We’re very excited about these finals coming up! The sOs vs. Byun finals seems so exciting because $o$ winning this to qualify into BlizzCon would open the potential for having a three-time Global Champion. At the same time however, it would also be cool to see ByuN prove to the world that as long as you are awesome, you don’t necessarily need a team to win one of the most difficult tournaments in the world. Not only that, but the race-ratio of the two finals is perfect, and seeing how the remaining BlizzCon slots in KR turn out also sounds exciting.
Matchmaking for Balance Testing Next Week
We wanted to let you know that matchmaking for balance testing will come out next week. Using this will be similar to how you queue into multiplayer games. You would just need to go to the ‘Testing’ tab in Multiplayer, pick the map vetos as you normally would, and then hit play to match make. The starting MMR will be determined by your 1v1 MMR, but as you play it’ll be a separate MMR for this queue, so you don’t have to worry about losing your MMR by participating in this mode. Also, ‘Testing’ will have a separate matchmaking-pool, and the matchmaking quality increases as more players are playing, so if you enjoy this game mode please play it often!
Balance Test Map
Warp Prism health decreased from 100 health 100 shields to 80 health 100 shields For reasons we’ve discussed before, we’d like to increase the difference between players who use this unit well over time, and those who do not.
Voidray speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5 Although used a lot in lower levels, Void Rays have not seen much use in competitive play throughout LotV, so we wanted to test what the game would be like if we made them more viable. We are targeting a speed increase to increase their capability when micro’d, while keeping them similar in lower levels of play.
Ravager back to unarmored flag With the Siege Tank damage buff, we definitely heard your feedback that the Ravager nerf may have been too much, so we wanted to try reverting the ‘armored’ change. We would also like to check how the Stargate tech works against Roach/Ravager now with the Voidray change.
Oh shit, test matchmaking next week, I am psyched!
The void ray change is interesting. The most common role I think they have is in a skytoss comp in PvZ, as the go-to anti-corruptor unit. Of course, the best way for corruptors to deal with it is to back off and wait for the VR's anti-armor ability to wear off before re-engaging. However, this might make it harder for corruptors to back off from them. (They're still faster though, at 4.13 speed according to liquipedia so this particular situation might not be impacted.)
That means Cyclones will be weaker agianst ravengers too. Ravagers Counter then Tanks again and a roach ravager army will crush Tanklines and Cyclones. In my opinion the cyclone is way to expensive to be a Reactor Unit. I don't see Mech will ever have the Infrastructure to compete the roach ravavager timings
I don't mind the voidray buff, if it allows for more protoss diversity its fine.
I just hope they adress cyclones and mech AA, because voidrays are actually good against mech (you know mech is bad when even voids are good against it)
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
I mean, it's a 11 & 1 / 9ths % increase.
The only units it moves from being "slower than" to "faster than" are queens and (non-boosted) medivacs. Yeah, it's mostly an early game change, but I don't think it really changes the relationships it has with anti-air units outside of queens.
So, maybe in PvZ, but probably not in any other match-ups.
Thx Blizzard, now i am actually really motivated to play the test maps. The changes overall seem to be much better now, eventhough Stargate openings will be the go to in PvZ again (probably, if players want to use it to defend against roach ravager pushes). Also i think the ravager doesnt need a nerf. Regarding the terran changes I think there is still some room to play with. Really dont want mech to become the go-to...
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
I mean, it's a 11 & 1 / 9ths % increase.
The only units it moves from being "slower than" to "faster than" are queens and (non-boosted) medivacs. Yeah, it's mostly an early game change, but I don't think it really changes the relationships it has with anti-air units outside of queens.
So, maybe in PvZ, but probably not in any other match-ups.
Just because its speed ranking vs other units doesn't change, that doesn't mean that the interactions don't change. The interactions aren't binary based on "who's faster". They will, for example, be able to escape marine fire more quickly which makes them better for poking at structures. If corruptors are too much within their range when their anti-armor activates, it will take corruptors longer to escape their range making them take more damage. Etc. Not that I'm complaining, maybe the void ray needs this, I'm just saying it will change relationships more than you argue.
I like the new changes. But there is still work to be done. I played more Zerg then P or T so...
- Zerg
The Baneling buff is cancer for ZvZ , please buff the speed of the Banelings instead of the HP , it makes more sense because banes without creep can hardly connect.
Hydras are just to costly and their HP is to low, reduce the gas by 25 and give them 10 HP
SH needs a redesign, their just bad. I would love to make them as an early unit at hatch tech but way weaker... maybe faster ( something that can harass early game without making lings all the time )
Infestor is so cool right now, give them NP without research to make some cool strats, maybe Infested Terrans upgrades.
Corrupter just needs to be alot better vs Air the AA of Zerg is so terrible... more DPS on the unit would be nice.
- Terran
Thor needs to be smaller and faster, better AA as Factory unit.
The Banshee is way to overpowered with the early speed. It needs reverted.
All their other buffs are pretty good and important for the game.
- Protoss
Nerf the adept shade by having longer cooldown
Zealot buff by doing more damage vs armored units
Nerf the Immortal shield barrier and revert the Tempest change.
On September 10 2016 03:06 The Bottle wrote: Just because its speed ranking vs other units doesn't change, that doesn't mean that the interactions don't change. The interactions aren't binary based on "who's faster". They will, for example, be able to escape marine fire more quickly which makes them better for poking at structures. If corruptors are too much within their range when their anti-armor activates, it will take corruptors longer to escape their range making them take more damage. Etc. Not that I'm complaining, maybe the void ray needs this, I'm just saying it will change relationships more than you argue.
Starting from a stop has more to do with acceleration than maximum movement speed.
There are some situations where voids will take more damage / do more damage ... but they should almost all be when the void ray is already moving (unless their acceleration is much higher than I expect). I don't have SC2 installed here, so I can't actually check the editor, but I suspect that the acceleration will mitigate much of the change you expect to see.
On September 10 2016 03:06 The Bottle wrote: Just because its speed ranking vs other units doesn't change, that doesn't mean that the interactions don't change. The interactions aren't binary based on "who's faster". They will, for example, be able to escape marine fire more quickly which makes them better for poking at structures. If corruptors are too much within their range when their anti-armor activates, it will take corruptors longer to escape their range making them take more damage. Etc. Not that I'm complaining, maybe the void ray needs this, I'm just saying it will change relationships more than you argue.
Starting from a stop has more to do with acceleration than maximum movement speed.
There are some situations where voids will take more damage / do more damage ... but they should almost all be when the void ray is already moving (unless their acceleration is much higher than I expect). I don't have SC2 installed here, so I can't actually check the editor, but I suspect that the acceleration will mitigate much of the change you expect to see.
You are right, its the same as banshee with speed, if you keep them on the run... there is no zerg unit that can catch them but if you stop them and the Zerg has mutas he can get some shoots in.
Its do to acceleration.
This is why i dislike the banshee speed , its so god damn broken.
I dont think the void ray will be the same because you commit to that, the Terran doesnt really commit to 5 banshee.
Tho i still think Corrupter needs a buff in AA , it just sucks so bad.... you always have to wait for 3 Vipers and Para Bomb this days and most of the time its to late.
On September 10 2016 03:07 ShamanElemental1 wrote: I like the new changes. But there is still work to be done. I played more Zerg then P or T so...
- Zerg
Hydras are just to costly and their HP is to low, reduce the gas by 25 and give them 10 HP
Reducing its gas cost is ridiculous; Hydralisk is already a bit strong for its cost. (with its 7 range and speed buff)
Moreover, with buffed Ravagers, it'll be much more viable.
Hydralisk DPS is to strong yeah but the unit overall is bad if you dont have something to tank for it.
Blizzard said that they want Hydras to be core units, not support units this is why i made my case.
Speed buff on creep only ( that means mostly on defense do to the creep change in lotv , compare hots and lotv and see what game had more creep on map )
Ravagers not being armored with tankivac removed is pretty bad. These things need to be armored they have already been too strong for ages.
It's just a massable unit with a free spell on cooldown. With buffs to infestor burrow cast on top of this...i mean that's just really bad and poorly thought out.
@Edowyth: You're right, acceleration probably has a much bigger impact on those situations I illustrated than speed (though I still think the new speed will change these engagements to some degree).
I don't think corruptors are too weak anti-air. Their armor is incredible (2 base) and they own most things in the sky (with a couple exceptions, mainly void rays, but they do own voids without their anti-armor buff).
I'm also not sure if banelings need any buffs at all. DK's reasoning for buffing them was that roach ravager was too heavily in the ZvT meta, but that's hardly true right now; ling bane is used a ton against terran bio now. Plus burrowed fungal growths is already a tremendous buff against bio IMO.
Again the same thing. Instead of doing the obvious, most logical thing, like giving Ravagers more health but keeping the armored tag, they revert on their own change! It's like DK has taken an oath to NEVER do a thing that makes sense!
And hooray for more Protoss cheese! You still got nightmares about those 3 gate+proxy stargate all ins from WOL? Welcome to Void Ray cheese 2: Electric Boogaloo!
You scouted that stargate you say? Well, before it was propably Oracle and rarely phoenix play. Now it literally can be everything! Fun, ain't it?
The ravager change is terrible. Isn't the whole point to make the unit not the optimal option in almost all situations? And now ravagers can just charge in and bile stationary tanks.
Would prefer that the range of the Prism be reduced so it takes more overall baby sitting and micro to justify such an OP element on a drop ship. Still, being easier to kill is most certainly better then nothing. It can always be toned down more anyways.
Ravagers kind of need to be unarmored so they can be viable at all but I wish Corrosive Bile would be reworked, it's easy to spam and it forced out lame micro. Maybe make it better vs biological units so Roach/Hydra could be a bit stronger vs Terran where it currently sucks ass? I think the Ravager isn't being designed to it's fullest potential.
Surprised to see no cool down on the Tempest ability, seems overpowered, also the Banshee changes are, have been and will always be totally broken on this unit, remove and make it better some other way.
Hydralisks and Zealots are awesome though, Stalkers could probably use a bit of love now that hydralisks have the extra range and speed, currently Stalker balls get demolished even with blink by the new Hydralisks.
On September 10 2016 03:07 ShamanElemental1 wrote: I like the new changes. But there is still work to be done. I played more Zerg then P or T so...
- Zerg
The Baneling buff is cancer for ZvZ , please buff the speed of the Banelings instead of the HP , it makes more sense because banes without creep can hardly connect.
Hydras are just to costly and their HP is to low, reduce the gas by 25 and give them 10 HP
SH needs a redesign, their just bad. I would love to make them as an early unit at hatch tech but way weaker... maybe faster ( something that can harass early game without making lings all the time )
Infestor is so cool right now, give them NP without research to make some cool strats, maybe Infested Terrans upgrades.
Corrupter just needs to be alot better vs Air the AA of Zerg is so terrible... more DPS on the unit would be nice.
- Terran
Thor needs to be smaller and faster, better AA as Factory unit.
The Banshee is way to overpowered with the early speed. It needs reverted.
All their other buffs are pretty good and important for the game.
- Protoss
Nerf the adept shade by having longer cooldown
Zealot buff by doing more damage vs armored units
Nerf the Immortal shield barrier and revert the Tempest change.
I think your proposed Hydra change is too strong vs P.
On September 10 2016 04:27 Beelzebub1 wrote: Would prefer that the range of the Prism be reduced so it takes more overall baby sitting and micro to justify such an OP element on a drop ship. Still, being easier to kill is most certainly better then nothing. It can always be toned down more anyways.
Ravagers kind of need to be unarmored so they can be viable at all but I wish Corrosive Bile would be reworked, it's easy to spam and it forced out lame micro. Maybe make it better vs biological units so Roach/Hydra could be a bit stronger vs Terran where it currently sucks ass? I think the Ravager isn't being designed to it's fullest potential.
Surprised to see no cool down on the Tempest ability, seems overpowered, also the Banshee changes are, have been and will always be totally broken on this unit, remove and make it better some other way.
Hydralisks and Zealots are awesome though, Stalkers could probably use a bit of love now that hydralisks have the extra range and speed, currently Stalker balls get demolished even with blink by the new Hydralisks.
I would love to see Stalkers do flat damage. They're a really cool unit to use and micro but right now they just suck. My strategy in pretty much every matchup is "build as few Stalkers as possible."
David Kims team becomes more and more valve's CS:GO team.
The biggest feedback for the warp prism is to reduce the pick up range (or get it off completly) so that you cannot do hot pick ups from the save distance and to be allowed to have an insane micro tool without any risk. The WP is thanks to the new warp mechanic in LotV strong nontheless. What David Kim hears "Reduce WP total HP by 10%" so it is killed 10% faster.
Same with CS:GO devs, community calls out that they fix the broken 3D sound sytem or the broken hitboxes and all what they hear "Change sound of Weapon XY"...
On September 10 2016 03:53 avilo wrote: Ravagers not being armored with tankivac removed is pretty bad. These things need to be armored they have already been too strong for ages.
It's just a massable unit with a free spell on cooldown. With buffs to infestor burrow cast on top of this...i mean that's just really bad and poorly thought out.
The only other mech counter as Zerg is Vipers and Brood Lords. So basically i have to either turtle to hive or rush to vipers...
Infestors dont counter mech... why would you even mention them.
And if they dont give tools to counter mech then you dont get the buff to mech, ( like that sweet damage to siege tanks ) or they will have to nerf stuff from terran side.
I know you are pretty low IQ but if you havent noticed this cycle in sc2...
PS. Noticed how nobody is complaining that the current tank is better then BW because it has the same power but also SMART TARGETING !
On September 10 2016 03:58 The Bottle wrote: @Edowyth: You're right, acceleration probably has a much bigger impact on those situations I illustrated than speed (though I still think the new speed will change these engagements to some degree).
I don't think corruptors are too weak anti-air. Their armor is incredible (2 base) and they own most things in the sky (with a couple exceptions, mainly void rays, but they do own voids without their anti-armor buff).
I'm also not sure if banelings need any buffs at all. DK's reasoning for buffing them was that roach ravager was too heavily in the ZvT meta, but that's hardly true right now; ling bane is used a ton against terran bio now. Plus burrowed fungal growths is already a tremendous buff against bio IMO.
Corrupters are super bad.
Even in mass numbers they hardly kill anything because they are either to slow or the other units like voids and vikings kill them.
GO TO THE TESTER AND SEE HOW MANY CORRUPTERS YOU NEED TO 1 SHOT A LIBERATOR.
Zerg AA is bad, everyone knows this.
The Corrupters are really good vs Carriers and Battlecruiser because they have bonus damage vs massive.
The matchmaking is quite nice and this is the big one! Nothing to argue there. But it was already hard to micro a viking vs voidrays (once they hit you the freaking ray follows so long ;D) now it should be impossible right? But this is no balance problem, terran has enough other counters, but i still dont like it.
@dinomidnight you are joking right? Stalkers are fine. They have their role in each matchup. Making them stronger will cause a lot of problems.
I'd rather see a slightly more potent anti-armor bonus for VRs if they really, really need a buff. Perhaps also coupled with a nerf to the duration of their prismatic alignment. The speed buff would make it excessively difficult for Corruptors to disengage, particularly with the VR leash range of 8.
On second thought i think this void ray change is pretty terrible, no way mech is viable without the old cyclone now. Thors and turrets get absolutely destroyed, vikings will have a very hard time kiting now and mines and libs are reliant on a blunder from protoss.
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
I mean you comment in every balance post and you are never hyped for everything, so whatever.
I like both changes (ravager and void), especially the voidrays which feel very clunky to micro (for instance to pull back one by one when you engage marines or hydras) - I think it's a cool micro interaction to have in the game
Voidray problem is more than they can't be micro'd without losing a ton of damage. They deal damage every fraction of a second and when they move they have shit acceleration and no damage. Movespeed was the wrong stat to adjust here i think.
On September 10 2016 04:12 Wildmoon wrote: The ravager change is terrible. Isn't the whole point to make the unit not the optimal option in almost all situations? And now ravagers can just charge in and bile stationary tanks.
It's almost like they are too weak against tanks with the armored tag and they are testing to see how they interact with the new tank without it. They definitely can't put it back on after testing it.
Voidray speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5 Although used a lot in lower levels, Void Rays have not seen much use in competitive play throughout LotV, so we wanted to test what the game would be like if we made them more viable. We are targeting a speed increase to increase their capability when micro’d, while keeping them similar in lower levels of play.
Voidray speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5 Although used a lot in lower levels, Void Rays have not seen much use in competitive play throughout LotV, so we wanted to test what the game would be like if we made them more viable. We are targeting a speed increase to increase their capability when micro’d, while keeping them similar in lower levels of play.
Battlecruisers called. They said : "Fuck you"
Because there aren't any BC changes on the test map amirite
Voidray speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5 Although used a lot in lower levels, Void Rays have not seen much use in competitive play throughout LotV, so we wanted to test what the game would be like if we made them more viable. We are targeting a speed increase to increase their capability when micro’d, while keeping them similar in lower levels of play.
Battlecruisers called. They said : "Fuck you"
Because there aren't any BC changes on the test map amirite
Voids are used. Not often yes but they are used. You see them in PL for example and in GSL (or SSL i forgot). When was the last time you saw a BC in a pro game ?
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
I mean you comment in every balance post and you are never hyped for everything, so whatever.
I like both changes (ravager and void), especially the voidrays which feel very clunky to micro (for instance to pull back one by one when you engage marines or hydras) - I think it's a cool micro interaction to have in the game
Not hyped? I was extremely hyped when I saw the initial test map changes. Dare me I also point out criticism.
1. Nerfed Siege Tank damage to 35 (+25 vs Armored), but at the same time reduced the supply cost to 2. This is because 70 damage is excessive when up against Armored units, but at the same time Siege Tanks are far less supply efficient than they were back in BW.
2. Kept Ravagers as Armored units, but made Corrosive Bile deal 60 (+30 vs Biological) damage. This allows Ravagers to soft-counter Lurker contains by actually being able to 3-shot them. It also gives Zerg a reliable soft-counter against Brood Lords that isn't hard-countered by Corruptors. Plus... with an Armored damage nerf to Siege Tanks, they'll still 3-shot Ravagers until +1 weapon upgrades are in play.
3. Buffed the Ghost's Steady Targeting ability so that it has a range of 12, and can target all units, not just Biological. This would make Ghosts more reliable at sniping large key units, able to target more key units, and put Ghost range between the Siege Tank's vision range of 11, and attack range of 13, making them able to act as a Siege Tank soft-counter, which is sorely needed.
4. Buffed Seeker Missile immensely, by cutting its Energy cost to 75, making its splash damage weaker but more consistently spread, and by making it no longer fizzle out. This would put it on par with abilities like Parasitic Bomb, Fungal Growth and Psionic Storm because let's face it, the Raven is beyond crap at the moment.
I also think Ravagers should be armored because they are simply too dominant in ZvZ and even in ZvP Immortals/stalks can't do anything about them... I would put them armored but increase their hp to something like 165 or 180. Also, if the siege tanks are really too strong I would try increasing the delay between their shots. Also, for the adepts I would try removing their initial 1 base armor if they are to stay Light units...
Lurkers are too dominant in ZvZ if anything. There is nothing outside of mass Brood Lords or mass Mutalisks that can reliably clear out Lurker contains. Even in PvZ you can't take out a Lurker contain without Disruptors, Tempests, or overwhelming the entire army with greater numbers of Chargelot/Archon/Immortal.
No one would ever make ravagers if it was armored. It has less hp than a roach and cost shit loads of gas. Not to mention that we would have unstoppable immortal all-ins along with the current adept bs.
Lurkers are too dominant in ZvZ if anything. There is nothing outside of mass Brood Lords or mass Mutalisks that can reliably clear out Lurker contains. Even in PvZ you can't take out a Lurker contain without Disruptors, Tempests, or overwhelming the entire army with greater numbers of Chargelot/Archon/Immortal.
Indeed Lurkers are too strong right now both in ZvZ and ZvP. I do think they need a nerf and I would suggest decreasing their range to 8 because they outrange so many units and are actually better than Colossus right now...
No one would ever make ravagers if it was armored. It has less hp than a roach and cost shit loads of gas. Not to mention that we would have unstoppable immortal all-ins along with the current adept bs
Thats why I suggest making them armored but with more hp than roaches (like 165 or 180) Also, I agree adepts have to be nerfed to compensate for this change because immortals/stalkers will become pretty strong vs Z...
People forget how important is the ravager in ZvP Mass Stalker and Sentry or Immortal all in.
Who wants to go back to old ZvP ?
NO ONE !
Its true that the Ravager is a massive band aid for Zerg tho.
The real fact is that Zerg needs a new early unit , something that can deal with hard harassment and dumb all ins.
This is why i would like a redesign for SH, the unit could be usefull to harass and defend in the early game if they thinker with the locusts and their HP and the speed of the SH.
IF ravagers are to stay unarmored, I would at least put them on Lair tech and maybe even require roach warren to mutate into an upgraded one (just like the hydralisk den mutate to unlock lurkers)
Just give Zerg 4 larva injekt, than we dont need ravager or OP-Range-Queens to trade somewhat even in the earlygame, Zerg is behind in eco at the early game, so it forces us into effiecient early game, but as Zerg i wonna fix problems with mass and noth with technical units like RAvager or Queens. with the 4 larva injekt Zerg would have an earlier Eco again, and play like Zerg and not having protss fitting that mass eco low tech fast unit stlye. than we can make Ravager armored and get -1 Queen Range, we dont need better Banelings, we need more Banelinmgs(with 3 larva pls!)
Not thrilled about the Ravager still having no armor tag at all (It isn't even light or Psionic.) but I suppose they aren't anywhere near as dangerous if their Roach meatshields can get obliterated by the new Siege Tanks so I suppose it's something. This kind of balance tweaking makes me optimistic that the team is committed to keeping the Siege Tank in its current form on Test Map which is wonderful because it means the removal of Medivac Tanks and a much needed return to the fantasy of the unit.
As far as everything else, I tend to agree that the Baneling health buff isn't worth the hassle it's going to cause ZvZ and I think the Warp Prism nerf might not be enough but I'm willing to wait for actual matchmaking to make that call.
Faster Void Rays does make me worried a bit, because the unit is just inherently so massable, I don't want to see a situation where massing a ton of Void Rays again becomes a viable tactic like it was during portions of WoL.I suppose with the Thor and Hydralisk buffs this might not be something we need to worry about, again willing to test it and find out.
I'm surprised that the Dark Templar Blink has thus far created no buzz, it was one of the most talked about additions when the test map was first announced and now I haven't heard anything about it.
On September 10 2016 08:02 MaxTa wrote: IF ravagers are to stay unarmored, I would at least put them on Lair tech and maybe even require roach warren to mutate into an upgraded one (just like the hydralisk den mutate to unlock lurkers)
What's especially curious about this point is that Ravagers require a Lair in fucking Co-Op before they can be morphed which is really odd.
It does seem like a no brainer way to make the unit a little less threatening when it requires more tech to acquire.
On September 10 2016 04:27 Beelzebub1 wrote: Would prefer that the range of the Prism be reduced so it takes more overall baby sitting and micro to justify such an OP element on a drop ship. Still, being easier to kill is most certainly better then nothing. It can always be toned down more anyways.
Ravagers kind of need to be unarmored so they can be viable at all but I wish Corrosive Bile would be reworked, it's easy to spam and it forced out lame micro. Maybe make it better vs biological units so Roach/Hydra could be a bit stronger vs Terran where it currently sucks ass? I think the Ravager isn't being designed to it's fullest potential.
Surprised to see no cool down on the Tempest ability, seems overpowered, also the Banshee changes are, have been and will always be totally broken on this unit, remove and make it better some other way.
Hydralisks and Zealots are awesome though, Stalkers could probably use a bit of love now that hydralisks have the extra range and speed, currently Stalker balls get demolished even with blink by the new Hydralisks.
I would love to see Stalkers do flat damage. They're a really cool unit to use and micro but right now they just suck. My strategy in pretty much every matchup is "build as few Stalkers as possible."
Would love to see Stalkers do something like 15(+2) flat damage and then balanced that with reduced health, and//or tie some damage buff to the Blink upgrade similar to what they did with Charge on Zealots, like their first attack out of Blink does +X damage or something (giving them a true "sniper" unit feel).
Glad Ravager nerf got reversed, it would be useless with armored tag in ZvT and ZvP, would probably even bring back immortal allin and mass stalker bullshit.
Anyway about the baseline HP buff, it makes ZvZ so frustrating, I think the problem with banes and zerg currently is that they can't trade decent off creep at all, so please consider buffing their off creep speed instead of HP buff.
On September 10 2016 15:25 mCon.Hephaistas wrote: Glad Ravager nerf got reversed, it would be useless with armored tag in ZvT and ZvP, would probably even bring back immortal allin and mass stalker bullshit.
Anyway about the baseline HP buff, it makes ZvZ so frustrating, I think the problem with banes and zerg currently is that they can't trade decent off creep at all, so please consider buffing their off creep speed instead of HP buff.
We need to keep saying this so Kim hears it, banelings need off speed creep buff, not HP, this change is complete fucking nonsense in the mirror and it only sucks vs Terran now because off creep they are insanely slow vs stimmed bio.
Adept also needs to be nerfed, no need for Protoss mid game to be so OP, Shade is a spam no consequence high reward/zero risk ability, Blink is much better designed imo.
Lurkers could probably be nerfed as well, in ZvZ if the other guy get's a good engage with Lurkers and you don't have double spire with 2K/2K banked for mass Mutalisk switch then its gg, they even obliterate 5/3 Ultralisks no problem.
Tempest ability is OP, Raven turret is a cancerous shit fest change from my most recent experience with mass tank Raven turtle mech, extremely resilient and Ravens in high numbers seem to counter Corruptors pretty decently, I don't have pro Korean micro so when 10 Seekers lock on I'm kind of screwed and the auto turrets are tanky as all fucking all.
On September 10 2016 09:02 DERASTAT wrote: Just give Zerg 4 larva injekt, than we dont need ravager or OP-Range-Queens to trade somewhat even in the earlygame, Zerg is behind in eco at the early game, so it forces us into effiecient early game, but as Zerg i wonna fix problems with mass and noth with technical units like RAvager or Queens. with the 4 larva injekt Zerg would have an earlier Eco again, and play like Zerg and not having protss fitting that mass eco low tech fast unit stlye. than we can make Ravager armored and get -1 Queen Range, we dont need better Banelings, we need more Banelinmgs(with 3 larva pls!)
I agree. At first I did not understood korean criticism, but the more I played the more I realized that this 3 larva nerf was way too big of a nerf to production rate and economy at the same time, it has nerfed all-in, timings attack, your ability to defend and macro games. You can't spare units to do runby anymore, you can't over run your opponent with superior economy, it has killed muta-ling baneling in ZvT... I really believe that the impact of this nerf had been underestimated.
Voidray speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5 Although used a lot in lower levels, Void Rays have not seen much use in competitive play throughout LotV, so we wanted to test what the game would be like if we made them more viable. We are targeting a speed increase to increase their capability when micro’d, while keeping them similar in lower levels of play.
Battlecruisers called. They said : "Fuck you"
Because there aren't any BC changes on the test map amirite
Voids are used. Not often yes but they are used. You see them in PL for example and in GSL (or SSL i forgot). When was the last time you saw a BC in a pro game ?
On September 10 2016 03:52 petro1987 wrote: Are thors or vikings any good vs void rays? How is mech supposed to counter VRs? I really don't know. Any ideas?
On September 10 2016 03:53 avilo wrote: Ravagers not being armored with tankivac removed is pretty bad. These things need to be armored they have already been too strong for ages.
It's just a massable unit with a free spell on cooldown. With buffs to infestor burrow cast on top of this...i mean that's just really bad and poorly thought out.
What if Corrosive Bile got a damage nerf to counteract this?
On September 10 2016 07:59 ShamanElemental1 wrote: People forget how important is the ravager in ZvP Mass Stalker and Sentry or Immortal all in.
Who wants to go back to old ZvP ?
NO ONE !
Its true that the Ravager is a massive band aid for Zerg tho.
The real fact is that Zerg needs a new early unit , something that can deal with hard harassment and dumb all ins.
This is why i would like a redesign for SH, the unit could be usefull to harass and defend in the early game if they thinker with the locusts and their HP and the speed of the SH.
I'd like to see the Swarm Host removed and the Lurker Den upgrade time reduced. Somehow, I think Lurkers could be the big answer to making ZvP more bearable, but they take so long to come out that you can only really use them in the late game.
On September 10 2016 07:59 ShamanElemental1 wrote: People forget how important is the ravager in ZvP Mass Stalker and Sentry or Immortal all in.
Who wants to go back to old ZvP ?
NO ONE !
Its true that the Ravager is a massive band aid for Zerg tho.
The real fact is that Zerg needs a new early unit , something that can deal with hard harassment and dumb all ins.
This is why i would like a redesign for SH, the unit could be usefull to harass and defend in the early game if they thinker with the locusts and their HP and the speed of the SH.
I'd like to see the Swarm Host removed and the Lurker Den upgrade time reduced. Somehow, I think Lurkers could be the big answer to making ZvP more bearable, but they take so long to come out that you can only really use them in the late game.
Then you will have P complaining about Lurker rush.
They did it last time because its to hard to build Disruptor..
On September 10 2016 10:03 Jaedrik wrote: While we're at it, can we get community-driven matchmaking so we can have Starbow matchmaking?
The Eros client already exists...
Until we are allowed and sanctioned in-game matchmaking with only as many hoops as normal matchmaking, it will be insufficient. I'd even go so far as to say that, until we have LAN and private servers allowed, it is insufficient and unjust.
Please...just make it so hydras don't get one shot by liberators and tanks...just give them like 5-10 more HP and we can finally use them in ZvT without needing 10 trillion vipers...
On September 10 2016 07:59 ShamanElemental1 wrote: People forget how important is the ravager in ZvP Mass Stalker and Sentry or Immortal all in.
Who wants to go back to old ZvP ?
NO ONE !
Its true that the Ravager is a massive band aid for Zerg tho.
The real fact is that Zerg needs a new early unit , something that can deal with hard harassment and dumb all ins.
This is why i would like a redesign for SH, the unit could be usefull to harass and defend in the early game if they thinker with the locusts and their HP and the speed of the SH.
I'd like to see the Swarm Host removed and the Lurker Den upgrade time reduced. Somehow, I think Lurkers could be the big answer to making ZvP more bearable, but they take so long to come out that you can only really use them in the late game.
Uhm...with a 4:30 lair you can have lurkers morphing in by 7:30 for a timing attack...just upgrade before hydra range and don't delay getting your den.
On September 10 2016 04:27 Beelzebub1 wrote: Would prefer that the range of the Prism be reduced so it takes more overall baby sitting and micro to justify such an OP element on a drop ship. Still, being easier to kill is most certainly better then nothing. It can always be toned down more anyways.
Ravagers kind of need to be unarmored so they can be viable at all but I wish Corrosive Bile would be reworked, it's easy to spam and it forced out lame micro. Maybe make it better vs biological units so Roach/Hydra could be a bit stronger vs Terran where it currently sucks ass? I think the Ravager isn't being designed to it's fullest potential.
Surprised to see no cool down on the Tempest ability, seems overpowered, also the Banshee changes are, have been and will always be totally broken on this unit, remove and make it better some other way.
Hydralisks and Zealots are awesome though, Stalkers could probably use a bit of love now that hydralisks have the extra range and speed, currently Stalker balls get demolished even with blink by the new Hydralisks.
I would love to see Stalkers do flat damage. They're a really cool unit to use and micro but right now they just suck. My strategy in pretty much every matchup is "build as few Stalkers as possible."
Would love to see Stalkers do something like 15(+2) flat damage and then balanced that with reduced health, and//or tie some damage buff to the Blink upgrade similar to what they did with Charge on Zealots, like their first attack out of Blink does +X damage or something (giving them a true "sniper" unit feel).
this plus 30dmg back for initial charge hit, I might actually play toss again. In the meantime, more rotisserie liberator chicken
And again David kim makes big changes that adversely affects mech before even giving proper players the opportunity to test this
mech does NOT work on the testmap because you did not change air, so terran has a lot of new allins but if you let your opponnent get hive/carriers you will lose without having had a chance to counterplay and win.
if you change ravagers armored tag i would rather have the old cyclone as the new one is worthless against meaty non armored units, basically if you change the cyclone and do not add armored tag to ravager mech terran gets massively disadvantaged since the cyclone does 2 dmg per shot to "unarmored" 1 armor ravagers.
the fact nobody else points this out underlines how few proper mech players have tested the map against other proper zerg and protoss players.
For the love of god David kim, wait until the testmap comes out so you can actually learn a thing or two about why mech doesnt work so you can adress it, siege tank, land viking dmg and cyclone/bc changes do nothing pertaining to the challenges mech has always had which are broodviper infestor and carrier/tempest/templar.
On September 12 2016 00:18 FoxDog wrote: And again David kim makes big changes that adversely affects mech before even giving proper players the opportunity to test this
mech does NOT work on the testmap because you did not change air, so terran has a lot of new allins but if you let your opponnent get hive/carriers you will lose without having had a chance to counterplay and win.
if you change ravagers armored tag i would rather have the old cyclone as the new one is worthless against meaty non armored units, basically if you change the cyclone and do not add armored tag to ravager mech terran gets massively disadvantaged since the cyclone does 2 dmg per shot to "unarmored" 1 armor ravagers.
the fact nobody else points this out underlines how few proper mech players have tested the map against other proper zerg and protoss players.
For the love of god David kim, wait until the testmap comes out so you can actually learn a thing or two about why mech doesnt work so you can adress it, siege tank, land viking dmg and cyclone/bc changes do nothing pertaining to the challenges mech has always had which are broodviper infestor and carrier/tempest/templar.
If roach/ravager are armored and get wrecked by tanks and hydras are still glass cannons does that not mean that Z has to rush to hive to fight against mech (again)? Having some mid-tier units to fight mech sounds like a good idea.
On September 12 2016 00:18 FoxDog wrote: And again David kim makes big changes that adversely affects mech before even giving proper players the opportunity to test this
mech does NOT work on the testmap because you did not change air, so terran has a lot of new allins but if you let your opponnent get hive/carriers you will lose without having had a chance to counterplay and win.
if you change ravagers armored tag i would rather have the old cyclone as the new one is worthless against meaty non armored units, basically if you change the cyclone and do not add armored tag to ravager mech terran gets massively disadvantaged since the cyclone does 2 dmg per shot to "unarmored" 1 armor ravagers.
the fact nobody else points this out underlines how few proper mech players have tested the map against other proper zerg and protoss players.
For the love of god David kim, wait until the testmap comes out so you can actually learn a thing or two about why mech doesnt work so you can adress it, siege tank, land viking dmg and cyclone/bc changes do nothing pertaining to the challenges mech has always had which are broodviper infestor and carrier/tempest/templar.
If roach/ravager are armored and get wrecked by tanks and hydras are still glass cannons does that not mean that Z has to rush to hive to fight against mech (again)? Having some mid-tier units to fight mech sounds like a good idea.
We don't really know for sure, without tankivacs and buffed tanks the interaction is way different, I think this is one of the changes that needs the most testing, the difference between a few thanks shredding everything and mech being unable to hold roach/ravagers all ins at all is way too small because a little bit of a buff to RR can be huge because a zerg can get waaaay more units than mech player can get in tanks.
On September 12 2016 00:18 FoxDog wrote: And again David kim makes big changes that adversely affects mech before even giving proper players the opportunity to test this
mech does NOT work on the testmap because you did not change air, so terran has a lot of new allins but if you let your opponnent get hive/carriers you will lose without having had a chance to counterplay and win.
if you change ravagers armored tag i would rather have the old cyclone as the new one is worthless against meaty non armored units, basically if you change the cyclone and do not add armored tag to ravager mech terran gets massively disadvantaged since the cyclone does 2 dmg per shot to "unarmored" 1 armor ravagers.
the fact nobody else points this out underlines how few proper mech players have tested the map against other proper zerg and protoss players.
For the love of god David kim, wait until the testmap comes out so you can actually learn a thing or two about why mech doesnt work so you can adress it, siege tank, land viking dmg and cyclone/bc changes do nothing pertaining to the challenges mech has always had which are broodviper infestor and carrier/tempest/templar.
If roach/ravager are armored and get wrecked by tanks and hydras are still glass cannons does that not mean that Z has to rush to hive to fight against mech (again)? Having some mid-tier units to fight mech sounds like a good idea.
We don't really know for sure, without tankivacs and buffed tanks the interaction is way different, I think this is one of the changes that needs the most testing, the difference between a few thanks shredding everything and mech being unable to hold roach/ravagers all ins at all is way too small because a little bit of a buff to RR can be huge because a zerg can get waaaay more units than mech player can get in tanks.
Doesn't matter anyway, although I pretty much expect Zerg not being able to attack at all in the midgame with the new tanks and ravager nerf.
But the biggest problem is the ravager nerf in ZvP, get hyped for mass blink stalkers and 2 base immortal allins every game again.
I prefer de-nerfing the ravager than debuffing the tank. Problem with mech principally is that you can't have strong mech against protoss without it being absolutely fucking imba against zerg. Ravager being the gimmick that helps zerg have other options than camping up to t3 and rushing vipers like an idiot is, I suppose, the lesser evil in terms of design. 40-70 tanks will tri-shot ravagers, which is still nice.
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
Give us Flux Vains (why basic speed) & KHAYDARIN AMULET back Why can Ghost, Medivacs, Battlecruisers, Ravens & Infestors all spellcasters (exept medivac maybe) start with more energy after an upgrade and protoss gets F***ED
I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
On September 12 2016 07:17 JackONeill wrote: I prefer de-nerfing the ravager than debuffing the tank. Problem with mech principally is that you can't have strong mech against protoss without it being absolutely fucking imba against zerg. Ravager being the gimmick that helps zerg have other options than camping up to t3 and rushing vipers like an idiot is, I suppose, the lesser evil in terms of design. 40-70 tanks will tri-shot ravagers, which is still nice.
I just think otherwise. New tanks are insanely damage effficient after all the attack speed buffs. If we also consider smartargeting, new Siege Tanks are way more OP than their BW counterpart. I think that armored Ravager with bonus HP is better. The solution to the Zerg dilemma is to make Hydras good for once, since they are light attribute. For example:
- Ravager 180HP, armored, study its balance closely. - Hydras reworked. 6 base range, DPS nerf, HP upgrade like in Coop, faster upgrades.
Regarding TvP, I'd say that many things need to happen here. Tanks would be usable if protoss mobility was crippled, or Hellions didn't use Light armor tag. Also reworking blink slightly, since Stalkers can easily blink into an area with option to attack tanks.
- Siege tank (sieged) ->14 range. Stalker 6 + blink (8)= 14. Just make blink 7 range with 8s cooldown. - Then Hellions are no longer Light, insane buff vs Adepts. Doesn't change much ZvT since Banes are not the real counter to Hellions.
On September 12 2016 07:51 VHbb wrote: I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
Well for all the other races play protoss if you want warp in your spellcasters... still you dont have a point
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
Give us Flux Vains (why basic speed) & KHAYDARIN AMULET back Why can Ghost, Medivacs, Battlecruisers, Ravens & Infestors all spellcasters (exept medivac maybe) start with more energy after an upgrade and protoss gets F***ED
ghosts and medivacs don't have an energy upgrade anymore and BCs won't have it after this patch.
On September 12 2016 07:51 VHbb wrote: I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
Well for all the other races play protoss if you want warp in your spellcasters... still you dont have a point
I don't even know what you meant by that comment. Did you want to say that other races should switch to Protoss?
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
Give us Flux Vains (why basic speed) & KHAYDARIN AMULET back Why can Ghost, Medivacs, Battlecruisers, Ravens & Infestors all spellcasters (exept medivac maybe) start with more energy after an upgrade and protoss gets F***ED
Because it was nerfed for a reason p could warp in Templars to solve any harassment threat further you could build pylons along attack routes and storm your opponent all the way to your base by the time they got there they were severely weekend and it was easy to stop pushes as a result. Realy it was busted plz no.
- revert all the changes and abandon the patch - remove tankivac if you want (for TvT purpose as no MU is really affected by this, it's irrelevant) - ravager nerf in any way is essential for pvz (ling bane ravager cancer) - remove "advanced ballistics" from the game - nerf adepts shields or hp for like 10 or something (just to stop the whine) - remove SH from the game - leave this game alone for 10 years.
Dear whiners (players):
- stop whining - start playing
p.s. no changes to mech or w/e will make you better.
On September 12 2016 07:51 VHbb wrote: I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
Well for all the other races play protoss if you want warp in your spellcasters... still you dont have a point
On September 12 2016 07:51 VHbb wrote: I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
Well for all the other races play protoss if you want warp in your spellcasters... still you dont have a point
So everybody should play protoss in order to balance the races and have fun. It is always interesting to see other people's points of view.
On September 12 2016 07:51 VHbb wrote: I think the reason HT don't have the energy upgrade is that you can warp them in, so you can almost instantly defend drop/aggression by warping in a storm wherever you need it.
Well for all the other races play protoss if you want warp in your spellcasters... still you dont have a point
So everybody should play protoss in order to balance the races and have fun. It is always interesting to see other people's points of view.
"If you don't like the xbox one we already have a product for you. It's called the xbox 360."
On September 10 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: 1 base voidray adept allin with speed voidrays I'm not hyped.
Give us Flux Vains (why basic speed) & KHAYDARIN AMULET back Why can Ghost, Medivacs, Battlecruisers, Ravens & Infestors all spellcasters (exept medivac maybe) start with more energy after an upgrade and protoss gets F***ED
Isn't it obvious? Because High Templar have the potential to be warped in ANYWHERE on the map.
On September 10 2016 04:27 Beelzebub1 wrote: Ravagers kind of need to be unarmored so they can be viable at all but I wish Corrosive Bile would be reworked, it's easy to spam and it forced out lame micro. Maybe make it better vs biological units so Roach/Hydra could be a bit stronger vs Terran where it currently sucks ass? I think the Ravager isn't being designed to it's fullest potential.
It's also still too strong against buildings. I'd really like to see the damage reduced to 35 (thus increasing the shots needed to kill a tank from 3 to 5), in exchange for a radius increase, which will make it overall stronger against bio, making it easier to hit quick-moving air units, and reducing its efficacy against wall-ins and stationary units such as Lurkers, Liberators, and the aforementioned Siege Tank. That having been said, I'm not sure that 35 is the best number. I feel that it needs to safely 4-shot Mutalisks, but maybe I'm overstating the need for that, considering that doing so is only relevant in cases where the Mutas are caught by Fungal Growth, which would reduce the 4-shot damage threshold to 23 - though that seems excessively low. Additionally, I feel that its strength vs Liberators is a positive thing. Perhaps it would be acceptable to 4-shot Liberators, but nothing worse.
In that example case, I could see the damage be tolerable to be as low as 45, still 4-shotting Liberators, no longer 1-shotting unstimmed Marines in the mid- and late-game, and at least taking 1 more shot to kill a sieged Tank. I agree with the notion that the Ravager should be slightly de-emphasized as a core unit in all 3 matchups, but I actually really do enjoy its specific use to break sieged positions. In exchange for the damage nerf and the armor class nerf, I would be very enthused to see the return, in the form of a very late game upgrade to bring their range to 13, as was experimented with in the LotV beta. This upgrade was not given the proper chance for a good test, given that it was under conditions in which Ravager's bile shot damage was too high for such a range to be appropriate in conjunction with their cost and ease of obtaining.
Surprised to see no cool down on the Tempest ability, seems overpowered, also the Banshee changes are, have been and will always be totally broken on this unit, remove and make it better some other way.
I wasn't amazed with that ability, as I think it's too limited in its role of the specific uses of forcing Tanks to unsiege and Lurkers to unburrow by the need to not make its ability to threaten workers overpowered. It needs to have a wider radius in order to have more overall utility, but this would make it a nightmare on harass that cannot really be countered.
Therefore, I propose that the Tempest ability be altered such that it does not affect hovering units. This will go largely unchanged, except in the case of threatening worker lines. Yes, it won't affect Archons or High Templar either, but I do not see this as being a serious drawback, but rather a very minor quirk.
On September 13 2016 06:20 Pontius Pirate wrote: Additionally, I feel that its strength vs Liberators is a positive thing. Perhaps it would be acceptable to 4-shot Liberators, but nothing worse.
If libs are the problem they could always adress libs directly by reducing their HP directly perhaps buffing the lib in some other way.
I don't know if libs dying in 4 or more ravager shots considering that they have other counter (spores for the harass, corruptor/viper for lategame, queens and infestors somewhere in between) but its something that could be tested for sure to see how it affects the interactions in the MU (altough a nerf like this to the lib may be too big in TvP)
After playing few games on the test map on NA, and while being a huge mech enthousiast, I have to point out that :
The shift from AA to AG for the cyclone, the tank buff and the raven buff make TvT a huge campfest where the goal is to mass the most raven possible just like late HOTS.
Since you need to invest much less money into tanks to secure bases, and that ground mech units are very bad against air once again, nothing prevents one player from going straight to air after securing 3 bases. Air domination solely relies on viking count which in turn makes the liberator and the PDD extremely powerfull. Which leads to spamming turrets with few tanks, and massing air directly.
The turret buff is way too strong and makes raven massable very early in the game. Liberators are in a much better place.
However the cyclone's focus needs to be shifted from AG to AA, so that cyclone as a mech footman prevents the opponent from going air too fast.
After having played some games on the new matchmaking, all I can say is Cyclones are WAY too strong on ground... I suggest lowering their attack speed to something like 0.3 instead of 0.07 because every protoss units dies almost instantly agaisn't them...
New match making is great, this should have been implemented years ago so better feedback can be given on actual play and not mere theory crafting. I've been playing nothing but balance customs and now I got about 5 ZvT 3 ZvP and 3 ZvZ with the match maker to judge off of so great move to the team for implementing the que.
Zerg
1) New Hydralisks are fantastic, they completely annihilate Stalkers without mercy and far much much better against the dreaded Immortal/Archon comps simply because you can micro them to greater effect with greater range. This is the buff the Hydralisk needed if the team didn't want to go down the extra HP/extra armor path.
2. Ravagers are still too good against immobile things making mech permanently suck (see called, "The Immortal Efffect") and totally sucks vs things that can move faster then a siege Tank. Someone on here posted a great change to decrease damage but increase radius.
3) Infestors are really good now but I worry that they might be OP vs bio, wonder if just making Fungal hit harder and buffing IT back would be appropriate?
Terran
1) The new Cyclone is better designed in general but is still shitty vs the one thing that mech sucks against (besides Immortals of course) is air compositions and mech having no quick, easy to field reliable anti - air. Mech is already powerful as fuck against ground comps so I'm hoping they tune the new Cyclone to be better vs air units and worse vs ground because they are overpowered in Hellbat allins for ZvT and imba in general against Gateway units for Protoss
2) New Siege Tank is excellent, keep this change, no more medivac crap, the Siege Tank needs to be good at it's intended job which is holding ground
3) For the love of God please revert the stupid fucking auto turret buff, you have a flock of Ravens and it is just so so cancerous to fight, Seeker Missiles annihilate Corruptor flocks and borderline anything they target and dropping so many turrets in bases that last so damn long and are so tanky is just retarded OP, it's like a million flying Gazlowe's dropping death turrets on everything FOR MANA. Buff this unit some other way so cancer turtle sky mech doesn't become the new meta, if it does I promise you ZvT will go from the premier Starcraft 2 match up to the worst by far.
Protoss
1) New Tempest much less cancer but the duration on the web thing is overpowered
2) New Zealots are amazing, definitely a great boost for gateway comps, but the Adept and Zealot being so strong makes the Stalker look pathetically weak in comparison, especially with how hard Hydralisks smash them down in head to head fights.
Everything gets faster. More possible cheeses More hectic more frustration. Well after trying hard to get good at this game and win with better skills while getting cheesed or surprised by something out of the protoss bullshit, I am tired of this game. I hope the BW "HD" Update isn't just a rumor.
The test mode doesn't interest protoss players.This is understandable cause they got least change and their units got indirectly nerfed. Couldn't find a single protoss today.... Stalkers are literally old siege tanks.Too much counter for them,they really need a pass.
On September 10 2016 03:07 ShamanElemental1 wrote: Thor needs to be smaller and faster, better AA as Factory unit.
Just bring back Goliath, which in addition has beautiful rocket volleys and some charisma.
I guess they are just too stubborn to do it. If you think a little about it, the viking is almost a goliath that has to transform between modes and fly =D.
I think the cyclone should simply be versatile but not a huge damage dealer, and his movespeed increased a little. For instance, make the cyclone
- deal 200 damage over 10 seconds with lock, 7 lock on range, 15 max range, targets air and ground - deal 3 (+3 vs armored) damage every 0,1 seconds with its auto attack (same animation than now) that targets air and ground. It means 30(+30) dps instead of 42 (+42) dps, compared to the AG we have now. - movespeed increased a little
This way the cyclone will see his versatility increased a lot. It can be good AA, but it can sacrifice some of his DPS (20 dps with the lock, 30 (+30 vs armored) dps without) to chase other units and combo well with the hellion again.
The cyclone needs to be a versatile mech footman that can : - take decent skirmishes in few numbers - poke/chase ennemy units in combo with the hellion, but in exchange for a dps reduction - limit the opponent's ability to go straight into air
On September 14 2016 18:57 bela.mervado wrote: oh it would be nice if the viking would transform into goliath with nice ranged AA
Maybe I didn't explain what I meant pretty well. The goliath is a viking that doesn't need to transform to use both attacks and doesn't fly. I guess that's why they never wanted to put the goliath in the game. The overlap in design would be huge, and they can't admit BW's design was better in that department at least.
On September 14 2016 19:16 JackONeill wrote: I think the cyclone should simply be versatile but not a huge damage dealer, and his movespeed increased a little. For instance, make the cyclone
- deal 200 damage over 10 seconds with lock, 7 lock on range, 15 max range, targets air and ground - deal 3 (+3 vs armored) damage every 0,1 seconds with its auto attack (same animation than now) that targets air and ground. It means 30(+30) dps instead of 42 (+42) dps, compared to the AG we have now. - movespeed increased a little
This way the cyclone will see his versatility increased a lot. It can be good AA, but it can sacrifice some of his DPS (20 dps with the lock, 30 (+30 vs armored) dps without) to chase other units and combo well with the hellion again.
The cyclone needs to be a versatile mech footman that can : - take decent skirmishes in few numbers - poke/chase ennemy units in combo with the hellion, but in exchange for a dps reduction - limit the opponent's ability to go straight into air
I like this idea a lot. It's pretty much the role the goliath has in BW. It's decent G2G (not great, but decent), and good G2A. An allround OK unit, not a unit with a niche role.
On September 14 2016 19:16 JackONeill wrote: I think the cyclone should simply be versatile but not a huge damage dealer, and his movespeed increased a little. For instance, make the cyclone
- deal 200 damage over 10 seconds with lock, 7 lock on range, 15 max range, targets air and ground - deal 3 (+3 vs armored) damage every 0,1 seconds with its auto attack (same animation than now) that targets air and ground. It means 30(+30) dps instead of 42 (+42) dps, compared to the AG we have now. - movespeed increased a little
This way the cyclone will see his versatility increased a lot. It can be good AA, but it can sacrifice some of his DPS (20 dps with the lock, 30 (+30 vs armored) dps without) to chase other units and combo well with the hellion again.
The cyclone needs to be a versatile mech footman that can : - take decent skirmishes in few numbers - poke/chase ennemy units in combo with the hellion, but in exchange for a dps reduction - limit the opponent's ability to go straight into air
I like this idea a lot. It's pretty much the role the goliath has in BW. It's decent G2G (not great, but decent), and good G2A. An allround OK unit, not a unit with a niche role.
It also give mech a role that was somewhat lacking in BW : chasing power. Interactions between mech and most of other late game armies rely on siege air units over ranging mech units, forcing the mech player to unsiege and engage, which is suicidal because the opponent will simply kite, or camp with a huge amount of turret and an overreliance on gimmicky spells (raven/ghost). Of course, at some point in the game, the mech player is forced into the second option. Giving mech chasing power will give the ability to mech to "take fights" against late game armies, and not be kited to death, or at least to trade during the kite. Which, as a whole, will encourage mech player to camp less and to produce and trade more, mainly because chasing power diminishes the frontal strength of mech : if you build 20 supply of cyclones to take fights against protoss and then chase kiting tempest, you don't have 20 supply of thors or tanks that would be much stronger at camping.
when are the changes going to be live in the actual game? That's cool to patch things up I guess we don't have the choice anyway but an ETA would be nice and I did some searching and found nothing announced.
On September 14 2016 23:29 leffedabaye wrote: when are the changes going to be live in the actual game? That's cool to patch things up I guess we don't have the choice anyway but an ETA would be nice and I did some searching and found nothing announced.
Wow, people are whining in the test map like crazy, rofl... They just 1a into the mech army with Roach/Ravager/Ling and claim it's impossible to deal with, ahaha, that's so funny from Terran perspective to read such comments! :D
On September 15 2016 02:23 Everlong wrote: Wow, people are whining in the test map like crazy, rofl... They just 1a into the mech army with Roach/Ravager/Ling and claim it's impossible to deal with, ahaha, that's so funny from Terran perspective to read such comments! :D
Yeah, but don't forget that they got mech nerfed into oblivion in previous opportunities exactly with the same reasoning. Maybe this time Blizzard will understand that mech isn't supposed to die to any composition 1A into it.
On September 15 2016 02:23 Everlong wrote: Wow, people are whining in the test map like crazy, rofl... They just 1a into the mech army with Roach/Ravager/Ling and claim it's impossible to deal with, ahaha, that's so funny from Terran perspective to read such comments! :D
Yeah, but don't forget that they got mech nerfed into oblivion in previous opportunities exactly with the same reasoning. Maybe this time Blizzard will understand that mech isn't supposed to die to any composition 1A into it.
Yeah, but something tells me they are determined this time, not once in a history of SC2 they were so focused on making mech viable, they just have to go throuhg with a set of changes that will ultimately make mech viable!
they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Actually, positional play wasn't Blizzard's idea of mech. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the Warhound. Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Tanks, Tanks and more Tanks, because Tanks mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
Blizzard was avoiding buffing tanks for the longest possible time because they had this paranoia that strong tanks makes for long, boring and turtly games. They took it step further adding numerous units/abilities to specifically deny siege lines (Vipers, invul Nydus, +1 range BL, Tempets, Tankivacks, etc...). Then they tried to add "positional" units like Mine and the Liberator, still avoiding buffing Tanks. They were left wondering why still everyone playes Bio and Mech is not viable. Now they are finally buffing Tanks and mech is finally viable and interesting for Terrans to play and for others to play against it if we cut the lazy Tosses and Zergs who can't stand they can't collect their freewins vs mech anymore and have to actually change something in their play. If they pussy out on the Tank buff, we are back at square one.
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Actually, positional play wasn't Blizzard's idea of mech. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the Warhound. Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Tanks, Tanks and more Tanks, because Tanks mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
Blizzard was avoiding buffing tanks for the longest possible time because they had this paranoia that strong tanks makes for long, boring and turtly games. They took it step further adding numerous units/abilities to specifically deny siege lines (Vipers, invul Nydus, +1 range BL, Tempets, Tankivacks, etc...). Then they tried to add "positional" units like Mine and the Liberator, still avoiding buffing Tanks. They were left wondering why still everyone playes Bio and Mech is not viable. Now they are finally buffing Tanks and mech is finally viable and interesting for Terrans to play and for others to play against it if we cut the lazy Tosses and Zergs who can't stand they can't collect their freewins vs mech anymore and have to actually change something in their play. If they pussy out on the Tank buff, we are back at square one.
This sums up all the comments you read on these balance topics: - mech players knew from the beginning what was the right way to fix everything - blizzard is dumb and slow in realizing what mech players already knew, and don't listen to the brilliant minds of mech players - protoss and zerg players are lazy, mech players uber alles
I will never never never understand why people that keep blizzard in such low consideration play SC2 to begin with..
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Actually, positional play wasn't Blizzard's idea of mech. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the Warhound. Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Tanks, Tanks and more Tanks, because Tanks mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
Blizzard was avoiding buffing tanks for the longest possible time because they had this paranoia that strong tanks makes for long, boring and turtly games. They took it step further adding numerous units/abilities to specifically deny siege lines (Vipers, invul Nydus, +1 range BL, Tempets, Tankivacks, etc...). Then they tried to add "positional" units like Mine and the Liberator, still avoiding buffing Tanks. They were left wondering why still everyone playes Bio and Mech is not viable. Now they are finally buffing Tanks and mech is finally viable and interesting for Terrans to play and for others to play against it if we cut the lazy Tosses and Zergs who can't stand they can't collect their freewins vs mech anymore and have to actually change something in their play. If they pussy out on the Tank buff, we are back at square one.
This sums up all the comments you read on these balance topics: - mech players knew from the beginning what was the right way to fix everything - blizzard is dumb and slow in realizing what mech players already knew, and don't listen to the brilliant minds of mech players - protoss and zerg players are lazy, mech players uber alles
I will never never never understand why people that keep blizzard in such low consideration play SC2 to begin with..
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure !
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure !
Oh, you want to play this game? Ok, let's make Lurkers same as Tanks, but give me Broodlords and Vipers, deal? Also, why can't my Marines run 250 km/h off creep? While we're at it, make sure Tanks are able to burrow and shoot while invisible like Lurkers to make it fair, right? Come on...
Each race has it's own pros and cons. You can't have Zerg's mobility, production, creep and capability of tech switch and on top of that you'd also want to have T2 ground artillery unit of similar range and other properties as Siege Tank (skipping SH)? Am I asking for asking for T3 spellcaster (Viper) with abilities that counter whole part of a race (Mech)? No.
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure !
I know you are just being a smartass, but lurkers could use some love, they are barely used nowadays.
If the new siege tank needs a nerf I suggest bringing back 35 damage against light units (instead of 40) or decreasing their attack speed to 2.5 or 3 seconds (instead of 2s)
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure !
Oh, you want to play this game? Ok, let's make Lurkers same as Tanks, but give me Broodlords and Vipers, deal? Also, why can't my Marines run 250 km/h off creep? While we're at it, make sure Tanks are able to burrow and shoot while invisible like Lurkers to make it fair, right? Come on...
Each race has it's own pros and cons. You can't have Zerg's mobility, production, creep and capability of tech switch and on top of that you'd also want to have T2 ground artillery unit of similar range and other properties as Siege Tank (skipping SH)? Am I asking for asking for T3 spellcaster (Viper) with abilities that counter whole part of a race (Mech)? No.
Hey, I just have been swayed by your argument, how positional play and your opponent not being able to attack you is amazing for the game so my guess was that every race should have this option, that's all.
I'll give you Brood lord and Viper gladly, that way we can be sure we don't attack each other in the late game either, which will provides hours of slow and positional play we all hold so dearly. As for marine, 250 km/h would be a nerf compared to their speed in the medivacs, I'm not sure why you want to nerf it? Unless it is because, as you said it every race need pros and cons, so since you want mech slow and strong bio need a nerf on mobility?
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style.
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far.
Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as.
I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure !
Oh, you want to play this game? Ok, let's make Lurkers same as Tanks, but give me Broodlords and Vipers, deal? Also, why can't my Marines run 250 km/h off creep? While we're at it, make sure Tanks are able to burrow and shoot while invisible like Lurkers to make it fair, right? Come on...
Each race has it's own pros and cons. You can't have Zerg's mobility, production, creep and capability of tech switch and on top of that you'd also want to have T2 ground artillery unit of similar range and other properties as Siege Tank (skipping SH)? Am I asking for asking for T3 spellcaster (Viper) with abilities that counter whole part of a race (Mech)? No.
Hey, I just have been swayed by your argument, how positional play and your opponent not being able to attack you is amazing for the game so my guess was that every race should have this option, that's all.
I'll give you Brood lord and Viper gladly, that way we can be sure we don't attack each other in the late game either, which will provides hours of slow and positional play we all hold so dearly. As for marine, 250 km/h would be a nerf compared to their speed in the medivacs, I'm not sure why you want to nerf it? Unless it is because, as you said it every race need pros and cons, so since you want mech slow and strong bio need a nerf on mobility?
Haha, ok, I'll take this as a linguistic exercise then.. :-)
Did I say that every race should have an option to play slowly/positional? No. So stop putting words into my mouth. We were talking about how community wants Terran mech to be viable and how it should be done (by buffing Tanks). The beauty of positional play comes also from the other player actually trying to break it. But it needs to be balanced, of course. Nobody wants it to be like Broodlord/Corruptor era, or current Ultra 8 armor freewin vs. bio. There are so many counters to mech in the game that it's very unlikely it's going to be the same case. Nobody wants to play against the clock and nobody wants to play the "kill them before they get there" game. Should mech ever become so powerful that it feels like current Ultras vs Bio, or Corruptor/Broodlord era, it should be nerfed indeed.
I'm just going to point out I was talking about Marines off creep, not about Marines in Medivacs, so once again, stop putting words into my mouth, thanks. :-)
Problem with mech on the test map is only that TvT is a campfest. There is no purpose to build more than 2 factories because you only need few tanks to cover ground, then go straight into air because there is no ground mech unit that can deal well with air, except the thor that's way too expansive and inefficient at it early/mid game.
Vikings now can be landed to SHRED mech units. Liberators aren't countered by cyclones any more. Raven are massable very early and turrets massacre everything. And banshees are way better because they're not shutdown by the cyclone anymore.
That's the only issue right now with mech on the test map. TvZ mech is lots of fun because 7 range hydra actually gives zerg a mid game against mech. TvP looks fun too but protosses don't play much on the test map so it's hard to know.
Cyclone's focus needs to go back to AA to make TvT more dynamic. Raven's turret needs to be 75 energy and deal less damage, but last a little longer.
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard.
The tankivacs are gone, the tankivacs are gone! Everybody the tankivacs are gone!
I think that given some time people will find a way to make early game attacking a thing in TvT.
The strat I think is reactor marine expand (like the TvZ 2-1-1 of today) but make a siege tank instead of a starport then move out with the marines and siege tank, rallying in cyclones. Or perhaps to make the cyclone first, I don't know the banshee or liberator rush timing.
There is a lot of potential for early game fighting with a tank, marine, cyclone + air composition in <40 army supply situations.
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard.
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
The thing is no protoss players know what the hell they wan't, probably because they don't really want anything , I think they are the most complete race so far and design changes aren´t quite as needed (and if they are they mostly to improve the MU from the perspective of the other race).
Mech changes (mostly tank, BC and cyclone ones) have been asked for a while already, the same thing with zerg (mostly hydra), theres no real "we want this" from the protoss side like these ones.
I've read some changes to early game so protoss doesn't depends on the MsC, but then again the big majority that DON'T want the MsC changed are protoss players themselves so I have no idea what they could really ask.
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted.
On September 10 2016 03:53 avilo wrote: Ravagers not being armored with tankivac removed is pretty bad. These things need to be armored they have already been too strong for ages.
It's just a massable unit with a free spell on cooldown. With buffs to infestor burrow cast on top of this...i mean that's just really bad and poorly thought out.
The only other mech counter as Zerg is Vipers and Brood Lords. So basically i have to either turtle to hive or rush to vipers...
Infestors dont counter mech... why would you even mention them.
And if they dont give tools to counter mech then you dont get the buff to mech, ( like that sweet damage to siege tanks ) or they will have to nerf stuff from terran side.
I know you are pretty low IQ but if you havent noticed this cycle in sc2...
PS. Noticed how nobody is complaining that the current tank is better then BW because it has the same power but also SMART TARGETING !
On September 10 2016 03:58 The Bottle wrote: @Edowyth: You're right, acceleration probably has a much bigger impact on those situations I illustrated than speed (though I still think the new speed will change these engagements to some degree).
I don't think corruptors are too weak anti-air. Their armor is incredible (2 base) and they own most things in the sky (with a couple exceptions, mainly void rays, but they do own voids without their anti-armor buff).
I'm also not sure if banelings need any buffs at all. DK's reasoning for buffing them was that roach ravager was too heavily in the ZvT meta, but that's hardly true right now; ling bane is used a ton against terran bio now. Plus burrowed fungal growths is already a tremendous buff against bio IMO.
Corrupters are super bad.
Even in mass numbers they hardly kill anything because they are either to slow or the other units like voids and vikings kill them.
GO TO THE TESTER AND SEE HOW MANY CORRUPTERS YOU NEED TO 1 SHOT A LIBERATOR.
Zerg AA is bad, everyone knows this.
The Corrupters are really good vs Carriers and Battlecruiser because they have bonus damage vs massive.
I disagree with this sentiment, between parasitic bomb, fungal, queen range, lib aa nerfs and zergs usual economic lead Zerg usualy has access to all the tools they need in the way of aa. It's also important to keep in mind that Zerg has very strong advantages in other places that also help them deal with air. The ability to bank huge resources and field a large air army very quickly as well as tech switch between air and ground is not to be underestimated. Often Zerg can force there oponents unit comp to answer ground or air effectively than emediatly tech switch to counter it. Curupters benefit greatly from this, even if they don't match up to the efficiency of other air units it's often possible for Zerg to quickly out mass thier oponents air and over run it. If that's not possible than powerful aa spells can oftentimes. Supplement Zerg aa quit well.
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Of course there are few protoss changes because ALL protoss units are viable. Maybe with the exeption of the VR and the carrier that are getting love in the test map.
Changing protoss for the better would mean taking a look at MSC and PO, but blizz just love their fantastic "shooting supply" mechanic so i don't think that's ever gonna happen. Even if, truth to be told, it would be extremely easy (changing the PO to a shield battery spell, and make the adept a strong frontliner/defensive unit instead of yet another harass unit)
so as it turns out, opening swarm hosts against mech is pretty decent. strong tanks, armored ravagers? no problem. swarm hosts flying locusts devastate tanks and because they can't be picked up, SH can actually run around and attack from multiple angles as a mobile harasser. I use cheaper SH to transition into faster hive tech and ultras, if you maintain your SH's and don't let them die, you can build up to about 8 or so and use the flying locusts to target fire command centers and force mech to spread themselves too thin, making ultras better. 100/75 is so much more cost efficient off 2 base that helps transition to 3 and 4 base.
On September 16 2016 04:21 emc wrote: so as it turns out, opening swarm hosts against mech is pretty decent. strong tanks, armored ravagers? no problem. swarm hosts flying locusts devastate tanks and because they can't be picked up, SH can actually run around and attack from multiple angles as a mobile harasser. I use cheaper SH to transition into faster hive tech and ultras, if you maintain your SH's and don't let them die, you can build up to about 8 or so and use the flying locusts to target fire command centers and force mech to spread themselves too thin, making ultras better. 100/75 is so much more cost efficient off 2 base that helps transition to 3 and 4 base.
Hey, kudos for actually trying out the map before complaining about mech. Also, ravagers aren't armored anymore as of today (http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20748937821).
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map
For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map.
Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used.
Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting).
Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
To be fair to Protoss though I really wish they would consider making Stalkers a bit better, currently they get shredded without mercy by the new and improved Hydralisk, new Zealots are great, we all know Adepts are great, Stalkers rightfully shouldn't suck so hard.
They should simply remove protoss and make you happy, right?
I'm talking about imbalanced as in current community sentiment that Adepts are too good at applying pressure and Immortal heavy compositions are fantastic against anything Zerg can field that isn't 15 + Lurkers and even then sufficient numbers of Immortals (especially with Adepts and Archons) pretty much rolls over any Zerg ground army at all.
I don't really think Zerg is totally balanced vs Terran at the moment despite the pro level being relatively stable, pretty widely accepted that Ultralisks and Brood Lord tech switches are imba vs Terran, just because Terran has options to end the game before that point only points to a balance in numbers, hardly balanced design. I don't call Ultralisks balanced against Terran just because Terran can all in in the mid game reliably well and keep the win rates around 50%. Just like I don't call Immortal heavy compositions or Adepts balanced vs Zerg just because Zerg can win early on in the game or secure a massive economy lead (almost always due to total blunders by the Protoss player)
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted.
There are more, but it's a pain to go through old vods, especially those that have been lost through defunct MLG, GOMtv, or old Twitch.tv vod services.
There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for.
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks.
The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses.
I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game.
What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map.
I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions.
They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play?
Mech was always viable in TvZ. They also buffed the Tank twice by automatically giving them siege mode without the upgrade and also slightly buffing their sieged attack speed.
Always viable? How many pro TvZ mech games there were in WoL? Viable as in "people can play it in ladder and have fun"? The style people refer to mech in late HotS is not really what people actually mean by mech. Building lots of PFs, a couple tanks, and massing ravens isn't exactly the type of mech people always wanted (BW mech). In fact, people use the term "mech" to characterize mass ravens style only to demonize mech. They all know that mass ravens wasn't the mech people wanted.
There are more, but it's a pain to go through old vods, especially those that have been lost through defunct MLG, GOMtv, or old Twitch.tv vod services.
So from thousands of pro games, you have less than 10 games to show and claim that mech was viable in TvZ. Well, if your definition of viability is that it's not impossible to win a game, then by all means it's viable. Can I also say that bio is viable in BW TvP then? I've seen some games where pros win with deep six strategy.
On September 16 2016 06:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
You seem to have completely past over half of the comments about mech and ravens.
Tank based mech is actually super squishy because everything counter the tank, in HotS after they nerfed the SH they only partially nerfed the raven, and with the same 3 full base economy (as oposed to current 60% base economy) a mech player could sit behing PF and turrets and mass ravens.
Right now that isn't possible becuase we have:
1.- New economy, you need to keep securing base or you won't have enough economy to make a mech army (wich by the way is super expensive).
2.- Nerfed ravens.
3.- Stronger lategame in the zerg specially considering the addition of PB.
Tanks have a lot of counter, these days I've seen Vibe (who have played exclusively the test map since it matchmaking came online) and he has been countering mech styles with ling/bane into fast hive for vipers and broodlords.
On September 16 2016 06:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There was a period of time when mech was viable in HotS when the swarmhost was nerfed. And you could see what a terrible thing mech and seige tanks were against Zerg. An invincible blob that could only be countered with massive amounts of vipers and engagements were won in an almost archon toilet gamble. Boring.
BW mech can't exist in SC2 because in BW the more tanks you have, the weaker each individual tank was due to overkill. In SC2, there is no overkill. By asking for powerful seige tanks, what mech players are asking for really is just to be invincible defensively early game and invincible late game.
"[...] Invincible that can only be countered [...]" So which one was it? Invincible or counterable?
Every games of the final between Life and MVP was mech as far as I remember. There are tons of other mech games in TvZ in WoL, I don't think you followed the scene very well at the time. While not the majority of games, there were a lot of mech games, depending on the maps, usually starting by the 2 factory blue flame hellions opening.
On September 16 2016 06:06 VHbb wrote: Yes I wouldn't balance the game according to the community sentiment though, otherwise you could erase Protoss from Sc2
If this happened I would be so sad I would not have any ridicules cheese builds to complain about and then exploit when I off race. I also would have no one to drop !!
On September 16 2016 02:34 Beelzebub1 wrote: Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
Well, I'm not really concerned about balance. I want improvements to the race that seem fun and interesting. Changes to the design of both the adept and the immortal could excite me -- a really late blink and a poorly-thought-out tempest change (among others) simply don't.
Lexender wrote: The thing is no protoss players know what the hell they wan't
Well, lots of Protoss players know what they want ... it's just that we're different people so we all want different kinds of things.
Arguably, there's a lot of similarity between what Protoss players want and what others want for / from Protoss:
- Weaker / removed PO - Weaker / removed early-game attacks (shades, pulsar beam, the silly tempest ability they added) - Power reduced in late-game compositions (MS, Tempests, Storm death-ball)
in exchange for:
- Stronger defensive early-game units - More flexible mid-game gateway units (movers-and-shooters) - Better distinction between tech paths
Protoss has just as many weird design choices (if not more) as any other race. Why was nothing terribly exciting done here? Just because they're doing well balance-wise hardly means that they don't need design work.
Among other things, all of these abilities contribute to Protoss' late-game power:
- revelation impossible to do anything about - storm has immense range and damage as well as being "stockpile-able" through the energy mechanic so that very little supply is devoted to extremely powerful zone control - cannons are the best late-game defensive (zoning) structures because they shoot both up and down - purification nova is a very-long ranged zoning tool that has the potential to end the game with every shot, as well as making certain units from the opponent completely defunct - Protoss units generally have the highest health, so in a late-game battle with multiple abilities, tons of micro, and more than even top pros can handle ... Protoss armies simply tend to live the longest
Protoss, as a race, has the weirdest power curve you can imagine. Early game attacks are immensely strong (and what everyone's going for at or near the top), but Protoss without a threat of early pressure is so far behind in the mid-game. Meanwhile, their late game is oppressively strong if the map isn't so heavily spread out that their death-ball can't answer threats everywhere at once (with tempests' range, PO, and tanky adept / difficult to kill DT warp-ins -- the map has to be spread out widely indeed).
Protoss is arguably the most ridiculously designed race of them all. It depends upon early-game attacks (or the immense threat thereof) to influences the rest of the game while having a ridiculously poor mid-game and a too-strong deathball in the late game ...
And looking at representation data on ladders (including how the race is split up among leagues) Protoss is not only currently the least-fun race (least played by far and decreasing overall share over time), but it's also the hardest race to play in the lower range (being short in representation from Masters all the way to the bottom of the ladder).
So, even if they don't want to do the things that I've pointed out, Blizzard should really try to excite Protoss players ... or the game is headed for more of the same frustrations we've all pointed out recently and that have labelled Protoss as the "gimmicky", "all-in", and "a-move" race since the beginning of WoL.
Protoss could absolutely have work done to make it a better race. For the sake of the game, I hope the work gets done.
On September 16 2016 02:34 Beelzebub1 wrote: Not sure what they can really change too much, Protoss is already imbalanced vs. Zerg and balanced vs. Terran so have to probably go easy with laying on big buffs for Protoss. Adepts and Immortals are OP, Hydralisks are UP, that's why Hydralisks are getting buffed and Adepts and Immortals aren't lol
Well, I'm not really concerned about balance. I want improvements to the race that seem fun and interesting. Changes to the design of both the adept and the immortal could excite me -- a really late blink and a poorly-thought-out tempest change (among others) simply don't.
Lexender wrote: The thing is no protoss players know what the hell they wan't
Well, lots of Protoss players know what they want ... it's just that we're different people so we all want different kinds of things.
Arguably, there's a lot of similarity between what Protoss players want and what others want for / from Protoss:
- Weaker / removed PO - Weaker / removed early-game attacks (shades, pulsar beam, the silly tempest ability they added) - Power reduced in late-game compositions (MS, Tempests, Storm death-ball)
in exchange for:
- Stronger defensive early-game units - More flexible mid-game gateway units (movers-and-shooters) - Better distinction between tech paths
Protoss has just as many weird design choices (if not more) as any other race. Why was nothing terribly exciting done here? Just because they're doing well balance-wise hardly means that they don't need design work.
Among other things, all of these abilities contribute to Protoss' late-game power:
- revelation impossible to do anything about - storm has immense range and damage as well as being "stockpile-able" through the energy mechanic so that very little supply is devoted to extremely powerful zone control - cannons are the best late-game defensive (zoning) structures because they shoot both up and down - purification nova is a very-long ranged zoning tool that has the potential to end the game with every shot, as well as making certain units from the opponent completely defunct - Protoss units generally have the highest health, so in a late-game battle with multiple abilities, tons of micro, and more than even top pros can handle ... Protoss armies simply tend to live the longest
Protoss, as a race, has the weirdest power curve you can imagine. Early game attacks are immensely strong (and what everyone's going for at or near the top), but Protoss without a threat of early pressure is so far behind in the mid-game. Meanwhile, their late game is oppressively strong if the map isn't so heavily spread out that their death-ball can't answer threats everywhere at once (with tempests' range, PO, and tanky adept / difficult to kill DT warp-ins -- the map has to be spread out widely indeed).
Protoss is arguably the most ridiculously designed race of them all. It depends upon early-game attacks (or the immense threat thereof) to influences the rest of the game while having a ridiculously poor mid-game and a too-strong deathball in the late game ...
And looking at representation data on ladders (including how the race is split up among leagues) Protoss is not only currently the least-fun race (least played by far and decreasing overall share over time), but it's also the hardest race to play in the lower range (being short in representation from Masters all the way to the bottom of the ladder).
So, even if they don't want to do the things that I've pointed out, Blizzard should really try to excite Protoss players ... or the game is headed for more of the same frustrations we've all pointed out recently and that have labelled Protoss as the "gimmicky", "all-in", and "a-move" race since the beginning of WoL.
Protoss could absolutely have work done to make it a better race. For the sake of the game, I hope the work gets done.
This is the kind of post that needs to be made and shared, the feedback that is required, wich only helps prove my point.
If theres something you need/want to be changed, you need the feedback to be read and discussed
Seriously you make really good points, and probably a lot of protoss players agree with you, but you can't expect to get something if you don't ask of it first, you should put more effort into making the feedback know, god knows how many post, discussion and constant feedback it took until Blizz decided to make this patch to help mech.
On September 16 2016 06:43 Vanadiel wrote: Every games of the final between Life and MVP was mech as far as I remember. There are tons of other mech games in TvZ in WoL, I don't think you followed the scene very well at the time. While not the majority of games, there were a lot of mech games, depending on the maps, usually starting by the 2 factory blue flame hellions opening.
MVP lost the finals btw. Like I said, maybe the word viable has a broad meaning or I am misusing it. Mech was definitely a subpar style, used only in a very specific context. I watched a lot of games in 2010/2011 (not so many in 2012 tho) and I definitely don't remember seeing a lot of mech games.
On September 16 2016 06:43 Vanadiel wrote: Every games of the final between Life and MVP was mech as far as I remember. There are tons of other mech games in TvZ in WoL, I don't think you followed the scene very well at the time. While not the majority of games, there were a lot of mech games, depending on the maps, usually starting by the 2 factory blue flame hellions opening.
MVP lost the finals btw. Like I said, maybe the word viable has a broad meaning or I am misusing it. Mech was definitely a subpar style, used only in a very specific context. I watched a lot of games in 2010/2011 (not so many in 2012 tho) and I definitely don't remember seeing a lot of mech games.
There weren't as many mech games as bio+tank games in WoL, but they were still there and they were significantly more common than bio strategies were in BW TvP. Even though mech in WoL tended to be very specific to certain players or maps and was harder to play, it still made a bigger presence in the scene than you're giving it credit for.
On September 16 2016 07:04 Lexender wrote: Seriously you make really good points, and probably a lot of protoss players agree with you, but you can't expect to get something if you don't ask of it first, you should put more effort into making the feedback know, god knows how many post, discussion and constant feedback it took until Blizz decided to make this patch to help mech.
Well, I've said it all multiple times in various forums (battle.net forums, here, and even on reddit). Multiple people have been saying these things since WoL, though it's crystallized a lot more during the LotV beta and simply been repeated a lot since then.
On September 16 2016 07:04 Lexender wrote: Seriously you make really good points, and probably a lot of protoss players agree with you, but you can't expect to get something if you don't ask of it first, you should put more effort into making the feedback know, god knows how many post, discussion and constant feedback it took until Blizz decided to make this patch to help mech.
Well, I've said it all multiple times in various forums (battle.net forums, here, and even on reddit). Multiple people have been saying these things since WoL, though it's crystallized a lot more during the LotV beta and simply been repeated a lot since then.
That's because it's gotten worse with LOTV. If you take the exemple of DTs, from WOL to LOTV : if you rush 2 bases drop DTs with a hidden dark shrine on the map in TvP, it's extremely hard to scout.But it's a strategy that can end the game immediatly if the opponent has no appropriate detection : - in WOL, if the terran has detection and you deal little damage, you were in a very bad spot. Terran would have a stim timing with medivacs that would be incredibly hard to hold - in HOTS, in the same situation, nexus PO would help the protoss stay alive. However, terran could still deny a third for some time until the protoss had a strong army - in LOTV, protoss takes a third while the attack is going on, and has a ranged prism to save his DTs. There is no good reason for protoss to loose more than 2 DTs even if things are going terribly. Meanwhile, pylon PO gives protoss the ability to stay alive on 3 bases against a 2 bases terran, even if DT drop on 2 bases can litteraly end the game
Of course one would have to consider "how much damage protoss can deal early game to survive the liberator count in mid game", so just looking at this strat isn't a global proof, but it shows how things got worse from WOL desing-wise. Things that have the potential to end the game in a binary fashion should not be something you can easily transition out. That's an incredibily idiotic design choice that should not be present in a strategy game.
I have played ~100 games on the balance test mod. I want to touch upon a particular build which is shaking up the TvP meta big time. I'm a master league terran (~5000 MMR). after using this build for ~20 matches, I have a 100% winrate against protoss players who go for a typical fast expand.
1-base double factory cyclone
gas barracks (proxy) gas orbital reaper factory factory double cyclone production hereafter pull 4-5 SCVs on auto-repair
I float the barracks to the protoss base after my reaper spawns. this gives me vision so my cyclones don't take free damage going up the ramp. I rally the cyclones straight to the protoss natural and bring some SCVs for repair.
cyclones can outlast the damage an overcharged pylon, with the help of repairing SCVs. stalkers, immortals and gateway units just die. I'm convinced that this build can't be defended with a typical gatewayexpand/tech build. so what should protoss players do? after some testing, I found that one possible answer is void rays. if the protoss player probe scouts and sees 1-base double fact, then throws down a stargate, this rush can be defended. I'm not sure about expand before stargate, but stargate before expand definitely works. the other option is 2 extra gates after expand (3 gate before tech). however, if terran catches wind of this (which is likely, thanks to the floating raxx), a widow mine or banshee follow up might be difficult to deal with.
the cyclone AA nerf made the unit sufficiently weaker vs air units. naturally, double factory leads into mech. stargate tech is a very strong route vs mech. later in the game, once both players have expanded and tank/turret pushes are a threat, it seems that a composition of tempests, disruptors and zealots is a solid choice. I hope more toss players will try void rays on the ladder if they run into this build. I'm not sure if cyclones are imba (they aren't), but they are definitely strong vP and prevent toss from being too greedy in the early game.
tldr: void rays are a solid counter to cyclone rushes.
replays: typical fast nexus/mothership core into robo. this would have held INoVation's cyclone rush in LotV 1.0, but fails to hold it in the new patch: http://lotv.spawningtool.com/21725/
stargate/void ray before expand. toss holds, though for some reason he made 2 extra gates before expanding, which is definitely not necessary. chrono on the stargate and zealots from 1 gate should be enough. both of us have significantly delayed expands, though my opponent could have taken his much faster without the extra gates: http://lotv.spawningtool.com/21726/
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
I'm not hyped.
