On September 20 2011 09:32 Jinivus wrote: I haven't watched them do that vs any good ZvPers.
Well they have. Like I said, fucking combat-ex does it and he's horrible
And seriously Idra is just horrible at vP so why you are citing his game in reference to what would work vs a top zerg is beyond me.
IdrA loses a lot of games versus protoss because he lets them get 3 bases up with colossus/HT. It doesn't matter who you are, as a zerg you lose at that point unless the protoss fucks up. IdrA, however, has great unit control. Are you telling me that because it was idra playing that fucking infestor hydralisk shouldn't be able to beat just blink stalkers? Get the fuck out of here
Stop telling us to fucking use carriers we want GSL protoss to be able to beat good people...
I'm not telling you to use carriers. I'm telling you that SaSe who is a GSL protoss uses carriers and wins games with them versus good people
That bold part is fucking bullshit. What's wrong with 3 bases protoss? There're thousands of Protoss has more than 5 bases and still lose to Zerg? Why? cuz infestor is too good for everything. Who need to make any other units than infestors if they have enough money anyway? Don't even bring IdrA in any discussion about balance, you knew that's all about whining and has zero ground to even bother to look at it.
Link me the games where protoss isn't playing like shit and gets on 3-4 base in a decent position and loses to a zerg.
What's wrong with 3 base protoss? Well, you see, protoss units are much more cost effective than zerg units. As zerg has weak air supperiority fighters (corrupters) so it has a hard time dealing with colossus, which destroys everyting extremely quickly on the ground. The only units that have enough armor/health to survive versus colossus, the roach and the ultralisk, are very poor at dealing with a developed protoss army of stalker/colossus. Infestors evened the playing field somewhat, but due to the high range of the protoss army and the blink mechanic, infestors are quickly sniped late game. Add in HT, Mothership and void rays and the ball gets even stronger. Also, the zergs cool "hook" is supposed to be how fast they replenish; however, due to the WG mechanic, you can sit on a 200/200 army with protoss and in 5 seconds have as many stalkers as you have gateways (a lot), actually much faster than a zerg; the 300 food push is actually stronger/faster for protoss. As a result, the zerg has to have a significant advantage going into late game or will pretty much die very easily to the protoss ball (for a long while some top protoss players didn't practice PvZ because they felt it was impossible to lose unless they did something stupid). The infestor is definitely strong midgame, but it has to be. If it isn't, zerg is left with a less powerful midgame than protoss and still gets dominated lategame.
IdrA has a higher win rate vs Protoss recently than he does with Terran believe it or not. And that's with playing MC and Hero.
He loses to a lot of random Terrans. He never loses to a random Protoss.
ColCruncher mean anything to you? lol
To be fair, I believe that was when Protoss air builds hadn't been figured out. That is, it was before Zergs realized that air play was legitimate and not cheesy and it was worthwhile to invest in a couple of Spores and an extra Queen before securing a third, assuming that a non-4gate, non-3gate Sentry Expand build had been scouted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think it was pre-infestor zvp, where turtle deathball rolled roach/hydra/corrupter all day.
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. Carriers and motherships were tried extensively, many months ago.
I'm not claiming that Protoss players are smarter, but that they had to explore earlier because of the race design. There is no "go to" Protoss unit like MM or lings/roaches. If you make zealots and no stalkers, you die. If you make only stalkers, you die in the early game. If you make zealots and stalkers, but no sentries, you will die against early pushes (lings get in your mineral line or MM gets up your ramp).
There was a phase where carrier rush was being tried by many pros, but it simply did not pan out. The same goes for motherships.
I'm also not convinced that Warp Prisms will solve anything. It's definitely an improvement, but it will not shift the metagame, because it does not address Protoss' core design issues. There's still nothing cost efficient to drop in an enemy's base, and putting your HTs into a warp prism doesn't address the fact that ghost is just a better unit. It already requires more micro to use HTs when ghosts are on the field. Adding warp prisms to the equation is not helping the simple fact that ghosts are better statistically.
edit: Another insulting comment that comes up frequently is "Carriers have the highest DPS in the game."
They do 26 dps. A carrier with +3 air attack does less dps than a +0 thor. For every +1 armor the opponent has, the carrier loses 14 dps right away. This is disregarding the insane cost, and the fact that interceptors die very quickly in sc2 (unlike sc1, they do not recover HP).
In addition to it being a poor unit, it takes forever to come out, let alone a decent amount of them. And it also requires an upgrade + building interceptors.
In almost any situation where you made a carrier, even if you won the game - you would have been better served spending those resources on something else.
It's one of the worst units in the game, considering how you have to bend over backwards to get it, and once you do, it's subpar.
Pretty much this. After reading the dps numbers on the carrier on liquipedia, it seems that for the purpose of killing heavy/armored units the voidray does much better than the carrier (esp massive). And for small light units, you are better off using collossus or templar.
The only thing going for the carrier is the interceptors' fucking up of AI.
I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
On September 21 2011 11:44 ZeromuS wrote: I for one am OK if protoss becomes a moot race in any high level tournament. The reason being that it will force one of 2 scenarios:
1) Players buckle down and get really really good 2) Blizzard decides that protoss isnt really that viable anymore and we get a "Protoss Patch"
Agreed. Being in this nebulous area where everyone sucks but it's still "too early" to tell whether it's a race viability issue or a player issue is unpleasant from a viewing perspective.
From a play perspective I'll still float at high masters off of gateway timing attacks and the stupidity of my opponents. That doesn't work anymore in GSL though!
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
Brood War PvT didn't have Vikings which are pretty much tailor made to shut down the type of play that makes Carriers effective.
What you said about Vikings is true, this is why the role of the carrier, its strengths and weaknesses need to be re-thinked, and also the interaction of stalkers, void rays and phoenixes with vikings need to be re-thinked so that you can make a new counter system that promotes some new kind of play other then deathballs vs bio balls.
Either that or adding a new protoss flying unit that would go well with carriers and protect them to a certain extent, and would require a different counter/ unit composition from the terran then marines/marauders ghosts and vikings.
I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
I made a post earlier about tosses taking a safe 3rd. I find Huks methods of expanding and general game management to be the way to go. That + the JYP and Hero style harassment.
On September 22 2011 00:41 Destructicon wrote: What you said about Vikings is true, this is why the role of the carrier, its strengths and weaknesses need to be re-thinked, and also the interaction of stalkers, void rays and phoenixes with vikings need to be re-thinked so that you can make a new counter system that promotes some new kind of play other then deathballs vs bio balls.
Either that or adding a new protoss flying unit that would go well with carriers and protect them to a certain extent, and would require a different counter/ unit composition from the terran then marines/marauders ghosts and vikings.
One could argue that the original designers of SCBW are far superior to those designers (cough) who designed command and conquer which is not on the same shelf as SCBW in any aspect. It was unfortunate that the original designers of SCBW somehow disappeared for whatever reason....
On September 21 2011 11:37 Miller wrote: It's pretty clear that PvZ is fairly balanced (if anything slightly more favored of Z) at the pro level (GSL, MLG, etc...) Go watch any of the past 2 tournyes and you will see no Protoss's beating Terran and slightly more Zs beating Ps (Due to metagame imo not balance).
*EMP should Only take off energy, keep it at 75 energy and no upgrade and decrease the range a bit. Ghost still have Snipe which out ranges HT's feedback. If EMP continues to wipe out shields (counter every Protoss unit by starting the entire P army with half health) then it needs to have a range reduction, cost 125+ energy, and become an upgrade. Against Protoss it is the single strongest spell in the game as it allows one unit to counter every Protoss Unit and Strategy. This is beyond me why this hasn't been dealt with a long time, but now it will have to be or Protoss will be extinct in high level tourneys. Just my 2 cents, GL all hopefully we can some balance restored to the PvT matchup
Edit: Also for the overall future of SC2 as an esport please realize balancing this matchup is bigger than Terran players being able to roll Protoss every game in ladder (so please don't blindly defend your race with all Protoss suck and such.)
I'd rather EMP either be moved to the Raven or if EMP costs 125+ mana, then Storm costs 100+ and Fungal costs 125+.
I respectfully disagree. I think spells are good for the overall metagame as they promote micromanagement, both to cast, counter and avoid the spell. They're one of the most interesting micro mechanics in SC2.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:Hell, I'd be fine with losing EMP altogether and having 250mm Cannon Strike back to a cooldown based ability and putting the range at 8.
It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. 250mm Strike Cannon does less damage than just attacking normally, and normal attacks have smart firing which eliminates overkill. What 250mm Strike Cannons do is they stun the enemy. The fact that it was a cooldown ability wasn't overpowered because even if the spell is researched it will only be used in very rare circumstances to stun colossus or kill immortals quickly (due to hardened shields). The reason the ability costs mana is to give the Thor mana so that they can be feedbacked. Protoss struggle with certain Thor timings and certain Thor builds, the mana was reintroduced so the Thor could be feedbacked and Protoss doesn't get rolled.
I'm not sure what the intended effect of putting the range of the attack at 8 is, you don't really say here. Recognize that the primary benefit of the ability is that it stuns units, so if the protoss tries to escape, then the thor can stun and kill the colossi.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I don't feel like everything from Terran and Protoss has been fully explored (can't really say the same about Zerg, which has been explored to hell and back).
This is something which has been coming up a lot in this thread. In my opinion, Protoss has explored their units more than any other army has. The units we don't see often are Carriers and Motherships. Motherships have been heavily explored and there is mixed feedback about them. I would not be surprised if some kind of Mothership innovation occurred, but the problem with the Mothership is that it is hard countered by the same units which counter colossi and Carriers. If you don't get Carriers when you tech to Motherships, they cost 850/750 to put one out (including Stargate and Fleet Beacon).
The cost to put a single Carrier out is 1050/750 including the cost of interceptors and the upgrade. I really don't think that Carrier play has been heavily explored since 1 gate expand openings and forge fast expand opening have become the norm. I look forward to seeing more 3 base Carrier games.
The problem with the Carrier is that each one costs 450/250 once fully upgraded and they do less damage than any other tier 3 unit despite doing 80 damage per "volley". They are not a Protoss ground unit, and require separate upgrades which is extremely expensive. Every point of armor on the opposing unit reduces the Carrier's damage by 16. So the Carrier does 64 damage to an unupgraded Marauder and does 16 damage total against 3/3 Marauders.
The difference between Protoss and the other races in terms of innovating strategies is how their tech tree works. Protoss can comfortably tech to everything in their arsenal every game because all their ground units benefit from upgrades and their air units do not need upgrades to contribute meaningfully (except the Carrier ofc). Protoss must build gateway units in order to survive until the midgame, and Protoss does not have map control until colossi come out if Zerg get ling or roach speed, or Terran builds Marauders. Protoss Tier 3 units are highly vulnerable, but put out high damage or provide specific utility (dts harass, mothership support spells). This means that they require gateway units as a meatshield in order to do their damage.
Now that Terran uses ghosts, all of their bio has been explored rather thoroughly. Terran mech play is currently in the process of being explored, and more players are using mech in every matchup. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's being done. "Sky Terran" requires units on the ground otherwise the opposing army can just run past it and destroy the Terran's base. Terran air units are not a good solo composition, but we are seeing more air units in TvT. There is probably room to innovate and explore, but we'll see.
The problem when discussing zerg "innovation" is that zerg is reactive in all matchups. This generally tends to mean that they choose an opening and then can't rely on having certain things even five minutes in the game. It's not always safe to take a third base and it's not always safe to tech to mutas against protoss on three bases. Zerg will constantly innovate every time the other races have a new build or composition because that's how zerg works. If terran is going MMM every game, then you're not going to see roach compositions doing well. If zergs say MMM is OP because zerg can't use roaches, then then Terran is fair is saying "maybe try ling/bling." We didn't see the current builds months ago when most zergs were having difficulties. Zerg has the most flexibility in how to construct their army and this is the type of innovation that zerg does.
Terran is always proactive, which means they decide which build to use and when to execute it. The other races just hang onto their hats and try to defend. This is not a bad thing, it's actually quite common in RTS. Terran innovation tends to be new timings for making certain tech, using certain units to secure expansions or figuring out how to achieve strong unit placement.
Protoss walks the middle. They are reactive against Terran and have less available in terms of what they can safely do. They need gateway units in order to expand thanks to marauder and they need detection at a certain point in order to defend banshees and ghosts (just in case). This is no different than zerg, except zerg has less to fear from marauder and zerg has an ee han timing with their mutas which tends to do very strong damage. In BW, Protoss had a similar timing with the reaver - maybe colossus harass could be used. I'm not going to say Protoss can or can't do certain things, just that it's not a simple matter of "use carriers lolol." Against zerg, Protoss are proactive, which means they will try to exploit timing windows to do certain damages. The difference is that Protoss can not recover from losing their whole army the way that Terran can, which means that Protoss must be careful not to over commit.
If I had a thesis for all the above, I just want to say that Protoss behaves differently in different matchups and Protoss uses every unit in their army because that's the way they were designed.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I mean, Blizzard had to buff the Warp Prism to encourage Warp Prism play. But hey, who cares about Warp Prisms when you have a massive splash damage A-move siege unit in the Colossus instead? Storms and Colossi are really good. I don't really see Gateway units losing to Bio units because Chargelot Archon is AMAZINGLY strong. Players may not thing it, but with their durability, Zealots just TEAR through bio if left unkited. And if you do kite, you need to kite very well or else the rest of the army can still hit you while you kite the Zealots.
Nobody at high levels "just a-moves" their entire army - any army. And damage is not the sole focus of RTS. If colossi are a-moved, then terran can stim and use stop-and-shoot micro to minimize damage from colossus while vikings tear all the colossi down. Both armies must be microed. Chargelot Archon IS very strong, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. But Chargelot Archon can be kited fairly well and is highly weak against ghosts. It is a very expensive composition which does not lend well to the protoss slowly building up higher tech units so they can win. Terran comes out on top if you keep trading armies like this. Every Terran will kite, what a silly thing to say "if left unkited" and "if you do kite."
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:If I remember, Broodwar Protoss was focused heavily on Dragoons, Zealots, High Templar, some Dark Templar, the occasional Reaver, and Archons (obviously from leftover High Templar). Zerg usually responded with what? Hydras and Lurkers or Mutas and Lings right? (into Defilers and Ultras?) It feels like Protoss hasn't changed much but Zerg has changed a lot. A majority of their units are weaker but they have the Infestor with Neural Parasite and Fungal Growth, which is the thing that has been giving most Protoss players headaches... I don't know though... How much better/worse is the Stalker compared to a Dragoon?
That was a different game. Zerg hasn't "innovated" since BW, they have different units. I was going to write a bit on this, but it's all irrelevant. Dragoons did 20 damage, but half against small units like workers, zerglings and marines; and 75% to medium units like hydras, goliaths and vultures. Stalkers do 10 damage, +4 against armored. Dragoons do much more damage than Stalkers against things like tanks (20 damage vs 14). It's hard to compare because BW damages were based on the size of the unit, but Dragoons had 20 base damage and that should answer most of your questions. Also, Dragoons did an extra +2 damage per weapon upgrade, whereas Stalkers only get +1. It's worthwhile to mention now that Zealots did 16 damage, and got +2 per weapon upgrade whereas now they do 8x2, +1 per weapon upgrade. This means that +1 Zealots will do 17 damage in BW and 16 damage in SC2 against 1 armor units.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:In PvT it was the same but with more Reaver usage and Arbiters.
Terran used Tanks, Vultures, Goliaths, Science Vessels (for those damn Arbiters) and Marines in Bunkers (early game) in TvP... I recall quite a few Terrans crying that TvP is an absolute headache... (It could've just been low level whining). To be honest, Terran has gotten worse in that respect. The Hellion is good at harassing, yes, but I feel like Spider Mines gave your more safety, map control, and I also feel like Vultures were better overall in a battle. Tanks supposedly got better... But they do less per shot damage (but attack faster and have a better AI). Goliaths... Well Terran anti-air went to hell, but the ground damage I think went up significantly (at least when comparing Goliaths to Thors).
Again, not relevant to the discussion. But I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate JangBi on taking the first Protoss OSL since Stork in August '08. I was a low level Terran in BW and I found the same stuff frustrating. But it wasn't my job to play, and at the highest levels of play it is clear that Protoss has the lowest win rate in BW. That's 14 Terran OSLs, 10 Zerg OSLs and 8 Protoss OSLs. Protoss won often early on and zerg didn't.
On September 21 2011 15:57 RyLai wrote:I feel like Robotics tech Protoss is better (except for harass, where Reavers just RAPED), otherwise not too much has changed except that Protoss can warp units right outside or inside your base... I feel the other 2 races went to hell... Marauders have more value in TvP and Marines are actually somewhat usable in the matchup, but I feel the reason for using them (other than that beginners suck ass at dealing with them) is the fact that Terran mech went to hell in WoL. Mech CAN work, don't get me wrong, but it's harder to pull off since it's hard to get the amount of mech units you want and you don't have Spider Mines to delay the Protoss push. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Terran Anti-air, again, went to hell. Against a passive Protoss, maybe it could work since the Terran would have more time to be safe to macro up and be a little greedier with their tech...
I think that Robotics is probably an improvement, but I think that if Reavers were in the game instead of Colossus that most players wouldn't mind. Reavers also can't get sniped by vikings (their shuttle could, but how many vikings do you make to kill a shuttle?). Marauders have turned the matchup on its head, it's not that marines are (much) better, it's more that it's worth investing in bio because it helps marauders too. Marauders take map control for the terran and don't sacrifice defense, wide variety of stable openings and effectiveness of low unit counts which has always been a Terran strength. Marauders make it more difficult to scout and expand, which was very important in BW. I'm not sure what type of map you need to make nexus first openings safe against marauders, but that type of map would likely benefit Protoss.
I agree that Terran mech is worse in WoL and I think it's a shame. I know that Spider Mines were frustrating, but they would definitely help Terran mech. Goliaths would be very nice anti-air for the Terran race in general, but I think the matchup it would benefit most is TvT. Terran mech still has time to macro up and get greedy tech, but a combination of no spider mines, chargelots, blink stalkers and immortals has made terran mech much less effective against late game protoss armies. Bio mech is strong against early game Protoss.
I'm hoping my insight as a random player is useful. I will admit that I favour Terran and that zerg is my weakest race in the interests of full disclosure. I suspect that we will see a ghost nerf coming up, but I think it's too late to nerf Marauders in WoL without upsetting overall game balance. I would also like to see some more experimentation with fleet beacon units, but I don't think it will change the current state of the game because they are late tech options and they are countered the same way colossi are. I'm not sure what kind of a buff I'd like to see, but I do think that ghosts and infestors are too strong against protoss (or in general).
In terms of the 1/1/1 opening - it is the hardest thing to hold. Everyone says different things, but I think the main problem is that Terran can choose which type of 1/1/1 they will throw at you after the Protoss puts down Robotics/Stargate. The safest route should involve Robotics in order to detect Banshees, but Observers are very easily sniped. The DPS of marines is incredibly high and guardian shield does much to mitigate this. The problem is that it hits at a time when Protoss is on 3 gateways and a tech structure or 5 gateways and it can hit with either cloaked banshees, tanks with siege, combat shield marines, or 3 rax marines as well as a bunch of SCVs. Protoss just can't match the production.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
This.
Protoss need to be able to find a safe opening which maximizes economy, lets them tech, and not instantly die. Mid-game colossus give map control to Protoss, which lets them expand and defend drops. This is the most fun part of the game for me when I play Terran. You know Protoss loses instantly if they push your front and you need to hurl drops at them while you mass vikings so you can challenge map control. This phase ends when you kill the colossi and have ghosts.
I am eager to see more of HerO's games because he seems to get the pressure expand PvZ. Infestors are sorda messing it up right now, but I think he's on the right track.
On September 22 2011 00:47 Micket wrote: I like how people think a measure of a race's innovation is to do with how many units they use. True innovation comes from establishing a safe solid opening which can transition into an advantageous mid game. I'm not talking about simple expand builds, I am talking about a concept which will take you to the midgame against a particular response, and you will be in a position to win.
ZvP fast third's are an example of this. Utilising hellions for map control and creep denial and NOT sacrificial drone raids are another. Protoss mid game consists of... 2 base all ins or sit back and turtle. I would even say late game warp prism usage is not gonna help Protoss atm. Neither is cheesy sentry drops or DTs or voidrays or Colossus timings.
Mid game vs Terran is ok, its early and late game that is difficult. Late game can fix itself with maps and metagame shifts, the early game stuff needs a patch. Against Zerg, Protoss need a safe way of taking a third, without putting themselves all in. Protoss has to have a situation where they can move out on the map safetly, pressure zerg, and have an effective escape mechanism. Sending 12 sentries and 20 blink stalkers vs infestor ling is not gonna cut it. You have to think, 'if zerg won't die to this pressure whilst I take my third, will I die to the Zerg counter pressure.' If answer is yes, then you are doing a 2 base all in. If you think your pressure has given enough time to macro at home and tech to defend a third, then suddenly, Protoss is in an advantageous situation.
Sitting back whilst taking a third doesn't work and has not worked in PvZ for BW for 10 years. Pressuring with a force that can't retreat, or cannot deal with counter aggression, is a 2 base all in. If Protoss cannot take a third in a safe way ever, they are too weak. But people are still using too many 2 base all ins.
Typically dealing with zerg fast thirds usually meant using DTs or stargate units all of which is negated by extra queens and a spore crawler. It's dumb that a zerg can respond to a fast expand with a third base because they know the protoss can't do much. DT and stargate units ARE our harass units. It's dumb to think we need a new one in the expansion. How about no DT shrine requirement? How about just rework the VR/phoenix?
You are right, if the protoss can't do much damage to slow the zerg with a 2 base timing and die to the counter attack, it is all-in. -_- Not exactly by choice, but it shows how stupid the situation is.
Including the warp prism, the problem is protoss harass viability being cost inefficient or being able to retreat. High risk, low reward. You can do a 8 marine drop, do tons of damage maybe lose half the marines and you'd still be okay. You can harass with mutas and lose nothing. You can counter attack with lings, LOSE ALL OF THEM AND DO NO DAMAGE and still be ok.
IMO perhaps protoss pressure timings have been nerfed way too much.
PvZ isn't that big of an issue though. But the P:2-base and Z:3-base phase is kind of unstable.
It was done in the beta by TLO, but speed prism colossus drops might use some more exploring maybe? Would that come too late though? When he did it, it didn't inspire much confidence though. Maybe we just need someone who can execute it better.
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
I think making the carrier suck was their revenge for us hating on the stupid tempest. I think the carrier can be viable if you also have the tech to deal with their counters. Carrier/HT/archon is pretty awesome. But insanely expensive. But I still think a build time reduction is needed.
On September 22 2011 01:19 Fuhrmaaj wrote: That was a different game. Zerg hasn't "innovated" since BW, they have different units. I was going to write a bit on this, but it's all irrelevant. Dragoons did 20 damage, but half against small units like workers, zerglings and marines; and 75% to medium units like hydras, goliaths and vultures. Stalkers do 10 damage, +4 against armored. Dragoons do much more damage than Stalkers against things like tanks (20 damage vs 14). It's hard to compare because BW damages were based on the size of the unit, but Dragoons had 20 base damage and that should answer most of your questions. Also, Dragoons did an extra +2 damage per weapon upgrade, whereas Stalkers only get +1. It's worthwhile to mention now that Zealots did 16 damage, and got +2 per weapon upgrade whereas now they do 8x2, +1 per weapon upgrade. This means that +1 Zealots will do 17 damage in BW and 16 damage in SC2 against 1 armor units.
On September 22 2011 00:28 Destructicon wrote: I just finished watching state of the game episode 50 and Tyler talked of how he liked the old carriers because, it took skill to use properly and they where used more often.
Basically in BW you could use the carriers actually kite because, back then the interceptors lingered outside the carrier for a while, in SC2 they come back to the carrier instantly once you issue a move command. By doing attack commands and then movement commands at the right time you could keep the interceptors attacking while keeping carriers out of danger.
I'd love it if Carrier AI was changed a bit, the Carrier was made harder to use but still remained strong, then the carrier can be made cheaper and builds faster. Also the carrier should be given a definitive role as something to counter another thing made by terran and/or zerg in late game (if Protoss can get that far).
The changes I've outlined would hopefully make the carriers much more lovable and usable. If the carrier is innately weak and/or counterable, but by kitting intelligently (think of kiting with Colossus), to increase their survivability, it would reward skill and allow for a buff.
Brood War PvT didn't have Vikings which are pretty much tailor made to shut down the type of play that makes Carriers effective.
Not to mention that Marines are common now, who shred Interceptors. Marines in BW would've dominated Interceptors too but bio in BW was hard to use and suicide vs Protoss AOE.
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.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
You have some good points about the Voidray... not sure that it fills any of it's roles very well. They don't dish out enough damage quickly or move fast enough to be a microable unit where just one or a few can be scary.
After the range and Flux vane nerfs, it certainly isn't a scary base harassment unit late game. Mass voidray was a problem in team games I suppose, but 1v1 it is hurting for a speed boost or something.
Why bother "exploring" protoss when you can just learn terran and know that you're playing a race that already has well-known tools and techniques to deal with every game situation?
A lot of general game skill transfers from protoss to terran; the races are much more similar to one another than either is to zerg. It's a matter of a few weeks to switch to terran and immediately enjoy all of the well-known terran advantages. But the amount of time that it will take to "explore" protoss and somehow dream up as-yet-unforeseen techniques and tactics for winning versus terran and zerg is unguessable and no one can even say whether or not it's possible.
The only reason to stick with protoss is that you like the way the units and buildings look.
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.
This is, hands down, the best post regarding Protoss balance I have ever read.
One more units comparison to add =)
Voidray vs. Banshee
While Voidray looks good in theory.They're actually bad in actual gameplay.
Voidray NEEDS to stay on target to actually kill something and do some dmg.In actual game play, you will NEVER get that chance ever unless u already are in a significant lead while Banshee only need to release her rockets then fly away, come back, shoot, run rinse and repeat.An easy example : i give you a single Voidray vs 6 Marines what u can do ? nothing while 1 Banshe vs 6 Marines can easily kite them and do some serious dmg with proper control.
Voidray is a broken unit and it should never be implemented with this kind of mechanic (stay on target to deal dmg)
You have some good points about the Voidray... not sure that it fills any of it's roles very well. They don't dish out enough damage quickly or move fast enough to be a microable unit where just one or a few can be scary.
After the range and Flux vane nerfs, it certainly isn't a scary base harassment unit late game. Mass voidray was a problem in team games I suppose, but 1v1 it is hurting for a speed boost or something.
Yes, i hate it since its first introduced.I mean if u ever follow BW scene even the slightest this kind of unit is the most STUPID thing to think of implementing into the game.Protoss has no kiting unit.Well they do (stalkers which can easily negate by SeigeTanks) but thats it while Terran has bunch of those in Marines, Marauders, Banshees, Vikings, Hellions basically covered both air and ground.
On September 20 2011 21:46 AnalThermometer wrote: The "use more warp prisms" thing really is the new nydus worm. Anyways, just watching Terrans use some Ravens makes me ask why they have auto-turrets when the race clearly doesn't need them. A Protoss version of auto-turrets would be great as an ability for warp prisms in the expansion. You could drop them in a mineral line without worrying about diminishing your already small army early on in the game and they last ages, forcing your opponent to split their army at least a little bit.
Sometimes it feels like the same reason Terran can lift buildings... but also repair them. If you can lift them, why be able to repair them too when the enemies' mineral dump is melee units?
The answer? The only thing I can imagine is overkill for racial differences. Blizzard wants to be damn sure they don't have problems losing critical buildings. Seems too much to be able to repair and fly away expansions though, when they are the only viable target if your (Z's and P's) attacking units are melee oriented in your race/build. Blizzard is saying, "We don't want Zerg or Protoss to easily take out a Terran expansion. We just don't want that to be in the game. They should focus on killing something else." Terran are meant to be floating across the galaxy, recycling garbage and living off whatever resources they can steal.
Same reason marines (tier 1) unit get stim and medivacs. Blizzard is saying "We want to be damn sure Terran can harass the crap out of Zerg and Protoss expansions, even if they are down to only minerals and little tech."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------OK, the stuff below is mostly for fun, but I'm serious about the Terran stuff above... it just seems kinda too much in the case of Terran---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are some of these design choices by Blizzard for the other races?
Protoss: 1. Blizzard wants to be damn sure Protoss can warp in across the map via the pylon power grid. Pylons do it. Warp prisms do it. Hell, at one time I think motherships did it. Blizzard is saying "Protoss are advanced psionic dudes that can appear anywhere. Be afraid of these aliens, be very afraid. Hide your kids, Hide your wife - Hide your kids, Hide your wife."
2. Blizz wants Protoss to not lose units. Shield regen on everything was buffed from BW. Shield batteries taken out, seen as not needed since shield regen was buffed. Blizzard saying perhaps "Hit and run, then macro for 5-10 seconds, recharge, then hit again". The Phoenix attack options being mana based seem to say the same thing. Blink stalkers with so much shields to HP ratio seems to point to the same thing. Mothership recall. Forcefield in a bad engagement and run away or regroup. They want Protoss to chip away at the enemy, but theoretically never lose units.
3. Blizz wants Protoss's tech to be expensive to get to. Everything costs a ton of gas. Sentries. Upgrades like charge, psi storm, and colossus thermal lance. Assimilators have a ton of HP... Protoss wants gas. Gas. GAAASSS.
Zerg?
1. Blizzard wants fast, swarming ground units to be running around causing havok confusing the enemy. Speedlings are ridiculously fast... seriously. Broodlings coming out of everything.
2. Creep is alive and is annoying for the enemy. Creep can stall other expansions. Creep gives vision. Creep speeds up your own Zerg units. Creep makes the map turn PURPLE. Blizzard is saying "Zerg is taking over your world... creep all over the fugging place".
3. Zerg can see you. Vision all over the place. Creep again. Overlords. Overseers. Changelings.
On September 22 2011 01:12 Avan wrote: LiquidHero and JYP are Aiur's last hope. All the other guys you've mentioned are poor players if compared to them.
EPT
I think the carrier can be viable if you also have the tech to deal with their counters. Carrier/HT/archon is pretty awesome. But insanely expensive. But I still think a build time reduction is needed.
