Hello everyone, this week we wanted to start talking about what we’re thinking for a potential upcoming balance patch. The main intention here is to ensure that our goals are aligned with the community, and to collect any feedback on what else we should be looking at for a balance update. In the post below there are some specific changes mentioned, but everything is open for discussion.
Thor We haven’t been seeing as much Mech play as we would like, and the Thor is often referenced by the community. In addition, the Thor is rarely used in high level play, and so we think it is a good target for a buff. Since the Thor is mostly used for zoning out enemy flying units we think it would be good to buff that aspect of the unit to give it a more clear and defined role. However, it would be important to make sure that any changes don’t make the unit too much of an all-around unit; it should be something you build a few of for AA purposes and not to be the backbone of your army.
Raven We feel that the Auto Turret is a little too good in the harassment role. Terran already has a lot of harass options, so we’d like to decrease the damage (down to the 3-shot range for workers) while increasing the duration. With a slightly longer duration, there will be more of a choice to run away from Auto Turrets or attack them. Right now, the turret expires so quickly that its rarely a good idea to try to kill them and is usually better to let them expire.
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
Protoss vs Zerg Matchup We don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup as we are frequently seeing Adept openers with Warp Prisms, followed by DT/Archon harass with Warp Prisms. While we aren’t necessarily seeing an imbalance in win rates, we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup. We are still deciding what the best course of action would be here, but some early thoughts are to look at reducing the effectiveness of the Psionic Transfer ability, or having the Warp Prism have a “slow warp” power field until an upgrade is researched.
As always, none of this is final. We wanted to communicate some of our early thoughts on what the next balance patch may contain so that we have time to read through your feedback and make adjustments as needed. If you think any of these directions are the wrong way to go, or if you think we should be taking a look at something this isn’t on this list, please let us know. Thanks!
We are still deciding what the best course of action would be here, but some early thoughts are to look at reducing the effectiveness of the Psionic Transfer ability, or having the Warp Prism have a “slow warp” power field until an upgrade is researched.
Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
The reason you pull away from auto-turrets instead of trying to kill them is not just the short duration. It's also the absurd damage output. For the first few minutes of the game you don't have anything that can kill an auto-turret without pulling workers while retaining cost-efficiency. For any race. If you want to up the duration, the damage has to go down even further than just 3-shotting workers.
Regarding PvZ - if you go through with either of those, you obviously have to adjust Zerg as well. Otherwise it's just a flat nerf to Protoss. Not to mention they would both affect PvT.
I agree with the Thor and Raven changes. Thors currently do not not do their job against Carriers, Tempest, BC or Liberators. They are basically useless except against mass muta. So any improvement to Thors like +1 armour (better vs Carriers) and increased single target air damage would be a good idea.
Making Tempest stronger vs capitals ships seems like the wrong move. The problem is that Carriers are too strong so it better to adress the actual problem by nerfing Carriers instead of just making Protoss air even stronger, so that not even BCs can work vs Protoss air. This of course depends on how much you improve Thors. If you improve Thor armour by 1 and increase Thor single target air damage maybe mech could trade and do timing attacks vs Protoss instead of being forced to turtle to BC.
I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
On March 31 2017 05:21 Nakajin wrote: I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
I'd much rather see adepts nerfed, no other unit works like thst anyway. Depending on what tech the faster prism warpin field woild be, you run the risk of removing every aggressive protoss strategy. They all rely on warp prisms now. I know people don't like all ins, but they're necessary options to keep an opponent in check. And believe me, slow warpins remove them. That's why players go out of their way to get a robo and a prism before attacking instead of bringing a probe.
On March 31 2017 05:21 Nakajin wrote: I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
I'd much rather see adepts nerfed, no other unit works like thst anyway. Depending on what tech the faster prism warpin field woild be, you run the risk of removing every aggressive protoss strategy. They all rely on warp prisms now. I know people don't like all ins, but they're necessary options to keep an opponent in check. And believe me, slow warpins remove them. That's why players go out of their way to get a robo and a prism before attacking instead of bringing a probe.
Can't you build a foward pylon and proxi one of your gates if you want to do a frontal push? Sure you lose the micro capacity of the WP and your warpin are a lot more immobille but I think it could still work, and building a gate is cheaper then a WP and I would think take around the same time to build. And after that you can just build the upgrade.
I feel like nerfing adept is a lot more risky since they are a huge part of P army right now, for exemple against hydra.
On March 31 2017 05:20 MockHamill wrote: I agree with the Thor and Raven changes. Thors currently do not not do their job against Carriers, Tempest, BC or Liberators. They are basically useless except against mass muta. So any improvement to Thors like +1 armour (better vs Carriers) and increased single target air damage would be a good idea.
Making Tempest stronger vs capitals ships seems like the wrong move. The problem is that Carriers are too strong so it better to adress the actual problem by nerfing Carriers instead of just making Protoss air even stronger, so that not even BCs can work vs Protoss air. This of course depends on how much you improve Thors. If you improve Thor armour by 1 and increase Thor single target air damage maybe mech could trade and do timing attacks vs Protoss instead of being forced to turtle to BC.
lol no they nerfed tempest to the ground back in hots which is why carirers shit on them now. Tempest use to counter carriers before they changed the +massive dmg. Also the carrier isn't the problem in any of the mus its the units that support it the voidray/storm/archon that make it unbeatable because the counter the corrupter is legit terrible vs those units. As we can see tho late game terran can beat late game protoss because their units can trade with this late game army from energy abilities from a far.
On March 31 2017 05:21 Nakajin wrote: I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
I'd much rather see adepts nerfed, no other unit works like thst anyway. Depending on what tech the faster prism warpin field woild be, you run the risk of removing every aggressive protoss strategy. They all rely on warp prisms now. I know people don't like all ins, but they're necessary options to keep an opponent in check. And believe me, slow warpins remove them. That's why players go out of their way to get a robo and a prism before attacking instead of bringing a probe.
This is why, if they are going to change the warp prism, it would make more sense to reduce the starting pickup range, and have it come back with the Gravitic Drive upgrade.
On March 31 2017 05:21 Nakajin wrote: I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
but building a million zerglings and press a click into the wall and drop is fine? sure.
On March 31 2017 05:21 Nakajin wrote: I really like the idea of the WP having slow warp in and hadding an upgrade for faster warp in (or maybe having it with WP speed?), it would keep the nice mid-late game WP harras but punish the "8 gates I flew into your base and warp a million adept after 6 minute" bulshit.
I'd much rather see adepts nerfed, no other unit works like thst anyway. Depending on what tech the faster prism warpin field woild be, you run the risk of removing every aggressive protoss strategy. They all rely on warp prisms now. I know people don't like all ins, but they're necessary options to keep an opponent in check. And believe me, slow warpins remove them. That's why players go out of their way to get a robo and a prism before attacking instead of bringing a probe.
Can't you build a foward pylon and proxi one of your gates if you want to do a frontal push? Sure you lose the micro capacity of the WP and your warpin are a lot more immobille but I think it could still work, and building a gate is cheaper then a WP and I would think take around the same time to build. And after that you can just build the upgrade.
I feel like nerfing adept is a lot more risky since they are a huge part of P army right now, for exemple against hydra.
Maybe I am wrong but I would like to see it.
At the pro level that would never work good zergs are always looking for pylons. Also the delaying of the prism moveouts by protoss will allow zergs to be more greedy/weaken any adept pushes. The reason for this is that any warp ins into their mains will be slow warpins meaning they would only need honestly queens with a few lings to push back the prisms in the main and then have all focus at their 3rd base location reducing the multitasking needed by the zerg.
Is adept warp prism into dt/archon warp prism an actual thing? Isn't it usually one or the other? They are two different openings, obviously both start with a couple of adepts but that is in every build. They are used quite a lot but you often see stargate openings in PvZ too Stats go to build for a while was nexus first into stargate double oracle, voidray.
Any adept nerf for PvZ is gonna impact PvT a lot which bassically only has 1 way to play because of the stupid marine/tank/mine/lib pushes so I wouldn't want to see that.
Mostly going in the right direction i think, but the problem with the prism is the pickup range. Protoss can harass a lot while building safely at home, but if zerg loses a few drones or delay injects, protoss gets a big economic lead and just gets a free win with the following push. They don't even have fear a ling counter attack denying the third, because 3 adepts between pylons can defend a ton of lings.
I found hilarious learning that PvP in EU is mass carriers, i thought this was the protoss dream. hahahahahaha
I don't think the thor needs any buffs. The ONLY problem with mech in tvz is the swarmhost, fix the swarmhost and mech will be viable. Also I don't agree with their thoughts on pvz, oracle openers are very common too. A warpprism nerf would be terrible as it would remove a lot of protoss options to be aggressive and force them to be the "turtle race" again.
Lol, the balance team and their incessant habit of noticing an issue that exists and coming up with some backwards and nonsensical approach to fixing the issue.
PvZ variety is fine except for the fact that Adepts are superior to Zealots and Stalkers in pretty much every single way. Beefier, ranged, scouting, puts "fake" but very real pressure on, and 2 shots workers. Stop making things more complex then they really are, nerf the Adept and give the Zealot and Stalker some early game buffs for Christ's sake, I'm a Zerg player and can realize this.
Also, Skytoss is so cancerous that it's even cancer in it's own mirror match up, nerf the damn Carrier but don't cut it's balls off, once again, how hard is this really?
The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd.
Lol, their little Raven discussion, "Terran already has powerful harassment tools out the wazzoo, so we're going to take this broken and OP harassment option, make it 3 shot instead of 2 shot workers, and call it a day." The Raven is hilariously bad on a design stand point, trading out mana for free damage is just begging to be massed up in a turtle fashion. Why not change the Raven to a strict utility unit more like the Science Vessel? Terrans problem in the late game is that bio has no beef/staying power on the field, let the Raven fill a hole that the Terran arsenal has maybe?
5 years later and somehow David Kim is still in charge of these ludicrous "balance changes" as the games player base slowly but surely dwindles and tournaments get less funding from less viewers. How is this game even going to compete with a remastered BW which already crushes SC2 on a stream viewership level. I don't want SC2 to continue to shrink, and while I'm sitting here praising the Starcraft Gods for delivering us a remastered BW I summarily curse them for the balance teams ineptitude.
David Kim is like a bad coach in the NFL who has been grandfathered in because the manager likes him. At this point, it's just bad for the health of the game.
New Balance Update
- David Kim has been removed from lead balance and design and replaced with someone who knows what he's doing
On March 31 2017 05:40 Zaros wrote: Is adept warp prism into dt/archon warp prism an actual thing? Isn't it usually one or the other? They are two different openings, obviously both start with a couple of adepts but that is in every build. They are used quite a lot but you often see stargate openings in PvZ too Stats go to build for a while was nexus first into stargate double oracle, voidray.
Any adept nerf for PvZ is gonna impact PvT a lot which bassically only has 1 way to play because of the stupid marine/tank/mine/lib pushes so I wouldn't want to see that.
Yeah that's true. Archon drop openings usually don't warp in any units before the 4 DTs.
So with adept openers, archon drop openers and stargate openers there are already 3 viable popular builds atm, surprising DK sees a problem there, it's more variety than in any terran matchup.
6 months of Adept into DT into Archon in every PvZ and Blizzard is just now realizing there's a stale meta? Just make the Warp Prism 100/100 or even 100/50 so that there's some sort of gas investment. Every other harass option in the game costs some amount of gas, but arguably the most effective one doesn't. Makes no sense.
New meta is kind of boring to me. Please revert it to April-May 2016. It was much more enjoyable. Playing vs early cyclone rushes or carriers is very stupid.
glad to see another Terran ground unit getting buffed and a Terran Air Unit getting nerfed. Particularly happy to see ground based anti-air getting buffed. since LotV's release Terran air has been nerfed quite a bit and Terran ground has been buffed a lot. Good trend to see.
at my level ( NA Diamond ) there is still too much airplay for my taste. this issue is not fun-breaking.. its not like i'm quitting next week and never, ever playing again.. .i'd just prefer more ground based play, more often.
Please, buff the Thor's anti air as much as reasonably possible. Please weaken any and all air units as much as possible in all 3 races.
The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd.
I love the fact that replacing a sc2 unit by a BW unit that had nothing (it just a mech unit that shoot up and down and has zero original idea behind it, oppose to lets day the lurker) is suppose the make the game better. Like that the fact that there is a unit with the skin and the name of the goliat will all of the sudden make it an awesome balance unit.
I have to say I appreciate the amount of reasoning for the changes the devs showed in this update.
I like the Thor change tenitivly I would warn that if you buff Thor splash more i and a lot of other terran's would probably just use it with bio to shred mutas rather than bothering with mech. Mech as a long term plan and not a 3 base Allin just has a lot of issues right now. Swarmhosts from Zerg are often crippling, fast mutas are often crippling( although Thor might fix this) early roaches can be crippling depending on how greedy the opening is. Late game is often crippling deppending on the map since you ca t secure enough bases and your army is not effecient enough to wear down a Zerg on more basses than you.
For Protoss I don't like the idea of buffing the tempest when skytoss is already prity strong it has to much impact on other matches, void ray changes sure, although it will make certain allins harder to hold in plz if you go stargate open.
On March 31 2017 05:55 Solar424 wrote: 6 months of Adept into DT into Archon in every PvZ and Blizzard is just now realizing there's a stale meta? Just make the Warp Prism 100/100 or even 100/50 so that there's some sort of gas investment. Every other harass option in the game costs some amount of gas, but arguably the most effective one doesn't. Makes no sense.
or maybe buff the other options.. when the balance numbers are fine now.. why a **** nerf? it makes 0 sense.
On March 31 2017 05:55 Solar424 wrote: 6 months of Adept into DT into Archon in every PvZ and Blizzard is just now realizing there's a stale meta? Just make the Warp Prism 100/100 or even 100/50 so that there's some sort of gas investment. Every other harass option in the game costs some amount of gas, but arguably the most effective one doesn't. Makes no sense.
or maybe buff the other options.. when the balance numbers are fine now.. why a **** nerf? it makes 0 sense.
Warp prism play has been problematic in all matchups for a long time, and changing the cost to requiring gas has been something people have proposed for a while. Since the warp prism gives Adepts, DT's, and Archons added power in the early game, nerfing it would be a benefit. Obviously there would be buffs in other places, but Adept play is just uninteresting to watch and unfun to play against.
quite a lot to talk about here but just my cents for the prism: i'm not a big fan of the slow warp-in without upgrade as a suggestion. It only nerfs DT drop and limits build diversity, depending on how expensive the upgrade is. Nerfing TC 7/8-gates would be welcome, but I think it's better to nerf the adept itself rather than adding in a prism research upgrade. Adding in an upgrade requirement for timing attacks will hurt build diversity. Having a default warp-in time slightly slower than the power pylon warp-in time as default for the prism wouldn't be so bad, but if it becomes as bad as a proxy pylon without anything next to it, that won't be healthy.
From a Z standpoint it wouldn't be so bad to nerf the pickup range (primary concern), prism's shields (secondary concern), or move-speed (lesser concern). 1. Slight reduction to pick-up range - enough to micro immortals, but strengthening queens against the archon drop) and 2. Changing the shield/hp ratio of warp prism. Right now it's 100 shields and 80 hp, it would be far more suitable to have 60-80 shields and 100-120hp so that target-firing of prism will be rewarded more than it is today. Archons already have a near-full healing capability, no reason to have the prism effectively work the same way.
On March 31 2017 06:56 Liquid`Snute wrote: quite a lot to talk about here but just my cents for the prism: i'm not a big fan of the slow warp-in without upgrade as a suggestion. It only nerfs DT drop and limits build diversity, depending on how expensive the upgrade is. Nerfing TC 7/8-gates would be welcome, but I think it's better to nerf the adept itself rather than adding in a prism research upgrade. Adding in an upgrade requirement for timing attacks will hurt build diversity. Having a default warp-in time slightly slower than the power pylon warp-in time as default for the prism wouldn't be so bad, but if it becomes as bad as a proxy pylon without anything next to it, that won't be healthy.
From a Z standpoint it wouldn't be so bad to nerf the pickup range (primary concern), prism's shields (secondary concern), or move-speed (lesser concern). 1. Slight reduction to pick-up range - enough to micro immortals, but strengthening queens against the archon drop) and 2. Changing the shield/hp ratio of warp prism. Right now it's 100 shields and 80 hp, it would be far more suitable to have 60-80 shields and 100-120hp so that target-firing of prism will be rewarded more than it is today. Archons already have a near-full healing capability, no reason to have the prism effectively work the same way.
On March 31 2017 06:56 Liquid`Snute wrote: quite a lot to talk about here but just my cents for the prism: i'm not a big fan of the slow warp-in without upgrade as a suggestion. It only nerfs DT drop and limits build diversity, depending on how expensive the upgrade is. Nerfing TC 7/8-gates would be welcome, but I think it's better to nerf the adept itself rather than adding in a prism research upgrade. Adding in an upgrade requirement for timing attacks will hurt build diversity. Having a default warp-in time slightly slower than the power pylon warp-in time as default for the prism wouldn't be so bad, but if it becomes as bad as a proxy pylon without anything next to it, that won't be healthy.
From a Z standpoint it wouldn't be so bad to nerf the pickup range (primary concern), prism's shields (secondary concern), or move-speed (lesser concern). 1. Slight reduction to pick-up range - enough to micro immortals, but strengthening queens against the archon drop) and 2. Changing the shield/hp ratio of warp prism. Right now it's 100 shields and 80 hp, it would be far more suitable to have 60-80 shields and 100-120hp so that target-firing of prism will be rewarded more than it is today. Archons already have a near-full healing capability, no reason to have the prism effectively work the same way.
I think these ideas are the right call
Glad to see you both agree that the current prism suggestion is the wrong way to go. Also snute's suggesting i think are a welcoming change if they were to be tested.
On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote: Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch :
Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech.
Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch...
The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown.
And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT.
Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble.
Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss.
On March 31 2017 07:39 FrkFrJss wrote: Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss.
On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote: Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch :
Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech.
Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch...
The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown.
And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT.
Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble.
Stop looking at it from balance view.
If something needs to be nerfed for terran or buffed for toss after the changes thats ok, as long as the changes makes sense.
Not making changes and letting meta get stale for months just because some winrates its not the way to go.
Wow this is a great update! Can't complain about anything here. What a pleasant surprise!
Thor I never see Thors, and mech really needs AA so definitely a good change. Buffing Cyclone AA is an alternative option.
Raven Yeah Autoturrets have had way too high DPS for way too long. Ravens are supposed to be support units not harassing ones. A turret nerf and compensating buff to other abilities would help redefine them as defensive units.
PvP Skytoss is stupid in PvP as well as everywhere else, who knew? Nerfing Void Rays/Carriers will only lead to good things. In contrast, Tempests have needed some love since 3.8, so buffing them makes a lot of sense. Shifting the current Skytoss meta is a long overdue fix.
PvZ soO did not die for nothing at least. Either Adepts or Warp Prisms being nerfed would go a long way towards helping Zergs. Reducing pickup range and slow warp ins are both options for WP; shades are massively obnoxious with regard to splitting units to defend and losing your army half at a time so nerfing them is a wonderful idea. Alternatively, I would propose either a health reduction or a Glaives nerf. Even something like increasing the research time for Glaives would help a lot. Anything to reshape the current mass Adept meta that is terrible to both play and watch.
Conclusion: Blizzard did something completely right! A M A Z I N G!
On March 31 2017 07:39 FrkFrJss wrote: Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss.
On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote: Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch :
Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech.
Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch...
The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown.
And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT.
Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble.
Stop looking at it from balance view.
If something needs to be nerfed for terran or buffed for toss after the changes thats ok, as long as the changes makes sense.
Not making changes and letting meta get stale for months just because some winrates its not the way to go.
Nobody has said they shouldn't do anything, but we begin to be used the way they proceed.
The change won't be lived until 2-3 months, and then we have to wait for 2-3months to get the " corrective patch" because it's too strong, and usually it takes 2-3 patchs to correct something, so well it will take around 1 year from the change to the moment it will be balanced...
Better try to warn them about the consequences before the patch, rather than waiting 9months-12months.
We haven’t been seeing as much Mech play as we would like
Did they fire DK? WHO WROTE THAT?
Giving more AA strength to the thor is good, but it won't change the fact that SHs are the reason we don't see mech play. An AA buff would help mech in TvP a lot though. Raven nerf is good. But "burst damage" turret is still bad for the game, because it's free damage. It'd be best of the turret to be remplaced by a 50 energy defensive matrix. Nerfing the void ray's damage and putting more into the alignement is terrible : stop making units rely on abilities. Nerfing the warp prism can only be made by nerfing the stupid pickuprange.
Good ideas overall, but things are moving way too slow to keep people interested.
On March 31 2017 07:39 FrkFrJss wrote: Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss.
On March 31 2017 07:28 Tyrhanius wrote:
On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote: Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch :
Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech.
Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch...
The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown.
And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT.
Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble.
Stop looking at it from balance view.
If something needs to be nerfed for terran or buffed for toss after the changes thats ok, as long as the changes makes sense.
Not making changes and letting meta get stale for months just because some winrates its not the way to go.
Nobody has said they shouldn't do anything, but we begin to be used the way they proceed.
The change won't be lived until 2-3 months, and then we have to wait for 2-3months to get the " corrective patch" because it's too strong, and usually it takes 2-3 patchs to correct something, so well it will take around 1 year from the change to the moment it will be balanced...
Better try to warn them about the consequences before the patch, rather than waiting 9months-12months.
This isn't a patch is just "things we might be looking into" community update, and your post isn't warning anything is just "don't change anything because terrans just won tournaments"
The raven change may, in fact, be a buff at higher levels as pro players are quite good at pulling workers before they take too much damage, however, if the turret is around for a longer period of time it will stop the workers from mining longer also.
It might be interesting to increase the size of the turret itself, allowing players to block it with structures or units and also making it more of a strategic decision when to drop.
This isn't a patch is just "things we might be looking into" community update, and your post isn't warning anything is just "don't change anything because terrans just won tournaments"
To add to that, TY won before the WM nerf. Stats is the most recent big-tournament champion and last time I checked he doesn't play Terran.
Raven Yeah Autoturrets have had way too high DPS for way too long. Ravens are supposed to be support units not harassing ones. A turret nerf and compensating buff to other abilities would help redefine them as defensive units.
¿Compensating? ALL three abilities of Raven are OP.
There is potential to the Thor change, but please in balance testing test it alongside the other units you want it to work well with. The problem with Thors in compositions is that they're so clunky they don't attack properly. For instance, previously the single-target AA damage was buffed, but anyone who has used Thors whether in Bio or Mech will tell you that vs. Carriers, Broodlords, or any other powerful air they mostly just walk in circles and don't attack. Also, the AI of the Thor is so bad that you will see it targeting overlords when it's being killed by Hydras.
To me, the answer for the Thor is one of two things. (A) make an upgrade where Thors can attack air and ground simultaneously. or (B) specialize the unit to make it more powerful, such as: (i.) massively powerful vs. air with almost no ground attack, (ii.) extremely tanky (iii.) you could make it powerful vs. ground and give the anti-air capability to a different unit. (iv.) simultaneous targeting of 2 ground units, with lowered AA capability
In any case, I think the Thor needs more of an overhaul than a buff to its anti-air. The AI needs to be looked at. Remember that a few months ago the AA splash radius was increased from .5 to .6, and there was discussion that this was going to be a big deal. It hasn't been. This is a unit that needs basic changes.
Raven This change sounds fine.
PvP I would love to see options in all matchups for early aggression. In LOTV, Zerg has quite a few early game options with Ravagers and Overlord drops added to early ling bane options, but in the long term it only makes sense to me that there should be options for multiple timing attacks and all-ins for all 3 races.
One thing I think could be explored is each race having some option similar to the way a single overlord can be turned into a slow "dropperlord" It's a modest investment for a modest harass option. Perhaps make an option for the Mothership Core to transform it to a more aggressive style that would function like a "fighting warp prism" of sorts. In this case it would lose all its defensive abilities as it gains offense. This would need to be a one-way transformation so it would be a definite decision in the game, but I think it may have merit.
For Terran, This could be applied to giving bunkers the option to increase cargo space on a single bunker for a cost for instance, or perhaps an extra turret on top of it. If not this, I'm pretty convinced at this point that a "Hellbat/Flaming Betty" that when transformed has more armor but can't move at all would be more useful than the current Hellbat.
PvZ I play Terran, so I know almost nothing about PvZ.
¿Compensating? ALL three abilities of Raven are OP.
HotS PDD was OP. LotV one is trash.
Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game. Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade.
What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways. If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices!
Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game. Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade.
Lol, what exactly constitutes an "average" ability? Pretty much all of them are situational.
Let me put it this way: I cannot remember ever having seen a PDD thrown down in a LotV pro game. Not saying it's never happened, but certainly not anytime recently. There's no reason at all to use them. Compare with spells like storm or fungal or autoturret, which are in pretty much every game.
Seeker missiles? I barely remember what those are. Certainly haven't seen them any more recently than PDDs. And what exactly is"new" about seeker missiles, which haven't changed since LotV was released?
Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game. Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade.
Lol, what exactly constitutes an "average" ability? Pretty much all of them are situational.
Let me put it this way: I cannot remember ever having seen a PDD thrown down in a LotV pro game. Not saying it's never happened, but certainly not anytime recently. There's no reason at all to use them. Compare with spells like storm or fungal or autoturret, which are in pretty much every game.
Seeker missiles? I barely remember what those are. Certainly haven't seen them any more recently than PDDs. And what exactly is"new" about seeker missiles, which haven't changed since LotV was released?
Just watch avilo's stream, and you'll see enough pdds and seeker missiles for a lifetime.
One more thing, the real problem is not the lack of variance in meta, but the lack of effective variance in meta. As long as Blizzard doesn't realize this, or it doesn't acknowledge this, the game will continue to be stale, and even more staler. The problem today concerns adept and warp prism, both of which become unfortunate targets of laments from the community. Who knows which unit or strategy will suffer from this fire of hatred in the future.
What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways. If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices!
They've been listening to the feedback about how mass Adepts are incredibly stupid to play against and incredibly stupid to watch in pro games. About how Skytoss is cancer. In short, they've been listening to people who are not massively biased Protoss players.
Sure balance is important, but if these changes break the balance Stalkers or other gateway units can be buffed to compensate for adepts, and they already mentioned buffing Tempests. The important thing is shifting the terrible meta.
Also
they should offer us more choices!
What the hell do you think Blizzard is doing with this update?
"....favoring skytoss compositions too heavily.....lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays....opponent has limited options except to build a similar army.....encourage players to build a more varied army composition.....don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup.......we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup..."
To spell it out: Blizzard is changing certain units to shake up the current meta because a handful of builds are near-exclusively used at the moment. I.e. they are offering more choices.
Just watch avilo's stream, and you'll see enough pdds and seeker missiles for a lifetime.
I did say "pro game" and avilo is not a pro, his own delusions notwithstanding. I made the mistake of visiting avilo's stream once and saw a 2015 cancer mech throwback followed by an infantile rant that Donald Trump would have been proud of. Never went back.
Protoss vs Zerg Matchup We don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup as we are frequently seeing Adept openers with Warp Prisms, followed by DT/Archon harass with Warp Prisms. While we aren’t necessarily seeing an imbalance in win rates, we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup. We are still deciding what the best course of action would be here, but some early thoughts are to look at reducing the effectiveness of the Psionic Transfer ability, or having the Warp Prism have a “slow warp” power field until an upgrade is researched.
Risk vs reward here seems way off. The matchup is balanced and those standard openers involve active gameplay with micro and tactical decisions and little different builds to actually get those units out. It's really not that bad of a situation as far as having standard openers goes. And the first brainstorm responses are two things that'd be pretty significant nerfs not only to a matchup that is apparently balanced atm, but some big repercussions for PvT and PvP. In PvP they say the problem is that turtle on 3 bases into stargate play is too powerful and then they're thinking about reducing the effectiveness of adepts and warp prisms? Only helps the turtle.
What a tiny problem to try fixing with such potentially problematic adjustments.
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part. As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong. The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact it is Stalker should be better against air.
Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as build a similar army. There is no difference in "You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest". At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting!
PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay. I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play.
The PvZ adept wp+archon build is the viable one, not the bad one. Fix the problem, don't mess with the only solution. Tempests are fine, everybody hates that thing. If this patch goes forward, it would be a huge retrocess. Again.. And for f*** sake...remove the thor and put the goliath, it's 6 years late.
tbh this airtoss trend is trash imo. hopefully i can show my solution to it against someone good at austin :D
Regardless, the thing Europeans are doing in PvP has not been around that long. I mean maybe in some form or fashion you can trace it back pretty far, but this is WAY too quick of a reaction by Blizzard thinking they need to change the rules of the game before letting the players try to sort it out themselves with the current rules. I know Blizzard is trying to learn a new rhythm to their patches but this one seems too soon to be floating out to the community. It's still in the "keep an eye on it" phase.
What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways. If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices!
They've been listening to the feedback about how mass Adepts are incredibly stupid to play against and incredibly stupid to watch in pro games. About how Skytoss is cancer. In short, they've been listening to people who are not massively biased Protoss players.
Sure balance is important, but if these changes break the balance Stalkers or other gateway units can be buffed to compensate for adepts, and they already mentioned buffing Tempests. The important thing is shifting the terrible meta.
What the hell do you think Blizzard is doing with this update?
"....favoring skytoss compositions too heavily.....lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays....opponent has limited options except to build a similar army.....encourage players to build a more varied army composition.....don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup.......we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup..."
To spell it out: Blizzard is changing certain units to shake up the current meta because a handful of builds are near-exclusively used at the moment. I.e. they are offering more choices.
I hope what they plan to do is really effective in regulating the game meta. As far as I recall, after the launch of LotV, Protoss players have fewer and fewer options in building an efficient army. I don't see anything in the post indicating a buff on units other than nerfing adept and warp prism. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I only have as much faith in one thing as what is offered. Watching Starcraft played in the same way for a long time can be boring. It is human nature, and I do understand this. What I don't understand is why they don't address the issue of unit / strategy effectiveness, but solely focus on variance. As long as there is only limited number of ways to play a game so that one can be even with the opponent or slightly advantageous, most of other alternatives, no matter how elaborately they are designed, will be cast away.
On March 31 2017 10:18 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Thor
There is potential to the Thor change, but please in balance testing test it alongside the other units you want it to work well with. The problem with Thors in compositions is that they're so clunky they don't attack properly. For instance, previously the single-target AA damage was buffed, but anyone who has used Thors whether in Bio or Mech will tell you that vs. Carriers, Broodlords, or any other powerful air they mostly just walk in circles and don't attack. Also, the AI of the Thor is so bad that you will see it targeting overlords when it's being killed by Hydras.
To me, the answer for the Thor is one of two things. (A) make an upgrade where Thors can attack air and ground simultaneously. or (B) specialize the unit to make it more powerful, such as: (i.) massively powerful vs. air with almost no ground attack, (ii.) extremely tanky (iii.) you could make it powerful vs. ground and give the anti-air capability to a different unit. (iv.) simultaneous targeting of 2 ground units, with lowered AA capability
In any case, I think the Thor needs more of an overhaul than a buff to its anti-air. The AI needs to be looked at. Remember that a few months ago the AA splash radius was increased from .5 to .6, and there was discussion that this was going to be a big deal. It hasn't been. This is a unit that needs basic changes.
Raven This change sounds fine.
PvP I would love to see options in all matchups for early aggression. In LOTV, Zerg has quite a few early game options with Ravagers and Overlord drops added to early ling bane options, but in the long term it only makes sense to me that there should be options for multiple timing attacks and all-ins for all 3 races.
One thing I think could be explored is each race having some option similar to the way a single overlord can be turned into a slow "dropperlord" It's a modest investment for a modest harass option. Perhaps make an option for the Mothership Core to transform it to a more aggressive style that would function like a "fighting warp prism" of sorts. In this case it would lose all its defensive abilities as it gains offense. This would need to be a one-way transformation so it would be a definite decision in the game, but I think it may have merit.
For Terran, This could be applied to giving bunkers the option to increase cargo space on a single bunker for a cost for instance, or perhaps an extra turret on top of it. If not this, I'm pretty convinced at this point that a "Hellbat/Flaming Betty" that when transformed has more armor but can't move at all would be more useful than the current Hellbat.
PvZ I play Terran, so I know almost nothing about PvZ.
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part. As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong. The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact it is Stalker should be better against air.
Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as build a similar army. There is no difference in "You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest". At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting!
PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay. I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play.
BLZ has been evading the fact that stalker is not an effective unit to deal with the "Golden Armada". What Protoss players have to accept is the fact that stalker is the only viable ground units in many scenarios, since the other ground unit that has some sort of anti-air effectiveness is the expansive Archon. What will happen if tempest is buffed? Well, so other issues will emerge in the future because it is too OP against some units.
Thor AA buff: isn't it better to buff the Cyclone's AA?
Warpprism nerf: yes please! It's good pickup range added up with its "mass recall" ability have shown to be problematic in many games (yes, I'm biased here T_T)
Voidray change: I fear that this will make the Voidray even more bursty (which is already quite insane!) than it is right now!
Adept nerf: it's about time! (I'm sure many people feel that the adept's mobility is a tad-too-much right now)
Raven change: less damage, more duration, very happy!
Tempest change: if it's only changing the Tempest's damage against shielded capital ships, then I'm fine. If it's buffing the Tempest's damage against mechanical-capital ships (which include BCs), then I'm afraid this unit will become so dominant in the late game again in all matchups.
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part. As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong. The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact it is Stalker should be better against air.
Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as build a similar army. There is no difference in "You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest". At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting!
PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay. I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play.
BLZ has been evading the fact that stalker is not an effective unit to deal with the "Golden Armada". What Protoss players have to accept is the fact that stalker is the only viable ground units in many scenarios, since the other ground unit that has some sort of anti-air effectiveness is the expansive Archon. What will happen if tempest is buffed? Well, so other issues will emerge in the future because it is too OP against some units.
Actually, Stalker is not an effective unit to deal with any air units. Anyone still using Stalker to counter drop? Use Stalker to counter mutas? Use Stalker to fight mass Phoenix? No, you pylon the drop/muta/mass phoenix. I could trade the power of photon overcharge for a more effective Stalker AA.
I hope what they plan to do is really effective in regulating the game meta. As far as I recall, after the launch of LotV, Protoss players have fewer and fewer options in building an efficient army. I don't see anything in the post indicating a buff on units other than nerfing adept and warp prism. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I only have as much faith in one thing as what is offered. Watching Starcraft played in the same way for a long time can be boring. It is human nature, and I do understand this. What I don't understand is why they don't address the issue of unit / strategy effectiveness, but solely focus on variance. As long as there is only limited number of ways to play a game so that one can be even with the opponent or slightly advantageous, most of other alternatives, no matter how elaborately they are designed, will be cast away.
Well they have not mentioned any specifics yet, so I think it's a bit premature to be pessimistic. They are only outlining the broad strokes of what they are going to do and so far I am 100% supportive of their ideas. A stale meta helps nobody.
"In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition." This would appear to be talking about buffing Tempests.
It's very difficult to judge how effective a unit is going to be merely by looking at its statistics. I would think that the best way to determine effectiveness is to let the players see what builds work for themselves. Right now the players have decided that mass Adepts+Phoenix works, Archon drops work, Skytoss works. That's about all that works, so I fully support shaking up the meta and seeing if we can't get something better than that.
PvZ: Increase the adept shade vision but make it so that you can´t cancel the shade or at minimum push back the resonating glaves upgrade. Surprise that they did not talk about lategame PvZ which i think is actually imbalanced. Not sure if it would affect PvT but oracle revelation has to be nerfed. Protoss has the all seeing eye vs. Z which makes it almost impossible for a zerg to win in the late game. Good that they are thinking about some changes.
Since the Thor is mostly used for zoning out enemy flying units we think it would be good to buff that aspect of the unit to give it a more clear and defined role. However, it would be important to make sure that any changes don’t make the unit too much of an all-around unit;it should be something you build a few of for AA purposes and not to be the backbone of your army.
Oh so.. like the Goliath?
It is like Blizzard never understood the genius design of BW and why everything fit together.
Can't say I'm surprised they don't address the maphack spell attached to the oracle, a unit that can kill off half a mineral line on its own and cast cloaked stasis .
None of this makes any fcking sense. We are seeing too much air-play! Lets buff tempest! But whom am i kidding, tempest (and SH) were implemented for that purpose only. To be buffed and nerfed every half of the year since 2012. Hello, blizzard!!!! Noone wants them in the game.
Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
I like tempests (I'm just a noob who likes its big ships :D) - I would like for Blizzard to find a way to tune them so that you want to produce a few of them (4-5 max) to improve your anti-air vs capital ships, but discourages you from massing them (>5). Maybe buffing they could - nerf the anti-ground attack - buff the anti-air attack - reduce the range significantly - increase the mobility
I guess they would become sort of like the corruptor, I don't know if it's a good thing or not..
The main problem I personally have with tempests is that they have this huuuge attack range, which I guess it's a way to improve their anti-air (avoiding ground-to-air attacks from marines, hydra, etc. by staying far away) and they are quite slow.
I don't have enough experience to say how it should be done, but I would like to see protoss armies encorporate 4-5 tempests to respond to BL play, or BCs, but I agree that the huge tempests+mothership army is sometimes too much..
On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote: Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote: Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
On March 31 2017 16:48 VHbb wrote: I like tempests (I'm just a noob who likes its big ships :D) - I would like for Blizzard to find a way to tune them so that you want to produce a few of them (4-5 max) to improve your anti-air vs capital ships, but discourages you from massing them (>5). Maybe buffing they could - nerf the anti-ground attack - buff the anti-air attack - reduce the range significantly - increase the mobility
I guess they would become sort of like the corruptor, I don't know if it's a good thing or not..
The main problem I personally have with tempests is that they have this huuuge attack range, which I guess it's a way to improve their anti-air (avoiding ground-to-air attacks from marines, hydra, etc. by staying far away) and they are quite slow.
I don't have enough experience to say how it should be done, but I would like to see protoss armies encorporate 4-5 tempests to respond to BL play, or BCs, but I agree that the huge tempests+mothership army is sometimes too much..
I think that the problem is that this air army is really strong and when you ad HT there is no way to attack protoss without eating a lot of storms and getting your spell casters feedback because of revelation. By the way is mothership something that protoss really needs? It just gives more incentives to clump your army even more.
On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote: Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
No swarmhost fixes, disappointing patch as usual. Thor changes don't matter because every mech game vs competent Zerg is them seeing you go mech -> start massing swarmhost/buffed hydras.
I mean it's nice they finally might make thors able to trade vs carrier/tempest? Because I designed mod changes and nice_username implemented them into a mod over 1 year ago for increasing thor anti-air damage/splash via an upgrade, and i had people play test it and it allows you to play mass factory SC1 style mech because thors could beat/trade vs air forcing the games to be ground vs ground.
Problem is i do not believe for a second they will make the necessary anti-air changes to thors to allow for mass factory mech play styles.
And back to point A - none of it even matters if they don't fix swarmhost. Nerfing ravens without nerfing swarmhost/carriers is pretty ludicrous lol.
Also my thoughts on carriers in PvP/PvZ/PvT - carriers are very overpowered in every match-up, especially once you get high templar/archons with them.
Zerg has no way at all to beat mass carrier + archon/storm. Not even mass neural can beat it if the Protoss sees ur going for the mass infestor neurals. You just don't trade efficiently enough.
PvP end game is mass carriers because carriers beat everything in the game cost for cost, INCLUDING THEIR COUNTERS.
I think that's a huge issue with late game across all 3 races honestly. There is no counter to end game units. Swarmhost, ravens, BC, carrier, tempest...these units simply have no counters in the game. The only counter is making more of these units because they are all blatantly overpowered for their supply costs.
In SC1, there is always a counter because basic units can counter supreme units. Mass goliaths can counter carriers, and they are strong enough that you can go mass factories. I think all 3 races "super units" and end game units should be toned down.
Honestly, if you want my sincere feedback on swarmhosts, ravens, and carriers - swarmhosts need to be expensive as hell, and given the light tag so hellions and other units can chase them down. They need a massive move speed decrease, and also supply increase to 6.
Ravens should have supply increased to 3 or even 4 because the unit is a hyper scaling unit equivalent to Azir, Nasus, or Veigar in LoL. The longer you have ravens in the game, the stronger they get, and in SC2's case the more you make the stronger you get no matter what.
Carriers and swarmhost suffer the same. Carrier supply should be increased to 8 from 6. Supply increases on all these bullshit units will prevent them from being massed so heavily, or allow ground anti-air to more favorably counter these super units because you'll have more ground AA than they have bullshit mass air.
Those are just some of my thoughts. Late game units across all 3 races are too supply efficient and promote simply massing them. Anything that is energy based or time based - infestor, swarmhost, carrier, tempest, ravens, BC, etc. should have their supplies looked at and tweaked.
On March 31 2017 15:33 ILoveZest wrote: Lets see.. Terran is the best race atm, so lets buff it? And lets nerf enemy options that affect xvT ?? This is really bad guys, u are destroying the game so hard. Well.. Time to csgo i guess.. Rip sc
protoss much better than terran right now xd
In what matchup?
pvt pvz ,..
Well PvZ might be, PvT has been around 41-45% for the past three months though. That's statistically worse than the so-called blink era ever was. There's still only one properly viable build for protoss in the matchup, oracle into phoenix/adept. Perhaps Terrans just need a little time to figure out how to play against it after the mine patch. Not that I think Protoss is favored in the matchup at all, there's no evidence of it in tournaments. SSL qualifiers were the most recent important tournament in KR and had 8 T, 4 P, 4 Z advancing.
It's good to see the Raven getting a nerf somewhat to the turret, and the Thor getting a bit of a buff. I still wish they'd consider the swarm host against mech. Swarm hosts completely demotivate people to even go mech.
On March 31 2017 17:17 Phattyasmo wrote: It's good to see the Raven getting a nerf somewhat to the turret, and the Thor getting a bit of a buff. I still wish they'd consider the swarm host against mech. Swarm hosts completely demotivate people to even go mech.
Why are they afraid of the Thor being *somewhat* all-round or being the backbone of the army? Would it really be that terrible if having more than 2-3 Thors in an army is a good thing? They have a huge model, are clunky and slow and they overkill on cheap units like Zerglings.
Maybe if they're a bit more all-round, it is less of a penalty to your overall army strength/composition and having more of them becomes more viable and thus more AA is available without gimping your army?
It´s a little disappointing there was no mention of the strength of adepts, by far the most overpowered and oppressive unit in the game currently when paired with warpgate.
On March 31 2017 18:41 TheKhyira wrote: It´s a little disappointing there was no mention of the strength of adepts, by far the most overpowered and oppressive unit in the game currently when paired with warpgate.
That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about?
They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts
This looks promising. All of the issues addressed in the community feedback update have been raised by the community. Seems like the feedback loop finally works.
Thor It's already good versus light air. The High-Impact Payload transformation is a bit lacking though. A good change imo would be to move the Lock-On mechanic from the Cyclone to the Thor and merge it with High-Impact Payload. This obviously implies moving shot and a significant range boost. Both of which are good because the Thor is so clunky and slow.
Raven I don't understand why this unit has an offensive purpose at all. Seems like in WoL development they ran out of ideas what to do with it and so they simply gave it two more damage abilites. As other people have pointed out, mech would probably benefit from a good caster support unit. Maybe think about removing both Auto-Turret as well as Seeker-Missile completely and replacing it with Defensive Matrix and EMP (moved from the Ghost).
Protoss vs Zerg Matchup Don't touch the Warp Prism, change Psionic Transfer. It makes defense versus mass Adepts too hard. If you change Psionic Transfer to be non-cancelable so that the defender knows where to put his units, defending against Adept all-ins might already be way easier for Zerg. I also think that this change has way less side-effects on other match-ups and play styles than a change to the Warp Prism.
Thor We haven’t been seeing as much Mech play as we would like
Its ok avilo, they "havent been seeing as much mech as they would like" after 3.8 iow no mech at all, anywhere and meching players are quitting the game like rats leaving a sinking ship, I CANT GUESS AS TO WHY THIS MAY BE HMM
maybe it has something to do with sh/carrier buffs??? hmmmm
Im wondering what the Adept Vision when shading that they reduced few months ago really changed. Imo it only limited the scouting part and thats what I thought the adept was initially introduced for. It doesnt really seem to be a big deal for attacking. The real adept itself tells you if you let the shade finish or not. You guys think the vision was the wrong part to adjust? There have been many other suggestions ie the shade cooldown which I believe make more sense to try out. Another maybe stupid, maybe to minor change could be to stop shield regen while shades are active. Idk how much that would do just came to my mind.
As Zerg, I hate playing against adepts allins but making the shade uncancellable will just outright end them. I'd rather see a nerf to the adept and a buff to stalkers, which are barely built anyway. The only time I see stalkers is when the P misses a muta transition and has no phoenixes. They are mostly useless in PvT and in PvZ (I dont know about PvP so I wont comment)
On March 31 2017 17:15 Olli wrote: PvT has been around 41-45% for the past three months though.
It's gonna be about 49% for March, improvement's there.
That's still far from the "PvT is very protoss favored" I keep hearing.
phoenix adept was already becoming more common before mine nerf and now its much stronger
That's because it's really the only viable build for Protoss in PvT, everything else dies to tank push or is super bad against anything but tank pushes.
I agree that the mine nerf was dumb, since it was the wrong unit to nerf. Should have been tanks.
On March 31 2017 21:19 JackONeill wrote: I don't really get why they're afraid that Thors become "too versatile", they've already got huge counters from P and Z (immortals and vipers)
I agree although it would be ok if Thor ground damage was nerfed if they got significantly better single target air damage. Ground anti-air should always beat air anti-ground due to airs units mobilty and terrain advantage. Currently both Thors and Stalkers underperform vs air units.
Tanks do ok vs ground it is anti-air that mech is lacking.
None of this matters though if Swarm Hosts are not nerfed. Mech can never work as long as Swarm Hosts are not reasonably priced.
Also I think that Ravens supply should be increased to 3 in order to discourage mass Ravens.
So can we now complain about adepts when even Blizzard acknowledges that people basically don't play anything else now? Or is it gonna take years to become untabooed as it did with BL/Infestor?
Players want to see Goliath in this game for more variety mech games and effective unit compositions but Blizzard is still ignoring community's requests and wishes about Goliath after 7 years.
1. more terran nerfs 2. random zerg buffs in a matchup they are not struggling in
anyone want to enlighten me as to why zerg players can drop me with lings on 3 base vs 2 base while taking a 4th base ZvP and thats fine but getting a lot of value out of archon shields/ravens which are both really expensive units with big commitment of production time/gas/APM is not ok? im not talking about low masters or mid masters zergs. im talking about high mmr players who are dropping me with zerglings/banelings while being equal on economy, buying ling upgrades which i couldnt even dream about investing into my forge and forcing me to warp in stalkers or lose the game to nonstop drops/probe pulls??
anyone see solar lose 5 roaches/tons of queens to sOs's first warp prism? and then go on to win the game? literally just made 25 roaches and walked across the map and the game was over because the matchup is being balanced around zerg players mashing f2 and following a warp prism around the map while protoss chronos out immortals n techs to templars and hopes nothing attacks him. gets attacked and his army has to crab walk/360 congaline just to get out of the wall that you have to make to not automatically lose on the the game to mineral units. nice balance blizzard. you make zerg armies so retardedly cost effective that no one can fight them without abusing warp prism pick up/medivac pick up. and now they are looking to change warp prisms. wat a surprise. no, improving is not the answer! obviously the game is imbalanced becuase if protoss or terran have a way to win the game thats broken.
blizzard: "we noticed that one strategy was more popular than others in PvZ, so we decided we would nerf it. However we are not fond about the idea of nerfing adepts or warp prism pick up range, instead we are putting an upgrade into the game that will forever change, yet again, how warp prisms work and this will hopefully massively gimp protoss in pvz" so zergs can continue to ruin the NA ladder and account for half of GM
On April 01 2017 01:16 c0sm0naut wrote: 1. more terran nerfs 2. random zerg buffs in a matchup they are not struggling in
anyone want to enlighten me as to why zerg players can drop me with lings on 3 base vs 2 base while taking a 4th base ZvP and thats fine but getting a lot of value out of archon shields/ravens which are both really expensive units with big commitment of production time/gas/APM is not ok? im not talking about low masters or mid masters zergs. im talking about high mmr players who are dropping me with zerglings/banelings while being equal on economy, buying ling upgrades which i couldnt even dream about investing into my forge and forcing me to warp in stalkers or lose the game to nonstop drops/probe pulls??
anyone see solar lose 5 roaches/tons of queens to sOs's first warp prism? and then go on to win the game? literally just made 25 roaches and walked across the map and the game was over because the matchup is being balanced around zerg players mashing f2 and following a warp prism around the map while protoss chronos out immortals n techs to templars and hopes nothing attacks him. gets attacked and his army has to crab walk/360 congaline just to get out of the wall that you have to make to not automatically lose on the the game to mineral units
blizzard: "we noticed that one strategy was more popular than others in PvZ, so we decided we would nerf it. However we are not fond about the idea of nerfing adepts or warp prism pick up range, instead we are putting an upgrade into the game that will forever change, yet again, how warp prisms work and this will hopefully massively gimp protoss in pvz"
Where do you see pro zergs dropping lings while taking a fourth and protoss just sitting home and unable to handle the drop?
On March 31 2017 18:41 TheKhyira wrote: It´s a little disappointing there was no mention of the strength of adepts, by far the most overpowered and oppressive unit in the game currently when paired with warpgate.
That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about?
They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts
adepts 2 shotting drones (and 2shot scv with +1) is one of the biggest issues though and has needed a nerf forever
if anything else, mothership basically ends the game in pvz as theres no reliable detection (such as scan/revelation) for zerg and is the biggest reason late game skytoss/storm is unbeatable
On March 31 2017 18:41 TheKhyira wrote: It´s a little disappointing there was no mention of the strength of adepts, by far the most overpowered and oppressive unit in the game currently when paired with warpgate.
That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about?
They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts
adepts 2 shotting drones (and 2shot scv with +1) is one of the biggest issues though and has needed a nerf forever
This +1
Adepts being as good as they are pretty much prevents any buffs ever going to the Zealot/Stalker (<---desperately needs a buff) which is just the same old same old with Protoss, oddly scaling Gateway units that are super strong early game but useless in the late game where all they want is a Carrier/Archon/Templar deathball because it's unbeatable even in it's own mirror match.
Buffing the Stalker and nerfing the Adept seems like the most sensible way to increase meta diversity in ZvP, especially with buffed Hydralisks, I see no real reason that power cannot be shifted a bit away from the Adept to the Stalker, which to me is a real high skill cap unit (blink) where as Adepts while requiring skill are more of a gimmick (the shade takes micro but it applies "fake" but real pressure) so no clue why the Stalker isn't getting love.
Oh, and Carriers just need to be straight up nerfed, they are OP in every match up, once again, not sure where the balance team's hesitance on nerfing units that are OP stems from. In Heroes of the Storm Blizzard is very proactive about buffing and nerfing problematic heroes and lo and behold, amazing balance AND amazing meta diversity (arguable in high level HOTS but whatever)
MY proposal to make Protoss more well rounded...
1. Nerf Adepts in whatever way is appropriate (make them 3 shot workers and less tanky) 2. Give Stalkers a small buff vs light units so they scale better against bio/zerg armies 3. Redesign the Sentry into a mobile shield battery, remove Force Field, buff it's damage so it can function more like a frontline version of the BW medic, keeping small groups of early game gateway units alive and rewarding good micro (not allowing your units to take hull damage)
That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about?
They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts
Just as long as Adepts are nerfed already, they are obnoxiously shitty to both play and watch en masse. Buff Stalkers or other gateway tech if necessary. Getting very sick of always either Adept/Phoenix or Adepts slaughtering drones.
There are so many ways to put in small nerfs without crippling them anyhow. Increase Glaives research time, increase shade cooldown time, WP slow warpin, etc etc. A health or shield nerf would be appropriate too, they are so tanky.
On the plus side, it's good to see so much focus on the Adept, hopefully Blizzard will take notice and nerf. Same with Carrier.
On March 31 2017 07:39 FrkFrJss wrote: Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss.
On March 31 2017 07:28 Tyrhanius wrote:
On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote: Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first?
With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch :
Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech.
Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch...
The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown.
And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT.
Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble.
Stop looking at it from balance view.
If something needs to be nerfed for terran or buffed for toss after the changes thats ok, as long as the changes makes sense.
Not making changes and letting meta get stale for months just because some winrates its not the way to go.
Nobody has said they shouldn't do anything, but we begin to be used the way they proceed.
The change won't be lived until 2-3 months, and then we have to wait for 2-3months to get the " corrective patch" because it's too strong, and usually it takes 2-3 patchs to correct something, so well it will take around 1 year from the change to the moment it will be balanced...
Better try to warn them about the consequences before the patch, rather than waiting 9months-12months.
This isn't a patch is just "things we might be looking into" community update, and your post isn't warning anything is just "don't change anything because terrans just won tournaments"
No it's, more : maybe don't buff a race that has won 80% of the last premier tournament from patch 3.8 ?
Seems to be common sense no ?
If they really want to change things, if you give some race one buff, give the other another to compensate, that's the way you balance.
If you want to nerf the harass, do it for every race.
If you want better anti-air, do it for every race.
On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote: The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units.
This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong.
Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks.
On March 31 2017 19:27 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Thor It's already good versus light air. The High-Impact Payload transformation is a bit lacking though. A good change imo would be to move the Lock-On mechanic from the Cyclone to the Thor and merge it with High-Impact Payload. This obviously implies moving shot and a significant range boost. Both of which are good because the Thor is so clunky and slow.
i like this idea. or even more basic, the Thor can move and shoot air units in general with no specific ability. like that Diamondback Tank.
On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote: The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units.
This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong.
Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks.
If there was a bible of Starcraft truth this would be in there somewhere. +1 and completely agree, aerial armies being countered by aerial armies is lame and has been lame for a long time.
No it's, more : maybe don't buff a race that has won 80% of the last premier tournament from patch 3.8 ?
Seems to be common sense no ?
If they really want to change things, if you give some race one buff, give the other another to compensate, that's the way you balance.
If you want to nerf the harass, do it for every race.
If you want better anti-air, do it for every race.
You are missing his point, and the point of Blizzard putting in this patch. The Bluepost specifically says: "While we aren’t necessarily seeing an imbalance in win rates, we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup."
Blizzard knows that the current balance is pretty good. What is not good, and what they are trying to fix, is the crappy Adepts-for-everything meta, and the equally crappy Carriers-for-everything meta.
Which is why this update is full of good things for everyone that is not a tunnel-visioned Protoss player only thinking about winning and not about his own shitty PvP, PvZ, and PvT meta. These changes are being made to help Protoss.
On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote: The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units.
This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong.
Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks.
they shouldve increased the supply of certain air units years ago
i think people would get more of their feedback heard by Blizzard if they stuck to the single, tightly focused issues Blizzard/DK brings up in their posts. When people use these Blizzard posts as a way to continue evangelizing their all encompassing massive game redesign crusade they are on the signal-to-noise ratio of their feedback post is low.
No it's, more : maybe don't buff a race that has won 80% of the last premier tournament from patch 3.8 ?
Seems to be common sense no ?
If they really want to change things, if you give some race one buff, give the other another to compensate, that's the way you balance.
If you want to nerf the harass, do it for every race.
If you want better anti-air, do it for every race.
You are missing his point, and the point of Blizzard putting in this patch. The Bluepost specifically says: "While we aren’t necessarily seeing an imbalance in win rates, we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup."
Blizzard knows that the current balance is pretty good. What is not good, and what they are trying to fix, is the crappy Adepts-for-everything meta, and the equally crappy Carriers-for-everything meta.
Which is why this update is full of good things for everyone that is not a tunnel-visioned Protoss player only thinking about winning and not about his own shitty PvP, PvZ, and PvT meta. These changes are being made to help Protoss.
The point is NOT balance. The point is variety.
And i don't see how there will be less mass adepts or less mass carriers with these propositions.
And by the way, i play zerg. Sure i must be happy with a nerf of warp with Warp prism, but let's be honest, it will make Protoss weaker while it won't encourage them to do less adepts/carrier.
The archons drop won't be really weaker while it will unbalance for sure PvT.
As snute mention i would prefer some inversion of the shield/hp of warp prism.
Adepts hit as hard as a Vulture, are as tanky as a Zealot, and can be as slippery as a Stalker. I'd be fine with nerfing one of those aspects if they could buff another Gateway unit too.
Back in HotS the community demanded a strong gateway unit for toss so they aren't forced to turtle to high-tech units every game. Blizzard does what the community wants and adds a strong gateway unit and now the community complains again and doesn't want toss to have a strong gateway unit anymore. Further proof that no matter what blizzard does, the community complains anyway. I wish Blizzard would just do their thing and not listen to the community as much.
There is so much nonsense. If there is 1 viable build, why nerf it to promote other builds? If there is 1 playstylei it's just because other are not effective.
I would rather see some protoss buffs/changes overall, because they have really few options compared to other races.
On April 01 2017 04:42 Weltall wrote: There is so much nonsense. If there is 1 viable build, why nerf it to promote other builds? If there is 1 playstylei it's just because other are not effective.
I would rather see some protoss buffs/changes overall, because they have really few options compared to other races.
is this a troll? Protoss can use every unit in the roster and its stil viable.. terrans have ONE.
And i don't see how there will be less mass adepts or less mass carriers with these propositions.
And by the way, i play zerg. Sure i must be happy with a nerf of warp with Warp prism, but let's be honest, it will make Protoss weaker while it won't encourage them to do less adepts/carrier.
The archons drop won't be really weaker while it will unbalance for sure PvT.
As snute mention i would prefer some inversion of the shield/hp of warp prism.
Well the idea is nerf Adepts and Carriers, either directly or indirectly through shade/WP/Void Rays, etc. Blizzard has not mentioned any specific numbers yet, so I think it's a bit premature to say that "it will make Protoss weaker w/o encouraging less adepts/carrier" like you did.
Why not just wait and see before assuming worst-case?
On April 01 2017 04:35 Charoisaur wrote: Back in HotS the community demanded a strong gateway unit for toss so they aren't forced to turtle to high-tech units every game. Blizzard does what the community wants and adds a strong gateway unit and now the community complains again and doesn't want toss to have a strong gateway unit anymore. Further proof that no matter what blizzard does, the community complains anyway. I wish Blizzard would just do their thing and not listen to the community as much.
Don't have to turtle to high-tech when the game ends 5 minutes in because you killed 40 drones *insert meme here*
On April 01 2017 04:42 Weltall wrote: There is so much nonsense. If there is 1 viable build, why nerf it to promote other builds? If there is 1 playstylei it's just because other are not effective.
I would rather see some protoss buffs/changes overall, because they have really few options compared to other races.
is this a troll? Protoss can use every unit in the roster and its stil viable.. terrans have ONE.
read the original post before u respond ur response is off topic
On April 01 2017 04:35 Charoisaur wrote: Back in HotS the community demanded a strong gateway unit for toss so they aren't forced to turtle to high-tech units every game. Blizzard does what the community wants and adds a strong gateway unit and now the community complains again and doesn't want toss to have a strong gateway unit anymore. Further proof that no matter what blizzard does, the community complains anyway. I wish Blizzard would just do their thing and not listen to the community as much.
It would've been better for Blizzard to read the community as wanting Gateway units to be strong rather than wanting a singular strong Gateway unit. The new units should've complemented instead of predominated the composition.
It would've been better for Blizzard to read the community as wanting Gateway units to be strong rather than wanting a singular strong Gateway unit. The new units should've complemented instead of predominated the composition.
Yep pretty much. Strong gateway != mass adepts and shade until gg. And turtling into Carriers is *totally* not viable.......
i really would hate for protoss to have another caster but i have to say i really feel like if adepts used energy whenever they completed a psionic transfer (like 25 energy to cast it, 25 to complete) the unit would be much better balanced. if this unit is changed too drastically however, the entire balance of LOTV will need to be readdressed. relaly feel that this game is balanced primarily around the zergling,marine and adept and if major changes are made to any that the overall viability of complete builds / strategies which have been mapped out over the last year or so is called into question.
overall i prefer no change, and to let the meta develop. its only been a few week after major changes, a few weeks before major changes before that, and a few weeks before major changes before even that. theres too much going on to suss out what is even good right now let alone totally broken. meta happens in waves, we just happen to be at a crashing point right now. innovation will come soon, the meta has demanded it
On March 31 2017 19:27 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Thor It's already good versus light air. The High-Impact Payload transformation is a bit lacking though. A good change imo would be to move the Lock-On mechanic from the Cyclone to the Thor and merge it with High-Impact Payload. This obviously implies moving shot and a significant range boost. Both of which are good because the Thor is so clunky and slow.
i like this idea. or even more basic, the Thor can move and shoot air units in general with no specific ability. like that Diamondback Tank.
Well, I think the Thor could do with a little micro potential. I mean aside from the transformation or occasional medivac pick-up, you just let it sit in your army all of the time. That's just a waste of a potentially great unit.
Either way, I think they can and should play around with moving shot and range increase. Those are not game-breaking changes and they will very likely make the Thor more viable.
The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd.
I love the fact that replacing a sc2 unit by a BW unit that had nothing (it just a mech unit that shoot up and down and has zero original idea behind it, oppose to lets day the lurker) is suppose the make the game better. Like that the fact that there is a unit with the skin and the name of the goliat will all of the sudden make it an awesome balance unit.
Do you realize that Thor and Goliath operate in different ways? Thor is like 3 times bigger, more costly and really clunky, you build like 2-3 of them at most cuz they take so much supply, and deals low dps long range AOE dmg against light good against clump of air units whereas Goliath is smaller faster you build them in bigger numbers and can divide better and deals single target high dps medium to high range dmg good against big strong capital ships. IMHO there is place for BOTH these units in sc2, just cyclone should be replaced with Goliath. Thor synergizes better with bio against muta ling potentially could be used against heavy phoenix comps. Goliath synergizes better with mech and is good against late game capital ships.
Buff Shade's vision and nerf it's cooldown- Adept problem solved.
The reason Blizzard won't buff gateway units is Warpin Mechanics. It cuts off defender's advantage hard and is just too powerful. If you combine strong gateway units with warpin mechanics it will be imba just as it is with Adepts. Adepts are powerful gateway units-no doubts. Thats why warprism + adepts are so much game ending.
Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference after 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
For Protoss I think Carriers and Adepts need a nerf while Stalkers needs a buff.
Each damage uppgrade for Stalkers should add 2 damage instead of 1. That way stalkers become better mid and late game without being too strong early game.
On April 01 2017 18:21 MockHamill wrote: For Protoss I think Carriers and Adepts need a nerf while Stalkers needs a buff.
Each damage uppgrade for Stalkers should add 2 damage instead of 1. That way stalkers become better mid and late game without being too strong early game.
Yeah, let's bring back mass +2 blink stalkers back in PvZ, that was so enjoyable in HoTS.
On April 01 2017 18:21 MockHamill wrote: For Protoss I think Carriers and Adepts need a nerf while Stalkers needs a buff.
Each damage uppgrade for Stalkers should add 2 damage instead of 1. That way stalkers become better mid and late game without being too strong early game.
Yeah, let's bring back mass +2 blink stalkers back in PvZ, that was so enjoyable in HoTS.
The only matchup I feel lacks a "Oh god not this shit" is ZvZ. Late game ZvP, "mid" game ZvT, it makes me want to do something else with my time. Late game ZvP feels like the answer to it is not letting them get to late game, and vice versa for ZvT - if you survive the mid game then you get a good shake at winning. Timings feel so asymmetrical for races. It's a lot easier for me to die to a Terran early/mid push than it is to kill a Terran at similar timings.
I've got merely the same vision as the people who have common sense (to me)
Buff vs light dps stalker, mb slight nerf to blink cd if needed. Heck i want this since the beginning, but the reason is obviously that with GOOD (god?) micro they would be too strong,mostly on all in.for me, it's this unit that forced turtling into F2 A since the very beginning.Not the sentry, not the so much hated warpgate,but the unit that (in the past) make gateball so weak.
nerf adept shade cd, which is the real problems at high level : too much worker harass (worker harass is fun to me, but at high level it's just too much) , i would like a buff to it's vision as a casual diam, this was interesting to me. (like half or less the old value)
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
Agree with mostly everything except the adept nerf
We want to nerf adepts! To which i would reply "awesome, then what?" Exactly my question blizzard...
You nerf adepts, which are pretty cancerous (like widow mines, liberators ecc) but give us Protoss players what in the early/mid game?
Want a suggestion: give stalkers more damage vs armored and remove the armored tag. That would stop them from literally melting against siege tanks and voids without needing to reallocate void ray damage. Give the Zealot a flat speed buff or give them the effect of +1 upgrade from the beginning (2 swipes to kill zerglings instead of 3, with 1 going to waste because of the nature of the attack) Make adepts an OPTION, not a requirement to keep up against your opponent.
Nerfing adepts to buff stalkers is not really a solution to anything, since stalker blink timings/all-ins would become too powerful (you complained about them for years and now suddenly.. ?)
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
Poulet, i don't know why you hate this so much. SC2 was'nt more easy to me back to HotS, i think LotV did great at making more skirmishes (as a P though) and reducing the macro part of the game which is also what put a lot of people off.,i feel like there could be a bit more minerals on bases, but that's all. If anything, liberator/disruptor/Lurker make the game more hard for beginner.
One thing i would argue for is more tools that would allow for less apm macro-wise :
Auto-Train (idk why ppl hate this so much, actually i'm not even sure it would make the game that more easy)
Macro pylon/warpprism so you can warp directly on them without looking at them (&auto train) by pressing 2 times the unit hotkey.
Auto Larva/mule
Ingame official HUD for BO,like in HoN a moba i love : Anyone can post a build, there is the official one, and you can up/downvote & IG you can select one so you can see what you have to buy.Not an external tool to download.
Supply Block Warning
Pre-configured hotkey setup, i press one hotkey and it marks all my army but my warpprism/HT/Disru on One, my Warpprism on 2, HT/disru on 3 ,all robo on 4 all Star on 5 nexus on 7 (i'm very happy with that warpgate hotkey as most protoss i guess)
Allow to queue whatever you want, even if you can't do it right now (Terrans Adds, unavaible units & upgrades..)
I also don't understand that in all the beta they never tried to make units A LITTLE MORE big (except the stalker, a possible buff for me would be to decrease a bit it's size..), or decreasing A BIT dps/HP ratio (although that is really hard to setup)
But too late for all of this anyways. Cheers, i hope i see you soon on OG.
On April 01 2017 21:13 icesergio wrote: Agree with mostly everything except the adept nerf
We want to nerf adepts! To which i would reply "awesome, then what?" Exactly my question blizzard...
You nerf adepts, which are pretty cancerous (like widow mines, liberators ecc) but give us Protoss players what in the early/mid game?
Want a suggestion: give stalkers more damage vs armored and remove the armored tag. That would stop them from literally melting against siege tanks and voids without needing to reallocate void ray damage. Give the Zealot a flat speed buff or give them the effect of +1 upgrade from the beginning (2 swipes to kill zerglings instead of 3, with 1 going to waste because of the nature of the attack) Make adepts an OPTION, not a requirement to keep up against your opponent.
Two cents from a Dia player...
Why not simply change the Void Ray though? It's not a core unit and therefore has way less interactions with other units than Stalkers. There's much less to worry about when changing its stats.
Personally, I'd really like the old charge-up mechanic back. It was unique and required much more skill. On top of that, blink stalkers traded much better against Void Rays back then iirc.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
Poulet, i don't know why you hate this so much. SC2 was'nt more easy to me back to HotS, i think LotV did great at making more skirmishes (as a P though) and reducing the macro part of the game which is also what put a lot of people off.,i feel like there could be a bit more minerals on bases, but that's all. If anything, liberator/disruptor/Lurker make the game more hard for beginner.
One thing i would argue for is more tools that would allow for less apm macro-wise :
Auto-Train (idk why ppl hate this so much, actually i'm not even sure it would make the game that more easy)
Macro pylon/warpprism so you can warp directly on them without looking at them (&auto train) by pressing 2 times the unit hotkey.
Auto Larva/mule
Ingame official HUD for BO,like in HoN a moba i love : Anyone can post a build, there is the official one, and you can up/downvote & IG you can select one so you can see what you have to buy.Not an external tool to download.
Supply Block Warning
Pre-configured hotkey setup, i press one hotkey and it marks all my army but my warpprism/HT/Disru on One, my Warpprism on 2, HT/disru on 3 ,all robo on 4 all Star on 5 nexus on 7 (i'm very happy with that warpgate hotkey as most protoss i guess)
Allow to queue whatever you want, even if you can't do it right now (Terrans Adds, unavaible units & upgrades..)
I also don't understand that in all the beta they never tried to make units A LITTLE MORE big (except the stalker, a possible buff for me would be to decrease a bit it's size..), or decreasing A BIT dps/HP ratio (although that is really hard to setup)
But too late for all of this anyways. Cheers, i hope i see you soon on OG.
Please never do this (not like it's ever going to happen). The game is fun because it is hard. Don't make macro shitty by allowing auto production or warning players of supply blocks. Also if you think making stalkers smaller will buff them, you understand nothing about the game.
Other RTS where macro is easy have no playerbase because you can't be better than another player through your mechanics. Therefore everyone plays the same exact styles and the level difference between a gold and a diamond is so small it's almost a 50/50 chance to win.
On April 01 2017 18:21 MockHamill wrote: For Protoss I think Carriers and Adepts need a nerf while Stalkers needs a buff.
Each damage uppgrade for Stalkers should add 2 damage instead of 1. That way stalkers become better mid and late game without being too strong early game.
Yeah, let's bring back mass +2 blink stalkers back in PvZ, that was so enjoyable in HoTS.
Back in the day it was two strong, but times have changed and the Hydralisk is far stronger then it used to be, as is Zergs early and mid game macro capabilities, Blink Stalker plays will not be nearly as strong simply because the counters for it have been buffed.
Besides holding off Blink and watching it be executed was beautiful to watch because it really separated the men from the boys for both sides when it came to micro, very high skill cap.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
Poulet, i don't know why you hate this so much. SC2 was'nt more easy to me back to HotS, i think LotV did great at making more skirmishes (as a P though) and reducing the macro part of the game which is also what put a lot of people off.,i feel like there could be a bit more minerals on bases, but that's all. If anything, liberator/disruptor/Lurker make the game more hard for beginner.
One thing i would argue for is more tools that would allow for less apm macro-wise :
Auto-Train (idk why ppl hate this so much, actually i'm not even sure it would make the game that more easy)
Macro pylon/warpprism so you can warp directly on them without looking at them (&auto train) by pressing 2 times the unit hotkey.
Auto Larva/mule
Ingame official HUD for BO,like in HoN a moba i love : Anyone can post a build, there is the official one, and you can up/downvote & IG you can select one so you can see what you have to buy.Not an external tool to download.
Supply Block Warning
Pre-configured hotkey setup, i press one hotkey and it marks all my army but my warpprism/HT/Disru on One, my Warpprism on 2, HT/disru on 3 ,all robo on 4 all Star on 5 nexus on 7 (i'm very happy with that warpgate hotkey as most protoss i guess)
Allow to queue whatever you want, even if you can't do it right now (Terrans Adds, unavaible units & upgrades..)
I also don't understand that in all the beta they never tried to make units A LITTLE MORE big (except the stalker, a possible buff for me would be to decrease a bit it's size..), or decreasing A BIT dps/HP ratio (although that is really hard to setup)
But too late for all of this anyways. Cheers, i hope i see you soon on OG.
lol u re asking for a version of starcraft that only requires to type GG
I would love to see a statistic of exactly how often a unit has been adjusted for balance purposes over the life-time of SC2. I wouldnt be surprised to see the Thor and Void Ray being somewhere very high up that list. The Thor has been "rubbish" since the very beginning but blizzard is unwilling to change it drastically. It is kind of silly. The Void Ray did also have its fair share of misaimed balancing over the years.
Can you think of a unit changed more often (or similarily often) then these two?
Nerfing adepts to buff stalkers is not really a solution to anything, since stalker blink timings/all-ins would become too powerful (you complained about them for years and now suddenly.. ?)
Nerfing adepts and buffing stalkers is a great solution, or at least a great starting point.
Blink timings in LotV would be way weaker than they were in HotS. MSC vision is not 14 anymore, and there's a lot more for Zergs/Terrans to defend with. Tanks shut down Stalkers so hard these days, for example.
And at least blink micro requires skill, unlike adepts.
Nerfing adepts to buff stalkers is not really a solution to anything, since stalker blink timings/all-ins would become too powerful (you complained about them for years and now suddenly.. ?)
Blink timings in LotV would be way weaker than they were in HotS. MSC vision is not 14 anymore, and there's a lot more for Zergs/Terrans to defend with. Tanks shut down Stalkers so hard these days, for example.
And at least blink micro demands skillful micro, unlike adepts.
Been asking for a stalker buff for a long time, it's way overdue. They're just awful at the moment. Blink timings in PvT don't exist largely due to blink research time taking forever and tanks hard countering stalkers. In PvZ everyone prefers charge nowadays since stalkers just melt against buffed hydras or banes or ling bane ravager or anything really.
Damage or health/shield buffs to stalkers are perfectly reasonable suggestions imo.
Reading previous answers, I don't think that a buff to stalkers will make every game a mass stalker play like in hots. And this just because this is lotv, and not hots: zergs and terrans have more options to counter stalkers than before (and also, a lot more tools to hit protoss and make him delay the blinkers).
Anyway, I still don't think that buffing stalkers is enough: pvz is actually such a broken matchup in so many ways.
When I play PvT and PvP and I play really good, when I win I feel satisfied. Also, when I loose, I just think ok: I did this mistake here and there, this is why i loose.
When I play versus zerg, it's just a nightmare. Even when I feel i'm playng so damn good, killed so many workers, harassed good, putting pressure and multitasking as hell, I loose to a mass unit sent in a-click or just to random drops/runbies. (Same sensation is when a terran goes basetrade, dirty way to play, still it occurs not so often). After shade vision nerf, I can't scout anymore efficiently, so every game I have to pray that my opening "fits" with zerg opening. Pylon placement, unit count and 3rd timing is so different for each aggression zerg can do to protoss that I feel this matchup is total rng.
Adepts helped a lot versus terrans, since I can produce adepts to defend from early bio if I want to stay safe. They are a unit that can be pulled throught whole match, like almost any unit protoss has in pvt.
In pvz you can produce adepts versus a zerg to stay safe, but they have a really small time windows to make damage, otherwise u just wasted resources -like opening glaidepts versus a roach opener-. Time windows for unit efficiency is the main problem of pvz imho, this is why we see so few playstyles.
I would really like to have nerfs here and there to protoss race, but I would also like to see some design changes that make this race smoother and solid, instead of a race based on units that are usefull only at determinate timings and conditions.
They really should start to adress protoss race as a whole.
On April 01 2017 21:13 icesergio wrote: Agree with mostly everything except the adept nerf
We want to nerf adepts! To which i would reply "awesome, then what?" Exactly my question blizzard...
You nerf adepts, which are pretty cancerous (like widow mines, liberators ecc) but give us Protoss players what in the early/mid game?
Want a suggestion: give stalkers more damage vs armored and remove the armored tag. That would stop them from literally melting against siege tanks and voids without needing to reallocate void ray damage. Give the Zealot a flat speed buff or give them the effect of +1 upgrade from the beginning (2 swipes to kill zerglings instead of 3, with 1 going to waste because of the nature of the attack) Make adepts an OPTION, not a requirement to keep up against your opponent.
Two cents from a Dia player...
Why not simply change the Void Ray though? It's not a core unit and therefore has way less interactions with other units than Stalkers. There's much less to worry about when changing its stats.
Personally, I'd really like the old charge-up mechanic back. It was unique and required much more skill. On top of that, blink stalkers traded much better against Void Rays back then iirc.
But is nerfing voids really the right way? Honestly I find myself using voids all the time, simply because Immortals just don't cut it anymore... (Immortals as of now are a funny joke, both to use and to play against) Honestly I never really liked the Adept, wouldn't mind nerfing it but nerfing it without doing anything else would be pretty bad... Just give the Stalker and Zealot a bit more oomph, Blink timings aren't what they used to be; chrono boost is a joke, mama core no longer has 14 vision and hydras and tanks completely tear through stalkers.
On March 31 2017 05:20 MockHamill wrote: I agree with the Thor and Raven changes. Thors currently do not not do their job against Carriers, Tempest, BC or Liberators. They are basically useless except against mass muta. So any improvement to Thors like +1 armour (better vs Carriers) and increased single target air damage would be a good idea.
Making Tempest stronger vs capitals ships seems like the wrong move. The problem is that Carriers are too strong so it better to adress the actual problem by nerfing Carriers instead of just making Protoss air even stronger, so that not even BCs can work vs Protoss air. This of course depends on how much you improve Thors. If you improve Thor armour by 1 and increase Thor single target air damage maybe mech could trade and do timing attacks vs Protoss instead of being forced to turtle to BC.
I don't believe the thor is the counter to carrier and tempest. It will certainly kill interceptors, but viking, cyclone or ghost should handle the carrier. Widow mine is a good soft counter as well and can kill carriers and interceptors if massed.
Tempest is a mech counter especially vs tanks. Thor appears earlier than tempest in the game. If it is massed as an all around unit and counters tempest, it would make no sense for protoss to go tempest, because its counter is already on the field (the thor).
Cyclone is a good soft counter and viking is able to deal with tempests depending on numbers, tactic, positioning and micro.
It is often a question of cost, timing and numbers. We have to keep everything in mind and not analyse units in a vacuum. I personally would prefer if they replace cyclone and thor with goliath. Even tempest isn't necessary anymore. Wasn't it the replacement for carriers? Carriers work finally, there is no need for tempest.
But lotv now works too. Only protoss seems to be in a weird place. Nonetheless i had never more fun with sc2. I enjoy lotv a lot more than wol and hots. Sure terrans want to be able to play mech vs protoss, but mech isn't abusing the weakness of protoss as much as bio. The medivac is such a game changer!
Been asking for a stalker buff for a long time, it's way overdue. They're just awful at the moment. Blink timings in PvT don't exist largely due to blink research time taking forever and tanks hard countering stalkers. In PvZ everyone prefers charge nowadays since stalkers just melt against buffed hydras or banes or ling bane ravager or anything really.
Damage or health/shield buffs to stalkers are perfectly reasonable suggestions imo.
Nerfing Adepts and buffing Stalkers seems like a great idea to me. While their roles have some overlap, it wouldn't simply be trading one problem for another because Stalkers are much worse at slaughtering workers and (being Armored) have clearly defined counters. After nerfing Adepts, I would happily support a damage buff and perhaps a small health buff.
If they wound up being unkillable, Blink cooldown could always be increased.
Been asking for a stalker buff for a long time, it's way overdue. They're just awful at the moment. Blink timings in PvT don't exist largely due to blink research time taking forever and tanks hard countering stalkers. In PvZ everyone prefers charge nowadays since stalkers just melt against buffed hydras or banes or ling bane ravager or anything really.
Damage or health/shield buffs to stalkers are perfectly reasonable suggestions imo.
Nerfing Adepts and buffing Stalkers seems like a great idea to me. While their roles have some overlap, it wouldn't simply be trading one problem for another because Stalkers are much worse at slaughtering workers and (being Armored) have clearly defined counters.
If they wound up being unkillable, Blink could always be nerfed.
I'd rather blink be left as it is - it's one of the coolest abilities in the game, and I don't think it's ever been a problem in itself. When there was issues with blink stalkers, the problem was usually something else that made them too strong - such as MSC vision, timewarp, etc.
The big thing to look at when trying to nerf adepts has always been shade, and still is. I think the vision patch was a bit much since often you needed it for scouting early on, but the rest of it is too good. Personally I think making the shade last either longer or much shorter is a good first step. The goal should be that adepts can't shade into mineral lines from a safe distance and cancel if there's danger. If shades are active for longer then the opponent has more time to get units in position, if they're shorter than adepts need to be closer to danger to use the spell correctly. Not sure which is better, but probably the longer version. I wouldn't mind if shade disappeared altogether, I think it's a really odd concept.
As for their damage output, I think that's in a good place. They need to be powerful against light units in straight up fights and there's no other unit you can reasonably buff against light without breaking the game. The only real problem with adepts is the way they're used as harassment.
Been asking for a stalker buff for a long time, it's way overdue. They're just awful at the moment. Blink timings in PvT don't exist largely due to blink research time taking forever and tanks hard countering stalkers. In PvZ everyone prefers charge nowadays since stalkers just melt against buffed hydras or banes or ling bane ravager or anything really.
Damage or health/shield buffs to stalkers are perfectly reasonable suggestions imo.
Nerfing Adepts and buffing Stalkers seems like a great idea to me. While their roles have some overlap, it wouldn't simply be trading one problem for another because Stalkers are much worse at slaughtering workers and (being Armored) have clearly defined counters.
If they wound up being unkillable, Blink could always be nerfed.
I'd rather blink be left as it is - it's one of the coolest abilities in the game, and I don't think it's ever been a problem in itself. When there was issues with blink stalkers, the problem was usually something else that made them too strong - such as MSC vision, timewarp, etc.
The big thing to look at when trying to nerf adepts has always been shade, and still is. I think the vision patch was a bit much since often you needed it for scouting early on, but the rest of it is too good. Personally I think making the shade last either longer or much shorter is a good first step. The goal should be that adepts can't shade into mineral lines from a safe distance and cancel if there's danger. If shades are active for longer then the opponent has more time to get units in position, if they're shorter than adepts need to be closer to danger to use the spell correctly. Not sure which is better, but probably the longer version. I wouldn't mind if shade disappeared altogether, I think it's a really odd concept.
As for their damage output, I think that's in a good place. They need to be powerful against light units in straight up fights and there's no other unit you can reasonably buff against light without breaking the game. The only real problem with adepts is the way they're used as harassment.
I think making it longer is a bit double-edged. On the one hand you have more time to get units in position and kill those low HP adepts that always get away. On the other hand, it would also keep the defender's attention occupied longer as the Protoss decides whether he wants to actually shade between 2 bases or stay in the one he's in.
I'd much rather the cooldown for shade was increased so that if you 'commit' to a shade you're actually committed. And then give back at least some of the vision that was taken away so that the Protoss makes an informed decision about committing or not committing.
How to go about nerfing adepts seems like a fairly straightforward business. It took me about a minute to come up with several proposals, any one of which would probably be enough.
To stress, that is ONE of the following, not ALL of the following:
1. Reduce health by 10 (or shields, same difference for the most part). Adepts are very tanky for a non-Armored unit. 2. Increase Glaives research time to 121. It's an extremely vital upgrade, much like Blink and Stim which both cost 121 s. 3. Implement shade collision. Would really help Zergs keep adepts out of their mineral lines. 4. Increase shade cooldown (as mentioned by others)
On April 02 2017 06:31 pvsnp wrote: How to go about nerfing adepts seems like a fairly straightforward business. It took me about a minute to come up with several proposals, any one of which would probably be enough.
To stress, that is ONE of the following, not ALL of the following:
1. Reduce health by 10 (or shields, same difference for the most part). Adepts are very tanky for a non-Armored unit. 2. Increase Glaives research time to 121. It's an extremely vital upgrade, much like Blink and Stim which both cost 121 s. 3. Implement shade collision. Would really help Zergs keep adepts out of their mineral lines. 4. Increase shade cooldown (as mentioned by others)
I think the best thing would be to increase shade cooldown. It's similar to the reaper with regards to its abusability. The problem was how much one could spam either ability so that there was little counterplay. But now, you have to be careful where you put your mine, and the reaper can no longer escape as easily as it once did. Similarly with the adept, you would reduce the survival length and also prevent the number of places an adept can be.
Adepts are very tanky, but they still do low enough damage that they're more meatshields than anything else, and since gateway units are fairly weak without abilities, I do think that Protoss needs a gateway unit that can stand up to a lot of punishment. Increasing glaives would only delay it, and the problem is that they are very abusive once when used as a mass warp-in shade everywhere, which would not be changed by this. Shade collision is a possibility, but it basically takes out the point of shading. It's like if roaches could tunnel but had to keep in line with collision with other units.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
This is why Starcraft is dying... Because most of people who keep playing this game think 6 harvesters was to slow.. Look BW, the reference, the base of Starcraft 2, you spend 4 min to just macro and nobody complaining. You said : i don't want play 1 or 2 hours games anymore... mate, a game on LOTV last about 13 min on average, a game on HOTS last about 17 min on average, that's all it's not about 1 hours game (remember timer was X1.5 faster)
And this argument about "Casual Game". What is casual on 6 harvesters start ? You can go CC first or gas first or One rax expo or all in double rax 11 with 6 harvester, on a Bo3 it's a paper roc scissor before game start. With 12 ? only gas first ! mineral is free and gas unit come so fast why do anything else... you have gas unit AND b2 fast ! is that the casual thing ?
I remembered when Bomber was countering 15 banelings with only 23 marines ! is that the casual thing ? split is casual ? where is the splitt now ? when mines and tank come so fast...
Now you macro 4 min, at 4 min 30, you can have an Oracle, or a Cyclone, a Liberator, is that the skill ? when on 6 harvester you had to read and scout to know, did i put a bunker/sunken or not ? where is the skill now ? it's Bo against Bo and you can't read properly what do your opponent cause you can do what you want ! 8 min Carrier lol, 8 min BC rofl..
So now you execute the same build against each race, and you think the game is less casual cause you have to be faster ? faster on macro ? but macro is just a repetition, same pylon, same robotics.. and you think this is skill ? on HOTS 3 gas on Protoss, i'm sur it's a 7 gate robot, let's scan or send a reaper, what did you read now ? tell me ? you just macroing and then you attack and discover ! ok Protoss play Phoenix ! This is not skill, this is just playing.
And it's so easy to say : 6 harvester is to slow and unskilled. 90% of the people who are still play this game started on Wol/Hots. You have had more than 5 years to get used to the game, and now you think 6 harvesters is bad.. easy to think now you know how to play mate, think about you 5 years ago when you was this guy with no mechanics, and no knowledge, remembrer your first game. 6 harvester let you grow up, 12 don't.
Blizzard should not listen people like you, with no new player, you will stop to play this game like all the rest, you think you are playing the real game, but tomorrow you will speak with a BW player : I play the real game, i play Starcraft 2 ! Really ? BW player will laugh ! real game is BW bro, you will speak to your casual player friend : I play SC2 ! the real game !! and casual player will laugh ! SC2 is dead bro.. And you will change the game and go to all this game you don't like, like a lot of people. And Blizzard will think : I listened the community why people still stop playing ? Cause a lot of people think playing a inaccessible game make them smart, but it's wrong, you are smart when you are the best in a game, not cause you play a type of game. So Stop arguing this plz, Does not mix your egocentricity and the game, casual game is Sonic bro, all the E-sport game are Skill game, there is no SC2 is on the top and LOL is bullshit, it's just different game.
So IF WE LOVE STARCRAFT 2, we have to think differently, this game is not only for people like you and me who discovered it with WOL, League has a ton of new player cause player don't say : I want start level 6 cause game is boring with one spell. It's the game, this is how people can grow up. Faker is Faker after 7 min mark, before we can all play and creep like Faker, this why League work, and why Starcraft 2 don't. Think about it.
May be we should all understand, than if we don't want some new player, we will never have a great E-sport scene on Starcraft 2, so if the only argument for 12 harvesters is : The game is for the real guys who don't play Lol H1Z1 and all this shit, we will never be great again, pro player will never make some money, and game will die cause even TL one day will focus on other game. So please guys, we need to wake up, we all played on 6 harvesters, best game EVER on Starcraft 2 was on 6 harvester, we need to discuss about that.
@eonzerg you don't understand my point, Starcraft is hard to masteries and it's cool like that, the point is, when i started to play this game, it was easy to execute a 1 1 1, the difficulties was when i had to micro my hellion and continue to macro in my basement. That's why i continued to play the game, that was fun to micro and make a build, and i was thinking : I did some damage but with a better macro my damage would have been increased, so i want be a better player, i need to focus more on my macro when i attack my opponent.
Now you can't execute a 1 1 1, if you don't know the game, it's just stupid, if people don't have fun why they would continue to perform ? you stress to build a simple 1 1 1 cause it's so much APM now for a beginner and oups ! an Oracle, you die ! but play again !!! This game is so cool ! it's stupid. In my time, i just had to send a worker, no B2 since 1 min 30, ok may be it's Oracle or Blink but it's all in. I do a bunker and a Turret. Now you go heavy gas or B2, the difference on the B2 timing is 40 sec ! WOW !! with 6 collector you go heavy gas ok, the opponent B2 come 2 min after than yours. This is why now no body make some tutorial on the game, cause you need a lot of knowledge and APM even at 4 min mark... in my time, it was easy to say : at 3.35 until 5 min no B2, may be it's all in, do a bunker and a turret, now it's at 3.35 until 4.10 no B2, may be its Oracle but may be player is low... so i don't know mate ! this why nobody try to make some tutorial, cause you can't make tutorial on LOTV.
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game. And i dont want play Hots because HOTS was redundant due to a lack of unity, Lotv is not.
On April 02 2017 01:59 Weltall wrote: They really should start to adress protoss race as a whole.
That's the dream! I mean, it's said to say but Protoss design primarily consists of weak core units and band-aids & gimmicks. I think that most people on the forum agree on this. Blizzard not so much. I think they don't see the problem or don't want to open up that particular can of worms.
On April 01 2017 21:13 icesergio wrote: Agree with mostly everything except the adept nerf
We want to nerf adepts! To which i would reply "awesome, then what?" Exactly my question blizzard...
You nerf adepts, which are pretty cancerous (like widow mines, liberators ecc) but give us Protoss players what in the early/mid game?
Want a suggestion: give stalkers more damage vs armored and remove the armored tag. That would stop them from literally melting against siege tanks and voids without needing to reallocate void ray damage. Give the Zealot a flat speed buff or give them the effect of +1 upgrade from the beginning (2 swipes to kill zerglings instead of 3, with 1 going to waste because of the nature of the attack) Make adepts an OPTION, not a requirement to keep up against your opponent.
Two cents from a Dia player...
Why not simply change the Void Ray though? It's not a core unit and therefore has way less interactions with other units than Stalkers. There's much less to worry about when changing its stats.
Personally, I'd really like the old charge-up mechanic back. It was unique and required much more skill. On top of that, blink stalkers traded much better against Void Rays back then iirc.
But is nerfing voids really the right way? Honestly I find myself using voids all the time, simply because Immortals just don't cut it anymore... (Immortals as of now are a funny joke, both to use and to play against) Honestly I never really liked the Adept, wouldn't mind nerfing it but nerfing it without doing anything else would be pretty bad... Just give the Stalker and Zealot a bit more oomph, Blink timings aren't what they used to be; chrono boost is a joke, mama core no longer has 14 vision and hydras and tanks completely tear through stalkers.
Well yeah, I'd also like to see stronger Zealots and Stalkers. For me it would be cool to see a 14 flat damage Stalker with higher mineral/gas cost to differentiate it from the adept as an all round damage dealer.
But, they're specifically addressing skytoss PvP in this update. So, I think a Stalker buff won't happen. If they change—not necessarily nerf—Prismatic Alignment, I would actually be happy. It's a really dumb ability.
On April 02 2017 12:10 AnossSc2 wrote:
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game.
That would honestly be pretty awesome.
This game has too much arbitrary complexity (redundant units and spells/abilites) and too many APM drains (like MULEs and larva injects). Effectively only pro players are able to really play the game. It's silly.
I love how everyone bash "macro help", i'm sceptic about the drain of fun too, but there was'nt even a map for try to this (just a beta stage with auto mule where all race were nerfed for 2 weeks => no fun). I don't think a gold would go challenge a diam with tools like this, game will still be hard, those functionnality would be like F2: Provide ease of life but in the end they would initiate missplay and should'nt be used.
I'm enjoying SC2 as it is now, but sometime i'm wondering what if we could artificially up the level of everybody so we got closer to higher level. Things is, below low plat/top gold the game is boring and lack of interest, what if low gold could play games that are more close to top gold, top gold to to top plat, the ease of life provided would proportionally decrease as the level goes up, to korean this would (be a sacrilege) provide really tiny apm time, or none.
Also back to WoL HoTs game was still hard. And eventually, those 4min of macroing just to getting rekt in the end does'nt welcome casual either,cause after a few game they are bored.
edit: oh and loggin, but splash damage, making Stalker more tiny would buff them (when massing ofc), player would had huge trouble in Blink all in era, and if Roaches were smaller, PvZ would be be quite horrible to play too early on.It's what (not only thing for sure)make the bioball strong, the "ball" is tiny and the dps go fast &easily to 100%, unlike big clumps of roaches. If you are master or above, be gratefull to your mechanics, cause that's definitevely not your understanding of the game that brought you there. .
Protoss will harass Zerg and only lose some shield that regenerate faster than mutas life while Zerg will lose units.
The problem is Zerg isn't ahead on macro and couldn't afford to lose some units.
The best example is 1 adept pressure at the beginning, P is ahead on worker, Z wants to morph all his drone into worker to catch P but has to deal with 1-2 adepts so he is forced to make lings, but P with his shade will trade some shield to kills lings/worker or even if the Z plays perfectly, he will lose some mining time. It's a 100% win situation for P.
Same with archons/WP harass or adepts/WP, oracle, phoenix : Zerg loses units and has no way to avoid it, while P will lose nothing.
Or you buff the Zerg eco so it will make sense that P can tone down Zerg eco because it's stronger (while it doesn't make any sense now P having a stronger eco and tone down Zerg eco).
Or you allow Zerg to take no dmg if they play perfectly.
For example increase natural regeneration of Zerg units hp, so if Zerg pull out low life units perfectly they regenerate HP and you trade shield vs HP that regenerate, or increase hp regeneration of units while burrow of all non roach units.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
This is why Starcraft is dying... Because most of people who keep playing this game think 6 harvesters was to slow.. Look BW, the reference, the base of Starcraft 2, you spend 4 min to just macro and nobody complaining. You said : i don't want play 1 or 2 hours games anymore... mate, a game on LOTV last about 13 min on average, a game on HOTS last about 17 min on average, that's all it's not about 1 hours game (remember timer was X1.5 faster)
And this argument about "Casual Game". What is casual on 6 harvesters start ? You can go CC first or gas first or One rax expo or all in double rax 11 with 6 harvester, on a Bo3 it's a paper roc scissor before game start. With 12 ? only gas first ! mineral is free and gas unit come so fast why do anything else... you have gas unit AND b2 fast ! is that the casual thing ?
I remembered when Bomber was countering 15 banelings with only 23 marines ! is that the casual thing ? split is casual ? where is the splitt now ? when mines and tank come so fast...
Now you macro 4 min, at 4 min 30, you can have an Oracle, or a Cyclone, a Liberator, is that the skill ? when on 6 harvester you had to read and scout to know, did i put a bunker/sunken or not ? where is the skill now ? it's Bo against Bo and you can't read properly what do your opponent cause you can do what you want ! 8 min Carrier lol, 8 min BC rofl..
So now you execute the same build against each race, and you think the game is less casual cause you have to be faster ? faster on macro ? but macro is just a repetition, same pylon, same robotics.. and you think this is skill ? on HOTS 3 gas on Protoss, i'm sur it's a 7 gate robot, let's scan or send a reaper, what did you read now ? tell me ? you just macroing and then you attack and discover ! ok Protoss play Phoenix ! This is not skill, this is just playing.
And it's so easy to say : 6 harvester is to slow and unskilled. 90% of the people who are still play this game started on Wol/Hots. You have had more than 5 years to get used to the game, and now you think 6 harvesters is bad.. easy to think now you know how to play mate, think about you 5 years ago when you was this guy with no mechanics, and no knowledge, remembrer your first game. 6 harvester let you grow up, 12 don't.
Blizzard should not listen people like you, with no new player, you will stop to play this game like all the rest, you think you are playing the real game, but tomorrow you will speak with a BW player : I play the real game, i play Starcraft 2 ! Really ? BW player will laugh ! real game is BW bro, you will speak to your casual player friend : I play SC2 ! the real game !! and casual player will laugh ! SC2 is dead bro.. And you will change the game and go to all this game you don't like, like a lot of people. And Blizzard will think : I listened the community why people still stop playing ? Cause a lot of people think playing a inaccessible game make them smart, but it's wrong, you are smart when you are the best in a game, not cause you play a type of game. So Stop arguing this plz, Does not mix your egocentricity and the game, casual game is Sonic bro, all the E-sport game are Skill game, there is no SC2 is on the top and LOL is bullshit, it's just different game.
So IF WE LOVE STARCRAFT 2, we have to think differently, this game is not only for people like you and me who discovered it with WOL, League has a ton of new player cause player don't say : I want start level 6 cause game is boring with one spell. It's the game, this is how people can grow up. Faker is Faker after 7 min mark, before we can all play and creep like Faker, this why League work, and why Starcraft 2 don't. Think about it.
May be we should all understand, than if we don't want some new player, we will never have a great E-sport scene on Starcraft 2, so if the only argument for 12 harvesters is : The game is for the real guys who don't play Lol H1Z1 and all this shit, we will never be great again, pro player will never make some money, and game will die cause even TL one day will focus on other game. So please guys, we need to wake up, we all played on 6 harvesters, best game EVER on Starcraft 2 was on 6 harvester, we need to discuss about that.
@eonzerg you don't understand my point, Starcraft is hard to masteries and it's cool like that, the point is, when i started to play this game, it was easy to execute a 1 1 1, the difficulties was when i had to micro my hellion and continue to macro in my basement. That's why i continued to play the game, that was fun to micro and make a build, and i was thinking : I did some damage but with a better macro my damage would have been increased, so i want be a better player, i need to focus more on my macro when i attack my opponent.
Now you can't execute a 1 1 1, if you don't know the game, it's just stupid, if people don't have fun why they would continue to perform ? you stress to build a simple 1 1 1 cause it's so much APM now for a beginner and oups ! an Oracle, you die ! but play again !!! This game is so cool ! it's stupid. In my time, i just had to send a worker, no B2 since 1 min 30, ok may be it's Oracle or Blink but it's all in. I do a bunker and a Turret. Now you go heavy gas or B2, the difference on the B2 timing is 40 sec ! WOW !! with 6 collector you go heavy gas ok, the opponent B2 come 2 min after than yours. This is why now no body make some tutorial on the game, cause you need a lot of knowledge and APM even at 4 min mark... in my time, it was easy to say : at 3.35 until 5 min no B2, may be it's all in, do a bunker and a turret, now it's at 3.35 until 4.10 no B2, may be its Oracle but may be player is low... so i don't know mate ! this why nobody try to make some tutorial, cause you can't make tutorial on LOTV.
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game. And i dont want play Hots because HOTS was redundant due to a lack of unity, Lotv is not.
So you basically compared SC2 to BW which is WAY WAY more hard on APM and your actions with 12 unit limitations and no hotkeys available for multiple buildings and rally points. New BW players who will jump on ladder will get destroyed with anything that more experienced player throws on them...
Whats with difference when the game starts you rally ur probe or scv directly to build supply depot (pylon) ? Its like in WC3 when you start with money to build 3 buildings (or 2)...
Now you talked about new players, even if they scouted with 6 worker start and they see stargate, there is no way they know ho to properly react (most of them will start rushing eng bay for turrents etc...) and also there are bunch of low apm players hitting GM (Railgan for reference)...
Now you talked about easy to learn... back in wol and hots, there were only 6 workers and streams... now you got what? CO-OP, mutations, more flexible arcade where gamespeed could be adjusted, way better starting guide etc...
and for last... go install league and show me how you farm as faker for first 6 minutes of the game... ill get bunch of his midplays and compare it with you...
Now end of the rant about how denial and wrong you are in your posts...
There are bunch of ways how to casualize the lower league ladder (up until gold, maybe plat league max).. you can lower game speed and add the introductor (basically improved announcer who would give you advices like it does in tutorial games)
f.e: Bronze: slow speed Silver: normal speed Gold: fast speed
However if you remove macro mechanics from the game it will became repetitive and boring for those new players very fast, maybe not for first 6 months but than for sure. There is a special reward for being fast and precise in SC2 and thats the true beuty...
P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare....
SC2 is a good game but three things prevent it from being a great one:
1. Killing workers is low risk high reward. 2. Too many units leading to overlapping unit roles. 3. Air to ground is too powerful. Something is wrong with the game when the only answer to air is air, even in a straight up battle.
I´d really like for adepts to have a slight attack delay coming out of shade so they don´t get the first invulnerable volley to completely crush other armies if they get on top morphing the shade ability from a harrasment to a fighting one.
12 Protoss in GSL Ro32. Last season there were 12 Terrans and they got Libs+Mines nerfed. With any luck we should see an Adept + Carrier nerf in the next month or so.
This is Community Feedback after all. Does anyone else want to see "Workers Killed" column on the Game Summary Screen? You have to watch an entire replay if you want to see this stat.
On April 03 2017 09:18 WeddingEpisode wrote: This is Community Feedback after all. Does anyone else want to see "Workers Killed" column on the Game Summary Screen? You have to watch an entire replay if you want to see this stat.
This is a great idea, seeing as though it's the most important stat in SC2
Just get rid of the Thor already. It's clear that Terran Massive units are never going to have a balanced role in the game. At this point just get rid of Thor and bc for cheaper smaller units that fulfill similar roles.
Realistically I know this will never happen, but it seems like Blizzard has no idea how to make massive units be cost effective, not overpowered while not being too easily countered.
Also am I the only one kind of worried every balance update has now devolved into "Ehh.. We think this part could use a little work, so we're gonna tinker a bit and see what works." I just would like an overall endgoal to what they're doing as far as unit changes go. Addressing a unit NOT being used enough isn't a good enough excuse to mess with it, IMO. You should create game play opportunities for that unit to be used, and if it still fails in that role you try to figure out why, then alter it.
Adepts are not OP in frontal engagements, it is the shadow that make them so powerful. Doubling the cooldown would be a good way to start. Reducing blink research time could be a way to compensate and promote blink play, that upgrade feels a neverending story...
Early marine-tank pushes are too powerful in TvP right now, they remove almost all openers for P. I think the flat buff the tank received has not benefitted the game diversity in any matchup. It is at the same time not enough for mech play and too much for marine-tank. Siege mode should come back as an upgrade, but I don't know if this would be enough.
Personally I'd like to see significantly reduced health on the adept with an increased dps to stalkers. My biggest problem with adepts isn't the shade or the dps, its the health, I have no problem with high risk - high reward units that have a high skill cap, but adepts are low risk - high reward due to how amazingly tanky they are, having the same health as a zealot but effectively more due to more of it being in shields. They are hydras with roach health.
Shading 8 adepts into a defended mineral line should end with the adepts dying, not killing most of the drones then shading elsewhere before they can lose any actual health. Personally I'd like to see a massive cut to its health, think 70 health and 50 shields. Make it a risky unit to use.
Now, obviously, that would means you have to buff the protoss elsewhere, personally I'd love to see stronger stalkers, increasing their dps by a good 15%, probably by increasing their fire speed instead of damage per hit.
I have to say thou that I don't know enough about pvt to know how disruptive that will be and am speaking purely from a zerg prespective.
On April 02 2017 19:26 MockHamill wrote: SC2 is a good game but three things prevent it from being a great one:
1. Killing workers is low risk high reward. 2. Too many units leading to overlapping unit roles. 3. Air to ground is too powerful. Something is wrong with the game when the only answer to air is air, even in a straight up battle.
i agree with this. It's something blizz has done intentionaly imo as killing workers was a way to bring action but created stress to play, and many units including air ones was a way to sell expansions and cover up poor design of one dimensional units (think vulture vs hellion).
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
This is why Starcraft is dying... Because most of people who keep playing this game think 6 harvesters was to slow.. Look BW, the reference, the base of Starcraft 2, you spend 4 min to just macro and nobody complaining. You said : i don't want play 1 or 2 hours games anymore... mate, a game on LOTV last about 13 min on average, a game on HOTS last about 17 min on average, that's all it's not about 1 hours game (remember timer was X1.5 faster)
And this argument about "Casual Game". What is casual on 6 harvesters start ? You can go CC first or gas first or One rax expo or all in double rax 11 with 6 harvester, on a Bo3 it's a paper roc scissor before game start. With 12 ? only gas first ! mineral is free and gas unit come so fast why do anything else... you have gas unit AND b2 fast ! is that the casual thing ?
I remembered when Bomber was countering 15 banelings with only 23 marines ! is that the casual thing ? split is casual ? where is the splitt now ? when mines and tank come so fast...
Now you macro 4 min, at 4 min 30, you can have an Oracle, or a Cyclone, a Liberator, is that the skill ? when on 6 harvester you had to read and scout to know, did i put a bunker/sunken or not ? where is the skill now ? it's Bo against Bo and you can't read properly what do your opponent cause you can do what you want ! 8 min Carrier lol, 8 min BC rofl..
So now you execute the same build against each race, and you think the game is less casual cause you have to be faster ? faster on macro ? but macro is just a repetition, same pylon, same robotics.. and you think this is skill ? on HOTS 3 gas on Protoss, i'm sur it's a 7 gate robot, let's scan or send a reaper, what did you read now ? tell me ? you just macroing and then you attack and discover ! ok Protoss play Phoenix ! This is not skill, this is just playing.
And it's so easy to say : 6 harvester is to slow and unskilled. 90% of the people who are still play this game started on Wol/Hots. You have had more than 5 years to get used to the game, and now you think 6 harvesters is bad.. easy to think now you know how to play mate, think about you 5 years ago when you was this guy with no mechanics, and no knowledge, remembrer your first game. 6 harvester let you grow up, 12 don't.
Blizzard should not listen people like you, with no new player, you will stop to play this game like all the rest, you think you are playing the real game, but tomorrow you will speak with a BW player : I play the real game, i play Starcraft 2 ! Really ? BW player will laugh ! real game is BW bro, you will speak to your casual player friend : I play SC2 ! the real game !! and casual player will laugh ! SC2 is dead bro.. And you will change the game and go to all this game you don't like, like a lot of people. And Blizzard will think : I listened the community why people still stop playing ? Cause a lot of people think playing a inaccessible game make them smart, but it's wrong, you are smart when you are the best in a game, not cause you play a type of game. So Stop arguing this plz, Does not mix your egocentricity and the game, casual game is Sonic bro, all the E-sport game are Skill game, there is no SC2 is on the top and LOL is bullshit, it's just different game.
So IF WE LOVE STARCRAFT 2, we have to think differently, this game is not only for people like you and me who discovered it with WOL, League has a ton of new player cause player don't say : I want start level 6 cause game is boring with one spell. It's the game, this is how people can grow up. Faker is Faker after 7 min mark, before we can all play and creep like Faker, this why League work, and why Starcraft 2 don't. Think about it.
May be we should all understand, than if we don't want some new player, we will never have a great E-sport scene on Starcraft 2, so if the only argument for 12 harvesters is : The game is for the real guys who don't play Lol H1Z1 and all this shit, we will never be great again, pro player will never make some money, and game will die cause even TL one day will focus on other game. So please guys, we need to wake up, we all played on 6 harvesters, best game EVER on Starcraft 2 was on 6 harvester, we need to discuss about that.
@eonzerg you don't understand my point, Starcraft is hard to masteries and it's cool like that, the point is, when i started to play this game, it was easy to execute a 1 1 1, the difficulties was when i had to micro my hellion and continue to macro in my basement. That's why i continued to play the game, that was fun to micro and make a build, and i was thinking : I did some damage but with a better macro my damage would have been increased, so i want be a better player, i need to focus more on my macro when i attack my opponent.
Now you can't execute a 1 1 1, if you don't know the game, it's just stupid, if people don't have fun why they would continue to perform ? you stress to build a simple 1 1 1 cause it's so much APM now for a beginner and oups ! an Oracle, you die ! but play again !!! This game is so cool ! it's stupid. In my time, i just had to send a worker, no B2 since 1 min 30, ok may be it's Oracle or Blink but it's all in. I do a bunker and a Turret. Now you go heavy gas or B2, the difference on the B2 timing is 40 sec ! WOW !! with 6 collector you go heavy gas ok, the opponent B2 come 2 min after than yours. This is why now no body make some tutorial on the game, cause you need a lot of knowledge and APM even at 4 min mark... in my time, it was easy to say : at 3.35 until 5 min no B2, may be it's all in, do a bunker and a turret, now it's at 3.35 until 4.10 no B2, may be its Oracle but may be player is low... so i don't know mate ! this why nobody try to make some tutorial, cause you can't make tutorial on LOTV.
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game. And i dont want play Hots because HOTS was redundant due to a lack of unity, Lotv is not.
So you basically compared SC2 to BW which is WAY WAY more hard on APM and your actions with 12 unit limitations and no hotkeys available for multiple buildings and rally points. New BW players who will jump on ladder will get destroyed with anything that more experienced player throws on them...
Whats with difference when the game starts you rally ur probe or scv directly to build supply depot (pylon) ? Its like in WC3 when you start with money to build 3 buildings (or 2)...
Now you talked about new players, even if they scouted with 6 worker start and they see stargate, there is no way they know ho to properly react (most of them will start rushing eng bay for turrents etc...) and also there are bunch of low apm players hitting GM (Railgan for reference)...
Now you talked about easy to learn... back in wol and hots, there were only 6 workers and streams... now you got what? CO-OP, mutations, more flexible arcade where gamespeed could be adjusted, way better starting guide etc...
and for last... go install league and show me how you farm as faker for first 6 minutes of the game... ill get bunch of his midplays and compare it with you...
Now end of the rant about how denial and wrong you are in your posts...
There are bunch of ways how to casualize the lower league ladder (up until gold, maybe plat league max).. you can lower game speed and add the introductor (basically improved announcer who would give you advices like it does in tutorial games)
f.e: Bronze: slow speed Silver: normal speed Gold: fast speed
However if you remove macro mechanics from the game it will became repetitive and boring for those new players very fast, maybe not for first 6 months but than for sure. There is a special reward for being fast and precise in SC2 and thats the true beuty...
P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare....
Mate,
You always lose against more experienced player.. on LOTV or BW it's the same thing, this is why ladder is, to select a opponent who has the same experience than you. The fact is on LOTV, if you want reproduce the Pro Build orders on the first 4 min, you can't (without Hotkey like a beginner). If you want reproduce what did Flash on is first 4 min of BW you can (without hotkey like a beginner). You will lose on both game, but BW let you play for 4 min and micro some unit, when LOTV. don't let you build a 1 1 1 properly. Even BW is too easy to practice on the beginning than LOTV. LOTV requires 12 "macro action" the first minute, HOTS 8, BW 9 ( even if you have to rally manually the harvester on the mineral line). So yes BW is too hard than LOTV on mid and late game, but the game START SLOWLY, so beginner have time. NOT ON LOTV.
If you compare the macro action required on LOTV, 2 min : 23, HOTS : 16. 3 min : 37, HOTS : 26 4 min : 50, HOTS : 39
This example is for a Terran gas first 1 1 1 drop 2 widow mines. The fact is, for an old player like us it's easy to perform, for a new player you reach the limit. It's too more action.
You do not have time to find the shortcuts and read the BO written on your notepad with LOTV. It's a fact, i did the test. On HOTS, you have the time.
If you understand that point, you understand why Starcraft 2 doesn't work anymore, it's not about losing some game, it's about have fun before losing a game. New player or low player can't have fun on LOTV, so why play this game ?
I did a lot of tutorial for french community, (youtube/anoss91) and TRUST ME, you can explain - No Expo, build a bunker and a turret on HOTS, so yes it works with HOTS, it doesn't for LOTV, this is why on Wol/Hots you had Day9 tutorial, Apollo Tutorial, mine for french people, a lot of for different language AND NO ONE FOR LOTV WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE.
What you say on Co-op etc is off topic. We have better starting guide loooool where ? better than Day9 ? please... we have no starting guide at all.
This is not a good idea to "casualize" the low league, people want play the same game than Polt, and i never said i want remove macro mechanic's, you are off topic too.
For Faker, i can show you A LOT OF PLAT/DIA PLAYER who farm as Faker on the 6 first minute... just open a stream and look the timer.
"P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare."
And why ?? cause no noob player, no stream watch, no Twitch, no compétition, wake up bro, Starcraft 2 will not live just with a bunch of "Elitist player" who think the game is cool with 12 harvesters, cause YOU can play the game, cause YOU discovered it with WOL/HOTS and 6 harvesters, and all this extensions left you the time to improve your knowledge and apm... WAKE UP
If you understand that, you save the game, if you don't understand that, you kill the game. That's all. It's better for all.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
This is why Starcraft is dying... Because most of people who keep playing this game think 6 harvesters was to slow.. Look BW, the reference, the base of Starcraft 2, you spend 4 min to just macro and nobody complaining. You said : i don't want play 1 or 2 hours games anymore... mate, a game on LOTV last about 13 min on average, a game on HOTS last about 17 min on average, that's all it's not about 1 hours game (remember timer was X1.5 faster)
And this argument about "Casual Game". What is casual on 6 harvesters start ? You can go CC first or gas first or One rax expo or all in double rax 11 with 6 harvester, on a Bo3 it's a paper roc scissor before game start. With 12 ? only gas first ! mineral is free and gas unit come so fast why do anything else... you have gas unit AND b2 fast ! is that the casual thing ?
I remembered when Bomber was countering 15 banelings with only 23 marines ! is that the casual thing ? split is casual ? where is the splitt now ? when mines and tank come so fast...
Now you macro 4 min, at 4 min 30, you can have an Oracle, or a Cyclone, a Liberator, is that the skill ? when on 6 harvester you had to read and scout to know, did i put a bunker/sunken or not ? where is the skill now ? it's Bo against Bo and you can't read properly what do your opponent cause you can do what you want ! 8 min Carrier lol, 8 min BC rofl..
So now you execute the same build against each race, and you think the game is less casual cause you have to be faster ? faster on macro ? but macro is just a repetition, same pylon, same robotics.. and you think this is skill ? on HOTS 3 gas on Protoss, i'm sur it's a 7 gate robot, let's scan or send a reaper, what did you read now ? tell me ? you just macroing and then you attack and discover ! ok Protoss play Phoenix ! This is not skill, this is just playing.
And it's so easy to say : 6 harvester is to slow and unskilled. 90% of the people who are still play this game started on Wol/Hots. You have had more than 5 years to get used to the game, and now you think 6 harvesters is bad.. easy to think now you know how to play mate, think about you 5 years ago when you was this guy with no mechanics, and no knowledge, remembrer your first game. 6 harvester let you grow up, 12 don't.
Blizzard should not listen people like you, with no new player, you will stop to play this game like all the rest, you think you are playing the real game, but tomorrow you will speak with a BW player : I play the real game, i play Starcraft 2 ! Really ? BW player will laugh ! real game is BW bro, you will speak to your casual player friend : I play SC2 ! the real game !! and casual player will laugh ! SC2 is dead bro.. And you will change the game and go to all this game you don't like, like a lot of people. And Blizzard will think : I listened the community why people still stop playing ? Cause a lot of people think playing a inaccessible game make them smart, but it's wrong, you are smart when you are the best in a game, not cause you play a type of game. So Stop arguing this plz, Does not mix your egocentricity and the game, casual game is Sonic bro, all the E-sport game are Skill game, there is no SC2 is on the top and LOL is bullshit, it's just different game.
So IF WE LOVE STARCRAFT 2, we have to think differently, this game is not only for people like you and me who discovered it with WOL, League has a ton of new player cause player don't say : I want start level 6 cause game is boring with one spell. It's the game, this is how people can grow up. Faker is Faker after 7 min mark, before we can all play and creep like Faker, this why League work, and why Starcraft 2 don't. Think about it.
May be we should all understand, than if we don't want some new player, we will never have a great E-sport scene on Starcraft 2, so if the only argument for 12 harvesters is : The game is for the real guys who don't play Lol H1Z1 and all this shit, we will never be great again, pro player will never make some money, and game will die cause even TL one day will focus on other game. So please guys, we need to wake up, we all played on 6 harvesters, best game EVER on Starcraft 2 was on 6 harvester, we need to discuss about that.
@eonzerg you don't understand my point, Starcraft is hard to masteries and it's cool like that, the point is, when i started to play this game, it was easy to execute a 1 1 1, the difficulties was when i had to micro my hellion and continue to macro in my basement. That's why i continued to play the game, that was fun to micro and make a build, and i was thinking : I did some damage but with a better macro my damage would have been increased, so i want be a better player, i need to focus more on my macro when i attack my opponent.
Now you can't execute a 1 1 1, if you don't know the game, it's just stupid, if people don't have fun why they would continue to perform ? you stress to build a simple 1 1 1 cause it's so much APM now for a beginner and oups ! an Oracle, you die ! but play again !!! This game is so cool ! it's stupid. In my time, i just had to send a worker, no B2 since 1 min 30, ok may be it's Oracle or Blink but it's all in. I do a bunker and a Turret. Now you go heavy gas or B2, the difference on the B2 timing is 40 sec ! WOW !! with 6 collector you go heavy gas ok, the opponent B2 come 2 min after than yours. This is why now no body make some tutorial on the game, cause you need a lot of knowledge and APM even at 4 min mark... in my time, it was easy to say : at 3.35 until 5 min no B2, may be it's all in, do a bunker and a turret, now it's at 3.35 until 4.10 no B2, may be its Oracle but may be player is low... so i don't know mate ! this why nobody try to make some tutorial, cause you can't make tutorial on LOTV.
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game. And i dont want play Hots because HOTS was redundant due to a lack of unity, Lotv is not.
So you basically compared SC2 to BW which is WAY WAY more hard on APM and your actions with 12 unit limitations and no hotkeys available for multiple buildings and rally points. New BW players who will jump on ladder will get destroyed with anything that more experienced player throws on them...
Whats with difference when the game starts you rally ur probe or scv directly to build supply depot (pylon) ? Its like in WC3 when you start with money to build 3 buildings (or 2)...
Now you talked about new players, even if they scouted with 6 worker start and they see stargate, there is no way they know ho to properly react (most of them will start rushing eng bay for turrents etc...) and also there are bunch of low apm players hitting GM (Railgan for reference)...
Now you talked about easy to learn... back in wol and hots, there were only 6 workers and streams... now you got what? CO-OP, mutations, more flexible arcade where gamespeed could be adjusted, way better starting guide etc...
and for last... go install league and show me how you farm as faker for first 6 minutes of the game... ill get bunch of his midplays and compare it with you...
Now end of the rant about how denial and wrong you are in your posts...
There are bunch of ways how to casualize the lower league ladder (up until gold, maybe plat league max).. you can lower game speed and add the introductor (basically improved announcer who would give you advices like it does in tutorial games)
f.e: Bronze: slow speed Silver: normal speed Gold: fast speed
However if you remove macro mechanics from the game it will became repetitive and boring for those new players very fast, maybe not for first 6 months but than for sure. There is a special reward for being fast and precise in SC2 and thats the true beuty...
P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare....
Mate,
You always lose against more experienced player.. on LOTV or BW it's the same thing, this is why ladder is, to select a opponent who has the same experience than you. The fact is on LOTV, if you want reproduce the Pro Build orders on the first 4 min, you can't (without Hotkey like a beginner). If you want reproduce what did Flash on is first 4 min of BW you can (without hotkey like a beginner). You will lose on both game, but BW let you play for 4 min and micro some unit, when LOTV. don't let you build a 1 1 1 properly. Even BW is too easy to practice on the beginning than LOTV. LOTV requires 12 "macro action" the first minute, HOTS 8, BW 9 ( even if you have to rally manually the harvester on the mineral line). So yes BW is too hard than LOTV on mid and late game, but the game START SLOWLY, so beginner have time. NOT ON LOTV.
If you compare the macro action required on LOTV, 2 min : 23, HOTS : 16. 3 min : 37, HOTS : 26 4 min : 50, HOTS : 39
This example is for a Terran gas first 1 1 1 drop 2 widow mines. The fact is, for an old player like us it's easy to perform, for a new player you reach the limit. It's too more action.
You do not have time to find the shortcuts and read the BO written on your notepad with LOTV. It's a fact, i did the test. On HOTS, you have the time.
If you understand that point, you understand why Starcraft 2 doesn't work anymore, it's not about losing some game, it's about have fun before losing a game. New player or low player can't have fun on LOTV, so why play this game ?
I did a lot of tutorial for french community, (youtube/anoss91) and TRUST ME, you can explain - No Expo, build a bunker and a turret on HOTS, so yes it works with HOTS, it doesn't for LOTV, this is why on Wol/Hots you had Day9 tutorial, Apollo Tutorial, mine for french people, a lot of for different language AND NO ONE FOR LOTV WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE.
What you say on Co-op etc is off topic. We have better starting guide loooool where ? better than Day9 ? please... we have no starting guide at all.
This is not a good idea to "casualize" the low league, people want play the same game than Polt, and i never said i want remove macro mechanic's, you are off topic too.
For Faker, i can show you A LOT OF PLAT/DIA PLAYER who farm as Faker on the 6 first minute... just open a stream and look the timer.
"P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare."
And why ?? cause no noob player, no stream watch, no Twitch, no compétition, wake up bro, Starcraft 2 will not live just with a bunch of "Elitist player" who think the game is cool with 12 harvesters, cause YOU can play the game, cause YOU discovered it with WOL/HOTS and 6 harvesters, and all this extensions left you the time to improve your knowledge and apm... WAKE UP
If you understand that, you save the game, if you don't understand that, you kill the game. That's all. It's better for all.
Wasn't the trailer for LotV to HotS specifically saying they wanted to make the game a faster-paced game? Also, the appeal for LoL and SC2 are for different people. People will watch the pro faker farm for 6 minutes cause they like League. If you really think the better future is to slow down then you can go back and cast Wings of liberty or Heart of the Swarm. But to say that Legacy of the void an expansion many people like is just gone with no guides to start from is incorrect. There are so many guides (maybe not youtube guides that were as explanatory as before) for this game. The PiG dailies are like Day9's videos players like Nathanias release info videos Beasty QT releases info videos Spawning tool is a website with lots of guides and if you really want to learn this game you can just ask somewhere or someone to help you its not hard to learn this game from a google search or from this website.. But its not just elitist players who like 12 workers. I don't want to be rude when I argue this but I think your opinion is way to biased and you're argument is too 1 dimensional rather than looking at multiple peoples viewpoints. But like I said if you like 6 workers go back to HotS, WoL or wait for SCHD. Just try to refrain from things like this "If you understand that, you save the game, if you don't understand that, you kill the game. That's all. It's better for all." cause its not true.
I play more 2v2 than 1v1 these days, so maybe this is somewhat map dependent (and the dynamics of 2v2 are very different from 1v1 in general), but I see WAY more Carrier play than I have ever seen before and it is surprisingly strong. I am Terran and my teammate is Zerg. On a lot of 2v2 maps, the Toss can have his partner help him to turtle up until he has a handful of Carriers and a Mothership. This is a major pain to deal with. If Thors were buffed to the point where they were actually useful vs Carriers, maybe this would help. As it is now, Thors don't seem to make sense unless you are up against a good-sized muta cloud.
On April 04 2017 09:45 spydog wrote: I play more 2v2 than 1v1 these days, so maybe this is somewhat map dependent (and the dynamics of 2v2 are very different from 1v1 in general), but I see WAY more Carrier play than I have ever seen before and it is surprisingly strong. I am Terran and my teammate is Zerg. On a lot of 2v2 maps, the Toss can have his partner help him to turtle up until he has a handful of Carriers and a Mothership. This is a major pain to deal with. If Thors were buffed to the point where they were actually useful vs Carriers, maybe this would help. As it is now, Thors don't seem to make sense unless you are up against a good-sized muta cloud.
I think a solution to this would honestly be interceptors being identified as light units (If they aren't already) and clumping even harder. This way the thors can reliably kill interceptors whilst allowing other units to kill the carriers like the Viking or Marine or even your other thors. Right now I think the high impact payload does quite a lot vs Zerg but the only thing I would ever love to see from the thor is a higher movement speed and the units it goes against clump more. (This also helps the widow mines vs the interceptors)
On April 02 2017 19:26 MockHamill wrote: SC2 is a good game but three things prevent it from being a great one: 1. Killing workers is low risk high reward. 2. Too many units leading to overlapping unit roles. 3. Air to ground is too powerful. Something is wrong with the game when the only answer to air is air, even in a straight up battle.
re (2): seems like they try to create very narrow niche roles for the large # of units per race. and it seems somewhat forced and the mechanics of these units gets convoluted. I mean.. how the fuck does an Air Unit have a "siege mode" ? How does a Tongue from a flying unit rip a Tank out of the ground?
my Bronze thru Gold friends just straight up prefer multiplayer WoL even though they 1) own all 3 games, 2) buy skins and announcer packs etc.
with how infrequently they play its hard for me to criticize their choice of only playing multiplayer in WoL.
On April 04 2017 09:45 spydog wrote: I play more 2v2 than 1v1 these days, so maybe this is somewhat map dependent (and the dynamics of 2v2 are very different from 1v1 in general), but I see WAY more Carrier play than I have ever seen before and it is surprisingly strong. I am Terran and my teammate is Zerg. On a lot of 2v2 maps, the Toss can have his partner help him to turtle up until he has a handful of Carriers and a Mothership. This is a major pain to deal with. If Thors were buffed to the point where they were actually useful vs Carriers, maybe this would help. As it is now, Thors don't seem to make sense unless you are up against a good-sized muta cloud.
I think a solution to this would honestly be interceptors being identified as light units (If they aren't already) and clumping even harder. This way the thors can reliably kill interceptors whilst allowing other units to kill the carriers like the Viking or Marine or even your other thors. Right now I think the high impact payload does quite a lot vs Zerg but the only thing I would ever love to see from the thor is a higher movement speed and the units it goes against clump more. (This also helps the widow mines vs the interceptors)
Carrier interceptors are light units and dies rather fast, drains mineral, have shorter range than marines/roaches (buffed or not). The only 2 changes I can name is targeting AI (very responsive too responsive) and interceptor cost (25 to 10). I have replays since WoL to show the interaction. There were changes in between (minimal health reduction, somewhat questionable ability).
I disagree with both Thor buff because it would not help. Even during Soulkey vs Reality era Carriers trades well against Thor. Carrier dictates vision and engagement vs just Thors (who now even had 1 more targeting range 9 to 8). With right terrain Carrier kites indefinitely.
The conditions around Carrier has changed. Carrier still have the same build time and tech path but nowadays it is easier to safely take 2 base and early enough gas then tech while prevent scouting. This is due to both map and economy changes. (But the death of 6 pool isn't the topic here).
If any nerf to be given to carriers (which i hope not since they are the symptom of shortened game), it will be the interceptor build time increase and graviton catapult research time increase (still wouldn't change vs thor).
If one really wants to buff thor vs large units, give it a higher alpha (like the tank).
Another way to look at is if you hand someone $1000 and a kevlar vest instead of $400 and kevlar vest + knife in some distance of a gunshop.
Do people really believe that 12 worker start improved the gameplay ?
12 worker start limits strategical options - something that should be an important aspect of every RTS game, don't you think ?
12 worker start makes the game unnecessary fast in the early game, which makes it extremely difficult and frustrating for new players to get into the game. New players get overwhelmed.
12 worker start reduces the time window players have to scout and to react to scouting information.
So what's the good thing about 12 worker start ? That games end faster ? I really don't get what the benefit is.
The reduced ressources per base are an equally bad game element for basically the same reasons.
Less recover potential, harass is stronger, forced to expand every few minutes, less time to focus on micro, etc...
There are countless reasons why LotV's economy is a fail and terrible for the game.
If you still believe that the lotv economy is good for the game, you should change your attitude. Stop being so elitist.
I'm master player myself and yea, 12 worker start is obviously not a huge deal for me. I can handle it, even though i really dislike the lack of strategic options in the openings.
But imagine if i would like to play a game with my father.
I could play a game of Age of empires 2 at any time vs my father. Sure, i would win in the long run, because im more experienced RTS player and he basically never plays these days, but atleast he could get into the game.
He could set himself up, get some eco and army going etc... We could actually just play a game.
In Lotv he would've lost the game after the first few seconds.
Think about it.
This has nothing to do with "skill game" blablabla. This is simply bad game design. It's the wrong way to design a game.
An esports game has to give newcomers a chance. The game can only survive as an esport, if the casual scene has growth.
No casual player growth, no viewer, no sponsors, no money, no pro's, no esport.
Please don't be delusional, please don't be so naive and elitist. Don't be that guy that pretends like SC2 esport is in a healthy spot.
The game has to become "easy to learn, difficult to master" again.
You can play a chess game vs the best chess player in the world and you will be able to atleast make 10 moves.
You will be able to actually have a game against him.
A chess player better than you, will beat you 100% of the time. But atleast you get the chance to have a game and to enjoy it as long as it lasts.
On April 04 2017 11:44 StraKo wrote: This has nothing to do with "skill game" blablabla. This is simply bad game design. It's the wrong way to design a game.
SC2 now opens up about 1/2 as fast as a C&C game. SC1 opens up about 1/4 as fast.. maybe 1/5th as fast. its a conscious design decision by Blizzard. they did their due diligence with this change during the LotV beta with the community. its not going back.
Change this mineral fields. One patch more or more per each mineral field i cant see that any longer like it is.
Let siege tanks faster siege up and siege down. And holy buff the health of a tank. Why is a tank so weak???? I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT AND I NEVER WILL - ITS A TANK NOT A trabant (very bad car).
Change costs vor Barracks if the adept keep on going on like this or reduce marine produciton time like 5% HOLY ADEPTS.
This game is so broken if no real changes will come which really changes the whole possiblites in the game which end mostly after 10min or 15min i cant deal with that any longer, Its a aracade game not worth playing like this ONLY FOR PROS which even aswell dont pass the 15min mark or the 3 base setup. The game gets smaller and smaller of opporutinites while making it faster. LOTV ABSOULTY NONSENSE like this.
Raven should be cheaper. He lost his rolle complelty somehow definitly needs a change. Only usefull for auto turrets which is like dead raven.
Cant deal any longer with shooting pylons take them out replace it with nexus cannon as liberators was nerfed theres absolutly no need for shooting pylons. Lower gate way unit costs i dont know but take this thing out it was working in hots so i want this back and chronoboost is a joke aswell toss is way to static and not flexible change this toss static.
Warp prism unbelievable that it still exists like this. Its so easy to harrise and to get an advantage wihtout really doing anything its just fly in warp in or just do nothing and zerg has no clue what to do. The pick up range and the speed is insane and absolutly unneccessary. Warp ins at warp prism should be slow if its that mobile. I dont know but its totally op and way to ez to play and mostly the only option a toss uses to get ahead. Thats unacceptable for a terran that drops and get wasted by plyons LIKE LOL WAKE UP.
This game is dying and u better change fast stuff. I like to hear the thor could be buffed. I think thats important to make this unit great again.
And hellbats should be avialable withouth armory. I think we saw this eary ling pushes enough to get rekt everytime if the helions die.
Change stuff i dont care but do MAJOR STUFF and stop snitching arround with stupid patches that dont really change something just pushes a way of play cause they game is so small now cause of ur mineral changes and the macro decrease by just playing like a zerg and stop microing.
On April 01 2017 17:39 AnossSc2 wrote: Blizzard... i know my english is bad.. but stop act like you listen the community. The community is gone, you listen people who are still playing Starcraft 2, not the community who still love this game but don't want to play it. Cause the game is so fast.. Did you try to play Starcraft 2 without Hotkey like a beginner ? you can't perform a simple 1 1 1... Can you please try to play this game like you never played it? I love Starcraft, i spend 7 years on it, i made a lot of tutorial on Youtube, i was host on Iron Squid / Nation War, but if i had discover this game with LOTV, i would probably never start this game.
Cause LOTV is a game only for player who spend 3 years on Wol/Hots, at this time we had time for learning the hotkey, the unit, and improve apm. And game was fun even if you don't have the knowledge, cause it was slow, and you had time to improve. Now even if you want play it's only frustrated game for beginner player.
How many of you have friends who want play "for fun" some games of Overwatch, LOL, H1Z1 but always says no when you start to say : Let's play a Starcraft 2 4v4 it can be fun ! no it's not fun anymore, it's boring macro and Oracle at 4 min and no.. i don't want let's go LOL bro.
So please Blizzard, even BroodWar is more easy to start than LOTV, you can 6 pool and play, you can 2 gate Zealot and play on BGH. Go back to 6 harvesters start. And stop acting like we don't have time, Starcraft is not : Easy to learn, hard to masteries, it's hard to learn, hard to masteries, go back on 6 harvesters and you will have a game : Easy to learn, hard to masteries.
Trust me, i can explain you in French by so many ways why the 12 harvesters killed the game... we can't make tutorial ( and nobody does...) we can't argue why it's better to play with 12 harvesters, it's just we gain time, and lost all the beginner player so no viewers on Twitch, no prize on competition, just to gain 4 min each game.. Why David ? all the people who love Starcraft work, they don't have time to perform until 150 apm if game is not fun, if a simple 1 1 1 is 1 month of try harding ( try to do it without knowledge of hotkey, supply positioning, unit.. like a beginner who want try this game not like the guys who knows perfectly the game since 5 years) with 6 harvesters, all can play, and people who have knowledge/apm can make the difference until 7 min mark... so why you did that ? Pro player want a hard game ? good, BWHD is coming ! but Starcraft 2 need to be like LOL, Hearthstone, H1Z1, a playable game for everybody. Master will always stay Master even with 6 harvesters you know that. So why...
I know balance is important, but Thor or not, people will not play again this game, the problem is the game is too fast, this should be the first priority of David Kim : Why people don't play Starcraft 2 anymore ?
No thx... I dont want 6 workers back EVER... I don't want to play 1 or 2 hour games anymore... or mashing SD SD SD SD SD for 10 minutes until something is going on...
ALSO Never ever again compare SC2 to casualstone, league of boredom or h1(wth is even that?).. go play hots if you want...
This is why Starcraft is dying... Because most of people who keep playing this game think 6 harvesters was to slow.. Look BW, the reference, the base of Starcraft 2, you spend 4 min to just macro and nobody complaining. You said : i don't want play 1 or 2 hours games anymore... mate, a game on LOTV last about 13 min on average, a game on HOTS last about 17 min on average, that's all it's not about 1 hours game (remember timer was X1.5 faster)
And this argument about "Casual Game". What is casual on 6 harvesters start ? You can go CC first or gas first or One rax expo or all in double rax 11 with 6 harvester, on a Bo3 it's a paper roc scissor before game start. With 12 ? only gas first ! mineral is free and gas unit come so fast why do anything else... you have gas unit AND b2 fast ! is that the casual thing ?
I remembered when Bomber was countering 15 banelings with only 23 marines ! is that the casual thing ? split is casual ? where is the splitt now ? when mines and tank come so fast...
Now you macro 4 min, at 4 min 30, you can have an Oracle, or a Cyclone, a Liberator, is that the skill ? when on 6 harvester you had to read and scout to know, did i put a bunker/sunken or not ? where is the skill now ? it's Bo against Bo and you can't read properly what do your opponent cause you can do what you want ! 8 min Carrier lol, 8 min BC rofl..
So now you execute the same build against each race, and you think the game is less casual cause you have to be faster ? faster on macro ? but macro is just a repetition, same pylon, same robotics.. and you think this is skill ? on HOTS 3 gas on Protoss, i'm sur it's a 7 gate robot, let's scan or send a reaper, what did you read now ? tell me ? you just macroing and then you attack and discover ! ok Protoss play Phoenix ! This is not skill, this is just playing.
And it's so easy to say : 6 harvester is to slow and unskilled. 90% of the people who are still play this game started on Wol/Hots. You have had more than 5 years to get used to the game, and now you think 6 harvesters is bad.. easy to think now you know how to play mate, think about you 5 years ago when you was this guy with no mechanics, and no knowledge, remembrer your first game. 6 harvester let you grow up, 12 don't.
Blizzard should not listen people like you, with no new player, you will stop to play this game like all the rest, you think you are playing the real game, but tomorrow you will speak with a BW player : I play the real game, i play Starcraft 2 ! Really ? BW player will laugh ! real game is BW bro, you will speak to your casual player friend : I play SC2 ! the real game !! and casual player will laugh ! SC2 is dead bro.. And you will change the game and go to all this game you don't like, like a lot of people. And Blizzard will think : I listened the community why people still stop playing ? Cause a lot of people think playing a inaccessible game make them smart, but it's wrong, you are smart when you are the best in a game, not cause you play a type of game. So Stop arguing this plz, Does not mix your egocentricity and the game, casual game is Sonic bro, all the E-sport game are Skill game, there is no SC2 is on the top and LOL is bullshit, it's just different game.
So IF WE LOVE STARCRAFT 2, we have to think differently, this game is not only for people like you and me who discovered it with WOL, League has a ton of new player cause player don't say : I want start level 6 cause game is boring with one spell. It's the game, this is how people can grow up. Faker is Faker after 7 min mark, before we can all play and creep like Faker, this why League work, and why Starcraft 2 don't. Think about it.
May be we should all understand, than if we don't want some new player, we will never have a great E-sport scene on Starcraft 2, so if the only argument for 12 harvesters is : The game is for the real guys who don't play Lol H1Z1 and all this shit, we will never be great again, pro player will never make some money, and game will die cause even TL one day will focus on other game. So please guys, we need to wake up, we all played on 6 harvesters, best game EVER on Starcraft 2 was on 6 harvester, we need to discuss about that.
@eonzerg you don't understand my point, Starcraft is hard to masteries and it's cool like that, the point is, when i started to play this game, it was easy to execute a 1 1 1, the difficulties was when i had to micro my hellion and continue to macro in my basement. That's why i continued to play the game, that was fun to micro and make a build, and i was thinking : I did some damage but with a better macro my damage would have been increased, so i want be a better player, i need to focus more on my macro when i attack my opponent.
Now you can't execute a 1 1 1, if you don't know the game, it's just stupid, if people don't have fun why they would continue to perform ? you stress to build a simple 1 1 1 cause it's so much APM now for a beginner and oups ! an Oracle, you die ! but play again !!! This game is so cool ! it's stupid. In my time, i just had to send a worker, no B2 since 1 min 30, ok may be it's Oracle or Blink but it's all in. I do a bunker and a Turret. Now you go heavy gas or B2, the difference on the B2 timing is 40 sec ! WOW !! with 6 collector you go heavy gas ok, the opponent B2 come 2 min after than yours. This is why now no body make some tutorial on the game, cause you need a lot of knowledge and APM even at 4 min mark... in my time, it was easy to say : at 3.35 until 5 min no B2, may be it's all in, do a bunker and a turret, now it's at 3.35 until 4.10 no B2, may be its Oracle but may be player is low... so i don't know mate ! this why nobody try to make some tutorial, cause you can't make tutorial on LOTV.
Si i don't want a Starcraft 2 easy to play, i want a Starcraft 2 Easy to play, hard to masteries, like all the other Esport game. And i dont want play Hots because HOTS was redundant due to a lack of unity, Lotv is not.
So you basically compared SC2 to BW which is WAY WAY more hard on APM and your actions with 12 unit limitations and no hotkeys available for multiple buildings and rally points. New BW players who will jump on ladder will get destroyed with anything that more experienced player throws on them...
Whats with difference when the game starts you rally ur probe or scv directly to build supply depot (pylon) ? Its like in WC3 when you start with money to build 3 buildings (or 2)...
Now you talked about new players, even if they scouted with 6 worker start and they see stargate, there is no way they know ho to properly react (most of them will start rushing eng bay for turrents etc...) and also there are bunch of low apm players hitting GM (Railgan for reference)...
Now you talked about easy to learn... back in wol and hots, there were only 6 workers and streams... now you got what? CO-OP, mutations, more flexible arcade where gamespeed could be adjusted, way better starting guide etc...
and for last... go install league and show me how you farm as faker for first 6 minutes of the game... ill get bunch of his midplays and compare it with you...
Now end of the rant about how denial and wrong you are in your posts...
There are bunch of ways how to casualize the lower league ladder (up until gold, maybe plat league max).. you can lower game speed and add the introductor (basically improved announcer who would give you advices like it does in tutorial games)
f.e: Bronze: slow speed Silver: normal speed Gold: fast speed
However if you remove macro mechanics from the game it will became repetitive and boring for those new players very fast, maybe not for first 6 months but than for sure. There is a special reward for being fast and precise in SC2 and thats the true beuty...
P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare....
Mate,
You always lose against more experienced player.. on LOTV or BW it's the same thing, this is why ladder is, to select a opponent who has the same experience than you. The fact is on LOTV, if you want reproduce the Pro Build orders on the first 4 min, you can't (without Hotkey like a beginner). If you want reproduce what did Flash on is first 4 min of BW you can (without hotkey like a beginner). You will lose on both game, but BW let you play for 4 min and micro some unit, when LOTV. don't let you build a 1 1 1 properly. Even BW is too easy to practice on the beginning than LOTV. LOTV requires 12 "macro action" the first minute, HOTS 8, BW 9 ( even if you have to rally manually the harvester on the mineral line). So yes BW is too hard than LOTV on mid and late game, but the game START SLOWLY, so beginner have time. NOT ON LOTV.
If you compare the macro action required on LOTV, 2 min : 23, HOTS : 16. 3 min : 37, HOTS : 26 4 min : 50, HOTS : 39
This example is for a Terran gas first 1 1 1 drop 2 widow mines. The fact is, for an old player like us it's easy to perform, for a new player you reach the limit. It's too more action.
You do not have time to find the shortcuts and read the BO written on your notepad with LOTV. It's a fact, i did the test. On HOTS, you have the time.
If you understand that point, you understand why Starcraft 2 doesn't work anymore, it's not about losing some game, it's about have fun before losing a game. New player or low player can't have fun on LOTV, so why play this game ?
I did a lot of tutorial for french community, (youtube/anoss91) and TRUST ME, you can explain - No Expo, build a bunker and a turret on HOTS, so yes it works with HOTS, it doesn't for LOTV, this is why on Wol/Hots you had Day9 tutorial, Apollo Tutorial, mine for french people, a lot of for different language AND NO ONE FOR LOTV WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE.
What you say on Co-op etc is off topic. We have better starting guide loooool where ? better than Day9 ? please... we have no starting guide at all.
This is not a good idea to "casualize" the low league, people want play the same game than Polt, and i never said i want remove macro mechanic's, you are off topic too.
For Faker, i can show you A LOT OF PLAT/DIA PLAYER who farm as Faker on the 6 first minute... just open a stream and look the timer.
"P.S: Also in other games you mentioned there is constant flow of casual tournaments and content for casuals, where in sc2 there is almost none of it or its very rare."
And why ?? cause no noob player, no stream watch, no Twitch, no compétition, wake up bro, Starcraft 2 will not live just with a bunch of "Elitist player" who think the game is cool with 12 harvesters, cause YOU can play the game, cause YOU discovered it with WOL/HOTS and 6 harvesters, and all this extensions left you the time to improve your knowledge and apm... WAKE UP
If you understand that, you save the game, if you don't understand that, you kill the game. That's all. It's better for all.
Wasn't the trailer for LotV to HotS specifically saying they wanted to make the game a faster-paced game? Also, the appeal for LoL and SC2 are for different people. People will watch the pro faker farm for 6 minutes cause they like League. If you really think the better future is to slow down then you can go back and cast Wings of liberty or Heart of the Swarm. But to say that Legacy of the void an expansion many people like is just gone with no guides to start from is incorrect. There are so many guides (maybe not youtube guides that were as explanatory as before) for this game. The PiG dailies are like Day9's videos players like Nathanias release info videos Beasty QT releases info videos Spawning tool is a website with lots of guides and if you really want to learn this game you can just ask somewhere or someone to help you its not hard to learn this game from a google search or from this website.. But its not just elitist players who like 12 workers. I don't want to be rude when I argue this but I think your opinion is way to biased and you're argument is too 1 dimensional rather than looking at multiple peoples viewpoints. But like I said if you like 6 workers go back to HotS, WoL or wait for SCHD. Just try to refrain from things like this "If you understand that, you save the game, if you don't understand that, you kill the game. That's all. It's better for all." cause its not true.
I seems to be "you're argument is too 1 dimensional rather than looking at multiple peoples viewpoints" Because when I try to explain point by point why the 12 harvesters are bad, nobody listens.
Cause i am mister nobody for TL/Reddit NA/English community and my english is bad. French community trust me. I put all my arguments on this Youtube video. I put in on TL / Reddit. And response was : hmm too long and the guy speak in french, i have to read the subtitle it's boring. "Tl:dr plz". Tl:dr ? he want go back to 6 harvester. " ok boring next"
This is why i seems to have only one argument, cause people don't have time for a mister nobody analysis. And a analysis always take time. So now I prefer to quickly develop 1 argument rather than make 5 pages on all the arguments that are against the 12 harvester.
On this vidéo i explained how work and what need an E-sport game, i explain the same thing than : "A Eulogy for the Six Pool" about the Build Order. 12 harvester is no mind game, no CC first, no all in double rax, no paper roc scissor start, ALWAYS GAS FIRST NO MATTER WHAT.
I explained we lost all the T1 unit fight, like Marines vs Zergling fight, like split to avoid baneling all in (with no ban speed) etc
So you right, if i seems to be a " one argument guys" i apologize, there is way more than 1 argument to explain why Starcraft 2 need to be on 6 harvester start. If Tl was in french, trust me, i had make ton and ton of paper about it.
Video : 870 like 34 dislike, France community agree. This video has 8 month now.
PS : I love Pig, meet him with Nation War, really good guy, Pig's daily are really great tutorial but look the viewers count. Less than 10 k. last tutorial : less than 5 k and his tutorial are VERY GOOD we all agree on that. So why no view ? cause this game is really to fast if you never played at least once on Wol/Hots. Cause you spend a lot of time to just learn hotkey / unit / Build order BEFORE have some fun. This is why the noob don't care about Tutorial, cause they don't care about this game. Go back to 6 harvester, learning will be fun, cause like i mentioned previously you can perform a 1 1 1 and play whatever your apm. It change everything for beginner, nothing for us, so GO !!
On April 04 2017 09:04 starkiller123 wrote: People will complain no matter what, I liked the game with 6 workers and I like it now with 12
I think most players feel the same at the end of the day, they just like StarCraft.
I love StarCraft. I stopped playing with LotV. The changes to the game are not for me. The game is simply too fast now. I hate 12 worker start, I hate lowered resources. I hate all the new units they added. I won't say HotS was perfect, it wasn't. But LotV wasn't step in the right direction for me. And because I stopped playing I no longer watch streams.
But I still love the game and I am waiting if/when they revert some of the changes. It won't happen, I know it, yet I will keep dreaming.
I was just a diamond noob. I cannot imagine how the changes appeared for lower league players.
On April 04 2017 14:09 terrafreako wrote: NERV ADEPTS HOLY BALANCE.
Bring back widow mine splash.
Change this mineral fields. One patch more or more per each mineral field i cant see that any longer like it is.
Let siege tanks faster siege up and siege down. And holy buff the health of a tank. Why is a tank so weak???? I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT AND I NEVER WILL - ITS A TANK NOT A trabant (very bad car).
Change costs vor Barracks if the adept keep on going on like this or reduce marine produciton time like 5% HOLY ADEPTS.
This game is so broken if no real changes will come which really changes the whole possiblites in the game which end mostly after 10min or 15min i cant deal with that any longer, Its a aracade game not worth playing like this ONLY FOR PROS which even aswell dont pass the 15min mark or the 3 base setup. The game gets smaller and smaller of opporutinites while making it faster. LOTV ABSOULTY NONSENSE like this.
Raven should be cheaper. He lost his rolle complelty somehow definitly needs a change. Only usefull for auto turrets which is like dead raven.
Cant deal any longer with shooting pylons take them out replace it with nexus cannon as liberators was nerfed theres absolutly no need for shooting pylons. Lower gate way unit costs i dont know but take this thing out it was working in hots so i want this back and chronoboost is a joke aswell toss is way to static and not flexible change this toss static.
Warp prism unbelievable that it still exists like this. Its so easy to harrise and to get an advantage wihtout really doing anything its just fly in warp in or just do nothing and zerg has no clue what to do. The pick up range and the speed is insane and absolutly unneccessary. Warp ins at warp prism should be slow if its that mobile. I dont know but its totally op and way to ez to play and mostly the only option a toss uses to get ahead. Thats unacceptable for a terran that drops and get wasted by plyons LIKE LOL WAKE UP.
This game is dying and u better change fast stuff. I like to hear the thor could be buffed. I think thats important to make this unit great again.
And hellbats should be avialable withouth armory. I think we saw this eary ling pushes enough to get rekt everytime if the helions die.
Change stuff i dont care but do MAJOR STUFF and stop snitching arround with stupid patches that dont really change something just pushes a way of play cause they game is so small now cause of ur mineral changes and the macro decrease by just playing like a zerg and stop microing.
CHANGE BIG GGs
so... Tanks already received a health buff. Tanks are also one of the highest damage units (In a splash radius) in the game why the heck would making it have more health be a good idea?. Any tank push that isn't countered exactly right vs robo style than the protoss will usually just die. (Reference is Stats vs Ty Set 7 IEM Katowice Grand finals) Widow mines never lost their splash (No idea where you got this from, they just lost some splash damage vs protoss) and adepts don't need their damage nerfed. If anything I think they just need a tweak to their health or shade cooldown. Pylon overcharge as dumb as it is, its actually needed for Legacy of the void. Nexus overcharge is way too easy to abuse. Also seriously? Hellbats at the start? lol have you not seen or done a hellbat banshee push? That 100 gas that goes into the armory is practically a whole banshee and a much much much FASTER timing. Literally what you're suggesting would bring back hellbat drops increase the popularity of hellbat pushes and it would make mech TvT a nightmare to engage into. The hellbat isn't meant to come out as soon as you finish the factory. Also blizzard is legitimately trying to balance the game. Have you ever played protoss? I doubt that you're in masters or higher. And im not saying because of this you're not able to make a point but what I am saying is if you play at a level where these tools are an essential part of your defensive kit and they get removed Protoss essentially is screwed. Also if you drop ontop of a pylon and you visibly see that its been overcharged why in the hell would you sit there? Pick up and leave wait for it to finish. You're not always meant to fight in them bait them out if you can. I agree though that warp prisms are strong, I think they should have a mix between the slow and fast warp in speed (A unique speed so to say) Also the raven has a tremendous role in TvT! Literally every TvT opens up with a fast raven or double raven. There are TvP builds with Raven pushes TvZ builds with Ravens for harassing. To say that its useless is so wrong. The difference is that it doesn't sit forever in one area. Barracks production rates are fine nothing needs to be changed on them the barracks units produce at a fine rate. In my personal opinion I would say you're just a Terran whose probably having a bad time in Terran vs Protoss I agree as a Terran myself its a bit favored towards Protoss but it doesn't make them unbeatable or broken. It just means you probably need to figure out where you got a flaw or find a new build to run.
What would be really cool, is if they could implement drawbacks upgrade, or choice upgrade. Something like the choose one mechanics in hearthstone. For example choose one : blink stalkers or warp prism range Or maybe something like attack speed for adepts but decrease stalker range. That way you can buff early game units knowing that if the players chooses to go in a certain direction where this buff would be problematic, then the unit would be nerfed. Also, it increases the strategic choice. we can imagine something like buff roaches a lot but nerf muta a lot too. you would have to commit more.
I don't know just a thought. Maybe that's just a bad idea
But LotV wasn't step in the right direction for me. And because I stopped playing I no longer watch streams.
Yes that's the point. Blizzard designed a game for the viewer experience, but the viewer is actually the player. Why would anyone follow Esport XY, if they don't even play the game themselves or aren't in touch with it anymore.
On April 04 2017 09:04 starkiller123 wrote: People will complain no matter what, I liked the game with 6 workers and I like it now with 12
I think most players feel the same at the end of the day, they just like StarCraft.
I love StarCraft. I stopped playing with LotV. The changes to the game are not for me. The game is simply too fast now. I hate 12 worker start, I hate lowered resources. I hate all the new units they added. I won't say HotS was perfect, it wasn't. But LotV wasn't step in the right direction for me. And because I stopped playing I no longer watch streams.
But I still love the game and I am waiting if/when they revert some of the changes. It won't happen, I know it, yet I will keep dreaming.
I was just a diamond noob. I cannot imagine how the changes appeared for lower league players.
I'm in the same boat. I love starcraft, I just don't like LotV.
I still hold on to the forlorn hope that I'll like the game some day as much as I used to, but I also know that's never going to happen. I couldn't even really say why I'm still here reading community updates, as I haven't touched the game in months. What a weird relationship I have with this game.
On April 04 2017 09:04 starkiller123 wrote: People will complain no matter what, I liked the game with 6 workers and I like it now with 12
I think most players feel the same at the end of the day, they just like StarCraft.
I love StarCraft. I stopped playing with LotV. The changes to the game are not for me. The game is simply too fast now. I hate 12 worker start, I hate lowered resources. I hate all the new units they added. I won't say HotS was perfect, it wasn't. But LotV wasn't step in the right direction for me. And because I stopped playing I no longer watch streams.
But I still love the game and I am waiting if/when they revert some of the changes. It won't happen, I know it, yet I will keep dreaming.
I was just a diamond noob. I cannot imagine how the changes appeared for lower league players.
I'm in the same boat. I love starcraft, I just don't like LotV.
I still hold on to the forlorn hope that I'll like the game some day as much as I used to, but I also know that's never going to happen. I couldn't even really say why I'm still here reading community updates, as I haven't touched the game in months. What a weird relationship I have with this game.
Looks like there are more of us feeling similarly. I still watch LotV quite regularly, follow tournaments and still attend live IEM in Katowice. However I also feel like LotV bring changes I'm not ok with: 12 workers start reduced resources per base strange, "gimmicky", unnecessary, overlapping, forced and overpowered units On top of this closure of PL which did not helped my hype levels :/
I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
On April 05 2017 02:44 InfCereal wrote: I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
The thing is that after 7 years even if the SC2 would be big and "perfect" there will be exact same ppl complaing about anything.. 12 worker start did not speed the game at all just removed the boring SD SD SD SD start...
On April 05 2017 02:44 InfCereal wrote: I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
Agreed D:
What if we put some maps with a few extra minerals at the bases for a test map? I haven't been around since the very beginning... did Blizz give an explicit balance reason for the lower resources or was it just FASTEST SPEED!?
Personally, I really like the auto turret harass at its current power. It is because of this harass that we finally have the Raven as a legitimate part of the meta.
Adding an upgrade for warp-ins actually seems like an awesome idea.
For the Thor: Just be sure to balance the anti-ground attack if you buff the anti-air attack.
Void-ray change seems good.
Generally, seems like good changes, but I want the raven to remain effective and impressive. No other unit works like the Raven currently, so it's kind of neat.
I would just like to see CD changes to Adepts Shade, or maybe they take higher damage when shade is active and the 2s thereafter, and then make Warp Prism Pickup range an upgrade at Cycore or so.
Give Protoss some real beef back at the Zealot/Stalker tech. Stuff like +15 shield upgrade for Zealots at Templar Archives, or Stalkers deal +2 AA damage.
Adepts are one of the things I least like about LOTV, they just feel stupid.
On April 05 2017 02:44 InfCereal wrote: I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
The thing is that after 7 years even if the SC2 would be big and "perfect" there will be exact same ppl complaing about anything.. 12 worker start did not speed the game at all just removed the boring SD SD SD SD start...
If it was the case, we would see the same Starcraft 2 as before faster, but it's not the case. Read "A Eulogy for the Six Pool". That just change all the game, all the start, it's always the same opener in PvZ ( Gate - gas - expo - CybCore - gas) always in TvZ ( gas - rax- expo - facto - gas) and same for Zerg, always Hatch - gas - pool.
If game was just "removed the boring SD" We would see the equivalent of 6 pool / 8 pool / 10 pool / 15 pool Hatch / 15 hatch - pool and all the gas variation that goes with. Now it's just in ZvZ 13 pool or pool hatch or Hatch gas pool. The only match up with variation is the mirror, in no mirror match up Hatch gas pool.
So no the speed of the game are not only attributed to the lower minerals per base, like i wrote on my last topic : at 4 min mark LOTV it's 51 action required for a gas first drop mine, HOTS is 39. It's an average of 4 more action per minute and i don't count the fact that Reaper come 45 second sooner. Which means that I need to focus on my micro faster on LOTV, Which also takes apm.
On April 05 2017 02:44 InfCereal wrote: I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
The thing is that after 7 years even if the SC2 would be big and "perfect" there will be exact same ppl complaing about anything.. 12 worker start did not speed the game at all just removed the boring SD SD SD SD start...
If it was the case, we would see the same Starcraft 2 as before faster, but it's not the case. Read "A Eulogy for the Six Pool". That just change all the game, all the start, it's always the same opener in PvZ ( Gate - gas - expo - CybCore - gas) always in TvZ ( gas - rax- expo - facto - gas) and same for Zerg, always Hatch - gas - pool.
If game was just "removed the boring SD" We would see the equivalent of 6 pool / 8 pool / 10 pool / 15 pool Hatch / 15 hatch - pool and all the gas variation that goes with. Now it's just in ZvZ 13 pool or pool hatch or Hatch gas pool. The only match up with variation is the mirror, in no mirror match up Hatch gas pool.
So no the speed of the game are not only attributed to the lower minerals per base, like i wrote on my last topic : at 4 min mark LOTV it's 51 action required for a gas first drop mine, HOTS is 39. It's an average of 4 more action per minute and i don't count the fact that Reaper come 45 second sooner. Which means that I need to focus on my micro faster on LOTV, Which also takes apm.
Anoss, I fully respect your opinion I think you make a very compelling argument but I just feel like the way LotV was meant to be directed was through a faster and more evolved starcraft. I and im sure many others would feel the same way that the game picks up in such a fast and fun pace. I love the non-stop action that we have right away in games and while its true ZvZ is cancer if were being honest it always has been. However the only biggest flaw I see in Legacy of the void is the speed at which late game arrives. I rewatched some old hots games and I like those pre mini battles before you had all these upgrades line bane speed, stimpack but I don't think that it is caused by the 12 worker starts. I believe the way starcraft 2 as a game has evolved is for people to want to specialize into their late games. LotV allows you to get to it faster due to the constant demand of trying to build a stronger army and how the game functions. However I think that all match-ups have a big variation and not just mirrors. Especially TvP you can now run cool mech styles and mass BC! thats something I would never think to see in HotS vs protoss.
The real reason why Zerg struggles in PvZ and TvZ is nerfed macro. Stop buffing random things in Z arsenal. Just bring back 4 larva. Its sad to see how Zerg has worse macro than P or T in midgame. Zerg's main strengh which are fast remakses or switches are soooo less efficient because of that...U just don't have enough bank to do this with 3 larva from the start (which snowballs into midgame with lesser eco) while you are being harrased to the death by so many things from P and T. Bring the 4 larva back or at least test it.
On April 05 2017 08:40 ThunderJunk wrote: Could also just increase build time of carrier so it's similar to how long it takes to make a BC.
Carriers already take longer to build than Battlecruisers, even when factoring in Chronoboost, if I'm not mistaken
I play Protoss.
It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure). And most of this tech path requires little side track for defense against non tech builds (for widowmine you might need an oracle or few cannons, for liberator you could simple pull probes and ignore). This 2 base build have barely enough gas from 2 base to support 1 oracle and 1~2 mothership core. One can't skip the +1 air attack when core finishes because it would die vs marine pushes. If 1 round of adept is warped in from 3 gate to defend earlier marine push the timing is delayed further.
For Terran, the first BC requires depot 21s > barracks 46s > factory 43s > starport 36s > techlab 18s > fusion core 46s, total 274s (256s if techlab swap) (210s from infrastrucutre). You can say it is on par or faster than with the Protoss build. I doubt Terran can squeeze out more gas units than a tank and 1 or 2 medivac. or a few widowmines.
But Terran would simply die to pushes if he tech up to fusion core too quickly without enough marines/turrets/tanks/medivacs (can't raven since gas restricting). Mind that he needs to put the techlab build time somewhere which means that building is not producing (or producing 2 at a time). It is also very easy to scout Terran from Protoss with stargate, when opponent is at most pumping 3-4 marines at a time. When scouted, Tempest only takes 43 seconds to build (I wouldn't even bother since the first carrier would always have graviton researched and +1 barely finishing and can kite yamato-less BCs, or build more versatile void rays).
So the stats themselves favor Battlecruiser, but the timing and build order (and some maps) favors Protoss if Terran bother to attempt.
Would it even be practical to rush out Carriers and BCs in either case? I feel like both rushes leave the player vulnerable to too many things, and it would be safer and much more common transition to leave those units as late-game transitions.
On April 05 2017 02:44 InfCereal wrote: I think you guys are crucifying 12 worker start too much.
The speed of the game is more attributed to the lower minerals per base then anything else. When you're forced to invest in expansions, you can't really invest in early aggression.
I mean, Zerg doesn't really start the game until your fourth is up, minus some odd timings that pop up now and then.
The thing is that after 7 years even if the SC2 would be big and "perfect" there will be exact same ppl complaing about anything.. 12 worker start did not speed the game at all just removed the boring SD SD SD SD start...
If it was the case, we would see the same Starcraft 2 as before faster, but it's not the case. Read "A Eulogy for the Six Pool". That just change all the game, all the start, it's always the same opener in PvZ ( Gate - gas - expo - CybCore - gas) always in TvZ ( gas - rax- expo - facto - gas) and same for Zerg, always Hatch - gas - pool.
If game was just "removed the boring SD" We would see the equivalent of 6 pool / 8 pool / 10 pool / 15 pool Hatch / 15 hatch - pool and all the gas variation that goes with. Now it's just in ZvZ 13 pool or pool hatch or Hatch gas pool. The only match up with variation is the mirror, in no mirror match up Hatch gas pool.
So no the speed of the game are not only attributed to the lower minerals per base, like i wrote on my last topic : at 4 min mark LOTV it's 51 action required for a gas first drop mine, HOTS is 39. It's an average of 4 more action per minute and i don't count the fact that Reaper come 45 second sooner. Which means that I need to focus on my micro faster on LOTV, Which also takes apm.
Anoss, I fully respect your opinion I think you make a very compelling argument but I just feel like the way LotV was meant to be directed was through a faster and more evolved starcraft. I and im sure many others would feel the same way that the game picks up in such a fast and fun pace. I love the non-stop action that we have right away in games and while its true ZvZ is cancer if were being honest it always has been. However the only biggest flaw I see in Legacy of the void is the speed at which late game arrives. I rewatched some old hots games and I like those pre mini battles before you had all these upgrades line bane speed, stimpack but I don't think that it is caused by the 12 worker starts. I believe the way starcraft 2 as a game has evolved is for people to want to specialize into their late games. LotV allows you to get to it faster due to the constant demand of trying to build a stronger army and how the game functions. However I think that all match-ups have a big variation and not just mirrors. Especially TvP you can now run cool mech styles and mass BC! thats something I would never think to see in HotS vs protoss.
I understand your point, but late game was present with 6 collectors too, i don't think we need 12 harvester to go late game. And even if you like it we need to understand there is more people who stopped playing than player who invest time on SC2.. so we lose :
- a lot of player - early game T1 agression - Paper roc scissor opening with all the variant. 6/8/10/14/15 pool with gas variant, we just hatch first or gas first for terran. - no new player can try the game
Consequence we have :
- less competition - less pro player - less stream on Twitch
if we can't go late game with 6 collectors as easily than with 12 may be we have a balance issue. But i think it's obvious we need to go back on 6 and work the late game with 6 collectors start.
I think the only reason why TvP is more cool on LOTV than Hots ( i totally agree) it's thanks to the new unit : Liberator / Adept and Disruptor. Adpept is strong against bio so Protoss are not longer obliged to rush splash damage. Dirsuptor allow Protoss to poke static terran army ( when Tanks / liberator camp a position) and liberator allow terran an alternativ of Viking to counter the only splash damage on Hots ( colossus, i know we have HT too, but at 12 min mark on hots, Colossus is way better cause no mana depends)
So in my opinion, TvP will stay good on LOTV with 6 harvesters.
If you don't think 12 harvester causes this issue, go read a Eulogy for the six pool. May be you will change your mind
On April 05 2017 14:16 eviltomahawk wrote: Would it even be practical to rush out Carriers and BCs in either case? I feel like both rushes leave the player vulnerable to too many things, and it would be safer and much more common transition to leave those units as late-game transitions.
In PvT the current meta of tech (liberators tanks mines etc) pushes, Carrier rush crush any tech build that does not have enough marines. If Terran fail to do enough damage with tech builds and delayed stim timing for 2 base push Protoss can marginally hold the third base and transition back to storm. For medivac drops of only marines, it depends on when the carrier meet the medivacs, when in transition or unloading the carrier has a clear edge.
In PvZ, it is unthinkable. On some maps ling timing kills it. Any hydra timing will kill it (though it is not the case before they change the speed upgrade and range upgrade, when 1 carrier can kite off first wave of 6~10 hydras with some adepts/zealots). Corruptor timing kills it too. Same with PvT if Terran make conscious decision of build just vikings/or just medivacs and marines. Often enough the Protoss survive tech push or the marine push (though very unlikely) and Terran wouldn't be bothered going BCs they would just pump more marines and contest bases.
Not everyone on ladder react properly on ladder. So in PvT as a fringe meta build Carrier rush is very doable.
On April 06 2017 07:22 FarmI3oy wrote: I still maintain that the unlimited unit selection in Starcraft 2 is what caused so many problems for the game. Think about the mentality that players have now that they are able to select an unlimited amount of units. Is there even a point too small skirmishes? Not really.
The idea behind the argument is that because of unlimited unit selection this led people to play more passively into the late game. Controlling max supply in Starcraft 2 is easy as hell in comparison to games like Brood War and Warcraft 3. Naturally, players are comfortable playing until that point. Thus, we got turtle games in Starcraft 2.
The focus of competition was on the different unit compositions and unit count, rather than, mechanical superiority. The game became more like Poker where outsmarting your opponent was how you won. Don't get me wrong, mechanics still matter, but not on the scale they used too. This passive style of games in Starcraft 2 led to the LOTV economy overhaul. Which in effect cuts off the early game and makes the mid game all about harassment and gaining a supply lead.
If a unit selection limit was still in the game I would be willing to bet (because empirically it is impossible to know) that the economy model would not have changed in LOTV.
So, making another post here because i find the blizzard balance team quite absurd.
Ravens cannot be nerfed without swarmhosts and carriers also being nerfed. Swarmhosts not even being mentioned in this update after 4+ months of being forced to play mech vs swarmhost on ladder is really, really frustrating.
I will agree with anyone here and in the SC2 community that ravens are absolutely bonkers broken, specifically the auto-turret. But it is also the only counter to every asshole on ladder right now that knows how broken the swarmhost is versus mech play.
Swarmhosts should have been mentioned in the last 5 community updates, and why they still aren't yet the raven is brought up for nerfs really shows what has happened to SC2. I do not know if this is just ignorance or incompetence, maybe other people on the forums here can enlighten everyone why swarmhosts are still not addressed after 4+ months of ruining every mech game.
Carriers also have been absurd for far too long, along with adepts, invulnerable nydus, reaper grenade, burrow cast infestor, recent hydra buffs for no reason when carriers were the problem...most recent corruptor gets free banshee speed upgrade.
But sure, ignore all that, and nerf Terran/ravens more. Imo a lot of Terran pros and players should be up in arms that mech units are continuously nerfed with no compensation or parallel nerfs to Zerg/Protoss, and also widow mines being nerfed has brought back every game being mass adept from Protoss.
I wish the community would also start a discussion about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on EVERY MINERAL PATCH to make the game closer to HOTS/Brood War so the pace is slower, as well as bringing back 6 worker start instead of 12.
"We haven’t been seeing as much Mech play as we would like"
They have literally said this since the first patch of beta. When are they going to learn that it is because bio is so good. The only way to make mech "viable" is to nerf bio. But they can't because then terran is terrible. This balance team cannot be this fucking clueless.
On April 06 2017 11:28 ZackAttack wrote: "We haven’t been seeing as much Mech play as we would like"
They have literally said this since the first patch of beta. When are they going to learn that it is because bio is so good. The only way to make mech "viable" is to nerf bio. But they can't because then terran is terrible. This balance team cannot be this fucking clueless.
sorry, but i dont understand this logic.
How would become mech viable, if you would nerf bio too ?
Its because BIO was OP since the beginning of the game. But it seemed cool to developers that u can play whole game with tier1 units and how cool it synergies with mules. Then they balanced whole game around BIO and thats why we have so much ballshit fixes arround. If they would nerf BIO they would have to make this game from scratch. So nerfing BIO is impossible. Stop demanding it.
On April 01 2017 05:57 c0sm0naut wrote: i really would hate for protoss to have another caster but i have to say i really feel like if adepts used energy whenever they completed a psionic transfer (like 25 energy to cast it, 25 to complete) the unit would be much better balanced. if this unit is changed too drastically however, the entire balance of LOTV will need to be readdressed. relaly feel that this game is balanced primarily around the zergling,marine and adept and if major changes are made to any that the overall viability of complete builds / strategies which have been mapped out over the last year or so is called into question.
overall i prefer no change, and to let the meta develop. its only been a few week after major changes, a few weeks before major changes before that, and a few weeks before major changes before even that. theres too much going on to suss out what is even good right now let alone totally broken. meta happens in waves, we just happen to be at a crashing point right now. innovation will come soon, the meta has demanded it
just wanted to say that i have reflected on the opinion i posted above and feel dubious about what can actually be done to better prepare against this unit that isnt completely game losing in another way (like spending money to put bunkers behind my minerals lines. it works out some games, but a lot of other games i just end up with a bunker behind my OC doing nothing when that could have been another barracks/marines with my pushes which have begun to feel impotent now that I am leaving so many forces at home.m random
On April 06 2017 13:55 hiroshOne wrote: Its because BIO was OP since the beginning of the game. But it seemed cool to developers that u can play whole game with tier1 units and how cool it synergies with mules. Then they balanced whole game around BIO and thats why we have so much ballshit fixes arround. If they would nerf BIO they would have to make this game from scratch. So nerfing BIO is impossible. Stop demanding it.
[QUOTE]On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote: [QUOTE]On April 05 2017 13:15 eviltomahawk wrote: [QUOTE]On April 05 2017 08:40 ThunderJunk wrote: Could also just increase build time of carrier so it's similar to how long it takes to make a BC.[/QUOTE]
...
It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure).
... [/QUOTE]
Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this?
On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote: It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure)
Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this?
Cmon, just leave this guy alone in his imaginary world of carrier and bc rushes.
On April 06 2017 11:03 avilo wrote: So, making another post here because i find the blizzard balance team quite absurd.
Ravens cannot be nerfed without swarmhosts and carriers also being nerfed. Swarmhosts not even being mentioned in this update after 4+ months of being forced to play mech vs swarmhost on ladder is really, really frustrating.
I will agree with anyone here and in the SC2 community that ravens are absolutely bonkers broken, specifically the auto-turret. But it is also the only counter to every asshole on ladder right now that knows how broken the swarmhost is versus mech play.
Swarmhosts should have been mentioned in the last 5 community updates, and why they still aren't yet the raven is brought up for nerfs really shows what has happened to SC2. I do not know if this is just ignorance or incompetence, maybe other people on the forums here can enlighten everyone why swarmhosts are still not addressed after 4+ months of ruining every mech game.
Carriers also have been absurd for far too long, along with adepts, invulnerable nydus, reaper grenade, burrow cast infestor, recent hydra buffs for no reason when carriers were the problem...most recent corruptor gets free banshee speed upgrade.
But sure, ignore all that, and nerf Terran/ravens more. Imo a lot of Terran pros and players should be up in arms that mech units are continuously nerfed with no compensation or parallel nerfs to Zerg/Protoss, and also widow mines being nerfed has brought back every game being mass adept from Protoss.
I wish the community would also start a discussion about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on EVERY MINERAL PATCH to make the game closer to HOTS/Brood War so the pace is slower, as well as bringing back 6 worker start instead of 12.
Since I don't want to get in trouble with the admins i'm gently asking please stay away from my posts, do not comment under anything I post in here Save your empty balance talks for those intersted enough on your stream.
On April 06 2017 11:03 avilo wrote: So, making another post here because i find the blizzard balance team quite absurd.
Ravens cannot be nerfed without swarmhosts and carriers also being nerfed. Swarmhosts not even being mentioned in this update after 4+ months of being forced to play mech vs swarmhost on ladder is really, really frustrating.
I will agree with anyone here and in the SC2 community that ravens are absolutely bonkers broken, specifically the auto-turret. But it is also the only counter to every asshole on ladder right now that knows how broken the swarmhost is versus mech play.
Swarmhosts should have been mentioned in the last 5 community updates, and why they still aren't yet the raven is brought up for nerfs really shows what has happened to SC2. I do not know if this is just ignorance or incompetence, maybe other people on the forums here can enlighten everyone why swarmhosts are still not addressed after 4+ months of ruining every mech game.
Carriers also have been absurd for far too long, along with adepts, invulnerable nydus, reaper grenade, burrow cast infestor, recent hydra buffs for no reason when carriers were the problem...most recent corruptor gets free banshee speed upgrade.
But sure, ignore all that, and nerf Terran/ravens more. Imo a lot of Terran pros and players should be up in arms that mech units are continuously nerfed with no compensation or parallel nerfs to Zerg/Protoss, and also widow mines being nerfed has brought back every game being mass adept from Protoss.
I wish the community would also start a discussion about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on EVERY MINERAL PATCH to make the game closer to HOTS/Brood War so the pace is slower, as well as bringing back 6 worker start instead of 12.
Since I don't want to get in trouble with the admins i'm gently asking please stay away from my posts, do not comment under anything I post in here Save your empty balance talks for those intersted enough on your stream.
Thx
You pretend like avilo said something wrong. What's the point of this mindless hate ? We all share the same passion, we all love SC2 and that's why we are here. Stop the hate, be open for discussion.
On April 06 2017 11:03 avilo wrote: So, making another post here because i find the blizzard balance team quite absurd.
Ravens cannot be nerfed without swarmhosts and carriers also being nerfed. Swarmhosts not even being mentioned in this update after 4+ months of being forced to play mech vs swarmhost on ladder is really, really frustrating.
I will agree with anyone here and in the SC2 community that ravens are absolutely bonkers broken, specifically the auto-turret. But it is also the only counter to every asshole on ladder right now that knows how broken the swarmhost is versus mech play.
Swarmhosts should have been mentioned in the last 5 community updates, and why they still aren't yet the raven is brought up for nerfs really shows what has happened to SC2. I do not know if this is just ignorance or incompetence, maybe other people on the forums here can enlighten everyone why swarmhosts are still not addressed after 4+ months of ruining every mech game.
Carriers also have been absurd for far too long, along with adepts, invulnerable nydus, reaper grenade, burrow cast infestor, recent hydra buffs for no reason when carriers were the problem...most recent corruptor gets free banshee speed upgrade.
But sure, ignore all that, and nerf Terran/ravens more. Imo a lot of Terran pros and players should be up in arms that mech units are continuously nerfed with no compensation or parallel nerfs to Zerg/Protoss, and also widow mines being nerfed has brought back every game being mass adept from Protoss.
I wish the community would also start a discussion about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on EVERY MINERAL PATCH to make the game closer to HOTS/Brood War so the pace is slower, as well as bringing back 6 worker start instead of 12.
Since I don't want to get in trouble with the admins i'm gently asking please stay away from my posts, do not comment under anything I post in here Save your empty balance talks for those intersted enough on your stream.
Thx
You pretend like avilo said something wrong. What's the point of this mindless hate ? We all share the same passion, we all love SC2 and that's why we are here. Stop the hate, be open for discussion.
Because once in the milion years he says something which makes sense, but than he adds up million clueless dumb things and starts arguing about nonsense with TL ppl, i do not want this post to turn into another sh*tfest
On April 06 2017 13:55 hiroshOne wrote: Its because BIO was OP since the beginning of the game. But it seemed cool to developers that u can play whole game with tier1 units and how cool it synergies with mules. Then they balanced whole game around BIO and thats why we have so much ballshit fixes arround. If they would nerf BIO they would have to make this game from scratch. So nerfing BIO is impossible. Stop demanding it.
i would like to say i agree with u good sir
Bias much, you just don't see Terrans play with Tier 1 units all game long, they build medivacs, widow mines, vikings too. Those are not Tier one.
The real problem is the upgrade path, bio does not synergize with mech upgrades.
If mech was viable, that is what I would play, regardless of the strength of Bio, as I prefer Mech. In fact I play more mech than bio when I think about it, I just suck up the losses.
Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
[QUOTE]On April 06 2017 15:55 plogamer wrote: [QUOTE]On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote: [QUOTE]On April 05 2017 13:15 eviltomahawk wrote: [QUOTE]On April 05 2017 08:40 ThunderJunk wrote: Could also just increase build time of carrier so it's similar to how long it takes to make a BC.[/QUOTE]
...
It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure).
... [/QUOTE]
Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this? [/QUOTE] Pylons take time to build man!
To be fair, even including the SG build time is debatable at this point in the meta
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I feel like Blizzard wants to keep the current 12 worker start, as well as the new economy model.
If that's the case, removing macro boosters would probably reintroduce an early game. Terran wouldn't have the money to tech straight to medivacs, stim, etc. Zerg wouldn't be able to yolo drone for 4 minutes, because they'd need an additional 2 hatches to match 2 queen inject production, and protoss wouldn't be able to yolo out these crazy upgrades for strong timings.
That'd slow the entire pace to the midgame down, and since you'll have a wider opening before stronger units come out, you should be able to do some more things with early tech units, right?
And of course, with slower worker production, you wouldn't be rushing for thirds and fourths, since you won't have the workers to mine out a base in 6 minutes now, but with the new ecocomy, you'll still need to expand faster than you would have in hots or wol.
On April 06 2017 13:55 hiroshOne wrote: Its because BIO was OP since the beginning of the game. But it seemed cool to developers that u can play whole game with tier1 units and how cool it synergies with mules. Then they balanced whole game around BIO and thats why we have so much ballshit fixes arround. If they would nerf BIO they would have to make this game from scratch. So nerfing BIO is impossible. Stop demanding it.
i would like to say i agree with u good sir
Bias much, you just don't see Terrans play with Tier 1 units all game long, they build medivacs, widow mines, vikings too. Those are not Tier one.
The real problem is the upgrade path, bio does not synergize with mech upgrades.
If mech was viable, that is what I would play, regardless of the strength of Bio, as I prefer Mech. In fact I play more mech than bio when I think about it, I just suck up the losses.
Im a masters terran and play random, t is my highest mmr. This is just the truth bro like mech is unplayably bad bc every time some factory unit is constructed and is worth constructing, bio players mix it in their army and it gets nerfed as a result
On April 05 2017 14:00 Odowan Paleolithic wrote: It is not that simple. On surface, 86s carrier unboosted build time vs 64 BC build time. But to get the first carrier, you need pylon 18s > gateway 46s > cybernetics core 36s (2nd nexus here or before) > Stargate 43s > Fleetbeacon 43s, total 272s (186s from infrastructure)
Are you seriously adding pylon build time to this?
Cmon, just leave this guy alone in his imaginary world of carrier and bc rushes.
Welp. TY lost. So I stand corrected. (Stats also lost, proving just build enough marine is a good response.)
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I totally agree.
I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player.
We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need...
If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
It'll be interesting to see if everything stays balanced as more people play on it... not that I see how this would unbalance anything. I like to keep the faith that Blizz did this for a good reason, i guess.
U should really twek this mod to bring old makro mechanics too. 4 larva, old chrono and mule. It would be more telling. I feel like in this one- only 6 worker starting Zerg with 3 larva is behind if Toss has his first chrono boost on nexus aviable at the beginning
What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
I think it is a good idea. I like starting with more workers since it speeds up the first few minutes of the game, but I do not like running out of resources so fast. When to expand should be a choice but in LOTV there is no choice, you either expand non-stop or you die.
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
1500 minerals was common in BW but not entirely consistent through all maps. KeSPA frequently tweaked mineral node counts, mineral node values, and gas geyser values on a fair number of maps.
It was a very clever way of balancing map winrates in tournaments in the absence of balance patches, and hopefully mapmakers can attempt something similar in SC2 now that Blizzard loosened up their rules a bit in the last map contest.
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I totally agree.
I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player.
We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need...
If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I totally agree.
I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player.
We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need...
If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
just because you like it doesnt mean it will ever be good... 6drone srart was so boring, full of random elements and games took 30+ minutes at the end of hots... i dont want this ever again in SC2... if you are not fast enough there are plenty fo diamond and platinum cups for you
You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta?
"You're blaming the 6 worker start for long games and not the swarm host, mech meta?
Really?
Like... really?"
You ever heard of "multiple causation"? Both of those issues caused the long games. In the game shared by Anoss, the first 4 minutes were spent building workers and infrastructure.
I'm willing to admit that trying out different numbers of workers at the beginning is a decent idea, but there are many other design issues than that and a lot of you have invested way too much hope in this idea that "6 worker start would fix everything". Here are some other issues to consider right now:
1. Static defense - Static defense doesn't work properly when you introduce ravagers, disruptors and now with the buffed siege tank. Static defense goes from worthwhile to nearly worthless, depending on the static defense and its location. 2. Unit design - certain units have massive utility (for example, the adept) while some units have almost no utility (the Thor). Meanwhile, something like the ghost is a niche unit, and those have a place. 3. Total unit cohesion by race - Zerg units, somehow, all seem to mesh well together. Protoss less so, and Terran the least. (In my opinion.) If the transformation of Terran mechanical units is the problem, remove transformation as a gimmick on them. For instance, I think the Hellion should exist as one unit and the Firebat as a completely separate unit from the barracks.
These are just some of the hugely important things to discuss about game design, and a lot of this is being drowned out here. As some others have said, I think it's time to start a separate thread on the forums about your "6 or 12 worker" discussion.
Honestly I don't think 6 worker start will fix lotv design problem. I'm pro 12 workers because it really decreased dead time in early game, the main problem is building time and production time didn't been adjusted accordingly.
This mean, a fast production race, with a faster eco, gains an overall benefit. If we examine all three races, this benefit is for zerg at most, then terran, then protoss goes last. Zerg has a very faster unit production since it's a reactornary race. Terran has a fast production since bio last for all the game stages and units need to come out fast far entire game. Protoss had a slower production time but units are (were..) powerful; this is why protoss had so many aoe options in hots, to balance the unit productions.
In lotv, protoss aoe got nerfed for no reason (imho) and simply every units does not fit anymore game design because they got outmassed by other two races. This bring to a situation were gate units should be microed as hell to get profit in early to mid game, because bread and butter units from terrans and zerg (read roaches and bio mines) beat every protoss gate composition even in smaller numbers (that's why protoss are disappearing and numbers are decreasing). And this, just to rush and MASS t2-t3 units, that in hots were usefull also in low numbers, while in lotv they need to be in big numbers to be efficient (look immortals in pvz).
I think the game would greatly benefit from a production-time-rearranging patch; first protoss population will increase a bit, second the game could be more enjoyable at all levels. The best, as asked since lotv release, would be to redistribuite some power in the whole race, decreasing some late game power for better gate units.
I think this debate about 6 workers vs. 12 workers misses the point of the problem entirely.
The LOTV economy rework happened because the beginning of games were drawn out and boring. That is a general subjective fact that the community believed, and begged Blizzard to fix.
Instead of looking at the economy or lack of harass units as the problem, I recommend looking at other reasons why passive play in the beginning of games (the early game) was so prominent in WOL and HOTS.
Willingness to get past the early game without interacting with your opponent comes back to mechanics. Naturally, the longer a game goes on then the more possible actions there are. However, in Starcraft 2 (as Catz points out in his video he recently made) the game is more focused on countering units and/or tricking (outsmarting) your opponent. The quality of life features that were added in Starcraft 2 create an environment where people aren't worried about macroing or late game mechanical soundness.
Thus, the balance of the game is based more on the power of units, and the strategies used with those units. While mechanics matter in Starcraft 2, they just matter a lot less. Game balance is more of an issue in Starcraft 2 for the sole reason that no amount of mechanical skill over your opponent matters as much as strategies.
Essentially, no matter what unit changes or economy changes they make in Starcraft 2 the game will be imbalanced. Someone is always going to be finding new (or reusing old) strategies that catch their opponent off-guard, and/or using units that quietly get buffed over time. They have shifted the priority of what skills determine the outcome of games.
Edit: Here is Catz post about it. I've been talking about it for years on the Battle.net forums (the cesspool of Starcraft 2). But Catz hits the nail on the head. Moreover, he even provides some interesting stats between both BW and Starcraft 2 pros.
On March 31 2017 05:51 jpg06051992 wrote: Lol, the balance team and their incessant habit of noticing an issue that exists and coming up with some backwards and nonsensical approach to fixing the issue.
PvZ variety is fine except for the fact that Adepts are superior to Zealots and Stalkers in pretty much every single way. Beefier, ranged, scouting, puts "fake" but very real pressure on, and 2 shots workers. Stop making things more complex then they really are, nerf the Adept and give the Zealot and Stalker some early game buffs for Christ's sake, I'm a Zerg player and can realize this.
Also, Skytoss is so cancerous that it's even cancer in it's own mirror match up, nerf the damn Carrier but don't cut it's balls off, once again, how hard is this really?
The Thor has also been a huge balance problem in that it shifts away from being an OP a move unit and totally useless because it get's hard countered by cracklings, remove the unit from the game and replace it with the Goliath, and be...done....with....it....You can really only polish a turd so much, even if the turd is glimmering and covered in chrome, it's still a turd.
Lol, their little Raven discussion, "Terran already has powerful harassment tools out the wazzoo, so we're going to take this broken and OP harassment option, make it 3 shot instead of 2 shot workers, and call it a day." The Raven is hilariously bad on a design stand point, trading out mana for free damage is just begging to be massed up in a turtle fashion. Why not change the Raven to a strict utility unit more like the Science Vessel? Terrans problem in the late game is that bio has no beef/staying power on the field, let the Raven fill a hole that the Terran arsenal has maybe?
5 years later and somehow David Kim is still in charge of these ludicrous "balance changes" as the games player base slowly but surely dwindles and tournaments get less funding from less viewers. How is this game even going to compete with a remastered BW which already crushes SC2 on a stream viewership level. I don't want SC2 to continue to shrink, and while I'm sitting here praising the Starcraft Gods for delivering us a remastered BW I summarily curse them for the balance teams ineptitude.
David Kim is like a bad coach in the NFL who has been grandfathered in because the manager likes him. At this point, it's just bad for the health of the game.
New Balance Update
- David Kim has been removed from lead balance and design and replaced with someone who knows what he's doing
Well if you wish to see more mech play, the following needs to be adjusted:
1. Thors currently only work against mutas. They are too weak against Carrier/Tempest/BC/Liberators for mech to be playbable. Thor need to have the its single target anti-air damage increased.
2. Swarm Hosts are too cheap which means you can get alot of them too early before mech can have an answer. Swarm Hosts need a price increase.
On April 07 2017 17:28 avilo wrote: What do people think about bringing back 1500 mineral patches on every mineral patch? It has worked in Brood War for 20 years...it worked in WOL/HOTS...might help slow down the game again to where it's not so punishing to take worker damage.
exactly my thoughts avilo.
I think LotV's economy had really negative impact on the game in multiple ways, i described some things earlier in the thread.
My biggest concern is how incredible game ending harass is in lotv and how fragile macro games are.
On April 06 2017 21:31 Ransomstarcraft wrote: Here's the biggest problem with this thread: overstatement.
SC2 has not lost "all its players", and the game hasn't been "ruined" by 12 workers. In fact, the 12 workers has taken much of the downtime out of a game designed to be multifaceted and fast-paced. Yes, in LOTV thusfar the emphasis has been more on macro and harass than on the opening paper/rock/scissors. But as far as I can tell the goal of the balance team is to have early, middle, and late game variety for all 3 races and in all 6 matchups. This community update is an example of that.
I do agree, however, that their progress toward that goal has been too slow and I would like a more aggressive approach. It seems to me if some fundamental design changes are made, two months is a reasonable time to let the meta adjust and see where the game sits.
In the meantime, in my opinion LOTV will be a better game if it's left at 12 workers. But in the meantime, the balance team must work on more variety in builds for each race. Zerg already has lots of variety, the other 2 races not so much. What I want is more action and community updates like this, not less.
If you agree the fact there is no more : Scissor/paper/rocs beginning. You should agree LOTV failed to have early, middle, and late game variety, cause we lost early agression stage. Now it's just mid and late game, mid game come at 5,30 min mark, late game unit can come at 8 min mark and 0 to 4 min are required to build...
I know Bw is an other game, but look Jaedong against Stork, it's Zealot against Zergling start for a while. On Wol/Hots we had this too. On Lotv it's not the case. So i shouldn't agree LOTV was successful on this. It's easy to access the Late game if you cut the early game. This is the best part of Broodwar, a game that clearly defines early game, and mid, and late. This was the best game on Wol/Hots, when game start with intense early game and goes to intense late game ( like Darkforce Vs Bratok one of my favorite EU game).
So if the balance team work on more variety build for each race, we should go back on 6 harvesters start.
i totally agree with you AnossSc2
LotV's economy didn't impove the gameplay at all.
- It reduced strategic options in the early game - made harass even stronger because of reduced ressources per base and weaker macro mechanics - overall much less recover potential from any kind of dmg - trading units / playing aggressive macro style basically impossible, extremely hard to remax armies (especially slower races like mech terran suffer from this)
- new players get completely overwhelmed and can't get into the game - scouting timings and time to react is much shorter ---> once again creating unnecessary frustration, especially for beginners
....
etc.
LotV is extremely fragile because of the very weak, vulnerable economy and overpowered harass units like raven auto turrets, adepts, T1 overlord drops, etc...
This makes macro games a very punishing and frustrating experience for newbies and for pro's. It doesn't really matter on which skill level you play.
Everything can end the game instantly at any time.
LotV is just too much. My mainbase is running out of minerals wheni start to build my 3rd @standard timing. That's just not right. This is not the Star Craft anymore that i used to love.
I totally agree.
I made a mod yesteraday ( with the help of VisionElf, thanks bro) where we can play with 6 harvester on LOTV, and i asked 2 low GM ( ROM has a GM smurf) to play on it. Think there is no meta, they always play on 12, it was new for the player.
We have early game stage, mid game, and late game, the game is not slow, it's just perfect and all can play. This is what we need...
If you want try the mod, go on EU server, create a map, add mod, and type : Ogaming. The name of the mod is : Ogaming 6 collecteurs start. Game is really better guys, try it with friends, you will see.
Omg I really miss the old pacing of the game. LotV has really destroyed so much.
avilo, i like the idea of returning to 1500 per patch (every patch!) but a player lik you should know that protoss would be much stronger than they already are with this change
On April 09 2017 01:14 c0sm0naut wrote: avilo, i like the idea of returning to 1500 per patch (every patch!) but a player lik you should know that protoss would be much stronger than they already are with this change
I honestly think a good solution to a lot of these things would be to increase the overall amount of minerals per patch in the game, but decrease the worker efficiency.
Instead of being able to get 3 nearly perfectly efficient on far patches, and 3 with poor efficiency on close ones, have it be you can get 2 inefficiently on close, and 2.5 on long, which would result in an enormous income boost for expanding, but still allow people to sit back and play a 1/2 base style, if that's more their thing.
Expanding should be a risk - that you get rewarded from more, rather than a full blown necessity after 3 minutes into the game.
Hopefully the new guy taking over will want to do some type of a major balance and redesign, this should be a new era for SC2, not continuing David Kim's woefully inept and misguided balance strategies.
On April 09 2017 03:09 jpg06051992 wrote: Hopefully the new guy taking over will want to do some type of a major balance and redesign, this should be a new era for SC2, not continuing David Kim's woefully inept and misguided balance strategies.
There's no "new guy". It's the same balance team. David Kim, a member of the balance team, is moving to a different project.
It sounds like a very reasonable thing to test the return 1500 minerals per patch on all bases in LOTV. Testing, as they have, both the added workers to mine the minerals and the fewer minerals per base has resulted in a dramatic change in the style and feel of LOTV. As an aggressive-style Terran, it has been particularly frustrating to have to wait until medivacs to begin full aggression or else rely on hellions/reapers, which are unreliable.
Here is my account of what we would gain with this change:
Positives of returning the full 1500 minerals to each patch: - less emphasis on harassment as you don't have to expand as quickly. - encourages earlier aggression since the second base doesn't have to come immediately. - adding earlier aggression means more diversity in builds for all races.
Negatives: - it encourages turtle mech, and turtle toss to Carriers
Balance team, please give this a shot at some point.
EPT![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/vv/VVKA6LVZUA0Y1448482273038.jpg)
