[Tom]

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.

Recent tournament results [SPOILERS]

In early May, an author on TeamLiquid performed an analysis of global and Korean tournament results. The thread is here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=218558

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!

Image Credit: http://sanggene.blogspot.com/

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Apth:
	EveRorschach:
	TCPLemminks:
	EveJeonSa:
	TAScarecrow:
	duanloves:
	Digby:

[nGenLight]

^I have to agree with you, the amount of crap Protoss players take for their race having easier mechanics does get rather annoying. Sure it is easy to just 4 gate and take easy wins from inexperienced players, but the learning curve for Protoss at the higher level is incredibly steep. Decision making, preemptive unit placement (to counter Protoss imobility), game knowledge, unit control, chronoboost usage, creative, unpredictable and flexible gameplay etc are not EASY to learn. Also, easier and limited mechanics also means limited potential and things to do - The amount of fun I have offracing as Terran and medivac dropping, actually using my APM for a purpose rather than spamming is so much more satisfying.

Off topic personal view: I would exchange CB for mules in a second at how easily used that mechanic is, Larva inject on the other hand... NO TY =D.

It is nice to get recognition but I do not see myself as "the" top Protoss. My fellow brotoss such as Roz, Indy, Azz, Spidereight, Kowi, (although I have not seen him play), and previously Aaron, Nirvana, Refallen, Cobo, Sheepy, Pinder (Inactives) could all contend for that title easily.

As brotoss, we shall stand together and cheer for the only Protoss left in the GSL to take the trophy just as FD and Nestea did it at low-times for Zerg.

[dennistoo]

SLAYERS ALICIA. Hopefully he can produce new stras against the might zergs.

[SnoWPanda]

Alicia is very good... might need some luck though hahaha lets hope he pull a FD.

[exoduse22]

You guys say that protoss players aren't showing the same level meta game which is why they aren't doing so well, but did you consider possibilities that it isn't easy to meta game compared to zerg and terran?

[exoduse22]

Originally Posted by nGenLight

I have to agree with you, the amount of crap Protoss players take for their race having easier mechanics does get rather annoying. Sure it is easy to just 4 gate and take easy wins from inexperienced players, but the learning curve for Protoss at the higher level is incredibly steep. Decision making, preemptive unit placement (to counter Protoss imobility), game knowledge, unit control, chronoboost usage, creative, unpredictable and flexible gameplay etc are not EASY to learn. Also, easier and limited mechanics also means limited potential and things to do.

Yeah I do feel this way

[TAScarecrow]

Getting sick of hearing how the GSL protosses are simply inferior to their terran counterparts. It's not a matter of better players or lack of protoss innovation. I believe it's simply the more the matchups get mapped out the more it's showing up how one dimensional protoss is. We're falling behind in the metagame not for lack of trying, but for lack of tools. Terran has SO much flexibility, the number of effective unit combinations and builds they have at hand is just staggering and suggests many more yet to be discovered. Zerg is also evolving with the increased use of infestors, banelings and drop play. Protoss just doesn't have the same utility.

Anyone who says toss is struggling atm because of lack of innovation doesn't play them. Warp prisms are shit compared to the drop capabilities of the other races. It's been looked at and it's not terribly effective. Protoss is seriously just as 'explored' as the other races, they simply have less options:

- Protoss is better off staying in a ball because of individually weak units that scale far better when used in conjunction
- Drops are not as good because of this and gateway units kill workers so slowly compared to other races t1
- Prism is slow and often uses crucial robo time
- Our two capital ship units are expensive paper weights.

We're not underpowered as such and we can still win a decent % of games. It's just that our strategies are become predictable and the other races have adapted well. Now it's time for Toss to adapt and we're drawing blanks.

The other thing inhibiting protoss is that collossi are so important in all 3 matchups. Having to either tech to t3 for such a gas intensive unit, 2 base timing all-in or both is very limiting. Nerf collossi by all means or replace it with the reaver; buff prisms and carriers; merge templar and dt tech; make the mothership smaller and call it an arbiter, then you will see much more exploration and innovation from the sons of Aiur. If Blizzard would just allow us more, not necessarily stronger, tools I feel protoss would be just as robust as the other races and the decline Tom's statistics show would be reversed.

[SnoWPanda]

just watched MC vs Idra game 6 at MLG. that game just examplifies how difficult it is for protoss to play a standard game with zerg. MC played a perfect game, just to stay in the game he had to constant harass without losing units, perfect macro/timing to defend zerg push, pressuring while taking care of his army with great forcefields and positioning, and then he just barely managed to win the game because of idra's small mistake of not having detection.

[dennistoo]

we should look at how fast zerg expand. it gets out of control. it's the DT that won MC the game. obviously early mass sentries will good forcefield doesnt work. it only helps MC to defend the first push but subsequently he has to depends on mass stalkers and good micro to defend idra's push.

IMO, infestor came too late for indra and lack of speedlings cost him the game. If he could use baneling drops tactics, MC could have lost the game. Remember how losira tear MC aparts by constant dropping of banelings on MC mineral line?

[Monk]

Originally Posted by SnoWPanda

just watched MC vs Idra game 6 at MLG. that game just examplifies how difficult it is for protoss to play a standard game with zerg. MC played a perfect game, just to stay in the game he had to constant harass without losing units, perfect macro/timing to defend zerg push, pressuring while taking care of his army with great forcefields and positioning, and then he just barely managed to win the game because of idra's small mistake of not having detection.

??? You're comparing two top notch professionals doing what they should do. Of course MC micros perfectly, and of course his macro is insane. That's why he is a pro. And it wasn't a small mistake by IdrA, I think it was capitalization by MC. I saw that game as IdrA winning UNTIL the DT's came out solely because MC's Stargate pressure did jack all. So of course IdrA is going to have a lead especially if he expands like nuts knowing that he can defend the stargate units. I just don't think this was a really good example because MC did the same thing to IdrA on meta. So of course IdrA was going to be prepared for it(The stargate stuff)

[V_enDetta]

If not for TvT, I would have switched from Toss to Terran quite a while ago. Damn.

[nirvAnA]

whoa protoss finished #1 in 5 of the 6 dreamhack groups atm! with the current form or protoss i definitely was not expecting that!

[ShinyA]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

whoa protoss finished #1 in 5 of the 6 dreamhack groups atm! with the current form or protoss i definitely was not expecting that!

I didn't expect so many P to make it to the top 16 but to be honest there were a lot of sub-par players in the group stage. I think everyone expected MC, HuK, White-Ra, and Naniwa to get out of their groups as they are just better than the rest. The only real upset so far would be ThorZain not making it out of his group IMO. The field of P players was a lot better overall than Z and T, I mean you have SaSe and Socke as probably the "weakest" P players as opposed to like the Machine's and PredY's of Z and T.

I'm really happy that there are no mirror matches in the RO16, but I predict now that the lower level players are out of the tournament we'll see the P's drop quick. I'm rooting for HuK though, would be epic to see HuK v IdrA finals haha

[dennistoo]

It seems like the most P player are skipping colo. Most go heavy gateway and uses templar instead.

Mass stalkers seems to be very good.

[pikk0n]

No, Mensa! I want to see IdrA vs MC. Rematch!

The "Are you angry" question. LOL!!!!!!!!! I loved that so much.

Though I suppose Huk and IdrA have had their times too with the hallu and the next game where IdrA told Huk to eff off. That was funny. Also, this other game on Xel Naga where IdrA's BM about toss units not costing anything (sorry what? From a guy with broodlords spawning free masses of broodlings?).

Ooooooo the dilemma.

[Tom]

I don't know whether others have thoughts on this, but it seemed to me Protoss performed very well in Dreamhack.

[DREAMHACK SPOILERS]

HuK was obviously the stand out. I've been going through his PvZ games in particular, and what I love is the "back to basics" approach. Most of the winning games are low tech 3gate expand variations. Eg, game 1 v July 3gate into 5gate pressure into robo stalker/sentry/immortal/obs; game 1 v Moon - fake 3gate into 2gas 4gate etc. The exception is that cross fire game vs Moon, where I think HuK was doing quite well with a standard 3gate expand, but his typical aggressive poking didn't pay off when he was caught badly out of position by mass roach/ling. There's not much you can say about that except that its the risk you take with HuK's style of play.

Where HuK got into trouble is where he did expansion/heavy macro builds on maps like Shakuras. Macro Protoss just doesn't seem terribly viable at the moment, but perhaps this is more than compensated for by strong early game timing attacks.

Game 5 vs Moon was inspired play by HuK. He also got very lucky - scouting the 6pool first meant he could stop probes, which allowed him to get his wall up with barely seconds to spare (does anyone else think Moon actually slightly misjudged the timing on that pylon? It seems like he had just enough time to kill it and get through without losing many lings to the cannon... I guess we'll never know). I still think 6/9pool on 4 player maps is a bit of a lottery - the chances of winning outright or failing epically seem to depend mostly on chance in relation to where you spawn/scout.

[NvPinder]

Originally Posted by Tom

I don't know whether others have thoughts on this, but it seemed to me Protoss performed very well in Dreamhack.

[DREAMHACK SPOILERS]
Where HuK got into trouble is where he did expansion/heavy macro builds on maps like Shakuras. Macro Protoss just doesn't seem terribly viable at the moment, but perhaps this is more than compensated for by strong early game timing attacks.

I'd disagree with that analysis of shakurus, with better positioning at the start of the fight and better FF huk definitely could've held with minimal sentry loss and been on 6 gas with 2 robo, 5 gates, blink and still a fantastic sentry count against an even worker even base count zerg on lair tech. He lost that game via an army miss-step, not via his build being not superior. Also the fact that moon instantly saw thru his build and saw the early third as opposed to (what huk was wanting) moon assuming a 5-7 gate pressure was coming.

In terms of the build itself, more or less everything that could go wrong went wrong for him, and yet it was still a salvageable game for huk.

[divinesage]

So what happens now? It seems protoss is lacking new options to squeeze out advantages in this new metagame.

[Dispatcher]

I feel that the High cost of Units vs the Difficulty of control of protoss is what is holding a lot of players back in higher league play. I may be way off when I say this but I have recently became very interested in a lot of the GSL play, where Terran seem to be dominating. It is important to know that I am a sub-average starcraft player and strictly play protoss. I am not complaining about anything that I post and I apologize if I repeat anything someone has said, as I did not read the entire forum (but most of it). I will break down the thoughts that lead me to the above conclusion from the events of protoss games I have watched in the past 2 months of GSL (code A and code S) and MLG tournaments.

I have noticed how immobile protoss units are vs zerg and terran. I may be completly wrong here but let me explain this in detail by pointing out the strong points of terren and zerg towards mid to late game, non heavy cheese matches (as these are the types of matches that "most" high end games tend to be played).
First off Terran. Almost every Terran win I have seen has come from strong map control and multipronged attacks. Drops and Banshee harass in multiple locations make it very difficult for protoss and even zerg at times to defend not only the drop but also entries to their natural. One big point here is to note that it is not difficult to scout a drop ship and react at this level of play but the problem comes from the frequency of drops and the ease of evacuating if the drop was dealt with properly. If protoss does not send enough units to the drop they tend to make uneven trades, and if they do send the proper amount of re-enforcements terran can easily escape rarely unscathed. Keep in mind that even scouting out a drop ship does not guarantee that you will select the right amount of units to send to the drop as you may not always know the exact # of drops or even the complete composition of them. Drops "usually" put players in a defensive mode where they usually lose map control and or opportunities to intercept expansions.
Now to Zerg. As zerg are not very mobile early game they develop a huge advantage to mobility in the mid game when battles are fought in their territory i.e. creep. A good zerg player will have creep extend past the halfway mark of the map towards the end of the game, time permitting obviously. Also speed upgrades and good muta micro influence this mobility in similar ways to terran drops as previously stated. This usually results in protoss trying to contain zerg to 2 bases which becomes increasingly difficult towards late game play.
I have seen 1 game in the last 2 months where a protoss player has shown great mobility and this occurred just recently in the GSL code A tournament between oGsHero and Noblesse (set 2) where oGsHero showed off his ever so impressive control of the phoenix. I do know that it takes a lot of very precise phoenix play and what appeared to be some extreme micro of units, which I believe Hero is the only person at this level with these types of units. Also forward pylons increase mobility in a way but this is only in the sense of army replenishment not actual unit movement. Also anther form of protoss mobility is not mobility at all but more immobilizing other units with force-fields, which tends to disappear late games as gas becomes more important to spend on higher tech and most observers have been diluted through small battles through mid game.

In conclusion it appears that the ease of micro and the utility of the zerg and terran units increase their mobility against the slower protoss units. Also noted that it should be very understood that protoss should be a slower unit as 1 protoss unit is generally more powerful than any unit of the other races. I guess the point here is more on the ease of harassment for the other races.

I am breaking my other observations into multiple posts as this seems to be very long.

[Dispatcher]

I may be extremely biased on this one as I only play protoss and well compared to the level of play that is being discussed I play like a 2 year was slapping the keyboard because it was fun. I will make this post brief and up for the utmost criticism as I may be way off in my judgments on this one.

Terran. As most terran victories against protoss com towards mid game heavy pressure and counters I do not see to much micro from winning battles. To me it seems to be stim, stay in range of seige if you fallowed that tech pattern, and single target down huge threats aka colossi, sentries and occasionally immortals. Yes kiting is involved in some scenarios but this is just second nature at this level. For the most part terran micro what would appear to require a mid to low level amount of APM (strictly talking army vs army, game breaker scenarios). I also think the most difficult macro scenarios from terran come from harassment i.e. banshee and helion.

Zerg. I feel that zerg micro may be slightly more difficult than terran's as they do have to manage several groups of units in game breaking battles. But all and all the A.I. design for zerg seems to do a lot of the work for surrounds and con-caves. Might be a little more art to a zergling surround than what A.I. can provide. They also have movements similar to what high templar's and ghosts have with their infestors.

Protoss. One thing I notice with any large battle with protoss is as the ball moves around the units become jumbled together and where most protoss players get in trouble is their slower meat shield units, zealots, tend to get stuck behind their concave. To actually separate these units properly while moving around the map seems to be difficult for players when they approach the 200 supply limit. Without the zealots in front it becomes very easy for colossi to be picked off by terran and for surrounding units of zerg to encapsulate the protoss ball. Not to mention the extreme micro that it would take to keep up with any blink stalkers with low shields that is almost required to win battles in mid to late game.

This is where most of the cost vs control portion of protoss comes in. Higher tech units become very hard to replenish late game similar to terran tech. I do feel that the top of the tech tree colossus are easily killed by the the ranged and air units of the other races if not macro'ed correctly and by single targeting these units down the protoss can fall behind very quickly in army cost trades. I guess what I am trying to stress when I discuss these issues is that generally the high cost of even tier 1.5 protoss units become very precious in the game and if there is the slightest mistake in any micro of protoss it becomes very difficult to recover from. This has a lot to do with the mechanics of the more powerful but lower number of units that match to the same supply #'s of terran and zerg. All in all micro becomes more important to protoss when trying to keep units alive as long as possible, due to the fact that their cost and replenishment are not as cheap and accessible as the others.

I know a lot of this info my be false so feel free to hammer me as much as you want on this one.

[Dispatcher]

The bread and butter units for protoss are its sentries. Unfortunately they become less of a priority over higher tier units towards late game play. This is due to the gas that it would take away from the production of these units. Keeping early game sentries alive is almost the key to any later game protoss victory. The bad part is it's inevitable that there will be several casualties to these units in early game play that is required at higher levels. I think this is why most protoss players are pushed to cheese or even commit themselves to early game all ins. By the time they reach the late game level usually around the 2 or 3 expo they have fallen victim to higher tech and the issues discussed in the other threads. Higher tech meaning that they no longer produce sentries in order to produce higher tier units to keep up with higher tier units of other races.

Quick Comments

SnoWPanda:

that is one long post. thanks for contributing your thoughts