Community Feedback Update - May 27

On May 28 2016 03:12 MockHamill wrote:
The latest patch was a really good step in the right direction. The only huge problem remaining right now is Tempest at 4 supply. Tempest needs to be at 6 supply, this alone would make TvP late game more balanced and make mech semi-usable in TvP at least at casual level.

Separate MMR per race is a good idea as is showing worker count and army count in game.

For ladder revamp I really hope you go for lots of ranks within each league instead of just 3. The whole point is that everyone should have something to strive for on ladder, and after years of playing most people are stuck in their current league. By having 5-10 ranks per league everyone can get a goal that is actually achievable without having to quit their jobs and forsake their studies.

On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:


Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition.

On May 28 2016 03:19 DinoMight wrote:


MMM and Vikings SHRED Tempests.

This "make Tempests and win" thing you're talking about doesn't exist. Protoss needs Tempests, Storm, Archons, Zealots, etc. for Tempests to be viable at all. They're slow as hell and have awful DPS.

On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:


Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition.

On May 28 2016 02:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
All these seem fair enough. The separate army/worker supply is probably a small QoL improvement at the lower levels, and not really relevant higher up.

I've read some TLers saying another QoL improvement would be to be able to cast and activate all abilities from your units without having to tab between them. That would be a nice touch if it's not implemented yet (afaik it isn't).

On May 28 2016 04:15 TheWinks wrote:
If terran wasn't overpowered why did they nerf it without compensation? Why are they pretending the result is going to be anything other than making the race weaker?

On May 28 2016 02:37 Salteador Neo wrote:
I've read some TLers saying another QoL improvement would be to be able to cast and activate all abilities from your units without having to tab between them. That would be a nice touch if it's not implemented yet (afaik it isn't).

On May 28 2016 03:36 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I really wish they would add a "standard skins only" option. The ability to customize colors on ladder was a really nice first step, I'd like to be able to standardize the games further more.

On May 28 2016 03:36 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I really wish they would add a "standard skins only" option. The ability to customize colors on ladder was a really nice first step, I'd like to be able to standardize the games further more.

On May 28 2016 05:02 BaronVonOwn wrote:

yeah... I'm a little concerned that paid skins could be obnoxious and over-the-top to get people to buy them. I don't want every ladder game to look and sound like some arcade map or campaign mission. Hopefully there will be a graphics option to disable custom skins.

On May 28 2016 04:51 washikie wrote:


I don't know haw hard this would be to implement for blizzard but it would be cool if it was possible. I don't have problems with most skins, but the winged zergling skin is a real pain. It makes it harder to figure out how many lings thier actually are I find it especially annoying in zvz.

On May 28 2016 05:02 BaronVonOwn wrote:

yeah... I'm a little concerned that paid skins could be obnoxious and over-the-top to get people to buy them. I don't want every ladder game to look and sound like some arcade map or campaign mission. Hopefully there will be a graphics option to disable custom skins.

On May 28 2016 05:15 D_K_night wrote:


That's what low graphics settings is for.

That aside, well no, the entire point of skins and differentiating graphical looks is for other ppl to see them. What's the point of even releasing custom skins if they are not visible?

So no. World of Warcraft players have also asked to disable everyone else's transmorghify options just because they personally found obnoxious that people wanted to customize their own look. Blizzard thankfully did not cave into that.

The paid skins won't be any more obnoxious than the existing WoL collector's edition Thor, the HOTS ultralisk, the marines with bladed rifles, etc.

They are just simple graphical enhancements that make the game look cooler and more unique.

On May 28 2016 05:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:

people can buy custom skins if they want to enhance their game experience. If I can avoid to see silly skins I'm all for it. Especially since some of them are confusing -winged lings not to name them.

On May 28 2016 05:15 D_K_night wrote:
That's what low graphics settings is for.

That aside, well no, the entire point of skins and differentiating graphical looks is for other ppl to see them. What's the point of even releasing custom skins if they are not visible?

So no. World of Warcraft players have also asked to disable everyone else's transmorghify options just because they personally found obnoxious that people wanted to customize their own look. Blizzard thankfully did not cave into that.

The paid skins won't be any more obnoxious than the existing WoL collector's edition Thor, the HOTS ultralisk, the marines with bladed rifles, etc.

They are just simple graphical enhancements that make the game look cooler and more unique.

On May 28 2016 05:30 BaronVonOwn wrote:

I'm pretty sure this whole idea came from a small but vocal group of amateur eSports directors who think paid skins are going to somehow save SC2 like they saved CSGO. It's not the same, there can't be some massive underground skin betting market in Starcraft, it's just going to be one more way to nickel-and-dime loyal fans. SC2 is kept afloat by a pretty hardcore community these days, and skins are a casual feature for WoW and Hearthstone players. Keep them in co-op with the casuals. The "standard" SC2 experience has always been distinct from the arcade/campaign experience and ruining that with a blatant attempt at money-grubbing is going to turn off a lot of fans.

On May 28 2016 04:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


They nerfed liberators because the way it annihilated zerg air wasn't good design. And they didn't nerf it without compensation--they buffed thor anti-air. Also just because Terran isn't overpowered, it doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced in TvZ.

On May 28 2016 04:38 avilo wrote:
Tempest was originally 6 supply and supposed to be 6 supply especially for the stats on the unit and what it does.

Currently it is overpowered because it's overly efficient at 4 supply. During one of the HOTS beta patches they lowered it to 4 supply with one of the reasons being "people weren't building them."

It needs to go back to 6 supply.

On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in.

On May 28 2016 07:10 TheWinks wrote:

8 armor ultras are bad design too. Design itself isn't enough rational to nerf a race that isn't overperforming and is probably underperforming and if you're going to do it, you need to compensate it with something.

The Thor change is not a buff, just like removing the AA in beta was not a nerf.

On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in.

On May 28 2016 08:13 CheddarToss wrote:

And a slight buff to every gateway unit to compensate for these unneeded nerfs.

On May 28 2016 07:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote:


The Thor change is definitely a buff, though you could argue as to how much of a buff it is. From what I've seen of them so far in pro games they seem pretty okay in the right circumstances. Also if you look at the Korean TvZ results over the last few months terran sure as hell isn't "probably underperforming".

On May 28 2016 07:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
And I completely disagree that "Design itself isn't enough of a rationale to nerf a race". Design is way more important than balance. You should strive for balance and compensate when necessary, but trying to get the design right should always be the primary goal.

On May 28 2016 07:47 avilo wrote:
I've been playing a lot of off-race Z (almost as strong as my main race tbh).

I played a game within the last two days on frost, ZvT, my opponent had a 30-50 army supply lead, and i won the game because i managed to get out 8 armor ultras and a-moved into 3 liberators + his 30-50 army supply lead.

Something is very, very wrong with 8 armor ultras. I mean it's been obvious - the unit is absurdly broken.

I shouldn't be able to a-move with a 30 army supply deficit, zero micro, and beat someone that was beating me the entire game simply because i got out a tier3 unit =/

On May 28 2016 08:33 [PkF] Wire wrote:

you're absurdly delusional about the state of Protoss in high level play.

I don't think P is hugely favored, but there is little debate they dominate the pro scene atm and that both those slight nerfs (tempest supply + warp prism range) have been advocated for for ages and would make the global balance far better.

On May 28 2016 08:50 CheddarToss wrote:

Why do you, and people that share your opinion, ignore that on the highest level of play (as in Korean tournaments) people play on different maps, which are better for Protoss, while the rest of the world plays on the shitty ladder maps? According to aligulac last week PvZ was at 50% for the first time since LotV release. We are talking about 8 months of PvZ being between 42 and 48%, but most of the time closer to 42%. And now that the MU is finally fair for both sides, it's time to give Zergs another 6-7 months of free wins?

On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:


Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition.

and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change.

On May 28 2016 11:48 Cyro wrote:


I've been pretty sad to see so many people pushing for the opposite (nerfed gateway units, buffed tech).

With Zerg and Terran being ~36% each of the diamond-gm population and protoss being 23%, there will be comparitively little feedback coming from actual protoss players. I think there is a disproportionate amount of anti-protoss comments/bias because of that as well.

On May 28 2016 11:32 Agh wrote:


Everything you just described only happens in masters league and below. Trying to balance and accommodate for that level of play is just bad for the game as a whole.

DPS/Cost for tempest is still among the lowest in the game even at 4 supply. The unit fulfills its niche role and that is about it.

OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ?

On May 28 2016 12:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:

OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ?
- the chargelot already got a pretty strong charge that helped make charge based compositions mainstream even in PvZ.
- the adept is very tanky and strong overall, the shade is very helpful and some would say the cooldown is too low in some circumstances, not much room for buffs here.
- the only unit that could get a buff is then the stalker, but you run the risk of making blink timings too strong or to have some match-ups revolve entirely around mass stalkers. That could be cool since the unit is very microable but that could get boring quick too.

Overall I think there is not much room for gateway buffs and that anyway P is more than fine -if something has to happen to P in the next patch, that's probably some kind of nerf, a warp prism nerf being the most likely given the recent updates trend.

By the way, the fact that there is significantly less P players in the "higher" leagues -I trust you on the numbers- genuinely surprises me. I'm not a very skilled player but I didn't struggle at all to get master league while playing a very HotS like style and I don't feel the game became harder for P in any single way.

On May 28 2016 14:28 Skyro wrote:


I want a complete revamp. Buff Zealot speed and damage so they are actually useful early game. Buff stalker damage but reduce health to change their role into more of a fragile ranged DPS unit. Move warpgate tech to twilight council to smooth out the Protoss army power curve and remove the issue of OP warp gate timing (which would also indirectly nerf warp prism).

Once you start viewing it in this light you realize if gateway units were actually useful at defending early game you could remove the horrible design of the Mothership Core, and the smoother power curve would also promote more aggression early game and not warp gate timings that has essentially dominated Protoss aggression for the entirely of SC2. But alas I know this is all a pipedream. I think at the very least the Colossus should be revamped so that it becomes more a mid-game, defensive/positional unit. Perhaps something like removing the range upgrade but adding stationary mode like siege tank which gives adds range.

On May 28 2016 08:46 Tyrhanius wrote:

As zerg eco gets larvas nerf + mutas ball no longer cost effective, if zerg had invested 600/700 to get infest pit/hive ultras + armor tech while T had invest nothing on tech if he only had bio +3 only liberators, it just normal T had a supply lead.

Don't mean "he had outplayed you" like you're trying to suggest but more : T tried to all-in with high number of low tech units while he sacrified his tech but didn't managed to win so got crushed by superior tech.

It's just basic game knowledge. Else zergs can just make 200/200 roachs and say they should beat any 150-170 supply army because they have 30-50 supply lead !

T just wants better early mid game than on HOTS with liberator/tankyvac and larvas nerf AND when they reach 3/3 bio become godelike ?

Hots TvZ bio vs LBM was far better to play but "community" ask for macro change/mutas hard counter, so ultras +8 is just here to compensate those changes, else zerg can't beat terran.

On May 28 2016 05:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:

people can buy custom skins if they want to enhance their game experience. If I can avoid to see silly skins I'm all for it. Especially since some of them are confusing -winged lings not to name them.

i want a setting in the options menu forcing the display standard unit models only in my game client. then Blizzard can sell 5000 different skins for each unit and it has zero impact on me.

On May 29 2016 00:08 Lexender wrote:


We've asked about lategame units to transition to since forever and all Blizzard has given us is a useless gimmick for the BC, the awful design of the cyclone, ravens that are super expensive paperweights, the tankivac gimmick (good for midgame but useless in the lategame) and the thor still being shit (altough they trying todo fix this now).

The only good thing for lategame that was added was the lib and thats why you ser libs un all games every game.

The ghost is kind of in limbo because altough the new snipe is strong is super easy to cancel it.

On May 29 2016 02:23 Charoisaur wrote:

Infestors are used almost every zvt. ravens are used... never except maybe 1 in early game tvt. I don't think I would say they are in a similar spot.

On May 28 2016 12:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:

OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ?
- the chargelot already got a pretty strong charge that helped make charge based compositions mainstream even in PvZ.
- the adept is very tanky and strong overall, the shade is very helpful and some would say the cooldown is too low in some circumstances, not much room for buffs here.
- the only unit that could get a buff is then the stalker, but you run the risk of making blink timings too strong or to have some match-ups revolve entirely around mass stalkers. That could be cool since the unit is very microable but that could get boring quick too.

On May 28 2016 12:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:Overall I think there is not much room for gateway buffs and that anyway P is more than fine -if something has to happen to P in the next patch, that's probably some kind of nerf, a warp prism nerf being the most likely given the recent updates trend.

By the way, the fact that there is significantly less P players in the "higher" leagues -I trust you on the numbers- genuinely surprises me. I'm not a very skilled player but I didn't struggle at all to get master league while playing a very HotS like style and I don't feel the game became harder for P in any single way.

On May 29 2016 06:24 CheddarToss wrote:


Easy:

1) buff Stalker anti air damage

2) Merge DT and HT tech

Et voila!


Honestly, the way you are always advocating Protoss nerfs and never complain, even when Protoss was massively UP in PvZ for like 6 months, I never would have guessed that you play Protoss.

On May 29 2016 07:43 Beelzebub1 wrote:


1) That is actually a pretty decent idea, I've shared this sentiment for a long time, Stalkers aren't that great, but they should be, they are a high skill cap unit so I've never understood why they do such pitiful damage, Stalkers vs. mid game bio armies is hilariously 1 sided, and honestly Stalkers vs. Mutalisks even can be pretty bad.

2) This is the direct opposite of your first idea, this is terrible and just OP.

Protoss was only UP because that's the way this game works with a new expansion, Protoss got the most radical changes and Zerg just got straight buffs pretty much so of course there was lots of growing pains, he probably never complains because he looks at the game as a whole and his name isn't...ya know...Cheddartoss rofl

On May 29 2016 07:43 Beelzebub1 wrote:


1) That is actually a pretty decent idea, I've shared this sentiment for a long time, Stalkers aren't that great, but they should be, they are a high skill cap unit so I've never understood why they do such pitiful damage, Stalkers vs. mid game bio armies is hilariously 1 sided, and honestly Stalkers vs. Mutalisks even can be pretty bad.

2) This is the direct opposite of your first idea, this is terrible and just OP.

Protoss was only UP because that's the way this game works with a new expansion, Protoss got the most radical changes and Zerg just got straight buffs pretty much so of course there was lots of growing pains, he probably never complains because he looks at the game as a whole and his name isn't...ya know...Cheddartoss rofl

On May 29 2016 06:24 CheddarToss wrote:


Easy:

1) buff Stalker anti air damage

2) Merge DT and HT tech

Et voila!


Honestly, the way you are always advocating Protoss nerfs and never complain, even when Protoss was massively UP in PvZ for like 6 months, I never would have guessed that you play Protoss.

On May 29 2016 06:24 CheddarToss wrote:


Easy:

1) buff Stalker anti air damage

2) Merge DT and HT tech

Et voila!


Honestly, the way you are always advocating Protoss nerfs and never complain, even when Protoss was massively UP in PvZ for like 6 months, I never would have guessed that you play Protoss.

1) That is actually a pretty decent idea, I've shared this sentiment for a long time, Stalkers aren't that great, but they should be, they are a high skill cap unit so I've never understood why they do such pitiful damage, Stalkers vs. mid game bio armies is hilariously 1 sided, and honestly Stalkers vs. Mutalisks even can be pretty bad.

Stalkers always beat mutas on equal number.

On May 29 2016 08:18 Glorfindel! wrote:
Well...
The Cyclone could still need some love.
In the current state there is no way a terran is going to "mass cyclones" that they keep being afraid of.
A 4 supply unit with 120 health.
Compared to Adepts that are being massed every PvT, 150 health and 2 supply.
I just dont get the 4 supply... The unit is a piece of rusty crap

On May 29 2016 19:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Ultralisk are too easy to use, they are pretty fast, strong and insane armor. Their attack animation is instant unlike certain units (thor etc) A disruptor can do amazing damage but it requires skill to controll it. There is no downside to an ultralisk, except it doesnt shoot air....

On May 29 2016 10:50 Cyro wrote:


Stalkers are pretty good in low numbers but not larger, i think a lot of that is due to the two points that i brought up - model size and wasting an increasingly large % of their damage as you get more of them

Their attack animation is instant unlike certain units (thor etc)

On May 29 2016 19:47 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Ultralisk are too easy to use, they are pretty fast, strong and insane armor. Their attack animation is instant unlike certain units (thor etc) A disruptor can do amazing damage but it requires skill to controll it. There is no downside to an ultralisk, except it doesnt shoot air....

On May 28 2016 03:29 Charoisaur wrote:

yeah "don't let him get there or you lose"
In my opinion in a strategy game you should have more options than being forced to allin every game before a certain unit composition hits the field.

Stalkers aren't that great, but they should be, they are a high skill cap unit so I've never understood why they do such pitiful damage

On May 30 2016 16:19 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like what they are seeing.

The next step in the balance department should be to look at the Tempest. It's to easy to mass and they become untouchable in larger numbers.

The Siege Tank should perform better against Protoss in general, so they should have a look at that.

On May 30 2016 16:53 Cyro wrote:


They had a look at it for ages and a large fraction of the population was voting to keep siege tank drop in its current form instead of increasing damage (because of TvZ?)

On May 30 2016 18:23 Cyro wrote:
Tanks that can be lifted, dropped and instantly attack without unsieging have to have their damage tuned a lot lower than tanks that don't have that ability in order to have similar balance

I don't want to see the medivac instant-fire version of tank buffed to be better than liberator anti-ground in TvP as both a spectator and a player.. just don't like the gameplay.

On May 30 2016 17:32 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I remember most of the votes were positive for nerfing tankvacs and the reason cited for not going ahead with the change was "some Korean pros"

On May 28 2016 02:24 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Community request to add army supply/worker supply to the UI
We were seeing a lot of request to add these to the default, player UI. We just wanted to confirm the desire for this add. Let’s get discussions going on this so that we can make a call on if we should add this to the game or not.

Opinion on reddit and the b.net forums turned on a dime after that community update as people were quickly convinced that nerfing the tankivac in exchange for a damage boost would be a net nerf to terran and lead to even more restricted and less diverse gameplay.

On May 31 2016 18:00 Cyro wrote:
^That's a pretty good idea, as an experienced zerg player i have a great sense for when injects will finish but i can't count the amount of times that i've come back to a hatchery and realized that i missed a cycle and my queen has 47-48 energy. There's not really an indication for that right now, but being able to see it with your camera anywhere on the map by hitting your hatch hotkey would be nice.

On May 31 2016 18:00 Cyro wrote:
^That's a pretty good idea, as an experienced zerg player i have a great sense for when injects will finish but i can't count the amount of times that i've come back to a hatchery and realized that i missed a cycle and my queen has 47-48 energy. There's not really an indication for that right now, but being able to see it with your camera anywhere on the map by hitting your hatch hotkey would be nice.

-------------------



A lot of that was people worrying about ravagers being too strong against terran even with buffed tank damage.

I think the best thing to do design-wise would have been to switch the tank to nomedivac (or a long delay to fire after dropping, to emphasize repositioning) with higher damage and nerf ravager ability if neccesary.

They could also design the siege tank around immobile siege while the liberator is designed around more mobile but weaker sieging, so that they both have a place in the game. Liberator also has its harass and anti-air potential so it should be worse at the siege tank's role as compensation for the increased versatility.

Yeah, something like that. I honestly think they went overboard with testing the complete removal of tankvac and should have instead tested something like they get un-sieged when dropped, or higher delay, etc coupled with a dmg buff.

Anyway, i noticed equal supply of Tanks now beat Immortals in direct fights after the Immo nerf. Not sure what to think of it.

On May 31 2016 19:58 Cyro wrote:


I think that was even the direction that stuff was going before it stopped getting talked about



WOL+HOTS immortal was one of the hardcounter units, very good against some units and very bad against others. Legacy made it better against the units that countered it before (didn't used to get damage reduced by shield but now do) and worse against many of the units that it countered (used to take more damage from them more reliably)

Halving the shield leaves the Legacy immortal still better than it used to be vs some units like lings, hydras but generally nerfed overall

Immortal V Tank should favor immortals with low numbers on both sides, right? I don't think losing in a 33 vs 25 fight is that bad vs sieged tanks w/ splash. In small numbers the splash and range advantage of the tanks matter a lot less, in large you'll have half of your immortals not able to attack for a while and you also won't be able to micromanage the shield so the tank shots will trigger most of them very quickly

On May 31 2016 20:25 Charoisaur wrote:

if I try tank + hellbat mech my opponent just instantly throws down 3 stargates and a fleetbeacon and starts spamming tempests because they know it's a freewin.

On May 31 2016 08:46 dNa wrote:
In my opinion this is the worst map pool I've had to play on in starcraft... there's 1, maybe 2 maps where you can take a comfortable third. they even took Prion out to put in another one where you're just supposed to 2base all in... I just want to play macro games
I guess it has to do with those "interesting"maps that are all the hype, but if every map is some variation of Ulrena it loses its uniqueness, which was what made it interesting in the first place... As it is I need like 5 vetoes. ._.

Really hope they do something about this next seasons and introduce some macro maps... maybe bring Orbital Station back :x

On May 31 2016 20:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I tested 7 T vs 6 I (similar supply), because that's the number of tanks i usually push out with. In my tests the Tanks actually won, no pick up, all bunched in a ball. Obviously this alone does not mean mech is viable, in a more aggressive play anyway, but it's interesting. In HOTS Immortals would have won by a landslide.

EDIT. It's 7 Tanks vs 5 Immortals (21 supply vs 20)

I wish better players then me would start testing Tank-Hellbat mech and not focus so much on SkyTerran with Liberators.

On May 31 2016 21:30 Gwavajuice wrote:



That's interesting, in HotS tank hellbat and banshee was very efficient against Protoss going immortal heavy (which they often did when they were seeing mech).

My question is more why you seem to go tank hellbats only, don't you think banshee would be a nice addition - or did I misunderstand?

On May 31 2016 21:04 Charoisaur wrote:

maybe it could work but the timing push needs to be extremely well timed because even a small number of air units demolish your army. And unless you scan every few seconds it's not as easy to exactly know when the opponent is transitioning to air..

On May 31 2016 21:57 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I guess i'm old fashioned :p .

I view the army not just in terms of fire power but also HP. Banshees, like all air units, will not add to the HP of the army against say Zealots/ Immortals/ Adepts/Colossus, and what i found that happens is that my ground would get crushed and the air units survive. I'm not sure that with a few surviving Banshees you can then continue to push, if there are Cannons, the odd Storm and whatnot can nullify my advantage after wining the fight. If you go more Skyterran, like Avilo, then sure, you have a lot of air and that's different.

For more traditional mech, i want to have as many Tanks as possible because after wining a fight i can continue to push and kill any static def, and Hellions reinforce fast thanks to their speed. It's also good because of their range i can form a line of defense and siege one or even 2 expansions at the same time.

I also like to have as few types of units as possible, and for the units to be as reliable as possible. I find it hard enough to take good positions, protect the Tanks from Zealots/ Adepts, keep the Immortals at bay, that i can't be bothered to baby sit banshees against storm, FG, NP, etc. I would try to minimize the potential for the engagement to be decided on one hit wonder spells.

So ironically enough, i think the more Tanks you have the more you can move on the map and sustain the attack.

On June 01 2016 00:10 CyanApple wrote:

What's the reason that you don't add Thors to your composition to help against air especially? Or are you not talking about Lategame?

On June 01 2016 00:23 Sapphire.lux wrote:

I was talking about Banshees in particular as a core component.

On June 01 2016 00:48 CyanApple wrote:

I thought you ruled out Banshees as an option for your preferred playstyle. I was suggesting to add Thors as a core component instead.

On June 01 2016 00:48 CyanApple wrote:

I thought you ruled out Banshees as an option for your preferred playstyle. I was suggesting to add Thors as a core component instead.

On June 01 2016 02:35 PinoKotsBeer wrote:

Yes

On June 01 2016 06:23 Shield wrote:


I haven't felt immortals being significantly weaker, but I haven't played much 1vs1. I guess we'll see in PvZ. It's probably the only match-up where this nerf matters.

On June 01 2016 12:58 ThunderJunk wrote:


Liberators are an anti-ground siege unit. They are very effective against ground. They shouldn't also be an anti-air unit. They were only given AA capabilities so Terran could conveniently deal with Zerg air. This means Liberators are the answer to both Zerg lategame options, which is bad for the game. Suggestion: Remove Liberator AA.

On June 01 2016 16:35 Salteador Neo wrote:
If the primary design for the lib was the AA they failed quite hard imo. Can't give something 85 damage per shot against ground and call it an AA unit.

On May 31 2016 17:04 IcemanAsi wrote:
I can't post on the US website and this thread doesn't exist on EU ( great community outreach there blizzard ) so I'm posting this here and hoping someone from the US might post it there if you deem it worthy:



If we are already looking into doing UI and Quality of life improvements lets talk about one the most glaring missing features in the UI for zerg: Spawn larva progress display with multiple hatch selected.

Spawn larva is the central mechanic for Zerg macro, and a multi hatch select group is gonna be the Zerg players main tool for macro in every single game. And yet, when multiple hatches are selected, there is no display of spawn larva progress on the different hatches. Contrast this with Protoss gateways that show a circling timer for their cool down. Adding this same display to hatches would help new to medium level players with their injects, give even higher level players more information and would simply make Zerg macro more fun as you will have a clear visual indicator of progress and success of implementing a macro mechanic.