This week's balance test map

On December 22 2015 04:51 A_needle_jog wrote:
Oh no that is horrible nerf for PvZ. David Kim need to watch Korea ladder where the good players are

In korea we use ling + baneling against Adept. This is a huuuuuuuuuuge nerf. It is a bigger nerf than people think. Oh god this is so bad. please don't go live. How can i contact david kim and tell him he sooo wrong.

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

On December 22 2015 05:18 A_needle_jog wrote:



surround with zergling then baneling or follow the adepts with the baneling while zerglings attack adetpts !

It works very well. Adept have many life ! 120 or even more (life + shield) ! so hard to kill and they always have time to escape -_-

With 6~ banelings it is easier and fast to deal with

On December 22 2015 05:18 A_needle_jog wrote:



surround with zergling then baneling or follow the adepts with the baneling while zerglings attack adetpts !

It works very well. Adept have many life ! 120 or even more (life + shield) ! so hard to kill and they always have time to escape -_-

With 6~ banelings it is easier and fast to deal with

On December 22 2015 05:25 A_needle_jog wrote:


lurker very strong, but too late for timing adepts !

- Pool -> queen -> speed -> lair -> hydralisk den -> lurker den -> morph lurkers

but lategame lurker very strong yes

On December 22 2015 06:10 A_needle_jog wrote:


No that is bad. Then immortal too strong.

I say maybe reduce corrosive bile damage

On December 22 2015 06:17 A_needle_jog wrote:


Yeah. They already have very low HP. They have even less HP than roaches. making them either light or armored would destroy them.

125hp unit that cost 3 supply and cannot attack air. not so good

only corrosive bile is bit of problem against buildings maybe

On December 22 2015 06:23 A_needle_jog wrote:
Ravager strong unit no doubt, but it is already getting nerf in next patch. Takes much longer to build ravager next patch.

On December 22 2015 06:23 A_needle_jog wrote:


Adepts with upgrade is the one that scares me most, because with adept being armored you must go roach.

Ravager strong unit no doubt, but it is already getting nerf in next patch. Takes much longer to build ravager next patch.

On December 22 2015 06:31 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Nerfing the ability cooldown would be a far better move I think.

On December 22 2015 06:32 A_needle_jog wrote:
I don't understand what you people expect. Zerg has no harass or early push. There is only ravager when you play zerg to punish greedy protoss and terran.

Terran harass units :

Reaper
Hellion
Banshee
Liberator


Protoss harass units :

Adepts
Phoenix
Oracle
DT (to little degree)


I want to harass enemy too as zerg
So many zerg nerf next patch and you guys want to butcher zerg even more I don't understand

On December 22 2015 06:34 ZAiNs wrote:

That would affect PvZ more than PvT then.

On December 22 2015 06:43 A_needle_jog wrote:


whimps never have. they always dodge and try to avoid fight. they run all life from struggle.

On December 22 2015 06:46 A_needle_jog wrote:


This tried to be burn, but failed, because it don't make sense sorry.
I am forthright and outspoken. He insult me and I insult back. now he will be like "oh look you are a child" instead of fighting like a man.

On December 22 2015 06:46 A_needle_jog wrote:
now he will be like "oh look you are a child" instead of fighting like a man.

On December 22 2015 06:51 A_needle_jog wrote:
you are from american states. go back believe in creationism, vote trump, eat hamburger and buy guns.

On December 22 2015 06:51 A_needle_jog wrote:


you are from american states. go back believe in creationism, vote trump, eat hamburger and buy guns.

On December 22 2015 07:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Other than Siege Tanks and Marauders--what else does this change?

On December 22 2015 06:01 Ctesias wrote:
While I agree that Adepts need to be looked at, the problem rather seems to be their short cooldown on the shade ability. Not sure how much this will fix.

Ravagers, on the other hand, definitely need to be armored.

On December 22 2015 07:53 Avexyli wrote:
**Change to Psionic Transfer:

Psionic Transfer now turns the Adept into the shade for 5 seconds, replacing the Armored\Bio tag with Light\Psionic. The speed of the shade in the live version is applied to the shade state. The Shade - replacing the Adept, can attack while in this state.

On December 22 2015 06:36 Golgotha wrote:
so many tears when it was obvious that adepts were OP in PvT. ffs people give it a chance and see. its a balance test map ffs.

On December 22 2015 06:01 Ctesias wrote:
Ravagers, on the other hand, definitely need to be armored.

On December 22 2015 05:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Maybe I will actually try laddering again. Didn't see a point to playing T when I would auto lose to any Warp prism / Adept play without playing a total gimmick build order (Cyclone + mass turret wtf is that).

On December 22 2015 12:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
This is bad, bad idea.

Terran is already winning slightly more than 50% in the matchup according to Aligulac.

On December 22 2015 13:22 emc wrote:
I don't see a problem with making adept armored, this could be a good thing. I feel that every zerg should always place a roach warren down regardless in every match up now, so even if you go ling/bane, make a couple roaches/ravagers and be done with it, it's a non-committal tech structure for 150 minerals.



I don't see a problem here either, it allows phoenix to kill ravagers relatively fast making them a soft counter to ravagers and a more relevant unit in PvZ. In terms of TvZ, meh, I still think seige tanks do just fine against them.

If ravagers are really a problem at the highest levels, I'd almost be in favor of not allowing ravagers to be morphed until zerg gets lair tech.

On December 22 2015 15:31 insitelol wrote:
How on earth would that change affect pvz? Can't get this whining.

On December 22 2015 15:41 Tsubbi wrote:
for over a week theres been no zerg in korean top10 gm (yes, this does mean a lot atm), korean metagame seems to have changed a lot already, its so hard to judge balance in the off season

On December 22 2015 15:26 EatingBomber wrote:
The fundamental problem with Adepts is not their brute power or physical attributes - it is that, when coupled with the ability to completely negate the defender's advantage, in addition to the fact that it has what is effectively a delayed Dagger of Escape, the Adept becomes a ranged Zealot that is incredibly mobile and harassment-friendly. Try and see how good Adepts are in a frontal assault against stimmed bio with Medivac support - they get trashed. The problem is that Protoss has the ability to teleport their units directly into the enemy's base, and this ability comes at an incredibly low tech level - Cybernetics Core + Robotics Facility - which means that Protoss has an early mobile teleportation portal that can ignore the basic rules of an RTS - the terrain advantage of a defender, shorter lines of reinforcement, etc. It means that, coupled with the faster production cycle of Protoss' Warp Gate mechanic, Protoss can easily overwhelm Terran numerically at any place within a short moment's notice and without any impact on Protoss' main army. Compare this with Terran drops - Terran requires the units to already be in existence in order for him to commit to a drop, which means that Terran divides his army into portions when he sends out Medivacs - this is fundamentally different from the Warp Prism, because

1. If the Terran main army is suddenly attacked while the drop is in progress, Terran likely loses because a portion of his troops are out of position - the Protoss main army is not affected by his Warp Prism being out of position, because he has not actually deployed any of the charges on his Warp Gates yet - he can simply warp in at home and defend. Therefore, there is almost no commitment on the part of Protoss to send out Warp Prisms to harass - attacked? No worries, just warp at home? No attack? Hurrah, send my main army to dance in front of his bases while my Warp prisms teleport in waves of Adepts/Zealots to destroy their economy/production

2. Once the Warp Prism is in place - Protoss can instantly teleport 10-20 of his units into place, and continue to do so as long as the Warp Prism is kept alive - Terran Medivacs have a limit on their cargo, and there is no possibility of reinforcement for the drop

The problem is not Adepts. The problem is with Warp Prisms allowing Protoss to negate basic RTS mechanics, and with Warp Gate for distorting the basic rules of RTS production by paying after the cycle.

On December 22 2015 15:26 EatingBomber wrote:
Try and see how good Adepts are in a frontal assault against stimmed bio with Medivac support - they get trashed.

On December 22 2015 22:30 FireCake wrote:
I think it's very bad to change the armor of a unit for balance purposes.
Imagine if for balance reasons it would be better to tag the ultralisk as unarmored light units... It would be very weird.

Also there are many reasons already listed to explain why armored adepts is a bad idea.

I think they should change the cost of the adept to 75/50 from 100/25.
25 mineral less, 25 more gaz.
This would allow protoss players to still play adepts like before but they won't be able to transition on many different things in the same time like oracles.
Most of the time adepts push don't straight up kill the opponent but put him behind in tech/economy.
Also this change would give the zealot a bigger importance in most match up i think because instead of only making adepts to harass it might be good to spend some on adepts and some on zealots in order to save some gaz for others things.

On December 22 2015 23:02 Elentos wrote:

I think something else should be done to fix the "It's always damage" aspect to the adept/warp prism combo. I think they end up becoming too bad against marauders starting in the midgame when they're armored. The consequence of that would be that TvP compositions would have to be more zealot heavy (since they're the only thing from the gateway that doesn't suck against marauders) but zealots are useless without charge in an actual fight against stimmed bio.

On December 22 2015 23:15 m4ini wrote:
Not to be rude, but since you're doing it again (our last discussion you had the same problem) - you're stating that zealots against a stimmed army are useless. What kind of assumption is that?

If zealots have charge, and the terran doesn't have combat shields, conc shells and stim, the terran army just melts. But it's kind of a "no-argument", you always go charge if you go zealot heavy, the same way you always have stim if you go bio.

I also disagree alot with the idea that protoss needs to counter everything by just building warpgates. Bio isn't played by purely barracks either.

The armor change is also the only change to adept that doesn't touch ZvP at all. Every other change, like warp prism changes etc will touch ZvP as well.

On December 22 2015 23:21 Bohemond wrote:


During beta a few people suggested changing the Adept damage to +12 vs. light. That way they kill Marines and SCVs in 3 hits but still kill lings and drones in 2. Sounds like it'd be worth trying at the very least. Won't change their effectiveness vs. marines with combat shields either, so it probably wouldn't weaken their midgame too much.

On December 22 2015 23:24 m4ini wrote:


Not too bad of an idea, didn't follow beta discussions so i didn't know about it.

Certainly could be a solution as well. That doesn't mean that the armor change shouldn't be tested though, as long as it is on a testmap.

On December 22 2015 23:29 m4ini wrote:
Nah. Shade speed is fine. Imho. The "dual-pressure" is part of the appeal of the adept, if you can outrun the shade with all units, it's kind of pointless to have shade in the first place.

I disagree tbh. If we look at problem 1 of toss, it is that shades are just stupid at how fast they slaughter (especially terran) mineral lines. This is however not just because of its damage (which is good), but largely because of its shade ability and the warp prism which is stupid.

Marauder heavy comps backed up by mines will be hellish for Protoss to deal with.

On December 23 2015 00:41 Foxxan wrote:
I want to see this tested. Would make early tech in tvp work out well which is needed since now u need to add tons of bio early on incase protoss does a big warpin attack of adepts.

Siegetanks, marauders. Opens up factory.

Which is complete bullshit btw. Heard of the new protoss unit???

Zetter wrote:
The new protoss unit has awful synergy with chargelots, which will be the main part of protoss compositions.

On December 23 2015 01:06 Salteador Neo wrote:
I find it weird that nobody has brought up this about the removal of the disruptors bonus damage against shields: Is it a "hidden buff" for PvT and PvZ? The disruptor shots should deal less friendly damage to friendly units (and the disruptor itself) whenever they need to kill stuff that is in their melee range. Or am I missing something?

On December 23 2015 01:33 Nazara wrote:
Terrible change. Much rather I would see increase in scv' hp so theyre not 2 shot anymore or lowering pick up range and increasing warp-in time for warp prism (while giving it back as an upgrade).

On December 23 2015 01:33 Nazara wrote:
Terrible change. Much rather I would see increase in scv' hp so theyre not 2 shot anymore or lowering pick up range and increasing warp-in time for warp prism (while giving it back as an upgrade).

On December 23 2015 01:57 Sissors wrote:

While I don't like it either, your change is worse. The issue is Adepts, changing SCVs means they are stronger vs all harass, so you need to change all other harass units to compensate.

On December 23 2015 02:39 Nazara wrote:
putting It at 47 or 48 t doesn't change anything against hellion, banshee, zealot or the Oracle. The only units affected that you would think about using as a harass is mutas and lings, unless I missed something.

And yes the issue is adepts, including adepts vs workers.
Nerfing adepts attack is not the solution, the unit doesn't scale that well into mid-late game. Unless you give it an extra upgrade.

On December 23 2015 02:47 Bohemond wrote:

If their mid/late is too weak due to this change, make their upgrade something like +50% instead of +45%. This would make them slightly better against non-light units as well.

On December 22 2015 14:46 p68 wrote:


Please stop repeating the Aligulac stats that are only through November currently, and LOTV launched November 10. From the small tournament sample size we do have, it's clear that Terran's having major issues in TvP, and players like Polt have echoed this.

On December 23 2015 03:07 BronzeKnee wrote:


Well December stats come out in early January, so we'll see how it pans out. Unless you have some inside knowledge, you're completely guessing and being even more ignorant than I am to say that TvP is Terran favored. My guess is based on 1 month old stats, yours is based on balance whine from Terran players.

On December 23 2015 03:07 BronzeKnee wrote:


December stats come out in early January, so we'll see how it pans out very soon. Unless you have some inside knowledge, you're completely guessing and being even more ignorant than I am. My guess is based on 1 month old stats, yours is based on balance whine from Terran players.

Look at the Dreamhack tournament results, there was 27 PvTs. Protoss won 14, Terran won 13. It doesn't get any closer than that. The stats simply don't pan out a huge Protoss advantage, and therefore any Adept nerf should be accompanied with a buff to Protoss or nerf to Terran somewhere else or we risk imbalancing the matchup.

That is how balance works. You take weight off one side, and you need to take weight off the other or the scale isn't balanced.

Unfortunately, Blizzard doesn't care about this, never has. Khaydarin Amulet was removed when PvT was literally 50/50, and Protoss go no other buff to compensate, and the Protoss winrate went in the toilet. This could very well be a repeat performance.

On December 23 2015 03:17 Bohemond wrote:


Didn't a whole bunch of korean protoss say adepts are too strong? I thought there was quite a bit of consensus about TvP early game.

And calling it balance whine doesn't make the complaints untrue or contribute anything. It's just an attempt to make a group of people appear immature rather than discuss the real issues. It's kinda like the SC2 version of calling people racist/sexist/unpatriotic in political debates

On December 23 2015 03:19 Sapphire.lux wrote:

That is only true when the game is figured out. At this point there are many things to explore and try out.

On December 23 2015 00:51 Bohemond wrote:


You think that Disruptors are so strong vs. MMM that Protoss won't have a hard time dealing with bio timing attacks if they no longer can use Adepts? Think of how many Adepts are used in Protoss midgame comps. They don't load up their army with the damn thing because they kinda feel like building it and it's a Wednesday.

This change would be a huge nerf to Adepts in TvP, more than doubling Marauder DPS against them. Imagine if Stalkers weren't armored, think how strong they'd suddenly be against Terran bio compared to how they are now.

On December 23 2015 03:20 BronzeKnee wrote:


Adepts are too strong. If you read my OP, I agree with that too. The problem, as I said, is that other parts of Protoss are very weak right now and the Adept is compensating. The Disruptor is pretty bad in TvP, the Colossus got nerfed, the Immortal got nerfed, warp ins got nerfed...

The Adept and Pylon Overcharge are keeping Protoss in the game right now, and both are getting hit. When the winrate is 50/50, what do you think is going to happen?

So I don't disagree with an Adept change, it is just that Protoss needs some other kind of buff so we can keep the winrate where it is.



So what you're telling me is that instead of looking at what is actually happening in reality right now, you'd rather balance the game on what might happen in the future.

That argument has always been invalid. Blizzard used to justify the existence of the 4 Gate and 1-1-1 for so long.

And it was always the argument for why Mech didn't need a buff. People just hadn't figured it out yet...

On December 23 2015 03:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Balance at this point is making sure there are no BS strats going around. Adepts vs Terran is one. So is the nydus IMO.

On December 23 2015 03:20 BronzeKnee wrote:


And it was always the argument for why Mech didn't need a buff. People just hadn't figured it out yet...

On December 23 2015 03:29 BronzeKnee wrote:


I don't think you understand the definition of balance.

On December 23 2015 03:29 Sapphire.lux wrote:

Right, now i can't tell if you're just trolling or not. Mech play had the entire of WOL and HOTS to be shown as viable or not, and you compare it to one month of LOTV of one strat being proven to be to strong?

On December 23 2015 03:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I'm not sure you understand anything TBH. To each his own though.

On December 23 2015 03:22 Foxxan wrote:

You mentioned NOTHING about timing attacks before. You said specificially that the unit composition was the hard part.
Stick to the point!

On December 23 2015 03:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I'm not sure you understand anything TBH. To each his own though.

On December 23 2015 03:35 Naracs_Duc wrote:


If the argument is that the matchup is imbalanced, but the stats shows its balanced--then the matchup is not imbalanced. If the argument is that you are personally annoyed by the game play, then say you are personally annoyed by the gameplay and that its not about balance at all.

Words have meanings, to each his own--but use accurate words to describe your opinions.

So as I've been saying, an Adept nerf should be accompanied by a buff to Protoss or nerf to Terran to keep things even. I'm not saying the Adept shouldn't nerfed, it should.

On December 23 2015 03:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:

The MU can be reasonably balanced when you have "broken" strats by confining, in this case the T player, to only one build, else they die to the broken strat. This is very bad for the game. We've seen it with blue flame, with the infestor, KA, etc.

The game is very new so it's silly to say that without this Adept stuff being so strong, P is gona end up UP. You just can't know that. Unless you think you know everything Protoss in LOTV and if so, you are wrong

This is how it always works in such a complicated game like SC. You can take something out and other stuff develops. If say P turns out to be bad vs Terran, then you change other stuff where appropriate, in the spirit of balance AND healthy gameplay.

The argument that in DH Protoss won 14, Terran won 13 and without the Adept Terran would have won much more is wrong because you don't know what other stuff Protoss would have worked on instead. Maybe there is a strat there that is 10 time stronger and without the Adept, Protoss would have had 100%win rate.

You can only fix the problems that you see, not what you imagine. Adepts are a problem and they get fixed, it's as simple as that.

On December 23 2015 05:51 DeadByDawn wrote:
Good to see that the Adept nerf is finally incoming. Less Protoss bullshit on ladder will result from this. If after a while the stats are showing that without OP early game Adepts that Protoss is too weak then Blizzard can look at strengthening something else to compensate.

On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results.

On December 23 2015 07:12 K_osss wrote:
I'm not a fan of the Adept armor change. I think it's unnecessary.

On December 23 2015 06:17 keglu wrote:
Globally PvT is very close to 50% in november/december so 2 Protoss nerfs for this matchup seem little unexpected.
Blizzard should concentrate on PvZ based on results.

On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:

Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors.

You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %.

On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:


If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance.

On December 23 2015 09:10 plogamer wrote:


Mirror matchup count for Terran was low in Korea too.

On December 23 2015 09:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:


Doesn't matter where the person was born. We either balance based on the top players can do, or we balance based on what lesser players can do. Talking about balancing the game because "Not enough Terrans got to TvT" is silly at best.

On December 23 2015 10:13 plogamer wrote:


Are you new to the community? Korea has the strongest infrastructure for professional Starcraft II players, and it shows in the results.

Going back to my original point: win-rate percentage must be accompanied by other converging lines of evidence - one of them being tournament representation (indicated by mirror-matchup count).

On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:


I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players.

Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy.

On December 23 2015 15:39 plogamer wrote:


By that logic there should be 0 balance patches, period.

On December 23 2015 10:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:


I don't think balance should be based on how many people fail to do well. Balanced should be based on the top players.

Did Zerg get buffed when Savior was the only one doing well? No--because you don't nerf other races just because more people are better with them. Being hard to play does not mean the design was wrong. Being harder to play simply means you can't be as lazy.

On December 22 2015 05:57 Zanzabarr wrote:
Terrible change. Now Marauders hard hard counter both stalkers and adepts. Stim marauders will melt both units in a massive landslide of cost efficiency. Completely unusable unit in PvT with that change.

On December 23 2015 08:06 plogamer wrote:

Winrate alone isn't a complete indicator of balance. Winrate has a tendency to shift towards 50% regardless of balance. TvZ winrate near the end of WoL was 45%, not because Brood/infestor was balanced, but because few Terrans in tournaments inflate the winrate %. This was indicated best by mirror matchup statistics. Terrans during Brood/Infestor WoL had the least number of mirrors.

You're somewhat right. PvZ isn't in a good place either. I just find a bone to pick with your obession with pure winrate %.

On December 23 2015 08:10 Naracs_Duc wrote:


If the goal is balance, then we should only care about the top players who do well. If the goal is coddling foreigners then we need to use a different term than balance.

On December 23 2015 17:16 keglu wrote:


They basically divided playerbase into 2 groups now with new WCS system.
So i assume only logical step now is to have game balanced also for non Koreans.
Otherwise what is the point of this new system.

On December 23 2015 19:46 Sapphire.lux wrote:

This is a good point. We know that for 5 years now Terran has had a terrible time in the foreigner scene but done well in the Korean one. So with no Korean Terrans at Circuit events will the foreigner scene become a Z/P affair? Will it be balanced around Z/P foreigner level and risk making Korea a Terran heaven? Will they finally make mech viable so a less micro intensive stile can compete? Interesting.

On December 23 2015 17:31 Charoisaur wrote:

Like it is for terran currently. Get liberators or die

Psionic Transfer
Projects an invulnerable psionic image that cannot move and cannot attack. While Psionic Transfer is active the adept gains a movement speed bonus and may attack and move through units. After 7 seconds, the adept teleports back to the location of its psionic image. Psionic Transfer may be canceled at any time, and the adept will immediately teleport back to the location of the psionic image.
Cooldown: 11s

On December 23 2015 23:05 Laserist wrote:
I was very happy to have a useful gateway unit alone without sentry + simcity support but Mr. Kim thinks that marauders should wreck toss gateway like always. If Adept will be armored, then we'll get back to Hots toss anyways, since marauders and roaches will dance on them. I never like to rely on good forcefields + positioning defensively all the with toss gateway army, early to mid game. Adepts were a fresh air.

On December 24 2015 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:

i don't think that with the marauder nerf and charge buff terran t1/t2 would be superior to protoss t1/t2 even with the adept nerf.

This way they also don't overlap as much with zealots.

On December 24 2015 02:00 Salteador Neo wrote:


Lol Swarmhost if one of the biggest failures in SC2 design, if not the biggest. Numbers of HotS viewers dropped because of the kind of games it created (me included). You don't wanna compare anything with that shit.

We can't give up on the idea of adept being a core unit just... 7? weeks after release. I can understand some terrans don't like the unit, but c'mon.

On December 23 2015 23:05 Laserist wrote:
I was very happy to have a useful gateway unit alone without sentry + simcity support but Mr. Kim thinks that marauders should wreck toss gateway like always. If Adept will be armored, then we'll get back to Hots toss anyways, since marauders and roaches will dance on them. I never like to rely on good forcefields + positioning defensively all the with toss gateway army, early to mid game. Adepts were a fresh air.

On December 24 2015 05:04 pure.Wasted wrote:


Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month)

Adepts cost as much as Marauders but have more HP, regenerate half of it without a Medivac (crucial in early engagements), and have have slightly worse DPS against light than Stimmed Marauders have against armored. Without researching anything, and certainly without taking a 10 HP hit every time they want to engage. Their stats are absolutely bloated for their cost. Or compare to Stalkers, 25/25 less cost for 2 less range, exactly the same damage output, and an armor type that means that unlike Stalkers they don't take extra damage from anything.

I don't think making them Armored is the correct solution, though. It's worth trying - anything is - but this runs the risk of making Marauders ubiquitous for Terran in TvP. I would have preferred a straight HP nerf and a DPS nerf (the crucial 2-shot/3-shot difference) that would make Adepts equally less viable against all early compositions.

On December 24 2015 05:04 pure.Wasted wrote:


Until the late midgame/late game, when Liberators are out on the field and a critical mass of Medivacs is available, the problem is both. Unmicroed Adept/Immortal/Stalker rolls Terran bio, and the secret to that composition's success is not Immortal/Stalker. (if you need proof, watch ByuN's games vs Neeb and MaNa at Gauntlet earlier this month)

On December 23 2015 15:49 Sissors wrote:


So balance should be based on just the top 10 or so players. And then if a single Terran (or Zerg or Protoss) manages to do well, that race is apparantly fine. But when that single player decides to retire, the race needs to be boosted despite nothing having changed?

If you are going to look at the absolute top the sample pool is too small to say anything useful statistically. You will need have a look at a larger group.

Also I don't see any reason why you would want to look only at the few top players, why wouldn't balance matter for the millions who actually provide Blizzard with their income?

On December 26 2015 17:34 Naracs_Duc wrote:


If a player can show that its possible to do well with the race--then we should not buff the race just because not everyone is as good as him. That's the only way to fix the game based on "balance."

Now, if you would like the game to be fixed based on lower level players--that is not about "balance" but is instead about ease of entry. Those are two very different problems.