|
On September 22 2011 19:48 Loodah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:34 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem. You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas. I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now. That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same. Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea. We HAD mc and kinda / sorta huk. Protoss as a race rewards innovation - they have been innovating for a really long time because their low tier units suck and are more expensive than those of other races- we have seen late game motherships, so many different timings - basically every unit we have seen in conjunction with each other on televised series. Protoss does have room for innovation - as do other races - that is NEVER going to change as it's a game based on meta-evolution. However, I am sick and tired of ZERGS of all people telling protoss players that we don't have a talented pool of players. We have brought over arguably the best SC1 players to sc2 out of all the races. Both Sangho and Trickster both were significantly more talented than DRG, Bomber, MVP, or any other zerg or terran sc2 player at sc1. So I can't really understand how you can say that protoss players don't have talent. Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races - not a single top level zerg sc2 player was an A teamer in BW recently (July was way past his prime when he switched) EXCEPT for Cool. Statistically at the highest level, protoss is underperforming. To rule out imbalance is silly - just like it's silly to say that every single protoss loss is because of imbalance.
Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive.
Shows how biased especially many terran players around here are. Somehow it has become an accepted fact that the majority of "good" players switching over to SC2 chose terran. This is plain and simply FALSE. With the sole exception of MVP, there's no real high-level-BW-terran playing sc2 right now. For Protoss: Tester is a weak example, since he just doesn't care anymore (same as cool/fruitdealer), but SangHo is perfect. After his entrance into SC2 was announced, the thread back then exploded and everyone expected great results. What happened? He is struggling hard.
There doesn't exist a logical explanation as to why - strangely - only those who chose terran became "good" over time.
Disregarding structural imbalance as the main cause of the weak protoss results also violates a very basic principle - Occam's razor:
If there are several possible theories for a phenomenon, it's most likely that the one with the fewest assumptions is true. You could now try to construct sophisticated reasons as to why protoss players failed to adept to the hard macro-style of zerg and the flexible play of terran. Or you could accept the simplistic reason that they just have fewer options to work with in the first place.
It makes much, much more logical sense to assume that all good players are (WERE!) evenly distributed over the races. Lower leagues, where personal preference comes into play, don't matter at all for this. But for the highest level of skill, it really should be assumed that - in the beginning - for each and every talented terran there was a talented protoss and zerg. Then and only THEN it is reasonable to assume that, over time when it turned out terran is both flexible and error-forgiving, more and more pro-gamers went with terran. But this does not explain the terran dominance right from release at all. Especially since during one period in beta terran was considered the worst race by a good margin (do people even remember this time?)
|
159 Posts
Huk missing! Patch 1.4 hwating!
|
On September 22 2011 21:05 JustinMartin wrote:
Huk missing! Patch 1.4 hwating!
You know, I've realized today that I hate the new patch. Reason being, it doesn't really address any of the important problems, and now we're going to have to suffer through a month of "give them time to adjust to the new patch" as Protoss players get owned left and right in the GSL.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Immortals are actually imba now. That would be nice, unlikely as it is.
|
4713 Posts
Great post by sleepingdog, and great argument with Occam's razor.
It's basically unrealistic to assume that, somehow all the good players went to Terran and all the bad players went to Protoss. Its unrealistic to assume Protoss should innovate when, there are no options left, nothing to innovate upon.
Basically its much easier to see that, Protoss is the weaker race, it has serious constraints that don't allow much room for innovation, its options are limited, it is too easily countered by too many things and all of this is backed by statistics and hard data.
|
On September 22 2011 20:58 sleepingdog wrote:
Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive.
Well, if the thread wasn't populated only by Protoss players I would argue that :
Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races
is highly debatable at best, and ridiculous IMO.
SC2 talent needs to be measured by SC2 results. I don't think Killer has shown anything that would make me consider him any better than the zerg "B-teamers".
If BW history is the best way to evaluate players, can we all agree that MC was never that good?
Otherwise I agree with your post, but don't forget that in the world Protoss doesn't seem to be doing that bad (still bad, but not that bad). People are drawing conclusions from a relatively small number of players, so of course it's important to discuss if they're equally talented.
I liked the part on Occam's razor, but as a stats/finance major I believe in another principle, the idea that people are terrible at understanding randomness, and that sometimes numbers don't have to mean anything. Even in a perfectly balanced game things like this will happen.
|
4713 Posts
Fact of the matter is though that, the only players that matter, are the korean protoss or the foreigners that went to korea to train, and this number of players is incidentally very small.
If the skill level of all the terran, zerg and protoss around the world was the same and the results are as they are today, then we wouldn't have to worry about protoss that much because it is still doing good in NA and EU. However NA and EU are somewhat insignificant because the highest level of play is in Korea, and this discussion was, all along about the highest level of play. Everyone says that EU and NA terrans and zerg are 1-2 months behind koreans.
If this is the case then once NA and EU players learn how to abuse all the protoss weaknesses as much as the koreans do, then you'll the the results.
|
On September 22 2011 21:47 Destructicon wrote:
Fact of the matter is though that, the only players that matter, are the korean protoss or the foreigners that went to korea to train, and this number of players is incidentally very small.
If the skill level of all the terran, zerg and protoss around the world was the same and the results are as they are today, then we wouldn't have to worry about protoss that much because it is still doing good in NA and EU. However NA and EU are somewhat insignificant because the highest level of play is in Korea, and this discussion was, all along about the highest level of play. Everyone says that EU and NA terrans and zerg are 1-2 months behind koreans.
If this is the case then once NA and EU players learn how to abuse all the protoss weaknesses as much as the koreans do, then you'll the the results.
Actually I dont really recall any foreign Protoss getting good results lately, can you point it out for me?
|
|
|
Isn't that the account SaSe uses ...  ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/
|
On September 22 2011 22:44 Coal wrote:Isn't that the account SaSe uses ... ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/
....MacSed is a chinese player for Invictus Gaming.
You think he's good in ladder? You clearly have no idea. You should look up Nation Wars tournament and get vods/replays. Chinese players like XiGua and MacSed are vastly underrated.
|
Since beta, terran has been able to use almost all of their units effectively (battlecruiser and raven maybe being the exception). Zerg units have changed a lot but I think the general zerg style of scouting and countering without an exact "build" going into any game hasn't changed too much in the past year for example look at Fruitdealer (watch this again if you haven't in the past 5 minutes)+ Show Spoiler + doing a lot of the same tactics and using the same units and style we see today.
Basically, the other 2 races have spent the last year refining while protoss has spent trying to innovate. This is why you see MC winning sometimes because he does something so radically different then what other races are used to seeing. He then loses months later because the other 2 races have refined solutions using the same units/basic build orders they have been for close to or over a year.
Protoss is extremely rigid in its unit production. You typically see terran have every production facility they need (rax fac port) by at least the time they have expanded. I have never once seen a toss use a viable strategy that involved them having a gate, robo and starport. For being so rigid, I still feel that protoss is that awkward inbetween of Reactive and Timings. I don't think that Protoss has devolped a true style for itself to refine, and thats what I believe to be the real cause of our frustrations.
Some thoughts, hastily put together while at work on my 3rd cup of coffee
|
Unfortunately, all your Protoss heroes are dead.
Just enjoy Nestea and MVP until someone better comes along, nothing anyone can come up with here will make a difference in the long run.
|
Yeah, all of the Protoss heroes are down. I doubt Hero/Sage will last longer in the tournament. We'll just wait for more patches I guess, lol.
Glad I didn't buy a ticket this season.
|
France12738 Posts
On September 22 2011 23:20 ch33psh33p wrote:
Unfortunately, all your Protoss heroes are dead.
Just enjoy Nestea and MVP until someone better comes along, nothing anyone can come up with here will make a difference in the long run.
When MC will be back in code S he will rape everyone again.
|
On September 22 2011 19:48 Loodah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:34 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem. You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas. I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now. That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same. Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea. We HAD mc and kinda / sorta huk. Protoss as a race rewards innovation - they have been innovating for a really long time because their low tier units suck and are more expensive than those of other races- we have seen late game motherships, so many different timings - basically every unit we have seen in conjunction with each other on televised series. Protoss does have room for innovation - as do other races - that is NEVER going to change as it's a game based on meta-evolution. However, I am sick and tired of ZERGS of all people telling protoss players that we don't have a talented pool of players. We have brought over arguably the best SC1 players to sc2 out of all the races. Both Sangho and Trickster both were significantly more talented than DRG, Bomber, MVP, or any other zerg or terran sc2 player at sc1. So I can't really understand how you can say that protoss players don't have talent. Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races - not a single top level zerg sc2 player was an A teamer in BW recently (July was way past his prime when he switched) EXCEPT for Cool. Statistically at the highest level, protoss is underperforming. To rule out imbalance is silly - just like it's silly to say that every single protoss loss is because of imbalance.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 20:58 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:48 Loodah wrote:On September 22 2011 19:34 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 19:17 Brotocol wrote:On September 22 2011 19:07 MilesTeg wrote:On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Do you truly think that has nothing to do with Zerg being buffed?
I never said it had nothing to do with zerg being buff. But it definitely played a minor role compared to the roach ling timings, and then the 3 hatch builds to "counter" 3 gate sentries and FFE. Just look at the games, Nestea and Losira have the best ZvPs in the world and the infestor doesn't play a large part in their strategies. On September 22 2011 18:51 Brotocol wrote:
Zergs weren't even using infestors until Blizz pointed them in the right direction. I already addressed how P was innovating from the start.
Zergs weren't using infestors because they were a very different unit. They were already standard in ZvZ, and quite popular in ZvT. Some people tried to use them in ZvP, but they weren't really helping that much against the Collossi/Stalker balls that people were struggling with at the time. They just weren't the DPS unit that they became after the patch (the DPS against armored went up what, 160% I think? Quite a huge buff), so you can't really hold that against Zerg players. Similarly, Protoss players weren't making archons before they got buffed. You can hardly take that as an example that those races weren't innovating. Some players are just that great. The same goes for MC. But that doesn't mean the Z buff was minor. Also consider that P got nerfed at the same time. All in all, I really don't think you can say that Zerg is where it is today because of innovation. And more importantly, I don't think there's any composition that hasn't been tried by P yet. I said it several times before. P was trying carriers, mothership, immortal drops, colossus drops MONTHS ago. Colossus drops were tried shortly after the game launched. This is in addition to micro-intensive innovations required just to deal with a-move. Terran didn't even bother to use ghosts and was still ahead. And now that 1-1-1 is melting P players at such a high rate, you really can't say innovation is the problem. You are completely wrong, and while you are more intelligent than the other posters here, at this stage you are still repeating the same thing without really supporting it. Once again, just look at the games, in a large majority of ZvPs infestors either don't appear or play a minor role. Nestea, Losira, the new openers, they are the reasons Zergs are winning ZvPs. Honestly I'm not even convinced infestors are a superior tech choice compared to banelings once you have all that gas.But the point is, now we have ways to actually get all that gas. I'll add that you have a narrow view of what innovating means. It's not necessarilly using those forgotten units (I think there's a reason carriers and motherships aren't use, they're just terrible), it's also coming up with new timings. In PvZ if Protoss manages to expand safely while keeping the ability to poke and deny a third, that pretty much solves all the problems they're facing right now. That's the problem with Protoss these days. It is extremely important for a race to have a top player to come up with new builds, and give more confidence to its players. But MC has failed you, and now all that remains is that obnoxious Protoss pessimism and whining that's prevalent in every single thread. If zerg didn't have Nestea it would be the same. Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea. We HAD mc and kinda / sorta huk. Protoss as a race rewards innovation - they have been innovating for a really long time because their low tier units suck and are more expensive than those of other races- we have seen late game motherships, so many different timings - basically every unit we have seen in conjunction with each other on televised series. Protoss does have room for innovation - as do other races - that is NEVER going to change as it's a game based on meta-evolution. However, I am sick and tired of ZERGS of all people telling protoss players that we don't have a talented pool of players. We have brought over arguably the best SC1 players to sc2 out of all the races. Both Sangho and Trickster both were significantly more talented than DRG, Bomber, MVP, or any other zerg or terran sc2 player at sc1. So I can't really understand how you can say that protoss players don't have talent. Zergs probably have by far the least RTS talented players out of all three races - not a single top level zerg sc2 player was an A teamer in BW recently (July was way past his prime when he switched) EXCEPT for Cool. Statistically at the highest level, protoss is underperforming. To rule out imbalance is silly - just like it's silly to say that every single protoss loss is because of imbalance. Good post - spot on the facts and not too offensive. Shows how biased especially many terran players around here are. Somehow it has become an accepted fact that the majority of "good" players switching over to SC2 chose terran. This is plain and simply FALSE. With the sole exception of MVP, there's no real high-level-BW-terran playing sc2 right now. For Protoss: Tester is a weak example, since he just doesn't care anymore (same as cool/fruitdealer), but SangHo is perfect. After his entrance into SC2 was announced, the thread back then exploded and everyone expected great results. What happened? He is struggling hard. There doesn't exist a logical explanation as to why - strangely - only those who chose terran became "good" over time. Disregarding structural imbalance as the main cause of the weak protoss results also violates a very basic principle - Occam's razor: If there are several possible theories for a phenomenon, it's most likely that the one with the fewest assumptions is true. You could now try to construct sophisticated reasons as to why protoss players failed to adept to the hard macro-style of zerg and the flexible play of terran. Or you could accept the simplistic reason that they just have fewer options to work with in the first place. It makes much, much more logical sense to assume that all good players are (WERE!) evenly distributed over the races. Lower leagues, where personal preference comes into play, don't matter at all for this. But for the highest level of skill, it really should be assumed that - in the beginning - for each and every talented terran there was a talented protoss and zerg. Then and only THEN it is reasonable to assume that, over time when it turned out terran is both flexible and error-forgiving, more and more pro-gamers went with terran. But this does not explain the terran dominance right from release at all. Especially since during one period in beta terran was considered the worst race by a good margin (do people even remember this time?) replying to this too
No Sangho and Trickster were not better than Mvp. Also the arguement that more talented players play Terran was more true in BW (for various reasons, and it's pretty agreed upon) and most people didn't switch races. Guess what race DRG and Losira played in BW? Terran, and they're two of the best Zergs. Also, there are some players people seem to overlook as good BW players who switched over. Supernova was pretty decent, Puma was a practice bonjwa who all-killed in proleague (granted it was Ace). Also, a lot of people don't know but Silent_Control is in SC2 and on ST. He's a veeery good terran from BW http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/145_Control . Also, when people say things like NaDa, BoxeR, July, oh they were past their prime when they switched, this is true and BoxeR wasn't really even playing anymore, but NaDa at the time he switched he was still better than 99% of other people who switched. He was still regularly appearing and winning in Proleague, more than most players can say.
|
On September 22 2011 22:56 TimeFlighT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 22:44 Coal wrote:Isn't that the account SaSe uses ... ? And he dropped out in the first round :/ Kicking ass at ladder is one thing, performing @ the booth is what matters :/ ....MacSed is a chinese player for Invictus Gaming. You think he's good in ladder? You clearly have no idea. You should look up Nation Wars tournament and get vods/replays. Chinese players like XiGua and MacSed are vastly underrated.
He is apparently a chinese friend/aqcuaintance of SaSe from the WC3 days, and gave his korean account (NvMacSed) to SaSe.
|
On September 22 2011 19:48 Loodah wrote:
Yeah... Except they have Losira, DongRaeGuu, CoCa, Curious, Revival, and July... You guys would be just fine without Nestea.
One trains with nestea and the others are not nearly at his level.
|
If terran players were simply more talented then this is what Code S and winrates in Korea would've looked like forever now. Even that shit doesn't account for the volume of terrans and lack of Protoss in Code S. Funny how Protoss have been revealed for being talentless hacks AFTER they've been nerfed into the ground. You think MC is less talented than Monster? You think Virus is more talented than Huk?
I must imagine it would be pretty insulting to progamers to say no talented people pick Protoss for whatever silly reason you come up with. It's not like there a few more great terran players, NO ONE that plays Protoss is competitive in Code S and AOL right now. To suggest that's purely coincidence is absolutely absurd.
|
On September 22 2011 21:35 MilesTeg wrote:
I liked the part on Occam's razor, but as a stats/finance major I believe in another principle, the idea that people are terrible at understanding randomness, and that sometimes numbers don't have to mean anything. Even in a perfectly balanced game things like this will happen.
This opinion can only be countered by the death of the game. Well, even then I guess you could say "Even a perfectly balanced and completely awesome RTS might randomly die for no good reason. Oh well, just goes to show that anything can happen! What bad luck for Blizzard."
If enough people perceive the game to be imbalanced, then the truth doesn't matter. Tournament viewership will still decline and expansion sales revenue will still fall short. It doesn't matter whether it's because of some statistical "misunderstanding" or because Blizzard's designers did a bad job, or because of cosmic rays. If e-sports and the SC2 expansions fail because SC2 gets a reputation as a poorly-balanced game, then any argument to the effect that "well the game actually *was* well-balanced, but..." is meaningless.
It's not about achieving some mathematically-provable standard of balance. It's about a PR-campaign. Blizzard needs those high-level tournament number to break down such that each race gets a roughly-equal slice of victory pie (with the larger slice rotating to each race equally) of they're going to lose that PR battle -- and with it their customer base.
|
On September 22 2011 21:15 Destructicon wrote:
Great post by sleepingdog, and great argument with Occam's razor.
It's basically unrealistic to assume that, somehow all the good players went to Terran and all the bad players went to Protoss. Its unrealistic to assume Protoss should innovate when, there are no options left, nothing to innovate upon.
Basically its much easier to see that, Protoss is the weaker race, it has serious constraints that don't allow much room for innovation, its options are limited, it is too easily countered by too many things and all of this is backed by statistics and hard data.
I cannot speak for pvt as I see nothing left to save them. Ghosts own everything but colossus and vikings take care of those.
But, for zerg, I think the problem isn't really the units as much as it is getting the economy and production to get a army on the field and the ability to replace it if you lose a battle. Protosses often 2 base so they can get a big army, but once it dies they lose. Getting bases up safely is where the innovation needs to happen. I feel Huk has figured out a reasonable way to get that economy.
He simply simcities his way to a 3rd base. You see him al the time now on his stream putting cannons in between his 2nd and 3rd base, and later things like gateways and more cannons. Sorta like a forward base of operations. He is able to get a 3rd base up this way he couldn't otherwise do.
Also, he doesn't go crazy in unit warpins, just enough to keep himself safe and relying on cannons to beef up his defense. I feel protoss needs tech AND lots of gates to enter the mid game, but if they get enough gates and tech to enter the mid game they get struck on 2 base. This approach prevents this.
Once a protoss has a strong 3 base economy, the tech they need, and most importantly, a big army and the production needed, taking further bases isn't as difficult. It is all about getting over that hurtle and I feel Huk is at the very least, on the edge of solving this management style. I saw him beat many zergs on his stream with this style using multiple unit comps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
