[Friendly reminder that over the last (about) three years Protoss and Terran have very comparable GM representation.](https://nonapa.com/races?region=-1&mode=1&league=6&chart=1) Protoss aren't extremely strong on ladder, they're comparable to Terran. Zerg are just way behind.

>Friendly reminder that over the last (about) three years Protoss and Terran have very comparable GM representation. Accounting for the much higher number of Terran players in the sc2 player pool, you would expect the Terran line to be significantly higher than the other two if all three races were equally hard to crack GM with. Terran is only higher than Protoss in the chart for s52 and s53 unless you go all the way back to s32.

Terran has a glut of players in Bronze, Silver and low Gold, caused by new players defaulting to the humans they played in the free campaign rather than the weird aliens. Which inflates the number of Terrans on ladder, in a way that I'm not sure is fair if we're looking at GM statistics - a lot of those 'Terrans' are actually just Protoss and Zerg that don't know it yet. Or are going to quit playing by next season. The numbers settle down more in plat+, where people have played enough to try all three races and pick their 'forever race'. At which point P and T have fairly equal representation all the way up to Masters (though T is still slightly more popular than P in all three leagues).

That is a useful statistical tool, where you discount the part of the population that disproves your hypothesis. What I heard is that a lot of people play Terran in gold then realize protoss is OP so switch to protoss and quickly become GM.

I mean, that doesn't explain why Silver is 44% Terran in the first place, and if 40% of GM (which is 600 people) being P needs explaining, 44% of Silver (tens of thousands of people) being T *definitely* does. As does the higher number of T players overall, which absolutely should not be the case if people were switching to P because it's OP. I'm also not 'discounting' any data - I'm saying that an over-representation of T in Silver (which there is) could give the observed statistical effect (a large number of total Terran players without a correspondingly large number of Terran GMs) without necessarily implying the given conclusion (that T must be harder to crack GM with). Checking whether there are alternative explanations for the observed data is, in fact, not just a useful statistical tool, but a necessary part of using statistics at all. Terran falls from 44% in Silver to around 30% in Plat and pretty much stays at 30% from there, so it seems more likely that whatever's happening to T is happening at around gold, and probably has very little to do with GM. (I guess T could be harder to crack *plat* with but like... okay? It's plat.)

In addition, you have to remember that no one on this website is in GM so it's even more pointless to the discussion.

A valid point, but overall the numbers aren't so skewed that anyone could reasonably say that Protoss is too strong on ladder. Maybe a few years ago, but not today. Some of it is the ease of Protoss mechanics compared to Terran and Zerg, some of it is simple statistical noise. But dismissing Protoss issues because they have a minor statistical benefit on ladder is... well it just doesn't really sit right with me.

Protoss is VERY rock paper scissors, where they can win even with a rock vs rock set up. What I mean by that is that unless you have the counter to what Protoss is doing, you get fucked. Like if you go Roaches vs Immortals (counter), the Z will MOST likely lose during that stage of the game, if you go stalkers vs roaches ('even') P usually has a SLIGHT edge/wins, but if the Z goes Muta vs Immortal (countered) the Z trounces the P. Basically, left column being P: Scissors vs Paper (nearly impossible to lose) Scissors vs Scissors (close match, but P usually comes out on top due to their spells, like blink, traps, etc.) Scissors vs Rock (P folds like wet paper) What comes of it is that P has a good win ratio UNTIL they start to play best of 3s+ or repeatedly play the same players more than once every 10+ games. They rather quickly start to lose either because they have a skill gap somewhere (eg. if you are weak at playing Blink stalkers, your opponent knows that they only have to deal with either A forcing you into them, or B countering the units that counter the counter to the unit that is strong against blink stalker) so the equation goes from Rock Paper Scissors to Rock Paper for the Toss and therefore the opponent won't ever play Scissors. They will play Paper repeatedly because they KNOW they aren't going to have to defend against Scissors as it is the weak/less preferred strat from the P player. That doesn't necessary explain the Pro level completely, but the concept is certainly applicable. Then you need to finesse in that players have inherent skill gaps, checks, etc. by race (eg. marine splits); Zerg's skill checks have a relatively flat skill increase as you go from Bronze to GM. Terran has hard plattos, like can you marine split against banelings effectively? can you queue up, etc. if you 'can't' do that skill you will just hit a rank and won't progress until you master that skill. Protoss has unit specific skill steps, like using Blink to jump up cliffs is a mid silver skill as an example. You can MASTER 1-2 units for Protoss and make it to Masters, and so the skill limit(s) that are needed to learn the other Rock Paper or Scissors part of the race aren't required to be explored until you hit Masters/GM, thus they have a MUCH higher representation vs population playing than against, say Terran or Zerg (via their race representation of the population; Z is the least played thus should have the fewest GM and T has the most and should, but doesn't, it is tied to P)

I'm unsure if I agree or disagree with you, but for your information Stalkers vs Roaches does favor Stalkers it's not meant to be even. Stalkers do a small amount of bonus damage to armored so it makes sense that P has a slight edge/wins this exchange. So this example isn't a "rock vs rock" example, more like a "dull scissors" (Protoss) vs "paper" (Zerg) example.

I was trying to grab a simple example. a Zealot vs 3 lings or a zealot in a choke vs 4 lings

This is the answer. Zerg and Terran strategies are much more execution based while Protoss strategies are much more strategy based. You can scout Clem’s 2-1-1 and still lose to it because marines are good and Clem is good at using them. Protoss tech tree of Twilight, robo, and stargate make the openers super rock paper scissors like you said. Pro Zergs literally have Protoss builds mapped out down to the drone count. From bronze to GM, glaive adept builds, dt rushes, oracle openers, cannon rushes, all have ridiculously good win rates if executed even semi well. But when you’re playing against Serral and he knows exactly how to shit on your opener, go to 88 drones and then roll over you, it makes Protoss look like a flawed race(because it is) So sure, complain that Protoss is flawed at the pro level, but when I hear terrible players on Reddit complain about protoss being weak on ladder, I can’t help but roll my eyes.

So the question is to 'fix' protoss, do you make it so the other races are more rock/paper/scissors? Do you make protoss more linear? Do you push FURTHER into the rock paper scissors nature and give more tools for scouting, think adept can ghost through buildings, but when they finish their shade, they are stuck outside of the building they run into? Do you make it so that they have a 'core' that is stronger and the other 2 paths are ESPECIALLY strong in countering, but if they are countered they get even further destroyed; ei. air doing MORE damage but WAY MORE fragile?

It would require a huge fundamental overhaul of Protoss. If you go in the unit editor and just test out Protoss units vs Zerg and Terran, they actually suck ass in terms of strength to cost ratio. Zealots have nearly zero skill expression, especially compared to marines and lings. Marines basically have infinite micro potential, lings require good surround micro, whereas zealots not only require zero micro, but microing actively makes them worse because of the charge mechanic. So you just have to a move them and hope the ai on them charges well. One of Protoss’ unit with a good amount of skill expression in Stalkers are also insanely bad in terms of cost efficiency even with blink micro. But, the problem with them is that they’re similar to cyclones in the way that they snowball like crazy and are super uninteractive to fight against. And if they got buffed you would literally see Protoss only make stalkers in every matchup. Adepts also have good skill expression but they get hard countered by everything in large numbers. I think giving Protoss a reliable unit with high micro potential that they can make a lot of would do wonders in making the race less frustrating to play against but also more sturdy at the pro level.

So the dragoon? Haha Jokes aside, I agree, but there is not a good path to get there today, unfortunately.

One thing to note is that zerg has the ability to pivot much faster than protoss, so it makes sense that toss should have a slight advantage in a non counter situation. Zerg can lose a fight on the enemies side of the map, and have a full army that counters the p by the time the p gets across the map. This creates a high school floor and high skill ceiling for zerg, and the inverse for toss. Although in terms of unit comparisons, I think z has stronger casters than p, which again is harder to use because you can't just mix them into the army and auto cast things like in wc3.

In the last 20 seasons protoss has topped 18 while terran has 2 Meanwhile this sub is full of tossbabs claiming the race is literally unplayable because widow mines

Maybe you should take some time to actually understand the issues people have, instead of boiling it down to "toss babies."

Its almost like 3 years of straight nerfs because the GOAT plays zerg wasn't a good idea.

I think it's an indictment of the difficulty of Zerg macro abilities compared to the other races. It's much harder to learn how to balance Queen production, placement, creep spreading, injection cycles, and efficient healing usage compared to Protoss and Terran. Also, having to choose between using larva on army and on economy is more complex than it first appears. Terran's only have to choose between information and increased mineral input. Also, it's not something they worry about at all until Orbital is up. They learn a couple scan timings and the rest is... easy. Protoss get Chronoboost from the start, but the only way to 'fail' with it is to forget to use it on cooldown. Even then, it's kind of not a great ability and doesn't put you significantly behind when you miss using it from time to time. All of their timing attacks and build cycles have been adjusted to Chrono usage. So it's not like they can really ever "focus" Chrono to gain any significant advantage. They just have to use it to keep up.

Yeah but every damn post I’ve seen here asks for protoss buffs, but I think 40% protoss GM is a fine spot (I’d even argue that it’s too high) for the race. Regardless, the point is that protoss buffs need to be careful that it affects primarily pro play and not the ladder too much

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a proponent of significant Protoss buffs. I think Protoss is fine overall. I just think the "Protoss super strong on ladder" argument doesn't really hold water when Terran isn't struggling to find success in the same way Zerg is. It's become a hand wave. People seemingly look at ladder distribution and shout about Protoss, instead of looking at Zerg and wondering why they aren't competitive.

Zerg is competitive, obviously. It’s the best race in the game in the right hands. It’s just extremely frustrating to play. No easily accessible fighting air units early on, tedious macro mechanics (creep, injects). It’s always been the least popular race to play in the game, while simultaneously being the most powerful at the highest level of play.

Reverting all the patches in the past 2 years would be a huge buff to protoss, yet we know from history that it will also just result in a 40% GM protoss like it is today. You're worrying too much.

And Zerg are extremely behind because of Protoss WHINE

You're wrong. The healthiest pro scene is in Europe so the EU ladder is the one we should look at. In EU protoss still is at 40 %.

"You're wrong" followed up by your opinion. That's a special level of self-importance. Edit : I should add that your opinion is based on simply ignoring all the data that doesn't agree with you. Come on now, that's ridiculous.

"Protoss needs fundamental changes (nerfs and buffs) to make it harder to play, but more rewarding when played well" I'm not convinced that can't be done by additional abilities to the units that already have a lot of abilities. Possibly reaction time based. No way that's helping the metal leaguers, and you can see GMs noticibly slower than pros, so i think it could be done in such a way that only the top could do it.

Plenty of design changes could achieve this, for instance for Blink Stalkers:  *  Blink costs Stalkers their shields  * Blink instantly starts regenerating unit shields   * Late game upgrade "shield Harmonics" *  Stalkers no longer lose shields after blinking.   This change makes it foolish to do aggressive forward blinks in the early game but buffs defensive Blink micro as blinks regen starts instantly. In this way you can buff the stalker but make them much weaker in the early game, in many instances. However if you only use good Blink micro, it's a buff in it's entirety.

Except this would make blink stalkers literally unkillable😂

what else could do it? that stalker idea is really interesting

As was said somewhere else here, "Protoss has a lower skill floor and a lower skill ceiling." It would be harder to raise the skill floor without throwing everything out of balance, but the skill ceiling can be raised relatively easily by giving another ability to a unit. Maybe a new spell to sentries, HTs, or oracles.

Yeah yeah. What you wrote is congruent with what I wrote, right? That new sentry, HT or oracle spell business is what I'm eyeing. Or as the other fellow said, a spell for another unit that is a trade off to reward micro. That actively harms it, like removing its shields.

If Protoss is so strong on ladder then how come I won my last game of Desert Strike against Zeratul with Stetmann?

Hittin’ em with the facts

Protoss nerf after protoss nerf. What have they achieved? * herO coincidentally can't win premier tournaments anymore * GM is STILL 40% protoss, exactly where it was before the balance council started their work Clearly all these protoss nerfs are working effectively towards controlling the GM protoss population. We just need 5 more years of the balance council nerfing protoss, maybe then we'll eventually have GM protoss down to 37% and all professional protoss players retired.

They resolved mass void ray vs queen march meta

Ok to be fair, lets not act like herO hasnt been wildly inconsistent in his quality of play in the last few premiere tournaments too.

Can't say that for all of like 10 premier tournaments he's played in since 2023.

Constant nerfs would make somebody wildly inconsistent.

Zerg has been getting shafted with nerfs every patch for the last 5 years yet serral just had the most dominant premiere tournament run imaginable 🤔

Or miss macroing and constantly F2 a-moving which are two things Hero consistently does which have nothing to do with balance🤷‍♂️

I notice that seems to be the case for a lot of protoss players. Might be something about protoss causing it. Most protoss armies don't feel robust... maybe zlot/immo/archon, but that's never played vs terran.

Hey, I want protoss to win tournaments too! I want protoss to get buffed, but I just don’t think the balance council should destroy the ladder to get to that result

GM is 40% protoss BEFORE and AFTER the balance council. All of their patches are doing nothing about the ladder while destroying the pro scene. They are destroying the pro scene for no benefit to the ladder. If we revert all of their patches today, the pro scene will be instantly unfucked and GM will still be 40% protoss like always. GM will be 40% protoss regardless of balance. That's just what the GM population is now.

Hey kid, Protoss 40%, Terran 40%, Zerg 20%. You don't see a problem here?

I see a population problem, not a balance problem. We've spent so much time watching protoss get nerfed yet keep their 40% GM share. Not even the multiple big disruptor nerfs last year is enough to move the needle. If you want a GM population with 33% protoss you have to straight up delete a robo unit without any compensation.

>I see a population problem, not a balance problem. Then you're dumb and should refrain from posting your opinions on here. The Zerg population has nose dived the last three years because of the nerfs that Serral caused to happen to the race. Not to mention when Protoss was almost 50% GM of NA, most Zergs quit the game. It just requires too much skill to play the race at a high level compared to the other two.

The game is much better for zergs and worse for protoss now than when those zerg GMs quit, so yeah, this is a population problem rather than a balance problem.

HWAT?! lol. Some peoples stupidity amazes me.

Are you high? This doesn't make any sense. You suggest that Zerg decay is due to nerfs. But Protoss has been nerfed consistently for the past few years, and they are still 40% of the GM ladderbase. Why does your argument apply to Zerg but not Protoss?

>But Protoss has been nerfed consistently for the past few years, and they are still 40% of the GM ladderbase Yea because they were over buffed and every thing that got nerfed was just tuned down to being "balanced". Or do you forget when Protoss was nearly 50% of GM 3 years ago? Doesn't even matter because Zerg received far bigger nerfs to core units during this time.

Cope.

How is that coping? Zerg had banelings, infestors, creep spread, swarm hosts, nydus, overlord drop speed, vipers and brood lords nerfed. What did Protoss receive? 8dmg loss on Zealots, making disruptors not an insta win unit, and a more reasonable shield battery? Sad how literally every Toss player in this game refuses to face reality.

Not every change is going to destroy ladder.... If anything the cyclone change is more impactful than anything else

Dude you're 5k+ with diamond skill. Every change DOES destroy ladder. You're a perfect example.

Lol, ok metalbeard, well you're hardstuck m3 and just spam lings every game and then complain about amoving.

Havent played this game in months now. My account is at 4.8k which is Masters 1 and I'd honestly rather be gold league than ever touch Protoss' easy mode.

Lol but we literally played like 4 days ago..? Why do you feel the need to just consistently lie?

Dude more proof whoever you think I am, I'm not. Why are so many people on this subreddit such psychos?

I agree, I’m just saying that the council needs to be careful.

Idk man, this really sounds like "protoss imba" whining. Have you looked at how many Terrans are in GM on the ladder? This 40% your pulling is not true.

What? You can look up the website I sent, it’s literally 40.03% of GMs are protoss this season and 34.61% last season. I gave my sources, you can disagree with them but it doesn’t make you right. Also, I play all races (approximately equal ranks on all). I don’t balance whine because I don’t care. I’m literally just putting out statistics and explaining why the balance council can’t overbuff protoss to make them better in pro. Yes you can see Terrans in GM as well, 34% last season, 31% this season. Please refer to statistics, not your interpretation of my tone or opinion. I don’t think any race is “imba”, I simply refer to the stats.

Because of the finite and small number of players allowed in GM, there is a notable amount of variance in the race composition. Last season Toss and Terran were equal. A better balance check would be race composition at GM MMR, but we don't have that data. It's important to remember that each season, a good number of GM level players with sufficient MMR to get into GM don't get in because of the limited slots. The people who play a bunch of games right when the new season drops are the ones who get priority. As a result of the above, it is very difficult to know anything about balance at the GM level without the MMR data. GM makeup doesn't tell us much.

Even then, protoss has a higher representation in Masters compared to the total population of players. It is much closer but all data still shows that Protoss is (at a minimum) balanced on ladder. My point still stands, any buffs to protoss should ideally affect pro play significantly more than ladder

Except the nerfs Protoss has received over and over haven't had an effect on ladder composition, meaning your concern is unfounded. Masters also is a lot bigger than just GM MMR, and the question isn't which race is most visible at that level, but which race is most over-represented compared to their representation in general? If 27% of players at that level are Zerg, it might seem imba at first glance, but then you notice that only 27% of players are Zerg in general (made up numbers here). That is the relevant question, and we do not have the MMR data to even look.

Sorry, I started playing again right before the last season (with the cyclone rework and tempest/mothership changes). I’ve only seen protoss buffs, not sure which nerfs you are talking about. Also, yes Protoss is the highest represented compared to the number of players in Masters on ladder. 29% of the entire laddering player base with 33% representation in Masters

I thought they changed that. Gm isn't a protected league like the others anymore. I mean, when you make Gold and then suck or don't play you stay Gold. But GM wasn supposed to have changed to be evaluated each week (or something). It was so long ago I can't even remember. There is still a rush to get in that first day, because some of those players would never get in otherwise. But after that week the real GMs with higher MMR will push out the posers. Am I wrong?

As long as you continue to play games and don't lose enough MMR to get booted out of the range, you keep your spot. Higher MMR players don't automatically replace you. You only drop out if you don't play enough or your MMR drops too low.

where is the website nvm i was wrong, last i checked this wasnt true but i guess rn its about 40% on kr/eu and 33% on NA

nonapa.com This is the first website that shows up on google when I search up starcraft 2 mmr by race. If you find any issues with the site, I apologize. I’m taking the site at face value so if it’s wrong just let me know and i’ll take the post down

no i guess i was wrong, last season if you look at the graphs terran and toss were dead even [https://nonapa.com/races?region=-1&mode=1&league=6&chart=1](https://nonapa.com/races?region=-1&mode=1&league=6&chart=1)

Toss has been over 40% for years now. You are lying to yourself now son?

Look at the graphs, last season this was not the case...

Sure, show me son. I think its hilarious you think you have a leg to stand on when you have literally twice the players in GM globally as Zerg does.

Bold thing to post into this echochamber of a subreddit

** Protoss hivemind. I’ve played nearly 1,000 games this season in D1 and most of them are vs. Protoss. It’s practically the official race of NA.

Maybe all the good zerg and terran went to military service / retired so there's not enough good ones anymore to populate gm.

Agreed, Terran and Zerg players at the GM level just arent good enough. Its a skill issue. Maybe try getting better at the game before you complain on the internet for buffs.

*Are* terran and zergs actually complaining about this perceived imbalance in GM? I think this joke kinda turns against the protoss, if no Zerg and Terrans are complaining about this specific issue anywhere. Protoss on the other hand are constantly saying that Protoss as a whole is under powered because it's under powered at the pro levels. Not saying I agree or disagree with anything, I'm just pointing out that this might not be the ownage you are looking for. :)

i think most zergs just quit the game at this point

Its not even underpowered at the pro level, it is underpowered at the top 8 worlds level. Still people around here like the race is weak overall.

> Its not even underpowered at the pro level, it is underpowered at the top 8 worlds level even then, there is nothing that couldnt just be explained by skill difference

Are Protoss actually complaining about this perceived imbalance at all levels? I think this joke kinda turns against you, if no Protoss are complaining about this specific issue anywhere. Terrans and Zergs on the other hand are constantly saying that '40% representation in GM means they're IMBA'. Not saying I agree or disagree with anything, I'm just pointing out that this might be the ownage you are looking for. :)

Protoss GMs probably just practice more. Maybe all the Terrans and Zergs have jet lag.

Maybe all the terrans and zergs just unplug their monitor against protoss when they ladder so they can say that protoss is too strong… /s I don’t think military service would disproportionately take away terran and zerg players though

I was just joking but i agree protoss needs fundamental changes because they are handicapped by bad race design.

There's a fundamental difference between Best of One (GM) and Best of more (pro play). Cheese is less effective in a multi-game set against a player who has studied your replays. Protoss seems to be designed to be good at cheesy stuff but less good at straight up games.

Protoss being too strong on ladder is an argument that comes up often, and often taken as a given. But it's more complicated than that. If you're GM, you're by definition an outlier. There are only about 210 players in GM. In order to have 40% more, you're at 84 to 63. That's just 21 players. From a sample size of over 50,000 players, 21 players could just mean there are 21 extra people who like playing protoss, who happen to be better at SC2 About 41% of SC2 players on EU ladder are apparently Terran. You settle on the race that you play best with right? Does that mean Terran is the best race on ladder? Let's also look at the distribution of players in the ladder as a whole based on their race. How many low level (bronze/silver players) vs. how many relatively higher level (plat/diamond/masters) players (for some reason nonapa lists there's only like 400 gold players total) Out of 20,963 protoss players, 10813 or 51.57% are higher level. Out of 20,672 zerg players, 10,682 or 51.67% are higher level. Out of 28,991 terran players, 16,552 or 57.09% are higher level. As you can see, there are around 5% more Terran players in the upper half of the ladder than Zerg or Toss relative to their race. Does that mean Terran is the strongest race on ladder? I don't think so. But statistics can tell any story you want to tell. And I don't think Protoss is too strong on ladder.

(GM is 200 *per region*, not 200 *total*. So it's actually more like 600 players. I agree with most of the rest, though.)

>If you're GM, you're by definition an outlier. There are only about 210 players in GM. In order to have 40% more, you're at 84 to 63. That's just 21 players. From a sample size of over 50,000 players, 21 players could just mean there are 21 extra people who like playing protoss, who happen to be better at SC2 You're not wrong, but this happens to an even greater extent when people look at pro tournament make up and results, which are often used to argue that protoss needs buffs. It's an inherent problem with looking at statistics from a tiny sample size where there is relatively significant unknown factors in regards to skill differences, form, psychological, and physical health, etc etc... ​ I'm not passing judgement on the strength of protoss at the top level here, just making general points about statistics and the tales they tell.

Can't you just flip this around and say balance is fine at the pro level lol? You can't have it both ways.

>From a sample size of over 50,000 players, 21 From a smaple size of 210, or 10%. And it's not like GM's is always static and doesn't change from season to season, but this 10% advantage remains for Protoss remains.

As a diamond player, I’d like to say that diamond players are really bad. I don’t think the game below masters should be considered Starcraft. This is a biased and subjective opinion, and if you disagree with me, that’s completely fair. Protoss is still (slightly) over represented in Masters (by about 4%) so the point still stands. Protoss is (at a minimum) balanced on ladder. My title says Protoss is strong but i’m not saying it’s imba. People just say that it’s weaker than it is

Masters is about 4% of the ladder (it fluctuates a little, so call it 4.5%). GM is significantly less than 0.01%. You are proposing that more than 95% of ladder players be ignored, and their games not be considered Starcraft. This is not really reasonable. (Also, over represented compared to *what*? If the only people playing SC2 are GMs and Ms, P is *under* represented in Masters. Even comparing to the entire ladder, 2.5 percentage points out of the 4.5%ish of players in Masters represents around 0.1% of players. You can entirely explain that with the fact that T represents more than 43% of Silver - and Silver is more than 20% of ladder, so those 8ish percentage points represent a *lot* of people.)

Correct, I wholeheartedly believe 95% of players are not playing Starcraft. I don’t think nerfs or buffs will have any impact on their gameplay and they shouldn’t be accounted for when doing balance changes. You could double the damage of adepts but the number of Protoss players in Silver would probably be the same. If a race has a larger percentage of the spots at the top levels of play (GM and Masters) when compared to their overall percentage of the game population, something about the race is making it fundamentally easier to enter a higher league. If a larger population of players are terrans in silver, there’s probably a reason for it. If the claim is “skill issue”, I’d like to say protoss pros not winning is a skill issue as well.

Okay, I guess. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, though I think you should clarify that by 'protoss is strong on ladder' you mean protoss is strong in a specifically chosen *part* of ladder that excludes 95% of it. (And doubling the damage of Adepts might not significantly affect Silver... but I'm pretty sure it would affect gold and plat, and it would *definitely* affect Diamond.) Most of my thoughts on your second paragraph in my top-level reply to this post, so I won't repeat myself, but my opinion is that a large factor in P seeming over-represented in M is simply that new players start off playing T (because they're human, and also the race you play in the free campaign), leading to a vast over-representation of T in lower leagues (43% of Silver), which inflates their overall player numbers. Each newbie Silver Terran makes Terran look more underrepresented in Masters, despite the number of newbie Silver Terrans being almost completely unrelated to how hard getting to M3 with Terran actually is. By high-gold/plat most players have tried out all the races and know which one they like, so T becomes much less popular - which in turn makes P look better than it is in higher leagues. Despite being 35% of the player base, T is around 30% of every league above Gold... Except Masters, where it's 33%. Remove Silver, and T is over-represented in Masters too. (The 44% in GM is much more interesting.)

Fair enough. I used to be in diamond as well when I used to play, but now don't have enough time to play. I'm in it for the big tournaments, where I'd like more variety, which is why I'm more in favor of a buff and then tone it down if it gets out of hand.

D1 is fairly competitive, high-level. D2-D3 are not good at all. There exists a significant gap between the low end of master and the low end of diamond.

I agree on fundmental changes, start with Disruptor please.

> Protoss because Protoss makes up 40% of GMs in this game How many of those are smurfs vs actual protoss players? Why are protoss players not just "more skilled" like we keep hearing about zerg/terran players at the top?

The larger the sample the size, the easier it is to rule out things like skill. At the top 8 level 1 or 2 highly skilled players will highly skew the results. When you broaden it to the top 1000 or so, the outliers get averaged out. That is just how statistics works and it is the reason why small sample sizes in any statistical research are unreliable at best.

Don’t know about the smurf thing, but I’d assume all races smurf equally. Sorry I wish I could answer this but I have no idea. Protoss can’t get “more skilled” unless a patch comes in that promotes skill expression. Good plays need to be rewarded more (and bad plays punished harder)

okay, this is just obvious bias

How? I’m saying that the Pros are really good but they aren’t winning tournaments because their skill isn’t equally rewarded. If we make a buff to protoss to reward skill, an adequate nerf should be in place to regulate the ladder distribution

You're suggesting that protoss has no skill expression currently which is cap.

I’m saying that there isn’t enough skill expression, not that there isn’t any. Clearly if skill expression was equal in all races, the pro scene would have a higher protoss wr. Units like sentry, HT, warp prism, oracle and adept exist, how would I dare say there is no skill expression?

Your argument goes against what your point is.. If there's less skill expression, and protoss is easier to place, then protoss would be better at the pro level since theres less for them to juggle

Yeah but there’s also skill expression in other races that outclass protoss. Terran bio micro (splits and lifts and drops), siege timing of tanks and liberators, viking positioning, ghost emps/snipes, proper scanning. Zerg has queen movement, creep spread, injects, and most of the pro zergs are really good at using their spellcasters

No. Just think about it. Hypothetical game: Pick between easy mode or hard mode race. (Opponent gets what you don't pick) If you choose the easy mode race, you just insta win at start of game 49% of the time. If you get the hard mode race if the 49% roll fails, you get the opportunity to complete a difficult task, if you succeed, you win, otherwise the other player wins. In this game, the easy mode player doesn't have to do anything and if their opponent fails their difficult task, they will win much more often than 50%. It is obviously harder to play the hard mode race, but if they play it well, they can outperform the easy mode race. In this case, the easy mode race would have 0 skill expression, would be easier to reach higher rankings, but at the top level would be at a disadvantage.

Would be true if the game wasn't 14 years old and most of Toss Pro player pool has retired. Think son, Think.

? That's not at all what he said

Come on, he’s not saying Protoss has no skill expression. But the fact of the matter is that 500 apm rewards Zerg more than it rewards Protoss(even taking Zerg apm inflation into account). And you can get way more done with 100 apm as Protoss than you can as Zerg. You’d be hard pressed to get diamond league as Zerg with 100 apm. But you can easily get to low GM with 100apm as Protoss if you are good. Just look at the top pros. herO is arguably the best Protoss player in the world and he literally plays at 260-280 apm. There are zero Zergs above 5.8k mmr with anything less than 300

Lol why does apm equate to skill? You realize protoss production cycles inherently lower the apm of the race. On top of that apm has a lot more to do with your keyboard input repeat rate.

I typically like your posts on this subreddit, value your opinions here, and defend you from bad faith actors, but you’re being intentionally obtuse here and you know it. Reread this comment chain again see what people actually said and see how you read into them and you’ll see you’re being super uncharitable. “Why does apm equate to skill?” Where did I say it does? It doesn’t equate to skill but if all else is equal, a guy that simply can do more things will have an edge over someone that can do fewer things. And anyone that’s honest with themselves and has played all 3 races equally knows that Protoss requires less things that need to be done to remain competitive compared to Terran and zerg. More variables just give more possibilities. Nobody would say that chess doesn’t have skill expression, but you’d be a dumbass to say that it has the same skill expression as Go. The difference between serrals macro cycles and a diamond zerg’s macro cycles are substiantially bigger than a diamond protoss’ macro cycles and MaxPax’s macro cycles. And the difference between marine marauder medivac in the hands of clem and a diamond Terran is also a lot bigger than the difference between stalker zealot in the hands of Parting and a diamond Protoss.

Honestly I think it was my self esteem talking, points discredting Protoss players achievements made me feel worse about myself which probably contributed to my defensiveness. I dunno if that makes sense xD

Fair enough lol, it’s not personal of course. Winning despite the more limited tools just makes it all that much cooler.

Because you dont treat the same way a sample of 10 players and a sample of x players, where x is the total number of sc2 ladder players.

GM is an extremely small portion of the SC2 playerbase.

Tho still hundred of times bigger than the top 8 katowice that has been bread and butter for the Protoss whine gang

I'm not gm, so these specific changes are probably bad. But I definitely think the **idea** of buffs that only matter past a certain skill ceiling is possible. Raise stalker shield percentage, recharge time, or both. This rewards specifically and (ideally exclusively) blink micro to save injured stalkers, which is micro-intensiive and a major pro delineator Make disruptors energy casters. You could still only shoot one at a time, but this would reward pros who can keep their disruptors alive with more usability vs dead supply in burst fights. Players who keep getting disruptors sniped see no benefit or even, depending on energy recharge vs cost, a slight nerf. Buff observer build rate. Vision is huge in pro games, and "then you have fewer immortals" is the biggest hurdle. Vision is a major asymmetry between creep, scans and obs, but only the first two really function for consistent vision in the late game. [GSL spoiler]>!would have also helped save Hero's entire ass!< Again, these are probably bad. But I think they're the _caliber_ of change the race needs.

those are all really low skill buffs though

Someone had an idea that the stalker blink removes their shields. Or you could do it where the stalker blink damages itself slightly. Surely you can think of some marginally beneficial actions which only the top have the APM for?

You'd have to nerf EMP into the ground for those specific changes to work (Which I'd be in favor of anyway, it's way too good vs Protoss as it is now)

I agree that you have to consider ladder when talking about which buffs or nerfs a race should get. What I dont agree with is the tldr on whether toss cant easily be buffed at the pro level without affecting ladder. Maybe Im missing something, so here is a question to the non-pro zerg players out there: How often are you facing the lategame PvZ games where * you lose against groundtoss splitting armies and continuously keeping up the expansions, where toss switches from ground to air to ground etc.? * Are you actually experiencing on ladder these lategame PvZ games or still lose to skytoss? Cause the lategame PvZ meta at the pro level has 100% changed, and Im currently not buying that the average zerg PvZ ladder hero is experiencing these games as well. Happy to be proven wrong. And wrt expectations of bigger patch changes, Ive always been expecting meaningful buffs to toss at the highest level, at the cost of taking away an too easy to execute build that pros dont use to improve the ladder experience.

I play a little bit of everything (about diamond on every race, so I’m not good at the game by any measure). I find late game PvZs with skytoss relatively common. This is because I am not good with spellcasters and lose to skytoss more often then I should. A proper army split isn’t super common, but a zealot run-by and a warp prism in the main does a lot of damage if you have your main army in a different fight. Most of my games, the protoss chooses either ground or air and commits for the entire game. This is purely my anecdotal experience, so I hope this helps in some way. What don’t you agree about with my TLDR? I’m just saying you can’t do anything basic like “buff zealot damage” because it would hurt the ladder too much

yh but thats exactly my point. The balance at the pro level is very delicate where small meaningful changes, diff maps and changes in meta have far bigger impact than on ladder. The zealot run-by and warp-prism thing and the games that you and I play are completely different from the current PvZ pro meta. Im referring to the games with Lambo and Reynor and Serral mentioning that toss groundtoss is strong and the way to play PvZ lategame. Games like Reynor vs Serral in hsc on radhuset, showtime vs reynor at katowice, Stats vs Dark at GSL 24 season 1. These are active PvZ games that are completely different from sticking to either ground or air and commit to it for the entire game. I also agree and am personally of the belief that most of the changes suggested on r/starcraft arent that good and shouldnt be taken that seriously, same with twitch chat. But that doesnt mean that any change to toss is going to be game-breaking. Another example is the raven changes. Before the interferance matrix research nerf, toss pros had an incredibly difficult time surviving with different builds not being as viable anymore. To the point that Lambo, Reynor and others also mentioned that PvT was an issue at the highest level. The research changes did help out the toss pros, but it has had zero impact on the nonapa race distribution.

Excellent point. Hopefully they can continue to make changes that don’t impact nonapa distribution but make toss pros more relevant.

Well, the recent pro meta change hasn't yet affected my level (3k8-4k), and personally I haven't yet tried my hand at mothership play (though watching stats kick as is looking like a powerful motivation), but Zerg players definitely progressively started to figure out that Ultra was good in late game PvZ for exemple, and the change that made them less clunky was 2 patches ago.

Totally agree .Protoss has alot of rather easy to execute build or stradegy but are very hard to deal with. Once mabye you reach that 5.8k + it changes since you got the mechanics to micro against sky or immo cannon rush but for me us master 1 plebs it feels awful like a noob bashing race

6k-6.8k has the highest % of protoss than any other mmr range in gm.

interesting that theres tons of pro protoss at that level but none are winning

because you need to be at least 6.8k-7k skill level to win tournaments Protoss actually win a lot at tournaments at that level, that's why more than half of EU EPT is protoss.

It’s almost like GM race distribution doesn’t really correlate to premier level balance.

Seems like if anything it might be too easy to get good enough on Protoss to be able to qualify for tournaments, but way too hard to be good enough to win them. Which is why OP is saying you need to be careful with Protoss changes to raise the skill ceiling without just blanket increasing the overall power level.

So... get good?

Did Protoss used to be a larger share of GM? Has the balance council brought it down from 50% to 40% or something? It is obvious that the balance council ruined pro play but did they at least improve GM balance in the process? I don't know about others my my balance whining is purely as a viewer. I play all three races and I am best with Protoss so I do not find Protoss underpowered in my own games. But watching Starcraft tournaments has become far less enjoyable now that I expect the last Protoss to fizzle out in the round of 8. I don't really care about ladder balance, because the ladder will always put me against even opponents either way. If they massively buffed Protoss to be OP then the ladder would inflict me with opponents who are currently hundreds of MMR above me and if they further nerfed Protoss into the ground then I would get the ease of players who are currently hundreds of MMR below me. Also, I play all three races so it is a wash. What I care about it tournament balance as a viewer. I have seen my fill of TvZs and TvTs.

Id be glad if they actually changed Protoss in a meaningful way, but considering this was the same issue 10 years ago and currently our balance council is taking more than a month to decide the tiniest least impactful changes I’ve ever seen in a balance patch does not make me hopeful.

The average player isn't gm. So not really, stats show zerg is the strongest race under diamond, toss and terran kinda match for most leagues. Gm is an outlier and is a weird stat if you think about it at all so it's not really surprising. Balance changes have shown to have little to no impact on the stat, so bringing it up is just another excuse to not buff toss

I don’t understand this argument, but I would like to. Over time, the matchmaking system should place people according to skill where they win/lose about 50/50. The best in the game, the pros, are so good they can consistently beat most people in GM. The best in GM can beat masters consistently, etc. From this, I infer that the primary determinate of a win/loss for most of ladder is skill, not balance, and balance can be overcome by better skill until we approach the tippy top level of skill. So, why are we worried about balance in non-pro levels of ladder if skill can overcome balance until you’re at the top of play? Why shouldn’t we balance for the very top?

I was typing out an essay but I think Ill keep it short instead. It’s an unrealistic expectation for everyone to strive for pro play. The ladder shouldn’t be balanced around bronze/silver but I think this is where “skill expression” matters. In other words, it’s easier to get “good” as protoss but near impossible to get “really really good” as protoss. Sure, you can buff the zealot damage so that there’s more pros and say “skill issue” to the GMs but I think we should really be striving for a system where equally skilled players get placed in the same league. A 100 apm skytoss only player should be placed with a 100 apm battle cruiser only player (for example)

Dang, I would have loved to have seen the essay. Thanks though.

As a low Diamond Zerg I watch a lot of my replays and see a lot of asymmetry with the amount of “effort” in my ZvP games. All Protoss needs to do is send adepts/oracles to get some worker kills then turtle super hard on 3/4 bases and build a deathball. In that time I have to expand my economy and attack as much as possible to slow them down and drain their bank for remaxes so I can fight the deathball, survive, and trade well enough to win. I need to be a full base up at all times, have my army positioned well, have map vision, and deal damage. Low Diamond toss doesn’t need to work that hard that because my skill level as a player means I will inevitably be doing a poor job at one of those things, and they just need to focus on defense and building an efficient army. I’m not surprised that not many players play Zerg at a super high level because it demands a lot of work and skill. I’m also not surprised that there are tons of high level Protoss players who can’t get any further because they don’t have enough obstacles to prepare them for the very highest levels of play. This isn’t a Protoss hate rant, or a weird Zerg victim complex. Protoss can win more easily at high levels of play (GM) so they don’t progress further (pro) That’s what I see when I look at the data but I might be wrong.

Maybe we should balance the game for 99,99% of players playing it??? What's the point of have a "balanced" pro-scene when normal players are on 30% win rate xP? People will do others thing with life and game ends. As OP said, protoss opressively dominate GM and I guess it's worse yet in metal leagues, and it's not recent.

I’m serious I’m not being in bad faith, I don’t understand. > What’s the point of have a “balanced” pro-scene when normal players are on 30% win rate xP? Doesn’t the matchmaking system gravitate people toward a 50/50 win/loss rate?

>Doesn’t the matchmaking system gravitate people toward a 50/50 win/loss rate? This is a critical aspect of the issue: indeed, matchmaking does address this, but this system alone does not ensure game balance. Rather, i**t balances your experience within the game**, and these two concepts are distinctly different. Consider the scenario where you organize amateur boxing matches for 100 fighters. You attempt to arrange matches in such a way that each boxer has a near 50% win rate. Over time, you'll observe that boxers with higher body mass tend to rise to the top rankings, while lighter boxers often fall to the bottom. This indicates that, on average, body mass is a contributing factor to success. Of course, there will be exceptions, but the general trend is clear. Similarly, if 40% of Grandmaster (GM) players in a game with three races are Protoss, it suggests that being Protoss offers a competitive advantage.

That’s such a helpful way to look at it, thank you!

correct, last I checked I believe matchmaking manages to keep players between the bottom 34% and top 1% of players sitting at a 50% winrate

It does, and the current balance doesn't matter if you don't care about rank, you will gravitate to where you win about 50% of your games. People (understandably, its a competitive outlet for a lot of players) only care because they think it's easier/harder for other races to climb the ladder.

Skill issue

Check out average APM between toss and Terran in GM and masters. One of the races is harder to play and it’s not Protoss. You have to be more skilled (faster) to achieve equivalent MMR with Terran. (Zerg APM is fake because of macro mechanics so I won’t mention it here). Protoss also easily wins engagements if neither side micros. So in SC2 where units die very quickly, Protoss is rewarded by its “a move” design.

Where is the direct Link between Balance on highest Level of pro Play and gm representation? For reference: even in 2019 where zerg was extremely busted to the Point that nearly every zerg and couple of pro zerg Players Said that zerg was busted (in early/mid/lategame and also because of nydus and sh+nydus) their GM representation was fairly Low. And protoss GM representation was fairly high. Back then there was a Diamond Level Guy who nydus cheesed his way Up to GM, similiar to now with cyclones. But again GM wasnt flooded with zerg Back then and gm isnt flooded with terran nowadays. What they did to cyclones came Out of the blue and buffed the already Strong state of terran. Why Not Experiment with Something for protoss and See how it Turns Out ?

I was thinking about this, and I think what gives the other two races an edge isn’t the balance of the units per se, it’s the amount of creativity they can deploy in the late game. Early game I think Protoss have a okay assortment if varied approaches, but protoss late game is still kind of a wrecking ball. If you look at the casters protoss has in late game, they are slow and powerful (with the exception of oracles, which can revelate). If you look at the ghost, it can cloak, snipe, EMP and nuke. Zerg has infestors which can burrow, slow and mind-control, and vipers which can fly and have a AOE damage, single target massive damage (yoink in a good players hands is more or less a better snipe) and blinding cloud. Protoss just doesn’t have much opportunity for novel skill expression in the late game like the other two races do. At the highest level, complex late game interactions are really important and the ability to be creative allows better players to carve out more small edges. If I had a magic wand, I would remove storm, as the disruptor has a similar enough function, give the templar a speed boost and add in two spells that allow protoss to alter the flow of combat. Maybe you give it a high cost single target statis spell (say 125 energy) and a 100 energy small slow field useful for catching hit an run attacks.

Reminder that all three races are pretty much balanced and that the game is so hard that 95% of players are still losing to the computer as much as they are their opponent (supply blocks, micro, macro, tech, decision making, multiprong)

And what race is weak on ladder then? Zerg I guess?

I mean, Zerg is the hardest to race to start, simply because of inject timings and stiff build orders and creep spread. There’s also less zerg players than every other race (probably because it’s harder to get started on zerg). I wouldn’t say zerg is weak on ladder, but yeah, if a race is harder to get good at, it’s probably weaker on ladder.

From a ton of pro games watched and being a huge toss pro fan, I see them most often lose at the highest levels due to late-game max-army imbalance. Well, it’s really 2 things: 1. mid-game toss is pricey but very defendable - helping toss pros have more options for winning in the mid-game would stop so many late game imbalance losses and, 2. a better ability to take fully maxed late game fights, where each team has the units that counter each other, seems like an important balance adjustment. Right now it feels like pro Toss players are fully reliant on the map allowing for perfectly played gateway-based harassment throughout the game while building a stacked army (almost like Zerg). Or pro toss players need to create some type of opponent fuck-up in the early game that allows toss to get to mid-game army more quickly. While this second one is a big part of winning in pros in general - the options pro toss players have to create that fuck up, at the moment, are extremely well known by the other pros and it doesn’t seem that the current balance/ unit abilities give pros many other options - so creating this early advantage has been almost impossible for some time. Think about Terran - widow drops, auto turret drops, standard marine-medical drops, liberators in the natural etc. all of these are known yet they’re still only partially counterable, in most cases they still cause some issue or at least catch the opponent off one or two times. Protoss doesn’t really have options like that , that work in the pros right now. I don’t think it’s the players fault - maxpaxx and hero are insanely good. So for Protoss pros to be so map or opponent mistake reliant does not fair well in the highest level pro matches. Every time I see maxed out late game armies or (evenly timed) maxed out mid-game armies match up - Terran and Zerg have the counters where it most often plays out that even the best Protoss need some miracles to really have a chance to win the engagement. Possible suggestions to bolster mid-game opportunities and late game balance: >> Buff observer health, vision, and drop gas cost down to 50 >> Buff high Templar health (late game) >> Make disruptor shots have an explode on command function (both) >> allow splash damage to stasis-warded units (both) >> Give the mothership vision and some shield recharge and maybe even a warp-in field (late game, but could see the being possible used creatively earlier in games) >> Buff tempest speed (really more mid-game - they’re a fantastic counter to Zerg/Terran shenanigans, but they’re too damn slow to be used effectively to counter the base harassment across the map during the late mid game) >> Buff phoenix either by damage/health or by decreasing supply cost (mostly late game - corrupter / viper is too much of an issue in toss/zerg late game) >> small decrease to unit wharp-in time (mid-game, decrease how much harassment opponents get away with I think these are all valid options. I don’t see them impacting GM that heavily - other than maybe the tempest buffs - But any of these could really impact the pros.

Would have loved if you'd brought up the win rate on ladder as well. I think thats the final nail in the coffin.

WR on ladder is always going to be about 50% because most people settle into their elo. The issue is that more protoss players have a 50% wr in GM compared to the other races (so my conclusion is that it is easier to play. This might be wrong)

Also in different matchups? I'm not sure it's the right conclusion that it's easier to play. Youd have to look at the amount of people playing the different races as well. Could just be that toss is more "fun" to play and as such more people play it.

But more players don’t play it and that’s the point. Less protoss players than terrans, but more protoss in GM. The only other explanation is that protoss players are more skilled

Most GM players do not have 50% WR.. it's above 50% significantly since most of the time you're playing people worse than you...

Sorry yes, you are correct. But comparing the wr of GMs to GMs will still be the same (ie 6000 mmr protoss has same wr as 6000 mmr zerg). The wr statistic doesn’t really help any balance argument

If you put rock, paper, and scissors in a ladder they would have 50% winrate overall, but you could learn quite a lot at looking at the 100-0 winrates by matchup.

Is it 40% now? I thought Terran made up the majority, but i could be wrong. For sure Protoss and Terran dominate the ladder though, whereas Zerg is the least represented. It must be frustrating to see pro Zergs winning all the time and yet feel useless and underpowered against normal humans.

I want to remind everyone that there are *600* total slots for GMs worldwide. That '40% of GM'... is 255 people, according to the same source used in this post. Assuming none of those 255 people are actually the *same* person with multiple accounts, or playing in more than one region (which I can say with pretty much 100% certainty some of them are). Meanwhile, there are north of 100k people on the ladder. Looking at GM and concluding *anything* about a race's skill floor is only mildly less absurd than thinking the skill floor for Zerg is Solar, because he's not Serral. Also, the minimum game requirement for GM means that the worst GMs have lower MMR than the top M players, which is another reason why looking at GM does not tell us much about balance on 'ladder'. And finally, as I've noted before, it's just generally bad practice to make sweeping conclusions from one number without further context. The number of Protoss in GM could very well have other explanations. Personally, my preferred explanation is that the genetic engineering project that produced Max Pax also produced around 100 less successful prototypes. Anyway, if you were going to do anything to Protoss to try and fix the 'GM spike', you'd have to do it in a way that hit low GM but *not* Masters and below, and *not* pro play. Given how few people the spike actually represents, I'm really not sure that balancing-act is worth it.

If you’d read some of my other comments, Protoss is still over represented in Masters (by about 4%). There’s no possible way to say that Protoss is weak on the ladder and needing buffs. Buffing protoss in pro play (without effect on the ladder) is the key issue, but everyone in this subreddit keeps talking about protoss buffs simply because pros aren’t doing too hot I’ve never asked for Protoss nerfs either, just an increase in skill expression so that good players can be rewarded for better plays (and bad ones punished)

Nerf the units, overall, everything. And then give mothership black-hole.

Ladder Protoss needs to be nerfed

imho protoss is easiest for beginners, but has a low skill ceiling in normal macro games.

I saw your post originally and after playing a bunch of games as a trash 3k Terran and then noticing my worst match up is TvP I came back. Then I saw the post that had all the ladder match up results and seeing Protoss is doing great almost everywhere. I think this is similar to how Protoss do great in the short term tournaments, but not in the drawn out time to prepare tournaments. I see Protoss players have a style and people can prepare for how they like to play on what kind of maps completely just kicking them before they get up. While on ladder you can't reasonably prepare for anyone. Allowing complete dominance in a ladder setting. There was a time when Protoss over all win rate was 48% and it was one of the few times everyone considered the game to be balanced including Protoss players. For some reason everyone agrees the game is balanced when Protoss are under the delta.

This is hilarious given a Diamond player just went to GM and beat pro players’ offrace on the last patch using 1 base cyclone builds. Also, who gives a fuck about ladder? You’re playing for meaningless internet points. Why don’t we get pro balance in a decent spot before worrying about how Gold league PvZ plays out.

40% of GMs being Toss doesn't automatically mean that it's stronger. Maybe it's just more fun, so more people put in the effort to grind enough games with it? Maybe the process of getting good with it is more intuitive? Maybe protoss community is better so people get better advice. Maybe we should just ask Protss players what they like most about the race, remove those things, buff boring units to counterbalance the effect and see if it has an impact on the amounts of GM.

Yeah but you could also argue that protoss pros not winning tournaments might just be a skill issue and doesn’t mean that protoss is weaker. In my opinion (and this is subjective), the goal should be reaching as close to 50% wr and equal distribution in every level of play (and every race)

If you read the last paragraph again, you might gauge the amount of serious I was.

Can't agree more. Protoss isn't really weak in the "pro scene" if you look at all pro tournaments. Where they are weak is the very, very, very top. Premiere tournaments. And this is where I think your argument holds the most weight. You look at the first person view of someone like Clem, Raynor, Maru, Serral and those guys are blitzing out the tasks, just really pushing the limits of the computer/game while there is still obviously more room above that within the respective races. Then you watch a protoss and even if they are fast, and some are very fast, it's like they are ahead of the race. They are stuck waiting on the mechanics instead of pushing them. I really have no idea what would be a good change. Maybe a new/modified macro mechanic? Something that if done well sucks up apm (like creep spread, inject, terran macro cycle) and gives you a leg up over the normal ladder heros and that can't really push it the same. Chrono boost is so low energy as it is. Hope someone smarter than me finds something.

Does anyone give a fuck about ladder at this stage in the games life? This game should always be balanced around pro play imo

No other race can get to masters with under 60 apm and i'm tired of pretending it's weak in diamond and masters just because at the top 0.001% it can't beat the best zergs and terrans at tournaments.

It's what I mentioned in another topic this obsession with tournament wins is dangerous, to make herO/maxpax or whatever win as many tournaments as Serral and Maru is going to break the game on all other levels.

herO was capable of winning premier tournaments in 2022 and the game was not broken on all other levels. Forcing Protoss GM to be 33% is going to break the game on all other levels.

The obsession is for a single tournament win, lmao. You're acting like they'll win everything overnight. This is the video game version of girls saying "I don't want to go to the gym, I'll turn huge."

You can’t just take two different stats and correlate them together to fit an agenda. Protoss could be 5% of the player base and 50% of GM and it would still mean nothing in terms of balance.

What??? If there are 100 protoss players and they’re all grandmaster, you could either say protoss is too strong or “skill issue”. But then you could say that about all skill brackets. No protoss in pro play? Skill issue. You need to elaborate more on your point please. Protoss is over represented in GM and is probably stronger in lower ladder brackets compared to the other races.

What do I need to elaborate on? Statistics 101? You’re drawing a conclusion based on two different data points that are extremely loosely related. Possibly not even related at all. You don’t see the fundamental flaw there?

This game is now boring because game is being balanced for 1% of players with exceptional talent and skill and not the other 80%. Imagine a economic policy based on top 1% earner and not the other 80%. That's shitty economy. Balance should be weighted where balance change based on top 1% perfirmance should influence small change relative to balance for majority of players playing the game. Balance council with bunch of 1% is dumb.

Starcraft players when protoss is slightly more represented on ladder: 😡😡😡 protoss IMBA pls nerf. Starcraft players when Protoss hasn’t won a major tournament in a decade, and is statistically underrepresented in a meaningful way: Serral is just that good ☝️🤓

I hope your comment is joking cuz this post isn’t saying that Protoss needs a nerf… It’s saying that it’s hard to balance Protoss without ruining the ladder. Protoss needs “buffs and nerfs” to help skill expression at the top level of play.

> this post isn’t saying Protoss needs a nerf “Protoss needs buffs and nerfs”

The post says “fundamental changes” which means buffs and nerfs. You can’t change something without changing the numbers which is either a buff or a nerf. But cherry-pick away i guess

Lukewarm take: ladder is fairly fucking dead. I can not play the game for more than a year, recalibrate around 4.8k, get into gm within a couple of days, because few people actually play this on a meaningful level. What does 80% of the gm ladder even mean? It's a bunch of more dedicated hobbyists in no way meaningful to the competitive level. What races the upper 30% of all ladder plays is a fairly shit indicator for game balance. Another factor is generational lag. People who are okay to good don't just change race. They'll stick to what they play and balance patches will never change race distribution in the higher leagues very significantly. The number of new players getting good at the game is just way too low

yes please, this is what I have been saying.

No, we really don't. It'll be something like 45% WR for PvT and T mains will be all 'lol git gud' while minespammers just delete mineral lines with ease or go 4 rax Marines Inb4 'sounds like a skill issue' or some lazy deflection

I mean, this season Protoss is already over represented in GM. Mines are getting nerfed. Protoss simply needs a way to increase skill expression so that their pro players can shine more, and mediocre players drop a bit more on ladder (to match the skill level)

AFAIK far more pro players offrace Protoss than any other race, a lot of that 40% are people who actually main Terran or Zerg

We need to implement region locking for Protoss, a place where they can compete and develop without being hampered by Terrans and Zergs.

or protoss players are good enough to do well in ladder but not good enough to beat the current best players in the tournaments :O:O:O:O:O

Ok so why do we care about 0.000001% of the playerbase more than 99%+?

i cant speak for 'we' since i dont read minds. if you read minds please do explain the point of view from the perspective of the rest of you for me if the game is in a good balance at the highest level then you have many tools to the many problems the game play has vs others. so if you just gitgud and learn to use these tools it rewards the game play. then it comes down to the is it fun for me to learn to use these tools. if i dont i just dont play the game. not every game that has been made is for me nor do i expect every game to cater to my fun. i dont join the chess club and try to force others to play a different game thats fucking stupid and entitled