A look at the Protoss compared to the other 2 races

Well in response to BtHammer, i really wouldnt like to see the carrier as an air Immortal. it's suppsed to be the capital ship, so it should be a great unit overall. I wish they would put in SOMETHING that ups the carrier's health. the range is quite big so maybe add in some upgrades in exchange for just 10 range? AND I STILL WANT INEERCEPTOR ATTACK FORMATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Although Matt Cooper didn't perform as well to be able to showcase the entire force of the protoss, I still feel that the race lost some of its luster. True, a lot of revamps have been done which somehow compensate for the nerfed protoss, but I still feel the essence of being protoss (especially in SC1) was lost. In my opinion, protoss needed the least micro given their intimidating HP and damage for the price of army size in SC1 (zerg have the numbers while Terrans have the best micro strategies with an okay price). In SC2 I can't help feeling a role reversal between the anatomically, technologically superior alien race that set itself as a protector of worlds and a race eons away in terms of evolution.

When I looked at SC2pod.com the protoss still do have relatively higher HPs and damage compared to Terran, but the bonus damages (which are plenty in Terran) seem to overcompensate for the HP disparity. SC1 was great and I'm eager for SC2 to come out, but I can't help feeling that my favored race is being nerfed so much.

 

I thought matthew cooper did quite well. Clearly, he performed superbly with the concept of the proxy pylon. Though, he suffered because he didn't field enough zealots and stalkers. He wasted too many minerals on the Colossus and didn't micro them effectively which got them killed within minutes after production. Other than that, he played strongly but was overwhelmed by David Kim and i agree, he did showcase most of protoss forces, but i would have loved to see a dark templar of prehaps an archon in action. With the aforementioned units in play, he may have had a chance against the terran player.

Also, i'm actually quite happy with the stalker. I'm a terran junkie, but the dragoon was one of my favorite units to play with. Being a high mobility scout, the stalker has opened alot of options for my style of play. The blink also gives the Stalker the advantage against many units in terms of offense and defense. However, i still believe the stalker is underpowered in it's damage against armored units. The previous dragoon was able to do 20 Damage against 'Large' or similar units, but the Stalker is able to do 18 including damage bonus. I believe it should be stronger, prehaps level it's damage to a dragoon, or offsetting this weakness through better upgrade bonuses.

As for the Zealots, they're quite formadible in Battle Report 1 and in my opinion, it's too early to jump to any conclusions about their resilience since we haven't seen 40% of the other units.

 

Quite right you are, the feel will not be the same. Instead of strong protoss, we will have weak Protoss who are obliged to hit & run, without even units fast enough to do it (Terrans do have Hellions or reapers that fulfill these roles): see the thing about Toss having less shield but regenerating faster ONLY out of combat? Exactly my point, you have to flee and reattack at a later time untilregeneration of shield: no direct strong units anymore.

I get a much better feel of Protoss on SC1.

@ Novacute: Stalkers dont do 18 with the bonus, but 14. Thats a major differrence.

 

A lot of you are forgetting a key unit for the Protoss. Immortals.

From what I know, this unit isn't very far from the tech-tree. They have a huge amount of HP (100 Shield and 200 HP according to sc2armory). Not to mention their shields. If I'm using Protoss, I will always bring in a few of these gadgets around just to soak up the damage. They also do pretty good amount of damage (20 +10 armored).