I don't want to be negative since people seem to be pretty positive about these changes.. but: Corrosive Bile is the only cool part of the Ravager and without it it's just an even more boring Roach that cannot do Burrow shenanigans and so I hate to see it go more down this route.
Liberator Zone should remain strong, you can nerf it's move speed and anti air, or make it Tech Lab requirement, but the Zoning is super cool and should remain strong.
Thor Single Target seems weird and I actually think it should have a bigger splash radius than Liberators, switching around the anti air attack of the Liberator and the Thor, apart from the range part, actually feels really nice.
Banshee could be made Reactor-able instead.
I mean I think/watch SC2 every day and I'm still not used to the Liberator it's just a weird unit, but this is not the answer.
The ladder changes are good, I approve of them overall. They should of happened a while ago, but better late than never. Also, I want to specifically talk about one of the balance changes. The liberator radius nerf is a mistake, it would likely result in Terran under performing like it did when the widow mine radius nerf happened and Terran didn't win a single tournament for 6 months. It would be far better to just do a range nerf to both the liberator's ATG pre-upgrade and post-upgrade. This is more of a mild nerf and it will weaken liberators, but also keep Terran competitive and balanced in the process.
Not really sure why they want to push back liberator useage and also especially plan to make banshees more popular. Liberators really feel like one of the better LOTV units and as mentioned above banshees and bio just doesn't synergize very well, because you have strong enough harras and rather need something for army vs army engagements. I wish they would express what role they have in mind for the liberator compared to other relevant terran units. Libs sure are a staple of Terrans current army compositions but I'm not sure how its a bad things. It's not like just massing them makes you win the game for sure.
I like the Banshee changes TBO. It's a very interesting unit that should see a lot more play.
The lib nerf is needed because it dominates everything Terran way to much.
Like i said before though, the Thor needs more range if it's to be a counter to armored air like BL or Tampests. It doesn't matter how much dmg it does when it can be kited to oblivion by a unit of the same cost, lower supply and more mobile and with the range advantage.
The Tanckvac still needs a nerf and the dmg a buff. Don't sweep the community feedback under the rug. Get to work!
So what are we supposed to build against mass Hellbat Thor now? Thor can'thave both insane air and ground damage and be complimented perfectly by a unit that comes from the same structure and costs no gas.
Maybe when we see numbers I can balance whine more. But I don't like that they're fundamentally ruining the game based on Avilo's whining.
This idea that the factory needs to have some sort of high single target damage AA is a crutch for lazy play, and an excuse to only make factory units. It has no place in SC2. Those advocating for such a change (and likely for higher siege tank damage, etc..) should really just be playing BW.
Otherwise, good job Blizzard. MMR has been something I've wanted for years, and race split MMR just makes sense.
On March 25 2016 03:28 H0i wrote: They should really work on protoss, design and balance wise. Why do they keep ignoring protoss? Especially PvZ.
I don't know if I'll ever understand why they are so blatantly ignoring Protoss. For the three months since the release of LOTV, the win rate for Protoss in PvZ has been 42%, 45% and 43%.
And they've basically changed nothing except nerfed Adepts and Pylon Overcharge.
People keep saying it is maps, but then the map pool hasn't changed... why not?
On March 25 2016 04:55 DinoMight wrote: So what are we supposed to build against mass Hellbat Thor now? Thor can'thave both insane air and ground damage and be complimented perfectly by a unit that comes from the same structure and costs no gas.
Maybe when we see numbers I can balance whine more. But I don't like that they're fundamentally ruining the game based on Avilo's whining.
This idea that the factory needs to have some sort of high single target damage AA is a crutch for lazy play, and an excuse to only make factory units. It has no place in SC2. Those advocating for such a change (and likely for higher siege tank damage, etc..) should really just be playing BW.
Otherwise, good job Blizzard. MMR has been something I've wanted for years, and race split MMR just makes sense.
Well, they will become bad against mutas because they lose their splash. And they'll still be meh against sufficient amounts of roaches.
Ravager Corrosive Bile cooldown increased from 10 to 14
What? I thought Corrosive Bile cooldown was 7 seconds? Did Blizzard not know their own cooldowns or am I just wrong?
The game is still written in "HotS" (or "Blizzard") seconds internally. The community feedback threads use "HotS" seconds. 10 HotS seconds is around 7 real seconds.
On March 25 2016 05:04 BronzeKnee wrote: People keep saying it is maps, but then the map pool hasn't changed... why not?
It's not going to either. Blizzard wants these kinds of maps around for variety. IMHO that means that Protoss' early game capabilities to defend spread-out places is definitely going to have to increase (and I hope it's not a PO buff).
Everytime blizzard knows how to tingle my nerves. Why not just like in hots, optional mode. There was nooooo reason to change that. All it needs is just a bigger range in flat mode so it can attack tempests, and not kited to death.
On March 25 2016 04:55 DinoMight wrote: Maybe when we see numbers I can balance whine more. But I don't like that they're fundamentally ruining the game based on Avilo's whining.
This idea that the factory needs to have some sort of high single target damage AA is a crutch for lazy play, and an excuse to only make factory units. It has no place in SC2. Those advocating for such a change (and likely for higher siege tank damage, etc..) should really just be playing BW.
or C&C where is Technique? i've never seen that guy lose a Tank battle.. like ever.
it weakens the Thor against Mutalisks.
imo Avilo/Goody style play is how a player of low APM can beat a player of higher APM. its only a test map. nothing wrong with some experimenting. sometimes u accidentally discover new things.and maybe.. just maybe.. in this 1 area.. Avilo is actually right?
On March 25 2016 03:28 H0i wrote: They should really work on protoss, design and balance wise. Why do they keep ignoring protoss? Especially PvZ.
I don't know if I'll ever understand why they are so blatantly ignoring Protoss. For the three months since the release of LOTV, the win rate for Protoss in PvZ has been 42%, 45% and 43%.
And they've basically changed nothing except nerfed Adepts and Pylon Overcharge.
People keep saying it is maps, but then the map pool hasn't changed... why not?
Ravager nerf sounds OK, but I'm worried about the exact thing that DK is saying: It's a nerf against Terran as well which might hurt zerg in an unncessary way. But it sounds like a good idea to test and honestly, the testmap could have been implemented weeks ago given that blizzard has been communicating those numbers for weeks already.
Liberator nerf for Banshee buff... sorry, but this is stupid. The liberator is the most important in TvP (though good or even great in all matchups). The banshee has absolute no use in TvP right now. This nerfs the former, but doesn't really make banshees good vs protoss for a thousand and one reasons that are not fixed with banshee speed. It would end up as a plain nerf in TvP, especially to lategame Terran. Which is already way to weak to beat endgame Templar/Tempest play. In my opinion: just test the requirement change and leave cost the same without any liberator nerfs. The only build that really uses both, liberators and banshees is the sky/hellion play against zerg and that is not that strong to begin with.
EPT
