|
We’re thinking of a couple changes, and we’ll finalize on where to go depending on the community thoughts regarding these changes. But please remember that we would like to move pretty quickly while still in the offseason, so let’s start discussions as soon as possible!
Baneling health upgrade reduced from 10 to 5
It’s pretty clear at this point that +10 health was too much. We don’t think there would be a lot of argument that this isn’t the case. At the same time, we don’t think it’s a good idea to do a full-revert since the tech choices on the Zerg side are a bit better than they were throughout this year. Therefore, we wanted to try changing the bonus from +10 to +5.
Carrier Interceptor cost increased from 5 to 10
A nerf to the Carrier was definitely the biggest discussed topic since the last patch within our community. We wanted to start by making this change and see where the unit lands. If we need to take more steps, we can in the future.
For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state.
|
Seems reasonable. Reapers having dropped off the radar due to the map pool is kinda annoying, since they'll be problematic once again sooner or later.
|
Two small changes, I like both of them.
I just hope they aren't done with the hydra, because nothing really changed now compared to 3.8. The speed buff on creep does not count as a redesign to a core unit.
|
Are we in the middle of the offseason or the middle of a WCS tournament? It's confusing.
|
Thanks for nothing i guess.
|
Im curious what will be next steps to make mech more vible on tvp
|
On December 16 2016 07:25 Ansibled wrote:
Are we in the middle of the offseason or the middle of a WCS tournament? It's confusing.
Well we are in the middle of a WCS tournament, but its an awkwardly placed one. It's still 2016, I don't think the season formally starts until GSL starts?
|
"For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state."
I can see that whiners from Aiur are still active. So that means we can forget about promised HP buff. Next patch David will reduce hydra range to 2 and will make hydras fast as queens of creep.
|
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert.
|
On December 16 2016 07:37 hiroshOne wrote:
"For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state."
I can see that whiners from Aiur are still active. So that means we can forget about promised HP buff. Next patch David will reduce hydra range to 2 and will make hydras fast as queens of creep.
Yeh those Aiur whiners, what do they want? For even 1 of their matchups to reach 50%? Pfft.
|
On December 16 2016 07:32 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:25 Ansibled wrote:
Are we in the middle of the offseason or the middle of a WCS tournament? It's confusing. Well we are in the middle of a WCS tournament, but its an awkwardly placed one. It's still 2016, I don't think the season formally starts until GSL starts?
I think Ansibled is referring to the fact that they're supposed to do bigger changes now, but this is more like they're already happy with the overall design changes and are just finetuning now.
So basically if you're unhappy with the game right now, you need to wait until the end of 2017 for bigger changes again. At least thats the vibe I'm getting.
|
Nooooo my banelings
Carrier Interceptor cost to be the new bunker build time
On December 16 2016 07:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert.
They said:
The Baneling
The Baneling is the third core unit we want to address. In order to incentivize players to opt for this tech option, we want to make Banelings stronger without seriously impacting how players should micro when splitting against them. Increasing the health of the unit felt like a solid option that hits both of our goals.
this is from the initial major patch announcement
|
To be honest, I find the baneling buff to be a nerf to zergs.
When you're engaging bio/mine, you usually want to m-move the banelings through the army, and let the splash do the damage as their killed. Right now, they don't die as fast, allowing bio to get further from them before they do damage.
So I'm not against them lowering the health bonus, but I've seen literally no one complain about baneling health?
|
Patch still doesn't make me excited to play 1vs1 as protoss.
|
OH SHIT. Interceptors now cost 5 minerals MORE???? That will really hurt the protoss.
|
The 5 hp nerf is welcome, but I still don't understand why they need an hp buff at all. The liberator nerf by itself brings back mutas, perhaps even hots-esque obnoxious amounts of them again, in lbm and there was no encouragement needed to make banelings as they were already good enough. Burrowed infestor fungals makes the transition from mid game lbm to late game ultras really easy while bio terran late game options still suck. They should be looking at late game terran transition options if they're so willing to buff zerg mid game options.
|
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
|
On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
the main means is splitting bio
|
Just the usual random balance changes instead of really addressing problems like reapers, vipers and adepts.
|
On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
Tanks don't do 70 damage to banelings.
|
On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
The main means by which terran deal with banelings is splitting and shooting banelings. Some will inevitably get hits on the bio, but others will be killed before they can make contact with a marine, perhaps splashing some, but still limiting their damage. Increasing bane health means splitting is less effective at preventing costly bane hits on your marines because more banes hit marines. It also means you have to split marines farther apart to deal with the same number of banelings, increasing guaranteed losses and decreasing overall dps.
|
Nerf baneling instead of infestor or swarmhost? I don't get it.
|
So when are they going to fix the icons? I see green boxes when I try to select my Marines.
|
I think what should happen is that the build time on an interceptor should be raised. If it automatic theres absolutely 0 micro in waiting for it to rebuild. However if it takes longer and the toss loses the interceptors it forces them to have to wait giving the opposing race an opening to either rebuild their army or push. As for the other changes I think the Hydralisk is in a great position. Maybe nerfing the cost would be good but that would mean you would have to do a small buff to Terran I think like maybe increase the damage bonus of blue flame or hellions perhaps. Also has anyone else felt that 3.9's name update was dumb? I really enjoyed having my own SC2 username rather than my battle.tag and friends with real id's only see my battlenet tag where as in lobby it'll still show peoples SC2 usernames. I don't like it I enjoyed having my SC2 username.
|
curious what lead them to the conclusion that +10 baneling health is to much.
Also I would have really preferred an infestor nerf and a swarmhost nerf (for mech viability).
|
Have infestors have -1 cast range while burrowed. Easy fix. -2 if really felt needed.
Could go further and give infestors +1 range to throwing infested Terrans from their current state, so it's the same while burrowed (but +1 range while not burrowed).
|
Good changes.
I'd look at Infestors and Ravens next while focusing on mech viability in TvP.
|
On December 16 2016 09:12 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
The main means by which terran deal with banelings is splitting and shooting banelings. Some will inevitably get hits on the bio, but others will be killed before they can make contact with a marine, perhaps splashing some, but still limiting their damage. Increasing bane health means splitting is less effective at preventing costly bane hits on your marines because more banes hit marines. It also means you have to split marines farther apart to deal with the same number of banelings, increasing guaranteed losses and decreasing overall dps.
Yes I understand the point of the buff.
The main way that terrans deal with widow mines is not splitting - it's using splash. Splitting is used to mitigate the damage dealt by banelings.
And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well...
If anything it just makes it less volatile.
Terran and Protoss are just bitching left and right but all I really see are Zerg getting shafted. We have not been given any new ways to play.
Making gimmick units like the swarmhost or using burrowed infestors doesn't qualify as a new composition.
We had a new unit to play with...but then Terran and Protoss bitched it out of the park and now it's back to being as shitty as it ever was. Now it looks like Blizzard is contemplating not giving the hydra any sort of buff at all...
People don't seem to realize just how INSANELY strong Protoss ground units are. Zealots are ridiculous. I don't know why Protoss players are bitching as though gateway units aren't good. Charge gives extra damage, passive movespeed boost, and charge! Adepts two shot drones.
Protoss units are SO strong that Zerg doesn't have a reliable answer to them. That's why all the compositions in ZvP revolve around just trading with ling bane over and over - you can't really do anything else. It's stupid, but there's not much else you can do...
That's also why Zerg is so focused on destroying Protoss econ with baneling drops all game - there's not many ways to fight against Protoss in a straight up fight other than T3.
Throw carriers in as well...
As I see it the only thing that Zerg have gotten this patch are gimmick infestors. Woohoo!
|
On December 16 2016 14:29 Qwyn wrote:
The main way that terrans deal with widow mines is not splitting - it's using splash. Splitting is used to mitigate the damage dealt by banelings.
And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well...
Widow mines discourage clumped up attacks from zerg through set mines. They are not the primary way of dealing with banelings if the zerg properly controls their units. Yes, one mine hit can wipe out a ton of banes, but that's on the zerg player and is not what normally happens.Splitting is still the primary way of dealing with banes.
Tanks don't do 70 damage against non-armored targets and against lbm are dead again for the same reason they were dead in hots - mobility. Even against roach/ravager styles they don't look very strong anymore because you can no longer dodge biles and ravagers aren't armored and therefore don't take the additional damage against them. Turns out a tank that does less damage, but can sustain dps over a fight is much more effective than a tank that does more up front damage and dies right away.
|
On December 16 2016 07:24 Musicus wrote:
Two small changes, I like both of them.
I just hope they aren't done with the hydra, because nothing really changed now compared to 3.8. The speed buff on creep does not count as a redesign to a core unit.
I think they are done with the hydra which is sad. The unit is essentially back to how it was before and the speed buff on creep isn't that much of a buff imo.
I was hoping when they originally announced redesign, that they would do more than 1 range increase and a creep speed buff. I think it's a shame they aren't really modifying the unit at all :/.
|
On December 16 2016 14:29 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:12 TheWinks wrote:On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
The main means by which terran deal with banelings is splitting and shooting banelings. Some will inevitably get hits on the bio, but others will be killed before they can make contact with a marine, perhaps splashing some, but still limiting their damage. Increasing bane health means splitting is less effective at preventing costly bane hits on your marines because more banes hit marines. It also means you have to split marines farther apart to deal with the same number of banelings, increasing guaranteed losses and decreasing overall dps. Yes I understand the point of the buff. The main way that terrans deal with widow mines is not splitting - it's using splash. Splitting is used to mitigate the damage dealt by banelings. And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well... If anything it just makes it less volatile. Terran and Protoss are just bitching left and right but all I really see are Zerg getting shafted. We have not been given any new ways to play. Making gimmick units like the swarmhost or using burrowed infestors doesn't qualify as a new composition. We had a new unit to play with...but then Terran and Protoss bitched it out of the park and now it's back to being as shitty as it ever was. Now it looks like Blizzard is contemplating not giving the hydra any sort of buff at all... People don't seem to realize just how INSANELY strong Protoss ground units are. Zealots are ridiculous. I don't know why Protoss players are bitching as though gateway units aren't good. Charge gives extra damage, passive movespeed boost, and charge! Adepts two shot drones.Protoss units are SO strong that Zerg doesn't have a reliable answer to them. That's why all the compositions in ZvP revolve around just trading with ling bane over and over - you can't really do anything else. It's stupid, but there's not much else you can do... That's also why Zerg is so focused on destroying Protoss econ with baneling drops all game - there's not many ways to fight against Protoss in a straight up fight other than T3. Throw carriers in as well... As I see it the only thing that Zerg have gotten this patch are gimmick infestors. Woohoo!
The voice of reason.
|
On December 16 2016 14:29 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 09:12 TheWinks wrote:On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
The main means by which terran deal with banelings is splitting and shooting banelings. Some will inevitably get hits on the bio, but others will be killed before they can make contact with a marine, perhaps splashing some, but still limiting their damage. Increasing bane health means splitting is less effective at preventing costly bane hits on your marines because more banes hit marines. It also means you have to split marines farther apart to deal with the same number of banelings, increasing guaranteed losses and decreasing overall dps. As I see it the only thing that Zerg have gotten this patch are gimmick infestors. Woohoo!
and the only things protoss got are slightly faster zealots and a carrier change - while tempests got heavily nerfed.
btw banes have still +5 health and hydras a speed buff.
|
On December 16 2016 14:50 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:24 Musicus wrote:
Two small changes, I like both of them.
I just hope they aren't done with the hydra, because nothing really changed now compared to 3.8. The speed buff on creep does not count as a redesign to a core unit. I think they are done with the hydra which is sad. The unit is essentially back to how it was before and the speed buff on creep isn't that much of a buff imo. I was hoping when they originally announced redesign, that they would do more than 1 range increase and a creep speed buff. I think it's a shame they aren't really modifying the unit at all :/.
well the hydralisk is a simple straightforward attacking unit without a fancy ability. not surprising they don't want it to be to much of a core unit.
|
It's clear the aim of the patch was to give Terran an alternative to bio through mech; some of the P/Z units had to change to allow that to happen. Also a couple of units here and there from Z/P were buffed to make them more relevant in general.
It's not a patch to overhaul the entire game, but to bring Terran in line with Z/P as having more ways to play then the same bio focused game of the last 7 years. New ways of playing that in 2 expansion worked for Z/P but not for T.
|
Well trading offcreep decently was fun for a while, back to turtle to hivetech again..
|
On December 16 2016 14:57 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 14:29 Qwyn wrote:On December 16 2016 09:12 TheWinks wrote:On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
The main means by which terran deal with banelings is splitting and shooting banelings. Some will inevitably get hits on the bio, but others will be killed before they can make contact with a marine, perhaps splashing some, but still limiting their damage. Increasing bane health means splitting is less effective at preventing costly bane hits on your marines because more banes hit marines. It also means you have to split marines farther apart to deal with the same number of banelings, increasing guaranteed losses and decreasing overall dps. Yes I understand the point of the buff. The main way that terrans deal with widow mines is not splitting - it's using splash. Splitting is used to mitigate the damage dealt by banelings. And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well... If anything it just makes it less volatile. Terran and Protoss are just bitching left and right but all I really see are Zerg getting shafted. We have not been given any new ways to play. Making gimmick units like the swarmhost or using burrowed infestors doesn't qualify as a new composition. We had a new unit to play with...but then Terran and Protoss bitched it out of the park and now it's back to being as shitty as it ever was. Now it looks like Blizzard is contemplating not giving the hydra any sort of buff at all... People don't seem to realize just how INSANELY strong Protoss ground units are. Zealots are ridiculous. I don't know why Protoss players are bitching as though gateway units aren't good. Charge gives extra damage, passive movespeed boost, and charge! Adepts two shot drones.Protoss units are SO strong that Zerg doesn't have a reliable answer to them. That's why all the compositions in ZvP revolve around just trading with ling bane over and over - you can't really do anything else. It's stupid, but there's not much else you can do... That's also why Zerg is so focused on destroying Protoss econ with baneling drops all game - there's not many ways to fight against Protoss in a straight up fight other than T3. Throw carriers in as well... As I see it the only thing that Zerg have gotten this patch are gimmick infestors. Woohoo! The voice of reason.
The voice of Zerg whine.
|
Increasing the interceptor cost by 5 minerals sounds a bit drastic.
Maybe increase the cost with 1-2 minerals and then evaulate after a few month?
|
On December 16 2016 18:14 MockHamill wrote:
Increasing the interceptor cost by 5 minerals sounds a bit drastic.
Maybe increase the cost with 1-2 minerals and then evaulate after a few month?
They always do costs in multiples of 5. The only exceptions are cancelled buildings/units.
|
Dunno why they dont focus on their bigger things first, then the smaller ones....
I so want to enjoy this game but i cant.
|
Banelings VS Marines should be a decision by the Terran of should I split or should I target fire? When Banelings always force a split it removes the decision of taking the risk of pulling off the more impressive target fire micro. I want to watch Terrans who can shoot down the Banelings rolling in and if they misclick they'll lose the engagement. I think less health on banelings is a great direction.
I have no deep thoughts on the carrier change. Fully replacing all interceptors previously cost less than a single marine so doubling it was an obvious step in the right direction.
|
Here's something I wrote on Reddit, regarding the Baneling nerf.
The reason Baneling HP was increased, was specifically to nerf the ByuN target fire. It's more fun to watch splits than shooting down the Banelings. Furthermore LotV economy is not the same as HotS economy, in HotS economy Banelings without the presence of Widow Mines would've been too strong. In LotV however the economy is low, which favours the Terran army, since it gets more cost efficient in lower army skirmishes, due to micro capabilities.
Now to start of they gave the Baneling the 40 hp directly and not through the upgrade, but they decided to put it on top of Centrifugal Hook upgrade, because it would change ZvZ too much. In ZvZ 40 hp Banes, makes it so it takes 3 Banelings to kill an enemy Baneling, because of the instant 1 hp regeneration. Now with 35 hp Banelings, they can easily go back to just making the Baneling a 35 hp unit from the start. It would be both easier to remember because the Zergling also has 35 hp and there doesn't have to be this weird secondary benefit to the Centrifugal Hooks upgrade.
Make Banelings 35 hp from the start, but also take note that the reason Zerg does better in standard compositions in the current balance is also partly because of much bigger maps overall.
I think Hydras should be pushed back into the meta by buffing the Lurker vs Bio compositions. Increase Lurker damage to 30 vs all, instead of 20+10vs Armoured. It makes it so it 2 shots Marines which is a must if we want to see cool stuff like going Mutalisks vs Terran and then defending with Lurkers. To compensate you can lower the travel speed of spikes a little, so it promotes micro from both players more.
I think Burrow Fungal does not belong in this game, it will heavily reduce the action in matches. I think Burrow Neural is a fantastic change so, so this experiment is not all for naught. If you want Burrow Fungal you should really change how it works, once you're Burrowed. Like 0 range, or in other words, if you press 'F' while holding the Infestor, it Fungals the area directly above the ground of where the Infestor is. I think one of the most exciting things from huge Fungals was when they suddenly pop up from the ground and the opponent realizes at this moment that his chances are lost. The effect of the Infestor poppin' up from the ground was super powerful.
|
Interceptor should be reverted to 25 minerals. Carriers are ridiculous atm.
|
GreaT! banes was to hard to handle if you wherent Korean! now just bring back Tankivacs so tanks actually are usefull again, besides camping which is boring and destroyin this game.
Microing tanks and dodge ravagers bile takes skill and finesse. WHy take away something thats so micro intensive? BRING TANKIVAC BACK PLEASE. tanks has no use in currenct patch tvz tvp if you play bio
|
On December 16 2016 19:20 avilo wrote:
Interceptor should be reverted to 25 minerals. Carriers are ridiculous atm.
Did you learn from the Innovation games how to play mech without turtling to mass Ravens and use actual timings? 
|
On December 16 2016 19:27 MiCroLiFe wrote:
GreaT! banes was to hard to handle if you wherent Korean! now just bring back Tankivacs so tanks actually are usefull again, besides camping which is boring and destroyin this game.
Microing tanks and dodge ravagers bile takes skill and finesse. WHy take away something thats so micro intensive? BRING TANKIVAC BACK PLEASE. tanks has no use in currenct patch tvz tvp if you play bio
Tancivacs should definitely NOT come back, I wouldn't mind sieged tanks to be able to be picked up again tho (and then unsiege inside the medivac)
|
Personally, I question the decision to reduce interceptors to 5 minerals. I don't think it's a good idea to make such a drastic change. I mean, if you're going to reduce cost by 90%, then you better nerf it slightly in some other ways. Like increasing the build time as well, so that the buff isn't so gigantic.
Same thing as infestor. It has always been a relevant unit. If you're going to make it cast-able while burrow, then nerf it in some way at the same time, like reducing the AOE, increasing cost, etc.
|
On December 16 2016 07:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert.
The reason was is that buffing Tanks damage would help them considerably versus Banelings.
It is one of the side effects of buffing Tanks that I discussed during the HOTS Beta and listed it as a change that would be necessary if you buff Tanks damage.
|
It seems like in about 6 mos. we'll have everything back to LOTV release stats except Swarm Hosts will do +2 bonus damage to armored units or something.
|
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. If they want to really make them good start with Snute's suggestions or here are other options.
Baneling nerf came out of nowhere and is not necessary.
And despite them wanting to move "pretty quickly" we are still not testing changes to hydras.
|
On December 16 2016 22:11 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert. The reason was is that buffing Tanks damage would help them considerably versus Banelings. It is one of the side effects of buffing Tanks that I discussed during the HOTS Beta and listed it as a change that would be necessary if you buff Tanks damage.
Tanks are actually worse vs banelings than before the patch. 35 damage tanks took 1 shot to kill 30 hp banelings in the full damage radius, 2 shots in the half damage radius, and 4 shots in the 1/4 damage radius. 40 damage tanks take 1 shot, 2 shots, and 5 shots (because of regen) respectively, and they shoot slightly slower than before.
|
On December 16 2016 22:18 Tuczniak wrote:
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. .
[/url]
I disagree with this. In SC2 we are used to having a "balanced" answer to any unit being massed at any time. Full 200supply of carriers should be countered by x. I think this is wrong as it leads to boring games as no matter what the enemy is doing, you can always, especially as Zerg, bring the perfect counter, and so the "timings" game gets lost and the "one big fight" gets promoted. This is especially problematic against Protoss and Terran mech.
Transitioning to Carriers, building and rebuilding interceptors, etc is a really cool dinaminc IMO for a counter. Taking advantage of the weakness of what a full Carrier transition means is what makes games fun IMO, and not 200 vs200 10seconds fights.
The almost free interceptos were and are a bad idea IMO because you can no longer starve a P player that uses Carriers but are forced to bring the "counter" to kill them cost efficiently.
|
cloud should be removed or nerfed even more because mech still bad
|
On December 16 2016 23:19 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 22:18 Tuczniak wrote:
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. .
I disagree with this. In SC2 we are used to having a "balanced" answer to any unit being massed at any time. Full 200supply of carriers should be countered by x. I think this is wrong as it leads to boring games as no matter what the enemy is doing, you can always, especially as Zerg, bring the perfect counter, and so the "timings" game gets lost and the "one big fight" gets promoted. This is especially problematic against Protoss and Terran mech. Transitioning to Carriers, building and rebuilding interceptors, etc is a really cool dinaminc IMO for a counter. Taking advantage of the weakness of what a full Carrier transition means is what makes games fun IMO, and not 200 vs200 10seconds fights. The almost free interceptos were and are a bad idea IMO because you can no longer starve a P player that uses Carriers but are forced to bring the "counter" to kill them cost efficiently. [/url]
Of course we dont want one 10 sec fight but this has nothign to do with what he is talking about. The game would be the most fun if it would be worth to mix in like 4 carriers because they have a specific role, instead of massing carriers and making it hard for the opponent to do anything.
For most players it is no fun to try to win the game before it is impossible (sure it is possible but the chances are low).
Take for example tvp in HotS. That was definetly no fun for both sides from the midgame on (which lead to scv timing win or fail).
|
looks like all those guys predicting a big BC nerf were correct! good call guys!
keep insulting more people as you make these great projections because it just adds to your street cred!
|
For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state.
What kind of game are they watching?
|
On December 17 2016 00:28 jackacea wrote:Show nested quote +
For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state.
What kind of game are they watching?
Starcraft 2
|
a few months ago i stated that a once per week update was too much and that maybe once every two weeks would be best. i'd like to retract that request. i think once per week is better than once every 2 weeks especially with the game being reset.
|
The carrier change was expected (though i thought it would be a 15 minerals change), but the baneling nerf... I just dont see the need for it.
|
All of these constant changes are keeping me from wanting to play this game lol, i want to play the final incarnation of this balance patch not the in between where David is making everything that was underused imbalanced as fuck and then slowly dialing it down.
- Increase Interceptor cost to 25, Carriers are broken at the moment, as if Skytoss wasn't already teetering on OP or anything.
- Redesign Oracles to stop ending games outright
- Remove the Swarm Host from the game
- Change Blinding Cloud in a way that isn't half retarded (make it cut range by a set number so it doesn't hard counter tanks, how this eludes the "great" David Kim's balance team I have zero clue) because mech STILL sucks once Vipers hit the field
- Burrow Fungal is imbalanced, make the Infestor smaller and easier to use, increase projectile speed of Fungal, replace root with 50% slow.
- Buff the Stalker raw stats, make it hit harder, increase research time and cool down on Blink
- Replace noob charge with Zealot Legs so Protoss players can actually micro a real unit instead of casting spells
- Now that Force Field is underpowered, remove it, and replace it with Shield Battery along with a +1 armor increase to the sentries, turn it back into a front line combat support unit that encourages small engagements.
- Completely redesign the Raven to do no damage but to support and end the Raven cancer once and for all, a huge reason Mass Raven/Mass Infestor is because it's a unit that does damage for energy which means they scale better in large numbers (whats better then one seeker missile? 10 of course) which is bad. Make the Raven a powerful late game support unit that gives Terran some additional survivability in end game fights. maybe give it lock down so it can be used vs Ultralisks.
Oh, and the biggest one so far...
...Patch the game, wait for the meta to settle down...
|
On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well...
no tanks dont do 70 dmg to banelings because banes arn't armored tanks dmg is practically unchanged vs light units in the patch, its only slightly more. and its not enough to 1 shot banes.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 03:25 Beelzebub1 wrote:
All of these constant changes are keeping me from wanting to play this game lol, i want to play the final incarnation of this balance patch not the in between where David is making everything that was underused imbalanced as fuck and then slowly dialing it down.
diverse race RTS games take a long time to balance. with the game being reset after BlizzCon it'll take a while before LotV is balanced.
|
Carriers are broken now. There is basically no way for Terran to defeat a Carrier fleet, especially if they go Carrier/Void Ray if you try to go BC.
Carriers need less hit points or to cost 8 supply, they are simply too supply efficient against everything. They are basically the only unit in the game that are so strong that they really have no counter unit.
|
did you ever tried mass bc vs carrier ? cos BC rapes both voidray and carrier
|
Actually carriers aren't an issue if there's less than 10-12 of them in TvP.
The tempest is still the problem. The 15/10 range makes the tempest basically the same. Terran late game got buffed, but it's near impossible to get to that point where you've got full raven/BC. Mainly because when the first couple tempests are out, protoss can start to siege your bases while BCs are quite terrible before you got 6+ of them.
About the changes, they're fast, and tiny. I like it a lot, i think blizz should tweak the game very often to prevent abusive strats from plaguing the game. However, they should also focus on design issues (with the help of the test map functionnality), for instance pylon overcharge, SHs versus mech, vipers/ravens dynamic making MechvZ very turtly (unless you go for an extreme timing like innovation did against dark), or the adept still being both abusive and gamble-y with the shade vision nerf.
|
We're seeing these quick changes because it's the off season. They'll likely slow down when next year rolls around with the first ladder and WCS seasons.
|
On December 17 2016 08:39 JackONeill wrote:
Actually carriers aren't an issue if there's less than 10-12 of them in TvP.
The tempest is still the problem. The 15/10 range makes the tempest basically the same. Terran late game got buffed, but it's near impossible to get to that point where you've got full raven/BC. Mainly because when the first couple tempests are out, protoss can start to siege your bases while BCs are quite terrible before you got 6+ of them.
About the changes, they're fast, and tiny. I like it a lot, i think blizz should tweak the game very often to prevent abusive strats from plaguing the game. However, they should also focus on design issues (with the help of the test map functionnality), for instance pylon overcharge, SHs versus mech, vipers/ravens dynamic making MechvZ very turtly (unless you go for an extreme timing like innovation did against dark), or the adept still being both abusive and gamble-y with the shade vision nerf.
To my understanding, unlike bio, mech is about longer games unless the early pushes which are necessary with mech end the game entirely. So there is nothing wrong with long mech games.
I guess inno's mech plan isn't clear to him beyond the Tank switch, so he keeps with his helion cyclone pushes, securing his bases with tanks. But there are phases beyond that, at which the terran secures 4 bases (with tanks and turrets), and the game goes to the following stages which take a very long time.
This is how mech works, I don't think it can be changed that much, as mech relies on a slower army which is hard to break when it is seiged, and can be leapfrogged and take better engagements so that its fine if the zerg is on 6 or 7 bases while the terran is on 4.
Just played a zerg vs mech game today (as a zerg player), eventually it was decided on the air battle (raven, viking, liberator vs corruptor viper) while his bases were secured. I guess I didn't realize how much dead space there is on Echo. But at some point he didn't have mining at all and still won the game. Very patiently, all the bases sieged to the point I can hardly touch them, and the hydra viper vs his air was in his supreriority, my corroptor switch was too late, as I didn't have enough gas by this time.
This is how mech works, 30 minute games...
If it doesn't suit you, its the time to switch back to bio, as it is just as good, but the game is completely different.
As the zerg, I'm fine with both games, as both mech an bio require skill, but many mech players on the ladder just make something which seems as a dathball, a moving into me and die to simple things like complete surrounds of lings on the thors/tanks, hydra swarm hosts enaging to not that much protected sieged places, or hydra viper compositions trading well enough while I own the map and the terran has at most 4 bases. The games I lose vs mech are either short due to a successful early push (helion cyclone, or hellbat into banshees), or very long games which gets to the terran having his bases secured and an air fleet (ravens viking and libs if there is enough dead space) which trades well with the hydra viper. These games go through many stages, which is why it is skill based (for both, the terran and the zerg).
|
On December 16 2016 23:32 SpecKROELLchen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:19 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 16 2016 22:18 Tuczniak wrote:
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. .
I disagree with this. In SC2 we are used to having a "balanced" answer to any unit being massed at any time. Full 200supply of carriers should be countered by x. I think this is wrong as it leads to boring games as no matter what the enemy is doing, you can always, especially as Zerg, bring the perfect counter, and so the "timings" game gets lost and the "one big fight" gets promoted. This is especially problematic against Protoss and Terran mech. Transitioning to Carriers, building and rebuilding interceptors, etc is a really cool dinaminc IMO for a counter. Taking advantage of the weakness of what a full Carrier transition means is what makes games fun IMO, and not 200 vs200 10seconds fights. The almost free interceptos were and are a bad idea IMO because you can no longer starve a P player that uses Carriers but are forced to bring the "counter" to kill them cost efficiently. Of course we dont want one 10 sec fight but this has nothign to do with what he is talking about. The game would be the most fun if it would be worth to mix in like 4 carriers because they have a specific role, instead of massing carriers and making it hard for the opponent to do anything. For most players it is no fun to try to win the game before it is impossible (sure it is possible but the chances are low). Take for example tvp in HotS. That was definetly no fun for both sides from the midgame on (which lead to scv timing win or fail). [/url]
I disagree with that too. This add a little of that, and a little of this, is what created deathballs and it's the Browder school of design for RTS that is completely at odds with what Starcraft was and should be.
|
Norway839 Posts
I think these changes are good actually, +5 hp buff on speedbanes on lair is still pretty strong and hopefully ling bane remains viable vs bio. Very gentle and decent changes. ps: if interceptors cost 10 minerals, I'm 90% sure byul would've won vs stats on habitation station playing ultra hydra queen viper with minimal spore support, idk if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
But I'm sure on average, 10 minerals should be better than 5. The reddit thread linked earlier was also interesting.
Would've loved to see a higher quantity of issues addressed rather than just these two, but aside from that, good update
|
On December 17 2016 18:21 Liquid`Snute wrote:I think these changes are good actually, +5 hp buff on speedbanes on lair is still pretty strong and hopefully ling bane remains viable vs bio. Very gentle and decent changes. ps: if interceptors cost 10 minerals, I'm 90% sure byul would've won vs stats on habitation station playing ultra hydra queen viper with minimal spore support, idk if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I'm sure on average, 10 minerals should be better than 5. The reddit thread linked earlier was also interesting. Would've loved to see a higher quantity of issues addressed rather than just these two, but aside from that, good update
what's your opinion on burrow-fungal?
|
Norway839 Posts
On December 17 2016 18:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 18:21 Liquid`Snute wrote:I think these changes are good actually, +5 hp buff on speedbanes on lair is still pretty strong and hopefully ling bane remains viable vs bio. Very gentle and decent changes. ps: if interceptors cost 10 minerals, I'm 90% sure byul would've won vs stats on habitation station playing ultra hydra queen viper with minimal spore support, idk if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I'm sure on average, 10 minerals should be better than 5. The reddit thread linked earlier was also interesting. Would've loved to see a higher quantity of issues addressed rather than just these two, but aside from that, good update what's your opinion on burrow-fungal?
I don't have that much experience with it in practice and haven't seen it much in pro games (early weakness indicator) but in theory I'd imagine it's all about the siege tanks. Tanks normally destroy Infestors above ground whereas all other interactions/compositions aren't really that different post change aside from demanding extra anticipation/detection/splits from all races. Roach ravager infestor is stronger with infestors burrowed but siege tanks are still very strong against that composition and Infestors are still pretty paper once their energy is spent. EDIT: what i mean is important here is that thanks to the burrow change one can now fungal vs tanks BEFORE engagement, rather than immediately after the grand ling bane amove initiation.
I don't play ling bane sharkfestor/ultralisk and haven't seen it much in high level play so it's hard to judge how that does vs something like marine tank thor (burrow neural+fungal sounds strong on paper here). I've read plenty of complaints from people about invisible infestors with death fungals, but a lot of the time those games were lost anyway and it was just a more of a negative memory on top of losses. I've seen a lot of terrans use forward turrets and widow mines in combination to great effect vs both burrowed infestors and overseers, so that's kinda cool i think, as long as it's not too expensive.
imo the infestor is still in a weird spot and it's very hard to judge its actual strength, but i'd be very hesitant to call it strong or overpowered, or extremely weak. it's somewhere in between in a mysterious spot - so far I think it's not the worst of buffs, the Infestor really needed some help before and is still a very expensive unit ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/sadley.gif)
|
thanks for the answer
|
On December 16 2016 21:48 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 19:20 avilo wrote:
Interceptor should be reverted to 25 minerals. Carriers are ridiculous atm. Did you learn from the Innovation games how to play mech without turtling to mass Ravens and use actual timings?
A few days back I tuned into Avilo - he was whining that his opponent was trying to play like Inno, but that what people don't realize is that Inno is a noob. That's right - a noob. So I guess he has nothing to learn from Inno.
And amusingly as the Twitch stream started the first two words that I heard were 'map hacker'.
I prefer 15 mineral cost to interceptors, 5 was basically free and I hate the free units that can encourage turtle.
|
|
|
i don't think banelings are problematic. burrowed fungal is more problematic.
also i hope some nerf to cyclone's anti-ground and buff to cyclone's anti-air
|
On December 17 2016 07:28 MockHamill wrote:
Carriers are broken now. There is basically no way for Terran to defeat a Carrier fleet, especially if they go Carrier/Void Ray if you try to go BC.
Carriers need less hit points or to cost 8 supply, they are simply too supply efficient against everything. They are basically the only unit in the game that are so strong that they really have no counter unit.
Even if that's the case at what point is Protoss going to be able to transition to carriers without being punished. If Terran can't stop Protoss during such a transition they are probably behind enoughbthat the game is lost anyway.
I don't think there's an issue with carriers in tvp, but there is one in zvp hence the need for nerfs.
|
On December 16 2016 08:19 Shield wrote:
Patch still doesn't make me excited to play 1vs1 as protoss.
No Patch since 10 years do this.
There is 2 ways to play pvz: carrier or 2-3 eco/base allin. Because you cant play a normal macro game.
Stalkers are totaly crap except for allin.
All other compositions gets beaten by ling/bane/hydra or ravager.
You have to max out vs that style to push and even then you can lose the game easily,
the zerg can play this style for years.
Not sure blizzard noticed it after 3 tournaments all protoss plays dt drop into allin or carrier haha.
This post with core units is pretty annoying. Blizzard called zerg have 3 core units, protoss only 1?
Stalker isnt a real one because they are way to cost ineffective.
But i have a solution, buff zerg like the last time.
|
On December 19 2016 11:02 NutriaKaiN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 08:19 Shield wrote:
Patch still doesn't make me excited to play 1vs1 as protoss. No Patch since 10 years do this. There is 2 ways to play pvz: carrier or 2-3 eco/base allin. Because you cant play a normal macro game. Stalkers are totaly crap except for allin. All other compositions gets beaten by ling/bane/hydra or ravager. You have to max out vs that style to push and even then you can lose the game easily, the zerg can play this style for years. Not sure blizzard noticed it after 3 tournaments all protoss plays dt drop into allin or carrier haha. This post with core units is pretty annoying. Blizzard called zerg have 3 core units, protoss only 1? Stalker isnt a real one because they are way to cost ineffective. But i have a solution, buff zerg like the last time.
Protoss are playing archon drop into archon immo chargelot all in because it's extremely strong, not because they don't dare playing the long macro game.
If you can win in 10 minutes why bother playing a 20 minutes game?
|
On December 18 2016 15:52 jimjimmie wrote:
i don't think banelings are problematic. burrowed fungal is more problematic.
also i hope some nerf to cyclone's anti-ground and buff to cyclone's anti-air
Burrow fungal looks a good idea but the synergy with banelings and ultras is quite strong if terran doesn t split previously his marines and marauders.
I would like to see the infestor emerge from the soil and cast the fungal automatically so you have a small chance to split your marines. It looks like to the instant fungal problem we got in WoL which has been improved to allow terran to split.
Then i disagree for the cyclone anti air damage. There is already Thor for counter air.
The only problem of the cyclone come from his cost supply.
One factory is equal to three barracks, so timings of Mech player are stronger than Bio player which is literally opposing of mind Terran.
You can t add an unit without impacting meta game but this one change everything terran is used to play since WoL.
|
On December 19 2016 11:24 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 11:02 NutriaKaiN wrote:On December 16 2016 08:19 Shield wrote:
Patch still doesn't make me excited to play 1vs1 as protoss. No Patch since 10 years do this. There is 2 ways to play pvz: carrier or 2-3 eco/base allin. Because you cant play a normal macro game. Stalkers are totaly crap except for allin. All other compositions gets beaten by ling/bane/hydra or ravager. You have to max out vs that style to push and even then you can lose the game easily, the zerg can play this style for years. Not sure blizzard noticed it after 3 tournaments all protoss plays dt drop into allin or carrier haha. This post with core units is pretty annoying. Blizzard called zerg have 3 core units, protoss only 1? Stalker isnt a real one because they are way to cost ineffective. But i have a solution, buff zerg like the last time. Protoss are playing archon drop into archon immo chargelot all in because it's extremely strong, not because they don't dare playing the long macro game. If you can win in 10 minutes why bother playing a 20 minutes game?
the biggest lie i heard. in all tourneys all the time you see only 2 builds you cant really play s talker without allin. the other comps get destroyed by hydra ling bane etc.
|
On December 16 2016 07:37 hiroshOne wrote:
"For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state."
I can see that whiners from Aiur are still active. So that means we can forget about promised HP buff. Next patch David will reduce hydra range to 2 and will make hydras fast as queens of creep.
They never promised a health buff, they said if Hydralisks need a buff to help them after the range nerf they had the idea of either increasing their health or lowering their cost.
First of all, that's a big IF in the first place and secondly even in the same post they have a competing idea with what to do with Hydralisks.
It was never a promise, don't put words like that into the developer's mouth, it just creates hostility in the balance threads.
|
On December 17 2016 18:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 18:21 Liquid`Snute wrote:I think these changes are good actually, +5 hp buff on speedbanes on lair is still pretty strong and hopefully ling bane remains viable vs bio. Very gentle and decent changes. ps: if interceptors cost 10 minerals, I'm 90% sure byul would've won vs stats on habitation station playing ultra hydra queen viper with minimal spore support, idk if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I'm sure on average, 10 minerals should be better than 5. The reddit thread linked earlier was also interesting. Would've loved to see a higher quantity of issues addressed rather than just these two, but aside from that, good update what's your opinion on burrow-fungal?
The funny thing is, the guy on reddit complains about deathball and to strong when you get alot. What is with liberators, you cant beat them when they are to many, only with tempest and its pretty hard to get a good count because some tempest do nothing, no dps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
