Is Protoss underpowered in high level play? [SPOILERS]
UPDATED WITH LATEST DATA FOR JULY/AUGUST - SEE PAGE 9
Introduction
The worm has turned. It began almost impercetibly. Protoss players such as myself started questioning whether the balance complaints of other races were really justified in light of the results we were seeing at high level play.
I have previously said it would be unwise to jump to conclusions based on the results of a couple of high profile games or one tournament. I am still of that view. What I would like to discuss is the emergence of an apparent trend in poor protoss results in high level play. I say "apparent" trend because I think it is still too early to conclude that what we are seeing is actually a "trend".
Conscious of not jumping to a premature conclusion, it seems to me that the emerging data raises a legitimate question: is protoss currently underpowered in high level play?
Disclaimer
As a protoss player I have an interest in this debate. I will try to keep this to a minimum, but I am conscious that the very fact that I am raising it as a topic of discussion demonstrates an inherent bias on my part. I hope you will forgive me!
Some definitions
First, my discussion is limited to high level play. By "high level play", I mean top tournaments such as GSL, and Grandmasters league, with particular emphasis on the leagues in Korea, NA and Europe, which I suggest are the most competitive.
Second, I have carefully and deliberately used the word underpowered. By underpowered, I do not mean "unplayable" or "uncompetitive". Strong players will continue to perform well because their inherent skill allows them to overcome possible shortcomings with their race. Underpowered also involves questions of degree - it may be very slight, such that the effect on lower level players is low or almost negligible, but enough to have a significant effect at higher levels.
Third, the expression underpowered in high level play is important. It may also be legitimate to ask "is protoss overpowered in low level play?", having regard to the race's arguably simpler mechanics (I'll leave this for others to decide).
Why it is important to look at data
In any non-mirror match up, it seems to me there are three key variables that affect the outcome of the game. The first, and probably most significant, is the player (or more correctly, players). The second variable is race. The third is map. In examining the relative "power" of a race, we are trying to eliminate the "noise" that is created as a result of differences in player skill and different maps.
For this reason, I suggest (although you may disagree) it is virtually useless to examine anecdotal experience - ie a player's personal experience of the race and their recent games. This is because the key variable here is the player, not the map or race. But, when we look at the results of hundreds (or thousands) of games, the significance of the "player" diminishes drastically, whereas the importance of "race" (and "map") dramatically increases.
I acknowledge that the following data does not attempt to isolate "map" as a factor, and that this is a significant limitation. I apologise in that the data is simply not available.
In summary, what those results showed was that in global tournaments, the win rate for all match ups had begun to approach 50% (although I would be interested to see the current results more than one month (and 1 patch) later). However, the results showed Protoss was been getting absolutely murdered in recent Korean tournaments, with win rates of 33% of ZvT and 30% of ZvP. I said at the time I would be interested to see whether this was the start of an emerging trend (Korea tends to lead the field in all things Starcraft).
The results of the current GSL "Super Tournament" have been, if anything even more dramatic. 16 protoss players qualified for the round of 64. This represents 25% of the field, despite the fact that Protoss players make up approximately 35% of active 1v1 players in Korean. Of these, 6 advanced to the round of 32 (two of whom advanced in mirror match ups). Three Protoss players have so far played in the round of 32 (Genius, HongUn and Trickster) and all have been knocked out. I pray that at least one of the remaining three advances to the top 16, so that there is at least someone I can watch to pick up some tips on how to play the race at the moment. But I think there is a real risk at the moment that we will have a quarter final (or even round of 16) with not a single protoss player.
I note in passing that the number of Korean protoss players complaining about balance has (as of yesterday), overtaken zerg players for the first time in many months (see http://www.playxp.com/sc2/jingjing/ - red = zerg, green = terran, blue = protoss, purple = nothing). Of course, all this demonstrates is "sentiment" (what people think about balance) rather than an actual indicator of balance.
Grandmasters League statistics
The number of Protoss players in the Korean Grandmasters League has remained the same as when I last examined the data. 32% of Korean Grandmasters play protoss, compared to around 35% of all players. They remain slightly underrepresented amongst Grandmasters. (It should also be remembered that random is dramatically underrepresented in GMs League, and as a result (statistically at least) Zerg and Terran are both significantly overrepresented. Zerg is the most overrepresented. There is a similar trend in SEA: see my earlier thread at http://www.sc2sea.com/archive/index.php/t-1242.html).
There continues to be very few Protoss players in the top 10 of any of the regions. Based on my search this morning, of the top 10 players in each of the major regions, NA has 1 Protoss, EU has 0 Protoss, Korea has 2 Protoss and SEA has 1 Protoss. By contrast:
- 5 of the NA top 10 are Terran and 4 are Zerg;
- 6 of the EU top 10 are Terran and 4 are Zerg;
- 7 of the Korean top 10 are Terran and 1 is Zerg; and
- 3 of the SEA top 10 are Terran and 6 are Zerg.
Discussion
These results hardly provide a definitive answer to the question I have asked. But, I think, the data legitimately entitles me to ask the question: is Protoss currently underpowered in high level play?
I am very curious to see what Blizzard's overall data shows, and really wish they would release this (as they have done in the past). The most problematic scenario, I think, is one in which the data shows Protoss is overperforming in lower level play (whether that be overperformance in bronze, silver, gold, platinum, or overperformance all the way up to high Masters). At the moment I don't have any data and could only speculate on the position below Grandmasters. If this were the case, would raise the question, as many have already suggested, of who it is that Blizzard should be balancing the game for - professionals or the average player? Personally, I tend to think it should be balanced for high level play and everyone else should try and catch up by looking at what the professionals do. However, at the moment we do not have data to suggest any underperformance by Protoss below the parameters I have identified.
On a sad note, it will be difficult for me to pick up much to "imitate" from the GSL super tournament. Unfortunately, most of the Protoss games have been terribly one-sided and not really worth watching (for my part, it is starting to look brutal and somewhat bleak out there for the pros). However, I remain optimistic that one of the remaining Protoss players will show us something new and spectactular to stop the rot. My hopes are now pinned on SlayerS_Alicia (who, for those of you who don't know, more or less gave us the aggressive 3gate expand which revolutionised PvT a few months ago).
Tom please add at least one picture to your articles so it has a thumbnail!
Ok.
First off, its the nature of the game, ever follow broodwar? there were times where strategies were figured out, changing the game completely. some people couldn't even beat certain races for months!.. but there was no blizzard to come and really balance it out next patch like they do now.
One month a crazy stargate build could be super awesome, next month its figured out in standard play how to deal with such a build.
The game will evolve itself.. its starcraft not COD.
I don't really think Protoss is underpowered at higher levels. It's just this:
A lot of the community defined pros are actually really good, and take their time in analysing games and replays.
A lot of the self-proclaimed pros that choose protoss have cheesed their way to Master/GM, not knowing much about protoss, and when their cheese fails on repetitive players, they start to lose out.
Seriously, you're saying Protoss is struggling on GM/M ladders because they're a bunch of cheesing noobs? You can cheese your way to high ladder with any race. Really sick of seeing the argument that toss players are less "skilled" (all 3 races have relatively easy mechanics), especially from silver zergs.
Then you say it's fine at pro level because they're doing "great" (how about some actual stats?). Mentioning Tyler and inc just shows how clueless you are, they're both under 50% win rates and haven't won shit.
Enjoying this thread, Tom's somehow made a non-whiney balance related OP o.O
I dont think protoss are underpowered, our strategy of placing forcefields and getting a win has been figured out by zerg, it's now time for us protosses (protossi?) to go back and see what new tricks we can pull off. Much like how in terran versus protoss, people now figured out how to beat plain mass rax and the game had to be played differently. The op/up stuff changes all the time, before mc won his championship, protoss were the underpowered race, gateway units were crap. And one month later, they are overpowered.Terran are now being called the weakest race by some, while zergs maintain they are the toughest race to play. This will always go on...it's probably something a bad player hides behind.
this constant change of tactics/metagame is what makes a game like starcraft fun, and one of the reasons why bw has such a long life span, builds are still being invented in broodwar that some people think are op.
Last edited by Daboo; Sun, 5th-Jun-2011 at 4:21 PM.
The race is not underpowered by any means, MC, Naniwa, incontrol, KiwiKaki, Tyler and axslav off the top of my head really have shown great results in tournaments because they understand the race. Saying that protoss is underpowered because master level+ protoss find it difficult to cheese masters+ doesn't mean the race is imbalanced.
I'll leave to one side what some people might interpret as a general insult to Protoss players.
I don't think the issue is "people know how to respond to cheese now", as you appear to be suggesting. If you watch the games from the GSL super tournament, the best results in the round of 64 came from players who used relatively gimmicky timing attacks (eg Ace and HongUn). No disrespect intended to these players - you need to do what works in the circumstances. The Protoss players who played what we might consider a "solid macro game" seemed to be the ones who did not advance.
Well the zerg got a point, there are very few good protoss players. Kind of depressing.
korean protoss generally suck except for MC, Genius and Alicia who are great. the other protosses either get lucky with an all in or fail terribly with an attempt at a "solid" (dies to timing attack everytime) strategy that doesnt make sense to me all.
My protoss inspirations mainly come from WhiteRa, Tyler and Naniwa. Others are just skilled but clueless like HuK or do some random shit that works cause nobody is expecting it eg Kiwikaki. Though they are good players can't really learn much from them.
Seriously, you're saying Protoss is struggling on GM/M ladders because they're a bunch of cheesing noobs? You can cheese your way to high ladder with any race. Really sick of seeing the argument that toss players are less "skilled" (all 3 races have relatively easy mechanics), especially from silver zergs.
Then you say it's fine at pro level because they're doing "great" (how about some actual stats?). Mentioning Tyler and inc just shows how clueless you are, they're both under 50% win rates and haven't won shit.
Enjoying this thread, Tom's somehow made a non-whiney balance related OP o.O
Incontrol coming 4th at the last MLG isn't great? Jesus christ high expectations right there. And sure Tyler hasn't been producing results, but his consistent and is one of the best protoss players out there. Tyler and inc <50% win rate? So ******* what. Maybe they have been playing top notch players, like they have in MLG this season. I don't know, nor do I really care. If we're going to look at stats and win rates, then how about this:
With a 57% win rate over T so far, and a 45% win rate against Z they're definitely underpowered!!!!
P.S I hope I read those percentages correctly :x big backfire if I didn't.
And all 3 races have cheesy builds sure, but Protoss has the easiest cheese-skill level available in my opinion AND I don't know about you, but when I ladder on NA 80% of the time I get cheese from Protoss. Cannon rush, Proxy Stargate etc. Terran I've met are generally good with the occasional mass thor/banshee.
What I am saying is, with the above tournament results(In NA atleast) Protoss are doing fairly well.
EDIT::
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
I'll leave to one side what some people might interpret as a general insult to Protoss players.
I don't think the issue is "people know how to respond to cheese now", as you appear to be suggesting. If you watch the games from the GSL super tournament, the best results in the round of 64 came from players who used relatively gimmicky timing attacks (eg Ace and HongUn). No disrespect intended to these players - you need to do what works in the circumstances. The Protoss players who played what we might consider a "solid macro game" seemed to be the ones who did not advance.
I don't really watch GSTL, but what I have watched are mainly TvT's/ZvT's or ZvZ's. So that's saying something huh?
Maybe the Protoss 'idea' now is not actually a straight up macro game then? Maybe a new discovered 'gimmicky' timing push needs to be made?
It's like the 2 rax bunker play against Zerg. Why wasn't it thought of even earlier? A lot of Zergs would of been shot in the foot and unable to proceed in rankings or tournaments just because it's a very very strong build. Protoss needs to find an equivalent. 4 gate won't cut it now because a lot of people know how to hold it off, and know what signs to look for. I guess there is a Protoss equivalent.
Zerg Baneling bombs weren't all that used in pro leagues before, now they're really dominant. I guess Protoss have to find this 'new' style of play to come out of the slumps?
^ I think some people are really talking out of their asses when they are talking about "high level protoss play". Zerg figuring out how to defend cheese more? Fair assessment. But I still win most of my PvZ's with timing attacks (such as the Korean professionals), because I realise the moment I drop my 3rd Nexus I give away entire map control to Zerg to do whatever the hell they want. I understand you guys are trying to use fair assessments regarding meta-game shift and Protoss' easier mechanics - but to talk out of your asses about "Protoss high level play" when you have no clue what you're talking about, shame on you.
There has been a myth for a very long time about how Protoss has the strongest lategame. So why am I finding myself trying to avoid these lategame strategy as much as possible? Is it possible that it's too insanely hard to get there? Is it possible that the two other races have equal or perhaps stronger lategame?
If you can actually point out a strategy that a race has that is ridiculously easy to execute yet ridiculously difficult to defend as another race, please do tell.
5 (or 4) gate nexus cancel all in vs. zerg.
lol, it's redonkulous ... You could scout it and still not hold it off. You basically need to have units up (more than a few lings!) pre nexus-cancel, scout it straight away, and pump units .. even then if they get good ramp forcefields, you may not hold!
Edit: I hope this isnt seen as QQ or what-not lol -_-;, legit issue i think the game has with it. I cant think of anything else as overwhelmingly "garrrrrghh" as this.
^^ Thats true of all races, marine scv all ins, are at times not even scoutable, and roach ling allins...and 6 pools are also easy to do, but not defendable at times.
With a 57% win rate over T so far, and a 45% win rate against Z they're definitely underpowered!!!!
Thank you for drawing my attention to this data. Lets have a closer look at what it tells us.
MLG Dallas
MLG Dallas is a good, large dataset. However, as MLG Dallas was played at the very beginning of April, it is not actually relevant to the "apparent" trend I am referring to. This tournament is also taken into account in the "international tournament" trend data referred to in my OP, which showed at that time the win rates for each race approaching 50%.
NASL Season 1
In relation to the NASL Season 1 data, you appear to have used total qualifiers data from TLPD, much of which was also played in early April (although games have been ongoing). However, I should point out that the race distribution for those who actually qualified for the main bracket of NASL is - 5 Zerg (MorroW, Moon, July, Ret and Sen), 3 Terran (Strelok, SeleCT and BoxeR), and 2 Protoss (Squirtle and White-Ra).
(Source: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...eague_Season_1)
MLG Columbus
Your data for MLG Columbus appears to be inaccurate or highly selective (you refer to "Day 2"). Could you please provide a source to confirm. The data I have accessed at TLPD shows the following:
In terms of micro analysis of MLG Columbus, the racial distribution for the pools that qualified for the finals was as follows: 10 Terran, 9 Zerg, 5 Protoss. To put these figures in context, there were 56 Protoss, 47 Terran and 44 Zerg playing in the qualifiers. In other words, Protoss players made up 38% of those competing in the qualifiers, but only 20% of those who qualified. By contrast, Terran started out with 32% of competitors, but made up 42% of those who qualified, and Zerg started out with 30% of competitors, but made up 38% of those who qualified.
Of those Protoss players who qualified, most were knocked out early in the qualifiers (cf. Cruncher and MC). MC's dominant performance in particular appears to have almost single-handedly dragged up the results. Again, this is the problem with looking at one tournament in isolation as it can be highly biased by the performance of one "outlier" like MC.
Discussion of this data
I am not going to discuss MLG Dallas as it is not relevant to the period I am talking about. However, it seems to me that both NASL Season 1 and MLG Columbus are consistent with the "apparent" trend I have observed in other tournaments/leagues - that is, a disproportionately low representation of Protoss players at the top level (in these cases, in qualifying for the main stage of the tournaments). The MLG Columbus data is really quite dramatic - 38% of players in the qualifiers were Protoss, but this proportion nearly halved for the finals, whereas the proportions of Terran and Zerg players who qualified both increased significantly. In other words, and let me stress this, Protoss players were less than half as likely to qualify as Zerg and Terran players. I don't know about you, but I am truly astounded by this. MC appears to have defied an otherwise general trend in Columbus - really, what can you say about this guy?
At the time of pulling the data off of TLPD, the 2nd day of MLG just finished - so it was still probably day 1 results, but it didn't occur to me.
And in regards to CrunCher not qualifying.. that is just.. bad insight. A lot of people doubt CrunCher as a pro-level player, so I don't think he should be mentioned but I will for the sake of the argument.
Such a small data sample, and it's being more prominent of Zerg again now. Does this mean that korean protoss have found out how to deal with the losing 'slump' now as compared to april? And doesn't this mean that your referred april slumps, that the protoss have found ways of winning?
MLG - Colombus
I seriously don't see Protoss at high level being under powered. You say MC's games should be excluded because his such an amazing player, but his Protoss at the end of the day.
MLG - Colombus results
Now I ask this:
How many Pro Protoss are out there? Is it because Protoss is the least played race professionally that they aren't producing results? You show out of 147 qualifiers of MLG 56 were Protoss - I don't see how this is relevant as this is 'high level' Protoss we're talking about.. yes? Isn't that GM+? I don't see much Masters players as 'high level' at all. And anyways, if we are referring to them PLEASE look here: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...Bracket/Losers
Look at all the PvP's. I think I counted 32 PvP's
So that's already 16 of those 56 Protoss taken out by a mirror matchup - so that is only 40 Protoss that didn't get taken out by a PvP.
32 PvP's___ 56 protoss 56-16 = 40 Protoss
18 ZvZ's____44 zerg 9-44 = 35 Zerg
14 TvT's____47 terran 7-47 = 40 Terran
That's why not a lot of Protoss qualified. They knocked each other out in the losers bracket.
And there were a ******* ton more PvP's in the winners bracket, to be precise 24 PvP's. So wait what! that's half the amount of protoss that can make it!!!! So 12 Protoss at this time.
Seeing the reasoning I'm conducting? PvP's knocked nearly every Protoss out. By the winners bracket, Protoss' numbers were HALFED from PvP's alone.
And at the end of the winners bracket, there were no protoss that survived. They were all knocked out by professional gamers, Morrow, Fenix, ViBe, Thorzain, July and Major. And all the other "professional" protoss were knocked out by other "professional" protosses.
(I'm defining Professional as invites/notable signups)
3 PvP's in Championship brackets, and there were only 8 Protoss in the Championship Bracket- 3 of which went out in PvP's so 5 left and 2 were seeded pretty far in the tournament too(MC and NaNiwa). No protoss remained after #3 in Pool round apart from MC and NaNiwa who were seeded. And then having to take out a protoss in PvP again so far in? Wittiling down the Protoss numbers yet again.
I just don't see the 'a lot of protoss entered' so that's obviously going to mean a lot of PvP's which is basically taking out a quarter of the population of Protoss in the Losers Bracket. And again took out quarter of the protoss in the Winners bracket. This is not including PvZ/T DNS'. You just looked at numbers and posted.
Edit:
Mirrors: 94 TvT | 44 ZvZ | 84 PvP
Taken from TLPD.
NASL
I can't say much about NASL because you're right - not very good there. But basing it off of one tournament is pretty silly. All of the protoss bar Artosis and Grubby were around the top/middle so it's pretty reasonable to assume that they were outplayed.. right?
To close it out, I think basing it off of tournaments alone isn't a solid way of doing it. The same thing I said about NASL can be said about MLG Colombus(basing it off of one tournament).
I don't have much to contribute regarding all these statistics because frankly I am lazy to research about them, but I am certainly enjoying reading the analyses. Keep it up!
It's funny how people are quoting what I said out of context and just supplying all the cheesy strategies that they have lost to in rebuttal.
When I said this
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazerk
If you can actually point out a strategy that a race has that is ridiculously easy to execute yet ridiculously difficult to defend as another race, please do tell.
I was referring to meatex's comment that the game is 'horridly imbalanced at the lower levels' and trying to bring out why it was an absurd statement. I later acknowledged that I had probably worded what I wanted to express insufficiently.
Thus if you want to know why I think so, you can scroll through the threads and look at the various responses. I am also in the middle of starting a new thread about talking about balance, so you can wait for that.
And another comment about this thread - When we ask the question in the thread title of 'Is Protoss underpowered in high level play?', we are also asking some other inherent questions like:
"Does Protoss need to be balanced so that they can win more easily at high level play?" or
"Is there something wrong with Protoss now that high level players can't seem to beat T and Z?"
Maybe this would help steer the discussion more appropriately
Last edited by crAzerk; Mon, 6th-Jun-2011 at 11:46 AM.
Very good point. I was thinking about that too. A lot of recent tournaments had titan protoss kicked out in PvP, which is boring, fast and with 0 variety. Even in ladder, I play mostly PvP, with rare zerg and even more scarce terran. In fact, my PvT is soo bad, because I rarely see T in ladder, and have little practice to rely on.
Monk I think you're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be in relation to MLG Columbus. (If this gets too esoteric, we're going to leave everyone else behind, so I'll try and make it as simple as possible.)
In the brackets, you appear to have counted total PvPs, rather than PvP's per round. Obviously, some players advance to further rounds. Of the 56 Protoss players, many played multiple PvPs (that is, the same Protoss player may go on to play several PvPs - and this is actually what occurred in many cases). So by comparing the 56 Protoss players with 32 PvPs, you are comparing apples with oranges. You actually need to calculate PvPs as a proportion of all match ups if you're going to look at it this way.
Second, the reason why there ended up being a whole lot of PvPs in the losers bracket is because so many Protoss players got knocked down there.
Third, even accounting for the "more protoss players, hence more opportunity for mirror match ups" issue, it is still the case that Protoss went from being by far the most overrepresented race in qualifiers, to by far the most underrepresented race amongst those who qualified. There is substance to your point, but I tend to think it is not as important as you make out - you would expect slightly more attrition due to a higher number of PvP mirror match ups, but this cannot by itself explain the fact that the proportion of Protoss players halved whilst the proportion of Zergs and Terrans both increased by around 25%.
Other comments
In relation to your other comment that (a) basing this discussion off tournaments isn't a solid way to do it and (b) that MLG Columbus players arent "high level"):
(a) I also have looked at a wide range of GMs League data in my OP
(b) MLG Columbus is mostly NA Grandmasters with some Korean pro gamers.
Question:
Using MLG as the example, because it was the most recent event with a ton of data from high level play, which players do you think should have advanced from the open bracket?
July, Major, Thorzain and Fenix advanced, do you think imbalance allowed for them to advance over players like Axslav, Agh or Cruncher?
Same with the winners bracket, any players or games there that you think were lost due to balance?
I was honestly impressed with Naniwa's play this weekend, espec his series vs Moon.
I personally think Kiwikaki played poorly all weekend, Tyler has been in a little Slump lately and MC losing to Losira was in my opinion due to Losira playing very well.
@ Benji. I suppose the whole point of looking at the data is to avoid making subjective judgments about who I think should have advanced, who I think is the better player etc. I acknowledged in the OP that "player" is the key variable, not "race". But the point of looking at mass data (irrespective of the identity of the player) is to try and get an idea of the extent to which "race" might also be influencing the outcome.
The question of whether imbalance (if there is such a thing) allowed a particular player to advance really seems to me to be beside the point.
The way I am seeing it, MC and Naniwa are the only two that are contending for Protoss. I am seriously learning alot watching both of them play. But other than these 2, majority protosses has been just lackluster.
But I still win most of my PvZ's with timing attacks (such as the Korean professionals), because I realise the moment I drop my 3rd Nexus I give away entire map control to Zerg to do whatever the hell they want.
There has been a myth for a very long time about how Protoss has the strongest lategame. So why am I finding myself trying to avoid these lategame strategy as much as possible? Is it possible that it's too insanely hard to get there? Is it possible that the two other races have equal or perhaps stronger lategame?
I don't know if you've changed much, but as far as I ever saw from your play, no offence(and i honestly mean that because that syle is strong, just as MC showcases), you two or one-base timing attacked almost every single game. Of course if you practice one thing more than the other(especially in this case when 'the other' is much more mechanically difficult) it's going to feel incredibly lackluster when you try switching to that style and you're going to go back to what you're comfortable with. I ******* hated 1-base stuff and found it incredibly awkward, avoided practicing it and its one of the reasons my PvP was horseshit, playing that style just feels wrong and backwards to me.
The problem is that there's only so many timing attacks you can do, and at some point zergs were going to figure out how to stop the 2 base timing stuff consistently (or the game would be legitimately very, very broken) if protoss' started relying on it too much. It's the same story as back when everyone was 4-gating every matchup because it is incredibly strong and hard to defend. Eventually terrans and zergs figured out how to hold it optimally, and the protoss players using those builds had to evolve their play.
It's a normal part of meta-game shifting and evolving as a player, the reason why it takes ages for the meta-game to shift is because it's MUCH easier to 'do what you're doing and still getting away with winning' than losing the countless games it takes to actually come up with something new.
edit: and for fucks sake, you're one of if not the best players of your race in this country, grow a ******* pair and come up with your own shit instead of desperately seeking to copy the next top fad from other top players.
I agree with your points regarding the normal part of meta-game shift and having more bases = harder mechanically. Although I find it a bit silly that you are insinuating that I don't go beyond 2 bases in my 5000 or so ladder games, I won't defend that if I see an unsafe or bad build from my opponent, I won't just punish it. The case for the PvZ meta-game currently is a bit different though. Most professional/high tier Protoss are resorting to 2 base timing attacks because of the difficulty of securing a third base against Zerg, and even if the deathball was successfully built, Zerg has so much solution against it right now. However, that isn't to say trying to get a third isn't the right way to go, as Naniwa and MC has shown in the MLG weekend with relative success of holding their third. Playing 2 base timing attacks is by far not the way myself or any of these high tier Protoss players want to play - it isn't fun!
I spent like the last 100 games trying out new shit dropping from rank 1 to rank 30 or so don't tell me I don't try to come up with my own shit. Why are you having a go at me? I'm asking questions, your acting like I'm saying **** this I don't wanna play this game because its retarded. This is simply not true.
Last edited by nGenLight; Mon, 6th-Jun-2011 at 11:00 PM.
Roz, you quoted me, thanks for that I realised I forgot to add 2 words that changed the meaning of my post entirely. I did not mean to advocate balance around mid tiers, I'm my haste I forgot to add top tier into the mix as well. Sorry about that.
Even the smallest donations help keep sc2sea running! All donations go towards helping our site run including our monthly server hosting fees and sc2sea sponsored community tournaments we host. Find out more here.