Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way.
OW! Well, that was painful. Though the top flight Europeans resisted the best they could, the Korean onslaught was just too much. Puma and MC stormed to the top of IEM Cologne, further accentuating the Korean domination of the pro-gaming scene. But we expected that, didn't we?
The main surprise this tournament, even more so than the part where Puma won, was the part where MC lost. It was his big return to the international stage after some much publicized comments about continued foreign tournament participation bringing his game down. With some time to recharge and practice in Korea, wasn't he supposed to start dominating people all over again? Though Puma proved his mettle against MC in the NASL grand finals, it was still shocking to see MC go down 0-3. More on that below.
There were a few minor surprises, like Killer and Stephano getting knocked out in the group stages by narrow margins, but the rest of it was mostly a confirmation of what we already knew. Select's recent resurgence continued as he showed some pretty high quality gameplay in all of his matches, even in a loss to MC. Mana lived up to his reputation as one of Europe's best young players, finishing top among foreigners. Socke was solid for the millionth tournament in a row. And so forth.
Anyway, I'll try not to make the intro all about Koreans for Guangzhou or New York. I mean, I'll TRY. But with four and three Koreans going to each of those respective events, I'm not sure if it can be avoided.
The Fall of MC
By: tree.hugger
The President is not amused.
It's been a weird year for MC. In some ways he's come full circle. At the beginning of the GSL, he was well known as one of the strongest players in Korea. Coming straight from a promising BW career that had never taken off, he plunged straight into the free-for-all that was SC2 and GSL Season 1. In the opening round, he drew a terran player whose time had been divided between school and SC2. Here, MC had a chance to show his promise.
Except not everything panned out as you’d expect; in his first game on the GSL stage, MC was wrecked on Scrap Station by PoltPrime's innovative combination of terran bio and banshees. It was to be an inauspicious beginning for a protoss who had always known he had what it took, but whose confidence and skill had yet to materialize on screen. In GSL Season 2, MC cleared the first round, only to lose to a washed-up old BW player who had played poorly in the opening season. Yet NesTea would go on to gain his second wind that month, winning the GSL, while MC was left wanting.
Of course, we all know that MC broke through on his third try. With an arsenal of early timing attacks that papered over the fragility of late game PvT, MC conquered his infamous nerves and his opponents. Suddenly MC's swagger and confidence seemed an asset. When he won his second GSL against the new hyper-aggression of July, he seemed ascendant; the world's greatest player taking his due in the world's greatest tournament. His game knowledge, mechanics, and (of course) confidence combined to render him untouchable.
They call MC the 'Protoss President,' but he now finds himself at the lowest point in his career since GSL2. Having been unceremoniously dumped down into Code-A, he is far from inspiring confidence. When he won his championships, there was a feeling that whenever MC engaged, he would win the battle. His sense of when and where to fight was possibly his greatest asset of all, and it brought him victory time and time again. MC did not lose battles.
Contrast this with the MC we saw in the finals of IEM Cologne this past month. MC didn't just lose; he didn't just get swept; he absolutely lost his fucking mind. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game. Never in a year had MC looked so lost. Great players—and MC is a great SC2 player—are used to an unprecedented level of control over their games. When you watch a Brood War virtuoso like Flash play, he may be momentarily surprised by a tech switch or strategy. Despite that surprise, it soon becomes clear that he has nonetheless considered that tech switch or strategy, and is able to adapt to meet the new challenge. Even if great players are caught unawares, they're always prepared to some extent.
At IEM, MC was prepared. Yet he still lost badly. That, more than anything else, even Puma's victory, was what we took away from IEM Cologne. MC had lost control of his game.
***
It's really difficult to understand just how things could have gone so wrong for MC. Looking at the bigger picture, IEM was in fact the latest in a series of defeats and disappointments for Min Chul. Five months and five championships have gone by since MC last reached a GSL final. His last semi-final appearance was in the April World Championships. He failed to make it out his Code-S group twice, and was eliminated in the first round of the Super Tournament. His GSTL record since May is 6-4, and he has only once won an ace match for oGs, losing three. He has attended multiple foreign tournaments against player pools he could be expected to crush, and has only won a couple. That MC is a good player is beyond argument, but it's an open question right now as to whether he's an elite one.
One possible explanation is that MC, as progamers are wont to do, has simply entered a slump period. This happens to the best of players. Memorably, Flash once fell out of the BW Power Rank. Bisu was once demoted to the B-team to receive special training, while Nada has had countless peaks and valleys over his ten-year career. Most players recover, whether through the help of a new strategy, taking a break to recharge their batteries, or taking new inspiration from an outside event. MC may do the same. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
Another thought is that MC was never really that good to begin with; that he relied mostly on one and two base cheeses, or on having the luck to meet players in their worst match-ups at crucial times. While there is some truth to the point about MC's opponents, his first two GSL appearances were as tremendously unlucky as subsequent runs have been lucky. Luck is often confused for skill, and skill often for luck. The truth is that they are very similar beasts. Great players make their own luck, and MC has done that in the past.
A third possibility is that MC has been left behind by the current trends in gameplay. This would be substantial news, as the oGs house has essentially led the direction of protoss play since the release of the game. There's really little reason to think that has changed, or that this argument holds any water. Recently, MC has been credited with re-introducing the shuttle storm drop technique from BW into SC2. He is one of the few protoss in the game able to execute this well, let alone use it at all. Surely MC is not far removed from the brain trust that develops protoss strategy, if not the outright leader for his race.
MC is still playing well; he's still at the forefront of protoss innovation, and he's obviously a good player. Still, he isn't doing as well as he, and we, expect. None of the more common theories present a comprehensive picture of just why MC has fallen so precipitously from grace. Of course, he still gets a good deal of credit and attention because he is still the best protoss. Perhaps that’s the crux of the issue. The most persuasive line of argument is that, from the beginning, things actually went way better for MC than they should have.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
When MC won his second championship in GSL March, San and Anypro followed him into the semi-finals. As certain writers adamantly insisted, these two were really awful players. Now they're where they belong, in Code B. The only other protoss finalist was InCa. Where is he now? Code B. It is no secret now that protoss is underpowered at the highest current level of play, but studying MC's record suggests that protoss has actually never been competitive in the entire history of Sc2. Little remembered now is the fact that no protoss reached the final four of the first two GSLs. Only two protoss players have reached GSL finals. Only two protoss have ever made a second appearance in the final four. These are tricky facts to work with, because zerg's deep tournament runs may be even scarcer. Yet, when zergs make the later rounds of the GSL, they almost always do better than protoss. The success of players like NesTea, LosirA, and July leaves open the possibility that zerg does in fact have a fighting chance in SC2. The utter failure of the protoss pool seems proof of the polar opposite.
MC then, is slumping because he is supposed to slump. While protoss and zerg have occasionally traded places at the bottom of the balance pile, protoss has borne the brunt of the damage over time, and has indisputably been terrible recently. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. He was the first player to really discover the power of early game sentry attacks as protoss. As his fellow protoss mimicked his play, and as terran and zerg became more adept at defending these attacks, MC, and protoss in general, have lost what appears to be their only good set of timing windows. This is the natural evolution of the game – the give and take between current trends and past ones. Yet it seems that protoss has hit a brick wall, and MC along with it.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
***
All of which brings this article full circle, with MC falling once more to the unholy marine-banshee union. In his first game against PuMa on Xel'Naga Caverns, MC 1 gate FE'd and then rushed to gateway/immortal tech. Against PuMa's first 1/1/1 attack, MC wisely sacked his expansion and held the attack surprisingly comfortably. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge. It didn't come soon enough. PuMa's next and final all-in had more stuff. MC this time was not patient enough. Having invested in charge, he needed to wait for it. He could have sacked his expansion again, but chose instead to attack, and lost his entire army because of it, losing the game. Colossi would likely not have helped, as banshees shred colossi. Charge was an inspired option, because it would severely weaken the marines and the quick closing time of the zealots would lower tank effectiveness, allowing the stalkers to deal with the banshees in their usual inefficient way. Yet charge takes so long to complete that MC was left stranded when PuMa's second "all-in" came in.
In the third game, MC went insane. His brain exploded within his head and oozed out his ears onto the keyboard. Going phoenix/blink, he somehow decided it was a good idea to force a basetrade against a terran player, apparently assuming that two or three phoenix stood a chance of killing several scattered floating buildings faster than PuMa's terran imba-ball killed the immobile protoss structures. And that's the best-case scenario. The other scenarios looked a lot more like what actually happened, which was PuMa surviving, re-building a base, and slowly killing MC's remaining buildings along the way. All the while, MC's stalkers flailed about with all the efficacy of hitting a charging rhinoceros with a fly swatter. So much for that. Utter and total failure.
MC is good enough to be in Code S. It is still possible for protoss to stay in Code S, but you have to sympathize with him in big tournaments. He cannot win, nor can HongUn, nor Puzzle, nor HuK. It's ridiculous. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
They call MC the ‘Protoss President,’ but you can't be President of a country that doesn't exist.
So, here we are at the end of the tournament. Who shall we interview? The winner, and now two time global gold medalist, EG.Puma? Or maybe oGs.MC, the world's top Protoss who now faces a precipitous decline? Silly Koreans, as if we'd interview you! Instead we bring you the third place winner and top foreigner at IEM Cologne, the Pokemon-playing Polish Protoss prodigy: mouzMaNa.
Let's start with the usual. Tell us a little about yourself.
Hello, my name is Grzegorz Komincz, I come from Poland, I play for team Mousesports, I play Protoss. I am going to turn 18 year in December. For now I started the last year of my middle school.
You placed third at IEM Global Challenge Cologne, the best of all the foreigners. Were you pleased with your performance there?
Of course I was. I think it was my best performance of my SC2 career. I had some other 2nd places and small 1st places but I think 3rd place at IEM, first from the foreigners, makes it the biggest achievment so far for me.
How do you rate yourself right now as a player? With the Protoss situation being so chaotic as of late, a lot of people are starting to say you're the best foreign Protoss player, or at least the best PvT player these days
I feel like I am improving very, very fast lately. I think I can call myself the best PvsT player outside Korea, but still I see a lot of mistakes in my gameplay so I can become better in the nearest future. As for the best foreign P player, not yet, I can't be called like that since I often do a lot of stupid mistakes (supply block few times every game ftw, totally messing up Build Orders). If I want to become the best foreigner, I must keep on practising and fix my mistakes I am doing now and become better in all the matchups, not only PvsT.
You're the only progamer who's beat Puma in a PvT series other than Tassadar and Sage. What did you think of Puma's play in your IEM Series?
I think we can't take the game between me and PuMa as a determinant of skill, because we both were 2-0 in our group, we already knew that we passed the group. I did my best to prove that I am able to beat the best players, so of course I didn't understimate PuMa. In my opinion, PuMa didn't play his best series, to not show the tactics he want to show in the games later in the bracket. Also as far as I remember, PuMa was very sick on the first day of IEM and I think it might affect him of playing not his best.
You've done pretty well lately against Europe's best Protoss players, but lost your semi-finals match against oGsMC 0-3. Do you think the score accurately showed your relative skill levels?
I could've done way better vs MC. Before the games I didn't feel very confident against him. During the games I gave MC too much respect, I didn't do any agressive moves at all, I let him play what he wanted. I played very safe, not to rush or all in him, I wanted to win the straight up game, but MC did a lot of risk in his games and I didn't do anything risky so his risk was worth to do. I think if I would face MC now, I would learn my mistakes I did and the score would be little different, I wouldn't let him play that risky as he played at IEM.
A lot of great Polish players were at IEM, and Poland was the most represented country there. Is there anything special going on lately that has all of you guys playing so well?
Well, I don't know if thats something special, Sweden for example has way more good players than Poland has. We don't do anything special I think we just practice and we do everything we can to survive in Poland as a players (:
Ok, let's talk balance. MC just dropped out of Code-S, leaving just five Protoss players left there. The statistics show that Protoss is at its worst win rate in almost a year. What do you think of the state of Protoss nowadays?
I knew that the days like that are going to happen. I mean like few months ago, we (Protoss) already did almost all things we could do then, we used all the units of Protoss and we just had to make the usage of them perfect, improve our build orders and so on. Terrans and Zergs didn't use some of the main things that I was sure they're going to use very soon. For example, terrans before didn't use ghosts a lot in TvsP and that's why they were losing a lot to HT play, because they made like 3 ghosts and that's enough. Nowdays Terrans use all of the things they can in their combination, I still think they might even use raven soon, we'll see if that's possible. Ghosts, Vikings, Medivacs, Marauders, this combination is very very scary.
Zergs didn't use that well of creep spread and infestors, now nowdays Zergs poop all the map with their creep and make sometimes ONLY infestors, because after the patch they're so scary. I think zergs will use Nydus worms more often very soon. Actually, I hope they wont ^^. Because of that, Protoss players already use all the thing they can use, we can't do anything more, we don't have a good harass unit except Phoenix, which is kinda hard to transition to because protoss need a lot of gas, it is possible to harass other races, but it's harder than doing it as a zerg (very very fast units) or terran (medivac drops, cloaked ghosts).
So do you think Protoss can turn this bad situation around with some new ideas, or do you think that a patch will be needed to fix things? If so, what should be changed?
I don't have any idea what to change. I just would like to banshee would not destroy protoss that hard ^^. It's in Blizzard hands what to do with the balance, if they don't do anything with that, we, players, must do something on our own.
As long as we're talking about balance, we can't leave out 1/1/1. It's been destroying people left and right in tournaments lately, what do you think about the build? Is it really imbalanced
It only depends on which map it's going to happen. I think Metalopolis close air, Xel Naga caverns are the worst positions for Protoss to defend this build. I think it is possible to defend if you are sure that its coming. Stop making probes, full readiness for an attack, additional gates, immortals, focus fire. A lot of micro. I think it's the hardest build to counter, and very easy to make, because all of the units Terran is doing this build, are very very strong and do a lot of damage.
You started playing Brood War at a very young age. And now, you've started progaming at a very young age for a foreigner. How do you think your gaming career been affected by your age? Also, how do you feel about your options going forward, as there must be a lot of opportunities available to you right now outside progaming?
I think age doesn't matter that much in gaming since it's all about the mental strength to understand the game in the good way. It doesn't matter if you're 17 or 30, if You understand the game, you can be very good at it if You keep on practising and pay a lot of effort into it.
I don't know what I am going to do in the next years, for sure I will try to keep on playing Starcraft 2, after I finish my school, I will try to go to university and still study, to secure my future. I hope I will improve as a gamer and also as a person in the future. I still want to gaming be a very good fun with also a money bonuses to make my life more comfortable.
So you don't have any plan to become a full-time gamer in the near future? Or maybe take some time off from school to pursue gaming?
For now, I don't. I will play in the meantime as I do for now, I think it will fit me the most. I don't want to regret my decision if I will fail in becoming a full-time gamer.
How about Korea? Are you interested in going there for an extended period of time?
I would like to give it a try, but I am afraid of doing it. For sure I wouldn't stay there for a long time. I know it would be a perfect practice for me, but I want to keep on doing things I am doing now.
You mentioned that Pokemon was the secret to your success. So you're an active Pokemon player?
Yes, I actually already passed the Pokemon League in Black version. I won it on my 2nd try, thats a great achievement :D. I used to have Snorlax in Pokemon Red, like 8 years ago :D.
Ok, a few short questions and answers: Best players for each race?
Terran - MVP Protoss - MC Zerg - Nestea, isn't that obvious question ?^^
How about among foreigners?
No foreigners can be compared to the mighty Koreans! Too hard to predict the best players. Can't say a foreign best race player, sorry!
Alright, thanks for the interview. Any final comments, shout-outs, etc?
Thank you a lot for the interview of course. Big shoutouts to You: polish community and teamliquid community for supporting me. The biggest thanks goes of course to mousesports for the best support I've ever been got from our sponsors (INTEL, MEDION, Razer [god, blackwidow is such a good keyboard], Sansibar and GEIL). Keep on believing in me guys, I really hope I will not be disappointed by my results.
That article was decent up until the last paragraph. Once I read that it went from a piece on MC's current struggles to a balance whine. Also the use of past tense for things that should be present tense was a bit annoying. Other than that it was a great write up.
Wow Mana's interview was terrific, he loves Pokemon! I hope he sticks around in the progaming scene, would be disappointing if someone as talented as him totally stopped playing and opted for a different lifestyle. I feel bad for MC, I hope he gets out of his slump soon. MVP fell down to Code A before, but managed to get back into Code S and dominate, MC will too!
I don't think MC's PvT is slumping, since his PvT play is still as crisp as ever when he's not getting destroyed by the 1/1/1. (He could have beaten Jjakji if he hadn't clumped up his casters for some money-making EMPs, I feel.) We could probably talk about his PvZ, though; he used to be near-invincible in that match-up, but lately he can't even outplay good-but-otherwise-irrelevant Zergs.
Also, does anyone else find it somewhat funny that, immediately after the MC article talking about the hardships of the Protoss in the GSL, we get an interview with MaNa, a Protoss player, about his recent success at IEM? Hahaha.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
So true. I nearly cried while watching MC get torn apart in the Up and Downs. Protoss is once again cost inefficient and easily abused. My heart is broken. Blizzard needs to fix something
MOONGLADE FIGHTING!!! Can't believe there was no mention of him as this was his best finish in a long time. He came into it only playing part time after personal issues held him back and stormed through the group stages. Ah well....
I'm surprised to see such a cry for imbalance at the front page of TL. Not that I disagree with it entirely. It's a good thing to say "at the highest level of competition" but a lot of people will miss these few very important words.
EDIT : Looks like the that article opened up a new balance whine thread. Balance whine on the front page, TL changed
MC got a girlfriend, then MC's form dropped. Seems straight forward enough to me =p
I'm rather surprised you went as far as to say MC outmicroed and outmultitasked Puma because I didn't see either of those in the finals at IEM. He had an excellent shot to beat the 1/1/1 twice but failed to capitalise on the ample advantages he was given, and his control blunder in game 2 allowed a fully loaded warp prism to be sniped by Puma's vikings (Puma also won the standard ghost vs templar war again) really changing the momentum of the game.
Not much to say. Fellow Protoss brothers, I hope we once again will conquer the World together as the Overmind and God has hit us with such force that we're no longer capable of fighting on equal grounds.
On September 08 2011 17:36 MandoRelease wrote: I'm surprised to see such a cry for imbalance at the front page of TL. Not that I disagree with it entirely. It's a good thing to say "at the highest level of competition" but a lot of people will miss these few very important words.
Exactly. Its not worth talking about balance unless you're talking about the top. As a diamond player myself, anything I lose to is not imbalanced, because there are people out there who are clearly better than me who would stomp all over my opponents. There's always room for improvement...
Straight forward to the point where Protosses is struggling at the highest stage now. Obviously something is wrong and tweaks has to be done to encourage more peoples on playing Protoss as their main race. The numbers of Protoss Code-S is miserable.
Now matter how strong the Protoss deathfall is, a money EMP or money fungal growth is enough to demolish the deathball.
I'm sad, very sad to be a Protoss player. In fact, i've stopped laddering due to the fact that Protoss simply can't win anymore late game against Z/T.
This not not a balance discussion rather that thoughs on how the current metagame is producing. Please deepest apologizes to mod if my contents do shows like a whinning balance respond.
Wow. I feel so sad now for the player who has won the most money in SC2.
Ok I'm sure you have a lot of good points but making a sob story out of MC and saying less successful Zerg players "leaves open the possibility that zerg does in fact have a fighting chance in SC2" while Protoss players are "utter failure[s]" is a little much.
Sad for MC. That's why I switched my race on ladder from Protoss to Terran because I would never win, maybe like 1 win for every like 6 losses. Now that I'm Terran, I only lose games to Zerg, which the matchmaking system almost never pairs me with for done reason.
On September 08 2011 17:27 babylon wrote: I don't think MC's PvT is slumping, since his PvT play is still as crisp as ever when he's not getting destroyed by the 1/1/1. (He could have beaten Jjakji if he hadn't clumped up his casters for some money-making EMPs, I feel.) We could probably talk about his PvZ, though; he used to be near-invincible in that match-up, but lately he can't even outplay good-but-otherwise-irrelevant Zergs.
If you think PvT is fine with all this 1/1/1 thing and this is the way it is supposed to be played, as tree.hugger said, you are blind.
It's not just the 1/1/1, it's all it's variations; we also have the MVP 2/1/0 build and other strong early game terran builds, lategame ghost emp play is just sad to watch as protoss. I don't think the 1.4 changes will be enough to help Protoss. This article, especially Mana's words on balance should hopefully be enough that even the worst "TvP is fine, P just need to l2p (MC sucks)" sayers see that there is a major design flaw in the Protoss race that will hopefully be fixed with HotS, a minor patch just can't do it.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitasks his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
Because of that, Protoss players already use all the thing they can use, we can't do anything more So, good to see carriers and motherships being used..
Great article at the the beginning of the article but I feel at the end there was too much whine. Maybe a little less imba whine will make this article perfect. GJ btw
Thank god someone went out and said it. Protoss has serious problems right now. I like to think about it like this - if blizzard retroactively took back toss nerfs ie vray and amulet mainly, do you think the meta game would change all that much? I would like to think that it would... but I can't seem to convince myself. Just had to say it, I almost never ever bring up balance in the forums :3
We just have to wait and see what the next minor patch will do to balance... It's hard to deny that protoss are weak atm, just looking at their representation.
Hahaha, people should learn to handle the truth. The protoss race was badly designed and are now severely underpowered. Good article.
The first two matches of the IEM between MC and Puma were really sad to see. The 1-1-1 from Puma was a half-hassed badly executed push, with mediocre micro and plenty of units queued in the production buildings. He didn't even make a perfect BO, yet he traded super effectively with the protoss. Then, the second "all-in" was even more powerful, and one mistake cost MC the game. His macro was also perfect when Puma floated several hundreds minerals during the pushes.
Hope the next expansion will solve all this problems as i hate nerfs, and specially nerfs of terrans. it is the only well-design race and it shouldn't be dismantled.
Great article and photos/videos! I'm quite shocked that someone confronted current protoss situation so loudly, gj tree.hugger. Now lets hope for some change asap...
Good article until it starts bringing up balance bais. 1/1/1 is not the unstoppable force it seems to be, its just another obstacle for protoss players to conquer. MC is a monster with a higher understanding of the game only the very best in sc2 have, and the talent to boot. He'll rise again just like MVP.
On September 08 2011 17:15 Jinsho wrote: That whining about PvT is absolutely unnecessary in what would have otherwise been a good article.
Precisely. A little bit of resentment exuding from Tree.hugger's keyboard. Understandable, but Mana's attitude is ultimately more helpful. Whining doesn't get jack done.
Nice write-up and high quality as usual. However, I was a bit surprised over the somewhat unfortunate MC-article. I liked most of it, it was a good summary of how MC has been doing lately but there are some things that I did not quite like in the article: It is masked as a discussion on IEM results, when in fact it boiled down to balance discussion on protoss, when MC actually did finish second in the tournament. I agree that he has been in a slump lately and it is sad that he fell out of code S, but that can be based on a lot of things. As stated in the article, it did not look like he brought his A-game into some of his matches lately. And even though loosing the final in the tournament makes him the “first looser”, it is still better than everyone else that participated, saved one. I would still like to state it like he won second place, which is a nice achievement.
I myself is not the right person to judge whether there is a balance issue in the game, but if you want to write about these things I just think there are better ways to do it. In the tournament covered here three out of top four was Protoss after all..
I don't think the problem is really with Protoss being underpowered, it's with terrans being far too powerful. I honestly feel like PvZ is decently well balanced.
The problems I see with Terrans is marauders. They just do such insane, just blatantly stupid damage to armored units it's beyond me. I think they do about three times the DPS roaches or stalkers do, combined with a really powerful snare versus melee units for kiting, and with stim researched they have more movement speed than stalkers do as well.
I'm surprised at the article being so blunt and straightforward about the balance issues. Whenever I see this get mentioned, mods often intervene and say "no balance whining please", but I really feel like this doesn't get discussed nearly often enough because of this. There is just a huge problem with Terran, from my point of view as a spectator. And something drastic needs to be changed by blizzard to fix it, because a large part of the enjoyment from watching SC2 comes from several different races all being viable and competing. I do not have an interest in watching 20 TvTs for every 3 other matchups we see.
Edit: To summarize, at some point you just have to talk about the elephant in the room. It's bad for the game to outright call everything balance whining when there are, very apparent, issues with the balance between the races.
Mana's PvT is pretty inspirational. I love all his tech timings and I find it funny that terran can claim imbalance when he's running at terran who are still on 100% bio with collosus, storm, and massive gateway armies with blink/charge.
Protoss vs 1/1/1: Your options are all terrible and you have to pick the one that is the least terrible, micro 100x better than your opponent, and hope they mess up to win.
On September 08 2011 19:29 arterian wrote: Protoss vs 1/1/1: Your options are all terrible and you have to pick the one that is the least terrible, micro 100x better than your opponent, and hope they mess up to win.
"If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition."
i think this actualy was needed . wich terran in the world knows how hard is for protoss to deal with bio , how hard our colossi get countered by vikings , how 8 ghosts can emp forever your army , and how marauder and marines can kite our entire army with stim even with charge upgrade . as nestea sad at 5:30 btw if il get banned i wanna add one more thing : how we suppose to throw forcefield and storm and pull back our zealots and blink good in the same battle where terrans just press T and right click behind hitting H to kite . rly micro ballance .
I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
Thank you so much for writing this. Hopefully somebody from Blizzard will take note, as they seem to just ignore everything from the Protoss community.
On September 08 2011 18:22 chokke wrote: Because of that, Protoss players already use all the thing they can use, we can't do anything more So, good to see carriers and motherships being used..
Why they progamers so handsome
As if those units would help Protoss at all at the highest level considering their resources and time needed compared to their real impact in the game. If a Protoss like Mana feels Protoss has nowhere to go, players who are not playing at the highest levels should consider his opinion above their own experiences in ladder play... The article really made me sad
nice balance whine about facts that arent facts disguised as an iem cologne thread... the tournament with 3 protoss in the top 4. but nice Interview and pictures.
I have a solution to balance the game. We find a sick child with cancer, and then via the make-a-wish foundation, have the kid use his wish to balance SC2. Then Blizzard will have to listen.
With the game as it is, I simply cheer for any non-terran.
Regardless, it is always fun to see some players being so good that they overcome any racial disadvantage and shine (such as Puzzle or Sage). Also, nice interview.
I think the article about MC is a litte too harsh. MC is, without a doubt in my mind, one of the top 3 protosses (if not the best). Since his IEM play, I have not even seen any other protosses even try the WP Templar play.
The issue he is running into is that the other korean pros are figuring out their races and discovered how fragile protosses are before key upgrades/units. It's a thought shared by many protosses (Tyler/Incontrol) and there just is not a safe answer to some terran builds - 1/1/1.
I, personally, think that the MC swagger is an integral part of what makes SC2 entertaining. MLG anaheim would not have been the same without that MC-Idra contention. If you have MC in a tournament, you have a frontpage storyline written already. So I hope that MC does not lose his swagger and becomes FBH-2.0
Since when was MaNa a new hope? We knew what this guy was capable a long, long time ago O: He's just been inconsistent as fuck and hell, I'm not surprised considering there are a lot of guys who are.
"The night is darkest just before the dawn. And I promise you, the dawn is coming."
Even if Protoss is underpowered right now, that means great improvements are up to come. I am very excited for the changes and innovations that will come.
Watching Trickster (Tester) right now - jesus christ he has had a rough time vs Terran from GSL 1 - but watching him now wow he is underated - hope he comes back from his 'slump' too.
On September 08 2011 21:37 MurtiBing wrote: If MC switched to T he would have won GSL 5 times.
My question is - what would happen if MaNa switched to T?
Both would likely drop out of pro scene. MC is a 2-base timing pusher, that era is terran is long gone.
MC doesn't do 2-base timing push because he can't macro, but because he thinks that it is the best thing to do. In fact, his macro is excellent. So if he was terran, he could easily just macro like the others.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player
....puma is one of the best players in the world right now and i dont understand by what standards hes a worse player...
I think its saying if MC played terran he would dominate puma but since his playing protoss he gets owned thats what MC said if he played terran he would win
Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
Also
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
I'll be honest, I'm a little shocked at reading what is clearly fundamentally a very well-written balance whine. But it is also one that basically plucked out what I've been secretly starting to think to myself to put in prose. Esp the part about the history of protoss performance in GSL sans MC. It's a strange feeling.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
On September 08 2011 21:59 moofang wrote: I'll be honest, I'm a little shocked at reading what is clearly fundamentally a very well-written balance whine. But it is also one that basically plucked out what I've been secretly starting to think to myself to put it in prose. It's a strange feeling.
On September 08 2011 20:38 moshyesim wrote: nice balance whine about facts that arent facts disguised as an iem cologne thread... the tournament with 3 protoss in the top 4. but nice Interview and pictures.
How is this balance whine? It references well, it discusses things from both sides. 3 Protoss in the top 4 means nothing in a foreign tournament lacking in a lot of top players.
I liked the article although I understand how it could be construed as a masked balance whine. It stated truths, and those might ruffle feathers a bit.
On another note, the SC2 protoss brotherhood seriously needs a new hero to rise up, or an existing one to break out and explode...
Quite simply, we need a Bisu-like figure to emerge and become a new age Protoss Revolutionist.
On September 08 2011 22:15 Kommander wrote: I liked the article although I understand how it could be construed as a masked balance whine. It stated truths, and those might ruffle feathers a bit.
On another note, the SC2 protoss brotherhood seriously needs a new hero to rise up, or an existing one to break out and explode...
Quite simply, we need a Bisu-like figure to emerge and become a new age Protoss Revolutionist.
That's the one remaining hope: that there is a window left we haven't discovered that lets Protoss players get back in the game against the incredibly brutal 1-1-1 and the huge macro of the Zerg.
This article would of been worth putting up if patch 1.4 doesnt change anything but until then wait it out.
Also i feel alot of the nerfs toss recieved during its strongest time should be put back in i feel the amulet with some tweeks and a buff to VRs would fix things to a point where z/t dont have to be nerfed. And i think Z/T are in a position to weather these buffs.
It's BW all over again. Protoss have not won an individual league in 3 years, Stork says that he would be better than Flash if he played terran, but no one wastes his breath to say protoss is up. Very sad to see a TL writer acknowledging the whining.
The bias on this article is quite strong. I agree that Toss is Up due a design flaw and Their scouting system being the worst of the worst, and a huge compromise. Most of toss tech tree is a gamble so they always go for robo... making them predictable. if you go for hallucination scout... it takes forever to get since you get warpgate first. If you dont you may not be able to fend off early attacks. If you dont go hallu first you can't scout bases in time to react. If you go hallu first you can react to anything, but any early pressure strikes far harder. If you go robo you are predictable.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
That's partly correct. However the overall style of zerg changed. They began playing much more drop-oriented build, trying to be much more agressive, droping baneling and so on. In all that you don't see that many infestors. The infestor buff helped a lot a specific style, but zerg also learned to use ling/baneling/roach differently.
On September 08 2011 22:58 Mulletarian wrote: This reminds me of 6 months ago when Zergs called themselves underpowered while Protoss told them the game was balanced, they just needed to innovate.
Yeah the fungal growth buff had nothing to do with that... zergs just realized that they could make their fungals do more damage in less time by innovating.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
Also
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
That's partly correct. However the overall style of zerg changed. They began playing much more drop-oriented build, trying to be much more agressive, droping baneling and so on. In all that you don't see that many infestors. The infestor buff helped a lot a specific style, but zerg also learned to use ling/baneling/roach differently.
In one out of 50 games, you might see zergs do baneling drops. In one out of 200 games, you might see zerg do hydra/roach drops in a base, which are usually games zerg horribly loses.
Zerg are barely doing anything different, and 90% of the reason why the match up actually changed is because of the huge infestor buff - and not just fungal, but also the speed change.
On September 08 2011 23:05 Kabi wrote: The bias on this article is quite strong. I agree that Toss is Up due a design flaw and Their scouting system being the worst of the worst, and a huge compromise. Most of toss tech tree is a gamble so they always go for robo... making them predictable. if you go for hallucination scout... it takes forever to get since you get warpgate first. If you dont you may not be able to fend off early attacks. If you dont go hallu first you can't scout bases in time to react. If you go hallu first you can react to anything, but any early pressure strikes far harder. If you go robo you are predictable.
Still a biased article.
I don't feel the article was biased (maybe your perception?). Nothing stated in it was untrue and it just pointed out the simple facts of the current state of things.
Hmm Schief, a little Protoss bias from a toss player? But seriously, well written article on the wild and wonderful adventures of MC. It is a little surprising to see the often sore subject of balance brought up by a TL staff member, though it was presented in a very well written article that discussed many good points. As a Zerg player, I often don't listen to Protoss whines of imbalance, instead preferring to keep my head up my ass and insist that in fact Protoss is the race in need of nerfs.
I never seriously thought that Protoss was vastly better than Zerg at any point, but for awhile many Protoss players understood the early game and mid game timing attacks better (led by the one and only MC). Now it's painful to see any ZvP games because both seem to be dying races, though maybe people are right and the current Protoss generation lacks creativity and game understanding. Who knows? Only time will tell.
This is a well articulated statement on balance. You have convinced me that Protoss is underpowered. Something about the current Protoss strategies seem so one-dimensional and thus, predictable. Sure their late-game is terrifying, but it is getting easier and easier to prevent them from getting that far.
With the incoming Protoss buffs in 1.4, I hope that we can see a fresh outlook develop on the Protoss' state of balance. Perhaps many new strategies will be created. I am looking forward to it.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
Also
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
That's partly correct. However the overall style of zerg changed. They began playing much more drop-oriented build, trying to be much more agressive, droping baneling and so on. In all that you don't see that many infestors. The infestor buff helped a lot a specific style, but zerg also learned to use ling/baneling/roach differently.
In one out of 50 games, you might see zergs do baneling drops. In one out of 200 games, you might see zerg do hydra/roach drops in a base, which are usually games zerg horribly loses.
Zerg are barely doing anything different, and 90% of the reason why the match up actually changed is because of the huge infestor buff - and not just fungal, but also the speed change.
I disagree with these numbers. Saying that the Zerg's styles have barely changed, and Z just wins by using infestors seems a bit much. The buff certainly helped, but let's not reduce the match up to that.
But well, that's not really important. Few months ago, P complained about Z whining, but they're doing the exact same thing now. Ofc there's some issues with the current state of P, but all that whining is unnecessary. The situations are exactly the same. Z needed a buff back then (which btw was not acknowledged by P), P needs a buff now. All I see is that many P promote the high road when they're on the good side of the match up. When they're on the other side, then suddenly it becomes okay for them to whine. Fewer hypocrites would be great.
On September 08 2011 23:50 Thorn Raven wrote: This is a well articulated statement on balance. You have convinced me that Protoss is underpowered. Something about the current Protoss strategies seem so one-dimensional and thus, predictable. Sure their late-game is terrifying, but it is getting easier and easier to prevent them from getting that far.
With the incoming Protoss buffs in 1.4, I hope that we can see a fresh outlook develop on the Protoss' state of balance. Perhaps many new strategies will be created. I am looking forward to it.
I disagree Protoss late-game is terrifying.
If you've seen Terran late-game (the Thorzain style now common among Korean Terrans) with a dozen Ghosts, lots of Vikings, and good upgrades, it's the Terran deathball that's absolutely terrifying.
Well MC's fall into code-A gives a great deal of legitimacy to the grumblings that Protoss are in a terrible state right now (and the likelyhood that the root cause of Protoss weakness isn't in the meta-game).
It brings to light a bigger question - if there are huge balance issues between the races, how much longer can SC2 survive as a professionally played E-sports game? When there is money on the line it's very important that all three races play evenly.
I know it's a hard problem and often it's difficult to know if a win % skew is because of the meta-game state or because of a fundamental deficiency in a race.. but just looking at the professional level win rates (aggregated from TLPD http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.png ) paints a pretty dismal picture.
All I can say is that the trend in TvP is disturbing. The win rates are diverging when they should be converging. Blizzard looks like they're doing a good job with TvZ though. At one point it looked abysmal with the win rate at nearly 60% for Terran and 40% for Zerg but by the end of 2011 maybe TvZ will converge at 50/50. PvZ is a slightly better picture with the win rates looking to stabilize at roughly 53/47 in Z's favor.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
Also
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
That's partly correct. However the overall style of zerg changed. They began playing much more drop-oriented build, trying to be much more agressive, droping baneling and so on. In all that you don't see that many infestors. The infestor buff helped a lot a specific style, but zerg also learned to use ling/baneling/roach differently.
In one out of 50 games, you might see zergs do baneling drops. In one out of 200 games, you might see zerg do hydra/roach drops in a base, which are usually games zerg horribly loses.
Zerg are barely doing anything different, and 90% of the reason why the match up actually changed is because of the huge infestor buff - and not just fungal, but also the speed change.
I disagree with these numbers. Saying that the Zerg's styles have barely changed, and Z just wins by using infestors seems a bit much. The buff certainly helped, but let's not reduce the match up to that.
But well, that's not really important. Few months ago, P complained about Z whining, but they're doing the exact same thing now. Ofc there's some issues with the current state of P, but all that whining is unnecessary. The situations are exactly the same. Z needed a buff back then (which btw was not acknowledge by P), P needs a buff now. All I see is that many P promote the high road when they're on the good side of the match up. When they're on the other side, then suddenly it becomes okay for them to whine. Fewer hypocrites would be great.
It was ridiculous to whine few months ago. Zergs did only one thing vs toss, roach hydra and sometimes they added corruptors. The colossus mix was created to beat this but zergs didn't want to do something else and we rarely saw T3 units by them.. The expands timing were just bad, as well as larva injection. It's just a few examples to show that zergs had many things to improve.
But now players do fewer mistakes, and use a large mix of units. And now protoss who tried a large amount of different bo, tactics, mix,... can't find a solution and the other races don't have any to suggest.
On September 08 2011 19:29 arterian wrote: Protoss vs 1/1/1: Your options are all terrible and you have to pick the one that is the least terrible, micro 100x better than your opponent, and hope they mess up to win.
Brilliant, I agree completely. I believe it was IMMvP that said when protoss beats a 1/1/1 -- It's not that the protoss did something brilliant/right -- the terran did something completely wrong.
On September 08 2011 21:58 Belisarius wrote: Interesting article. I'm both startled and kind of impressed to see such an outright statement of imbalance in a TL article. I absolutely agree, but I also kind of can't help but wonder if I'm just jumping at official confirmation of my own bias.
Also
On September 08 2011 20:22 tombola wrote: I really enjoyed the article until the whining about game balance. Protoss is going through a rough time now, sure, but I don't think they are underpowered. Protoss is just not figured out as much as Terran or Zerg. Warp Prisms haven't been used for months and I think they still aren't used to their fullest potential. Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed some high level Zerg figured something out and nobody is whining since. Protoss just needs more innovators. Sure MC is good and did a lot developing the race but who else is there now? I think Protoss needs some creative players more then any patch to garantuee a balanced matchup.
I really do hate people talking about how races like Z apparently overcame adversity by skill alone, and now protoss seems to be at the bottom of the heap we should all just l2p like Z did and become awesome.
Remember when Zerg whined about the "Protoss Deathball"? The weeks passed and their underused caster was given a huge buff specifically to counter the composition, and nobody is whining since.
Yeah. I do remember that, now that you mention it.
That's partly correct. However the overall style of zerg changed. They began playing much more drop-oriented build, trying to be much more agressive, droping baneling and so on. In all that you don't see that many infestors. The infestor buff helped a lot a specific style, but zerg also learned to use ling/baneling/roach differently.
In one out of 50 games, you might see zergs do baneling drops. In one out of 200 games, you might see zerg do hydra/roach drops in a base, which are usually games zerg horribly loses.
Zerg are barely doing anything different, and 90% of the reason why the match up actually changed is because of the huge infestor buff - and not just fungal, but also the speed change.
I disagree with these numbers. Saying that the Zerg's styles have barely changed, and Z just wins by using infestors seems a bit much. The buff certainly helped, but let's not reduce the match up to that.
But well, that's not really important. Few months ago, P complained about Z whining, but they're doing the exact same thing now. Ofc there's some issues with the current state of P, but all that whining is unnecessary. The situations are exactly the same. Z needed a buff back then (which btw was not acknowledged by P), P needs a buff now. All I see is that many P promote the high road when they're on the good side of the match up. When they're on the other side, then suddenly it becomes okay for them to whine. Fewer hypocrites would be great.
Pretty sure zergs were never at a 30 percent winrate, with 5 zergs in code S, unable to defend a simple 1 base all in...At least the deathball was lategame. There were ways around it even if it was unbeatable without the infestor. But now, protoss is just helpless in every aspect. No way to pressure a zerg, rolls over and dies to terran.
@pPingu & @Olinim That's just trying to find legitimacy for whine. I don't like that, whine is whine. TL used to ban people for that. Apparently there's some cases in which whine is okay, which pisses me off. Nothing constructive comes out of it, and the ones who whine on this beautiful forum are not even pros, so it doesn't even concern them. Which btw was one of the arguments back then for Protoss.
"Two base cheese" ... That's just silly, imo. Since SC2 came out, every strategy seems to be categorized as cheese. Rushes, technical builds, timing attacks = all means the same for most of the people - cheese. Terminology has, sadly, changed quite a bit since Brood War. Other than that, I think the article was very well written, has many solid points on which I agree upon.
Anyway, many (mainly T and Z players) people calling this article a "balance whine" - that's a bit absurd because, if you just take a look at the race win percentages at the top level of play (Korean GSL), it's crystal clear that something is wrong. Forget about your own skill, your own win ratios etc. We are talking about top tier SC2 and something is obviously amiss. Just look at some of the tweets Korean players made lately... To me it seems the meta-game has finally revealed some built in flaws, slight imbalance issues which need to be fixed asap, unless the community wants to watch a TvT fest every big tournament. The upcoming patch could change it up a bit, but I don't think it will be enough. Hope I'm wrong, though. Many hard-working, talented Protoss players are being punished for playing the "wrong" race at the moment and that's just not how it's supposed to be.
Thanks for the article! (won't be following the topic, so don't bother quoting)
I have no idea why people are always banned for balance discussions, as long as they are making valid points and not just "omg protoss is UP, fkn nerf terran omg".
Protoss is probably heavily under powered. I say that because PvT seems to be a joke. It´s almost an automatic loss on Xel Naga, and Metalopolis and Shattered Temple and almost any map that is not Shakuras or Taldarim. The 1-1-1 build just kills you if you are in close positions, either by air or ground. And if you want to defend from the 1-1-1, you will lose to 2-3 rax pressure. So the options are not really there for the protoss, except he just needs to hope for the 1/3 chance that he spawns in cross positions on shattered and Metal...and if it´s Xel Naga he needs to make a perfect guess, the only thing that´s worked for me there is taking a early second base off of 1 gate, a hidden base somewhere else, and that way try to win it from there against the 1-1-1. That is ofc a huges risk, but it can work.
Against zerg, faster Hive techs are the problem. Of course that is because of the infestor buff. Now zergs can go for faster infestors, because even few numbers of them allow for a solid army that can hold the protoss off, and faster infestor switch allows for faster hive tech, which allows for faster broodlords.
The broodlords weren´t that big of a deal 3 months ago, because they were appearing on the battlefield around the 17-20 minute mark. The protoss had maybe traded some army with the zerg with some aggression, and zerg´s therefor weren´t getting this money timing they are getting now. Late game PvZ, you hardly ever see the P winning these days because of faster broodlord timings, which poses a great threat because you need to sac so much to kill them, and you can´t handle the reproduction of the zerg. But imo that´s maybe more of a match-up where protoss just needs to "improve" their play, maybe doing some sort of carrier switches, a carrier build time buff and a general buff (for some reason they stop making the little flying things when they die...silly cause broodlords don´t, and broodlings cost 0)? I don´t know, but I know that Void Ray switches are not viable vs many broodlords/corruptors, because the corruptors take much less time to get on the field and are usually more upgraded then the void´s, so they just take too much time, and die too easily. Also a hydra switch for zerg happens so fast, and that demolishes the very very very slow tech switching of the protoss
Those were my 5 cents, many will disagree, even though I said what I just said, I think PvZ isn´t that imbalanced, specially when infestors have been nerfed a little bit in next patch, I think that is all that was needed. But PvT, any blind man can see that it´s terribly broken, the Terran race is just too much better then the other 2 races, and has kinda always been :/
Time to fix it blizzard, get off your asses and let Terran feel how it is to play on a equal playing field for once :/
Wow, in every thread I open there is balance whine, in every section of TL, in every unrelated thread. This is becoming painful to read these forums, hope the patch is coming quick because the whine is even more unbearable than the imbalance now.
The article is way to true, it's tough being a protoss player these days. Though I'm confident protoss will win again like they did in the earlier stages of the game, at this point starcraft 2 is a 2 race game with a 3rd gimmick competing from time to time, but the game is still soooo young and only 1/3 of it has been released thus far.
On September 09 2011 00:29 MrCon wrote: Wow, in every thread I open there is balance whine, in every section of TL, in every unrelated thread. This is becoming painful to read these forums, hope the patch is coming quick because the whine is even more unbearable than the imbalance now.
Don't worry, soon there will be no protoss in players in Code S and we won't have any games to whine about!
venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
On September 09 2011 00:28 n0btozz wrote: Best article in a long time on TL.
I have no idea why people are always banned for balance discussions, as long as they are making valid points and not just "omg protoss is UP, fkn nerf terran omg".
Protoss is probably heavily under powered. I say that because PvT seems to be a joke. It´s almost an automatic loss on Xel Naga, and Metalopolis and Shattered Temple and almost any map that is not Shakuras or Taldarim. The 1-1-1 build just kills you if you are in close positions, either by air or ground. And if you want to defend from the 1-1-1, you will lose to 2-3 rax pressure. So the options are not really there for the protoss, except he just needs to hope for the 1/3 chance that he spawns in cross positions on shattered and Metal...and if it´s Xel Naga he needs to make a perfect guess, the only thing that´s worked for me there is taking a early second base off of 1 gate, a hidden base somewhere else, and that way try to win it from there against the 1-1-1. That is ofc a huges risk, but it can work.
Against zerg, faster Hive techs are the problem. Of course that is because of the infestor buff. Now zergs can go for faster infestors, because even few numbers of them allow for a solid army that can hold the protoss off, and faster infestor switch allows for faster hive tech, which allows for faster broodlords.
The broodlords weren´t that big of a deal 3 months ago, because they were appearing on the battlefield around the 17-20 minute mark. The protoss had maybe traded some army with the zerg with some aggression, and zerg´s therefor weren´t getting this money timing they are getting now. Late game PvZ, you hardly ever see the P winning these days because of faster broodlord timings, which poses a great threat because you need to sac so much to kill them, and you can´t handle the reproduction of the zerg. But imo that´s maybe more of a match-up where protoss just needs to "improve" their play, maybe doing some sort of carrier switches, a carrier build time buff and a general buff (for some reason they stop making the little flying things when they die...silly cause broodlords don´t, and broodlings cost 0)? I don´t know, but I know that Void Ray switches are not viable vs many broodlords/corruptors, because the corruptors take much less time to get on the field and are usually more upgraded then the void´s, so they just take too much time, and die too easily. Also a hydra switch for zerg happens so fast, and that demolishes the very very very slow tech switching of the protoss
Those were my 5 cents, many will disagree, even though I said what I just said, I think PvZ isn´t that imbalanced, specially when infestors have been nerfed a little bit in next patch, I think that is all that was needed. But PvT, any blind man can see that it´s terribly broken, the Terran race is just too much better then the other 2 races, and has kinda always been :/
Time to fix it blizzard, get off your asses and let Terran feel how it is to play on a equal playing field for once :/
I actually think you got a point there with the carriers. You see them so late in most games and they have the reputation for being more a gimmick then anything else because they are too hard to get and take too long to build. Atleast a decreased buildingtime would be appropriate and maybe on for the fleetbeacon aswell. Buffing the unit itself I think shoudln't come with the same update just because the carrier is actually a pretty strong unit if you get a few of them together and I think Artosis once said they have the highest DPS in the whole game (dunno if that's true though...
On September 09 2011 00:29 MrCon wrote: Wow, in every thread I open there is balance whine, in every section of TL, in every unrelated thread. This is becoming painful to read these forums, hope the patch is coming quick because the whine is even more unbearable than the imbalance now.
Sorry but 1.4 is not going to change much at all. The reason there is "whine" is because there is a serious problem right now with SC2 turning into a game of only two viable races at the highest levels of play. You can guess which two I am referring to...
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
im so glad that finally an official tl article covers the obvious flaws in game balance, coming from war3 i was always jealous hearing about how balanced bw was supposed to be, this cannot be said about sc2 atm..
while i do have trust in blizzard, i think some changes sooner than later would be a blessing to the scene.
New record in Terran numbers in GSL, 20 terrans 5 protosses and 7 zergs. Even though the game so far has mostly always been in Terrans favour, they have not been exceeding the "50% in code S" mark so much, now they are 62,5% of all players in Code S.
In regards to blizzard and their apparent "balance"
You know, I hope all the people that say "LOL MC IS BAD" take a moment and read this article.
Fucking fantastic read.
My favorite quote:
"It is no secret now that protoss is underpowered at the highest current level of play, but studying MC's record suggests that protoss has actually never been competitive in the entire history of Sc2."
On September 09 2011 00:28 n0btozz wrote: Best article in a long time on TL.
I have no idea why people are always banned for balance discussions, as long as they are making valid points and not just "omg protoss is UP, fkn nerf terran omg".
Protoss is probably heavily under powered. I say that because PvT seems to be a joke. It´s almost an automatic loss on Xel Naga, and Metalopolis and Shattered Temple and almost any map that is not Shakuras or Taldarim. The 1-1-1 build just kills you if you are in close positions, either by air or ground. And if you want to defend from the 1-1-1, you will lose to 2-3 rax pressure. So the options are not really there for the protoss, except he just needs to hope for the 1/3 chance that he spawns in cross positions on shattered and Metal...and if it´s Xel Naga he needs to make a perfect guess, the only thing that´s worked for me there is taking a early second base off of 1 gate, a hidden base somewhere else, and that way try to win it from there against the 1-1-1. That is ofc a huges risk, but it can work.
Against zerg, faster Hive techs are the problem. Of course that is because of the infestor buff. Now zergs can go for faster infestors, because even few numbers of them allow for a solid army that can hold the protoss off, and faster infestor switch allows for faster hive tech, which allows for faster broodlords.
The broodlords weren´t that big of a deal 3 months ago, because they were appearing on the battlefield around the 17-20 minute mark. The protoss had maybe traded some army with the zerg with some aggression, and zerg´s therefor weren´t getting this money timing they are getting now. Late game PvZ, you hardly ever see the P winning these days because of faster broodlord timings, which poses a great threat because you need to sac so much to kill them, and you can´t handle the reproduction of the zerg. But imo that´s maybe more of a match-up where protoss just needs to "improve" their play, maybe doing some sort of carrier switches, a carrier build time buff and a general buff (for some reason they stop making the little flying things when they die...silly cause broodlords don´t, and broodlings cost 0)? I don´t know, but I know that Void Ray switches are not viable vs many broodlords/corruptors, because the corruptors take much less time to get on the field and are usually more upgraded then the void´s, so they just take too much time, and die too easily. Also a hydra switch for zerg happens so fast, and that demolishes the very very very slow tech switching of the protoss
Those were my 5 cents, many will disagree, even though I said what I just said, I think PvZ isn´t that imbalanced, specially when infestors have been nerfed a little bit in next patch, I think that is all that was needed. But PvT, any blind man can see that it´s terribly broken, the Terran race is just too much better then the other 2 races, and has kinda always been :/
Time to fix it blizzard, get off your asses and let Terran feel how it is to play on a equal playing field for once :/
I agree with about hive tech being somewhat of a problem for toss. Ultra build time decrease will only add to the power of switching unit comps quickly in the MU.
I think a carrier buff would help drastically in the late game PvZ and maybe even reverting some of the Voidray nerfs either damage or range... Would rather see the carrier viable though..
PvT is turning into a joke with only two race becoming the only viable option at the highest level of play. I don't see 1.4 helping out all that much either...
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Really enjoyed this article. Thanks, Tree.Hugger! Also, much respect for picking a thesis and arguing for it. It's nice to see a balance thesis argued for with numbers and evidence instead of mindless silver-league theory crafting.
I read that entire section about the fall of MC and I swear, if I could shed tears, they'd be flowing right now. Every time I watch MC lose a game despite playing beautifully, I feel deep sorrow for Protoss. Wonderfully written article.
It really is a bleak picture when you realize that MC is the only protoss with real success in korea. All other protoss have 50 percent winrates, except puzzle who's winrate is boosted by his games being mainly in team invitationals and ICCup weeklys, so his win rate is negligible when we're talking about GSL.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
There is ONE Protoss with admirable winrates and success in GSL. MC. It's not just like terran have a few more good players, a few more championships, protoss has nothing. When the whole race has had 1 capable player for a year since release, and now has fallen to code a, maybe there is a problem.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
There is ONE Protoss with admirable winrates and success in GSL. MC. It's not just like terran have a few more good players, a few more championships, protoss has nothing. When the whole race has had 1 capable player for a year since release, and now has fallen to code a, maybe there is a problem.
You are exagerating a lot...
Again, the same could be true for zerg and as far as im concerned there are a lot of other capable Toss and Zergs around.
I also have to remind you that MVP also dropped to code A at some point, players can have a slump.
I will not discuss this subject more, because my whole point was that we shouldnt have those whines here, justified or not.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
Paying for a game, that is severely broken, and 33% of it´s players are getting fked over by the game, is a reason for worry and discussion.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
This is just like what happened to MVP. He was ridiculous during the time he won his first title, but then he sucked and disappeared for a few months. Then he showed up and won the GSl super tournament.
He also decimated the competition at MLG Anaheim, dropping only a few games ( DRG, KiwiKaki, and MMA I think, maybe 1 or 2 more people). Then this GSL, he destroyed MC and then took down Nestea in RO16. This guy went through his slump and re-emerged even better and more dominant.
Is the problem actually racial balance? Perhaps, but I won't argue for or against it. Instead, I'm going to say MC needs more time to collect himself, maybe work on his mechanics a bit more. Though by the sounds of the one game against Puma at IEM, he made 1 mistake and lost a huge engagement, even after playing phenomenal. >.>
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
I'm not bashing on anyone, but if people read this kind of balance whining on the front page of TL, they will be more inclined to come and whine and bash everyone on the LR threads for exemple and it will lead to a general deterioration of the forum.
Very few good things actually come from a balance discussion. Yes, it can be good if everyone stay civilised, but its often not the truth at all. And I certainly do not want to see people whine about balance because they saw someone saying those things on the front page of TL.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
There is ONE Protoss with admirable winrates and success in GSL. MC. It's not just like terran have a few more good players, a few more championships, protoss has nothing. When the whole race has had 1 capable player for a year since release, and now has fallen to code a, maybe there is a problem.
You are exagerating a lot...
Again, the same could be true for zerg and as far as im concerned there are a lot of other capable Toss and Zergs around.
I also have to remind you that MVP also dropped to code A at some point, players can have a slump.
I will not discuss this subject more, because my whole point was that we shouldnt have those whines here, justified or not.
What capable toss players? What are they capable of? Judging by GSL results a 50 percent winrate is about it.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
I'm not bashing on anyone, but if people read this kind of balance whining on the front page of TL, they will be more inclined to come and whine and bash everyone on the LR threads for exemple and it will lead to a general deterioration of the forum.
Very few good things actually come from a balance discussion. Yes, it can be good if everyone stay civilised, but its often not the truth at all. And I certainly do not want to see people whine about balance because they saw someone saying those things on the front page of TL.
Balance discussion (different from whining) has always been allowed. What differentiates discussion from whining is that discussion is actually backed up by evidence and work put in to generate useful ideas. This is balance discussion, not balance whining so I don't see what your point is. Just because 90% of talking balance is whining (i.e. LR threads) doesn't mean you should discard a genuine attempt to discuss it.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
I'm not bashing on anyone, but if people read this kind of balance whining on the front page of TL, they will be more inclined to come and whine and bash everyone on the LR threads for exemple and it will lead to a general deterioration of the forum.
Very few good things actually come from a balance discussion. Yes, it can be good if everyone stay civilised, but its often not the truth at all. And I certainly do not want to see people whine about balance because they saw someone saying those things on the front page of TL.
I think you will find that there is something worse than lots of heated balance discussion/whine: People not giving a shit and just migrating to other games, because Code S is 75% Teran (just a random number), and the competition just feels like a joke. All of this whining means that people still care. LR threads full of Terrans applauding the intricate execution of 1/1/1 all-ins would be a lot worse.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
You're wrong in so many ways it's hard to describe... Balance talk isn't banned just because it's balance talk, it's banned because it's usually done in the wrong, unfounded arguments and most importantly, in the wrong places, specifically in LR threads.
In contrast, this thread exposes the problem adequately and opens up a decent discussion on the state of protoss in the current SC2 metagame.
Mindless whiners should be banned as per usual, but good discussion about a real issue shouldn't be discouraged, as it makes the whiners appear in all the wrong places.
OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
On September 09 2011 01:17 Cloud9157 wrote: This is just like what happened to MVP. He was ridiculous during the time he won his first title, but then he sucked and disappeared for a few months. Then he showed up and won the GSl super tournament.
He also decimated the competition at MLG Anaheim, dropping only a few games ( DRG, KiwiKaki, and MMA I think, maybe 1 or 2 more people). Then this GSL, he destroyed MC and then took down Nestea in RO16. This guy went through his slump and re-emerged even better and more dominant.
Is the problem actually racial balance? Perhaps, but I won't argue for or against it. Instead, I'm going to say MC needs more time to collect himself, maybe work on his mechanics a bit more. Though by the sounds of the one game against Puma at IEM, he made 1 mistake and lost a huge engagement, even after playing phenomenal. >.>
Idk, more time needed.
No one saying protoss sucks just because MC isn't doing well. No protoss is doing well and it's been like that for months. A few months ago, I saw not a word of balance whine when MC lost, in his fanclub, in LR threads. Now, people are getting sick of seeing protoss 1/1/1ed out of Code S constantly.
Can't beleive i'm reading an article like this on TL, but i do fully agree (however I am a protoss player)
I have always felt that the majority of protoss units are not deep enough to be explored to uncover some hidden power. Their units are either too slow, too weak when not in a ball, or are only good in very specific situations (such as when oponent cant see them).
I dont think the PTR changes will help. Protoss is still a sitting duck until 10 minutes into the game.
On September 09 2011 01:17 Cloud9157 wrote: This is just like what happened to MVP. He was ridiculous during the time he won his first title, but then he sucked and disappeared for a few months. Then he showed up and won the GSl super tournament.
He also decimated the competition at MLG Anaheim, dropping only a few games ( DRG, KiwiKaki, and MMA I think, maybe 1 or 2 more people). Then this GSL, he destroyed MC and then took down Nestea in RO16. This guy went through his slump and re-emerged even better and more dominant.
Is the problem actually racial balance? Perhaps, but I won't argue for or against it. Instead, I'm going to say MC needs more time to collect himself, maybe work on his mechanics a bit more. Though by the sounds of the one game against Puma at IEM, he made 1 mistake and lost a huge engagement, even after playing phenomenal. >.>
Idk, more time needed.
No one saying protoss sucks just because MC isn't doing well. No protoss is doing well and it's been like that for months. A few months ago, I saw not a word of balance whine when MC lost, in his fanclub, in LR threads. Now, people are getting sick of seeing protoss 1/1/1ed out of Code S constantly.
One could argue Huk has actually been doing well.
I mean, he hasn't reaches RO4 ever, but he is constantly getting to RO16. I remember when he first came out of his Up/Down matches: everyone said he would go right back into Code A, yet he stayed in Code S ever since.
But otherwise... I think you're right. I remember Alicia+HongUn getting to RO4, but thats about it... Most Toss are out by RO8.
I just hope things improve. Kinda depressing seeing no Protoss get much done.
The problem with air in generall is that both terran and zerg can mass produce anti-air in a heartbeat. And then Air just looses its main point, why would you go air if everything can attack those units anyways? And now think about how Colossi which are just a better unit are also weak to anti-air, why would you ever get them? And also consider how they take forever to build and drain your minerals nonstop.
And prisms are not bad, the problem is that the units you can warp in are bad. I warp in 4 Zealots in your mineral line, it runs away, what now. Now think about Hellions or Marauders. Storm drops are kinda nice but theyre so late that they dont even matter that much, even if you can storm 20 workers, terra often kills them anyway and relies on orbitals...
Nice article, it seems a lot of other comments are talking about balance so I guess this is an opportune time to do so.
With the exception of the finals and Killer being knocked out in group stages, IEM was amazing to watch.
I'm still reluctant about Protoss getting a buff, because for a while they absolutely stomped all over Zerg.
They're having serious problems against Terran at the moment and the games that I've seen of them playing Zerg seem to be balanced. I mean you had Genius take a game of LoSirA who has amazing ZvP and JYP dominated the StarCraft 2 'dong'. MC fell into Code A due to 2 very predictable games from him with his favoured Stargate opening, both of which Check and LoSirA knew very well.
When/if the WarpPrism buff and immortal buffs come in to place, I imagine they'll wreak havoc to Zerg bases/roach mix, especially since Zerg is having fungal growth nerfed. But still not provide much to help in the way of the 1-1-1 (that I know of).
It's Terran that needs the nerf, LoSirA got knocked up to the up/down despite playing many times better than his Terran opponent, the only Zerg in the Ro8 got there from all-inning against opponents who should really know better than thinking July will play 'safe'.
but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
I'm not bashing on anyone, but if people read this kind of balance whining on the front page of TL, they will be more inclined to come and whine and bash everyone on the LR threads for exemple and it will lead to a general deterioration of the forum.
Very few good things actually come from a balance discussion. Yes, it can be good if everyone stay civilised, but its often not the truth at all. And I certainly do not want to see people whine about balance because they saw someone saying those things on the front page of TL.
Balance discussion (different from whining) has always been allowed. What differentiates discussion from whining is that discussion is actually backed up by evidence and work put in to generate useful ideas. This is balance discussion, not balance whining so I don't see what your point is. Just because 90% of talking balance is whining (i.e. LR threads) doesn't mean you should discard a genuine attempt to discuss it.
Nothing is genuine, you are always tempted to defend the race you play, but that is not my point. My point was that TL writers should remain as neutral as they can, because article like that will lead some people to blindly whine about balance without thinking, just because they read it on TL.
Additionally, I have no problem with a proper balance discussion, but it should be centered around the game and the matchups, and what actually happens in game. The fact that MC is slumping has nothing to do with a proper balance discussion. For exemple, this thread is the right way to do it imo.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
Warprism are more used now. JYP used it in up&down matches, but hero and MC use it too. It requires an excellent micro with very high risks, because it can be sniped so easily. Carriers are just bad, vikings counter them, corruptors counter them and they take an eternity to be built.
The fact that you lose games against warprisms are not interesting if you are not in GM (and the majority of the GM aren't even as good as code B players).
If you let protoss to have more than 5 carriers, then the problem doesn't come from the carrier but from the opponent who lets this happen.
And every protoss use their chronoboost if they are not bad. Sometimes you see pros having 75 energy on their nexus, but it is to counter a possible rush, to hit a timing push using it on something specific or waiting to scout.
Fantastic article, though at first I didn't realize it was a write-up on the last IEM which happened a while ago. For a second I was worried I had missed an entire event ^^
Lots of people in here who complains about all the "whining". I'm more tired of those terran-players (cause right now the "whine" is aimed against terran) who searches every damn opportunity to get into a thread and call people "whiners".
Nothing in the article was whining. Its sad to see that terran-players can't even admit that their race AT THE MOMENT is f-ed up. It was the same thing couple of months ago when zergs was crushed protoss all the time and protoss-players came into every thread trying to get in comments such as "nomnomnom zerg tears!" and stupid shit like that.
You don't have to to be an indian to see the smoke signs in the sky: terran is the best race.
On September 09 2011 01:31 unoriginalname wrote: but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
If the bolded is the case then it is just confirming that there are more problems with PvT than just 1-1-1. You seriously think a Terran (who is very talented but just one amongst MANY in Korea) who can't even make it into Code A should be taking out the best Protoss in the world?
Even if they are both evenly skilled (possible given that the only determinant of skill we have is win/loss, which itself is flawed because it is under the assumption that the game is balanced), then there is something wrong with Terran attracting the most talented players and Protoss somehow only getting the people who do retarded shit.
Protoss got hit by huge nerfs and never complained (because they were still winning). When other races decided to get better, these nerfs their ugly selves and now, voidrays suck, wargate is slow, HT are way worse...
If anything, they should let charge have a lower build time. It feel so sorry for Protoss who are hoping they aren't attack whilst charge is completing, because that timing is ridiculously abusable. Both Protoss and Zerg need a major overhaul. Zerg is quite bad vs Protoss turtle without infestors and Protoss is bad vs infestors. Protoss is bad vs Terran ghosts and 1/1/1 and Terran have the tools to find any solution to anything. Why not let Protoss have imba voidrays back? Maybe that way, Terran and Zerg can't feel safe behind 1 bunker or 3 spores anymore.
On September 09 2011 01:36 tiaz wrote: Fantastic article, though at first I didn't realize it was a write-up on the last IEM which happened a while ago. For a second I was worried I had missed an entire event ^^
Lots of people in here who complains about all the "whining". I'm more tired of those terran-players (cause right now the "whine" is aimed against terran) who searches every damn opportunity to get into a thread and call people "whiners".
Nothing in the article was whining. Its sad to see that terran-players can't even admit that their race AT THE MOMENT is f-ed up. It was the same thing couple of months ago when zergs was crushed protoss all the time and protoss-players came into every thread trying to get in comments such as "nomnomnom zerg tears!" and stupid shit like that.
You don't have to to be an indian to see the smoke signs in the sky: terran is the best race.
<-High Random Masters
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm more of the side that Zerg is the best race (except on crappy imbalanced maps like Antiga).
I would venture to say Z>T>P, with more of P's downside being ZvP being highly difficult to win.
On September 09 2011 01:31 unoriginalname wrote: but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
If the bolded is the case then it is just confirming that there are more problems with PvT than just 1-1-1. You seriously think a Terran (who is very talented but just one amongst MANY in Korea) who can't even make it into Code A should be taking out the best Protoss in the world?
Even if they are both evenly skilled (possible given that the only determinant of skill we have is win/loss, which itself is flawed because it is under the assumption that the game is balanced), then there is something wrong with Terran attracting the most talented players and Protoss somehow only getting the people who do retarded shit.
PuMa's win ratio on TLPD in Korea was about 70% overall. Code A is very difficult to make it through--- there are a LOT of high level players so it should be expected many would struggle to get through (MMA, DRG, for example).
Great article, much needed balance discussion. The discussion and the article might have been kept separate for classiness' sake, but since it seems to be here I'll comment.
I enjoy entertaining the idea that it's not so much P's weaknesses but T's strengths that are the root of the problem, and there is probably a measure of that; waxangel pointed out
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote:
...5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October...
That being said, I remember a time when Zerg was struggling while Terran and Protoss stood on fairly even footing (http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png see march) and many defiant and stubborn protoss would refused to accept that something was amiss, while other protoss' hearts went out to the Zerg race in sympathy. That didn't stop them from walloping zergs with late game unit comps that seemed all but unstoppable, they just did it with a somewhat guilty conscience. Patches came, caster buffs and nerfs were dealt for a whole slew of reasons, (it wasn't really talked about that Sheth had 80% wins ZvP as of march) and eventually the Zerg race pulled itself up by its bootstraps (or a roach ling timing, can't quite recall which). The situation that is demonstrated on that sexy graph with numbers and percentages that we all see a bazillion times on TL when a race is slumping was solved not only by a patch and not only by player resolve, but by both in some measure. The colors are different, but the math is very similar to the zerg conundrum back in march. So yes, I think protoss could use a patch. Incidentally, 1.4 is in PTR. I also think we could use more practice. Incidentally, if you're reading this and, like me, are a protoss user, you're sitting in front of your keyboard with a shred of spare time. Unless you've got some newfangled ios or droid digimaxiwhateverthefuckpad. That's beside the point.
The point is, glorious victory incoming. High chance of whining between now and then.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
If using Carriers in any match-up was viable I can guarantee it would have happened already. Anybody seriously suggesting Carriers as a solution to any match-up is either trolling or Silver/Bronze. Carriers build at such an astoundingly slow rate and fulfil almost the same role as the Colossus with the added effect of being weak to Marines, some of the most costeffective units in the game.
On September 09 2011 01:31 unoriginalname wrote: but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
If the bolded is the case then it is just confirming that there are more problems with PvT than just 1-1-1. You seriously think a Terran (who is very talented but just one amongst MANY in Korea) who can't even make it into Code A should be taking out the best Protoss in the world?
Even if they are both evenly skilled (possible given that the only determinant of skill we have is win/loss, which itself is flawed because it is under the assumption that the game is balanced), then there is something wrong with Terran attracting the most talented players and Protoss somehow only getting the people who do retarded shit.
You mean like DongRaeGu taking out nearly everyone despite being in Code B? Because no way that Code B players should be defeating the best players in the world...
On September 09 2011 01:36 pPingu wrote: If you let protoss to have more than 5 carriers, then the problem doesn't come from the carrier but from the opponent who lets this happen.
This. Carriers are a very slow, very costly tech path that leaves you wide open, and can be adequately prepared against if scouted at any point in the looong timing window it takes to achieve critical mass.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
If using Carriers in any match-up was viable I can guarantee it would have happened already. Anybody seriously suggesting Carriers as a solution to any match-up is either trolling or Silver/Bronze. Carriers build at such an astoundingly slow rate and fulfil almost the same role as the Colossus with the added effect of being weak to Marines, some of the most costeffective units in the game.
Why quote me bro and saying the exact thing I just said ?
Wont actually call Puma a worse SC2 player than MC, lets not forget that Puma has won both the tourneys in which he has met MC, NASL and IEM. I agree that the 1-1-1 IEM finals might not accuratly represent skill in terms of the 1-1-1 being kind of imbalanced. But the NASL finals I think represented their accurate skill level, close, but Puma being better.
Just pre-empting it here, but keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way.
On September 09 2011 01:49 Ingebrigtsen wrote: Wont actually call Puma a worse SC2 player than MC, lets not forget that Puma has won both the tourneys in which he has met MC, NASL and IEM. I agree that the 1-1-1 IEM finals might not accuratly represent skill in terms of the 1-1-1 being kind of imbalanced. But the NASL finals I think represented their accurate skill level, close, but Puma being better.
I think the point is not so much whether or not Puma is a clearly weaker player than MC. It's more of MC basically representing the pinnacle of protoss play while Puma is one of very many skilled Terrans who, though amazing, still has a good ways to go before being able to be spoken in the same breath as Mvp/Nestea.
The thrust of the article and most of the arguments defending it is that MC isn't exactly in a slump. He and the very best of the protoss players are struggling against the current metagame and have lost control of their game - in the sense that they are losing games where they are hard pressed to be able to identify what they "did wrong" and how they could do better if they played the same game again. The protoss players in their A-game are still effectively rolling dice against the metagame - they can clinch some games, maybe stay in Code S, but I'm not sure I can name any protoss at the moment that I can with a straight face say has a reasonable chance of winning the next GSL.
On September 09 2011 01:17 Cloud9157 wrote: This is just like what happened to MVP. He was ridiculous during the time he won his first title, but then he sucked and disappeared for a few months. Then he showed up and won the GSl super tournament.
He also decimated the competition at MLG Anaheim, dropping only a few games ( DRG, KiwiKaki, and MMA I think, maybe 1 or 2 more people). Then this GSL, he destroyed MC and then took down Nestea in RO16. This guy went through his slump and re-emerged even better and more dominant.
Is the problem actually racial balance? Perhaps, but I won't argue for or against it. Instead, I'm going to say MC needs more time to collect himself, maybe work on his mechanics a bit more. Though by the sounds of the one game against Puma at IEM, he made 1 mistake and lost a huge engagement, even after playing phenomenal. >.>
Idk, more time needed.
not sure if you actually know what mechanics mean, Mc basically outmacros 99% of the people he plays against and holds nearly impossible to hold pushes.
although pvz is really hard atm, I agree that since MLG colombushis pvz has beenpretty bad, but his pvt problems are not the results of his slump or anything, just emp and 111
I don't particularly disagree with the substance, but I can't believe I'm seeing some of the wording/phrasing choices and hyperbole in a featured article, such as "terran imba-ball" and also the notion that protoss players can not win a major tournament is just silly. Even with these supposed imbalances being present, it's a game of probabilities.
I appreciate the effort to attempt to understand the current factors involved in our favorite players slump but I feel the language in which these options were analyzed could have been a bit less confrontational. Regardless, I was definitely compelled to read the entire essay as I too have been trying to understand the current state of affairs. I hope this thread will continue to offer up a healthy discussion on the subject at hand.
Thank you for putting this article out. I guarantee you that for every 10 or so people who speak out against it, they do not represent the hundreds who would agree.
This feels like something that cannot be fixed right now. The main issue with PvT is the early to mid game, 1 and 2 bases plays.
And I feel this is what happens when you put the race with the fastest teching, the most flexible and with the most harass options against the race with the slowest teching and least flexible tech tree with little option to harass. These three factors are what are important for early and mid game, things like 1 1 1have no equivalent in the protoss arsenal because it is so slow to tech. Terrans get almost eveything going banshees while protoss get to chose between 3 techs route and be stuck with it until a later time of the game (at which point I feel there is a lot less imbalance if any). On top of that terrans techs enables harass options.
This really looks like a design flaw to me in the tech trees, a lot more than units being weak. I don't think Protoss units are weak when you have everything available. These units work well as a group. But that is the problem, you nearly need to get 1 or 2 whole tech path to be scary, until then you just hope a lot of things dont happen.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
If using Carriers in any match-up was viable I can guarantee it would have happened already. Anybody seriously suggesting Carriers as a solution to any match-up is either trolling or Silver/Bronze. Carriers build at such an astoundingly slow rate and fulfil almost the same role as the Colossus with the added effect of being weak to Marines, some of the most costeffective units in the game.
Why quote me bro and saying the exact thing I just said ?
Sorry, had a confusion with quoting while getting myself bread and jam
I meant to quote the person before you and say... well, what you said, but for some reason I quoted you and then repeated the gist of your argument. Bleughhhhh. Suffice to say, I agree with you.
On September 09 2011 00:36 Waxangel wrote: venturing into dangerous territory here, but I've gotta say, the current stats do seem to warrant a serious talk about P being underpowered, without sweeping it under the rug of balance whine.
5 P, 7 Z, 20 T in Code-s October. There's def something there.
With this logic, the same could be true for zerg...
Plus, I really feel like Terrans have more talented players in korea, and that a good portion of this racial distribution is due to that.
Please, could TL refrain from posting imbalance whining bullshit? We don't need another battle.net forum. What Protoss players are doing now is exactly what Zerg players were shitted on for doing some months ago.
I'm not saying there is no imbalance, but we don't need this kind of whining here.
I can´t understand this community. It´s so "hush hush". People don´t want anyone to talk about balance issues, why is that forbidden?
If there is a issue, it should be discussed, that´s the way to deal with issues. Discussing things is a way for people to get a "collective mind" and maybe find solutions, or maybe just check if they are the only ones feeling this way. You admit yourself that balance is an issue right now. A loud, outspoken discussion possibly could catch the ears of the forever deaf blizzard in-house balance team.
Of course, rude posts about balance, angry posts about balance, off topic balance whining is one thing. But intellectual, well prepared arguments is something you shouldn´t be whining your self about.
Paying for a game, that is severely broken, and 33% of it´s players are getting fked over by the game, is a reason for worry and discussion.
I say it´s a sign of "growth" and "maturity" that we can have "chilled" balance discussions. If you can´t do that as a civilized community, and need to bash on people for having those discussions, something is very much so wrong.
There are two problems with discussing balancing the first being that people are biased if you think they don't you have to think about your view of the human race. It's natural to defend want you align with (in this case a race in SC2) and even if you want to block out any affiliation to it your subconscience won't let you do that. Also balancing issues at high level play should be discussed by high level players. Artosis said it best: Just from watching the game you won't get complete understanding of the game.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
If using Carriers in any match-up was viable I can guarantee it would have happened already. Anybody seriously suggesting Carriers as a solution to any match-up is either trolling or Silver/Bronze. Carriers build at such an astoundingly slow rate and fulfil almost the same role as the Colossus with the added effect of being weak to Marines, some of the most costeffective units in the game.
It's not even about the tech switch being slow, it's more about the cost and practicality. It costs a LOT to get that first carriers out. Guess what, terran will almost always have a reactor starport because it's already vital even while excluding carriers. The problem is while carriers are costly, they can be countered way too easy. It was the same thing with warp prisms to an extent before (not so much anymore) because when toss gets colossus, terran already has vikings, rendering warp prisms near useless. However, you can see that warp prisms are more viable in PvT nowadays because the game has transitioned from colossus to archon/hts. You never know when these transitions will happen that makes something viable when it wasn't before. However, as of now, carriers will never be viable without a patch/expansion because reactor starport/vikings will almost ALWAYS be a part of the terran infrastructure.
always felt protoss were incredibly weak ever since i started playing. terran units like marauders and banshees raped all the protoss units with ease. but i figured i was just a noob scrub (cause i am).
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
Thank you im 1.1k masters. Carriers dont suck, and to clear it up, if it wasnt obvious im talking PvZ, i didnt suggest go carriers off of 1 base or 2. I m talking lategame, and i gave an example, and there were more pro games, that one was relatively recently. I played vs carriers and lost, i provide you with an opinion based on experience and giving a pro game example, you reply with trashtalk and saying they build slow. wow.
Angry with PvT? by all means, start a petition to nerf tanks or banshees, i ll sign it, but if my logo or the fact taht im talking about a Dimaga game didnt give away that i m talking about PvZ, i have bad news for you
I think the current state of Protoss needs some looking at. MC won his championships off of new timing attacks, that have since been figured out. 6gate timing, and while it was slipped into the bug fixes, his 6gate mass ff's on bunkers actually caused the units inside to disappear once the bunker was destroyed, and zergs hadn't yet figured out how to defend 6gate.
Stargates after FFE used to deny a fast 3rd or force fast hydras. Doesn't do that any more as zergs have figured out the gasless way to hold a 3rd on most maps. Zergs are capable of having great econ now, while still retaining a fast 3rd. Coincidentally, a fast 3rd also allows zerg to hold gateway timing attacks more easily, and regardless of scouting info, infestors are always a safe bet against macro play. 3gate expo has been figured out, so both common protoss openings have been mostly figured out. 4gate doesn't really work any more against zerg. That leaves us with ungimmicky standard play. What does standard play get crushed by? Greed, and also infestors to a certain extent. WIthout the ability to punish greedy play with timing attacks, then we are left playing against a zerg who has an inherent economic advantage, and cost effectiveness advantage(note cost, not supply).
Terran, I won't go into details, but for a long time they were complaining about the combination of storm and colossus. That was back when they made like 2 ghosts in a 200/200 army. This gave them 4 EMP's to deal with 6-8 templar, and if they lost those 2 ghosts to feedback or otherwise, they would promply get rolled. Now though, it's often a dozen ghosts against a protoss army. People say to just feedback them all, but I can feedback about 6 per second IF they are in a clump. MC could probably do about 8, because he's much better than I am. There's also the range limitations, where EMP outranges feedback. With scan availability lategame, a forward observer gets sniped, and as a result many pros have one observer following the army around. However in order to see the ghosts coming cloaked, and react before an EMP goes off, it really requires the observer to be forward, which has the weakness above.
I'm not going to talk about 1/1/1 because I'd be hardpressed to talk about that civilly.
Regardless of game balance, the emphasis of the article should be reflected by the title. At least rename the article "IEM results: Protoss buff imminent?"
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
Thank you im 1.1k masters. Carriers dont suck, and to clear it up, if it wasnt obvious im talking PvZ, i didnt suggest go carriers off of 1 base or 2. I m talking lategame, and i gave an example, and there were more pro games, that one was relatively recently. I played vs carriers and lost, i provide you with an opinion based on experience and giving a pro game example, you reply with trashtalk and saying they build slow. wow.
Angry with PvT? by all means, start a petition to nerf tanks or banshees, i ll sign it, but if my logo or the fact taht im talking about a Dimaga game didnt give away that i m talking about PvZ, i have bad news for you
Carriers are not very cost effective. They can win PvZ if the opponent does not make mass corruptors, but that's just hoping your opponent doesn't know how to respond. There is a reason you don't see terrans busting out the battlecruisers vs zerg. And BCs make 30 seconds faster than carriers, move quicker, and have higher DPS.
one carrier: 120 secs mothership: 140 secs
When one carrier takes only 20seconds less than a mothership, you know the build time is too long.
Then you compare carriers to colossi, which cost less and take only 70 seconds to build and do the same job (sans shooting up). If the zerg counters with corruptors against both colossi and carriers, why try to make the one that takes almost twice as long.
I don't see how anyone could agree with this: "MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him."
What a nice, underhanded, slap in the face to every other T player . Has MC impressed people so much with his mechanics and decision-making that, if he was a T player, he would be at least 2x better (and luckier) than MVP or Bomber? I doubt even Flash would be able to accomplish such feats, given the volatility of this game.
Disregarding the obvious hyperbole and speculation here, as another poster stated, this reminds me a lot of Stork saying if he played T, he would beat Flash (in accomplishments). I don't know how serious either of these guys (Stork and MC, and I hold Stork in much higher esteem than MC) were when they made such statements, but they're silly and ridiculous.
This article is insulting, "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind."
Apparently, I'm blind. What happened to not balance whining on TL? LR threads have become such balance-whine cesspools (ok, they were bad before too, but it's so much worse now), and this article is fueling the anger.
How do you guys think the game would change if banshee cloak was removed from the game?
I think the one thing that is keeping down protoss is that we HAVE to go for robo-tech (obs out by what.. the 6 min mark?)
Not to comment on other aspects of balance, but do you think that if we didnt have the threat of cloaked banshees coming into our base, we would be able to focus on a straight up build that can defend vs everything else
I guess this is meant to be an opionated article, and you know your going to get shit for sounding like a Protoss Whambulance. All the races go through shit like this, and it isn't because one player at super high levels isn't dominating.
The article has a point. MC has been the only Korean Protoss to consistently play well. All the others have been failing quite epicly since the very beginning. A few lately have started to show promise like Puzzle and JYP but even then they aren't up to snuff yet.
Contrast that with the massive field of good Terrans and even Zergs and you have to wonder. Has Protoss just been too weak all this time, or do good players not pick Protoss? Since it's impossible to know if good players simply don't play Protoss, and nobody new has really come close to achieving MC level success, it's likely that Protoss is just too weak and MC can't cover up that fact anymore.
With only 5 Protoss left in Code S, and the former Protoss leader MC seemingly stumped by how to move forward, a Protoss buff sure seems like a reasonable response.
On September 09 2011 01:26 Geo.Rion wrote: OK, this is ridiculous, Protoss using everything they had months ago. Really? I havent seen Mana build a single Warprism or Carrier ever (he could have ofc, i havent seen him), warprisms are so incredibly good with mass gateway style, i played against it like 5 times today and managed to win 1. Also if a P gets the critical number of carriers lategame it's just GG, i think we have seen that in Socke vs Dimaga on metalo i think, i faced that transition sometimes, if you are on even grounds with P or the P is ahead, there s no way to win. Not to mention most tosses still neglect chronoboost a lot. Protosses have a lot of room still, they might be doing poorly, they will get a buff, but that line just made me angry a bit.
What are you even talking about?...Carriers suck at the moment cause they build WAY too slow, and tech switching for protoss is so epic-ly slow that you can´t really do it properly vs terran...and ofc vikings pretty much decimate carriers...
Thank you im 1.1k masters. Carriers dont suck, and to clear it up, if it wasnt obvious im talking PvZ, i didnt suggest go carriers off of 1 base or 2. I m talking lategame, and i gave an example, and there were more pro games, that one was relatively recently. I played vs carriers and lost, i provide you with an opinion based on experience and giving a pro game example, you reply with trashtalk and saying they build slow. wow.
Angry with PvT? by all means, start a petition to nerf tanks or banshees, i ll sign it, but if my logo or the fact taht im talking about a Dimaga game didnt give away that i m talking about PvZ, i have bad news for you
The discussion here is mainly focused on: Terran imba, Protoss up.
I sometimes switch to carriers myself in PvZ, and i´m beating top of their league masters players in PvZ, but the problem is, if he made some corruptors, and we "trade army´s" pretty much, with me possibly coming out ahead, he just re-maxes with hydra/roach composition while i´m stuck with some carriers and gateway units. And carriers suck because they take so long to build and protoss invests heavily in them (late game, 4 stargates + Fleet beacon) that is 900 minerals and 800 gas just in the production facilities to get out carriers at a decent rate. On top of that every carrier costs 350/250. So let´s say I make 4 carriers at once, the build time is 120 in game seconds (2 minutes ingame...fml)...so when i´m done making my 4 carriers i´ve invested 4x350+900/4x250+800 = 2300/1800 minerals/gas just to get out my first 4 carriers. A valid point would be pointing out I would most likely have 1 stargate since earlier in the game, so the cost would "only" be 2150/1650 for those first 4 carriers to get out. And you might say I should only have 2 gates, the cost will still be epic, and I will get my first 4 carriers in 4 ingame minutes...that is a joke and if you don´t realize that then that´s probably because you don´t play protoss.
Now Carriers get crushed by: Hydras, Corruptors, Vikings, Marines. I go for them sometimes vs zerg late late game to counter heavy broodlords, if he made too many corruptors into broodlords, but really, the investment into a good switch is too much, since you will always just re-max right away with corruptor/roach/hydra, and my carriers are...well not operational.
The problem is, terran units already on the field crush carriers anyway, and zerg, if you can´t surprise them heavily with a fast tech switch, and fighting them close to their main, you really won´t get the job done with carriers.
On September 09 2011 02:49 Ghanburighan wrote: This article is insulting, "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind."
Apparently, I'm blind. What happened to not balance whining on TL? LR threads have become such balance-whine cesspools (ok, they were bad before too, but it's so much worse now), and this article is fueling the anger.
This article makes me profoundly sad.
Think of the source and how rare it is for the source to mislead us.
I feel upon further reflection that this article is half of an argument. I don't think we can't talk about Toss balance issues and Protoss form and success without discussing the foreign scene to some extent.
I think generally we would agree that foreign Toss have 2 of the hardest working players (Nani and Huk). Their performance is what we would expect. We also have some players with some lovely control (Socke) or innovation though there are limitations in their play we can see (white-ra/ mana?). They haven't had massive success, but they have had a deserved modicum of success.
Why are foreign Terrans doing so poorly? Personally, I would and in light of this article I would ask: why are foreign Terrans so bad? We have seen Korean terrans (albeit the best of the best) come to MLG and cut their P/Z competition to pieces. Presumably then there are gaps in P/Z play that could be exploited by better Terran play or simply the raw level of Terran play could be better. So are foreign Terrans just bad? (or do I have a myopic view of foreign tournaments and foreign terrans have done quite well for themselves? TSL winner was a terran and Select has always been a beast.)
Personally I think the entire issue stems 100% from warpgates. They make Protoss timings so insanely powerful that Blizzard had to take this into account and not make toss units too strong, meaning standard protoss play is gipped. I think toss personally has the best timing attacks in the game vT and vZ, it's just you kinda know they're coming, and if they don't, they're standard play is semi-subpar.
On September 09 2011 02:47 Qaatar wrote: I don't see how anyone could agree with this: "MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him."
What a nice, underhanded, slap in the face to every other T player . Has MC impressed people so much with his mechanics and decision-making that, if he was a T player, he would be at least 2x better (and luckier) than MVP or Bomber? I doubt even Flash would be able to accomplish such feats, given the volatility of this game.
Disregarding the obvious hyperbole and speculation here, as another poster stated, this reminds me a lot of Stork saying if he played T, he would beat Flash (in accomplishments). I don't know how serious either of these guys (Stork and MC, and I hold Stork in much higher esteem than MC) were when they made such statements, but they're silly and ridiculous.
Don't you have to eventually wonder why 1 year after release MC dwarfs other protoss players in terms of accomplishments and is the ONLY protoss to have success in korea? Not saying MC is flash but don't you think he probably would have done even better as T?(the race that has dominated the majority of the game)
On September 09 2011 02:50 Roxy wrote: How do you guys think the game would change if banshee cloak was removed from the game?
I think the one thing that is keeping down protoss is that we HAVE to go for robo-tech (obs out by what.. the 6 min mark?)
Not to comment on other aspects of balance, but do you think that if we didnt have the threat of cloaked banshees coming into our base, we would be able to focus on a straight up build that can defend vs everything else
Moving the Banshee Cloaking upgrade to the Fusion Core would almost assuredly be enough to balance Banshee openings.
On September 09 2011 02:49 Ghanburighan wrote: This article is insulting, "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind."
Apparently, I'm blind. What happened to not balance whining on TL? LR threads have become such balance-whine cesspools (ok, they were bad before too, but it's so much worse now), and this article is fueling the anger.
This article makes me profoundly sad.
Think of the source and how rare it is for the source to mislead us.
I feel upon further reflection that this article is half of an argument. I don't think we can't talk about Toss balance issues and Protoss form and success without discussing the foreign scene to some extent.
I think generally we would agree that foreign Toss have 2 of the hardest working players (Nani and Huk). Their performance is what we would expect. We also have some players with some lovely control (Socke) or innovation though there are limitations in their play we can see (white-ra/ mana?). They haven't had massive success, but they have had a deserved modicum of success.
Why are foreign Terrans doing so poorly? Personally, I would and in light of this article I would ask: why are foreign Terrans so bad? We have seen Korean terrans (albeit the best of the best) come to MLG and cut their P/Z competition to pieces. Presumably then there are gaps in P/Z play that could be exploited by better Terran play or simply the raw level of Terran play could be better. So are foreign Terrans just bad? (or do I have a myopic view of foreign tournaments and foreign terrans have done quite well for themselves? TSL winner was a terran and Select has always been a beast.)
You chose the right word, "lead/mislead". It's not so much that it's balance whine, it's more about the wrong attitude. Instead of doing what is constructive - suggesting further testing and figuring out the new metagame; it sends the message that it is ok to simply balance whine on TL, and it will hurt what I need TL the most for: LR threads.
I'll agree mostly with "The Fall of MC" but I do not think you can say that PuMa is worse than MC, he's beaten him in macro games before, they are very close in skill level.
On September 09 2011 02:59 FabledIntegral wrote: Personally I think the entire issue stems 100% from warpgates. They make Protoss timings so insanely powerful that Blizzard had to take this into account and not make toss units too strong, meaning standard protoss play is gipped. I think toss personally has the best timing attacks in the game vT and vZ, it's just you kinda know they're coming, and if they don't, they're standard play is semi-subpar.
Yeah, and I would like to add the Sentry to the equation. It has such an important potential to dictate the battle and comes at T1 that Blizzard also had to tone down Stalkers and Zealots. If the hadn't there could have been an ever greater amount of 1-2 base pure gateway timing attacks.
On September 09 2011 02:50 Roxy wrote: How do you guys think the game would change if banshee cloak was removed from the game?
I think the one thing that is keeping down protoss is that we HAVE to go for robo-tech (obs out by what.. the 6 min mark?)
Not to comment on other aspects of balance, but do you think that if we didnt have the threat of cloaked banshees coming into our base, we would be able to focus on a straight up build that can defend vs everything else
Moving the Banshee Cloaking upgrade to the Fusion Core would almost assuredly be enough to balance Banshee openings.
That is an excellent idea!
At least it is an excellent idea at first glance.. it may be something akin to the reaper speed being moved to factory requirement.
I hate it when they remove stuff from the game, balancing the timing of it seems much more appropriate
It's more about Protoss as a race than MC in particular to me. Protoss is in a slump - the race is much more stagnant and straightforward in its terms of play than the other two. Almost every game as protoss winds up with more or less of the same unit composition, based upon micro to win battles. But recently, the metagame has shifted in a direction that makes Protoss seem especially helpless in some regards. The infestor zergling play from Zerg and baneling bombs are two examples that I see in which Protoss has an especially hard time in dealing with. Compared to the other races, Protoss really has no real "hard" counters. Everything Protoss does is relied on micro, yet there are so many ways terran and zerg can limit or shut down a protoss' ability to do so. Fungal growth locks the entire ball to be wrecked by zerglings. Neural parasite prevents colossi micro to get easy snipes. Good EMPs render HTs and sentries useless. For these, Protoss has no real answers. As other race players get better with initiating and utilizing such strategies, Protoss is left in the dust because there's simply too little to do about it.
On September 09 2011 02:47 Qaatar wrote: I don't see how anyone could agree with this: "MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him."
What a nice, underhanded, slap in the face to every other T player . Has MC impressed people so much with his mechanics and decision-making that, if he was a T player, he would be at least 2x better (and luckier) than MVP or Bomber? I doubt even Flash would be able to accomplish such feats, given the volatility of this game.
Disregarding the obvious hyperbole and speculation here, as another poster stated, this reminds me a lot of Stork saying if he played T, he would beat Flash (in accomplishments). I don't know how serious either of these guys (Stork and MC, and I hold Stork in much higher esteem than MC) were when they made such statements, but they're silly and ridiculous.
Don't you have to eventually wonder why 1 year after release MC dwarfs other protoss players in terms of accomplishments and is the ONLY protoss to have success in korea? Not saying MC is flash but don't you think he probably would have done even better as T?(the race that has dominated the majority of the game)
Or he might not even be as successful as he is now, since T requires a different mindset and playstyle. The point is, it's impossible to speculate, but just from a neutral and objective point of view, I fail to see exactly where MC's advantage in mechanics, decision-making, and multitasking are, compared to his other top level peers playing other races.
Then again, that might have much to do with the P race itself, limiting possibilities, but that brings us again to the original point: speculation like this is stupid, impossible, and ridiculous to begin with.
On September 09 2011 02:50 Roxy wrote: How do you guys think the game would change if banshee cloak was removed from the game?
I think the one thing that is keeping down protoss is that we HAVE to go for robo-tech (obs out by what.. the 6 min mark?)
Not to comment on other aspects of balance, but do you think that if we didnt have the threat of cloaked banshees coming into our base, we would be able to focus on a straight up build that can defend vs everything else
Moving the Banshee Cloaking upgrade to the Fusion Core would almost assuredly be enough to balance Banshee openings.
That is an excellent idea!
At least it is an excellent idea at first glance.. it may be something akin to the reaper speed being moved to factory requirement.
I hate it when they remove stuff from the game, balancing the timing of it seems much more appropriate
It used to be at the fusion core.
I think it's a very viable balance change (back to the fusion core), but make it cost 100/100 instead of 200/200, and reduce the time it takes to tech imo.
On September 09 2011 03:11 Zzoram wrote: They should just buff Zealot/Stalker and move Sentry up to Citadel
Also, Banshee Cloak should be moved to Fusion Core
lol...just...maybe if you buff zealots and stalkers by doubling their damage and health. Protoss early game with no forcefields...that will fix everything.
Ok maybe don't move sentries, but how about make charge cost less or research faster? Or maybe add an upgrade for stalkers to do bonus anti-air damage or something
On September 09 2011 03:11 Zzoram wrote: They should just buff Zealot/Stalker and move Sentry up to Citadel
Also, Banshee Cloak should be moved to Fusion Core
lol...just...maybe if you buff zealots and stalkers by doubling their damage and health. Protoss early game with no forcefields...that will fix everything.
Ahh... then the resurgence of 2gate PvZ.... *shutters*
On September 09 2011 01:31 unoriginalname wrote: but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
If the bolded is the case then it is just confirming that there are more problems with PvT than just 1-1-1. You seriously think a Terran (who is very talented but just one amongst MANY in Korea) who can't even make it into Code A should be taking out the best Protoss in the world?
Even if they are both evenly skilled (possible given that the only determinant of skill we have is win/loss, which itself is flawed because it is under the assumption that the game is balanced), then there is something wrong with Terran attracting the most talented players and Protoss somehow only getting the people who do retarded shit.
You mean like DongRaeGu taking out nearly everyone despite being in Code B? Because no way that Code B players should be defeating the best players in the world...
drg got owned by tester, 2-0, and tester just dropped to code A. I dont see your point.
On September 09 2011 01:36 tiaz wrote: Fantastic article, though at first I didn't realize it was a write-up on the last IEM which happened a while ago. For a second I was worried I had missed an entire event ^^
Lots of people in here who complains about all the "whining". I'm more tired of those terran-players (cause right now the "whine" is aimed against terran) who searches every damn opportunity to get into a thread and call people "whiners".
Nothing in the article was whining. Its sad to see that terran-players can't even admit that their race AT THE MOMENT is f-ed up. It was the same thing couple of months ago when zergs was crushed protoss all the time and protoss-players came into every thread trying to get in comments such as "nomnomnom zerg tears!" and stupid shit like that.
You don't have to to be an indian to see the smoke signs in the sky: terran is the best race.
<-High Random Masters
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm more of the side that Zerg is the best race (except on crappy imbalanced maps like Antiga).
I would venture to say Z>T>P, with more of P's downside being ZvP being highly difficult to win.
Yeah, ok and I totally have no problem with your oppinion, I'm not against any discussion at all. Sorry if anyone believed that. What I'm turning against is the constant posting and accusations of "whining" which very often lacks any argument what so ever. In my opinion the fact that Code S next season will be a terran fest like no one ever has seen before is a valid argument. If theres 20 T, and not even 20 Z and P together, something is fishy. Just popping in and saying "Stop whining", is NOT a valid argument in that debate. Atleast thats my opinion.
"The fall of MC", not only a gr8 piece of writing as usual, but I can QFT every word of it. Also, Mana seems like a very nice guy. I used to consider him "plain" and uninteresting, but the few resent tournaments (eg. Assembly) completely changed my perspective. Besides, he is quite young even for e-sports, so looking ffwrd to seeing more of him in the future. Photos are gr8.
Thanks again for the article. TL rocks (as always!))
On September 09 2011 01:49 Ingebrigtsen wrote: Wont actually call Puma a worse SC2 player than MC, lets not forget that Puma has won both the tourneys in which he has met MC, NASL and IEM. I agree that the 1-1-1 IEM finals might not accuratly represent skill in terms of the 1-1-1 being kind of imbalanced. But the NASL finals I think represented their accurate skill level, close, but Puma being better.
I think the point is not so much whether or not Puma is a clearly weaker player than MC. It's more of MC basically representing the pinnacle of protoss play while Puma is one of very many skilled Terrans who, though amazing, still has a good ways to go before being able to be spoken in the same breath as Mvp/Nestea.
The thrust of the article and most of the arguments defending it is that MC isn't exactly in a slump. He and the very best of the protoss players are struggling against the current metagame and have lost control of their game - in the sense that they are losing games where they are hard pressed to be able to identify what they "did wrong" and how they could do better if they played the same game again. The protoss players in their A-game are still effectively rolling dice against the metagame - they can clinch some games, maybe stay in Code S, but I'm not sure I can name any protoss at the moment that I can with a straight face say has a reasonable chance of winning the next GSL.
I Cant even say a protoss im sure is gonna stay ni Code S, Would be hongun cause he just gets through time and time again somehow
On September 09 2011 01:36 tiaz wrote: Fantastic article, though at first I didn't realize it was a write-up on the last IEM which happened a while ago. For a second I was worried I had missed an entire event ^^
Lots of people in here who complains about all the "whining". I'm more tired of those terran-players (cause right now the "whine" is aimed against terran) who searches every damn opportunity to get into a thread and call people "whiners".
Nothing in the article was whining. Its sad to see that terran-players can't even admit that their race AT THE MOMENT is f-ed up. It was the same thing couple of months ago when zergs was crushed protoss all the time and protoss-players came into every thread trying to get in comments such as "nomnomnom zerg tears!" and stupid shit like that.
You don't have to to be an indian to see the smoke signs in the sky: terran is the best race.
<-High Random Masters
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm more of the side that Zerg is the best race (except on crappy imbalanced maps like Antiga).
I would venture to say Z>T>P, with more of P's downside being ZvP being highly difficult to win.
On September 09 2011 01:31 unoriginalname wrote: but saying that, PuMa is amazing and he could have still probably have won the IEM Cologne even if 1-1-1 was fixed, the only difference is the games would have probably been longer.
If the bolded is the case then it is just confirming that there are more problems with PvT than just 1-1-1. You seriously think a Terran (who is very talented but just one amongst MANY in Korea) who can't even make it into Code A should be taking out the best Protoss in the world?
Even if they are both evenly skilled (possible given that the only determinant of skill we have is win/loss, which itself is flawed because it is under the assumption that the game is balanced), then there is something wrong with Terran attracting the most talented players and Protoss somehow only getting the people who do retarded shit.
PuMa's win ratio on TLPD in Korea was about 70% overall. Code A is very difficult to make it through--- there are a LOT of high level players so it should be expected many would struggle to get through (MMA, DRG, for example).
I think people who play Random have absolutely terrible perceptions on balance, as they experience a completely different matchup than the rest.
I think Zerg is easier to play than Terran, but I garner Terran is slightly stronger than Zerg at the top level. At a level of merely "high masters" (assuming 1200+ pts), you're not good enough to fully exploit Terran, especially on NA ladder, yet you can much more easily exploit Zerg.
The reason why I don't like random users' opinions (personally), is that they don't experience the traditional builds other races use against them. And Zerg benefits the most, by far, from random. Protoss won't forge FE you, Terran won't 2rax you or gas first hellion opening you. It's far easier to play, consequently, which is a reason why Z is often cited as the OP race by random users, imo.
Just checked your profile, and I'd say 1100+ points counts as high masters regardless imo, so nvm about that earlier stated 1200 criteria :D.
Great article overall, I thought hugger did a great job of explaining whats going on in high level play for protoss. It will be interesting to see the next step for protoss and what the BO's will be.
On September 08 2011 17:27 babylon wrote: I don't think MC's PvT is slumping, since his PvT play is still as crisp as ever when he's not getting destroyed by the 1/1/1. (He could have beaten Jjakji if he hadn't clumped up his casters for some money-making EMPs, I feel.) We could probably talk about his PvZ, though; he used to be near-invincible in that match-up, but lately he can't even outplay good-but-otherwise-irrelevant Zergs.
If you think PvT is fine with all this 1/1/1 thing and this is the way it is supposed to be played, as tree.hugger said, you are blind.
Where did I say PvT is fine? I said I don't think MC's PvT has gotten any worse, implying that his recent losses have been due to the resurgence of 1/1/1 and the general realization that there are a fuck ton of ways to abuse the Protoss race's inability to actually do jackshit about anything.
Because the article was talking about the state of PvT and MC's fall, I decided to make a comment about the state of MC's PvZ, which is actually why he's in Code A. MC didn't drop down to Code A because of PvT -- as I said, Jjakji did not play perfectly against MC and could have been beaten had MC not clumped up his HTs -- he dropped down because he couldn't beat 2/3 of the Zergs in his pool, one of whom is, at best, simply "good." Saying that MC's in Code A because of PvT is absurd, given that his group was 1 Terran and 3 Zergs. He went to the Up/Down matches because of PvT -- whether or not the Terran strategies used were imbalanced is up for you to decide, as I can hardly remember anything that happened past MVP's contain -- but his fall to Code A had little to do with PvT and more to do with PvZ.
On September 09 2011 03:45 rareh wrote: MC still playing well ?
LOL he is in code A
There are much better protoss still in code S.
Not saying he is bad or anything, but not good either.
Hahah no there aren't. None of the protoss in Code S are even competitors to win code s, yes huk and puzzle got farther because they got a better group/bracket. Of course when huk met MVP he got raped and puzzle can't even beat ryung. They didn't play any better than MC did.
To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
When people train for weeks to hold the 111 and cant even do it when they know it is coming its not just another cheese...
And really, what do you want to innovate with protoss? All the units that are usable see use, prisms are really risky and can only do so much, evetyy other unit gets used as good as it gets. No Carriers wont solve anything...
The problem is that terran is more flexible and can get units that require specific stuff, otherwise you loose. Protoss doesnt have something like that. I also cant understand why they made ghosts the way they are, its a unit thats invisible and good against everything?!
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
Actually when the whole race has a 30 percent winrate and hasn't had any success in korea for months, it's a completely warranted claim. 1/1/1 is not just another cheese and if you actually knew the scene this is apparent. This all in has absolutely insane winrates, a near auto win on some maps. It can be scouted, anticipated and still absolutely destroy. 4 gate does not meet this description. This isn't just the fall of MC, it's the fall of protoss who have been on a downward spiral for a while now. 5 protoss in code s. I'm sure if there were 0 protoss in code s and they have a 10 percent winrate you would still insist everything is fine(at this rate it will happen).
On September 09 2011 04:13 -y0shi- wrote: When people train for weeks to hold the 111 and cant even do it when they know it is coming its not just another cheese...
You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose.
On September 09 2011 04:13 -y0shi- wrote: When people train for weeks to hold the 111 and cant even do it when they know it is coming its not just another cheese...
You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose.
Are you posting from the past? Like, October 2010? That would sound about right.
On September 09 2011 04:13 -y0shi- wrote: When people train for weeks to hold the 111 and cant even do it when they know it is coming its not just another cheese...
You can say exactly the same thing about 4 gate. You can train for weeks to hold 4 gate, but if their execution is better than yours you still lose.
What? But it's easy to hold a 4 gate so if you train for weeks to hold it and you can't you're just bad. No one can consistently hold 1/1/1...everyone can hold a 4 gate they are hardly even used anymore.(except in pvp) Seriously all you have to do is put up spines and bunkers...you could have the best 4 gate every and lose to some sloppily placed spines or bunkers.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
With that kind of argument you may just as well say that no matter how they make the game it cannot be unbalanced, it is always the players fault. It is completely faulty logic.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
It is a simple matter of one race having the best economy (mules) the best defense (tanks, bunkers, PF) and the best harass (banshee, medivac drops, hellion). I even play Terran myself but I think the current game is very lackluster to watch due to Terrans having almost no weakness yet having extremely strong points. Too much reward and too little risk involved with playing Terran currently. Z is being kept afloat by one gimmick being so superbly strong (fungal).
There is no real point in arguing about it further though, the well written article and the current numbers speak for themselves.
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. [/b]
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
[/b] What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
And just because that one time you can maybe hold 1/1/1 if you play perfectly, does not mean it's balanced. Several high level terrans have come out and said yes 1/1/1 is too strong. It's immensely stronger than any other cheese or all in, and scouting it does an alarmingly little amount when it comes to stopping it.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim.
You start being wrong here. Tree.Hugger didn't blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of... yadda yadda yadda. He talks about all Korean Protoss in general, while trying to link it to the loss of MC in a recent tournament so that it is topical and therefore interesting.
To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
Nice baseless assertion here. What exactly makes the 1-1-1 so like other cheeses? So many players, in fact in the exact tournament the article refers to, scout the cheese, use the most effective build order against it (example: 1gate FE, the mad Phoenix/Blink/DT build), builds which insta-lose vs other builds which are fairly common (2rax, gasless expand appropriately) and still get crushed?
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered
I'd like to stop you there. By definition it cannot be a FACT because people are debating over it. For something to be a fact, there has to be conclusive proof of it. Because so many people are arguing over whether Protoss is underpowered or not there cannot be conclusive proof, therefore it is not a fact.
, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play.
Warp Prism drops vs Select/Puma aren't innovative or provocative (including picking up 3 Hts in a Warp Prism and DODGING AN EMP with it)? How about the Blink/DT/Phoenix play? How about the 1gate expand Stargate that MC invented just to crush roach/ling all-ins and put pressure on Zerg thirds? None of them recent? None of them innovative?
To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me, and as the highest level of play is in Korea surely that is what we should be talking about?
Boxer, Slayers et al rediscovered an amazing unit in the Terrans' arsenal which was underused in all matches and popularised its use in one tournament. If anyone can give me a viable unit for Protoss which is underused and has potential to solve the problems that Protoss has vs Terran (specifically the worst ones like 1-1-1 and Ghosts lategame) then please, by all means enlighten me.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
I'm sorry, are you arguing FOR Protoss being imbalanced or AGAINST? You claim that the best tactic that the winner of 2 GSLs and a couple of billion foreign tournaments, as well as other Protoss players like HerO can come up with is shadowed by "standard, stagnated build orders and strategies" - and call that BALANCE? Yeah, White-Ra is a beast in Europe and one of my all-time favourite players for both play and manner, but the influence he has in Korea, again where the highest level of play is, is jack shit.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
The lack of success is not the fault of MC's or the rest of the Protoss players fault, it's the 1-1-1's (and the rest of the racial IMBALANCE) fault. You can't blame the sustained losses of one race with a sufficient sample size to draw some conclusions on all it's players. You just can't.
Sorry if it seemed condescending at any point, but a lot of what you said seemed ignorant and just conservative in it's views - like, the status quo is always balance regardless of evidence. If you don't want to discuss balance, don't, but don't try to force your baseless assertions on other people.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
[/b]
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
EDIT: Very reactive as usual though. 1.4 PTR patch reduced whining for a couple days. So did the high number of protoss code A qualified players. And then came all the up&down matches.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
[/b] Sorry but that's an absolutely laughable definition of imbalance, so it has to be absolutely impossible to lose with to be too good? haha what shit. Also think about the repercussions 1/1/1 has on the matchup even when not used. The very fear of 1/1/1 already puts toss at a disadvantage, and requires immense preparation, usually to still lose. I mean, how the hell could MC improve with the matchup the way it is?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
Sorry but that's an absolutely laughable definition of imbalance, so it has to be absolutely impossible to lose with to be too good? haha what shit. Also think about the repercussions 1/1/1 has on the matchup even when not used. The very fear of 1/1/1 already puts toss at a disadvantage, and requires immense preparation, usually to still lose. I mean, how the hell could MC improve with the matchup the way it is?
[/b]
That's it with bunker rushes. Zerg's complained so much about it(and still do), yet you CAN defend it. You just have to play better. Big whoop. It's not imbalanced. And right now the best move against 1-1-1 is what MC showed us. Did you know he would have won, would have CRUSHED puma if he had had charge? And did you know if he had just started it when the twilight council finished, that he would have had it and not even have to wait at all?
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
[b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
[/b]
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance.
I like the use of the Immortal Stalker Templar in PvZ - Hopefully we see some advanced strategies coming out of patch 1.4. Personally I have not tried it since the amulet nerf
On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance.
Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped.
Protoss players did really well in the Code A qualifiers last weekend. A Protoss is going to win Code A next season after another sick PvP finals and the whining will settle down.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
[b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
[/b]
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
On September 08 2011 17:36 MandoRelease wrote: I'm surprised to see such a cry for imbalance at the front page of TL. Not that I disagree with it entirely. It's a good thing to say "at the highest level of competition" but a lot of people will miss these few very important words.
Exactly. Its not worth talking about balance unless you're talking about the top. As a diamond player myself, anything I lose to is not imbalanced, because there are people out there who are clearly better than me who would stomp all over my opponents. There's always room for improvement...
it does mean that you could be losing to people worse than you though. I agree that if you're really dedicated it would do you some good to ignore it... but someone needs to bitch, because as u get better the more imbalance annoys you.
It's easier to worry about someone who didn't deserve to beat you winning anyway, than it is to ignore it and realize that it doesn't matter if you want to be the best, hope that blizzard sorts shit out.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
On September 08 2011 17:28 Gary Oak wrote: Very good article. I'm hoping that Protoss will get fixed sometime soon. As far as I'm concerned, SC2 is a 2-race game.
It's very rapidly becoming a 1-race game O_o
63% of players in Code S are Terran... all major tournaments have only Terrans in top 4 for like the last 2 months. It's getting a little out of hand.
On September 09 2011 04:58 bcmc wrote: Protoss players did really well in the Code A qualifiers last weekend. A Protoss is going to win Code A next season after another sick PvP finals and the whining will settle down.
People thought that would happen with Puzzle. Guess what? He got to RO16.
This isn't going to be fixed all of a sudden. When I see a few GSLs with increased Protoss placing consistently higher (like 8-10 Protoss in RO32) and perhaps some new way to play the match ups, then I will consider Protoss fine.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
[b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
[/b] You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
[b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
[/b]
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
That's it with bunker rushes. Zerg's complained so much about it(and still do), yet you CAN defend it. You just have to play better. Big whoop. It's not imbalanced.
yeah thats why bunker rushes didnt get nerfed and arent getting nerfed in the next patch.....
oh wait they did/are (if barracks time increase stays in the patch)
On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance.
Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped.
What question are you even answering? I wasn't trying to argue White Ra winning IPL 2 meant Protoss was balanced. I referenced IPL as something to consider in response to the author's claim Protoss didn't have a fighting chance in big tournaments, irrespective of nationality.
As a general rule, if you find yourself responding to a page long post with 2 lines then you're probably oversimplifying.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
[/b]
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance.
Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped.
What question are you even answering? I wasn't trying to argue White Ra winning IPL 2 meant Protoss was balanced. I referenced IPL as something to consider in response to the author's claim Protoss didn't have a fighting chance in big tournaments, irrespective of nationality.
As a general rule, if you find yourself responding to a page long post with 2 lines then you're probably oversimplifying.
"I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
[/b] By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that.
[/b]
Most patch changes have not been about "imbalance" but rather about increasing the game dynamic. For example archons were buffed not because of any imbalance, but because archons didn't have a role. Most changes have been about expirimenting with new styles/units. Some, yes, have been "timing" oriented, as in stim changes and nexus health.
Yeah I'm a strong believe in waiting things out. I loved when fungal growth was a projectile(so sad when changed.) At the end I finally believed 5 rax reaper was imbalanced and also pre-infestor that void ray collusus was as well.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works sometimes.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided. And why voidray colossus but not 1/1/1...zvp was still relatively even in winrates if a zerg played perfectly he would definitely win, not to mention it was a lategame composition :/
It just floors me to see how much people must love talking about balance to see such long winded statements like the ones in this thread. Its worse then all the times when religion gets talked about in a thread. At least then theres actually sources to manipulate.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game.
Fun read! Whenever I think balance, I always compare w BW since that is the ultimate closest to balance game. There are super-players for each race, anyone race can take games off even the top super players.
Just some thoughts:
Protoss - Colossi replaced reaver kind of and is same tech tree (robo bay). Warp Prism/Mothership is poor replacement for arbiter. They should make the warp prism more like the arbiter (it has to be tanky enough to warp in/teleport units). Zealot Stalker is not too diff from Zealot Dragoon n Blink is fantastic. Imho, immortals should be cheaper and faster zealot immortal timings should be a viable build. They need to bring back the corsair, so protoss gas can be invested into gateway, templar n robo tech. If not they'll die to mutas/banshee/wraiths.
Stim marauders are too good against Protoss tier 1, combined w medivac n their high HP is insane. Imagine ultras w a few medivacs, they would never die. Kiting was not so easy in BW n speedlots were scary mofos. Marauders should not be able to stim. Their purpose is for tanking/range/slow occasionally.
Roach replacing hydra and baneling replacing lurker aoe kind of works within the theme of Zerg of swarming but not having dark swarm is so against the theme. Fungal growth should be cast by overseer n not do dmg (like the old flying zerg queen - lair tech), infestor should be hive tech and give them dark swarm! It'd be a beautiful fight vs blink stalkers n the crazy cost efficient marines. Also need to bring back scourge to counter corsairs.
Even if not much change happens, it may take sometime but it is challenges like this that make players revolutionary. Terran - Boxer for his micro (dropship, vultures), iloveoov for his monster macro Zerg - July micro zerg (crazy mutas) and Savior macro zerg culminating into Jaedong (both) Protoss - Bisu (sair-DT)
Simple way to nerf the 1/1/1 build? Make banshee build time longer. Cloak is not the issue, wraiths cloaked then as well but it took a lot of investment for cloaked wraiths to do dmg unlike one cloak banshee. Or maps just be always bigger like Taldarim so less 1-base all-in builds are viable n focus more on the mid-game onwards. Bomber proxy raxing in the middle is still viable every now n then.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game.
Yes, yes yes!
Was such sloppy play from Puma and Puzzle still barely held on for dear life....
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game.
Could you link me to the VODs? I haven't watched the games yet, but going by the discussion in the thread, it seems that Puzzle held a 1/1/1 off with a Nexus.
scv/marine/tank/banshee/raven is no joke. i havnt played in awhile and after hearing about this 1/1/1 fuzz i tried it out and i've been undefeated against protoss as far as i can remember, even on large maps.
i'm a random player, no bias from me. just sayin. i can't help but think players like mvp don't 1/1/1 much out of respect.
scv/marine/tank/banshee/raven 1/1/1 is not just hard to stop, the main point is its easy to transition into something else while doing maximum damage even against the well prepared.
1.4 will help though. immortal range increase with prism hp increase will help immortal/zealot bombs. sentry GS will reduce splash damage.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Lol...ok you just keep hoping protoss players evolve into Gods to even out the matchup and I'll realize that soon blizzard will have no choice to nerf 1/1/1 or buff toss when there are no protoss left in code S. Also tell me why 5 rax reaper and deathball are so much more op than 1/1/1?
I'm sure it's already been mentioned, but at it's core, I feel Protoss' most glaring weakness is it's inflexibility. While just about every terran unit is useful in some capacity, and in fact, can be used to deal with most protoss and zerg compositions, (even if not ideally, at least with proper micro and multi-task, able to compete), protoss does not have the same luxury.
When I play protoss now, I feel fairly helpless against other races.
It's not a joke, the game has evolved to the point where right now, protoss is suffering in professional play. Can innovation save them? It really doesn't seem like it--protoss are very restricted in terms of what they need to build and when. The necessity of observers discourages Stargate play, and the expense of dark templars leaves that tech branch to be cheesy, and very similar to other "all-ins".
High templar's previous ability to keep a protoss player spread out over the entire map has been eliminated with the removal of khaydarin amulet. It seems that protoss is destined to be an immobile race, which is very painful to deal with.
The latest round of buffs is a decent step, but I personally doubt it'll change that much. Immortal range will be nice, but if anything, it'll have the largest effect on PvP. The blink nerf seems unnecessary, and warp prisms seem to beg for speed, not for additional health. Well, speed AND health, if anything.
Protoss right now feels so inflexible and immobile. If that remains the case, as players get better multitask and better micro, they'll be able to take advantage of terran and zerg more and more, with their increased mobility, while protoss will be left behind.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Stop posting in bold, it doesn't make your dick bigger.
Regarding that game 1, let me ask you: 1) Do you think the better player won? 2) Who made more mistakes, Puma losing half his workers and his whole army the first push, or MC who apparently didn't satisfy your definition of "just good play" by delaying charge right after TC finished. 3) Which player have you seen hold a determined 1-1-1 from a Korean Terran without the Terran fucking it up (tired of all this theorycrafting, give me an example because I'm lost).
I'm asking #2 because no one is playing perfectly and for me personally I don't dislike Terran players (in fact, I love watching MVP and Thorzain play) but I do not like seeing people getting punished for (relatively) small mistakes and I think it makes for horrible spectator experience.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that.
Most patch changes have not been about "imbalance" but rather about increasing the game dynamic. For example archons were buffed not because of any imbalance, but because archons didn't have a role. Most changes have been about expirimenting with new styles/units. Some, yes, have been "timing" oriented, as in stim changes and nexus health.
Yeah I'm a strong believe in waiting things out. I loved when fungal growth was a projectile(so sad when changed.) At the end I finally believed 5 rax reaper was imbalanced and also pre-infestor that void ray collusus was as well.
[/b] Oh... that's surprising.
The two things you've found to be imbalanced just happened to affect your race.
It is interesting to note though, that even during the 5 rax reaper and void ray/colossus periods the win rates for zerg never actually dropped as low as protoss winrates are now.
But you of course attribute this to the assumption that terran players are just superior to the shitty protoss and zerg players out there. Like nestea, who manages to keep winrates at 92% vs zerg, 86% vs protoss but only 58% vs terrans. Clearly he's only good against these shitty p and z players that lack the 'spark' (lol) of the korean terrans.
Not even korean terran players think like this. And even if it were true, that somehow no good player chose to play protoss, then that would still be a huge problem for the game. If no good players chose that race then it will never be competitive and we're suddenly stuck with a 2 race game in the pro-scene. And when I say 2 race, I mean mostly one race, but with a few zerg players here and there. If every good player for whatever reason chooses to play terran then the game doesn't have a future as an esport, even if it is perfectly balanced.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote: Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
.... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
[/b]
You know, I'd actually support this view, in principle. If there's a way of dealing with it, deal with it. I don't care how hard it is. However, SC2 is simply not fair in regards to this. The reason you see so many Terrans in Code S isn't even any imbalanced build or unit or strategy (putting the 1/1/1 aside for a bit), it's that the race is simply very forgiving.
You say MC should need to play perfectly against a cheesing PuMa. Fine. Do you think Nada should play perfectly against a cheesing HuK? Because in their game 2, on Xel'Naga Fortress, in Ro16 of GSL August, Nada 1 Rax expanded against HuK's 4gate. Nada had no idea the 4gate was coming, he didn't scout it at all, had 1 bunker with a wall, and no SCVs ready to repair. He held embarassingly easily, without doing much at all.
It would be fair if Protoss and Zerg cheese also required perfect play to hold off (although I think that would make for a crappy game in general, but let's roll with it for now), but it doesn't, it really doesn't.
I can give you many an example of extremely good Terran players making major mistakes, and not really being punished for them at all. You're eager to point out the mistakes MC made in g2 of his series with PuMa, but PuMa easily made just as many mistakes, if not more.
As for the 1/1/1 in particular, it's well documented how it affects Protoss play in general, even if not used in a particular game. If, after reading all that's been said in that huge thread about the build, you still want to claim it's fine and should be kept as is, then enjoy no Protoss surviving Up/Down matches ever. I'm not trying to be sensationalist or exaggerate, this is the story watching the last two Up/Downs tells me. Even today, MKP got into Code S by playing embarassingly bad most of the time, but it was fine because he could just 1/1/1 and win anyway. While your own "brilliant" JYP lost to the all-in twice, and stays in Code A.
Do you really think we're going to have less Terrans in Code S in the foreseeable future? How do you think this will affect SC2 as a serious competitive game?
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
I don't think anyone is listening. It's apparently too much fun bashing terrans and the 111 (how long has 111 been around, anyone? I first heard about it a few weeks ago, but I'm just a noob)... I think TL needs a break for the rage in this thread to die down.
On September 09 2011 05:25 Olinim wrote: "I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
While the GSL has the highest level of play in StarCraft 2, it also has far too few games to make a definitive analysis on the balance of the game. Until such a time as there is a regular Proleague format; the Korean scene as a whole, and thus the balance of the game at the highest level, cannot be easily evaluated. There are simply far too few games being played to make a truly accurate assessment.
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote: By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
The Reaper wasn't nerfed because of the 5-Rax reaper build being imbalanced in 1v1, it was nerfed because of how imbalanced Reaper/Speedling was in 2v2.
Was shocked to see MC losing, am sure he'll work around his problems. As to balance issues I'm always a little wary to talk about, as I'm no pro, but 1.4 looks like it'll at least help this particular Protoss, if not the top-level players
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it:
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Lol...ok you just keep hoping protoss players evolve into Gods to even out the matchup and I'll realize that soon blizzard will have no choice to nerf 1/1/1 or buff toss when there are no protoss left in code S. Also tell me why 5 rax reaper and deathball are so much more op than 1/1/1?
You don't even have to play perfect against a 1-1-1. It's a cheese its not like your going to be doing crazy wtf drops or dt harrass or super crazy macro. Just be on top of things, as the cheese is very refined.
If you don't see why the other things are obviously OP, or that it's debatable that 1-1-1 might not be, then I'll stop trying to convince you.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Stop posting in bold, it doesn't make your dick bigger.
Regarding that game 1, let me ask you: 1) Do you think the better player won? 2) Who made more mistakes, Puma losing half his workers and his whole army the first push, or MC who apparently didn't satisfy your definition of "just good play" by delaying charge right after TC finished. 3) Which player have you seen hold a determined 1-1-1 from a Korean Terran without the Terran fucking it up (tired of all this theorycrafting, give me an example because I'm lost).
I'm asking #2 because no one is playing perfectly and for me personally I don't dislike Terran players (in fact, I love watching MVP and Thorzain play) but I do not like seeing people getting punished for (relatively) small mistakes and I think it makes for horrible spectator experience.
Wtf this is the medicine my doctor said would help impress the ladies. I mean, there's no way that I post in bold to make a point, I only do it to boost my ego.
1.Yes. When someone allins, the extent to which macro or multitask can determien the better player is thrown out, so that now we only have micro and the choices player make. And MC clearly failed in that. 2. Puma didn't "lose" half his workers. He used them for an allin because its an allin. In fact it was genius play because he was already overstaturated at the end because most of his minerals had been mined out. Also the amount of mistakes doesn't matter, its the impact of them. You can have perfect creep spread and larva inject but if you don't block the ramp vs hellions, and they kill all your drones, then you can say your the better play all you want but you weren't the better player that game. 3.MC vs Puma he should've. I don't watch enough PvT in particular to give you nor is there a better example as to what you should do.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Lol...ok you just keep hoping protoss players evolve into Gods to even out the matchup and I'll realize that soon blizzard will have no choice to nerf 1/1/1 or buff toss when there are no protoss left in code S. Also tell me why 5 rax reaper and deathball are so much more op than 1/1/1?
You don't even have to play perfect against a 1-1-1. It's a cheese its not like your going to be doing crazy wtf drops or dt harrass or super crazy macro. Just be on top of things, as the cheese is very refined.
If you don't see why the other things are obviously OP, or that it's debatable that 1-1-1 might not be, then I'll stop trying to convince you.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Stop posting in bold, it doesn't make your dick bigger.
Regarding that game 1, let me ask you: 1) Do you think the better player won? 2) Who made more mistakes, Puma losing half his workers and his whole army the first push, or MC who apparently didn't satisfy your definition of "just good play" by delaying charge right after TC finished. 3) Which player have you seen hold a determined 1-1-1 from a Korean Terran without the Terran fucking it up (tired of all this theorycrafting, give me an example because I'm lost).
I'm asking #2 because no one is playing perfectly and for me personally I don't dislike Terran players (in fact, I love watching MVP and Thorzain play) but I do not like seeing people getting punished for (relatively) small mistakes and I think it makes for horrible spectator experience.
Wtf this is the medicine my doctor said would help impress the ladies. I mean, there's no way that I post in bold to make a point, I only do it to boost my ego.
1.Yes. When someone allins, the extent to which macro or multitask can determien the better player is thrown out, so that now we only have micro and the choices player make. And MC clearly failed in that. 2. Puma didn't "lose" half his workers. He used them for an allin because its an allin. In fact it was genius play because he was already overstaturated at the end because most of his minerals had been mined out. Also the amount of mistakes doesn't matter, its the impact of them. You can have perfect creep spread and larva inject but if you don't block the ramp vs hellions, and they kill all your drones, then you can say your the better play all you want but you weren't the better player that game. 3.MC vs Puma he should've. I don't watch enough PvT in particular to give you nor is there a better example as to what you should do.
Oh, so it's ok for you to declare that something is obviously OP and give no reasoning, it's not for me.(Actually I gave reasoning). I'll just tell you the same thing, if you can't see why the 1/1/1 is obviously op, too easy to execute, and ruins PvT, I'll stop trying to convince you, enough people realize it already anyway.
sure i bring 10 scvs with the attack but its ok because of mules. i can expand/tech/make unit depending on the situation...isn't it like any other strategy? its definitely not an all-in.
i fail to see the similarities with 1/1/1 and cannon rush or 6 pool.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
Stop posting in bold, it doesn't make your dick bigger.
Regarding that game 1, let me ask you: 1) Do you think the better player won? 2) Who made more mistakes, Puma losing half his workers and his whole army the first push, or MC who apparently didn't satisfy your definition of "just good play" by delaying charge right after TC finished. 3) Which player have you seen hold a determined 1-1-1 from a Korean Terran without the Terran fucking it up (tired of all this theorycrafting, give me an example because I'm lost).
I'm asking #2 because no one is playing perfectly and for me personally I don't dislike Terran players (in fact, I love watching MVP and Thorzain play) but I do not like seeing people getting punished for (relatively) small mistakes and I think it makes for horrible spectator experience.
Wtf this is the medicine my doctor said would help impress the ladies. I mean, there's no way that I post in bold to make a point, I only do it to boost my ego.
1.Yes. When someone allins, the extent to which macro or multitask can determien the better player is thrown out, so that now we only have micro and the choices player make. And MC clearly failed in that. 2. Puma didn't "lose" half his workers. He used them for an allin because its an allin. In fact it was genius play because he was already overstaturated at the end because most of his minerals had been mined out. Also the amount of mistakes doesn't matter, its the impact of them. You can have perfect creep spread and larva inject but if you don't block the ramp vs hellions, and they kill all your drones, then you can say your the better play all you want but you weren't the better player that game. 3.MC vs Puma he should've. I don't watch enough PvT in particular to give you nor is there a better example as to what you should do.
1) When you all-in (and yes Puma's first attack was an all-in) and you lose that means you are so far behind you SHOULD lose the game unless you do huge damage. I'm questioning whether you know what "allin" means. 2) He did indeed lose half his workers and I don't give a shit whether he killed them himself or they ran off a cliff but to lose half of them (outside of late game situations of course) then still keep producing an army that can overwhelm a Protoss is clearly terrible game design. It's a strategy game and therefore the players should be rewarded for keeping their workers alive, not for innovative ways to tug them off mineral lines. 3) Since you are aware you don't watch enough PvT, do you think you are really entitled to have an opinion on this topic?
Frankly your whole argument comes down to MC could've played this better, which I think is absurd since no one plays perfectly and while he did make mistakes, I feel he outplayed his opponent and still lost.
Theoretically, let's just say all the Protoss players are bad, shouldn't we be questioning the game design where the "more talented" players flock to Terran.
I appreciate the comments to my article and the newspost in general. I feel a little guilty because I think I drowned out a really nice interview with MaNa, who is a very hard working and talented player. It's amazing to me how young he is.
About my article, I've read every post in this thread, and want to clarify just a few things. I feel that if they missed some nuance, most people got the gist of the thing, which is fine. In my mind, it's actually a little surprising to me that people are calling this 'balance whine'. I didn't really think that the assertions I was making were particularly controversial. TLPD statistics both support and informed my arguments about balance. The current GSL distribution also supports this, and it's a handy bit of coincidence that we finally got our act together on IEM at the same time that MC fell into Code A. I purposely avoided much theory-crafting, and I tried to stay out of the muddy water of PvZ altogether, which is, in my view, probably not an unfair match-up for protoss, but is an extremely tricky and boring one that deserves to be changed for reasons unrelated to general game balance. But that's another can of worms. I can't imagine what would've happened if I had opened that.
I think the most conclusive evidence for protoss being the weakest race is the unequal distribution of protoss win-rates among GSL players. One would expect that GSL-level players would have win rates that would be somewhat evenly, or perhaps normally distributed (help me out, stats people). Instead, the win-rates of protoss are unbelievably skewed. I consider Puzzle a very good player, but believe his win rate is inflated. I think the fact that MC's win rate is so much higher than those of his peers, both those who had BW-training, and those who didn't, is strong evidence of problems with the balance situation. There has simply never been another protoss who has threatened to win a championship (this writer predicted a 4-0 for NesTea over InCa) other than MC. The reason that MC's decline is so specifically tied to protoss balance, is not that he is falling because of it, but because he was previously succeeding in spite of it. That's the only original thought I'll claim this article makes.
I cannot understand the argument made by some posters that terran players are just better in general. That twenty of the top thirty two players that switched to Sc2 would've picked terran is an absurd argument to make, and one that's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for. Many mediocre BW players have switched, and they play a bunch of different races. This is a silly, unprovable, and useless argument to spend more time refuting.
I recognize that quite a few people have taken issue with the tone of the article. In particular, Pandain has listed the points in which I took the most liberties or engaged in the most obvious hyperbole. I stand guilty on most counts. I would defend my choices however, because I believe that they do not take away from the point raised by the article, and are obvious enough to be picked out by the reader. I recognize that there is room to debate on how PuMa actually stacks up with MC, as well as how PvT might be balanced or imbalanced in the later stages of the game. I do, however, do not believe that 1/1/1 imbalance is a negotiable position, nor that protoss is in deep trouble. That three of the final four at IEM were protoss is not an acceptable counter-argument; one tournament worth of data on the second best server in the world does not stand against many seasons worth of data in the world's toughest competition.
Finally, in tying the last two criticisms into one, some posters have expressed their disappointment that 'balance whine' would be so prominently featured in a front-page article on TL. They have usually preached patience and restraint. While I normally sympathize with these views (people who I speak with regularly know that while I joke about balance frequently, I am usually among the last to actually label something imbalanced) I believe that this is a problem that is older than these posters know. GSL Code S is a place of very low turnover. It has taken successive seasons of the same issues to lead to the present malaise. In the article, I tried to argue that protoss has statistically gotten the short end of the stick for much of Sc2's history. Without diminishing the significant woes of zerg too much, I would like to again emphasize this point. This is not a timely or prescient article. In all likelyhood, this could've been written months ago, if I or someone else had tried harder.
I'll avoid ending on a zinger this time. Cheers, and happy discussion!
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
Actually, you have not shown any proof what-so-ever. The only "proof" you have shown is that you claim, in some discombobulate rush, that the Terran players are magically better some how. The stats on the other hand, are hard solid proof. Just because you write everything in bold doesn't make it proof.
It is pretty obvious you are not interested in a balanced game, you just want your race to be as strong as possible. Which unfortunately is the basis for most balance whine in all directions, especially amongst recently registered users such as yourself. However, at some point you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I myself think that the race I play is too strong and too forgiving. It makes it boring to watch the high concept tournaments as they mostly consist of one race, with a few zergs thrown in.
Honestly, anyone who claims (and there are alot of you) that this is well written should be ashamed. I play toss in GM and I whine just as much as most people but making a serious article and posting it on front page of TL in such a way? wow. Grow up.
On September 09 2011 06:33 vBr wrote: Honestly, anyone who claims (and there are alot of you) that this is well written should be ashamed. I play toss in GM and I whine just as much as most people but making a serious article and posting it on front page of TL in such a way? wow. Grow up.
Love people like you who have almost no interaction with the community somehow think you can dictate what TL has on its front page.
On September 09 2011 06:33 vBr wrote: Honestly, anyone who claims (and there are alot of you) that this is well written should be ashamed. I play toss in GM and I whine just as much as most people but making a serious article and posting it on front page of TL in such a way? wow. Grow up.
i would never be ashamed of myself for writing a starcraft article on the internet. maybe it's time for you to grow up and relax a little bit. it's just a forum post.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
Actually, you have not shown any proof what-so-ever. The only "proof" you have shown is that you claim, in some discombobulate rush, that the Terran players are magically better some how. The stats on the other hand, are hard solid proof. Just because you write everything in bold doesn't make it proof.
It is pretty obvious you are not interested in a balanced game, you just want your race to be as strong as possible. Which unfortunately is the basis for most balance whine in all directions, especially amongst recently registered users such as yourself. However, at some point you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I myself think that the race I play is too strong and too forgiving. It makes it boring to watch the high concept tournaments as they mostly consist of one race, with a few zergs thrown in.
I was going to stop after someone said that I only believe about things which affect my race. But this game means alot to me. To say that I care only about myself is dumb. I've made THREADS talking about solutions rather than imbalance.
I just don't see Hong un's on the calibar of MMA's. I don't see San's or Inca's which have been brought up as possible "leaders" for protoss. I've said before JYP, sage, Tassador, and Puzzle have impressed me and I'm looking forward to see how they do.(Puzzle got ro16, w/e. Nestea was a horrible zerg season 1.)
I see MC making a mistake which cost him the game. I say that that means its not imbalanced. I don't believe that if you can stop something with a reasonable amount of skill(compared to your opponet, puma and mc even).
Heck to be technical I still thought the reaper nerf was too soon and I believed that zerg's had been starting to find a solution to it(14 gas 14 pool was being formed.)
Furthormore I'm sorry if I sound agressive at times I am very engaged during debates and sometimes it comes across negatively.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
Actually, you have not shown any proof what-so-ever. The only "proof" you have shown is that you claim, in some discombobulate rush, that the Terran players are magically better some how. The stats on the other hand, are hard solid proof. Just because you write everything in bold doesn't make it proof.
It is pretty obvious you are not interested in a balanced game, you just want your race to be as strong as possible. Which unfortunately is the basis for most balance whine in all directions, especially amongst recently registered users such as yourself. However, at some point you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I myself think that the race I play is too strong and too forgiving. It makes it boring to watch the high concept tournaments as they mostly consist of one race, with a few zergs thrown in.
I was going to stop after someone said that I only believe about things which affect my race. But this game means alot to me. To say that I care only about myself is dumb. I've made THREADS talking about solutions rather than imbalance.
I just don't see Hong un's on the calibar of MMA's. I don't see San's or Inca's which have been brought up as possible "leaders" for protoss. I've said before JYP, sage, Tassador, and Puzzle have impressed me and I'm looking forward to see how they do.(Puzzle got ro16, w/e. Nestea was a horrible zerg season 1.)
I see MC making a mistake which cost him the game. I say that that means its not imbalanced. I don't believe that if you can stop something with a reasonable amount of skill(compared to your opponet, puma and mc even).
Heck to be technical I still thought the reaper nerf was too soon and I believed that zerg's had been starting to find a solution to it(14 gas 14 pool was being formed.)
Furthormore I'm sorry if I sound agressive at times I am very engaged during debates and sometimes it comes across negatively.
I will have to point out that the only metric we have for measuring a player's skill is win/loss and that in itself is predicated on the game being balanced. I find it hard to believe that 20 of the top 32 players in the world choose to play Terran, rather than Terran being at least a factor in the success.
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
Actually, you have not shown any proof what-so-ever. The only "proof" you have shown is that you claim, in some discombobulate rush, that the Terran players are magically better some how. The stats on the other hand, are hard solid proof. Just because you write everything in bold doesn't make it proof.
It is pretty obvious you are not interested in a balanced game, you just want your race to be as strong as possible. Which unfortunately is the basis for most balance whine in all directions, especially amongst recently registered users such as yourself. However, at some point you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I myself think that the race I play is too strong and too forgiving. It makes it boring to watch the high concept tournaments as they mostly consist of one race, with a few zergs thrown in.
I was going to stop after someone said that I only believe about things which affect my race. But this game means alot to me. To say that I care only about myself is dumb. I've made THREADS talking about solutions rather than imbalance.
I just don't see Hong un's on the calibar of MMA's. I don't see San's or Inca's which have been brought up as possible "leaders" for protoss. I've said before JYP, sage, Tassador, and Puzzle have impressed me and I'm looking forward to see how they do.(Puzzle got ro16, w/e. Nestea was a horrible zerg season 1.)
I see MC making a mistake which cost him the game. I say that that means its not imbalanced. I don't believe that if you can stop something with a reasonable amount of skill(compared to your opponet, puma and mc even).
Heck to be technical I still thought the reaper nerf was too soon and I believed that zerg's had been starting to find a solution to it(14 gas 14 pool was being formed.)
Furthormore I'm sorry if I sound agressive at times I am very engaged during debates and sometimes it comes across negatively.
This sentence basically proves that it is an exercise in futility to discuss balance with you...I mean if you though 5 rax reaper nerf was too soon...you would have 0 protoss in code s before considering imbalance. I mean that shit was fucking broken. Clearly we want different things out of this game...I for one don't want the best protoss in the world to be beaten easily by puma using a strategy he could employ with 1 hand but hey thats just me.
Condor Hero is right, everyone see it. Pandain doesn´t seem to really understand what´s going on. So why keep on smashing it in his head Condor?
He doesn´t see anything wrong with the 20 terrans vs 5 protosses statistic.
He doesn´t see anything wrong with 1/1/1 sufficing mediocre terrans to beat the top 3 protosses in the world
He doesn´t see anything wrong with 1 race having too many super strong viable options to open with off of 1 base, while also being the hardest race to scout, that is perfectly normal to him.
Also he doesn´t see anything wrong with the only 2-3 openings that you need to do blindly as protoss vs terran to hold 1/1/1 are terrible against f.x 3 rax openings/2 rax pressure or CC in base into fast expand openings.
So why beat your head against the wall you mighty good Condor Hero?
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
Yeah protoss is fine, lets instead side with the idea of a statistical impossiblity Inherently only shitty players pick protoss, I like that idea. Seriously protoss could have a 0 percent winrate and people would still tell them to l2p.
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
Yeah protoss is fine, lets instead side with the idea of a statistical impossiblity Inherently only shitty players pick protoss, I like that idea.
I didn't vocalize my point correctly. I meant on the highest level of play, with the Nesteas, MVPs and Julys and such. I don't think there is a Protoss at the moment that has proven he deserves to be there.
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
Yeah protoss is fine, lets instead side with the idea of a statistical impossiblity Inherently only shitty players pick protoss, I like that idea.
I didn't vocalize my point correctly. I meant on the highest level of play, with the Nesteas, MVPs and Julys and such. I don't think there is a Protoss at the moment that has proven he deserves to be there.
I hate people like this who think its ALL the players and has nothing to do with the racial imbalance....
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
Yeah protoss is fine, lets instead side with the idea of a statistical impossiblity Inherently only shitty players pick protoss, I like that idea.
I didn't vocalize my point correctly. I meant on the highest level of play, with the Nesteas, MVPs and Julys and such. I don't think there is a Protoss at the moment that has proven he deserves to be there.
protoss cant compete in mid tier code s either so... You telling me check and noblesse are better than MC? Ryung better tvp than Puzzle? Also its funny how MC magically isnt top tier anymore at the same time toss cant get anything done at all. Coincidence I'm sure.
On September 09 2011 07:04 KimJongChill wrote: I'm so glad that people are finally admitting that this game is not balanced.
There are only some that admit it's not balanced. Some are perfectly content with Terrans having a build that's not only safe against every Protoss all-in, but is a ridiculously strong all-in. Protoss have explored pretty much their whole race. The only units we haven't seen much at all is the carrier/mothership, and both of those conveniently are located up the protoss air tree, which quite frankly sucks. Terrans didn't start massing ghosts late game and destroying protoss til a buff came around. Same goes for Zergs and Infestors. Protoss have exhausted all the options available to the race at this point.
On September 09 2011 07:09 Roxy wrote: What do you guys think are some protoss units that could be explored more that might have some hidden potential?
I think the sentry has been explored as heavily as it will ever be.
I also feel like the majority of the protoss units are so one dimensional that they probably dont have too much hidden potential
I sure wish that fungal only slowed units, not stunned them. Pheonix could at least play a larger role against zerg.
This!
Like, really, what ARE protoss supposed to come up with?
Most Terran Units are really, idk, nasty. They need something special to take care of them. Didnt notice the hellions? GG. No Detection? GG. etc etc.
What does Protoss have?
Zealots? Not really something to explore. Stalker? Theyre kinda good for everything but not really good at anything. And in a straight up battle they loose to everything. Theyre only really dangerous in Blink-Timing attacks. Sentry? Makes P even playable but what would you explore here?
etc etc
I just dont see any P units that have the ability to flip the game around when unscouted and give instant wins. Most Protoss units are just simple damage dealers and rather bad at that. When Templar and Ghosts neutralize each other (and even that is hard to do) you have marauders and vikings against colossi and gateway stuff. Whos going to win that one?
I never understood why no one complains about ghosts. Invisible, undodgeable and good against everything. Carpet EMPs make me cringe everytime. Looks so stupid and unfair. Especially since all those units are so expensive. Even if you storm 20 marines, thats not the end, thats managable. But if your army just gets carpet emped?
I am not sure I would compare MC to flash they are 2 different games and in my opinion the skill of flash is on another level then MC and he is the best RTS player right now at one of the hardest RTS games ever made.
On September 09 2011 07:04 KimJongChill wrote: I'm so glad that people are finally admitting that this game is not balanced.
Tbf, even David Kim and Dustin Browder have recently said that they feel terran is too flexible and 'complete' in comparison to the other races and they seem to be aware of how strong terran is in korea in comparison to the other regions. They are apparently looking to fix this in HotS.
I can relate to people like pandain who want to allow the game to develop. I understand it. But there comes a point where you can't really ignore certain design issues that keep causing problems.
Toss has exhausted almost its entire roster of units, sans the Warp Prism. Both Z and T kept bashing their heads against the wall with Roach/Hydra/Corruptor or MMM + V and cried imba when their army comp of 3-4 tier 2, low micro units couldn't give them a victory.
Sorry, but it's been a major bur under my prostate when both of the other races cried out Toss imba when Toss used everything and they used half their strategies and drew conclusions from that.
On September 09 2011 07:04 KimJongChill wrote: I'm so glad that people are finally admitting that this game is not balanced.
There are only some that admit it's not balanced. Some are perfectly content with Terrans having a build that's not only safe against every Protoss all-in, but is a ridiculously strong all-in. Protoss have explored pretty much their whole race. The only units we haven't seen much at all is the carrier/mothership, and both of those conveniently are located up the protoss air tree, which quite frankly sucks. Terrans didn't start massing ghosts late game and destroying protoss til a buff came around. Same goes for Zergs and Infestors. Protoss have exhausted all the options available to the race at this point.
I love how Terran and Zerg (especially Zerg) QQ'ed so much about toss late game death balls when in fact Zerg discovered they have the sickest late game units (hive tech) and Terran bio with a splash of mech is so good all game long.
Why did both infestors and ghosts get buffed while KA amulet get removed with nothing to replace it? I really think if there is something to blame the current state of things on it is the caster changes in the last 5 months.
I fully agree that in tandem with the many weaknesses and inadequacies of the protoss army, a large degree of the shortfall in effectiveness can be attributed to the excessive cost effectiveness (and multiple uses) of the zerg and terran casters.
I found a rather humorous HT satire on the Blizz Forums
On September 09 2011 04:43 SeaSwift wrote: The notion of foreign players ever "commanding the helm" of play that affects Korea at all seems absurd to me
I read through your entire post (even though obviously you started writing it before acknowledging or perhaps reading all of mine) and despite trudging through the obvious pro-MC fanboy remarks and Korean elitism, I couldn't stand to see this sentence go untouched.
To say that the mass-Infestor based style of play wasn't popularized outside of Korea is VERY wrong, and to say that it isn't one of the major steps in Zergs success in ZvP is also very wrong. How then, can you say that foreigners don't influence Korean play? Do you think that Korea has a giant-ass shield around the country protecting them from different ideas, and that foreigners have nothing of value to share to the metagame? Get the stick out of your ass.
You obviously didn't recognize me acknowledging MC's superior micro techniques in the storm drop, but also you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MATCHUP. That's what I mean by innovative... the 1-1-1 is innovative. Spanishiwa style is innovative. It's shit like that that changes the matchup, not one micro technique. By the way, he also wasn't the first to do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8pEwvLU98
I guarantee you that in 2-3 months the 1-1-1 will no longer be a problem (whether it be due to a patch or not), just like EVERY OTHER CHEESE. This game is so young and is moving so fast that this one strategy will be stopped by a Protoss that INNOVATES, and popularizes that method, whatever it may be. MC right now is not that Protoss.
People complaining about the 1-1-1 I feel don't have the matchup's long-term viability in mind because maybe they're tired of seeing their favorite players lose, or they want their damn ladder points back, or maybe they're just tired of Terran bullshit. However, it saddens me that while it is maddening to lose to that shit, it's small potatoes. It's small potatoes, and just like BW has shown us, there will be Boxers and Bisus and Saviors. There will people who are good at this game beyond the actually keyboard and mouse, and that's where the game will evolve.
And it saddens me that not many people share this view, and instead would rather carry a pitchfork and yell at people like me for disagreeing.
Compare 1-1-1 to any other one base all-in. The truth is it is a completely different beast than anything else we've seen in SC2.
1-1-1 is a heavy teching build that ends with terran having access to almost every unit in it's arsenal. 4 gating leaves you with no tech except warp gates. 3 gate stargate is the closest toss gets, and that can't even make half the toss units
1-1-1 is adaptable to almost any situation (banshees/medivacs/vikings/raven) 4 gating can be done with 2 gas to get more stalkers/ a couple sentries
1-1-1 never runs out of resources since OCs can lift off and move, as seen when Puma beat MC with his second wave. 4 gate and 3 gate stargate can't even be fully supported off of just one base.
In the same vein, 1-1-1 can pull scvs and continue production. If other races pull their workers, it really is win or lose right there.
1-1-1 can be scouted and prepared for 5 minutes in advance and still give the terran a decisive victory. I guarantee that if a pro knew any toss/zerg all-in was coming that far ahead of time, they would be able to stop it.
100% of this post is true, however, that doesn't change the important part: that in a few months, this will be small potatoes. Someone (that's really vague, I know) will discover and popularize some build order or technique or metagame change that holds this off, and this won't become a big deal. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
I know that that statement is very vague, but there's no better way to state it. This game is moving so fast (hell, this all-in has only become popular in what, the last month?) that this is a small period in the game and I think (although I may be wrong) that the 1-1-1 will be antiquated due to the efforts of a Protoss player, not a Terran nerf.
People don't remember BW days before Boxer, where Zerg had 129867195 different ways to kill you, and then suddenly 3 really damn good Terran players turned TvZ into a joke for Zerg... until Savior came along. It's all a giant circle, that wasn't changed by a patch, it was changed by strategies and techniques by human beings. It'll be the same for SC2, it just hasn't happened yet.
But then again, I may be wrong. They're patching this game at a ridiculous rate, even though we haven't really seen this game mature at all (I still think that late game Protoss and Terran airplay hasn't been played around with enough yet...).
Either way, this is small potatoes. The thing about this game is that in no way is someone hopeless and caged because they play a certain race. This is because 1) Protoss players are still winning, albeit not as often as the other races and 2) there are still Protoss players left! If the state of Protoss and the 1-1-1 were as bad as everyone is making it seem, everyone would have switched to Terran already.
I feel like I should just put everything I've said in a manifesto because I don't think anyone agrees with me :/
At this rate there won't be any protoss in code s. None of the code s nor code a protoss even present a threat to the top terrans or zergs now that MC has fallen. It is as bad as everyone is making it seem. You act like 1/1/1 is some complex style that just needs to be deciphered...it's a 1 base all in is simple, but too powerful, if there were a reliable solution it would have been found.
Give it time, it's only been a month or so.
And is the fact that there aren't any threatening Protoss the fault of the race or the players? Is MVP a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Terran? Is Nestea a good Starcraft player or is he good because he plays Zerg?
I think Protoss don't have any good players at the moment, compared to Terran or Zerg. And in that case, having no Protoss in Code S is perfectly OK, because Code S is for only the best Starcraft players.
Yeah protoss is fine, lets instead side with the idea of a statistical impossiblity Inherently only shitty players pick protoss, I like that idea.
I didn't vocalize my point correctly. I meant on the highest level of play, with the Nesteas, MVPs and Julys and such. I don't think there is a Protoss at the moment that has proven he deserves to be there.
MC absolutely stomped July in a Bo7 Code S final, and singularly produced two 50 page whine threads about the entirety of the Protoss race by doing so. The man has two GSL wins for Christ's sake, saying that he doesn't deserve to be up there, while July does, is a whole new level of fanboyism/denial.
If anything, this article suggest that he achieved all of this with a fundamentally weak race.
I love how Terran and Zerg (especially Zerg) QQ'ed so much about toss late game death balls when in fact Zerg discovered they have the sickest late game units (hive tech) and Terran bio with a splash of mech is so good all game long.
Why did both infestors and ghosts get buffed while KA amulet get removed with nothing to replace it? I really think if there is something to blame the current state of things on it is the caster changes in the last 5 months.
Protoss strategy before the infestor buff vs. Z was to 3 gate expand and sit at thier base until they had 6 collosi with no harassment or incetive to move out of thier base and still expect to win. To me that is pretty stupid. I agree with you on the KA amulet might have been a bit much and fungal is to strong now (Z players were even saying that [idra] as soon as the notes came out). Fungal is getting a nerf next patch, which is blizz recognizing that it is too strong, Toss is also getting a couple of buffs, so lets see what happens...
Thoroughly enjoyable post, as I was very surprised to see the nail hit so squarely on the head. I wasn't aware of the extent that Protoss was losing.
MC is still the Protoss President in my mind, and he has truly shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is of the highest caliber. The frightening part is that every Protoss' ability to win sets has declined similarly as well.
Spending more than a decade with Starcraft in my life has taught me that these lengthier periods of imbalance can potentially be cause for exodus, during a time that the game should be growing its population by 25% a year.
Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Not to hate on MC or anything, but I don't agree with much what it was said on the article. This guy was the ultimate "bitbybitprime" of BW. I mean they made fun of him everywhere in SC-BW for his "suicide" style of playing.
I always said, MC is just a temporal phenomenon. SC2 is a new game, people are figuring out stuff and abusive strats pop up every single week, that's the environment of a dream for all-in/not so talented players like "fish-protoss" aka as MC.
In my opinion that's the only reason MC did well in the first year of competitive SC2. Sure, he got better in the process, but honestly he is still at the very basics, the same all-inish abusive style of player he was in BW, which in the long run (and with the help of balance) will fade out.And thats exactly what started to happen few months ago already.
Props to him for taking advantage of the opportunity thou.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: "Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it.
Really?! Im not even sure if youre trolling?
Mothership is incredibly expensive, the end of a pointless tech tree, cloak does literally nothing at that point and vortex, if it ever gets to cast it before getting shut down doesnt even do anything?
I thought Motherships got explored plenty a while ago. Then as Terran and Zerg gained more and more advantages over Protoss, they lost their ability to sit there and tech to Fleet Beacon, of all things, and sacrifice Probe production out of a Nexus for an eternity while easily revealing their tech due to the extreme light that the Nexus generates while warping in a Mothership.
I understand the whine about PvT to some extent, but seriously, what is imbalanced about PvZ at the moment ? Also, saying protoss is really weak in korea is right, and I'm pretty sure there are imbalance... but you cannot fully explain it if you don't mention the fact that the protoss race was, since SC1, the weakest race in terms of overall number of players, and how SC2 took that scene as a heritage.
Great. Now people will use tl front page article to state imbalance. As Pandain stated, MC choked. He was late on charge, attacked without it. And the game 3 was an utter failure from him. If he had played near perfection, then the balance whine would have been 'correct'. But he didn't.
You can't be a president when you are not able to maintain your reign. Maybe he should train more instead of travelling to foreign tourney ?
And what do you mean by 'if he was terran, he would have won 5 GSL' ? If I played terran and 14hours a day I would be a progammer in Korea. That doesn't work like that.
Btw PuMa isn't any terran.
Then I don't see how you can make some statements about protoss being overpowered in a tournament when 2 top 3 are protoss.
Sure terran is overrepresented at the top, but I don't think that tl writer should blame the game, ESPECIALLY when there is a patch with buff to protoss and nerf to terran. Maybe they're just better than protoss/zerg.
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote: By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
The Reaper wasn't nerfed because of the 5-Rax reaper build being imbalanced in 1v1, it was nerfed because of how imbalanced Reaper/Speedling was in 2v2.
5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
I said he was shit compared to MVP which is 100% true. MVP has excellent mechanics and godlike multitasking. Puma is just another terran taking advantage of how forgiving making mistakes is with the race.......
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
I said he was shit compared to MVP which is 100% true. MVP has excellent mechanics and godlike multitasking. Puma is just another terran taking advantage of how forgiving making mistakes is with the race.......
Seriously, please stop. MVP is better than puma, but puma ain't shit... He was flash practice partner... do you know what that mean man ?
I must say that I'm also disappointed that an article that involves such strong, one-sided statements is on the front page of TL, even if these statements are indeed all arcuate - even obvious. I wont pretend that I am in a position to judge these statements, however, I do feel that TL should be very careful when they put something like this on the front page. I'd rather see that TL (as a whole, not players individually) remains strictly neutral and professional when it comes to balance, and the like, that can potentially hurt the solidity of the game. Unfortunately Starcraft 2 isn't like a ''real'' sport in this regard. I'm sure foodball players also blame their underperformance on anything at all between the havens and the earth when they fall short, however, as football is more solid and simple at its core mechanics, it's hardly as believable when a football player blames his lack of success on his shoes, the football, ect, as it is when a starcraft 2 player blames in on balance. Therefore Starcraft 2 needs strong, solid foundations like TL (expert in this situation, imo), all the more.
On September 09 2011 08:21 Tacoss23 wrote: Not to hate on MC or anything, but I don't agree with much what it was said on the article. This guy was the ultimate "bitbybitprime" of BW. I mean they made fun of him everywhere in SC-BW for his "suicide" style of playing.
I always said, MC is just a temporal phenomenon. SC2 is a new game, people are figuring out stuff and abusive strats pop up every single week, that's the environment of a dream for all-in/not so talented players like "fish-protoss" aka as MC.
In my opinion that's the only reason MC did well in the first year of competitive SC2. Sure, he got better in the process, but honestly he is still at the very basics, the same all-inish abusive style of player he was in BW, which in the long run (and with the help of balance) will fade out.And thats exactly what started to happen few months ago already.
Props to him for taking advantage of the opportunity thou.
Lol you are so delusional. MC has the best macro of any protoss, seriously he rarely does all ins, not anymore than MVP. he started to "fade out" a few months ago according to you, yet he is still the most successful player of all time in sc2, and the best performing protoss for a year. Your ignorance is seriously astounding, it's not like MC has been replaced by superior and better performing protoss. MC is the only protoss to accomplish anything in korea and to call him untalented is an insult and completely retarded, not only to him but the protoss players that haven't even accomplished a fraction of what he has.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
On September 09 2011 09:02 Spacedude wrote: I must say that I'm also disappointed that an article that involves such strong, one-sided statements is on the front page of TL, even if these statements are indeed all arcuate - even obvious. I wont pretend that I am in a position to judge these statements, however, I do feel that TL should be very careful when they put something like this on the front page. I'd rather see that TL (as a whole, not players individually) remains strictly neutal and professional when it comes to balance and the like that can potentially hurt the solidity of the game. Unfortunately Starcraft 2 isn't like a 'real' sport in this regard. I'm sure foodball players also blame their underperformance on anything at all between the havens and the earth when they fall short, however, as foodball is more solid at its core mechanics, it's hardly as believable when a foodball player blames his lack of success on his shoes, ect, as it is when a starcraft 2 player blames in on balance. Therefore Starcraft 2 needs solid foundations like TL all the more.
I disagree with the idea that TL should just ignore imbalance even if it exists, merely for the sake of preserving the "solidity" of the game (if I misinterpreted your statement and you're not actually saying that, then I apologize, but that's what I gleaned from it). If the game is truly imbalanced, it needs to be acknowledged. TL and any other big community site/figure should not just censor admittances of imbalance if it does indeed exist. There seems to be an opinion popular among many posters here that the success or lack thereof of players is some sort of sacred concept that balance should not be considered a part of because some notion of legitimacy needs to be preserved, but the reality of things is that balance is THE core aspect of how games actually play out as strategies are developed, and thus, really shouldn't be ignored, since it does indeed affect how successful or unsuccessful various players are. Bottom line: If you don't have a balanced game, you don't have a competitively legitimate one, and if the game truly isn't balanced at the highest level, then ignoring it for the sake of preserving a false notion of legitimacy doesn't help things at all. It's essentially covering up to preserve an image that isn't even a reality.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
Idra didn't play anywhere near perfection during that series, and quite frankly Morrow just outplayed him, and easily deserved the win more.
No way to argue imbalance from that. Blizzard should bring back the old reapers and see how it plays out for a few months.
Well, I've been inactive for more than 8 months and looking at the patch logs and top ladder once in a while, I still deduce two things:
People are arguing about an unfinished game.
The patch policy is one-dimensional and cuts out extremes. Nothing is really good at something. Blizzard balances out by forbidding strong mechanics.
SC2 Vanilla is at least slightly imbalanced in the current map pool.
Thus I'm currently not interested in playing this game. I've identified such deficiencies in Blizzard's games before and it is only a logical, very democratic answer to the complaints of the community. Sadly, Blizzard is not precise enough to conduct a better policy.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
I said he was shit compared to MVP which is 100% true. MVP has excellent mechanics and godlike multitasking. Puma is just another terran taking advantage of how forgiving making mistakes is with the race.......
Seriously, please stop. MVP is better than puma, but puma ain't shit... He was flash practice partner... do you know what that mean man ?
im far from saying puma is not a good player but using broodwar accomplishments isnt the best way go gauge a person's sc2 skill
Great now everybody will try to cite this article as some sort of "proof" (lol) of imbalance as protoss. Protoss may not be super-terran-imba-strong at the highest level of play, but that doesn't affect you diamond/master-leaguers who just can't macro or use one hotkey for your army. Protoss is plenty strong at your level.
On September 09 2011 09:20 pieisamazing wrote: Great now everybody will try to cite this article as some sort of "proof" (lol) of imbalance as protoss. Protoss may not be super-terran-imba-strong at the highest level of play, but that doesn't affect you diamond/master-leaguers who just can't macro or use one hotkey for your army. Protoss is plenty strong at your level.
No one gives a shit about that. We're tired of seeing GSL completely ruined by 1/1/1 and GomTvTvTvTvTvTvT.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
I said he was shit compared to MVP which is 100% true. MVP has excellent mechanics and godlike multitasking. Puma is just another terran taking advantage of how forgiving making mistakes is with the race.......
Seriously, please stop. MVP is better than puma, but puma ain't shit... He was flash practice partner... do you know what that mean man ?
Okay. I hate this statement. "PuMa was Flash's practice partner."
Everybody was everybody's practice partner. Flash practiced with the entirety of his team and players outside of it. What you might want to say is that he was known for being extremely good in practice (he was), but saying that he was Flash's practice partner means very little in the entire scheme of things.
That said, yeah, no, PuMa is not shit compared to MVP. If PuMa's shit compared to MVP, then every Terran who is not Bomber is also absolute shit (and Bomber only just because he's nowhere near as consistent as MVP). Yes, PuMa plays one of the more "abusive" TvP styles -- hey, just like MC played one of the most abusive Protoss styles! -- but he's still very, very good and saying otherwise is selling him short.
On September 09 2011 09:19 Perscienter wrote: Well, I've been inactive for more than 8 months and looking at the patch logs and top ladder once in a while, I still deduce two things:
People are arguing about an unfinished game.
The patch policy is one-dimensional and cuts out extremes. Nothing is really good at something. Blizzard balances out by forbidding strong mechanics.
SC2 Vanilla is at least slightly imbalanced in the current map pool.
Thus I'm currently not interested in playing this game. I've identified such deficiencies in Blizzard's games before and it is only a logical, very democratic answer to the complaints of the community. Sadly, Blizzard is not precise enough to conduct a better policy.
I think blaming the patching policy and the community complaints that influence it is missing the main point. This game was just badly conceived from the get-go. There were bad ideas in it from the very beginning. Didn't we already see Warpgates in a 2008 gameplay presentation?
The team responsible for designing SC2 dug this hole all by themselves. Any bad patching they've since had to do is an artifact of that process, more than anything else.
On September 09 2011 06:19 tree.hugger wrote: Hello all.
I appreciate the comments to my article and the newspost in general. I feel a little guilty because I think I drowned out a really nice interview with MaNa, who is a very hard working and talented player. It's amazing to me how young he is.
About my article, I've read every post in this thread, and want to clarify just a few things. I feel that if they missed some nuance, most people got the gist of the thing, which is fine. In my mind, it's actually a little surprising to me that people are calling this 'balance whine'. I didn't really think that the assertions I was making were particularly controversial. TLPD statistics both support and informed my arguments about balance. The current GSL distribution also supports this, and it's a handy bit of coincidence that we finally got our act together on IEM at the same time that MC fell into Code A. I purposely avoided much theory-crafting, and I tried to stay out of the muddy water of PvZ altogether, which is, in my view, probably not an unfair match-up for protoss, but is an extremely tricky and boring one that deserves to be changed for reasons unrelated to general game balance. But that's another can of worms. I can't imagine what would've happened if I had opened that.
I think the most conclusive evidence for protoss being the weakest race is the unequal distribution of protoss win-rates among GSL players. One would expect that GSL-level players would have win rates that would be somewhat evenly, or perhaps normally distributed (help me out, stats people). Instead, the win-rates of protoss are unbelievably skewed. I consider Puzzle a very good player, but believe his win rate is inflated. I think the fact that MC's win rate is so much higher than those of his peers, both those who had BW-training, and those who didn't, is strong evidence of problems with the balance situation. There has simply never been another protoss who has threatened to win a championship (this writer predicted a 4-0 for NesTea over InCa) other than MC. The reason that MC's decline is so specifically tied to protoss balance, is not that he is falling because of it, but because he was previously succeeding in spite of it. That's the only original thought I'll claim this article makes.
I cannot understand the argument made by some posters that terran players are just better in general. That twenty of the top thirty two players that switched to Sc2 would've picked terran is an absurd argument to make, and one that's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for. Many mediocre BW players have switched, and they play a bunch of different races. This is a silly, unprovable, and useless argument to spend more time refuting.
I recognize that quite a few people have taken issue with the tone of the article. In particular, Pandain has listed the points in which I took the most liberties or engaged in the most obvious hyperbole. I stand guilty on most counts. I would defend my choices however, because I believe that they do not take away from the point raised by the article, and are obvious enough to be picked out by the reader. I recognize that there is room to debate on how PuMa actually stacks up with MC, as well as how PvT might be balanced or imbalanced in the later stages of the game. I do, however, do not believe that 1/1/1 imbalance is a negotiable position, nor that protoss is in deep trouble. That three of the final four at IEM were protoss is not an acceptable counter-argument; one tournament worth of data on the second best server in the world does not stand against many seasons worth of data in the world's toughest competition.
Finally, in tying the last two criticisms into one, some posters have expressed their disappointment that 'balance whine' would be so prominently featured in a front-page article on TL. They have usually preached patience and restraint. While I normally sympathize with these views (people who I speak with regularly know that while I joke about balance frequently, I am usually among the last to actually label something imbalanced) I believe that this is a problem that is older than these posters know. GSL Code S is a place of very low turnover. It has taken successive seasons of the same issues to lead to the present malaise. In the article, I tried to argue that protoss has statistically gotten the short end of the stick for much of Sc2's history. Without diminishing the significant woes of zerg too much, I would like to again emphasize this point. This is not a timely or prescient article. In all likelyhood, this could've been written months ago, if I or someone else had tried harder.
I'll avoid ending on a zinger this time. Cheers, and happy discussion!
I'm glad you showed up to reply to some of these posts. I agree that some of the hyperbole was overdone -- but your subsequent reply shows you've not only owned up to the mistakes you've made but have presented compelling arguments with factual evidence. Great job!
On September 09 2011 09:20 pieisamazing wrote: Great now everybody will try to cite this article as some sort of "proof" (lol) of imbalance as protoss. Protoss may not be super-terran-imba-strong at the highest level of play, but that doesn't affect you diamond/master-leaguers who just can't macro or use one hotkey for your army. Protoss is plenty strong at your level.
No one gives a shit about that. We're tired of seeing GSL completely ruined by 1/1/1 and GomTvTvTvTvTvTvT.
Some people are. I hope the forums here that are already plagued with tons of stupid topics aren't allowed to become even more cluttered because of this equally stupid post. The same points could have been made without the blatant whining. The post has some truth to it, but it was written in an inflammatory way for basically no reason.
Believe me, I'm not happy about less protoss (and zerg) in the GSL either. They are really fun to watch and play as, and I personally think TvT is boring as all hell. It's interesting once in every 10 games which just isn't enough for me.
On September 09 2011 06:33 vBr wrote: Honestly, anyone who claims (and there are alot of you) that this is well written should be ashamed. I play toss in GM and I whine just as much as most people but making a serious article and posting it on front page of TL in such a way? wow. Grow up.
Love people like you who have almost no interaction with the community somehow think you can dictate what TL has on its front page.
Exactly. Go read the 10 commandments. This is teamliquid.net not teamvbr.net. If you don't like it then leave.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
GTFO....
Puma is shit compared to MVP yet Puma was able to take MC with very sloppy play and allins....
wtf are you talking about? puma won nasl, and I don't think winning iem and nasl is something a "shit" player would do.
Also, MC was the one who played sloppily. He should have made better decisions in game 1, and just got outplayed the other 2 games.
I said he was shit compared to MVP which is 100% true. MVP has excellent mechanics and godlike multitasking. Puma is just another terran taking advantage of how forgiving making mistakes is with the race.......
Seriously, please stop. MVP is better than puma, but puma ain't shit... He was flash practice partner... do you know what that mean man ?
Okay. I hate this statement. "PuMa was Flash's practice partner."
Everybody was everybody's practice partner. Flash practiced with the entirety of his team and players outside of it. What you might want to say is that he was known for being extremely good in practice (he was), but saying that he was Flash's practice partner means very little in the entire scheme of things.
That said, yeah, no, PuMa is not shit compared to MVP. If PuMa's shit compared to MVP, then every Terran who is not Bomber is also absolute shit (and Bomber only just because he's nowhere near as consistent as MVP). Yes, PuMa plays one of the more "abusive" TvP styles -- hey, just like MC played one of the most abusive Protoss styles! -- but he's still very, very good and saying otherwise is selling him short.
Thank god addressed the Holy label of "Flash Practice Partner."
Practice Bonjwa is nothing new guys.
You know that in BW Sangho was one of the most preferred Protoss partners? I love the dude's personality but let's not put him on a pedestal just because of that.
On September 09 2011 06:19 tree.hugger wrote: I think the most conclusive evidence for protoss being the weakest race is the unequal distribution of protoss win-rates among GSL players. One would expect that GSL-level players would have win rates that would be somewhat evenly, or perhaps normally distributed (help me out, stats people). Instead, the win-rates of protoss are unbelievably skewed.
GSL Code S is a place of very low turnover. It has taken successive seasons of the same issues to lead to the present malaise. In the article, I tried to argue that protoss has statistically gotten the short end of the stick for much of Sc2's history.
Both of these issues are linked; a lot of mediocre, or just plain terrible, Protoss managed to qualify for the first Code S, and have been sticking around by just doing enough not to get dropped down. Combined that with how hard it is to actually qualify for Code A, and the level of play from Protoss in the GSL has been much lower than it should have been.
Add in the removal of the Khaydarin Amulet, the nerf to Warp Gate timing, the buffs to both the Ghost and Infestor, and the recent refinements to Terran all-ins... Well, it's hardly surprising that Protoss is struggling in the GSL at the moment.
If, in fact, the game is imbalanced at the moment, and it's not simply a period of adjustment to the recent changes, then I'd say it's largely because of the recent balance changes overshooting, not because Protoss as a whole has been fundamentally bad for the whole of SC2, as you seem to be implying.
On September 09 2011 09:20 pieisamazing wrote: Great now everybody will try to cite this article as some sort of "proof" (lol) of imbalance as protoss. Protoss may not be super-terran-imba-strong at the highest level of play, but that doesn't affect you diamond/master-leaguers who just can't macro or use one hotkey for your army. Protoss is plenty strong at your level.
No one gives a shit about that. We're tired of seeing GSL completely ruined by 1/1/1 and GomTvTvTvTvTvTvT.
Some people are. I hope the forums here that are already plagued with tons of stupid topics aren't allowed to become even more cluttered because of this equally stupid post. The same points could have been made without the blatant whining. The post has some truth to it, but it was written in an inflammatory way for basically no reason.
Believe me, I'm not happy about less protoss (and zerg) in the GSL either. They are really fun to watch and play as, and I personally think TvT is boring as all hell. It's interesting once in every 10 games which just isn't enough for me.
I actually think TvT is an awesome matchup, its just that when you turn on the stream and that is the only thing on, it gets extremely tiresome.
It's like watching re-runs of Friends from 10 years ago. A really great show... but... too much.
Great article. I am very glad that TL actually does acknowledge the fact that SC2 isn't some perfectly balanced game because it clearly isn't yet.
Some people seem to be worried that this will cause more balance whining but at least for me its the opposite. Pretty much everything that I would complain about has now officially been said and heard.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
Didn't they nerf the tank because of one tiny map that made mech OP? And then that map was later removed from the pool anyways?
Blizzard likes to nerf. I will admit that I have little faith in them, since the only game they've made that is anywhere near balanced is SCBW.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? The entire zerg community was whining and everybody in the protoss community were there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buff infestor... Now protoss whine like crazy because they actually have to innovate (and they even get a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well...) and integrate the new patch in their playstyle...
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? Zerg where QQing and everybody in the protoss community where there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buf infestor... Now protoss nerf like crazy, actually getting a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well... while they already have a patch coming up...
Zergs never were doing bad as Idra lead you to believe. Hardly as bad as the absolute demolition of protoss in Korea. Plus yes blizz buffed infestors, now protoss has a 30 percent winrate and 5 protoss in code s. Toss needs a buff.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
I am aware of that, I was just trying to correct the factual inaccuracies in his post. >.>
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
Didn't they nerf the tank because of one tiny map that made mech OP? And then that map was later removed from the pool anyways?
Blizzard likes to nerf. I will admit that I have little faith in them, since the only game they've made that is anywhere near balanced is SCBW.
I'm not sure about that tank nerf, but it doesn't sound too far from reality. I really don't know if David Kim knows what he's doing. It really bothers me when he says stuff like "Oh I got an email from ______ with a replay, and now I fixed it."
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
I am aware of that, I was just trying to correct the factual inaccuracies in his post. >.>
Heh I get you - I hope it didn't come off as dick-ish. Just poking fun at Blizz ^^
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? Zerg where QQing and everybody in the protoss community where there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buf infestor... Now protoss nerf like crazy, actually getting a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well... while they already have a patch coming up...
Zergs never were doing bad as Idra lead you to believe. Hardly as bad as the absolute demolition of protoss in Korea. Plus yes blizz buffed infestors, now protoss has a 30 percent winrate and 5 protoss in code s. Toss needs a buff.
Are you serious ? See your stats, in your stats the current protoss situation is no way near what zerg had to face from december to march, with 41 to 45% winning, while protoss is only crumbling from 48% to 40% during this very GSL : at the moment it's not an imbalance, and nobody can tell if it's just a current temparory situation. The only thing that is sure is that, overall, zerg is the race who is has stayed the most under the 50% win ratio, and aside from terran, protoss and zerg win ratio seems rather fragile.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? Zerg where QQing and everybody in the protoss community where there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buf infestor... Now protoss nerf like crazy, actually getting a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well... while they already have a patch coming up...
Zergs never were doing bad as Idra lead you to believe. Hardly as bad as the absolute demolition of protoss in Korea. Plus yes blizz buffed infestors, now protoss has a 30 percent winrate and 5 protoss in code s. Toss needs a buff.
Are you serious ? See your stats, in your stats the current protoss situation is no way near what zerg had to face from december to march, with 41 to 45% winning, while protoss is only crumbling from 48% to 40% . The only thing that is sure is that, overall, zerg is the race who is has stayed the most under the 50% win ratio, and aside from terran, protoss and zerg win ratio seems rather fragile.
Not my stats, I'm talking about korea only which Protoss is doing absolutely horribly in. also even in that graph the worst zerg was at is 40 percent winrate. Toss was at 29 percent in April.
No 32% in april, and for one month, while zerg was around 40 and 45% win ratio during half of the year.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? Zerg where QQing and everybody in the protoss community where there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buf infestor... Now protoss nerf like crazy, actually getting a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well... while they already have a patch coming up...
Zergs never were doing bad as Idra lead you to believe. Hardly as bad as the absolute demolition of protoss in Korea. Plus yes blizz buffed infestors, now protoss has a 30 percent winrate and 5 protoss in code s. Toss needs a buff.
Are you serious ? See your stats, in your stats the current protoss situation is no way near what zerg had to face from december to march, with 41 to 45% winning, while protoss is only crumbling from 48% to 40% . The only thing that is sure is that, overall, zerg is the race who is has stayed the most under the 50% win ratio, and aside from terran, protoss and zerg win ratio seems rather fragile.
Not my stats, I'm talking about korea only which Protoss is doing absolutely horribly in. also even in that graph the worst zerg was at is 40 percent winrate. Toss was at 29 percent in April.
No 32% in april, and for one month, while zerg was around 40 and 45% win ratio during half of the year.
And zerg was rightfully buffed, and for months has stayed around 50 percent. Now protoss is barely even competitive in Korea and needs the same treatment.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
I am aware of that, I was just trying to correct the factual inaccuracies in his post. >.>
Heh I get you - I hope it didn't come off as dick-ish. Just poking fun at Blizz ^^
Nah, it was more amusing than anything.
Personally, I'm pondering how much hair they've pulled out over the Depot before Barracks nerf causing the 8 rax to become the 11/11 two rax, which provides every bit as much pressure, but is hugely more economical. >.>
I wonder how long it would have taken it to become standard pressure versus Zerg if they hadn't made that nerf...
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
Didn't they nerf the tank because of one tiny map that made mech OP? And then that map was later removed from the pool anyways?
Blizzard likes to nerf. I will admit that I have little faith in them, since the only game they've made that is anywhere near balanced is SCBW.
I'm not sure about that tank nerf, but it doesn't sound too far from reality. I really don't know if David Kim knows what he's doing. It really bothers me when he says stuff like "Oh I got an email from ______ with a replay, and now I fixed it."
As a fan you're just like -_-??
I actually think the map was Steppes of War. Sigh.
I have so many grievances with Blizzard's balance team, but I'll stop while I'm ahead. I already had to wait for years and years to see if they could ever fix the UD vs. Orc match-up in WC3, but that never happened.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Your stats doesn't show shit... When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay. Now protoss is struggling, but they are after a long time of zerg being downhill, they need a certain time to adapt to zerg new strenght. Also, there is a patch coming, with an immortal buff and a certain number of nerf... why not waiting that ? The entire zerg community was whining and everybody in the protoss community were there saying looks it's okay just use your units, you play like shit (incontrol was saying that...). Blizzard had to buff infestor... Now protoss whine like crazy because they actually have to innovate (and they even get a tribune in the front page of TL, which is pretty... well...) and integrate the new patch in their playstyle...
Not that I jump at the opportunity to get in the face of a guy with 1000+ posts, but did you even think about my comment or see that I was defending protoss and decide to flame me for it? My point is that people should be on the side of balance, not P or Z or T. This is a continuation of the same graph that was cited all over when zerg was fighting their uphill battle largely (but not entirely) without sympathy. I'm a little wow'd by the lack of thought in your response. Your generalizations about every P user on TL based on what incontrol said on state of the game is a little sad, especially since that was the state of the game in which, when asked what units should be added to protoss, at least 2 of the protoss users in the interview responded by saying what units zerg was missing. The patch is coming, but the immortal buff is to fix PvT, I think. We'll see how the fungal nerf plays out. I find myself wondering, if numbers don't matter to you in balance conversations, what does?
I am actually glad that TL threw out the pretense of neutrality or indifference to the game balance now that a certain favored race seems struggling. (only in GSL, per David Kim) I was uncomfortable with the silencing of zerg tears in the past while they were struggling (especially v. toss), despite myself playing toss. Now that TL takes an official stance that the game is "imbalanced" (I did not see a disclaimer that this article doesn't represent TL's position) and coincidently allows "designated balance discussion thread", I wonder how far they're willing to go with it and how that will affect the future policy. (A difference race can become/be perceived overpowered/underpowered after a patch or two, as we all know)
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
According to Blizz yes. They also said that Zealot Build Time was nerfed because Proxy 2 gate was too strong at the silver level of play.
I'll let that sink in a little...
Didn't they nerf the tank because of one tiny map that made mech OP? And then that map was later removed from the pool anyways?
Blizzard likes to nerf. I will admit that I have little faith in them, since the only game they've made that is anywhere near balanced is SCBW.
I'm not sure about that tank nerf, but it doesn't sound too far from reality. I really don't know if David Kim knows what he's doing. It really bothers me when he says stuff like "Oh I got an email from ______ with a replay, and now I fixed it."
As a fan you're just like -_-??
I actually think the map was Steppes of War. Sigh.
I have so many grievances with Blizzard's balance team, but I'll stop while I'm ahead. I already had to wait for years and years to see if they could ever fix the UD vs. Orc match-up in WC3, but that never happened.
On September 09 2011 09:19 Perscienter wrote: Well, I've been inactive for more than 8 months and looking at the patch logs and top ladder once in a while, I still deduce two things:
People are arguing about an unfinished game.
The patch policy is one-dimensional and cuts out extremes. Nothing is really good at something. Blizzard balances out by forbidding strong mechanics.
SC2 Vanilla is at least slightly imbalanced in the current map pool.
Thus I'm currently not interested in playing this game. I've identified such deficiencies in Blizzard's games before and it is only a logical, very democratic answer to the complaints of the community. Sadly, Blizzard is not precise enough to conduct a better policy.
I think blaming the patching policy and the community complaints that influence it is missing the main point. This game was just badly conceived from the get-go. There were bad ideas in it from the very beginning. Didn't we already see Warpgates in a 2008 gameplay presentation?
The team responsible for designing SC2 dug this hole all by themselves. Any bad patching they've since had to do is an artifact of that process, more than anything else.
Warp-in is a double-edged sword, not bad per se. I don't blame the complainers, I blame Blizzard of course. They are the decision-makers. They were certainly not forced to chose this patch path. It's just software and with that manpower you have a lot of freedom to adjust everything. They just decided to balance through nerfs again. It's probably a general problem of politics, corporations and their relationship to the public sphere.
When zerg were struggling protoss were saying no it's okay.
Some people said there were "undiscovered", or "invisible" doors that are waiting to be opened. XD
The thing is When Zerg were struggling, they did not bother using infestors =/ Fungal growth did 36 damage back then and that is during 8 seconds. Sure they may not have done so much dps, but Protoss does NOT heal. Protoss said it was okay because Zergs never used Infestors =/
But when Protoss are struggling, what can either of the two races say? Nothing. We have been using all of our units because we had to and we have to. Warp prism drops are the only thing left, and even with the proper usage of them, they do not do enough damage (and you cannot save the units you warp in).
That's about it ... The thing with Protoss is that because all of its units are SO damn specialized that to find out all paths of the decision tree is pretty easy. The problem with Terrans and Zergs is that they have so many possibilities that they cannot possibly span out all of their decision trees early game (Zerg especially) and when players were telling Zergs to stop whining and think.
WhiteRa is using warp prisms ... but even then, realize that Protoss drops are essentially a "pay this much to see how much damage to do" where as Zerg and Terrans do not have to worry about the possibility of "HAVING" to lose that much.
Anyway, that being said: One of our units is pretty much unusable (and that is the carrier), because you can't build enough of them, and they don't build fast enough =/
On September 09 2011 09:02 Spacedude wrote: I must say that I'm also disappointed that an article that involves such strong, one-sided statements is on the front page of TL, even if these statements are indeed all arcuate - even obvious. I wont pretend that I am in a position to judge these statements, however, I do feel that TL should be very careful when they put something like this on the front page. I'd rather see that TL (as a whole, not players individually) remains strictly neutal and professional when it comes to balance and the like that can potentially hurt the solidity of the game. Unfortunately Starcraft 2 isn't like a 'real' sport in this regard. I'm sure foodball players also blame their underperformance on anything at all between the havens and the earth when they fall short, however, as foodball is more solid at its core mechanics, it's hardly as believable when a foodball player blames his lack of success on his shoes, ect, as it is when a starcraft 2 player blames in on balance. Therefore Starcraft 2 needs solid foundations like TL all the more.
I disagree with the idea that TL should just ignore imbalance even if it exists, merely for the sake of preserving the "solidity" of the game (if I misinterpreted your statement and you're not actually saying that, then I apologize, but that's what I gleaned from it). If the game is truly imbalanced, it needs to be acknowledged. TL and any other big community site/figure should not just censor admittances of imbalance if it does indeed exist. There seems to be an opinion popular among many posters here that the success or lack thereof of players is some sort of sacred concept that balance should not be considered a part of because some notion of legitimacy needs to be preserved, but the reality of things is that balance is THE core aspect of how games actually play out as strategies are developed, and thus, really shouldn't be ignored, since it does indeed affect how successful or unsuccessful various players are. Bottom line: If you don't have a balanced game, you don't have a competitively legitimate one, and if the game truly isn't balanced at the highest level, then ignoring it for the sake of preserving a false notion of legitimacy doesn't help things at all. It's essentially covering up to preserve an image that isn't even a reality.
What I ment is that they (TL) should leave these matters up to the board community while they themselves keep a professional distance to it. This is just my opinion, though. TL does strikes me, in general, as being very professional in these matters. The board community should naturally be allow to discuss balance in a thoughtful, objective manner. Also, I don't mind objective articles from TL or their staff on the main page. I'm very much against censorship of any kind. What I'm talking about is more a policy and role than actual censorship. Other than that I agree with you.
On September 09 2011 10:41 ScythedBlade wrote: But when Protoss are struggling, what can either of the two races say? Nothing. We have been using all of our units because we had to and we have to. Warp prism drops are the only thing left, and even with the proper usage of them, they do not do enough damage (and you cannot save the units you warp in).
Who are "we" you're referring to? If you're talking about people playing Protoss as main, that'd include me but I am not sure If I want to be in that "we". I play my games casually and I don't feel the game is imbalanced. And I know that's true to just about everyone in this forum. Only reason balance QQ bursts out is because these casual/non-pros somehow identify themselves with the pros. (and only the Korean ones) Yes, I see toss struggling in GSL and I'm not happy about that. Or rather, I'm not happy about terran dominance and following mass TvTs. It's not an enjoyable experience watching 30 mins of siege/unsiege.
But I have noticed underhanded silencing of certain voices in TL forums and I as a free speech proponent was not comfortable with such a blatant bias. When toss was kicking zerg left and right there were so many bans were given out even to the slightest balance implication. (you post "Forcefield is balanced" while MC is kicking July's ass with forcefields, you get banned)
Other than that I am not against the current outcry against the terran dominance. I've always stated/mantainted that Terran is the most finished race in current iteration of SC2, and it is because SC2 is, as much as you want it to be an e-sport, a goods in the market that Activision Blizzard must profit from for its shareholders.
Expect the more polished zerg in HotS. "We" tosses are the last.
On September 09 2011 02:49 Ghanburighan wrote: This article is insulting, "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind."
Apparently, I'm blind. What happened to not balance whining on TL? LR threads have become such balance-whine cesspools (ok, they were bad before too, but it's so much worse now), and this article is fueling the anger.
This article makes me profoundly sad.
The thing is , that its not really balance whine anymore. Hes not talking about you have trouble with protoss in your platinum diamond low masters league. He is talking about how at the highest levels of play, protoss has some serious problems. Which they do and if you cant see that maybe you dont follow the scene closely enough or you havent seen the recent tournament statistics suggesting that this is true (especially in korea). I dont consider it balance whine when he is just discussing what is going on with protoss in the proffesional scene at the moment. Protoss are struggling and if you cant see that then its because your race bias has blinded you. I play zerg (although i used to play protoss) and i see it very clearly.
I think its also less apparent in the foreign scene (if you only follow the foreign scene) because the level of play isnt quite as high, but unless serious changes are made (who knows if this next patch will help enough or not) then foreigners too will be subject to this clear discrepency between races.
On September 09 2011 10:41 ScythedBlade wrote: But when Protoss are struggling, what can either of the two races say? Nothing. We have been using all of our units because we had to and we have to. Warp prism drops are the only thing left, and even with the proper usage of them, they do not do enough damage (and you cannot save the units you warp in).
Who are "we" you're referring to? If you're talking about people playing Protoss as main, that'd include me but I am not sure If I want to be in that "we". I play my games casually and I don't feel the game is imbalanced. And I know that's true to just about everyone in this forum. Only reason balance QQ bursts out is because these casual/non-pros are somehow identify themselves with the pros. (and only the Korean ones) Yes, I see toss struggling in GSL and I'm not happy about that. Or rather, I'm not happy about terran dominance and following mass TvTs. It's not an enjoyable experience watching 30 mins of siege/unsiege.
But I have noticed underhanded silencing of certain voices in TL forums and I as a free speech proponent was not comfortable with such a blatant bias. When toss was kicking zerg left and right there were so many bans were given out even to the slightest balance implication. (you post "Forcefield is balanced" while MC is kicking July's ass with forcefields, you get banned)
Other than that I am not against the current outcry against the terran dominance. I've always stated/mantainted that Terran is the most finished race in current iteration of SC2, and it is because SC2 is, as much as you want it to be an e-sport, a goods in the market that Activision Blizzard must profit from for its shareholders.
Expect the more polished zerg in HotS. "We" tosses are the last.
There's a difference between sarcastic one line balance comments in LR threads and balance discussion. And also this is their forum, there is no free speech they can ban you for whatever they want.
On September 09 2011 10:41 ScythedBlade wrote: But when Protoss are struggling, what can either of the two races say? Nothing. We have been using all of our units because we had to and we have to. Warp prism drops are the only thing left, and even with the proper usage of them, they do not do enough damage (and you cannot save the units you warp in).
Who are "we" you're referring to? If you're talking about people playing Protoss as main, that'd include me but I am not sure If I want to be in that "we". I play my games casually and I don't feel the game is imbalanced. And I know that's true to just about everyone in this forum. Only reason balance QQ bursts out is because these casual/non-pros are somehow identify themselves with the pros. (and only the Korean ones) Yes, I see toss struggling in GSL and I'm not happy about that. Or rather, I'm not happy about terran dominance and following mass TvTs. It's not an enjoyable experience watching 30 mins of siege/unsiege.
But I have noticed underhanded silencing of certain voices in TL forums and I as a free speech proponent was not comfortable with such a blatant bias. When toss was kicking zerg left and right there were so many bans were given out even to the slightest balance implication. (you post "Forcefield is balanced" while MC is kicking July's ass with forcefields, you get banned)
Other than that I am not against the current outcry against the terran dominance. I've always stated/mantainted that Terran is the most finished race in current iteration of SC2, and it is because SC2 is, as much as you want it to be an e-sport, a goods in the market that Activision Blizzard must profit from for its shareholders.
Expect the more polished zerg in HotS. "We" tosses are the last.
The thing is that regardless of July getting his ass handed to him against MC their was something zergs could have done and they did do (along with some buffs they received) protoss have been consistently nerfed and i think the OP is pointing out that beyond these scary timing attacks (wich will eventually be figured out) protoss doesnt really have much going on for them at the moment (at the HIGHEST levels of play)
This article is not discussing protoss imbalance for casual players playing ladder games, it is talking about protoss very apparent difficulties at the moment in the highest levels of play and how perhaps protoss has always had these holes in their race but players like MC where covering them up with very meticulous timing attacks that may have even made the protoss race look overpowered. Now that most of these timings have been figured out pretty well , we are starting to see where protoss is at when compared with the other races.
On September 09 2011 10:41 ScythedBlade wrote: But when Protoss are struggling, what can either of the two races say? Nothing. We have been using all of our units because we had to and we have to. Warp prism drops are the only thing left, and even with the proper usage of them, they do not do enough damage (and you cannot save the units you warp in).
Who are "we" you're referring to? If you're talking about people playing Protoss as main, that'd include me but I am not sure If I want to be in that "we". I play my games casually and I don't feel the game is imbalanced. And I know that's true to just about everyone in this forum. Only reason balance QQ bursts out is because these casual/non-pros are somehow identify themselves with the pros. (and only the Korean ones) Yes, I see toss struggling in GSL and I'm not happy about that. Or rather, I'm not happy about terran dominance and following mass TvTs. It's not an enjoyable experience watching 30 mins of siege/unsiege.
But I have noticed underhanded silencing of certain voices in TL forums and I as a free speech proponent was not comfortable with such a blatant bias. When toss was kicking zerg left and right there were so many bans were given out even to the slightest balance implication. (you post "Forcefield is balanced" while MC is kicking July's ass with forcefields, you get banned)
Other than that I am not against the current outcry against the terran dominance. I've always stated/mantainted that Terran is the most finished race in current iteration of SC2, and it is because SC2 is, as much as you want it to be an e-sport, a goods in the market that Activision Blizzard must profit from for its shareholders.
Expect the more polished zerg in HotS. "We" tosses are the last.
There's a difference between sarcastic one line balance comments in LR threads and balance discussion. And also this is their forum, there is no free speech they can ban you for whatever they want.
That was one example. Do you really expect me to go back and find the bazillion examples, especially the ones with same tone/nuisance/words/etc., but discriminatory to who posted? (It's not hard to find "EMP is balanced" in LR threads, btw.)
this article is really harsh on MC"the fall of MC".....really?...i mean TL and oGs has a partnership you should write kinder things to a fellow partner. i mean i would never see this type of article with this negativity about jinro right? don't let there be a double standards when talking about players especially those that are supporting your players in Korea and helping them improve....
Well written article, but isn't it already out of date? Patch 1.4 is coming so I don't see any point in complaining about balance until at least a couple months after the patch is released to see if any imbalances have been solved.
On September 09 2011 11:44 red4ce wrote: Well written article, but isn't it already out of date? Patch 1.4 is coming so I don't see any point in complaining about balance until at least a couple months after the patch is released to see if any imbalances have been solved.
What on earth makes you think 1 immortal range and a blink stalker nerf will help P considerably :/ Sure there was SLIGHT nerf to terran but... not that much, also MC commented on the patch saying it wont have a considerable effect on anything but PvP.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind.
What the hell are you talking about?
Go into unit tester and just amove low to medium amounts of gateway with a bit of support vs mass roach. Make sure that unit costs are the same, not necessarily supply. Without good to great forcefields, the roaches win every time. What allows protoss to be cost efficient is forcefields, without them protoss units are just squishy and suck. Protoss is supply efficient against most zerg comps, it's not cost efficient. That's part of what makes toss play for 200/200.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out.
Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%.
I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it.
The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1.
I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy.
Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies.
Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage.
Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest.
Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes.
We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses.
With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs.
So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point.
So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth.
And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with.
To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide.
I feel embarrased to play protoss. We should be better than this, leave the whining to our zerg brethren. Losers cry about imbalance, winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
On September 09 2011 11:44 red4ce wrote: Well written article, but isn't it already out of date? Patch 1.4 is coming so I don't see any point in complaining about balance until at least a couple months after the patch is released to see if any imbalances have been solved.
What on earth makes you think 1 immortal range and a blink stalker nerf will help P considerably :/ Sure there was SLIGHT nerf to terran but... not that much, also MC commented on the patch saying it wont have a considerable effect on anything but PvP.
Hmmm, if it fixes PvP, I don't see why they shouldn't remove the warpgate nerf, which might help hold off the 1/1/1? IIRC, a properly executed 4gate can hit a Terran before 1/1/1 gets out?
That would just be a band-aid on a huge gaping wound though.
I find it funny that the writers added a sarcastic balance comment and no one understood it as such. Mods have been having fun thanks to people not knowing the posting rules either. Maybe this is some kind of TL evolutionary test =)
Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc.
My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran...
Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out.
Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%.
I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition.
I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws...
Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi?
And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier?
Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt...
On September 09 2011 12:32 kash000 wrote: I find it funny that the writers added a sarcastic balance comment and no one understood it as such. Mods have been having fun thanks to people not knowing the posting rules either. Maybe this is some kind of TL evolutionary test =)
Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc.
My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran...
Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out.
Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%.
I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition.
I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws...
Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi?
And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier?
Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt...
Why not make HT's and not collosi, and then switch over to mothership? vortex + storm seems very powerful to me, but no one tries it.
850/750 is not an insurmountable amount in the lategame. What I'm saying is that motherships should see more use in 200 food situations, where you are maxed and have a bunch of money saved up.
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out.
Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%.
I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition.
I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws...
Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi?
And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier?
Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt...
Why not make HT's and not collosi, and then switch over to mothership? vortex + storm seems very powerful to me, but no one tries it.
850/750 is not an insurmountable amount in the lategame. What I'm saying is that motherships should see more use in 200 food situations, where you are maxed and have a bunch of money saved up.
With the amount of ghosts terrans are making lately, going 2 techs that are both heavily spell reliant is a horrid idea. Go try EMPing a mothership. You have a hitbox the size of a quarter the screen. Add in the fact that terran often has better army awareness through scans late game, and really going mothership alongside HT's is asking to die to EMP.
On September 09 2011 12:32 kash000 wrote: I find it funny that the writers added a sarcastic balance comment and no one understood it as such. Mods have been having fun thanks to people not knowing the posting rules either. Maybe this is some kind of TL evolutionary test =)
Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc.
My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran...
Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance.
I believe he made a mistake. He should have known balance talk would drown out anything else and make people miss the rest of the article. It took many years and an expansion to balance brood war, we should trust in blizzard and wait. They have realized that toss has design flaws and is least flexible and that currently terran has plenty of options. I am surprised that they continue to lower toss options (slower blink) for the sake of pvp. Ramp vision and pylon range are now such that it should be very viable to go robo in pvp or even stargate if you scout or anticipate robo play, in addition to gateway play.
Thanks, kash
P.s. Gates are good because they offer the most flexibility to toss. You can adapt your composition with mass gates without having to create additional production buildings.
On September 09 2011 12:32 kash000 wrote: I find it funny that the writers added a sarcastic balance comment and no one understood it as such. Mods have been having fun thanks to people not knowing the posting rules either. Maybe this is some kind of TL evolutionary test =)
Toss is slightly underpowered and did get quite a few nerfs over time. It was op for a while with death ball and four gate and void rays with high damage, etc.
My biggest surprise in terms of balance adjustments is that banshees still 2 shot workers. It's a little too easy to get a reward when both Protoss and particularly Zerg have worse anti air than Terran... The other ironic part is that the best anti air early unit and static defense are both terran...
Still, given this complex game, we (anyone but top of the top) would be better advised to try and improve our play than whine about balance.
I believe he made a mistake. He should have known balance talk would drown out anything else and make people miss the rest of the article. It took many years and an expansion to balance brood war, we should trust in blizzard and wait. They have realized that toss has design flaws and is least flexible and that currently terran has plenty of options. I am surprised that they continue to lower toss options (slower blink) for the sake of pvp. Ramp vision and pylon range are now such that it should be very viable to go robo in pvp or even stargate if you scout or anticipate robo play, in addition to gateway play.
Thanks, kash
P.s. Gates are good because they offer the most flexibility to toss. You can adapt your composition with mass gates without having to create additional production buildings.
No one is expecting perfect balance. What people do expect, however, is for protoss to actually be competitive in Code S, and not be repeatedly be demolished by a simple 1 base all in that can be anticipated, scouted, prepared for, and still wreck every single pro protoss.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind.
What the hell are you talking about?
Go into unit tester and just amove low to medium amounts of gateway with a bit of support vs mass roach. Make sure that unit costs are the same, not necessarily supply. Without good to great forcefields, the roaches win every time. What allows protoss to be cost efficient is forcefields, without them protoss units are just squishy and suck. Protoss is supply efficient against most zerg comps, it's not cost efficient. That's part of what makes toss play for 200/200.
The terran problems have been discussed earlier.
Zergs don't have colossus, and my archon zealot rips through mass roach just fine
On September 09 2011 08:10 kofman wrote: Wow, its sad to see even the TL admins become protoss whiners.
Seriously, just because your in love with MC, doesn't mean that Puma sucks, like you say in the article. The article by Treehugger makes me sick, it looks like something taken out of the bnet forums. Please, go cry somewhere else.
"Protoss have tried everything at their disposal." Really? This just shows how stupid this article is. I don't think anyone will disagree when I say that motherships haven't been explored nearly enough. They have the amazing ability to vortex every unit into a tiny little space, and yet, no one has experimented with it. I'm just amazed at how this piece of complete bullshit was able to make it to the front page of TL.
Blizzard said explicitly that the mothership wasn't even intended for competitive play, it's a piece of candy for casual gamers.
"There are some units that just aren't going to be used at "high" levels of play and the Mothership is probably one of them. We currently don't have any plans to change this unit."
If one of the races remains as under powered and dysfunctional as P is now and as Z was six months ago for very long sc2 will lose it's credibility as an esport. Pull your head out of your ass and be a team player, we need to care more about the game than about our individual races or the pro's who play them.
Blizzard doesn't know what its talking about. The mothership can be potentailly the most powerful unit in the game, but since no one wants to take the effort to find out, no one tries it out.
Protoss has a 47% winrate, which yes, is not perfect, but its not as bad as you say it is. Seriously 47% is just 3 percentage points away from 50%.
I love how you just assume no one has tried the mothersahip yet... But even then, even on paper, what exactly does it have to offer? its slow, cloke is worthless in late pvt, vortex doesnt do too much (and dont get me started on even getting it close enough to actually get a vortex off) and its sooo expensive. Seriously. YOu hardly need Stargates in PvT, so thats 150/150 + 300/200 + 400/400. 850/750 + no worker production + its really hard to even survive that transition.
I absolutly agree with this article but Im still listening to people who argue and may have a point. But when you say protoss should use the mothership more often its obvious youre grasping at straws...
Vikings > Protoss Air, is anyone going to argue about that? Vikings are not that expensive and can be mass produced easily and then there are stimmed marines. Vikings also kill Colossi and come from the same building as medivacs so they can be produced almost instantly when needed. If Vikings counter you anyways, why not just build colossi?
And Carriers are just big flying money dumps, they take forever to build and when there is a bioball smashing in your front door, would you want a last second colossi or a last second carrier?
Argue all you want but the mothership?! That seems like a rather desperate attempt...
Why not make HT's and not collosi, and then switch over to mothership? vortex + storm seems very powerful to me, but no one tries it.
850/750 is not an insurmountable amount in the lategame. What I'm saying is that motherships should see more use in 200 food situations, where you are maxed and have a bunch of money saved up.
the problem for protoss is, to get to 200/200 situation you would need to survive the 9 minutes 1/1/1 or 2 base roach/ling all in first
and even then infestors and ghosts completely rape mothership, not sure which one is funnier, a neural-ed mothership or emp-ed one
On September 09 2011 05:25 Olinim wrote: "I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
While the GSL has the highest level of play in StarCraft 2, it also has far too few games to make a definitive analysis on the balance of the game. Until such a time as there is a regular Proleague format; the Korean scene as a whole, and thus the balance of the game at the highest level, cannot be easily evaluated. There are simply far too few games being played to make a truly accurate assessment.
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote: By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
The Reaper wasn't nerfed because of the 5-Rax reaper build being imbalanced in 1v1, it was nerfed because of how imbalanced Reaper/Speedling was in 2v2.
I am 100% sure blizzard isn't retarded enough to balance around 2v2
On September 09 2011 05:25 Olinim wrote: "I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
While the GSL has the highest level of play in StarCraft 2, it also has far too few games to make a definitive analysis on the balance of the game. Until such a time as there is a regular Proleague format; the Korean scene as a whole, and thus the balance of the game at the highest level, cannot be easily evaluated. There are simply far too few games being played to make a truly accurate assessment.
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote: By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
The Reaper wasn't nerfed because of the 5-Rax reaper build being imbalanced in 1v1, it was nerfed because of how imbalanced Reaper/Speedling was in 2v2.
I am 100% sure blizzard isn't retarded enough to balance around 2v2
On September 09 2011 05:25 Olinim wrote: "I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
While the GSL has the highest level of play in StarCraft 2, it also has far too few games to make a definitive analysis on the balance of the game. Until such a time as there is a regular Proleague format; the Korean scene as a whole, and thus the balance of the game at the highest level, cannot be easily evaluated. There are simply far too few games being played to make a truly accurate assessment.
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote: By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
The Reaper wasn't nerfed because of the 5-Rax reaper build being imbalanced in 1v1, it was nerfed because of how imbalanced Reaper/Speedling was in 2v2.
I am 100% sure blizzard isn't retarded enough to balance around 2v2
Reading through this thread. I wish they had an ability to mark whether or not you see the problems and then that would consequently mark your profile, so we would know who would never ever be worth the time.
Really entertained by the comment that this could have been posted months ago. I feel like this current debacle was predictable almost a year ago.
edit: judge them by their play not their results. It's difficult to judge results... when you can't quite tell the better player. The multitasking lack is complete pablum. Clearly fail to understand how drop defense and drops work when you have a toss army.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
Interesting article and a good read although I think it went somewhat OTT as it went on. I certainly don't think that Protoss is "absolute trash" at the highest levels of play. However, I do think it is limited when compared to Zerg and Terran. That said, I think Blizzard need to be careful with the nerfs and the the buffs. There has probably already been too much tinkering with the game, often for strange reasons, when time would have sorted out some of the problems tweaks were meant to address without bringing into effect the Law of Unintended Consequences.
We Protoss may have to suffer as a result for a while, but so be it. Most of us below GM level are not going to be affected, while Pro players can choose to race switch if they so choose.
On September 09 2011 12:27 Brian333 wrote: I wrote this a day before this article:
An explanation for the state of Protoss
I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it.
The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1.
I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy.
Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies.
Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage.
Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest.
Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes.
We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses.
With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs.
So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point.
So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth.
And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with.
To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide.
tree hugger i respect you so much more now. I feel EXACTLY the same way. Toss has always had week showings in the GSL since back when fruitdealer won. It took a player like MC who was so godly that he was able to beat players from other races even with a disadvantage. I qq imba because even though i have an okayish win rate here on the ladder, my race has no representation in the most competitive starcraft tournament in the world.
On September 09 2011 13:56 Sabu113 wrote: Reading through this thread. I wish they had an ability to mark whether or not you see the problems and then that would consequently mark your profile, so we would know who would never ever be worth the time.
Really entertained by the comment that this could have been posted months ago. I feel like this current debacle was predictable almost a year ago.
edit: judge them by their play not their results. It's difficult to judge results... when you can't quite tell the better player. The multitasking lack is complete pablum. Clearly fail to understand how drop defense and drops work when you have a toss army.
Haha it was sort of predicted a year ago. You should read the protoss battle.net forum during the time of pre-GSL3, before MC's first win. The lack of qualified protoss didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence then. And all the crying was defused when MC won and won soundly. And gave all protoss players some hope that they aren't wasting their time. All the reasons people list now for the slump were already mentioned back then. Except some issues are exacerbated now over time because of balance changes later down the road.
Even though for us newbies, the matchmaking system will still grant us our 50% win rate. It feels good to know we're playing on even ground.
Also, too many knee-jerk changes that were never retracted. Remember when VR range was reduced because terrans had problems against a build for a whopping 1 week, but the change was pushed through anyway? Still, I think they should wait at least a bit longer and not push through changes as a reaction to recent "poor performance" by top protoss and community reaction to it.
Some part of me feels if VR still had the speed upgrade (maybe not as good as it was before, but complete removal was outright silly) we could've had some semblance of a harassment based game. Even though the pros had yet to really explore that route, I and some people have, so it was shame it was yanked before we saw it in pro play. Instead we're apparently getting a raider unit in the expansion that we already had patches ago...
Edit: I mean, read the VR tool tip. "Surgical strike unit". It IS (or WAS) our harass unit. Now it mostly serves one timing pressure attack with some phoenix and that's it.
I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
I need to say this: I enjoyed the article immensely, though as previously noted I was a little surprised at the surety and vindictiveness of the tone. That was expected with the history of good writing teamliquid featured posts have always boasted. What I'm even more surprised at however is how much I'm enjoying the thread that follows it. Maybe I've been hanging around too many LR threads, but I never thought discourse of this level of civility could happen around balance issues.
Kudos to tree.hugger for setting the tone with his article and to the community for the enjoyable discussions.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
You almost make it sound like it's the players fault that Protoss is the "gimmick" race. Please tell me that isn't the case, because that would be illogical beyond belief.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
Most of the pro's picked Races before all the races were mostly figured out. Now as timings become ever more refined and responses more standardized, our options drain like sands in an hourglass. What good is FFE vs zerg if the economic edge we are looking for neither appears, nor can we punish them for claiming it as their own. One of our most powerful allins, the infamous 4wg, doens't faze people any more. We need to catch people completely off guard for it to work.
I had a post somewhere earlier that I can't find. Essentially as we lost our timing attacks and as our transitions were figured out, we had nothing scary left. All we are left with is standard play, which is predictable and the moment we do that, we stop controlling the game. Our opponents dictate what we must make to try and gain a non-existant edge. We do not have the ability to pick up our whole army and doom drop a main to force an advantageous situation. Neither do we have the ability to destroy a prepared opponent with multiple smaller forces hitting everywhere at once. The sole remaining glimmer of hope in unexplored units lies with the warp prism. Carriers and motherships aren't the answer. Even if NP doesn't work on motherships, while we will have a potential alternative to massing voidrays against zerg late game, it doesn't solve PvT. It remains a unit that can easily be nullified through EMP's, and without skills, a mothership becomes a 700(350) HP meatshield.
So if we have few options left, what will happen when those get figured out?
A big problem for non T centered viewers is that there are only some left in the GSL ( 5P 7Z 20T). Even when everything is eventually balanced out, it is going to take a lot of time for the percentages to return to about 1/3 1/3 1/3...
On September 09 2011 12:27 Brian333 wrote: I wrote this a day before this article:
An explanation for the state of Protoss
I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it.
The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1.
I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy.
Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies.
Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage.
Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest.
Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes.
We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses.
With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs.
So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point.
So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth.
And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with.
To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide.
Great post.
Good post.. this is exactly what I was thinking when MC was playing Losira.. he was trying one of the few things that sometimes works, even though its so easy to stop.
On September 09 2011 11:44 red4ce wrote: Well written article, but isn't it already out of date? Patch 1.4 is coming so I don't see any point in complaining about balance until at least a couple months after the patch is released to see if any imbalances have been solved.
Oh yes. Motherships moving faster, 1 more range for Immortals and an extra 60 shields for Warp Prisms will solve the balance issues... -_-
I fail to see how any of those are relevant to 1-1-1 play or PvZ woes against Infestors.
On September 09 2011 08:21 Tacoss23 wrote: Not to hate on MC or anything, but I don't agree with much what it was said on the article. This guy was the ultimate "bitbybitprime" of BW. I mean they made fun of him everywhere in SC-BW for his "suicide" style of playing.
I always said, MC is just a temporal phenomenon. SC2 is a new game, people are figuring out stuff and abusive strats pop up every single week, that's the environment of a dream for all-in/not so talented players like "fish-protoss" aka as MC.
In my opinion that's the only reason MC did well in the first year of competitive SC2. Sure, he got better in the process, but honestly he is still at the very basics, the same all-inish abusive style of player he was in BW, which in the long run (and with the help of balance) will fade out.And thats exactly what started to happen few months ago already.
Props to him for taking advantage of the opportunity thou.
If MC is a bad Protoss player and also the only one in GSL to have a 50%+ winrate, doesn't that just underscore OP's point?
Also, I question if you watch this game. MC has consistently lost to Terran players using abusive timing attacks (1-1-1, for ex.) or when he tries to 1 Gate FE against someone like Polt that goes for the all-in. What tournaments in recent memory has he lost going primarily for timing attacks that are held off?
This goes to prove the Power lacking in the Protoss race. I Never liked MC an I do Love PuMa but as stated PuMa was out micro'd and out Multitasked meaning he should've Lost. Protoss dosnt Really stand much of a ChAnCe at winning many tournies at the current rate. All terren all the way due to their clear advantage in every area of the game. Protoss is my favorite of the three races but there's a reason I play zerg.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
I think most protoss players would agree with this.
This is also the most infuriating part about playing protoss. It's not that the race is incapable of winning. But it does feel like the best protoss gameplans involve stupid gimmicky play to catch the opposing player off guard. And that's just shitty design.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
Gimmicky? I'll go play Terran and look at the laundry list of options I have for openers that my opponent can't scout in a reasonable manner. And then I'll laugh cause none of my openers are all ins despite their crippling damage potential. I feel bad for Zergs since they're even more vulnerable to cheeky Terran play.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
You almost make it sound like it's the players fault that Protoss is the "gimmick" race. Please tell me that isn't the case, because that would be illogical beyond belief.
My take on the matter is that protoss is the gimmick race. Thus, the players that gravitate to them are most likely gimmicky.
As a Zerg, I feel kinda bad for Protoss players because right now they're forced to go back to the drawing board. One of the big problems in my view is that, thanks in large to sentries and Templar, Protoss armies want to operate in a deathball-esque fashion. Keeping all your units in a clump ensures that you can more efficiently forcefield your opponent and cast storm without taking too much friendly fire. Units such as Collossi and High Templar are then protected by the gateway backbone, with stalkers taking care of air, FF's managing opponent ground army movement and Gaurdian shield protecting the maximum amount of units. It sounds fine.
Except that modern Zerg and Terran styles are often centered around exploiting this deathball and how it operates. The first school of thought says, "If you pack your units into one tight ball, then I'll use units with AeO damage to punish you for it"; hence the recent surge in use of tanks, infestors and banelings. The second school of thought says, "If you rely on a deathball, your best army is only as fast as your slowest unit - I'll attack you all over the place and start tearing you army apart bit by bit."
What Protoss needs is mobility (hence Blizzard's seemingly ridiculous buff to the Warp Prism and to a far, far lesser extent their buff to the mothership). Instead of changing the combat units, just give Protoss players the mechanics they need to not necessarily build up these death ball armies. I suspect and hope that future styles of Protoss will make them more fun to play, more dynamic and more diverse, where players aren't pigeonholed into doing the same thing over and over, and where watching the best Protoss players is as mesmerizing and engaging as watching the MMA's and NesTea's we currently so enjoy.
(Yes, I do think that Protoss players, by no fault of their own, are less interesting and entertaining to watch than Terrans and Zergs).
I remember seeing a thread on here (I believe it was Plexa's) detailing a "Shock and Awe" style of Protoss play. It seemed attractive and exciting, fun and engaging. I hope to see such things come out of Protoss in the future.
Protoss is pretty much a dead race and its nothing like how it was back in the Age of Zerg Tears where 99% of all zergs were going pure roach and then complaining about imbalance. This is a time where Protoss meta game is if anything still ahead of the other races but they are just so much weaker that 4 out of 32 players in code s are Protoss and that MC has gone down to code a has pretty much nothing to do with MC's play, sure he is not on top of his game but he is far better then at least 15 players in code s.
Fact is imo that protoss need all their previous nerfs removed esp the amulet but then still needs these news buffs on top of that. Protoss has been the weakest race since beta and has been the most nerfed race since release simply because the zerg cry so much and 1 single protoss was so ahead in the meta game.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
You almost make it sound like it's the players fault that Protoss is the "gimmick" race. Please tell me that isn't the case, because that would be illogical beyond belief.
My take on the matter is that protoss is the gimmick race. Thus, the players that gravitate to them are most likely gimmicky.
I don't think you understand. Most of the Protoss players you see chose Protoss before anyone knew it was "gimmicky". Unless you think that people are psychic or something and could foresee this. I personally find it grossly unfair that you label players by race and seem to be putting some sort of blame on them for playing Protoss at all. What exactly is wrong with your thought process? Seriously? I don't mean to offend you, I am genuinely curious. You are basically saying, "Protoss is the gimmick race, players who picked them are gimmicky and all-inish, Protoss is now struggling, and I feel zero sympathy for them, since they're just gimmicky players that chose a gimmicky race". You say this despite the fact that the players chose Protoss long before anyone knew it was a "gimmick" race (Protoss being the "gimmick" race is already a questionable assertion, but I'll humor you on that just to show even deeper flaws with your thought process.)
So, it's somehow their fault that Protoss has turned out to be a "gimmick" race and now they're somehow paying the price for choosing a race that they didn't know would develop the way it did? Not to mention that many of them switched along the lines of what they likely played in BW, so you're basically implying that BW Protoss is also the "gimmick" race (or you just didn't think about that enough). Wow. Okay. I guess I just have nothing more I can say to that. That's... yeah. I'm speechless. I don't know if you still stand by what you're saying given the points I'm bringing up. Maybe you just didn't think things through well enough. I hope that's the case.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
I think most protoss players would agree with this.
This is also the most infuriating part about playing protoss. It's not that the race is incapable of winning. But it does feel like the best protoss gameplans involve stupid gimmicky play to catch the opposing player off guard. And that's just shitty design.
If I play Terran at my level on the ladder, I can do the 111 all-in in every match-up and pick up ~50% wins. I'm not even kidding. Zerg and Terran have the capacity to be just as gimmicky and succeed, but they also have other options, whereas Protoss either don't or haven't worked them out yet. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that if people like MC can't work it out then it's impossible for most other Protoss to do so...
I know, most players can pick up terrans and do those 1 base builds with very good results.
But the problem is that a good terran can also do a safe, macro oriented build and play straight up with great results. MC does safe macro builds against inferior foreign players and wins (you can download his replays from MLG for some great pvt play), but against code-s players he can't survive past the 12 minute mark.
This is why you saw that the protoss players in code-s that beat terrans were using mostly 1 base all-ins. Both Hongun and Genius basically just used 3 gate voidray builds as if they were standard.
The main thing is that protoss don't have too many options of a safe opening before don't seeing the terran base. If terran don't see protoss base he just scans, if protoss don't see terran base he is in the dark. Mana said that protoss would have no dificulties to hold terran timming pushes if protoss see what he is doing entirely ! witch is not possible even with a 1 gate-robo you'll get your observer sniped.
i don't care a lot if 1 1 1 is imba or not...i'm protoss and i'd like to have more options...i mean, terran has dozen of opening options and more then half is not all-in because of bunkers or mules...it'd be great if other races have this many options imho !!
On September 09 2011 20:01 TG_Lelouch wrote: Ouch MC got grilled
I think you missed the tone... I read it more like he was absolutely re-affirming MC as the undisputed best Protoss, but that there's just not much he can do vs High-End Terran and to a lesser extent, Zerg
I'd like to agree with all the people here talking about design. Protoss isn't weak due to little numbers being off (attack strength, armour, speed) the problem is DESIGN and unit variety.
Terran has an amazing variety of units for almost any situation. I distinctly recall Artosis and Tasteless having a hypothetical on GSL "what would you add for Zerg in the expansion?" "what about Protoss?" "What about Terran?" - Artosis could think of shortcomings for both Z and P but when it came to T, he said it's the swiss army knife race.
This is due to design and abilities. I'm sure people will disagree - but I honestly can't think of a single thing the Terran race needs for EITHER expansion. When you think of what consistutes and RTS and what units can and can't do and should and shouldn't do, Terran have all the checkboxes ticked for close quarters, long range, anti air etc - they have a unit for almost every situation - it makes TvT very cool and exciting but as I predicted nearly a year ago, once smart people start using Terran properly, they will dominate.
I almost wish Blizzard could revoke some units for the expansion - to re-balance the game, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I'll preface this by saying I'm a Silver League terran, so this is more or less how I feel about things. It's not indicative of actual balance, just what I think as a terran that likes to dabble in playing random.
In my opinion, I feel like protoss requires too long to tech on those occasions I play it. Every single building has multiple layers of redundency and multiple upgrades.
An example. I reckon to trade like for like, you probably need zealot charge to deal with stimmed MMM and to deal with seige tanks. It seems silly that I build a cyber core, then build a twilight council, and THEN research charge for a unit I got coming out of a gateway. As a terran, I throw down a tech lab and I have full access to all upgrades for my marines, my basic strong unit. In order to fully upgrade a zealot, I require 3 additional buildings, all of which come at a significant mineral and time cost. I can't think "right, I'm going to push with 8 zealots and have charge ready really early at the cost of warp gate".
As terran, I throw a tech lab down, research stim/combat, then trade it off and use the tech lab for a later factory, and the only cost to me is that I can't produce two marines instead of one. Compensating for this reduction costs me 150 minerals. The tech lab costs me almost nothing to produce and can be reused. What does building a twilight council really do for me? I build it because I need to - it lets me upgrade. There's no link between the building itself and what it does. It's just there to stop protoss units being strong in the early game.
Whenever I play protoss I feel like my openings are profoundly limited. With terran I can go 111, 2 rax bunker rush, 3 rax, 1 rax maurader expand, any one of about 3 mech openings of varying natures, and two starport. Not all of them are very good, but I can pretty much do all of them. When I open as protoss I decide if I want to go gateway or.. uh.. starport? And the starport units aren't like banshees. Sure, void rays are a ridiculously stupid unit but playing against any terran who builds marines and knows how to push makes you short on luck. Phoenix are annoying, but not so annoying that they instantly cripple you like if you don't scout a cloaked banshee.
I also think that the demand on the Robotics Bay is a little much. It builds their detectors, their tank unit, and their big space control unit. Terran detectors come from the Starport, the space control unit from the factory, and the meatshield from the Barracks. It also produces their drop units, and said drop units don't find much use - if you've got a robo, shouldn't it be pumping out colossi?
The same is true of gateway units. High templar are an amazingly powerful unit but seem to have their priorities screwed up. Both ghosts and infestors come with their real heavy duty ability already researched. Couldn't they exchange Feedback and Storm, so that HTs can come out earlier and even up the ridiculous early ghost pushes?
I feel protoss don't have any options while opening. In the late game I don't think there's much of a problem - there's a lot of whining about EMP which I think needs to be nerfed a little, but protoss death balls are hard to deal with and there's a reason why so many terrans go 1/1/1 to win a game in the first 8 minutes because trying to take out deathballs with ten storms availible and 6 colossi at 3/3 is asking for trouble. Similarly, chronoboost means that a well macroed protoss is always ahead in upgrades, which is asking for trouble given how powerful colossi are.
If I were to suggest changes from my terrible Silver league level, I'd personally say:
- shift Hallucination to the Twilight Council - put zealot charge on the cybernetics core (giving protoss an early option that can deal with large marine pushes) - make Feedback researchable, and give Templars Storm for free - make Warp Prisms better
Nice article, but I'm not sure I agree with all the imbalance cries. I'm a Protoss player, so I feel his pain, but there's about a million other variables that contribute to his losses other than imbalance. Yeah Protoss sucks right now but Zerg sucked a few months ago and I really don't think it was all because of the Infestor buff. All that did was spur Zergs to give up on Roach/Hydra/Corruptor. We just need a new strat. I have to bring up HuK. The article said he "can't" win, but I'm sorry, he thrashed nerds and lost to MVP, the best, if not 2nd best, player in the world who just happens to play Terran. He said himself that MVP was the better player and that it wasn't imbalance that made him lose. I just don't want to see my race become as whiny as the Zergs all were. So please, Protoss, suck it up and innovate
On September 09 2011 22:34 CurrrBell wrote: Nice article, but I'm not sure I agree with all the imbalance cries. I'm a Protoss player, so I feel his pain, but there's about a million other variables that contribute to his losses other than imbalance. Yeah Protoss sucks right now but Zerg sucked a few months ago and I really don't think it was all because of the Infestor buff. All that did was spur Zergs to give up on Roach/Hydra/Corruptor. We just need a new strat. I have to bring up HuK. The article said he "can't" win, but I'm sorry, he thrashed nerds and lost to MVP, the best, if not 2nd best, player in the world who just happens to play Terran. He said himself that MVP was the better player and that it wasn't imbalance that made him lose. I just don't want to see my race become as whiny as the Zergs all were. So please, Protoss, suck it up and innovate
What do you want Protoss to innovate? Every single viable unit composition has already been tried. What do you want them to do, go Phoenix immortal zealot?
On September 09 2011 21:15 Evangelist wrote: I'll preface this by saying I'm a Silver League terran, so this is more or less how I feel about things. It's not indicative of actual balance, just what I think as a terran that likes to dabble in playing random.
In my opinion, I feel like protoss requires too long to tech on those occasions I play it. Every single building has multiple layers of redundency and multiple upgrades.
An example. I reckon to trade like for like, you probably need zealot charge to deal with stimmed MMM and to deal with seige tanks. It seems silly that I build a cyber core, then build a twilight council, and THEN research charge for a unit I got coming out of a gateway. As a terran, I throw down a tech lab and I have full access to all upgrades for my marines, my basic strong unit. In order to fully upgrade a zealot, I require 3 additional buildings, all of which come at a significant mineral and time cost. I can't think "right, I'm going to push with 8 zealots and have charge ready really early at the cost of warp gate".
As terran, I throw a tech lab down, research stim/combat, then trade it off and use the tech lab for a later factory, and the only cost to me is that I can't produce two marines instead of one. Compensating for this reduction costs me 150 minerals. The tech lab costs me almost nothing to produce and can be reused. What does building a twilight council really do for me? I build it because I need to - it lets me upgrade. There's no link between the building itself and what it does. It's just there to stop protoss units being strong in the early game.
Whenever I play protoss I feel like my openings are profoundly limited. With terran I can go 111, 2 rax bunker rush, 3 rax, 1 rax maurader expand, any one of about 3 mech openings of varying natures, and two starport. Not all of them are very good, but I can pretty much do all of them. When I open as protoss I decide if I want to go gateway or.. uh.. starport? And the starport units aren't like banshees. Sure, void rays are a ridiculously stupid unit but playing against any terran who builds marines and knows how to push makes you short on luck. Phoenix are annoying, but not so annoying that they instantly cripple you like if you don't scout a cloaked banshee.
I also think that the demand on the Robotics Bay is a little much. It builds their detectors, their tank unit, and their big space control unit. Terran detectors come from the Starport, the space control unit from the factory, and the meatshield from the Barracks. It also produces their drop units, and said drop units don't find much use - if you've got a robo, shouldn't it be pumping out colossi?
The same is true of gateway units. High templar are an amazingly powerful unit but seem to have their priorities screwed up. Both ghosts and infestors come with their real heavy duty ability already researched. Couldn't they exchange Feedback and Storm, so that HTs can come out earlier and even up the ridiculous early ghost pushes?
I feel protoss don't have any options while opening. In the late game I don't think there's much of a problem - there's a lot of whining about EMP which I think needs to be nerfed a little, but protoss death balls are hard to deal with and there's a reason why so many terrans go 1/1/1 to win a game in the first 8 minutes because trying to take out deathballs with ten storms availible and 6 colossi at 3/3 is asking for trouble. Similarly, chronoboost means that a well macroed protoss is always ahead in upgrades, which is asking for trouble given how powerful colossi are.
If I were to suggest changes from my terrible Silver league level, I'd personally say:
- shift Hallucination to the Twilight Council - put zealot charge on the cybernetics core (giving protoss an early option that can deal with large marine pushes) - make Feedback researchable, and give Templars Storm for free - make Warp Prisms better
That's just my opinion, though.
Really well written. Would be nice to see some changes even though i dont agree with the storm change thingy. Would be nice to have kyderian amulet back tho
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind.
What the hell are you talking about?
Go into unit tester and just amove low to medium amounts of gateway with a bit of support vs mass roach. Make sure that unit costs are the same, not necessarily supply. Without good to great forcefields, the roaches win every time. What allows protoss to be cost efficient is forcefields, without them protoss units are just squishy and suck. Protoss is supply efficient against most zerg comps, it's not cost efficient. That's part of what makes toss play for 200/200.
The terran problems have been discussed earlier.
Zergs don't have colossus, and my archon zealot rips through mass roach just fine
You know that Mass Roach is the hard counter to Archon / Zealot right?
It may have seemed a bit biased but that's just because the current state of the game is so depressing, that even non protoss players begin to see that something is not altogether right.
I have been playingProtoss since BW but when the SC2 beta started, it was already noticable how the terran arsenal surpassed the other races selection of skills and units by far.
After a while I switched to random because protoss play was rather limited and always seemed to hinge on perfect FF placements.
Playing zerg I feel u can really kick a terrans ass with muta bling or inf roach, with toss its just frustrating, especially now that our pampered Terran brethren finally deigned to start using all their units, like the ghost and raven. Which to this point they didnt even need to kick everybodies ass...
When i play terran I mostly just go marine tank or mmm with drops, more is seldom needed, its just dumb.
On September 09 2011 16:10 Azzur wrote: I could sense a lot of protoss tears and MC fanboyism in tree.hugger's article but it was nevertheless and interesting read!
My take on the matter is that protoss is a gimmick race and the players who picked them are more likely to be similarly gimmicky and all-innish. Since terrans and zergs have now figured out all their cheese and all-ins, the protoss are now struggling.
I would like to extend some sympathy but that would be insincere :p
Part of the reason of the problem is the broken warpgate mechanic. In fact there is a thread discussing this at the very moment. Back in february, I even wrote suggesting a nerf to WGs but compensated by a "nexus nearby defensive structure": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=189432
You almost make it sound like it's the players fault that Protoss is the "gimmick" race. Please tell me that isn't the case, because that would be illogical beyond belief.
My take on the matter is that protoss is the gimmick race. Thus, the players that gravitate to them are most likely gimmicky.
I don't think you understand. Most of the Protoss players you see chose Protoss before anyone knew it was "gimmicky". Unless you think that people are psychic or something and could foresee this. I personally find it grossly unfair that you label players by race and seem to be putting some sort of blame on them for playing Protoss at all. What exactly is wrong with your thought process? Seriously? I don't mean to offend you, I am genuinely curious. You are basically saying, "Protoss is the gimmick race, players who picked them are gimmicky and all-inish, Protoss is now struggling, and I feel zero sympathy for them, since they're just gimmicky players that chose a gimmicky race". You say this despite the fact that the players chose Protoss long before anyone knew it was a "gimmick" race (Protoss being the "gimmick" race is already a questionable assertion, but I'll humor you on that just to show even deeper flaws with your thought process.)
So, it's somehow their fault that Protoss has turned out to be a "gimmick" race and now they're somehow paying the price for choosing a race that they didn't know would develop the way it did? Not to mention that many of them switched along the lines of what they likely played in BW, so you're basically implying that BW Protoss is also the "gimmick" race (or you just didn't think about that enough). Wow. Okay. I guess I just have nothing more I can say to that. That's... yeah. I'm speechless. I don't know if you still stand by what you're saying given the points I'm bringing up. Maybe you just didn't think things through well enough. I hope that's the case.
Don't worry about Azzur: I have no issue with him at all. But he is a hardcore Terran fanboy that will root for Terrans in any situation. His views on Protoss are expected and set in stone. No point in debating with him.
I have read this article and tree.hugger's response and I think that most people can agree that at the highest level in Korea that protoss is struggling.
Brian333 makes an interesting point
think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
This design flaw is fundamentally inherent to the warpgate mechanic. If protoss tier 1 and tier 1.5 was stronger than the other races' tier 1/tier 1.5 then the game would be heavily broken because there would be no defender advantage.
When I watch BW, I don't see people go bio against protoss because goons were simply greater than bio. When I watch SC2, Terran tier 1 and tier 1.5 seems a lot more like protoss in BW, where their tier 1 and tier 1.5 is simply superior than the others. I think most people are going to agree that MM>gateway units.
Brian333 even mentioned that the way protoss(MC) was winning were through 2 ways: Timing pushes and the Deathball
As protoss players would emulate MC, these timing pushes would spring up throughout the ladder (i.e. the nexus cancel 4 gate after MC's GSL win). Terran and Zerg players eventually learned the timings and how to scout them out. Also various nerfs to 4-gate timings and void ray power has left the capability to hold the 111 against any protoss 1 base all-in. Essentially there is no way to deny terran from teching.
On the other hand, 2 rax pushes from terran can straight up kill protoss if they are not careful doing either 1gate FE or some form of tech. Since both the 2 rax and the 111 can look pretty similar in the beginning, scouting the difference is very, very difficult (hiding marauders). If the 111 does come, holding it off on some maps are damn near impossible (i.e Xelnaga), and unlike other all-ins, there is no truly definitive answer to how to hold it. It is a micro battle which makes no sense that if you can scout the all-in or suspect its coming, protoss should have a definitive response.
Late game PvT has changed for the worse on the protoss end. Ghosts are definitely the superior spellcaster to the HT (longer range, cloak, aoe damage+energy removal). In a perfect micro situation - the ghost vs HT fight, ghost should win. Protoss have been trying out storm drops (MC + Hero). I am hoping that new warp prism buff will at least prevent the Warp prism from being sniped by vikings.
I am hoping that the new immortal range will at the very least cause protoss to use it more and hopefully innovate a new strategy, because as of right now protoss strategy is stale and pretty dead.
On September 10 2011 00:20 cpomz wrote: I have read this article and tree.hugger's response and I think that most people can agree that at the highest level in Korea that protoss is struggling.
think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
This design flaw is fundamentally inherent to the warpgate mechanic. If protoss tier 1 and tier 1.5 was stronger than the other races' tier 1/tier 1.5 then the game would be heavily broken because there would be no defender advantage.
When I watch BW, I don't see people go bio against protoss because goons were simply greater than bio. When I watch SC2, Terran tier 1 and tier 1.5 seems a lot more like protoss in BW, where their tier 1 and tier 1.5 is simply superior than the others. I think most people are going to agree that MM>gateway units.
Brian333 even mentioned that the way protoss(MC) was winning were through 2 ways: Timing pushes and the Deathball
As protoss players would emulate MC, these timing pushes would spring up throughout the ladder (i.e. the nexus cancel 4 gate after MC's GSL win). Terran and Zerg players eventually learned the timings and how to scout them out. Also various nerfs to 4-gate timings and void ray power has left the capability to hold the 111 against any protoss 1 base all-in. Essentially there is no way to deny terran from teching.
On the other hand, 2 rax pushes from terran can straight up kill protoss if they are not careful doing either 1gate FE or some form of tech. Since both the 2 rax and the 111 can look pretty similar in the beginning, scouting the difference is very, very difficult (hiding marauders). If the 111 does come, holding it off on some maps are damn near impossible (i.e Xelnaga), and unlike other all-ins, there is no truly definitive answer to how to hold it. It is a micro battle which makes no sense that if you can scout the all-in or suspect its coming, protoss should have a definitive response.
Late game PvT has changed for the worse on the protoss end. Ghosts are definitely the superior spellcaster to the HT (longer range, cloak, aoe damage+energy removal). In a perfect micro situation - the ghost vs HT fight, ghost should win. Protoss have been trying out storm drops (MC + Hero). I am hoping that new warp prism buff will at least prevent the Warp prism from being sniped by vikings.
I am hoping that the new immortal range will at the very least cause protoss to use it more and hopefully innovate a new strategy, because as of right now protoss strategy is stale and pretty dead.
You don't see bio vs Protoss in BW because splash is so powerful vs just Marines and Medics. You think Dragoons hard counter bio because Marines only have 4 range and no stim without upgrades and no Terran going mech would upgrade bio, but if Marines were upgraded they'd still rip apart Zealots/Dragoons.
Blizz made bio viable vs Protoss in Sc2 by: 1) buffing bio (+15 hp Marines / beefy as fuck Marauders) 2) nerfing the shit out of Storm (117 damage to 80 plus like 1/2 the AOE)
On September 10 2011 00:20 cpomz wrote: I have read this article and tree.hugger's response and I think that most people can agree that at the highest level in Korea that protoss is struggling.
I am hoping that the new immortal range will at the very least cause protoss to use it more and hopefully innovate a new strategy, because as of right now protoss strategy is stale and pretty dead.
I think immortals received the buff since right now, they are the only option to holding a 111 without all-inning afaik. They are seeing more use now than ever. It's just not doing much.
Im sorry to say, but first article i dont like from tree.hugger.
Its true that protoss is having a hard time, and they might be underpowered, but i dont like too much having imbalance complains in a front page article. Im not good enough to understand pro level game balance, and it might be true that terran 1/1/1 is actually OP against P, but i have heard july complaining a lot about Z being trash, yet he made semifinals, or terrans saying they cant compete in macro games against Z (lol good times), and now terrans everywhere dominating.
My point is that we have actually seen this happen a lot of times, and we can still see the game change by purely player intervention, without any patch, so i kinda doenst like that about the article, everything else, pretty good read, hope MC comes back soon!
PS: im not a Terran player, dont think im biased or anything like that
Whoever is complaining about treehugger balance whining needs to re-read the article. He has organised his thoughts clearly and explained with evidence why Protoss is currently the weakest race right now. This is not whining. Whining is when you say "lol protoss up, nerf terran plox" without anything backing it up. They do allow balance discussion in TL, just not in LR threads.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
He's the best foreigner Protoss right now. If he retains his momentum I think he could boss NASL Division 2. HuK is the only player who could beat him, and will be in Korea so has a disadvantage. MANA FIGHTIIIIIIIING><!!!
(Alright, this is like my 3rd pro Mana post in this thread, but fuck it, this thread is a shithole. (no offense))
On September 10 2011 00:47 Nobu wrote: Im sorry to say, but first article i dont like from tree.hugger.
Its true that protoss is having a hard time, and they might be underpowered, but i dont like too much having imbalance complains in a front page article. Im not good enough to understand pro level game balance, and it might be true that terran 1/1/1 is actually OP against P, but i have heard july complaining a lot about Z being trash, yet he made semifinals, or terrans saying they cant compete in macro games against Z (lol good times), and now terrans everywhere dominating.
My point is that we have actually seen this happen a lot of times, and we can still see the game change by purely player intervention, without any patch, so i kinda doenst like that about the article, everything else, pretty good read, hope MC comes back soon!
PS: im not a Terran player, dont think im biased or anything like that
The difference between those situations and the current one is that in those situations, Terran and Zerg were quite obviously not playing to the full capability of their races. Protoss has already tried out every unit composition there is. The only remaining hope is that there is some insane timing window reminiscent of the Bisu Build that allows us to crush Terran and Zerg play, and even then, it won't be surprising if the Terran and Zerg players figure out how to beat that timing window and set Protoss right back where we are now.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had. There have been 4 golden mouse in SC2's history : 2 zerg and 2 terran. And the two other players who were the closest to had their golden mouse were iloveoov and boxer, two terran AGAIN.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
I don´t understand why people are talking about Protoss being a gimmicky race? It´s a race with super expensive units, that until higher in the tech route, are very cost-inefficient...Being able to 4 gate doesn´t make it a gimmicky race, and the fact we have 2 base 6/7 gate pushes, doesn´t make it gimmicky either.
If you can´t win because the race is simply underpowered, it´s pretty natural to go for some sort of cheese to even have a shot of winning.
On September 10 2011 02:18 n0btozz wrote: I don´t understand why people are talking about Protoss being a gimmicky race? It´s a race with super expensive units, that until higher in the tech route, are very cost-inefficient...Being able to 4 gate doesn´t make it a gimmicky race, and the fact we have 2 base 6/7 gate pushes, doesn´t make it gimmicky either.
If you can´t win because the race is simply underpowered, it´s pretty natural to go for some sort of cheese to even have a shot of winning.
This ain´t rocket science :/
The protoss race is considered a "gimmicky race" while they are not, but it's because people don't know the difference between a cheese and a timing attack anymore... Protoss is a race that is timing attack based because of warpgate tech.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are less good protoss players...it's absolute shit and SCBW has nothing to do with it. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are no good protoss players...it's absolute shit. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
No I'm saying the overall pool of high level protoss player in korea should be weaker for historic and cultural reasons.
On September 10 2011 02:18 n0btozz wrote: I don´t understand why people are talking about Protoss being a gimmicky race? It´s a race with super expensive units, that until higher in the tech route, are very cost-inefficient...Being able to 4 gate doesn´t make it a gimmicky race, and the fact we have 2 base 6/7 gate pushes, doesn´t make it gimmicky either.
If you can´t win because the race is simply underpowered, it´s pretty natural to go for some sort of cheese to even have a shot of winning.
This ain´t rocket science :/
Yes, you are correct. Super expensive units, very cost inefficient until very late tech is reached. They also are terribly weak in small groups, and the early game is horrible.
This means protoss has to rely on other things. * Gimmicky things*. 2 base pushes, 4 gate, 100% unsafe builds against pressure to even have a slight chance to beat that 1-1-1 all in.
With gimmicky, we mean that protoss needs to rely on things that terran/zerg can quickly figure out, and that protoss units are only reasonably ok with their upgrades. Stalkers are okay when they get blink and +2 and when you have superior micro. Marines are good units already, and with combat shields and stim they are very strong. With protoss upgrades, it doesn't feel like they add something. It feels like they make the unit only somewhat useful.
Like we see now, these gimmicks have been figured out and protoss is being destroyed. Terran destroys protoss with the 1-1-1, even if they know it's coming and if they can prepare optimally. Zerg figured out they can outmacro protoss a lot and still be safe to any possible pressure or harass.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had. There have been 4 golden mouse in SC2's history : 2 zerg and 2 terran. And the two other players who were the closest to had their golden mouse were iloveoov and boxer, two terran AGAIN.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
That's interesting theorycraft, but Zerg are by far the least represented race in Korea, both in pro teams, and on the ladder. It's also not like most of the dominant Terran or Zerg players were anything to write home about. MVP and SangHo are by far the most accomplished SC1 players out of the bunch, relative to when they switched.
Plus, it's not like there's a lack of Protoss players in the BW scene. The top30 of Kespa rankings is relatively balanced, with 8 Protoss, 10 Terrans and 12 Zerg. Plus, the OSL finals are going to be + Show Spoiler +
PvT, with a good chance for JangBi to take it if he doesn't choke terribly
.
It's ridiculous to suggest that all the talent would choose Terran or Zerg in SC2, when the same doesn't even happen in BW.
On September 10 2011 02:18 n0btozz wrote: I don´t understand why people are talking about Protoss being a gimmicky race? It´s a race with super expensive units, that until higher in the tech route, are very cost-inefficient...Being able to 4 gate doesn´t make it a gimmicky race, and the fact we have 2 base 6/7 gate pushes, doesn´t make it gimmicky either.
If you can´t win because the race is simply underpowered, it´s pretty natural to go for some sort of cheese to even have a shot of winning.
This ain´t rocket science :/
Yes, you are correct. Super expensive units, very cost inefficient until very late tech is reached. They also are terribly weak in small groups, and the early game is horrible.
This means protoss has to rely on other things. * Gimmicky things*. 2 base pushes, 4 gate, 100% unsafe builds against pressure to even have a slight chance to beat that 1-1-1 all in.
With gimmicky, we mean that protoss needs to rely on things that terran/zerg can quickly figure out, and that protoss units are only reasonably ok with their upgrades. Stalkers are okay when they get blink and +2 and when you have superior micro. Marines are good units already, and with combat shields and stim they are very strong. With protoss upgrades, it doesn't feel like they add something. It feels like they make the unit only somewhat useful.
Like we see now, these gimmicks have been figured out and protoss is being destroyed. Terran destroys protoss with the 1-1-1, even if they know it's coming and if they can prepare optimally. Zerg figured out they can outmacro protoss a lot and still be safe to any possible pressure or harass.
I just can´t agree with you, macroing with protoss is just fine, forcefields and colossi/HT make for pretty good defences.
What is not ok is playing against terran, zerg is hard right now, but terran is the problem. You can macro up vs zerg just fine and don´t need to rely on any sort of gimmicky play. This is reflected well in the forge fast expand being one of the most popular builds. You prepare either a timing attack or a longer macro game, just like the other 2 races.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had. There have been 4 golden mouse in SC2's history : 2 zerg and 2 terran. And the two other players who were the closest to had their golden mouse were iloveoov and boxer, two terran AGAIN.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
That's interesting theorycraft, but Zerg are by far the least represented race in Korea, both in pro teams, and on the ladder. It's also not like most of the dominant Terran or Zerg players were anything to write home about. MVP and SangHo are by far the most accomplished SC1 players out of the bunch, relative to when they switched.
Plus, it's not like there's a lack of Protoss players in the BW scene. The top30 of Kespa rankings is relatively balanced, with 8 Protoss, 10 Terrans and 12 Zerg. Plus, the OSL finals are going to be + Show Spoiler +
PvT, with a good chance for JangBi to take it if he doesn't choke terribly
.
It's ridiculous to suggest that all the talent would choose Terran or Zerg in SC2, when the same doesn't even happen in BW.
Maybe I'm wrong, as you said it's theorycraft. But Bisu and stork never had the impact boxer, jaedong or flash had on the scene. Are you sure that there are the same number of protoss zerg and terran competing for the GSL prelim ?
Excellent article - highlights the major problems with PvT extremely well. Even the generous changes being made to Protoss in 1.4 might not be enough to bring Protoss up to the cost-efficiency of the other races.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are no good protoss players...it's absolute shit. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
No I'm saying the overall pool of high level protoss player in korea should be weaker for historic and cultural reasons.
The good ole "everyone who plays this race/class/character/gun/unit/item is just so much better than everyone else" excuse.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are no good protoss players...it's absolute shit. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
No I'm saying the overall pool of high level protoss player in korea should be weaker for historic and cultural reasons.
The good ole "everyone who plays this race/class/character/gun/unit/item is just so much better than everyone else" excuse.
Well, don't you agree that foreigner protoss are doing way better in the foreign scene ? Most of the best foreigner players are protoss... how do you explain that ? Yeah... the best european took protoss... they must be that good to overcome imbalance.
On September 10 2011 02:18 n0btozz wrote: I don´t understand why people are talking about Protoss being a gimmicky race? It´s a race with super expensive units, that until higher in the tech route, are very cost-inefficient...Being able to 4 gate doesn´t make it a gimmicky race, and the fact we have 2 base 6/7 gate pushes, doesn´t make it gimmicky either.
If you can´t win because the race is simply underpowered, it´s pretty natural to go for some sort of cheese to even have a shot of winning.
This ain´t rocket science :/
Yes, you are correct. Super expensive units, very cost inefficient until very late tech is reached. They also are terribly weak in small groups, and the early game is horrible.
This means protoss has to rely on other things. * Gimmicky things*. 2 base pushes, 4 gate, 100% unsafe builds against pressure to even have a slight chance to beat that 1-1-1 all in.
With gimmicky, we mean that protoss needs to rely on things that terran/zerg can quickly figure out, and that protoss units are only reasonably ok with their upgrades. Stalkers are okay when they get blink and +2 and when you have superior micro. Marines are good units already, and with combat shields and stim they are very strong. With protoss upgrades, it doesn't feel like they add something. It feels like they make the unit only somewhat useful.
Like we see now, these gimmicks have been figured out and protoss is being destroyed. Terran destroys protoss with the 1-1-1, even if they know it's coming and if they can prepare optimally. Zerg figured out they can outmacro protoss a lot and still be safe to any possible pressure or harass.
I just can´t agree with you, macroing with protoss is just fine, forcefields and colossi/HT make for pretty good defences.
What is not ok is playing against terran, zerg is hard right now, but terran is the problem. You can macro up vs zerg just fine and don´t need to rely on any sort of gimmicky play. This is reflected well in the forge fast expand being one of the most popular builds. You prepare either a timing attack or a longer macro game, just like the other 2 races.
"Macroing with protoss is fine"
Not in PvZ. It's more about zerg than protoss though.
It's not about defenses. It's about zergs crazy ability to out macro a lot and still hold off attacks with ease.
If you play PvZ, you can do two things. Expand or do a 1base attack. 1 base is out of the question, it never works, 4 gate was figured out before the gate timing was slowed down with 40 seconds.
So you expand. There's 2 options again:
- FFE - A slower expansion like 3gate
FFE will allow zerg to take a third before their 2nd finishes. Usually protosses go DT or stargate after this to stay even, but these have been figured out and it results in the match entering the midgame with 40 probes vs 80 drones. FFE is a terrible build.
So there's the slower expo. This also allows zerg to take a third, but just a bit slower. They can take a forth relatively quickly, and it's nearly impossible for protoss to get a third up.
The result? 2 base timing attacks from protoss. Which again, have been figured out. PvZ is at around 30% in korea, if not less. Conclusion: zerg can outmacro protoss while being safe from timing attacks and/or rush and harass in any situation.
Don't believe me? Watch PvZ from gsl, and watch a lot of it. You'll come to the same conclusion.
My point of view is that the good protoss gameplans were found out earlier in the history of the game than the good terran and zerg gameplans because they were more readily apparent. As a result, the protoss race was punished for it with a series of nerfs to just about every unit, some justified in the long run, some not at all. When the other races caught up in terms of strategy, protoss was left behind.
Compare void ray and banshee behavior against marines, as an example. A banshee has the same range as a marine, but it's faster, allowing it to do some form of kiting against marines which we often see pros do. Its damage comes in bursts, which makes that kiting useful. Terran basically has to wait for a viking or stim to be able to catch the banshee. A void ray also has the same range as a marine, but it has the same speed and its uncharged attack doesn't do a lot of damage. It becomes impossible to do anything as a void ray against a small group of marines... Due to the range nerf in beta meant specifically to prevent this. Void rays by themselves are as a result terrible in PvT. Protoss discovered this technique back in the beta and it was apparently an issue then, so this led to a nerf. Terran discovered the equivalent technique much later, and by that time it wasn't an issue anymore.
Meanwhile, terran just found out that the hellion, its second mineral dump, is really good at killing workers. Yeah...
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are no good protoss players...it's absolute shit. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
No I'm saying the overall pool of high level protoss player in korea should be weaker for historic and cultural reasons.
The good ole "everyone who plays this race/class/character/gun/unit/item is just so much better than everyone else" excuse.
Well, don't you agree that foreigner protoss are doing way better in the foreign scene ? Most of the best foreigner players are protoss... how do you explain that ? Yeah... the best european took protoss... they must be that good to overcome imbalance.
We're talking about the highest of the highest level here. The korean scene. Terran and zerg are totally dominating protoss there.
The foreigner scene is rapidly catching up. 1 month ago many foreigners couldn't even properly execute a 1-1-1, but today they're a lot better at that.
If we look at history, the foreigner scene is nearly always 1-4 months behind the korean scene.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had. There have been 4 golden mouse in SC2's history : 2 zerg and 2 terran. And the two other players who were the closest to had their golden mouse were iloveoov and boxer, two terran AGAIN.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
That's interesting theorycraft, but Zerg are by far the least represented race in Korea, both in pro teams, and on the ladder. It's also not like most of the dominant Terran or Zerg players were anything to write home about. MVP and SangHo are by far the most accomplished SC1 players out of the bunch, relative to when they switched.
Plus, it's not like there's a lack of Protoss players in the BW scene. The top30 of Kespa rankings is relatively balanced, with 8 Protoss, 10 Terrans and 12 Zerg. Plus, the OSL finals are going to be + Show Spoiler +
PvT, with a good chance for JangBi to take it if he doesn't choke terribly
.
It's ridiculous to suggest that all the talent would choose Terran or Zerg in SC2, when the same doesn't even happen in BW.
Just checked out and you're right, it seems that for GSL 2011 Octobre and August prelim there were more protoss than zerg an terran.
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
It's not like there are just a few more dominant terrans and zergs. Protoss isn't even competitive in Code S. They are a joke, and the winrates are pitiful. Simply saying that there were more terran in sc1 so of course there are no good protoss players...it's absolute shit. The winrates and race representation at the highest level don't lie, and it's too extreme to be a coincidence. Protoss is too weak or limited at the highest level.
No I'm saying the overall pool of high level protoss player in korea should be weaker for historic and cultural reasons.
The good ole "everyone who plays this race/class/character/gun/unit/item is just so much better than everyone else" excuse.
Well, don't you agree that foreigner protoss are doing way better in the foreign scene ? Most of the best foreigner players are protoss... how do you explain that ? Yeah... the best european took protoss... they must be that good to overcome imbalance.
Not really the same level of competition. And the foreign scene has it's fair share of top zergs and terrans. it's not so horribly lopsided like in Korea. But I can see that maybe many Koreans saw terran and saw it as the race that they can bring out their full potential. It's a race that highly rewards multi-tasking. Just like zerg highly rewards macro play and drew those players. Maybe protoss just has a "low skill ceiling" as much as I'd hate to use that term.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
On September 10 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:
On September 09 2011 13:57 Active.815 wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:32 Paladia wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:06 Havefa1th wrote: To blame one player's downfall on the "faults" of an entire race is a racey and unwarranted claim. To say that no Protoss is good at ZvP is as an absurd statement as saying that 1-1-1 will forever be unholdable. The 1-1-1 will be, in the end, just another cheese (like the 4 gate and the roach-ling all-ins before it) that is scoutable and held cost-efficiently with slight build order changes and superior micro.
The fact of the matter remains is that Protoss is not underpowered, there just is no overarching Protoss "president," so to speak. Jinro himself says that MC has stagnated due to lack of provocative and innovative play. To be honest, there isn't any Protoss player that's innovating the race... meanwhile there are Zerg players (mainly foreign ones) commanding the helm of the Infestor battleship and Korean Zergs at the front of faster, safer roach based play that has shown success against a variety of unit compositions. And there are the Terrans like Boxer and the rest of SlayerS, who made one small unit (and therefore the mech composition) more popular of late due to aggressive, cost-efficient play.
Where's the Protoss? You can argue for MC's storm drop play, but that's a technique that is shadowed in the end by standard, stagnated build orders and strategies. You can argue for White-Ra, who shoves the square Warp Prism into every round hole the PvX matchup has, but in the end, it's one unit that forces no special macro-related reaction from the other player.
The lack of success is not the fault of an "imbalanced" race or the 1-1-1, it's MC's (and the rest of the Protoss PLAYERS) fault. You can't blame the losses of one player on the race. You just can't.
However...
Easily the best written article I've read on this website (about Starcraft 2, that is). Keep this shit up.
There is no reason why people who pick Terran would be better players. Yet there are 17 Terrans in Code S and 5 Protoss. The top10 of the Korean ladder has 9 Terrans. Even the half decent Terran players are doing very well.
Terran has highest potential for offensive/aggressive play. Terran matchups practically require you to be harassing/doing offensive plays consistently. This also gives Terran the highest non-single engagement damage potential, barring mass mutas catching toss or terran with no turrets/cannons/storms and killing every probe, nexus, and pylon ever T___T. Protoss as a race never really had to play like zerg and terran with the multi-harass. High-level koreans have insane multitasking, and terran offers the greatest potential for their multitasking~when you want to be the best, you look for the race that gives you the best advantage.
Also, you say 'half decent terrans doing well'. Code A ro16: Ganzi(2-0)vsFD, sc(0-2)vsTaeja(2-0),Yoda(2-1)vsTassadar(1-2), Maka(0-2)vsLeenock(2-0), JJakji(2-0)vsLucky(0-2), MKP(2-1)vsYugioh...
The only not-superhighlevel Terrans that i would say are in that list are maka and yoda, who both get knocked out by leenock (yoda in the ro8). Jjakji, Ganzi, Taeja, MKP all go on to make code S.
who's mediocre there? Bomber? Virus? MVP and TOP are facing off for the final, MMA and Polt have already proven themselves to be excellent players, Nada is most definitely not mediocre, Ryung has had consistent, fairly strong showings....
There is something that most of you are missing, it's that the korean scene was a huge terran / zerg scene back in SC1. I don't understand why nobody ever talk about that. The fact that, during SC1, the protoss race was the least developped race for a long time while terran (from boxer to nada... and flash) and zerg (july, savior, jaedong) all had their own bonjwa. Who's the protoss bonjwa ? Nal_rA ? Garimto ? Stork ? Old legends and well... stork who never had the dominance flash or jaedong had. There have been 4 golden mouse in SC2's history : 2 zerg and 2 terran. And the two other players who were the closest to had their golden mouse were iloveoov and boxer, two terran AGAIN.
SC2 is a new game, but in korea, SC1 WAS EVERYTHING about esport, and SC2 came into that very scene : that's why there are least protoss and protoss is least developped (MC and sangho are the two only old SC1 pro gamer who switched to SC2's protoss, while marineking went terran). If you compare to europe, where protoss are HUGE. Look again : the most successful foreigner in code A & S is a protoss player (huk). Look now, yellow is switching, which race did he decided to play ? Obviously... zerg.
Korea = zerg and terran heavy.
That's interesting theorycraft, but Zerg are by far the least represented race in Korea, both in pro teams, and on the ladder. It's also not like most of the dominant Terran or Zerg players were anything to write home about. MVP and SangHo are by far the most accomplished SC1 players out of the bunch, relative to when they switched.
Plus, it's not like there's a lack of Protoss players in the BW scene. The top30 of Kespa rankings is relatively balanced, with 8 Protoss, 10 Terrans and 12 Zerg. Plus, the OSL finals are going to be + Show Spoiler +
PvT, with a good chance for JangBi to take it if he doesn't choke terribly
.
It's ridiculous to suggest that all the talent would choose Terran or Zerg in SC2, when the same doesn't even happen in BW.
Maybe I'm wrong, as you said it's theorycraft. But Bisu and stork never had the impact boxer, jaedong or flash had on the scene. Are you sure that there are the same number of protoss zerg and terran competing for the GSL prelim ?
In the most recent Code A Qualifier, there was actually more Protosses and Zergs than there were Terrans. There's only around ~60 Terrans in major teams in Korea, and more than 30 of them are in the GSL already, so teams are running dry on Terrans. In line with this effect, mostly Protoss and Zerg have qualified this time around.
You can find the full qualifier bracket in Liquipedia.
WhiteDog, the best silver player also took zerg, does that make zerg competitive? Stop bs-ing about the foreigner scene, the foreigners could all play a ultimate race, they would still be losing, foreigners are losing regardless of race.
Protoss is terribad atm, it´s a fact, not up for debate really...All statistics support the claim...
When a teamliquid article openly states that "It is no secret now that protoss is underpowered at the highest current level of play" and that "studying MC's record suggests that protoss has actually never been competitive in the entire history of Sc2", and when teamliquid allows these kind of balance discussions, I think we can conclude there really is a balance problem here, and protoss really is severely underpowered.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
I do and I'm sorry for you protoss, but eventually 5rr was nerfed into the ground. I'm sure that the 1.4 will allow you more flexibility.
On September 09 2011 08:53 Erasme wrote: 5 rax reaper was nerfed because of 1v1, I'm tired of seeing people thinking that it wasn't an abusive strat. See MorroW vs Idra at IEM.
I never said it wasn't an abusive strategy. However, the primary reason that the Reaper was nerfed was how imbalanced it was in 2v2, not 1v1.
Oh sorry, I was diamond when 5rax reaper was in place. Where were you ? By the way abusive = imbalanced and yes you can say it was imbalanced since the counter of that strat (roach + speed) was nullified by expand + marauders from terran. At high level MorroW used it against superior player (Idra just when he was back from Korea). He also said in that interview that 5rax reapers against zerg is abusive. Does anyone remember ? 'Oh noes it was for 2v2, 1v1 tournament wasn't plagued with this strat !' Thank you mister protoss. I will repeat myself about the 'imbalance' in PvT. We cannot say now that there is an imbalance, we will be able to see it in months.
I'm not sure if you understand the irony, but your "we cannot say there's an imbalance, let's wait a few months" was exactly what Terran players said back in the 5RR days. Similarly, inferior Terran players are beating superior Protosses with the 1/1/1, and MVP tweeted that Terrans who 1/1/1 should be disqualified.
You, right now, are the same as the Terrans back then, who wanted to wait for Zerg to figure out a response to 5RR.
I do and I'm sorry for you protoss, but eventually 5rr was nerfed into the ground. I'm sure that the 1.4 will allow you more flexibility.
I can answer that right now, it won´t, it doesn´t fix what´s wrong with the 1-1-1. It will just give us a 10% win ratio vs it instead of 8%.
On September 09 2011 06:19 tree.hugger wrote: I think the most conclusive evidence for protoss being the weakest race is the unequal distribution of protoss win-rates among GSL players. One would expect that GSL-level players would have win rates that would be somewhat evenly, or perhaps normally distributed (help me out, stats people). Instead, the win-rates of protoss are unbelievably skewed.
GSL Code S is a place of very low turnover. It has taken successive seasons of the same issues to lead to the present malaise. In the article, I tried to argue that protoss has statistically gotten the short end of the stick for much of Sc2's history.
Both of these issues are linked; a lot of mediocre, or just plain terrible, Protoss managed to qualify for the first Code S, and have been sticking around by just doing enough not to get dropped down. Combined that with how hard it is to actually qualify for Code A, and the level of play from Protoss in the GSL has been much lower than it should have been.
Add in the removal of the Khaydarin Amulet, the nerf to Warp Gate timing, the buffs to both the Ghost and Infestor, and the recent refinements to Terran all-ins... Well, it's hardly surprising that Protoss is struggling in the GSL at the moment.
If, in fact, the game is imbalanced at the moment, and it's not simply a period of adjustment to the recent changes, then I'd say it's largely because of the recent balance changes overshooting, not because Protoss as a whole has been fundamentally bad for the whole of SC2, as you seem to be implying.
I personally think, deep down inside, that it's both. Protoss have always been terrible, but nerfs and buffs just made things worse. And honestly, the things you listed probably had the biggest effect on protoss match ups. But because of MC I had doubts that protoss was terrible so I held out. Let's not forget all the unnecessary changes for team games, low level players, or knee jerk changes that were never retracted (VR range).
On September 09 2011 12:36 babylon wrote: No, the writer isn't trolling.
Uhhhhhh okay, here's the OP's problem..."I think the most conclusive evidence for protoss being the weakest race is the unequal distribution of protoss win-rates among GSL players".
This is such ludicrously poor reasoning that...no, just no.
The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become.
From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added.
All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual.
They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no...
I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote: The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become.
From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added.
All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual.
They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no...
I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran.
It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates.
On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote: The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become.
From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added.
All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual.
They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no...
I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran.
It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates.
They weren't that terrible and easy to control that you could just charge up and win. They forced the enemy to get marines (and often Vikings as support) or hydralisks. You can't nerf the damage too much (8 powered up damage against unarmored) because it's such a huge beam. So they still did a lot of damage against the counters, too. But not enough in my opinion. If that would have been a problem, they could have made the void ray more vulnerable to them.
For instance, let them do tons of damage but they don't have energy left to power shields during level 3. Problem solved. Strong advantages need to be mixed with strong disadvantages.
I (random) liked VRs right from the start. They are not more gimicky as utalisks owning whole probe lines in Brood War in my opinion.
On September 10 2011 05:31 Perscienter wrote: The patch changes of the void ray are a good example of how plan-less and simplifying Blizzard's approach to the game design has become.
From 3 damage levels to 2. Base damage from 2(+4) to 6(+4). Powered-up damage from 8(+16) to 8(+8). Armour from 1 to 0. More costly. Speed upgrade removed. Damage bonus of 20% against massive units added.
All the while the void ray isn't correctly explained in the manual.
They could have created a unique unit with weaknesses and obstacles, but very powerful in some circumstances. But no...
I predict, that in the add-on the attribute 'armoured' will be removed from the game, because it is still too complicated.
They're not fiddling with the Void Ray because it's too complicated, but because it was stupid and poorly conceived. The idea was that VRs were supposed to be snipers against massive units and key structures, but relatively poor against units with low hp. This idea is just bad, it's too much of a gimmick, and very difficult to get right. So what we got was VR all-ins where you'd charge up on your proxy pylon, and just kill everything because a charged up VR was supposed to do a lot of damage. So the damage nerf happened, and the Flux Vanes removal (don't ask me about that, apparently it was removed because of team games...), and what we got in the end was a unit with not definite purpose. You make them in PvZ because they defend Roach all-ins well, and give you a bit of map control, and you use them in one all-in against Terran.
It's just another "wouldn't it be cool if?" idea gone wrong, just like Warpgates.
They weren't that terrible and easy to control that you could just charge up and win. They forced the enemy to get marines (and often Vikings as support) or hydralisks. You can't nerf the damage too much (8 powered up damage against unarmored) because it's such a huge beam. So they still did a lot of damage against the counters, too. But not enough in my opinion. If that would have been a problem, they could have made the void ray more vulnerable to them.
For instance, let them do tons of damage but they don't have energy left to power shields during level 3. Problem solved. Strong advantages need to be mixed with strong disadvantages.
I (random) liked VRs right from the start. They are not more gimicky as utalisks owning whole probe lines in Brood War in my opinion.
Mutalisk were much more versatile though. You could harass with them, could also use them to snipe key units, they were good for denying expos, and in general provided a ton of map control because of their mobility. They were a bit too good in general, which is why BW had to add so many anti-mutalisk measures. But they ended up a staple Zerg unit in practically every matchup. Though unlike SC2, you couldn't simply mass them for the whole game, cause every race had tech that dealt with them super efficiently.
Void Rays, on the other hand, are just big flying cannons. Just like Banshees, they move slowly, do a lot of damage, and aren't useful for much else. Though they're a bit more useful than Scouts, so there's that.
Infestors / Ghosts - How come the infestor has neropathogen glands which allows it to have fungal right when it pops? Also same thing with Ghosts , but how come Ht lost it's ability to have erKardarian Amulet. I know warping in 2 ht to stop a drop, but lets think about it.. 2 Maurders(200minerals 50gas)3 Marines(150 minerals) vs 2 Ht (100minerals 300gas) (I didn't include the medivac bnecause most medivacs drops aren't usually full MP therefor 1 feedback wont kill it). Now if terrans drop fails no economical damage has been delt to the protoss but the terran looses 350 minerals and 50 gas. I want to point out Mules. Mules make up for that loss since it isn't very gas heavy but protoss will more than definetly loose those 2 ht, he cant get that back with mules , but what the protoss did do was prevent his economy from being destroyed or delayed which is HIS advantage. Mules on the other hand is the terrans to if the drop fails although late game it doesn't have really any affect to whether the terran looses anything and the drop itself because if the drop does work he has done damage that can rightfully be a changing point in the game.. I seriously think drops should be looked at more because the amount of economical damage delt is phenominal. And to be honest protoss has NOTHING to stop a drop, besides blink stalkers , but we have to realize stalkers are to fragile\ expensive to Marine and maurders it's not even worth the exchange in other words cost efficent. Drops should be yes an element of surprise but shouldn't be able to fataly end a game, but rather be used as an advantage to allow the terran to win at a l;ittle bit more of a lead, that's why im saying kardarian amulet or some sort of thing to give Ht atleast more energy is needed. Protoss mobility is shit and can't even get around to defend 3 bases at once, and push up his front. The amount of exploiting i've seen happen to progameing protosses.
And blizzard sorry warp prisim will never be used. maybe if it's 100 minerals and 100 gas? Becuase it seems protoss is the race that has more gas than others and terran is the army with the most minerals and zerg is the one with the most even amount although when it makes certain units its stresses very badly.
On September 09 2011 12:27 Brian333 wrote: I wrote this a day before this article:
An explanation for the state of Protoss
I see a lot of reasons for why Protoss is in its current state but I rarely see a much more important reason mentioned because I think too many people who have invested a lot of time into SC2 are simply afraid to mention it.
The game design is fundamentally flawed so game balance was inherently impossible from day 1.
I think that all along, the focus of discussions was misplaced. With design and balance, the most important thing is a balance of options across all three races, yet, despite that idea, all we've seen is the gradual deterioration of Protoss options.
For example, in a design sense, Protoss tier 1 is inherently inferior to Terran tier 1 and Zerg tier 1. Without micro and in open areas, there is simply no way a Protoss tier 1 army will win against an equal supply, equal cost Terran or Zerg tier 1 army.
What this led to was Protoss leading the other 2 races in the necessity to evolve their meta-game and stepping up to that demand.
Sentry play became incredibly valuable because micro allowed the Protoss to circumvent the weakness of the units in a straight up battle by changing the conditions of the battle to favor themselves. FF usage became an art. Build-orders were adjusted to get earlier sentries so that they would have more time to build energy.
Zealots (especially chargelots) increased in their value because of this and sentry / zealot early-game compositions became a staple of certain strategies.
Double forge or single forge upgrade timings were developed to help offset the weakness of tier 1 armies with an upgrade advantage.
Blink play was developed, refined, and would go on to transform Stalkers from one of our weakest units into one of our strongest.
Different timings off 1-base and 2-base were developed to win through shear numbers rather than the strength of individual units (4-8 gate and all their variations). Tricks with clever pylon placement and high-ground warp-ins were discovered to further the strength of these pushes.
We found ways to rush higher tech in order to completely leap-frog our tier 1 weaknesses.
With all these examples on the table, I'd like to point out the critical point that Protoss led the meta-game progression because of the inherent disadvantages we were given at the start, that because of an imbalance in options, we were forced to adapt before Terrans and Zergs.
So, as a response to our progression, Zergs and Terrans were forced to adapt and either through Blizzard's help or their own ingenuity, they did. Terrans started to actually make and use Ghosts more often to negate the value of sentries. Medivac play was used to either lift around FFs or force the Protoss army to split up, thus negating their synergy. Various all-ins were developed and refined in order to deny Protoss the ability to tech or expand without investing heavily in a lower tech. Safe expansion builds of their own allowed them to match or exceed Protoss econ. Zergs learned to be smarter about engagement locations, expand with better timing, scout with more direction, and defend more efficiently. They learned to get roaches with burrow to negate any Protoss timing push without detection, and burrow movement to negate heavily FF dependent pushes. They learned to use their mobility better with ling-backstabs. They realized that there was a roach-ling timing off 2-base that would deny Protoss their natural even if they opened with their safety, 3-gate sentry expand. Of course, there are more examples, but I think that is enough to prove my point.
So, we're left with the current state of SC2. It's a point in Protoss progression where we're essentially being forced to adapt again with our already limited options to strategies that have been tailor made to beat everything we had previously known. And, at this point, our options have been exhausted because they were already explored in great depth.
And, this all stems from the fact that the playing field was not level to begin with.
To Terrans and Zergs who tell us that we need to adapt, imagine what would happen if your counterparts magically knew how to stop everything you could do. Imagine if all the builds you had learned to do were all irrelevant. Imagine if your safe builds were no longer safe and your risky builds were just suicide.
Very good analysis. Agree with a large portion of this. -- I'd also say that possibly the shield upgrade (which is almost never purchased) could have a bonus caveat of "and reduces the effectiveness of Feedback/EMP by 20/40/60% (L1/L2/L3)". A situational upgrade, particularly vs. Terran if one wishes to go more Archon heavy.
NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM so much protoss tears taste so good bwahahha.
This has been happening in sc2 all the time players fall off their pedestal once the metagame changes and they adapt and become better. We seen this in Nestea, MVP, MC... Games changing faster than blizzard can balance.
Sorry if I can't articulate this well but I was laughing my ass off reading this article, mostly because I kept remembering the post iem coverage article of the last iem: + Show Spoiler +
Reapers, reapers, and more reapers. The Grand Finals, the entire IEM tournament, and TvZ itself is saturated with them, and with good cause – they give Terrans the most effective opening versus Zerg, plain and simple. One of the best TvZers in the world and not about to underestimate Idra anytime soon, Morrow skillfully executed his mass reaper opening three times in the Grand Finals, successfully twice, and each time transitioned into both an economically sound and map controlling mid-game that refused to give Idra any advantage. After being caught off-guard in game 1, Idra defended against Morrow’s mass reapers insanely well throughout the rest of the series, managing to barely hold them off while still building an economy. However, no matter how well he survived the early game Morrow would transition into a standard army and keep up pressure so consistently that there was little Idra could do to take a lead in any of the matches.
Morrow took his third victory of the series and 13th of the tournament ingeniously, using, what Idra could see as the same reaper opening of the previous games. But this time, knowing exactly how Idra would respond, Morrow relied on the potential threat of reapers to trick his Zerg opponent and went straight for a marauder/hellion push. With a train of scvs shielding his damage dealing units Morrow easily chewed through Idra's few zerglings and marched into the natural, ending the game.
Morrow's reaper control in the Grand Finals set a new standard for terran players across the world, and with solid transitions, macro, and decision making he won the first StarCraft 2 IEM Global Challenge with the composure and tact of a true champion. I have a feeling he'll be invited to the next one.
What wasn't as funny to me was the author taking away as much from puma's win as is physically possible. Directly calling him the worse sc2 player and using term's like "terran imba-ball" is more than a bit childish; I appreciate that your very obvious favorite lost, but venting your rage in such a way is a disservice to puma, and a disservice to people who actually read these news posts and form opinions based on them.
Puzzle pushes, polt has hardly any units left but his reinforcement slowly push puzzle back Polt pushes and the opposite happened, puzzle send waves of units into the mmm - meatgrinder
Losing to PuMa in the finals does NOT mean MC is slumping. That word is used too carelessly. PuMa is a fucking boss, there is no shame in losing to him.
On September 11 2011 10:34 -y0shi- wrote: just saw polt vz puzzle... + Show Spoiler +
Puzzle pushes, polt has hardly any units left but his reinforcement slowly push puzzle back Polt pushes and the opposite happened, puzzle send waves of units into the mmm - meatgrinder
and game 1 was everyones favorite 111
Well, at the moment Protosses should probably use Idra's rule in PvT - "Never attack unless you're all-ining.". If you fail to kill the Terran with an attack, you usually die to the counter.
I don't think the "Protoss isnt' just innovating." argument is fair at all The problem is coming up with a build that gives us even midgame with Z and T. Innovating with Warp Prisms, Motherships, Carriers and the like don't solve this problem, as they are mid and late game tactics.
All of our FE builds have been figured out. The 3gt sentry expo has also been figured out. There are responses to these builds that leave the P so far behind in the midgame they just play catch-up and hope the opposing races wont punish them at the times they take huge risks to even the odds.
What comes to innovating around this subject - think of how close the 3gt sentry expo is dying to strong roach/ling pressure already, and then try to come up with a solution that cuts something out of it for faster nexus. There are players who simply just go gate-nexus-gate-gate and hope Z doesn't mass lings in the early game to deny it, but it's not safe.
OGSMC tried to go gate-stargate-nexus and some variants of 3gate-star-nexus but that had it's own problems and it's already died out.
1/1/1 gives Protoss these conditions to innovate around 1. You need to be one base ahead to just solve the insane cost efficiency of this timing push by throwing money at it. 2. You need to get a relatively early robo against the probability of a cloak, and to make sure it really is a 1/1/1, and also to know the exact variant. 3. The build needs enough gas for sentries to deflect some 7minute pushes (like on the video below), enough gas and minerals for stalkers to deflect the banshees at relevant timings, enough gas and minerals for a robo, enough gas and minerals for Colossi, bay and the range upgrade and somehow still produce units linearly from the gateways to keep the supply count somehow even. It's just too much.
Every time P comes up with something that could work, it dies to something else that is either a component of 1/1/1 or a transition from it, or the build looks vulnerable enough for T to just opt to go for something else entirely.
On September 12 2011 04:15 ledgerhs wrote: Good example of this is this SaSE's PvT game against the new 2/1/1 @ Korean GM ladder http://www.twitch.tv/hellosase/b/294753081 (Starts at 35:00 forward)
If there was ever a game to be used as an argument in favor of nerfing MULEs, it's that one.
1. Protoss does a very risky expand build, throwing his Nexus down at 4:30. 2. Banshees kill around 5 probes and a Stalker. 3. At the 12:30 mark, the 1 base Terran is 10 supply ahead of the Protoss.
Very good article, well written, well outlined, too bad people looked at it as biased or a balance whine.
It's quite sad but I think it's time for people to face the facts that, at the highest level of play, Protoss can't compete with Terran and can hardly compete with Zerg. The number of Terrans in Code S, and the lowest number till now of Protoss, should be sufficient evidence of this. Also saying that, Protoss is doing good in NA or Europe, is irrelevant given that the level of play in NA or Europe isn't at the highest level, not like in Korea.
If we take a moment to analyze the Protoss race a bit and try to find the root of the problem, we notice that, resource for resource it seems to be the least efficient of the others. The problem is highlighted in the link from ledgerhs.
As he pointed out at the 12 minute mark the Terran, who was on only 1 base, was actually ahead in supply of the Protoss, even though the Protoss had expanded early. The other problem was the ease with which the Terran army was able to kill the Protoss army.
Normally, on equal supply and open ground two well rounded and well balanced armies should almost completely annihilate each other, very few survivals. The determining factor of fights should be positioning, terrain, upgrades, timings etc. The Protoss army was just straight up annihilated.
I find it wrong that, a Protoss who was sitting on 2 bases for the better part of the game against a Terran on only 1 base was still stomped into the ground. I find it wrong that the Terran was ahead of the Protoss in supply after all that time.
The MULE is a factor yes, over the course of the game it generated approximately 1800 minerals (200 minerals per min, kicks in at the 3:30 min mark). But it's still mind blowing that the Protoss army was still dispatched so easily. The only thing to conclude is that, the Protoss army is just inefficient.
I would prefer not to nerf Terran because I feel the race is the most complete and flexible so far, I'd rather have Protoss and to a smaller extent Zerg buffed a bit more to catch up.
I think the theme and feel of the Protoss has somehow been lost, it used to be that Protoss units where very expensive but very powerful, now they are just very expensive. The Terran army is in direct contrast to the Protoss army, it is very cheap and at the same time, very powerful, stim+ medivac heal make the bio ball very durable and strong, the bio ball can kite zealots forever, demolish stalkers and immortals.
There are two ways to re balance Protoss. Either make the units cheaper or make them stronger.
I personally wouldn't like the Protoss units to be made cheaper because, it could contradict the theme of the race, and it could also cause early game problems for the zerg and terran before specialist units come out. I still think some price reductions would be in order though, maybe a 25 gas cost reduction on sentries and stalkers.
The other way to balance out Protoss units would be to make them stronger. Again making them stronger outright would cause some early game problems for zerg and terran, however you could make them stronger trough upgrades, ideally the upgrades should be not to easy to get for early game sake, but not too hard to get. However I'm not sure this would be the best solution since, we already have upgrades like Blink and Charge and it doesn't seem to help in either against the 1/1/1 or in late game.
Another problem for Protoss is the ghost. Ghosts not only neutralize the Protoss specialist units, but the EMP also annihilates shields. It was manageable when Terrans only made 2 or 3 of them, but now with up to 16 ghosts being made, you have a real problem. Ghosts are cheaper then HT so you can't make more HT to keep up with the ghost numbers and trying to do so will also hurt your stalker and sentry count because of the ridiculous gas cost. Ghosts can EMP from farther than a HT can feedback. Lastly, even after all their energy is spent, ghosts can still contribute with DPS to a fight, and incidentally do bonus damage to light, aka zealots, HT don't do auto-attacks. Ghosts with cloak, and if you snipe the observers, can survive for quite a long time as well.
The EMP probably needs a nerf, it should destroy energy and reveal stealth-ed units, but it either shouldn't destroy shields, or the remove shields part of the EMP shouldn't be AOE. It's a bit too brutal for the already not cost effective Protoss units to be made even less cost effective by removing their shields.
Protoss also could use another method of detection. Zerg have two mobile ways to detect invisible units, overseers and fungal. Terrans have scans, EMP and Ravens. Protoss have only Observers, and against builds like the 1/1/1 the problem comes back to bite Protoss because, it can't experiment with different builds, they must get a Robo bay for the obs against the possibility of cloaked banshees.
Overall it feels like the Protoss are very inflexible because they have very few options, and the ones that do exist have now been figured out and people know how to scout them, and late game they know how to counter the so called Protoss "deathball" or just pick it apart with constant harass or drops. Their units don't seem to be as powerful as they should, and the cost of their units isn't justified.
I feel like, where the specialist units of the terran and zerg, the infestors, ghosts and ravens, are meant to augment their already mighty forces, the Protoss specialist units, the sentry and HT, are actually there to hold up the otherwise flimsy Protoss army. And you can see it in how the Protoss armies seem to crumble once the EMPs go of on the HT and sentries, or when the fungals go off and the baneling drops start to roll.
While some of the problems could be solved in a patch, like re-balancing some units, it feels like only an expansion can patch all the holes, add one or two much needed units or some much needed upgrades.
Look, its really very simple. Most time was given to terran because terran was the basis for the campaign. Everything else was designed around that. In SC this wasnt the case. All 3 races were in the game at once. their did their best to balance it this way, even erring on making races more the same in some fashions than distinct. However i remember SC1. it was actually quite balanced on the top level. All that had to be done was some tweaking here and there and it became more and more balanced. Fine tuning. Then brood war hit and it suddenly shit on the balance with the wild and unpredictable new ways the new units could be used and what that meant for build orders and such. But eventually balance was achieved again.
SC2 is barely a year old, and only real dedication was to Terran specifically cause it was the only race that had to be "finished".
This smacks of cutting corners (for the other races), and it should be clear now why terran was the most finished, and that Z and P aren't complete races, and things like FF and infestor were really lame-ass stopgap measures to keep them viable.
Doesn't it bother people that T has all the obvious strats and easy to discover ways of doing things at its fingertips, while esoteric and far removed strats like baneling drops and mass infestor had to be discovered for their power, and hallucination to use phoenix for scouting had to be discovered? both these race's new toys were found through lots of playtime and continually falling short in these areas as a race. The players with their ingenuity worked around the failings of the races. Meanwhile what has terran really done? They come up with new builds and combos of units and timings, and thats all well and good. But then players of T have the audacity to say that P and Z don't try to come up with new stuff.
Z and P don't have the tools!! they're stuck because they are not well put together races. They worked long and hard and the best they have now is bane rain and hallucophoenix scouts? meanwhile T can "innovate" time and time again? isn't that just because they have the most well thought out and designed units/race, and not because 2/3d of the player base (Z and P) are incompetent drooling idiots? Thats what terran players are seeming to say by saying they don't innovate.
Love MC but he clearly doesnt deserve 5 GSL titles, especially while making silly mistakes every game like those mentioned in the article.
MVP just won his third with terran and he always was and is a better player than MC including in BW.
Obviously marine/tank/banshee is a problem but even so MC could ve won all 3 games if he made better decisions i feel.
Also I ve seen players defend it about 30 times now in different ways and since its already hardly viable on some maps i have hope it can be dealt with after the patch.
Like it was mentioned before when 3 out of the top 4 are protoss whining about balance seems hardly warranted.
People on this site seem to take balance way to seriously and personal. Like it affects their W/L rate or progress when they ladder or something which it doesnt.
I always had a lot of respect for the mods patiently trying to keep the balance complaints to a minimum but lately I fear its no longer the case sometimes , downright encouraging it in some cases
I like how protoss players tend to point out very specific things that are imbalanced, such as emp, bio, 1/1/1 etc, and when they do terran players just sit back and say protoss players are bad players. MC is not a bad player.
On September 13 2011 03:39 secretary bird wrote: Love MC but he clearly doesnt deserve 5 GSL titles, especially while making silly mistakes every game like those mentioned in the article.
MVP just won his third with terran and he always was and is a better player than MC including in BW.
Obviously marine/tank/banshee is a problem but even so MC could ve won all 3 games if he made better decisions i feel.
Also I ve seen players defend it about 30 times now in different ways and since its already hardly viable on some maps i have hope it can be dealt with after the patch.
Like it was mentioned before when 3 out of the top 4 are protoss whining about balance seems hardly warranted.
People on this site seem to take balance way to seriously and personal. Like it affects their W/L rate or progress when they ladder or something which it doesnt.
I always had a lot of respect for the mods patiently trying to keep the balance complaints to a minimum but lately I fear its no longer the case sometimes , downright encouraging it in some cases
People take it seriously because we are tired of endless TvT, and seeing protoss players absolutely demolished because the race is crap in Korea. "I've seen people defend it blablahblah" I've also seen people defend 5 rax reaper and beat the deathball(before nerf), doesn't mean it isn't op as shit.
The fact is 1/1/1 boasts insane winrates on maps like XNC and Meta, and with all the variations there is no reliable defense. Also funny how MVP suddenly re emerges, and is able to beat MC in TvP after the race isn't even competitive anymore in Korea, even though he his TvP was considerably weaker than his other matchups, and he hadn't made it out of groups in months. Hell, MVP himself admits 1/1/1 is imbalanced and protoss is struggling.
People take it seriously because we are tired of endless TvT, and seeing protoss players absolutely demolished because the race is crap in Korea. "I've seen people defend it blablahblah" I've also seen people defend 5 rax reaper and beat the deathball(before nerf), doesn't mean it isn't op as shit.
The fact is 1/1/1 boasts insane winrates on maps like XNC and Meta, and with all the variations there is no reliable defense. Also funny how MVP suddenly re emerges, and is able to beat MC in TvP after the race isn't even competitive anymore in Korea, even though he his TvP was considerably weaker than his other matchups, and he hadn't made it out of groups in months. Hell, MVP himself admits 1/1/1 is imbalanced and protoss is struggling.
I never said it wasnt broken on these maps, but if it was so extremely unbeatable you could do it on any map.
Regardless that wasn t the point I just said there is some hope after the patch but I guess repeating the exact same balance whines for the millionth time is more constructive.
Not saying MvP is wrong but he also said Terran is too weak and he s thinking about switching a few month ago funny how things change.
I can understand getting tired of TvT but there are other tournaments and other things to do no one is forcing you to watch GSL and for some people it seems to go way beyond that.
Also I doubt MC needs our pity he won a ton of tournaments/money using his shitty race not too long ago.
In game 2 there were no tanks btw and MC s play was nowhere near ideal he is slumping if you ask me like MvP did both are beasts on a good day though no doubt.
On September 13 2011 03:39 secretary bird wrote: Love MC but he clearly doesnt deserve 5 GSL titles, especially while making silly mistakes every game like those mentioned in the article.
MVP just won his third with terran and he always was and is a better player than MC including in BW.
Obviously marine/tank/banshee is a problem but even so MC could ve won all 3 games if he made better decisions i feel.
Also I ve seen players defend it about 30 times now in different ways and since its already hardly viable on some maps i have hope it can be dealt with after the patch.
Like it was mentioned before when 3 out of the top 4 are protoss whining about balance seems hardly warranted.
People on this site seem to take balance way to seriously and personal. Like it affects their W/L rate or progress when they ladder or something which it doesnt.
I always had a lot of respect for the mods patiently trying to keep the balance complaints to a minimum but lately I fear its no longer the case sometimes , downright encouraging it in some cases
MVP is not better than MC, MVP fell from code S when terran was doing great, while MC only fell from code S when every other protoss that got to the up/down matches fell too. MVP is equal to MC but with a better race.
don't bother trying to say that terran is not the better race in the highest level, cuz you are wrong.
I will be very dissapointed if the expansion pack(s) for this game give Terran more units. They already have such an insane combination of units for every situation. I don't think anyone can argue that either, I'd go as far as to say that they have too many units already.
there are 5/32 protoss players in GSL Code S. if starcraft was completely balanced, the number should be 10~11/32. there are 20/32 terrans. i don't know what to call this other than imbalanced.
Good article. I think you made some good points that I agree with (probably because I play P haha). I can tell you MC isn't alone there are a ton of us P players who feel lost in the current meta game.
I'm P player, and I do fine in ladder, but I watch more than play, and when you see any PvT/Z matchup in the highest level, the protoss weakness becomes evident.
Protosses took 3 of the 4 first places. This article may outline legitimate protoss weaknesses but it is biased as hell. You should remember the 4-0 gsl TvT upset of Polt vs MMA before creating balance whines out of 3 games. As for the TPLD stats used as scientific truth by many posters, stats on 100 to 200 games have a huge error margin. They are NOT proof of anything.
MVP is not better than MC, MVP fell from code S when terran was doing great, while MC only fell from code S when every other protoss that got to the up/down matches fell too. MVP is equal to MC but with a better race.
don't bother trying to say that terran is not the better race in the highest level, cuz you are wrong.
I was talking about IEM and the fact that Protoss did fine there. If people want to complain they could atleast pick a decent topic/argument to do it.
If you think MvP and MC are equal that s fine with me but MvP fell to code A when no GSL terran was doing great in TvP. Also if you can only judge by results since quality of play is subjective and PvT and PvZ dont count because of imbalance there is no way to tell if MC is as good as he was before.
Except that he got demolished by freaking Hongun who didnt even train for the match.
Honestly if you take Marine/Tank/Banshee out of the equation with maps/the patch/a solution and Protoss players stop using their new PvT style which has never shown good results they would be fine.
Maybe I m too optimistic but there are few terrans in Code A now and none of them good except Byun it could still turn around.
btw I always wondered why protoss players dont forcefield the terrans ramp if they see late siege mode which is almost always. Anybody know?
MVP is not better than MC, MVP fell from code S when terran was doing great, while MC only fell from code S when every other protoss that got to the up/down matches fell too. MVP is equal to MC but with a better race.
don't bother trying to say that terran is not the better race in the highest level, cuz you are wrong.
I was talking about IEM and the fact that Protoss did fine there. If people want to complain they could atleast pick a decent topic/argument to do it.
If you think MvP and MC are equal that s fine with me but MvP fell to code A when no GSL terran was doing great in TvP. Also if you can only judge by results since quality of play is subjective and PvT and PvZ dont count because of imbalance there is no way to tell if MC is as good as he was before.
Except that he got demolished by freaking Hongun who didnt even train for the match.
Honestly if you take Marine/Tank/Banshee out of the equation with maps/the patch/a solution and Protoss players stop using their new PvT style which has never shown good results they would be fine.
Maybe I m too optimistic but there are few terrans in Code A now and none of them good except Byun it could still turn around.
btw I always wondered why protoss players dont forcefield the terrans ramp if they see late siege mode which is almost always. Anybody know?
You can run out of forcefields and you might need in the battle later on? If you specificly talking about the 1/1/1 build, you run the risk of being sniped by banshees or the terran elevator his army out with a medvac. Forcfield the terrans ramp is risky and you can lose the entire game if you do it for to long.
Also, the argument that you can't judge balance because there is no way to tell if MC is "as good as before" is silly. There is no % bar were we can see if players are playing to 100% of their potential. There is a lot of evidence that Protoss is losing more than just IEM. MC is what this article chooses to write about.
What a terrible article that whines about balance. TL will warn (I expect a warn or ban for my post here) about balance shit, but they can write about it all day.
"If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition."
i hope blizzard realizes soon its no secret anymore they dont care about protoss. we've been nerfed out of contention, if we were ever even there to begin with. even at lower levels, all you see is 1-base all-ins and 2-base roach-rushes. skill has nothing to do with toss anymore, its all luck.. you have to hope your opponent wont exploit your many early game weaknesses, so you can stand a fighting chance. i can't play 1v1 anymore, and its sad when you love a game so much but you cant play it because it doesnt work right. as a protoss i hope blizzard fixes this game soon, because we've given them the benefit of the doubt long enough. ive shrugged off the fact no protoss ever make tournaments unless theyre lucky as hell. well after a year, its time to start wondering why. i feel like my race of protoss brethren is an endangered species. if theyre going to wait for Legacy of the Void to finally buff protoss a little bit, theyre making a huge mistake. 1/1/1 and EMP are seriously problematic.. nothing should be that effective. how does blizzard address it? they dont, both will still be used a lot after patch. instead they nerf blink, to make sure protoss doesnt have an advantage in any matchup. after so many nerfs, how can you still consider a race balanced?
On September 14 2011 08:01 PcH wrote: What a terrible article that whines about balance. TL will warn (I expect a warn or ban for my post here) about balance shit, but they can write about it all day.
"If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition."
On September 15 2011 10:07 frostalgia wrote: i hope blizzard realizes soon its no secret anymore they dont care about protoss. we've been nerfed out of contention, if we were ever even there to begin with. even at lower levels, all you see is 1-base all-ins and 2-base roach-rushes. skill has nothing to do with toss anymore, its all luck.. you have to hope your opponent wont exploit your many early game weaknesses, so you can stand a fighting chance. i can't play 1v1 anymore, and its sad when you love a game so much but you cant play it because it doesnt work right. as a protoss i hope blizzard fixes this game soon, because we've given them the benefit of the doubt long enough. ive shrugged off the fact no protoss ever make tournaments unless theyre lucky as hell. well after a year, its time to start wondering why. i feel like my race of protoss brethren is an endangered species. if theyre going to wait for Legacy of the Void to finally buff protoss a little bit, theyre making a huge mistake. 1/1/1 and EMP are seriously problematic.. nothing should be that effective. how does blizzard address it? they dont, both will still be used a lot after patch. instead they nerf blink, to make sure protoss doesnt have an advantage in any matchup. after so many nerfs, how can you still consider a race balanced?
i play zerg and feel the same way about terran. its not that zerg and protoss are inherently bad. but when compared to the straight up advantages that terran's get its a bit ridiculous.
when i can bling drop a terrans mineral line and on the replay his mining rate is GREATER THAN MINE afterwards because of mules... its beyond frustrating.
idra's games are telling to me too. in the mlg raleigh first round he lost some games to early bunkers/hellions, which is obnoxious in its own right and not fun to watch, but thats not even the worst part.
if he gets lucky and survives the early pressure, he can then be muta harrassing all over the map, be ahead on bases, day9 says like clockwork 'idra is so far ahead now i dont see him losing', but then he scrolls over to the terrans base and sees a shitload of marines +whatever else the terran decides to make and day9 then pretends to be shocked when the terran marches right into idras base and kills him. after watching that happen in all of idras first round zvt's i turned mlg off and didnt watch anymore.
there is something fundamentally wrong with the game (same applies to tvp) when that scenario is repeated time and time again. you can argue and say in BW we didnt whine, we found counters. sc2 is NOT BW. sc2's lead designer dustin browder has been quoted as saying terran's strength isnt a balance problem it is a game design flaw. and i completely agree with him, but he and his team dont seem very interested in changing that, at least until the zerg expansion, which is a damn shame.
and for the record i am NOT an idra fanboy. i like watching him play his macro style because thats how i play too. talking about idra seems to always lead to a discussion of his bm etc. this article was about mc, i like watching idra solely for his play, the same way you toss's like to watch mc. nothing more. if he plays bad and loses then thats fine, he got beat. when he is doing everything he can to win, and clearly outplaying his opponent and then just gets rolled time after time, something is wrong.
You can run out of forcefields and you might need in the battle later on? If you specificly talking about the 1/1/1 build, you run the risk of being sniped by banshees or the terran elevator his army out with a medvac. Forcfield the terrans ramp is risky and you can lose the entire game if you do it for to long.
Also, the argument that you can't judge balance because there is no way to tell if MC is "as good as before" is silly. There is no % bar were we can see if players are playing to 100% of their potential. There is a lot of evidence that Protoss is losing more than just IEM. MC is what this article chooses to write about.
Thanks for the answer but I didn t mean to say you cant judge balance. I meant people will argue you cant judge MC for playing bad against zerg and terran because they see it as imbalance and nothing else so I brought up Hongun to support my argument.
About forcefielding the ramp I meant against the classic 1/1/1 or Marine/Tank/Banshee as I call it because it gets late siegemode, no ghosts and no medivacs. If the terran gets any of those you should be able to spot it and it will make the push weaker because the "standard" way of doing it is really the strongest imo.
Of course you need some stalkers at home to defend against banshees. Everything is risk/reward calculated in starcraft and not doing anything special is extremely risky as well.
I am sure that delaying it for 2-3 forcefields would be huge.
I remember a player who was considered to be unbeatable getting knocked down to Code A, dealing with it, and coming back stronger than ever: IMMvP.
This seems to me like a temporary slump, brought about by a number of harsh nerfs to the strongest protoss strategies.
The race itself hasn't really changed very much, but some things clearly come too slowly to be useful many times. When I think of all the times I've seen no-storm templars getting their faces bashed in and being forced to morph into archons, or seen the stalker count diminish to the point where it becomes impossible to stop banshees, I wonder if all of this could have been prevented by not playing so greedily against terran.
To quote the article: "In his first game against PuMa on Xel'Naga Caverns, MC 1 gate FE'd and then rushed to gateway/immortal tech."
I don't think: "Aw, poor MC."
I instead think: "Go Puma! Free win!"
Am I supposed to be convinced that terran is somehow completely unstoppable? Is 1 gate FE actually a viable opener against a banshee siege tank marine all-in? MC has a reputation for playing risky, and essentially trying to pull off an economic cheese, off of 2 base.
There are times when a terran simply does not want to be attacked, and protoss right now, so it seems, aren't capitalizing on this. I remember feeling so smart doing the 1-1-1 all-in, and playing against someone who simply made a phoenix and countered the build. It's hard to feel sorry for protoss who are trying to play out risky expansive strats while doing no harassment and relying on observers for their scouting.
On September 17 2011 07:54 dUTtrOACh wrote: I remember a player who was considered to be unbeatable getting knocked down to Code A, dealing with it, and coming back stronger than ever: IMMvP.
This seems to me like a temporary slump, brought about by a number of harsh nerfs to the strongest protoss strategies.
The race itself hasn't really changed very much, but some things clearly come too slowly to be useful many times. When I think of all the times I've seen no-storm templars getting their faces bashed in and being forced to morph into archons, or seen the stalker count diminish to the point where it becomes impossible to stop banshees, I wonder if all of this could have been prevented by not playing so greedily against terran.
To quote the article: "In his first game against PuMa on Xel'Naga Caverns, MC 1 gate FE'd and then rushed to gateway/immortal tech."
I don't think: "Aw, poor MC."
I instead think: "Go Puma! Free win!"
Am I supposed to be convinced that terran is somehow completely unstoppable? Is 1 gate FE actually a viable opener against a banshee siege tank marine all-in? MC has a reputation for playing risky, and essentially trying to pull off an economic cheese, off of 2 base.
There are times when a terran simply does not want to be attacked, and protoss right now, so it seems, aren't capitalizing on this. I remember feeling so smart doing the 1-1-1 all-in, and playing against someone who simply made a phoenix and countered the build. It's hard to feel sorry for protoss who are trying to play out risky expansive strats while doing no harassment and relying on observers for their scouting.
At least read something about if before you say something like this. Yes 1 Gate Expand is THE counter to 111. It doesnt really work but its the closest you get. YOu cant play 1 base vs 1 base vs terran.
And yeah, it is risky, you basically guess of he does 111 or 3 rax, if you choose the wrong build (you cant scout it) you die. If you choose the right one you have a shot to kill terran with some all in push before he gets the 20 ghosts.
Thats the problem :/
e:/ And istn 1gate stargate mcs signature build? Doesnt work againsth the 111 either although its another one of those builds were you have a shot at winning if terran messes up
play zerg and feel the same way about terran. its not that zerg and protoss are inherently bad. but when compared to the straight up advantages that terran's get its a bit ridiculous.
when i can bling drop a terrans mineral line and on the replay his mining rate is GREATER THAN MINE afterwards because of mules... its beyond frustrating.
idra's games are telling to me too. in the mlg raleigh first round he lost some games to early bunkers/hellions, which is obnoxious in its own right and not fun to watch, but thats not even the worst part.
if he gets lucky and survives the early pressure, he can then be muta harrassing all over the map, be ahead on bases, day9 says like clockwork 'idra is so far ahead now i dont see him losing', but then he scrolls over to the terrans base and sees a shitload of marines +whatever else the terran decides to make and day9 then pretends to be shocked when the terran marches right into idras base and kills him. after watching that happen in all of idras first round zvt's i turned mlg off and didnt watch anymore.
there is something fundamentally wrong with the game (same applies to tvp) when that scenario is repeated time and time again. you can argue and say in BW we didnt whine, we found counters. sc2 is NOT BW. sc2's lead designer dustin browder has been quoted as saying terran's strength isnt a balance problem it is a game design flaw. and i completely agree with him, but he and his team dont seem very interested in changing that, at least until the zerg expansion, which is a damn shame.
and for the record i am NOT an idra fanboy. i like watching him play his macro style because thats how i play too. talking about idra seems to always lead to a discussion of his bm etc. this article was about mc, i like watching idra solely for his play, the same way you toss's like to watch mc. nothing more. if he plays bad and loses then thats fine, he got beat. when he is doing everything he can to win, and clearly outplaying his opponent and then just gets rolled time after time, something is wrong.
Mules aint actually better than larva inject if both players are left undisturbed for 10 or 20 minutes and play as greedy as possible the zerg will have a huge income advantage for instance.
Thats why terran players try to kill workers as soon and as often as possible. Concerning your bling drop I have seen blue flame hellions kill 15-20 drones at 10-11 minutes and the zerg is still way ahead on income, this happens all the time.
Those Idra games just showed that marines with superior upgrades and medivacs just counter mutas harder than anything else, hardly shocking or OP.
Thats why you dont just build 40 mutas and nothing else even though the harass is super strong ,if the terran just dares to move out he should win it.
On September 16 2011 06:18 -y0shi- wrote: Then Terran will just camp outside your base and expand himself. I think this happened in game 1 of nani vs thorzain?
On September 16 2011 06:18 -y0shi- wrote: Then Terran will just camp outside your base and expand himself. I think this happened in game 1 of nani vs thorzain?
Was that a response to my post? I m probably misunderstanding but if it is I dont see how that game is relevant.
Misunderstood you, I thought you were talking about FFing your own ramp and play 1 base against 1 base. I was trying to say that T will just contain you if you do that and you loose anyways ^^
Even Hero doesnt want to play a full game against terran. And Game 1 of Thorzain vs Hero was both the most heroic and the most pathetic thing Ive seen in a long time.
I also watched this big BW final that happened today (just turned it on randomly, didnt even know that it was something special) and after watching this and valencia... Wow :/ I also think that Thorzains Thor Rush was more or less just fan pleasing, it was a 1 base allin that will be devastating anyways and he just decided to mix it up, he still cakewalked huks army.
On September 17 2011 07:54 dUTtrOACh wrote: To quote the article: "In his first game against PuMa on Xel'Naga Caverns, MC 1 gate FE'd and then rushed to gateway/immortal tech."
I don't think: "Aw, poor MC."
I instead think: "Go Puma! Free win!"
Am I supposed to be convinced that terran is somehow completely unstoppable? Is 1 gate FE actually a viable opener against a banshee siege tank marine all-in? MC has a reputation for playing risky, and essentially trying to pull off an economic cheese, off of 2 base.
Read: examples of misinformation before spreading BS about how to beat the 1-1-1.
MC did EVERYTHING perfectly until the second "all-in" hit. In my eyes, there shouldn't BE a second all-in. Puma should have been dead after he lost the first attack.
I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud the visionary writer who wrote this controversial but prophetic article, and the magnanimous editor who approved of its publication.
On September 17 2011 07:54 dUTtrOACh wrote: I remember a player who was considered to be unbeatable getting knocked down to Code A, dealing with it, and coming back stronger than ever: IMMvP.
This seems to me like a temporary slump, brought about by a number of harsh nerfs to the strongest protoss strategies.
The race itself hasn't really changed very much, but some things clearly come too slowly to be useful many times. When I think of all the times I've seen no-storm templars getting their faces bashed in and being forced to morph into archons, or seen the stalker count diminish to the point where it becomes impossible to stop banshees, I wonder if all of this could have been prevented by not playing so greedily against terran.
To quote the article: "In his first game against PuMa on Xel'Naga Caverns, MC 1 gate FE'd and then rushed to gateway/immortal tech."
I don't think: "Aw, poor MC."
I instead think: "Go Puma! Free win!"
Am I supposed to be convinced that terran is somehow completely unstoppable? Is 1 gate FE actually a viable opener against a banshee siege tank marine all-in? MC has a reputation for playing risky, and essentially trying to pull off an economic cheese, off of 2 base.
There are times when a terran simply does not want to be attacked, and protoss right now, so it seems, aren't capitalizing on this. I remember feeling so smart doing the 1-1-1 all-in, and playing against someone who simply made a phoenix and countered the build. It's hard to feel sorry for protoss who are trying to play out risky expansive strats while doing no harassment and relying on observers for their scouting.
Your such a noob. To hold off a 1-1-1 you need to expand so you have the income for units, and pheonixs are a good way to try and counter the 1-1-1. It's hard to feel sorry protoss because we don't harrass? You realize that protoss has the least harrassing options? Why do you think we are getting a crap load of harrassing units in HOTS? Relying on observers for scouting? Isn't that what they were MADE for?! We don't have scans or overlords like zergs and terrans. BTW you act terrans don't play greedy at all. command center first? 1rax expand? familiar builds much?