, HT). Marines do phenomenal DPS and in combination with Marauders are deadly because marauders can just kite zealots forever even with charge, and marauders also rip apart stalkers. This leads to problem number 2.
P2.Protoss specialist units are too easy to be countered and too expensive. Ghosts can EMP from a bigger range then a HT can feedback, EMP can potentially neutralize many HT and sentries while HT can only feedback 1 unit at a time. EMP also destroyes shields which in some cases means 50% of a protoss effective health. Ghosts contribute with real DPS even after their energy is spent, and they also do double damage against light (zealots). Ghosts with cloak can survive for a good time as well, which also puts into grave perspective problem number 3.
P3. Protoss don't have enough mobile detection, terran and zerg both have at least one more means of detection then a unit. Zerg has Overseers and Fungal growth, terran has EMP, Raven and scan. Not only do the terrans and zerg have more methods of detection, but their detector units also fulfill different roles and are stronger. The overseer can help with scouting via changeling and can also delay a critical tech or reinforcements with contaminate. Raven's provide invaluable support via point defense drone, and also have the potential to do massive damage with hunter seeker missile or harass a mineral line with auto-turrets. Lastly the detection of terran and protoss is more easily available, scans and EMPs are easy to get or already part of the terran arsenal, overseers are unlocked just by teching up to lair, and infestors are now part of many lineups.
Now, if you add up all the problems you get the following scenario.
Against a terran 1/1/1 a protoss is forced to get a robo so he can have detection. Because of the lack of other detection methods the protoss becomes predictable, if he doesn't get a robotics for observers he risks dying to cloaked banshees. Also observers are easy to snipe, they have the lowest HP of any detector, and once a scan goes of they are dead. Now because protoss was forced to get robo they now have to add immortals to the army, and while great against tanks, the backbone of a 1/1/1 is the marine, and mass marines rip apart immortals, and once immortals are dead, the T1 protoss army crumbles.
Normally in balance of RTS games, if units are very cheep they should be a lot weaker (zerg), if units are more expensive they should be stronger (protoss), however, protoss T1 units are really not that good for the amount they cost, zealots and stalkers are way too weak without sentries, and against a 1/1/1 sentries don't help all that much because tanks have huge range, do massive damage, and there are also banshees that can mess them over.
This problem is put into sharp focus in games where, you see a terran not expand, you see the protoss fast expand at min 4, and at 12 minutes into the game the terran has a bigger supply army then the protoss. Its a problem in game balance that a 1 base player could have equal or more supply then a player on 2 bases for 66% of the game. What is even more wrong is that the 1 base player's army is so strong that it can annihilate the 2 base player's army.
Now, if we look away from the 1/1/1 and focus on the meta game, in a late game scenario the protoss doesn't stand much chance. A terran bio ball is cheaper to replenish, is more durable because of medivacs, and it does more DPS then the standard tier 1.5 of protoss. Protoss needs sentries and HT or colossis, however, sentries and HT are easily countered by ghosts, colossis are easily countered by vikings. In a head to head fight, the terran just needs to have the patience to emp the specialists, snipe the colossis with vikings, then the bio ball an just do the rest. Also warp prism micro with HT isn't so hot because they can be sniped by vikings, just the same way colossis are sniped. To rub salt onto the wounds, EMP also directly reduce survivability of protoss units by destroying shields.
Now I ask, where can you innovate in there?
Protoss are already using 99% of their units, they use zealots, stalkers, sentries, HT, colossus, observer and warp prism. Protoss air force is weak, they Phoenix and Void rays are already easily countered by units the terran already gets, marines, vikings and ghosts. Carriers cost too much, take too much time to build and require too big numbers to be effective. Carriers in small number are easily sniped by vikings. Mothership is even worst because it can be EMPed from farther away then it can vortex, once EMPed it becomes a big meat shield waiting to die horribly to vikings and marines.
How can you innovate against a 1/1/1, when from the get go, you need to get a robo for detection? Also how can you innovate a build against the 1/1/1 when you risk creating a build that can completely counter the 1/1/1 but fail miserably to form of early pressure?
And, keep in mind that, terrans still haven't widely adopted the use of ravens and/or mass ravens. With patch 1.4 that might change because, seeker missiles will be able to outrun zealots even with charge, and stalkers and sentries and probles, and ravens also hard counter stalkers by reducing their DPS to 0 via PDD.
Against zerg the problems aren't quite as bad, but they aren't great either. The timings of 4 gates and 6 gates has been figured out. Protoss can't do 4 gate because it won't work, the zerg can prepare an appropriate defense while still having a 1 base advantage. If protoss chooses to fast expand into a 6 gate, the zerg can just take a quick 3rd, and can have defenses out in time for any form of protoss preasure. Air play can be easily countered by the proper and strategic placement of spore crawlers and building of extra queens (which zerg have already started doing). And if the protoss decides to not go air and go a 6 gate or robo+ a number of gates, then the zerg can still have an big enough army in time to defend against it, and still retain a 1 base advantage.
The recent game of Check.Prime vs Tails from IGN qualifiers is a good example of zerg being able to take a fast 3rd and come out ahead of a protoss FE. As for late game, infestors are a big double risk problem. Not only can they fungal the entire protoss army, but they can neural colossis, and/or archons. Fungal does respectable DPS, but more critically it leaves the protoss open to brood lords and baneling drops, both of which can do massive damage.
Again, carriers and motherships won't help, they still take too long to build, cost too much, are too vulnerable to corrupters, and worst, are vulnerable to neurals.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, protoss doesn't have anything to innovate upon, they are already using all their tools, and now that terran and zerg have started to fully use their tools the cracks are starting to show. I really wish I was wrong here but, it trully feels like it will take either a very big patch (1.4 won't cut it), or the expansion to fix the current protoss problems.
And while all this situation might really suck and demoralize a lot of players, lets have faith and remember that SC2 is only 1 year old, hopefully we will be looking back at this period in time and remember it was the darkness before the dusk, the calm before the storm. Change will come, even if Blizzard has to act. ctrl+F "warp gates", nothing. You are omitting the most important part of this discussion. Your units are cost ineffective against terran because warp gate production is so much better than barracks production - on site warp in + unit first, cooldown later means that you are around 2 production cycles ahead of the terran at any given engagement point. And don't give me anything about reactors...1 reactor barracks = 200/50, pumps out 100 minerals of units at almost the same rate as your 150/0 warp gate and they have to walk. Also, don't get me wrong here - I am not saying the matchup is balanced or imbalanced in favor of protoss or whatever, just that warp gates need to be changed if protoss t1 is to receive any buffs. You forgot a thing man, that the terran "base"units wreack the protoss "gate" units. You cannot watch only the time of production of barracks and warp without take a look to the effectiveness. Your point of view can be right only if i could warp marine/marauder by my gate...
What? The first thing I said was that protoss t1 units are cost ineffective against terran t1. Please read my post before criticizing it.
|
On September 21 2011 04:47 Bashion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:17 Jinivus wrote:On September 21 2011 01:20 MapleLeafSirup wrote:
I will use this topic for my theses about protoss players:
General development of protoss gameplay
Protoss players are struggling hard nowadays and while there are probably balance issues involved, there is another big factor for me: protoss gameplay did not evolve a lot!
For a long time protoss kept winning just by 4gating
For a long time protoss kept winning just by waiting for the deathball in PvZ
For a long time protoss kept winning just by warping in templars with 75 energy in PvT
Now it's not possible anymore and protoss have to develop their gameplay... they kept using the same BO over and over and won a lot of games and that is why their skill level got kinda stuck on some level....
just have a look at zerg when they struggled in ZvP: they did a LOT of new stuff, developed new strategies and refined their builds ... that is what protoss has to do now
Silly mistakes
protoss in GSL make SO many mistakes, it is painful to watch... i refuse to admit balance reasons when they just throw away so many units and battles... just watch genius/hongun last season or naniwa donating colossus, MC donating units after units, BAD engagements and tassadar ... OMG
Protoss progamers are just not as good as the others ..they need to stay more focused
Ling runbys are another topic: protoss players kept losing to ling runbys.. try that on EU master level, protoss players have better walls and actually warp in units to close the gaps to prevent lings from running by... unbelievable but true
PvZ
It is always like this: protoss goes ffe, does some silly 2gate attack ......and that's it
no game plans, just 2 base allins all the time
are they so afraid of playing macro games?!
evrytime i see huk playing a lategame pvz, it shows that protoss is REALLY strong in the lategame
No one cares about your condescending diamond level theorycraft on what Pro players should do. Seriously this post is just offensively bad and you basically imply pro protoss players just sit around jerking off all day and not trying to come up with something new. MC has innovated with his stargate play, phoenix chargelot, etc. What else is there? There aren't any more pro terrans or zergs so why according to you is there no one coming up with better builds? Maybe because there aren't any. Yes zerg struggled and they GOT BUFFED WHILE TOSS GOT NERFED. NICE INNOVATION THERE. Why don't we revert these patches because after all the genius and talented progamer zergs and their innovative awesomeness will be fine I'm sure. The argument that terran and zerg progamers at the highest level are simply more talented than protoss players, in such great quantity is absolute bullshit and makes no sense. I totally agree with you, Jini. Thats the problem of Idra fanboys. Everytime he comes with an excuse why protoss players are doing bad, people just repeat what he said before thinking. Its like saying Idra is retarded because he cant beat any decent Protoss player nowadays. See how his excuse can work both ways?
I agree lol. IdrA calling others are retarded while he's just terrible. And IdrA fanboys just got brainwashed by him.
|
On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched.
Don't talk. Protoss is not terran.
Your examples of protoss "imbalance" were perfectly fine in game and were knee jerk nerfs done by blizzard that were ill thought through.
To quote day9, "hes going colossus - void ray - high templar?" Yea the counter to that is to go fucking kill him.
Sorry the timing of these builds supersede the issues at the core of the units.
|
On September 21 2011 04:42 Destructicon wrote:
At least 90% of the unit compositions and timings have been figured out already. Its not silly to say so, you can notice it in the state of the game.
Fact, in TvP and especially with the threat of a 1/1/1 a protoss needs to get a robo, no robo, no detection, no surviving probes when the banshee hits.
Already a large number of timings and possibilities for the protoss have to be thrown out the window. Now if you have made a robo you should also get immortals and colossus from them. Making a robo just for an obs is a huge waste. Making a stargate along that robo is limited in viability because SG units and robo units are very expensive and constrict the amount of sentries and HT you could get.
So by combining these, very simple to deduct facts, we conclude that there are a very limited number of option Protoss has in this situation. And it is quite the same for MMM+G + V against the deathball or zerg vs Protoss. Because of the constrictions and limitations of the Protoss race they have had to evolve in a certain way and those ways have already been figured out, and there is no room to innovate because of the above mentioned constrictions.
Terran has two great advantages. One, everyone knows, their almost free scout. Secondly, they are the best at denying scout from the other two races.
Besides having to play in the dark, he can scout you easier.
Today, when Puzzle was playing against Bomber, Artosis was saying how great observers are. But, getting a robo, then an oberserver, set Puzzle behind. When his obs got to Bombers base, his CC was already landed, while Puzzles nexus was delayed.
So, Protoss has to play catch-up almost everytime or simply gamble.
I dont have the same level of game knowledge as some of you guys, but if supply depos couldnt get lowered down.Would it help anything?
|
So basically you guys are saying that most of the protoss problems come from lack of scouting and detection options?
|
On September 21 2011 04:57 RajaF wrote:
So basically you guys are saying that most of the protoss problems come from lack of scouting and detection options?
just part of it.Protoss units are not very various. It work like combo and not much option to execute and harassing in game.
|
On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false.
Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement 
|
On September 21 2011 04:51 Thurokiir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:58 Klystron wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 03:09 Brotocol wrote:
I think Protoss players are farthest ahead of any race in terms of exploring their tech trees. I want to second that. It's outrageous how low level theory-crafters throw insults at pro-players that they don't explore their race enough. Terrans have "really" only started discovering ghosts after the cost-change and the amulet-removal. Zergs have "really" only started discovering the infestor after the over-buff. Protoss has tried each and every combination of units you can think of both in PvT and PvZ. Yes, even carriers, if you haven't noticed than you just didn't follow the scene enough. Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy. Excluding observers and probes, protoss has 13 units. Now, the total number of possible unit combinations is: sum((13 choose n),n=1,13) = 8191 total possible unit compositions. Now this is just unit comps, no timings, or any of the many other game variables. You are seriously saying that all 8191 possible protoss unit compositions have been explored in depth? If so, then zerg with only 11 units (including queen and nydus, not including overseer), 2047 possible unit combinations, must have exhausted its innovative pool long before protoss. Or are you trying to say that protoss players are 4x as innovative as zerg players? Saying that protoss has exhausted all of its innovative possibilities is just dumb. If there are specific builds and compositions that protoss absolutely cannot win against, ie 1/1/1, then you need to prove that analytically and determine exactly why protoss cannot win in that situation and what might be done to fix it. Only then will blizzard actually change it. See 5-rax reaper, Archon Toilet, Blue Flame Hellions, Khydarian amulet, Infestor Broodlord, proxy 2-gate, 2-rax bunker rush, etc.. for examples of things that were proven to be broken and subsequently patched. Don't talk. Protoss is not terran. Your examples of protoss "imbalance" were perfectly fine in game and were knee jerk nerfs done by blizzard that were ill thought through. To quote day9, "hes going colossus - void ray - high templar?" Yea the counter to that is to go fucking kill him. Sorry the timing of these builds supersede the issues at the core of the units.
I dont know why u guys still reply to this Klystron guy or Squanzo guy. I read their first post then i know its best just to ignored them
|
On September 21 2011 05:00 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false. Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
|
There are no good protoss, their T and Z counterparts are just too good even though it's the same exact people that used to win before all the nerfs and buffs. But all of those people that are no longer winning are just collectively slumping, right?
It's funny how the 'protoss hopes' get huge props for defeating 30% winrate zergs in Code A Ro32, sometimes through huge mistakes from the zerg like Jookto v Jyp. Obviously the innovation protoss needs is to sneak nexuses that the zerg somehow never scouts and to hope that the zerg loses all of his full energy infestors for no reason before casting one fungal.
|
On September 21 2011 05:06 Jinivus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:00 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false. Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient.
He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
|
On September 21 2011 05:00 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false. Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement
Ah - Fair enough. I believe we are talking about the same thing but saying different things about it.
|
On September 21 2011 05:30 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:06 Jinivus wrote:On September 21 2011 05:00 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false. Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient. He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
Yeah and I'm saying he's completely wrong about that being a higher chance.
|
On September 21 2011 05:30 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 05:06 Jinivus wrote:On September 21 2011 05:00 sleepingdog wrote:On September 21 2011 04:08 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 03:44 freetgy wrote:On September 21 2011 03:34 sleepingdog wrote:
Maybe the current protoss players are bad, who knows. But it's definitely not the case that they are not "innovative" enough. Nearly everything has been tried. If P isn't UP, then it's the execution/decisionmaking/etc. that is holding P-players back. Not strategy.
that must be it, i mean MC is known for his bad micro no wonder he is Code B now. Lol - sleepingdog is simply acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that (with the exception of MC of course), Tester, Sangho, Killer, Hongun, Genius, Inca were all considerable worse than their T/Z counterparts, therefore creating the illusion of racial imbalance. I don't agree with this theory at all, but it is quite popular among T/Z players, and it cannot be proven true / false. Actually...not quite. I'm only (!) saying that in my opinion, chances are higher that protoss players are just bad than that the "good" strategies haven't been found yet. You figure out the rest of my statement Haha. How is it more likely out of the whole pool of talented SC2 players not a single one who is capable of playing in a high Code S level chose protoss. That is just f'ing stupid I'm sorry. Plus race representation and winrates have been declining, since Protoss was nerfed into the ground. How convenient. He's not saying that for a fact. Just that one has a higher chance of being truth than the other.
Right.
sleeping is saying that:
It is more likely that Protoss players are straight up bad rather than them not being able to find strategies that can be solve the many difficulties that they are facing.
|
On September 21 2011 04:40 Klystron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 04:35 QTIP. wrote:On September 21 2011 04:28 Klystron wrote:On September 21 2011 04:07 Destructicon wrote:
Klystron, you have a very simplistic view on unit compositions.
The critical thing you forgot and the most important thing is gas cost and gas income.
You have to understand that, some unit compositions are either impossible or ridiculously hard to achieve because of gas income. For example, a Immortal, Phoenx/Void Ray comp would be nearly impossible to execute because it costs a ton of gas, each unit being 100 G, also the comp is flawed because of the huge G cost it is nearly impossible to get sentries and HT into the fray, and you need 6 to 10 sentries.
To even have a small chance to make it work you need to do it of 2 bases at least and hope that the enemy doesn't harass you.
And when the fight finally starts, zealots still get kited to hell by MM balls, the entire Protoss force still gets EMPed which makes the immortals squishy, the phoenix useless and the zealots easy to snipe. On September 21 2011 04:08 Ownos wrote:
I don't need math to know that zealot/phoenix isn't going to work. But you're telling me to rely on faith that there is some magic combo out there that will be the savior of us all? That's quite a reach. Maybe protoss hasn't exhausted all possibilities, but it's clear you have exhausted all good arguments when you're telling me this.
I never said that all unit compositions were useful or easy to pull off. I am trying to show you how silly the statement 'protoss can't innovate' is. As I said before there are many many many variables in sc2, far more than just unit composition. Unit composition does play a big role, and just changing the unit composition is one way of innovating, but not the only one. Timings, chronoboost, resource allocation, positioning, and how units are used within a given composition are all huge factors in sc2. Hell spanishiwa was considered a huge zerg innovator when he decided not to get gas until 40 supply. Even trying to say that you have exhausted all possible unit compositions is a bit silly. Trying to say that you have tried every single unit composition, as well as changing all of the other variables is just ridiculous. You keep saying that protoss can't innovate because protoss players are so far ahead of the curve that they have already completely figured the game out. SC2 has only been out for a year, BW was out for half a decade before people began to come anywhere close to figuring it out. Klystron may have used poor examples to back up his premise, but if he is simply saying that the claim: "All Protoss permutations in unit compositons, strategies have been explored etc." is false, then you can't really argue with him. Same goes for Zerg when they were considered the weakest. It's arguing a meaningless point. Thank you Oh and the formula I used for counting unit combinations was n!/(k!*(n-k)!). Which means that I am not counting repeating combos, and ordering does not matter.
You know that you were just calculating the number of subset of a set of 13 elements ?
The answer is just 2^13, no need to use the other fomulas (btw sum(k=1...k=n, n!/(k!*(n-k)!)=2^n).
But anyawya the problem for protoss is not really the lategame army composition (a mix of vr, mothership, collosus and ht vs zerg is quite OP) but how to reach it without beeing destroyed by the zerg. And this add a lot of constraints (like for example not die on roach/ling all-in) and requirements (like expand as fast as possible), that hugely limits the options.
|
I'm having some success expanding after a Kowi opening (2gate 4 chronoboosted stalkers) and applying light pressure with them. I'll then base my robo timing on what information I gather from my pressure (marine & marauder count mostly). But this may not work at higher levels tho (Plat here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
