Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 765

On September 17 2013 04:30 lolfail9001 wrote:

Then it somehow ends up that you are contradicting yourself, since you say that all Blizz cares about is statistical balance, but hellbats were legitimately imbalanced(as in only really viable strat) only in TvT. Yet Blizzard nerfed 'em. Boom!

On September 17 2013 10:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:


The widowmine is problematic not because of its design.

It's essentially the SC2 siege tank minus the drawbacks.

Does it have a blind spot? Nope.
High damage? Yup.
Mobile? Yup.
Cheap? Yup.
Easy to mass? Yes as well.

The "drawback" is it has a shorter range than the tank. But for all the advantages it gains, of course its worth the range loss.

The problem isn't that its a crappy mine, it's that its a good siege tank.

On September 17 2013 12:11 saddaromma wrote:

Nope. I said blizzard (DK) mostly cares about race statistics. I didn't say they exclusively balance race matchups only. Please read carefully before you start arguing with me. I'm not fan of pointless internet arguing, which I do sometimes, and hate myself for it.

@Grumbel, you should also learn to proofread before jumping into bandwagon.

Blizzard did some jobs to fix mirrors, but it was more of bandages to glaring problems. They don't go deep into each matchup and try to fix root of the problems. E.g. they fixed mass muta in zvz, but it redirected to mass roach, and matchup still isn't fun or play most of the times. Granted it wasn't that fun in bw either. But aleast they could open more options like I don't know some new compositions or transitions. Again, I don't say its 100% roach vs roach, but you get the idea...

On September 17 2013 12:13 ETisME wrote:

there had been a few muta games in DH as well, I don't know here you got the 100% roach from.
Roach battle is actually incredibly fun, I recall Ret loves it as well. A lot of positional play, flanks, burrow harass, transition etc

On September 17 2013 12:38 saddaromma wrote:

Please re-read my post carefully.

And I'm not sure how a-massing one unit supposed to be fun. If starcraft had only marine, zergling and zealot. Would it still be fun?

On September 17 2013 12:54 ETisME wrote:

I am focusing on that point where you are wrong. You said ZvZ is all about mass roach and not mass muta anymore and want new composition and transitions. We have aggressive 10 pool opening, quick lair for muta, roach mid game into hydra roach/infestor roach/even swarmhost (during spl).
That matchup isn't about massing one unit at all.

And even if it is about mass roach, think about Go for example, every piece is equal, which makes positioning and engagement even more important. You should go back to watch TvT with Ryung and Flash with the flank over flank over flank with marines and medivacs (tanks weren't in that engagement later)
That being said, there is a lot of depth in Roach wars, when to add hydras, or sac upgrade for more infestors, or even swarmhost etc
What you are saying is like why ZvZ must open with queen and lings. It's just silly, going roach/muta is a player's style, both have their transition stage

On September 17 2013 13:12 saddaromma wrote:

I think TvT is in a great state (imo best matchup). I don't know why you're bringing that up. I already stated I don't like tvz, tvp and zvz, which I think you were joking at in pervious posts.

SC2 isn't black and white, and when I say zvz is mass raoch, its not literally 100% mass roach, ofc other variations also exist. I recall some players used swarm hosts to some success. But overall, zvz feels a bit shallow, if one players gets ahead, its really difficult for other to comeback. Simply because enemy has more 'stuff'. I know concave engaging, roach micro matter, but they have little to no use when one player is noticably behind. For instance in TvT, one smart engagement (MMA vs Innovation) can turn everything upside down. ZvZ doesn't have that qualities.

As I said, you could make zvz zerglings vs zerglings only and call it strategically diverse and engaging, but in the end, I know sc2 can do better than that.

On September 17 2013 12:11 saddaromma wrote:
@Grumbel, you should also learn to proofread before jumping into bandwagon.

On September 17 2013 12:12 Sabu113 wrote:


At 125-> 160 against shields and the ability to make Immortals into overpriced paper weights... It arguably does more effective damage as well. Thinking 2 tank volleys til the armies close ? Maybe add another 2 from deeper lying tanks?

It's a silly good siege tank. Probably game from the same geniuses that thought the warhound belongs in a competitive game.

On September 17 2013 16:01 NarutO wrote:
I hope people realize that current ZvT is demanding, but not imbalanced. While I would like to see a change, I would like to see a change to make the game more entertaining and complex, not because I think something is imbalanced im TvZ. We saw DRG state that control usually decides who wins those battles and while Zerg previously had the option to either not micro at all or micro to some extent / set up flanks, now you have to control your army in fights which is a good thing.

Games that show good control:

Scarlett/Bomber
hyvaa/INnoVation
DRG/INnoVation
Serral/SuperNoVa (partly good control, partly good decisions)

While I believe it should go without saying, I will still point out that people should realize that nerfing the widowmine doesn't go without buffing another aspect of Terran, as tanks would see no midgame timing allowing the Zerg to freely do whatever he wants converting HotS basically back to WoL. In addition, tanks cannot retreat nor move easily on creep, while the widowmine does allow it. Terran does play it, because its the only viable option currently and nerfing it severely will lead to not just Zerg dominace, but utter destruction of Terran. An aspect we never saw the other way around. To proof that point, you can have a look at any TvZ in which the mines didn't detonate as well as they can/should/Terran wants them to and the result often times is a complete destruction of the Terran force and/or retreat with as much as possible. While I feel the widowmines are a good thing "FOR ZERG" as in they increase the skill ceiling and make their engagements harder and more demanding which is good, becuase a good player will always show while a bad player won't I think its bad from a Terran aspect of view. Besides mines being relatively random, I feel targeting with mines is no reliable skill. While there are some Terrans that occasionally (or in INnoVations case often) targets with mines, I still feel it has a tad of randomness in it.

I would love to see something done with the siege tank, but the truth is, the siege tank is very good in TvT and making it better vs Zerg with for example an upgrade that allows movement speed and/or faster siege/unsiege you will effectively make TvT mech a lot stronger. I don't know if that is what Blizzard wants, but that would be my point :x

On September 17 2013 15:53 Grumbels wrote:

Ironic, since you can't spell my name. I wasn't taking any sides anyway, I was only looking up changes since I figured some people might want to know about them. :o

On September 17 2013 16:01 NarutO wrote:
I hope people realize that current ZvT is demanding, but not imbalanced. While I would like to see a change, I would like to see a change to make the game more entertaining and complex, not because I think something is imbalanced im TvZ. We saw DRG state that control usually decides who wins those battles and while Zerg previously had the option to either not micro at all or micro to some extent / set up flanks, now you have to control your army in fights which is a good thing.

Games that show good control:

Scarlett/Bomber
hyvaa/INnoVation
DRG/INnoVation
Serral/SuperNoVa (partly good control, partly good decisions)

While I believe it should go without saying, I will still point out that people should realize that nerfing the widowmine doesn't go without buffing another aspect of Terran, as tanks would see no midgame timing allowing the Zerg to freely do whatever he wants converting HotS basically back to WoL. In addition, tanks cannot retreat nor move easily on creep, while the widowmine does allow it. Terran does play it, because its the only viable option currently and nerfing it severely will lead to not just Zerg dominace, but utter destruction of Terran. An aspect we never saw the other way around. To proof that point, you can have a look at any TvZ in which the mines didn't detonate as well as they can/should/Terran wants them to and the result often times is a complete destruction of the Terran force and/or retreat with as much as possible. While I feel the widowmines are a good thing "FOR ZERG" as in they increase the skill ceiling and make their engagements harder and more demanding which is good, becuase a good player will always show while a bad player won't I think its bad from a Terran aspect of view. Besides mines being relatively random, I feel targeting with mines is no reliable skill. While there are some Terrans that occasionally (or in INnoVations case often) targets with mines, I still feel it has a tad of randomness in it.

I would love to see something done with the siege tank, but the truth is, the siege tank is very good in TvT and making it better vs Zerg with for example an upgrade that allows movement speed and/or faster siege/unsiege you will effectively make TvT mech a lot stronger. I don't know if that is what Blizzard wants, but that would be my point :x

On September 17 2013 16:34 bo1b wrote:

What in your opinion is the biggest problem with going bio/tank vs Z at the moment?

On September 17 2013 16:35 saddaromma wrote:

Ofc, proofreading and spellmistakes are of same importance.

And you actually endured yourself to go and look up mirror balance changes just in case someone is interested, and had no intention of supporting lolfail9001's arguments whatsoever. Nice story.

On September 17 2013 16:36 Big J wrote:


why would anyone nerf the mine. The mine isn't a problem, you can outmicro it, you can just counter it by changing your composition. It's already a bad unit against 90% of the units in the game.

Also I don't think people want siege tanks to behave like 13range mines vs ground.

On September 17 2013 16:42 NarutO wrote:


You can sustain a higher mutalisk count, because they have high regeneration so a Thor won't scare them away easy nor will marines so they can pick off tanks easily while you push. Other than that, due to higher mutalisk counts (as you will sustain more) the harass will quickly become a problem. Zerg will fly circles around you and your base and while there is no midgame timing with tanks to begin with, you will be even further delayed. Another point would be the transition is a lot better now. While Infestors are weaker overall, ultralisks are insane now. If you would play muta/ling/bane vs bio tank and even assume its WoL status until the new ultralisks are out, the ultralisks will shit all over your marine/tank army. Its not even a competition.

So... those are the concerns and the reason we don't see muta/ling/bane. Zerg will have 4 base saturated before you even move out and potentially hive at 12 again.