4.9.0 No Changes

General Discussion
05/23/2019 12:54 AMPosted by NitrousOxide
Im only diamond league, but I almost never see protoss players, they’re like extremely rare, and when I do get matched with one I just mop the floor with them.


You will gain the hate of all whineterrans here. Sure, you must be a self-hating-terran!
Not only you do not whine, but you burst their bubble of victimhood.
I bet the TCF will declare you a protoss-agent posting as terran in order to discredit them.

Be afraid, very afraid.
05/23/2019 01:01 AMPosted by Gooba
05/23/2019 12:54 AMPosted by NitrousOxide
Im only diamond league, but I almost never see protoss players, they’re like extremely rare, and when I do get matched with one I just mop the floor with them.


You will gain the hate of all whineterrans here. Sure, you must be a self-hating-terran!
Not only you do not whine, but you burst their bubble of victimhood.
I bet the TCF will declare you a protoss-agent posting as terran in order to discredit them.

Be afraid, very afraid.


Lol, poor sad whineterrans. Im not a protoss-agent either, I mostly just play Zerg.
05/23/2019 01:01 AMPosted by Gooba

You will gain the hate of all whineterrans here.
No matter what is being discussed (ZvP, mostly) - talk about whineterrans, really?
05/22/2019 12:52 PMPosted by MyOhMind
05/22/2019 12:47 PMPosted by BaconMonster
Things need toned down a bit, Protoss is viable in all stages of the game now.

Instead of pushing for nerfing Protoss, why not make Terran and Zerg also viable in all stages of the game?.

Also if Protoss is "so strong" why aren't you playing as them getting a 100% win rate?.
The problem with that is, Blizzard has shown countless times with the nerfs to Protoss that they aren't interested in buffing both Terran and Zerg because of the effects it would have on TvZ. I agree that Terran and Zerg should get some buffs and leave Protoss alone, but I think what is making Protoss strong is the ridiculous economic power that they currently are. They are getting massive amounts of units out at stages in the game where Terran and Zergs simply cannot compete due to mechanics. Zerg cant stop droning, Terran production takes an eternity to start churning out units. It all boiling down to how strong chrono is when you got an economy to back it up, you are producing very strong units at a faster rate than any other race. It makes ridiculous openers and allins possible.
It seems like there's a strong opinion that, if a patch only includes co-op or warchest content and no Versus balance changes, it should be delayed until such time that those Versus changes are ready. Honestly, I'm not sure that would make for a strong business model.
Honestly, from my humble perspective, pvz lategame seems very zerg favoured ... kindda why P players don't wanna play lategame vs zerg ...

Terrans can do some very strong 2 base pushes, liberators have enourmous damage potential, as do widow mines (often trading very well after a while with upgrade), not to mention the fact BCs can tactical jump with NO LINE OF SIGHT!! (Imagine if u could blink stalkers/DTs anywhere on the map without even having vision ...) Overall the problem seems to lie with the other races TBH ...

I would reverse the upgrade nerfs, improve feedback to help against the cancerous mass infestors ... limit tactical jump and buff terrans early eco to balance out tosses'. I read someone sugest a cooldown on mules together with a higher gathering rate ... that may actually be a good idea ... kindda working like chrono/injects

Also Stargate has been overnerfed imo. As it stands... carriers suck ... tempests take an eternity to churn out in time to deal with stuff like broodlords/ Battle cruisers, oracles ... id say jsut make em 2 hit scvs like they 2 hit probes and drones ... idk why scvs are the only harvester that gets the perk of only diying after 3 shots ...

Basically i think the balance issue isn't gonna be solved by nerfing protoss, u need to have buffs to balance the other races ... nerfing toss does just that ... makes protoss weaker ...

I think no one can argue korean terrans kindda prove terran can be very strong ... also its undeniable that protoss hasnt won a single major tournament in a while ... maybe a coincidence but i dont think so ...
05/23/2019 02:04 PMPosted by Chaos

I think no one can argue korean terrans kindda prove terran can be very strong ... also its undeniable that protoss hasnt won a single major tournament in a while ... maybe a coincidence but i dont think so ...


Classic just won the GSL Super Tournament that was literally about a month ago. Or less.
While there is seemingly a glaring issue that revolves around the strength of protoss, there is no gauging culprit.

To take any actions without first defining the reason the action should be taken is 100% useless, and as it stands it would be useless.

On paper everything a protoss does, should have an answer in any match up, the issue is that in game scenarios are occuring that do not conform to the expected values, and therefor we can not justify saying that the protoss is over powered because the protoss has more than enough to beat the opponent on paper, however the opponent lacks to obtain what he should of obtained in equal amount of time, or perhaps had enough but was out of position?

However there are games won with same positioning, and games won where protoss and terran respectively reached within a 2-5% margin of the maximum obtainable army given the development of the game, and in those games, the protoss doesn't have any significant advantage.

So then why are some games so protoss favored?

Maybe there are things that influence the macro of the other player more then they influence the macro of the protoss, and the fluid macro of the protoss player ends up snowballing into a dominating army lead that can not be contested?

However, we would need many games played between many opponents at high caliber, with similar scouting and build order, all occurring as close to naturally as possible.

But, what we are seeing at the pro level is terran and zerg are constantly fluctuating between openers in attempt to find a weakness, and there has yet to be enough of these games due to the near limitless possibilities players can try against protoss.

What this means is that even if Protoss is slightly favored at all stages of the game, we will need a considerable amount of data to prove this given the ride range of variation the games are undergoing.

However, while that study is taking place we have players capable of winning in such a manner that it questions the validity of the statement that protoss is slightly favored, and that means more research on each case like this has to be done to show evidence that the protoss was out played significantly enough that even if their was some racial bias the player still would fail to win the match.

That isn't easy to do, can you imagine having to not only insinuate that a player out played someone to such a point that the game is an outlier while also providing evidence of why it worked and why it is not valid to attempt repeat , with proof of what would typically happen if the player wasn't grossly outplayed?

For everyone 1 example of someone being outplayed, to rule it as an outlier, you would need at least 10+ examples of games following similar trajectories, resulting in a protoss winning, or a much closer outcome where neither side can be determined to be "grossly in favor"

Given the way games are being played, there is no way that enough data is going to be present to resolve this issue without just getting blind lucky when nerfing/buffing something in the next few months.

Honestly it may not be really fixable until this time next year.

TLDR

There are too many oddities in pro gaming to prove that one race is significantly favored over the other races currently

Sure blame serral, maru, classic, but really we all know when we saw fantasy take that win versus hurricane after being down to 27 workers versus 40 probes(GSL season 2, 2019 round of 16, game #2) ( with a third on the way ) that anything is possible, and because of the many games similar in nature (outside of just the very best) there is a lot of work that has to be done before blizzard can justify and confidently make any balance changes.
05/23/2019 02:47 PMPosted by SpeeeeeeeeeD
While there is seemingly a glaring issue that revolves around the strength of protoss, there is no gauging culprit.

To take any actions without first defining the reason the action should be taken is 100% useless, and as it stands it would be useless.

On paper everything a protoss does, should have an answer in any match up, the issue is that in game scenarios are occuring that do not conform to the expected values, and therefor we can not justify saying that the protoss is over powered because the protoss has more than enough to beat the opponent on paper, however the opponent lacks to obtain what he should of obtained in equal amount of time, or perhaps had enough but was out of position?

However there are games won with same positioning, and games won where protoss and terran respectively reached within a 2-5% margin of the maximum obtainable army given the development of the game, and in those games, the protoss doesn't have any significant advantage.

So then why are some games so protoss favored?

Maybe there are things that influence the macro of the other player more then they influence the macro of the protoss, and the fluid macro of the protoss player ends up snowballing into a dominating army lead that can not be contested?

However, we would need many games played between many opponents at high caliber, with similar scouting and build order, all occurring as close to naturally as possible.

But, what we are seeing at the pro level is terran and zerg are constantly fluctuating between openers in attempt to find a weakness, and there has yet to be enough of these games due to the near limitless possibilities players can try against protoss.

What this means is that even if Protoss is slightly favored at all stages of the game, we will need a considerable amount of data to prove this given the ride range of variation the games are undergoing.

However, while that study is taking place we have players capable of winning in such a manner that it questions the validity of the statement that protoss is slightly favored, and that means more research on each case like this has to be done to show evidence that the protoss was out played significantly enough that even if their was some racial bias the player still would fail to win the match.

That isn't easy to do, can you imagine having to not only insinuate that a player out played someone to such a point that the game is an outlier while also providing evidence of why it worked and why it is not valid to attempt repeat , with proof of what would typically happen if the player wasn't grossly outplayed?

For everyone 1 example of someone being outplayed, to rule it as an outlier, you would need at least 10+ examples of games following similar trajectories, resulting in a protoss winning, or a much closer outcome where neither side can be determined to be "grossly in favor"

Given the way games are being played, there is no way that enough data is going to be present to resolve this issue without just getting blind lucky when nerfing/buffing something in the next few months.

Honestly it may not be really fixable until this time next year.

TLDR

There are too many oddities in pro gaming to prove that one race is significantly favored over the other races currently

Sure blame serral, maru, classic, but really we all know when we saw fantasy take that win versus hurricane after being down to 27 workers versus 40 probes(GSL season 2, 2019 round of 16, game #2) ( with a third on the way ) that anything is possible, and because of the many games similar in nature (outside of just the very best) there is a lot of work that has to be done before blizzard can justify and confidently make any balance changes.


While i disagree protoss is favoured in "every stage of the game", this is a fair enough assessment of the situation.
05/23/2019 02:22 PMPosted by AdMech
05/23/2019 02:04 PMPosted by Chaos

I think no one can argue korean terrans kindda prove terran can be very strong ... also its undeniable that protoss hasnt won a single major tournament in a while ... maybe a coincidence but i dont think so ...


Classic just won the GSL Super Tournament that was literally about a month ago. Or less.

I forgot about that, vvery true! But the point i was trying to make is rather that almost every tournament seems to end in a zvz these days ... hence u can hardly claim protoss is the do all end all ... or we'd be swimming in P trophies ...

As speed pointed out there may not be enough data to make a statistically correct inference about the state of affairs ( even if ypu can use the likes of aligulac to take a glance at what it may look like). I think the game is mostly balanced except for a few things that i pointed out ...
I personally believe the game is balanced, but there has been quite a few fluctuations in representation.

Do you not watch the GSL in South Korea? In the last GSL Super Tournament, there were 7 Protoss in the Ro8, and currently in GSL Code S Season 2, 8 Protoss made it to the Round of 16, and 2 Protoss advanced into the Ro8 ahead of the Terran and Zerg (Fantasy and Ragnarok) in their group. I am not alarmed yet because it's just one freaking group (yet someone felt a need to make an entire thread to cry about it, jeez). I don't think anyone is claiming that Protoss is the do all end all or favored in all stages of the game, but they are rightly concerned when they see such a huge representation of Protoss at the highest level.

Of course, as SpeeD said, we need more data, and I don't think South Korean data should be the only one we look at. WCS Spring showed that the representation of races are quite balanced - in the Round of 8, we had 3 Zerg, 3 Protoss and 2 Terrans, and 2 Zerg, a Protoss and a Terran in the semifinal. Furthermore, Special did very well against Serral in the final. Okay, he got 4-0ed, but I don't think it was because Zerg is overpowered. I would say that's a fair representation of balance.

Is GSL skewed then? Who knows? I think it's best to wait until GSL Code S Season 2 is over before making any judgements. And even so, it's premature to draw any real conclusions from just two GSL tournaments alone. We need to look at a much larger sample than just the GSL.
Speeed post was a very interesting one and is food for thought for everybody.
My take in one of his questions:

"So then why are some games so protoss favored?"
It is true that a certain percentage of games looks that way. Maybe the continuous process of all those years in making main protoss units weaker and weaker and weaker (Carrier, Tempest, Oracle, Adept, Recall, Stalker, SB,Upgrade-timings etc etc) has forced an increasing number of players to rely more heavily to units of Mass-Destruction?
Templars, Disruptors.

The problem with those units is that they are the ultimate damage-dealers but their main drawback is that they lack the consistency of the normal units.
So, it's normal to see cases where Protoss falls flat in his face or in the contrary beats the opponent so heavily that it looks unfair.
05/23/2019 03:54 PMPosted by Gooba
Speeed post was a very interesting one and is food for thought for everybody.
My take in one of his questions:

"So then why are some games so protoss favored?"
It is true that a certain percentage of games looks that way. Maybe the continuous process of all those years in making main protoss units weaker and weaker and weaker (Carrier, Tempest, Oracle, Adept, Recall, Stalker, SB,Upgrade-timings etc etc) has forced an increasing number of players to rely more heavily to units of Mass-Destruction?
Templars, Disruptors.

The problem with those units is that they are the ultimate damage-dealers but their main drawback is that they lack the consistency of the normal units.
So, it's normal to see cases where Protoss falls flat in his face or in the contrary beats the opponent so heavily that it looks unfair.


I agree, we have seen collosi and disrupti destroyed by ravens using IFM and the bio quickly pouncing.

However I think that it is more common, but I could be wrong or bias, or even both, to see those units at higher level of play find great success.

Opening blink is a good example of a set of units that are overall weak, but present a challenge to a player without the upgrades/tech to safely expand/moveout , and from there the nearly useless units possess the invaluable ability to snipe core units preventing such feats, as many counter aggressive plays against protoss depend more on time and tech, then they do on brute force, so spending 1000/400 to snipe 200/400 worth of units (or in some cases as little as 100/200 or an upgrade for 100/100) results in the protoss being able to safely defend the counter aggression, and typically with a commanding lead economically.

However not to sound like I think blink is over powered, I do not, because the stalkers outside of this specific scenario lose value so quickly that moves like this is necessary for protoss to have a chance at defending after using them.

That being said, we could say with the protoss lacking army, there has to be a way to use some kind of brute force to capitalize on the current army deficit of protoss. I hate to say " I see maru do this" and pretend like that is valid reasoning, but it does leave me feeling as if it is possible, and leaves me questioning the validity that protoss defense is to strong. To explain the failure of other professional level terrans as being too predictable in their aggression/macro tendencies after losing raven/tech/upgrades is also a bit naive, leaving me rather speechless on the subject.

While I do not play much as zerg , I do watch games on streams if there is a terran in the stream (group play / tournament cast) while I wait to watch terran, and I honestly feel like I see some very similar scenarios unfold , from many times feeling as if protoss is unbeatable late game, to a few case scenarios where the zerg just seems to have everything it needs to answer any tech protoss tries, after both players play seemingly even all game....

What causes this I don't know, and why in my head does it feel to favor protoss more?

I have never really counted the games, but maybe I am bias against protoss after all the years of terran tears, or maybe their is really that big of an issue, and it is clouded by the few inconsistencies we see every tournament?
Terran tears? Mech has the most success against Protoss in the GSL for the first time ever. There is no reason for Terrans to cry or complain about Protoss.
They should start with a chargelot nerf test, I would say charge impact does too much damage.They could even try a bit faster zealot but without charge. Right now the chargelot is too powerful when you have the warprism and can spam them in front your enemy or even inside his base.

That and/or recall nerf, is too safe attacking as toss and then retreating, I know it was nerfed, but it still too good.They could nerf the radius or at least making that during recall, units would also appear at the nexus and they would be able to receive damage like the actual recalled units so units could be damaged on ´´both sides´´ of the recall and it wouldn't look stupid as is now because protoss just recall right on the nexus and are able to defend it in a few seconds.That way the attacking player could attack for a few seconds the units at the nexus instead of just fleeing before the army appears.
Uh...I don't think Charge Zealots need a nerf. I'll be happy letting you charge your Zealots right into my Infernal Pre-ignitor Hellbats.

If anything, the problem seems to be the damned Warp Prism floating right into the enemy's base and warping an entire army inside...I guess the only solution is missile turret rings, but...I don't really like that. Or patrolling Vikings?
05/23/2019 04:38 PMPosted by AdMech
Uh...I don't think Charge Zealots need a nerf. I'll be happy letting you charge your Zealots right into my Infernal Pre-ignitor Hellbats.

If anything, the problem seems to be the damned Warp Prism floating right into the enemy's base and warping an entire army inside...I guess the only solution is missile turret rings, but...I don't really like that. Or patrolling Vikings?

Why not? A turret costs half a Cannon and has a double GtA DPS. If a Protoss can put two Cannons in his base a terran can put 4 turrets (cost-wise).
With the same money terrans are 400% more effective than protoss in counter-drop and still complain.

No surprise that they are now the butts of the jokes........
[quote="207702378098"] butt jokes........


Can never get enough of that stinky pinky
05/23/2019 04:46 PMPosted by Gooba
05/23/2019 04:38 PMPosted by AdMech
Uh...I don't think Charge Zealots need a nerf. I'll be happy letting you charge your Zealots right into my Infernal Pre-ignitor Hellbats.

If anything, the problem seems to be the damned Warp Prism floating right into the enemy's base and warping an entire army inside...I guess the only solution is missile turret rings, but...I don't really like that. Or patrolling Vikings?

Why not? A turret costs half a Cannon and has a double GtA DPS. If a Protoss can put two Cannons in his base a terran can put 4 turrets (cost-wise).
With the same money terrans are 400% more effective than protoss in counter-drop and still complain.

No surprise that they are now the butts of the jokes........


That too... i see like 5 drops from a terran to each warp of a protoss in pro games (numbers are merely illustrative!), why is that?

A healing unit that also transports is pretty cost effective i think ... also the cannon/turret comparison ... even hallucination scouting a terran is hard cause of turrets while scans are impossible to prevent so... i guess there are plenty of chances for surprise plays and for defending ...

also nerfing zealots is just stupid if i'm being 100% honest ... they are pretty much cannon fodder after a point as AdMech pointed out ...

As for the sample size needed to draw conclusions ... maybe they could arrive at a decent sample if they counted slightly lower lvl games while weighting them accordingly to the skill level of the players ... idk how valid that would be ... but it would certainly give blizzard a chance to have another perspective at the balance ... one from the tippy top and another from a more general population, so to speak!

I think one good idea they had last season was opening the "testing" setting ... if enough ppl play it for a while ... they can at least glance at the change effects before actually commiting to them (community feedback)!
05/23/2019 04:46 PMPosted by Gooba

Why not? A turret costs half a Cannon and has a double GtA DPS. If a Protoss can put two Cannons in his base a terran can put 4 turrets (cost-wise).
With the same money terrans are 400% more effective than protoss in counter-drop and still complain.

No surprise that they are now the butts of the jokes........


I'm not complaining...is everything to you a complaint?

I just don't like it. Mostly because turrets or cannons are too static, and the warp prism can just fly elsewhere to unload their stuff. I'm not calling for a nerf or complaining about Protoss/Warp Prisms being overpowered. I just think the solution of turret or cannon rings is not ideal.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum