Hey everyone. We’ve been seeing your feedback on the forums and elsewhere over the past few weeks and wanted to make an effort this week to provide more insight into our thoughts. These thoughts range from less discussed units like the Colossus, to more common topics like Reapers and Mech. In all of this, we’re making an effort to be conservative with making changes in an effort to bring greater stability to promote mastery. With that in mind, let’s discuss these topics.
Reaper
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
Terran Mech
Recently at high levels in Korea we have been seeing a relatively new form of mech play appearing in TvZ and performing well. We would like to continue to observe how it continues to play out first before stepping in and making changes here. This includes keeping an eye on its historic predator, the Swarm Host. Currently it has not been as effective in the Korean scene as elsewhere so we are wondering if there are regional differences in meta at play here.
Raven
Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
Colossus
In high level play we have not been seeing much Colossus use, even in situations where it seems like the Colossus should be viable. We think this is partially due to the Colossus not having a sharp enough identity, so we want to explore changing the Colossus from a general purpose splash damage unit into an anti-light splash damage unit.
Our current thinking is to change its weapon from doing 12 damage flat to 10 + 5 light.
Ideally this would also make the differences between Protoss’s splash damage options more clear. Disruptors have high burst damage and work especially well vs low mobility units, the Colossus is good for sustained damage vs light enemies, and High Templars are a more general purpose splash damage role.
This change would likely impact the current pro-level PvZ and PvT metas which involves heavy Hydralisk/Zergling and Marine usage respectively. While we want to give Protoss a new option, we don’t want Colossi to be the only build choice so we will have to be careful with this change.
Please feel free to let us know your thoughts on these topics and provide any feedback on the proposed changes.
The change of the colossus is a buff and a nerf. Units like lurkers Ultras, Marauder and some others will be better against it while marines hydras and lings will be worse.
They said that they don't mind mass reaper openers. They only want to make it a more risky opener so that the terran has problems transitioning out of it, so 0 damage for the granades will make these openers completely not viable (not even a risk)..
I'm surprised that they talk about the reaper without acknowledging the fact that like half the GSL/SSL level TvT's we've been seeing recently involved at least one player proxying reapers.
But Colossus changes are sketchy. Banelings aren't Light and Marines already melt to Colossi. 10 (+5 Light) seems to push them down the wrong path.
Also would love to see a Ghost cost reduction, perhaps 150/100. I almost never see Ghosts in professional play. Fixing Steady Targeting to not waste energy when interrupted would be another great change.
I really appreciate the Raven and Reaper change proposed. Hope that they'd go on and tone down the SH too. Even the Colossus "buff" seems reasonable. Good update overall
There's literally under 10 players actually doing well with reaper openings. I'd complain, but I don't see it affecting the rest of us that much honestly.
The raven was the answer to the super late-game Zerg tech. Increasing the supply to 3 isn't too bad, but there might be needed changes to Terrans other answers vs late-game Zerg, like ghosts.
On July 13 2017 08:27 Myrddrael wrote: There's literally under 10 players actually doing well with reaper openings. I'd complain, but I don't see it affecting the rest of us that much honestly.
The raven was the answer to the super late-game Zerg tech. Increasing the supply to 3 isn't too bad, but there might be needed changes to Terrans other answers vs late-game Zerg, like ghosts.
I mean reaper builds happen in TvT a lot as well, something should change..
Personally i would rather see a complete redesign of the raven and how spellcasting works in sc2. I said it a million times already, but all these changes to spellcasters are basically bandaid fixes which don't address the real problem (that mass spellcasting is too easy to execute) One way to stop this is to make spells less effective on their own, but then you also nerf single spellcaster usage. I would prefer a way to nerf mass spellcasters only. Changing the supply is a way i guess, but i don't think it's really enough in general.
On July 13 2017 08:13 pvsnp wrote: Most of this looks reasonable.
But Colossus changes are sketchy. Banelings aren't Light and Marines already melt to Colossi. 10 (+5 Light) seems to push them down the wrong path.
Same thing, a redesign to the colossus would be needed. A lot of it is "do i have enough anti air units like vikings or vipers for zerg". The interactions a colossus creates are uninspiring. Exactly why i think all this balance talk should only happen if we are actually fine with the basic interactions.
About the update: Well at least we are talking about reapers finally, so good one
i actually do like the colossus and i don't mind it being brought back into more viability, but i worry about pvz. right now hydra bane vs immortal archon is in a weird place, because the balance is good but there are a lot of ways an engagement can quickly get messy and snowball for either side depending on when the high HP units start dying. if colossus becomes a stable long-range damage output that allows protoss to better control the shape of pvz engagements we could see protoss ground armies dominating in macro games, which could lead to a meta where zerg relies more heavily on gimmicky plays like ling/bane drop allins, swarm hosts, surprise mutas, etc., which leads back to where pvz was for a long time during heart of the swarm
i'm not suggesting that hydra/bane isn't really strong right now (it is), but it's also really popular because it's tough to go into the lategame against protoss without hitting a specific timing like broodlords before tempests. with proxy double robo immortal suddenly looking really strong against terran, maybe the colossus buff could be mixed with a slight immortal nerf? people complained a lot about colossus in HOTS, but i think it's a better design than the immortal
more random thoughts on the colossus - it might be cool if the attack fired slower and hit a wider area but did less DPS, so target fire and counter-splitting would matter more. or maybe a damage point delay?
The moment the collosus are the go to for the Protoss in a PvZ it will bring lurkers back into the game as the current way of countering lurkers is mass immortals. With robos you must choose whether you go immortals or collosus. Disruptors are available, but a zerg can switch back into ling bane, so it will turn into tech switches which both sides can do.
On July 13 2017 08:13 pvsnp wrote: Most of this looks reasonable.
But Colossus changes are sketchy. Banelings aren't Light and Marines already melt to Colossi. 10 (+5 Light) seems to push them down the wrong path.
Interesting, I always thought Banelings are of light armor type before I see your post and check Liquipedia for confirmation. I'm not sure whether 12+3 (vs. Light) is a bit too much for a buff. If it turns out to be OP during the test, I suggest keeping the attack buff, while removing the 10% attack speed buff which was patched sometime ago.
For once I like most of these changes. The Reaper Combat Drug change is the one I dislike the most. I think nerfing the KD8 Charge like that is a bit too much.
Swarmhosts are infrequently seen - so they're fine. Ravens are infrequently seen - they're not fine let's nerf hammer them.
Reapers are an issue in openers because of being too strong snowballing. But Ravagers are OK in openers despite the same exact issue.
Do people not see issue with this? I mean i agree and even proposed the supply nerf to ravens/air units in the past, but only under the assumption Blizzard will also fix carriers and swarmhosts, the other "free unit producers" of Zerg and Protoss.
Nov 2016 is how long Swarmhosts have been messed up in LOTV. But let's nerf mech and ravens more while leaving swarmhosts the same.
....i'd really like to read more people's thoughts on this because to me...it seems really biased as fuck and just plain not well thought out from the devs. Nerfs to reapers and ravens are understandable but not without corresponding nerfs to insane things like swarmhosts and carriers as well.
There is a ton of bias in this Community Update - and it's all against Terran which i think is not right.
Wow that reaper nerf...Its about time. This has to be the most infuriating strategy to play against, as a zerg. I am very happy with this decision.
Colossus change could also be good, as ZvP is nothing but ling bane hydras. I would like other options to be viable. Maybe if colossus play becomes more popular, maybe we will see some more muta play again, maybe even ultralisks.
The threat of mutalisks/broodlords should discourage protoss from massing just immortals/colossus and zealots. so it shouldnt be too much of an issue i hope.
The raven nerf, while welcomed as a zerg, makes me a bit worried for late game tvz.
If zerg gets their ideal comp of ultralisks/ling/bane/infestors/corruptors/broods, it seems the only answer from terran is ghosts+ ravens. This would be a direct nerf to the supreme late game of terran versus zerg.
On the other hand, it will make tvt a bit better, as ravens are just way too good in the mirror matchup.
Overall, ill say this seems like a pretty good patch for the game.
On July 13 2017 11:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: Wow that reaper nerf...Its about time. This has to be the most infuriating strategy to play against, as a zerg. I am very happy with this decision.
Colossus change could also be good, as ZvP is nothing but ling bane hydras. I would like other options to be viable. Maybe if colossus play becomes more popular, maybe we will see some more muta play again, maybe even ultralisks.
The threat of mutalisks/broodlords should discourage protoss from massing just immortals/colossus and zealots. so it shouldnt be too much of an issue i hope.
The raven nerf, while welcomed as a zerg, makes me a bit worried for late game tvz.
If zerg gets their ideal comp of ultralisks/ling/bane/infestors/corruptors/broods, it seems the only answer from terran is ghosts+ ravens. This would be a direct nerf to the supreme late game of terran versus zerg.
On the other hand, it will make tvt a bit better, as ravens are just way too good in the mirror matchup.
Overall, ill say this seems like a pretty good patch for the game.
I agree. Pretty happy with how this one is turning out.
Wasn't colossus +damage vs. light in WOL & HOTS? When did they end up taking that away? I felt like it used to SHRED marines & lings back in the day, but just fell off a cliff.
Good changes. KD8 damage nerf to 5 from 10 would be huge vs kings, but still good to use.
I don't necessarily disagree with Avilo for once that along with a raven supply need could come a carrier nerf (mineral cost, also perhaps a slight build time increase) and swarmhost nerf. They explicitly stated ladder was their concern, and neither of those two units are any fun to play against either when massed.
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
i vote for weakening the Reapers KD8 charge AND adjusting Combat Drugs so that it does not work if the Reaper recently attacked a unit. In exchange for this nerf give the Reaper a bigger vision range to make it a better scout and spotter.
On July 13 2017 08:31 The_Red_Viper wrote: About the update: Well at least we are talking about reapers finally, so good one
because of 2 expansions we've got a lot of units in each race. to give all these units there own unique role even "scouting" and "spotting" can be considered a role. so that in SC1 there were no specific "scouting units" and/or "spotting units". at that same time period games like RA2 and RA3 had specific units like Attack Dogs that excelled at scouting and spotting.
i vote for making the Reaper a great scouting unit analogous to the Attack Dog of RA2 and RA3. weaken or remove the Reaper's gimmicky spell casting abilities. Enhance the Reapers abilities to make it an effective scout and even a very effective spotter unit. For example, Just keep increasing its vision range until pros start using it as a spotter.
sounds like a crazy idea but i'm just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.
On July 13 2017 07:45 hiroshOne wrote: Raven Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
please make this change. the less gimmicky flying spellcasters the better. If Terran ends up too weak as a result of nerfing the Raven and/or Reaper please buff a ground unit of some kind. anything really.. i don't care.. just make it a ground unit that receives the buff.
On July 13 2017 08:41 brickrd wrote: i actually do like the colossus and i don't mind it being brought back into more viability, but i worry about pvz. right now hydra bane vs immortal archon is in a weird place, because the balance is good but there are a lot of ways an engagement can quickly get messy and snowball for either side depending on when the high HP units start dying. if colossus becomes a stable long-range damage output that allows protoss to better control the shape of pvz engagements we could see protoss ground armies dominating in macro games, which could lead to a meta where zerg relies more heavily on gimmicky plays like ling/bane drop allins, swarm hosts, surprise mutas, etc., which leads back to where pvz was for a long time during heart of the swarm
i'm not suggesting that hydra/bane isn't really strong right now (it is), but it's also really popular because it's tough to go into the lategame against protoss without hitting a specific timing like broodlords before tempests. with proxy double robo immortal suddenly looking really strong against terran, maybe the colossus buff could be mixed with a slight immortal nerf? people complained a lot about colossus in HOTS, but i think it's a better design than the immortal
more random thoughts on the colossus - it might be cool if the attack fired slower and hit a wider area but did less DPS, so target fire and counter-splitting would matter more. or maybe a damage point delay?
I like what you said about the colossus. It would be cool if there were an animation where the colossus was about to fire (kind of like mothership's time warp) where the opposing player would have a brief instant to split units/escape the area of barrage.
If people want to use votes as any kind of indicator, lets make a poll, It's silly to tally individuals, polls are clear to blizzard as other important people.
One thing i find really weird is the heavy anti-Terran bias with almost all of the recent "Balance Updates."
Like sure, it's understandable and agreed upon even by most Terran players that reapers have been imbalanced for a while because of the free ability aka reaper grenade.
But how come Blizzard is so apt to nerf hammer any way Terran has to win games pre-10 min but does not make ravager's lair tech or more delayed in the game too? Ravager all-ins are just as bad as reaper all-ins and just as blind-counter / coin-flilppy.
There kind of is an issue with the game when this is how the races strengths currently are:
Zerg is literally not weak at any phase of the game, having way too many all-ins, way too many macro plays available, and almost infinite viable unit compositions.
Protoss has strong all-ins, is very weak mid-game, and then gets cranked back up to 100 in the lategame with tier3/mass air.
Terran is basically only strong mid-game with bio play and double medivac drop for a short period of time in a game, and then is objectively weaker than the other two races in the lategame, requiring about 5 different unit types to compete with a Z or P that is massing tier 3 units at that point.
Is this not a balance issue? The removal of reaper bullshit really needs to happen, but at the same time, shouldn't Zerg early game with ravager all-ins and queens also be toned down equally?
The balance team seems really anti-Terran biased because of a few select Korean Terrans that basically play way past what the race is supposed to do via outstanding micro. SO the race is nerfed for the entire player population seems really wrong to me.
Don't fcking touch colosi, leave them alone. Every time you change something it turns into a disaster. TvP is already unplayble, how do we deal with Marauder+mines comps after this nerf?! What you should look into is adept. With the recent nerf unit became a piece of trash.
On July 13 2017 15:04 avilo wrote: The balance team seems really anti-Terran biased because of a few select Korean Terrans that basically play way past what the race is supposed to do via outstanding micro. SO the race is nerfed for the entire player population seems really wrong to me.
they have to balance the game at the top level. if this means when i play T my rank is lower than when i play Z or P .. who cares. i'm just playing for fun.
if you're not at the top level you're going to have to accept that SC2 will not be perfectly balanced for you. Just like any other diverse race RTS game. SC1 isn't balanced below the top level either. Nor is WC3. I accepted this fact a long time ago. I don't let imbalance interfere with my fun experience.
Force discusses my perspective on the meta.. and i think it applies to SC2 and Overwatch
i've been playing Soldier76 since hte beginning of the game even when he was super weak. it doesn't matter what the colour of my badge is. my goal in both Sc2 and OW is to have fun. I have more fun playing Terran even though my rank is higher with Zerg. My rank was really low with a super weak S76. it had zero impact on the fun-level of my experience. my rank skyrocketed when they buffed S76. the game didn't become more "fun". it was the same fun level. the game did become more ruthless.
The one thing I never liked is how Reapers are purely an early game only unit. Do the other races have a unit that restricted? Nerfing its rush strength is fine but we can please have a mid or late game upgrade for this unit? Maybe one that gives it back the WoL grenades or +light damage? Just feels wrong that this unit is not meant to be made at all past the first few minutes of a game.
Regarding the colossus: while I certainly agree the colossus is not the strongest unit in the game anymore (since LotV, of course), I do fear the potential buff reverting the Protoss army to a more death-bally style, since from WoL the colossus was the biggest reason the death ball worked. I do see that the 10x2 dmg against non-light units will help balancing that out, but the synergy of immortals and the colossus will become much more potent and that might prove to be problematic. Just my two cents. (Edit: on second thought, maybe I just need to test it out myself and see how it works. Now that I thought about it for a while, it doesn't look quite problematic as it looked first. The colossus might be "cooler," so to say, with a more distinct identity and might provide more interesting unit interactions)
Reapers: the health regeneration change seems to be the best decision. Just like the bomb's cooldown nerf, it won't be a killing blow to heavy reaper plays but considerably weaken its "speed."
Mech: yes, let's wait on how things develop a little more.
Raven: I do see the reasoning behind this thinking, though I fear that everything is costing too much supply nowadays.
Overall, I'm quite liking reasoning behind these proposals. Thanks for the update.
Colossi being more counterable (weaker vs certain units) would make it a more interesting unit and would make massing it more risky as it'd be more counterable by other units. Could become a bit too good vs terrans though, but w/e
I'd like to see a slight redesign to the colossus make it a slight damage over time affect by setting the ground on fire for 2 or 3 seconds. So 12 initial damage + 3 for every after second you sit in the fire with a slower fire-rate maybe? Something to that affect would make it more interesting I think.
Resetting Reaper regen while attacking is a good change. Colossus change is short-sighted, baneling HP and armored units are the problem for them, not marines or other light units.
I think something should be done to address the ~42-43% winrates in both PvT and PvZ currently, hopefully the maps will accomplish this but I have my doubts. I don't understand their statement about Swarm Hosts.
After the recent buffs, there is no objective reason for Z to not go mass Hydra or even to transition out of it. This makes Z dumb.
Protoss has to build their entire strategy around the Adept in every phase of the game, or face a massive disadvantage, except for mass carriers of course. This makes P dumb.
Everything that is not Marine Marauder Medivac (and Thor) keeps getting nerfed. This makes T dumb. (Ironically, I still agree with the most recent announcements of T nerfs.)
LOTV has been a complete failure and they are not addressing any of it. They just tweak stats until there are equal win rates "at the top level". Whatever that means. It's a stupid metric for measuring game quality. I guess they will keep nerfing T into oblivion. Then, they increase the damage of widow mines to that of nukes to equal out win rates, and call it a well thought out plan and a great state of the game. If the game is stupid to play, then nobody cares about any win rates. Haven't the last months been enough empiric proof of that?
There was no Zerg winning a major tournament since the 3.8 balance change, and for some reason people claim its the strongest race.
Protoss won major tournaments (GSL, Austin, Jönköping). Terran won major tournaments (IEM 1, IEM 2, GSL, we can count the SSL1 here as well), and all these were won by different Terrans with different play styles.
Zerg won... hmmm... Nothing! Yeah, some second places, but even in the foreign scene where the zerg is a way more popular race nothing major has been won by a zerg player. (We'll see about Valencia)
Terran has the best late game, but its the hardest one to control out of the 3. So even not that many pros use it, but Terran has a lot of potential so I don't understand where does all this Terran whine come from.
As a Terran, I'm all for nerfing Reaper strength. I don't think increasing the cost is the answer though. I think it's important for Blizzard to investigate why Terrans are doing 3rax Reaper builds. If you control it well, it's the safest way to get in a good position for the macro game, as it allows you to stop the Zerg from droning too heavily, while you get your infrastructure up and running. If you're doing another pressure build than 3rax Reaper, it's very high risk in comparison, so you might end up doing damage to yourself while trying to do damage to the Zerg.
As for the proposed colossus change, all I have to say is..what? I'm not sure which games the balance team is watching but I see colossus being used in PvT almost every tournament game, and on the ladder as well. Even if colossus play wasn't prevalent, I don't see the point of buffing it, as it is already very strong.
Reaper nerf is necessary because of reasons mentioned by balance team. It's not about dmg that reapers do straight but hidden damage. Mass reapers openings force Zerg to spend tones of larva on speedlings or sacrificing eco for tech via going fast Roaches/Ravagers to defend. In the same time Terran transitions easily and happily in whatever he wants. So in the end even if mass reapers don't kill Zerg, the follow up does it or Zerg is so behind that dies in later stage of the game.
Avilo. The difference in mass reapers and Ravager allin is that early Ravagers are full blown allin by definition. If u not kill Terran with it- you're dead and Terran can defend it with scout, fast cyclone and bunkers. It only kill greedy turtle mech like yourself and that's fromvyour bias is coming. And reapers- well its not an allin in any means. Its just pressure opening that auto sets Zerg far behind.
Mass Ravens are cancer and should be changed. Swamrhost nerf could be in olay as soon as Blizzard rebuffs Funghal growth with +armoured bonus and let Infested Terrans benefit from uogrades. Projectile may stay as it creates chances to counterplay more than instant spell.
Collosus change is interesting. Protoss is struggling with BIO a d Hydras. This change is more vs Hydras and lings than Banelings as B can be countered by Forcefields and Archon shield. I would like to see how it play out. Maybe i won't see so many mass OPmortals.
On July 13 2017 19:03 Aggression1 wrote: As a Terran, I'm all for nerfing Reaper strength. I don't think increasing the cost is the answer though. I think it's important for Blizzard to investigate why Terrans are doing 3rax Reaper builds. If you control it well, it's the safest way to get in a good position for the macro game, as it allows you to stop the Zerg from droning too heavily, while you get your infrastructure up and running. If you're doing another pressure build than 3rax Reaper, it's very high risk in comparison, so you might end up doing damage to yourself while trying to do damage to the Zerg.
IMHO 3 rax reaper is all in. It delays your expansion so much and costs so much gas, it doesn't make sense to use it as an opening for a macro game. Even if you don't lose all your reapers, they become useless very quickly. So you either do critical damage then and there, or you are incredibly behind. Isn't that what "all in" means?
If they really want the reaper to be good but not snowball out of control, they should leave its health and cost alone. Just give each reaper 3 KD8 charges as it spawns and that's it; no refill. It will leave its ability to be annoying early game. Even be good at 1-2 close encounters but no more snowballing.
IMHO 3 rax reaper is all in. It delays your expansion so much and costs so much gas, it doesn't make sense to use it as an opening for a macro game. Even if you don't lose all your reapers, they become useless very quickly.
But.. it's not an all-in. Even if your expansion is late, you're forcing the zerg to make units, while you can play greedy at home. Even if the zerg doesn't lose a single drone, their economy is affected heavily by having to defend reapers. It keeps you safe versus lings, roaches and ravagers, and gives you a very easy transition into a macro game.
On July 13 2017 08:27 Myrddrael wrote: There's literally under 10 players actually doing well with reaper openings. I'd complain, but I don't see it affecting the rest of us that much honestly.
The raven was the answer to the super late-game Zerg tech. Increasing the supply to 3 isn't too bad, but there might be needed changes to Terrans other answers vs late-game Zerg, like ghosts.
I mean reaper builds happen in TvT a lot as well, something should change..
Personally i would rather see a complete redesign of the raven and how spellcasting works in sc2. I said it a million times already, but all these changes to spellcasters are basically bandaid fixes which don't address the real problem (that mass spellcasting is too easy to execute) One way to stop this is to make spells less effective on their own, but then you also nerf single spellcaster usage. I would prefer a way to nerf mass spellcasters only. Changing the supply is a way i guess, but i don't think it's really enough in general.
On July 13 2017 08:13 pvsnp wrote: Most of this looks reasonable.
But Colossus changes are sketchy. Banelings aren't Light and Marines already melt to Colossi. 10 (+5 Light) seems to push them down the wrong path.
Same thing, a redesign to the colossus would be needed. A lot of it is "do i have enough anti air units like vikings or vipers for zerg". The interactions a colossus creates are uninspiring. Exactly why i think all this balance talk should only happen if we are actually fine with the basic interactions.
About the update: Well at least we are talking about reapers finally, so good one
This self-imposed blindness is very typical of Blizzard and is the reason why I don't think these updates have that much real value.
The colossus is weak and doesn't have an identity because they created the disruptor as a replacement for the colossus, as the latter was a failed unit.
The reaper is too strong early game because they created it specifically as an early game unit and stacked it with abilities only useful early on.
The raven is a massable, slow spellcaster that creates free units that benefits a lot from smartcasting.
Of course you can be very clever and create bandaid fixes that prevent all these problems from being noticeable, but it's a constant struggle.
Just remove the retarded grenade, I swear nobody that's not a blizzard employee, Byun, Maru, Uthermal or Khelazur likes it. Also not sure what the collossus cahnge is supposed to do. Sometimes they're played, sometimes not. Seems about right to me? ZvP seems like a complete mess, design wise, at the moment so I don't see why they want to make minor changes to a perfectly fine unit.
On July 13 2017 15:04 avilo wrote: The balance team seems really anti-Terran biased because of a few select Korean Terrans that basically play way past what the race is supposed to do via outstanding micro. SO the race is nerfed for the entire player population seems really wrong to me.
Agree with this. Sadly, there's no way around it at this point. This stems from the design from the very start of the game.
If they give major buffs to Terran, the Korean Terrans would dominate everything
Make Reapers require tech lab again. Crucial scouting information like proxy or 1-base pushes is obtained via SCV, anyway. And for later tech scouting the timing isn't screwed, as well. This would just put an end to the current TvT bullshit.
I really like the colossus change. Weaker vs armored, but better vs light. The "light" zerg build is hard as fuck to stop. Agree with raven nerf. Totally disagree with the "destruction of reaper". What the hell Blizz?!?!?!
On July 13 2017 20:32 Creager wrote: Make Reapers require tech lab again. Crucial scouting information like proxy or 1-base pushes is obtained via SCV, anyway. And for later tech scouting the timing isn't screwed, as well. This would just put an end to the current TvT bullshit.
What role does the Reaper even have at that point? I already dislike how much it is a 'scout early game' only unit. No other unit I know of is that heavily restricted to an early game role. The new grenade is gimmicky and can be removed without affecting the scouting role, so that's fine, but why not give the Reaper a late game upgrade? One that gives back the WoL building grenades and +Light damage? Maybe 200/200 at an Armory?
The Reaper is the only other unit that is 1 supply in the Terran arsenal and it's a bit sad that you can't really make use of that because the unit is so restricted to the early game. I remember using small Reaper death squads in late WoL to snipe pylons, tech buildings and harass mineral lines. And you only need a little bit of supply for it.
Reaper Just remove the f-ing knock back effect finally. It is what makes reaper strong in large numbers as it invalidates well-made surrounds + knock back units looks utterly stupid.
Colossus Not really sure if Colo needs any more changes with dmg output but it doesn't seem as bas of an idea to slightly specialise the unit against light targets. Just do not overbuff Colo please.
Good approach mostly. As many have mentioned I would be careful with colossi.
For the reaper there is also the option to make it an energy unit and put both heal (autocast) and nades on energy.
That way you could even add a mid/lategame energy ability to reapers. I imagine something similar as the medivac boost, to make them faster, which costs alot of energy and is a 50/50 upgrade at tech lab which becomes available after owning an armory. But really dont nail me down on that, it is just a random idea.
Long term I would as well think about changing the medivac boost to an energy ability with cooldown in order put some risk/reward with boosting and chasing boosted medivacs. But I dont think that it is the right time right now to talk about such things. Hower it might be reasonable at a later point of SC2 balance development.
In line with this you could think about a mutalisk ability, that lets them regenerate faster for lets say 15 seconds, but in return reduces movement speed significantly for that period of time, while their usual regeneration gets reduced massively. Or even require them to land and become a ground unit for that period of time. That would be hell interesting.
If you manage to nerf mutalisks in a way that keeps them viable, deriving problems like mass phoenix into carrier could be addressed easier.
The muta vs phoenix interaction and its surroundings are bad still. There is hardly anything else to counter mutalisks than phoenix, but if you got these phoenixes out mutas simply cant do anything anymore. The cure to this is a mutalisk nerf followed by a phoenix nerf. At the same time that would help e. g. mutalisk vs. protoss gateway anti air a bit more. However all this required terran bio to be less dominant in the matchups.
Even the fuck out of this game. We dont need interactions like mass muta inc., protoss got no chance without phoenix, zerg got no chance when phoenix already in place, etc. This is like rolling dices a bit or if you assume high information level of players, than it just narrows down viable options to a point, where it becomes boring.
Also: Check teamgames please (3v3, 4v4). The situation is intolerable with protoss massive air, which again supports the plan to find a better solution for the fenix vs. mutalisk issue, as fenix are too good of a transition into carriers. Carriers themselves seem to be in a pretty good spot balance wise. Just they come too early.
On July 13 2017 18:54 bulya wrote: There was no Zerg winning a major tournament since the 3.8 balance change, and for some reason people claim its the strongest race.
Protoss won major tournaments (GSL, Austin, Jönköping). Terran won major tournaments (IEM 1, IEM 2, GSL, we can count the SSL1 here as well), and all these were won by different Terrans with different play styles.
Zerg won... hmmm... Nothing! Yeah, some second places, but even in the foreign scene where the zerg is a way more popular race nothing major has been won by a zerg player. (We'll see about Valencia)
Only counting major tournament wins doesn't say anything! As you said, there have been a lot of second places ... especially if you look at soO, who simply can't win any tournament. But that's a personal weakness and has nothing to do with a week race! Same goes for protoss ... they are only doing reasonable well because of Neeb, who is just (at least in his recent shape) the best foreigner. And Serral had achieved his first final in Jönköping, was nervous and did some mistakes he usually wouldn't make ... and barely lost 3-4. So he had surely won if he would have managed to play his A Game.
And watching at WCS Standings, you have 7 Zergs, 6 Terrans und 3 Protoss in Top 16 (Top 8 Circuit and Top 8 Korea combined), so any whining about zerg being to weak just isn't more than that - whining without any reason. And winrates, f.e. from aligulac, also are far from showing that zerg would be too weak.
Although i wouldn't say that zerg is overpowered or something like that ... a lot of the Zerg strength came to the last seasons mappool, which was a lot zerg favored overall. So we have to see how that will work out with the new map pool.
The changes seem fine overall ... especially nerfing reapers a bit. Not su sure if the other changes are really necessary, colossi change seems to be more a nerf then a buff, and it was already stated, they aren't used to heavily ... so not sure, if such a change will have any effect.
On July 13 2017 18:54 bulya wrote: There was no Zerg winning a major tournament since the 3.8 balance change, and for some reason people claim its the strongest race.
Protoss won major tournaments (GSL, Austin, Jönköping). Terran won major tournaments (IEM 1, IEM 2, GSL, we can count the SSL1 here as well), and all these were won by different Terrans with different play styles.
Zerg won... hmmm... Nothing! Yeah, some second places, but even in the foreign scene where the zerg is a way more popular race nothing major has been won by a zerg player. (We'll see about Valencia)
Only counting major tournament wins doesn't say anything! As you said, there have been a lot of second places ... especially if you look at soO, who simply can't win any tournament. But that's a personal weakness and has nothing to do with a week race! Same goes for protoss ... they are only doing reasonable well because of Neeb, who is just (at least in his recent shape) the best foreigner. And Serral had achieved his first final in Jönköping, was nervous and did some mistakes he usually wouldn't make ... and barely lost 3-4. So he had surely won if he would have managed to play his A Game.
And watching at WCS Standings, you have 7 Zergs, 6 Terrans und 3 Protoss in Top 16 (Top 8 Circuit and Top 8 Korea combined), so any whining about zerg being to weak just isn't more than that - whining without any reason. And winrates, f.e. from aligulac, also are far from showing that zerg would be too weak.
Although i wouldn't say that zerg is overpowered or something like that ... a lot of the Zerg strength came to the last seasons mappool, which was a lot zerg favored overall. So we have to see how that will work out with the
Sounds more that you refuse to admit Zerg is doing poorly because you don't want to see them buffed rather than actual arguments.
When a race is not winning for the longest period of the whole history of the three SC2, when the TvZ winrates on the tournaments are something like 74% for T.
Let be honest if it was 0% win for the last 14 tournaments for T there would be 5 whine post a day.
But here you're explaining us "you won't say Zerg OP, but not weak".
The number of Zerg players not winning isn't a argument, nor the "aligulac winrates". Actual i have no idea how there are made, but look they show a tendancy of Zerg being favored, while facts don't show that. The obvious reaction is to trust facts rather than stats, and thing the winrate of zerg is probably inflated by the high number of Zerg foreigner beating low level Terran.
If you look aligulac, Serral is like top 3 world and best zerg of the world, we all know it's false, so his ranking is overestimated because he play easier opponents than the other zergs.
So please stop being biased and think like it's your race with these results, would you consider everything is perfect ? I don't think so
I don't think a reaper nerf is a good idea, yes three rax is a strong build but high level Zerg have mostly figured out how to deal with it. Even Byuns reapers now routinely get shut down when he does not significantly outclass his opponent. Nerfing reapers at this point is just a slight nerf to nearly evrey Terran build and I think nerfing evrey Terran builds early game a small amount when tvz statistically is near balanced with a slightly higher winrate for Zerg at the pro level seems dumb. I bet if you give the meta a few more weeks to play out you will see most zergs dealing with reapers very effectively. The meta has also changed significantly in the past month with hydra bane becoming popular and new ways to take expansions being figured out by Zerg. These adjustments have made Zerg perfom rather well in recent tournaments. We should let things shake out more before making big changes to the unit t uses in literally evrey tvz build under the sun.
Terran bio is highly dependent on doing early game damage, with queen range buff Terran was unable to do that damage with the 16 marine drop so instead bio Terran adapted and started using reapers for the same kind of effect, if you nerf all of terrans early game options and cuntinue to realease maps like those in the current pool you will slowly strangulate terrans ability to play bio and force more Terran into mech. Do we realy want mostly mech games? I get early game damage is " frustrating" to play against as Zerg but generally that's how Terran wins games. By putting on pressure and trading well, when you nerf to many ways Of applying pressure Terran is forced to either turtle or all in creating a very unfun meta.
I do think the collosi buff is in order though Protoss need an easier way to deal with hydra bane, without better tools to secure bases against this composition you will cubtinue to see Protoss suffer on any map wher the third and fourth are not adgacent to one another or the area around the third is to big allowing for easy concaves. Since it's only + to light I think an even bigger number change would be justified to be honest. I do wonder what affect this change has in the pvt matchup though. Collosi stalker is currently less popular than adept phonix but a slight buff vs marines could be prity big.
Also think about slowing down each races worker production time by a bit. Complement that with adjustments of macro abilities. Might do the trick. Base saturation is still so quick.
I would head for a less impactful economy harassment and at the same put more value on the single worker. The interaction of harassing workers and rebuilding workers feels wrong. It is just to easy to replace killed workers and as well too easy to kill workers. It makes the game random on high level, which is probably a reason why pros prefer broodwar.
Just a thought though, which however could do the trick. I would go and try with about 10-15% increased building time for workers and see if that can be anything useful for what the game wants to achieve.
Stop arguing for your race to be, become or stay op in this thread please.
@ Blizzard: You have to understand balance as one part of the game design, not the whole however. This is still lacking. Balance is a necessary requirement when designing the game. The primary goal should however be to create a fun and strategically diverse and demanding game. Balance comes second and can at anytime be adjusted by manipulating numbers. However if you focus on balance only, the real primary objectives get neglected by default, which is what SC2 is suffering from.
On July 13 2017 21:53 washikie wrote: Terran bio is highly dependent on doing early game damage, with queen range buff Terran was unable to do that damage with the 16 marine drop so instead bio Terran adapted and started using reapers for the same kind of effect, if you nerf all of terrans early game options and cuntinue to realease maps like those in the current pool you will slowly strangulate terrans ability to play bio and force more Terran into mech. Do we realy want mostly mech games? I get early game damage is " frustrating" to play against as Zerg but generally that's how Terran wins games. By putting on pressure and trading well, when you nerf to many ways Of applying pressure Terran is forced to either turtle or all in creating a very unfun meta.
I'd like to introduce you to a player called Innovation.
On July 13 2017 21:48 Tyrhanius wrote:Sounds more that you refuse to admit Zerg is doing poorly because you don't want to see them buffed rather than actual arguments.
So please stop being biased and think like it's your race with these results, would you consider everything is perfect ? I don't think so
Sorry, but you are the one (although not the only one) who is being biased about that. You don't want to see the arguments. If it is winrates, if it is WCS standings (as i mentioned before) ... none of that is showing Zerg being weak. It's more like the opposit ... 7 out of the 16 best players right now ARE Zerg. So how can anybody say they are doing poorly? And this is the highest level of Starcraft. And you can also look at the Top 32 or Top 40 (circuit and korea combined, as said before) ... the result wouldn't be a lot different.
The only argument is (they haven't won a major tournament) - which is true, i don't refuse to admit that ... but winning a final much more comes to the player then to any possible balance problem. As i mentioned before ... just for example ... Serral was extremely nervous in his first big final, and soO ... well, i think there was already everything said. 8 (or 9 with VSL? don't know exactly) times in the final ... everytime lost. That's extremely sad, for sure ... but it also shows thats more about the player. Too nervours, flattering ... call it what you want ... Zerg could probably have a 90 Percent winrate, and soO could have won 99 out of 100 games, he probably would lose a final anyways ... and it doesn't matter anything, if he is playing against T, P or another Z.
And that's the point YOU (and others) refuse to admit. Winning a major tournament has not a lot to with balance. If no zerg player had achieved to get in at least semi finals in all this tournaments ... okay, then it would be an argument. But in fact there was e zerg player in nearly EVERY of this finals ... how should they have managed that, if their race would be soo weak as you think?
There are so much FACTS which show zergs aren't weak ... look at Jönköping for example, in the round of 16 there have been 10 zerg players. Will you say they have been there because all good protoss and terran players haven't played there? I don't think so ...
So yeah ... winning major tournaments isn't really a valid standalone argument, especially not if all other existing facts are being ignored. Its just being biased.
idk we have come so far with so many changes over many years... i personally think blizz shouldnt invest alot of time into sc2 anymore... just start to work on sc3 and try to do things better from ground up. just my oppinion... just focus on sc3 multiplayer with a campaign following later.
I think increasing the mineral cost of the reaper is the right call here. It slightly delays the reaper rush and makes it harder for T to transition. The other two limit the combat/harassment viability of the reaper.
Terran Mech is ok for now, just give Korean Zergs more time to adapt.
Ok to increasing the Raven supply, it is the right move.
The Colossus shouldn't be touched at all. It is in the right spot in PvT and PvP. Ling-bane-hydra is OP in ZvP, but the proposed Colossus change would not make any difference. The problem is that both banes and hydras are too tanky since the recent buffs. Specially banes: they are too hard to kill, seeing them trade well vs archons is ridiculous. But I assume nothing is going to change in that regard because you never revert a change, no matter how bad it proves to be. So my proposal would be to remove the Light tag from adepts, so that they do not melt vs banes, and Protoss is able to apply counter-pressure more easily.
These all sound reasonable to me. Nerfing the Reaper grenades is something I'm pretty much always ok with because I think they are a silly ability.
The kind of shit that Byun constantly does on Stream doesn't seem like its fair at all, you shouldn't be able to wipe out entire swarms of Zerglings with those Grenades even if you do have the micro of a god.
Buffing Collosus might be the answer Protoss needs in the vs Zerg match up, but I'm always afraid of what that might mean in the vs Terran match up since Marines are such an important unit for that matchup.
On July 13 2017 19:10 hiroshOne wrote: Reaper nerf is necessary because of reasons mentioned by balance team. It's not about dmg that reapers do straight but hidden damage. Mass reapers openings force Zerg to spend tones of larva on speedlings or sacrificing eco for tech via going fast Roaches/Ravagers to defend. In the same time Terran transitions easily and happily in whatever he wants. So in the end even if mass reapers don't kill Zerg, the follow up does it or Zerg is so behind that dies in later stage of the game.
you nailed it with this analysis.
On July 13 2017 21:17 egrimm wrote: Reaper Just remove the f-ing knock back effect finally. It is what makes reaper strong in large numbers as it invalidates well-made surrounds + knock back units looks utterly stupid.
yes , i agree.
On July 13 2017 22:33 StarscreamG1 wrote: The reaper approach is wrong. What about starting with the remotion of bounce back from the grenades?
i think you mean "removing bounce back". i don't get why they do not consider removing bounce back. its a weird gimmicky spell effect on an early game unit. is this Red Alert 3 we're playing here ? or is it Starcraft? Blizz does need to test some kind of Reaper nerf though.
As a Terran player I am all for the colossi buff and nerfing the regen of the reaper, even the raven change seems like a good idea to me. But I feel like we should be compensated and not just nerfed. I think it would be an amazing idea to bring back the old marauder or at least buff it. With ravens being way weaker and less numerous in the late game Terrans will have a harder time dealng with some of the late game compositions Zerg can throw at it. Having no real great counter to ultralisks other than the ghost (which snipe is hard to hit..) and Liberators (Which usually die when there is mass corruptors out) the Marauder buff would help mend and make up for a small weakness to Terrans late game vs Zerg. As for the TvP meta if colossi were to be a bigger unit in the meta I believe buffing the marauder will once again benefit the Terran for mid game and late game. In the midgame you will usually have your vikings to counter and kill the colossi but with stalkers around they will take them out as soon as they can. With stronger marauders or rather old marauders we can clear stalkers and maybe colossi if our army control and size was better. As for TvT I think nerfing the raven is pretty big to mech players. To compensate other units in the mech composition such as the cyclone or maybe the vikings / hellions could be buffed to compensate. However once again with mech buffs Terran marauders could be nerfed to make it a bit easier to play vs it ;D. Overall I just want old or stronger marauders than the ones we have right now. I truly loved the marauder in HotS and I think it was one of the most fun units to make. It isn't a bad unit by any means but its scaling in the game has taken a hard hit. But furthermore im not a pro I just feel like this would be a good way to take the game.
Not sure i understand what they are saying about the SH and mech. Are they worried why the SH is not very effective in Kr or why it's to effective in Eu.
Apart from that it's cool. Would like to see some comments on mech TvP and why are they not even looking to promote it yet.
I would like to see them experiment with the following: 1) Remove Combat Regeneration from Reaper, compensate with HP pool buff, possibly give it a late game buff in the form of an upgrade which improves the Grenade damage vs Structures. 2) Slightly increase Colossus splash area. This should improve it's role as a counter to mass units.
3 Supply Raven is pretty fair, since Infestors are also 3 supply. Honestly I never understood the logic of increasing supply of a unit to have it not be massed any longer. If it's weakness is big supply cost that means it's strong for it's resource cost or in some other area, which will make the unit balanced around being strong before 200 supply. We never really see 200 supply Ravens, once you have 80 supply (now 120) you're pretty much set.
As for Mech I must say it looks really strong and I'm actually happy to see Swarm Hosts have a role in the game. So I don't know why this is a discussion point. I think more relevant topics should be: Fix TvT's (Reaper/Cyclone early game, Doom dropping late game.) Small buffs to Protoss/change in map pool, the race is underperforming on ladder and I would say Terran is slightly overperforming in tournaments. Also we're seeing a lot of proxy cheeses.
So, let me get this right. They're not nerfing SH because mech is doing fine on the highest level. They're nerfing Ravens because they're doing too good on ladder.
On July 14 2017 03:07 ihatevideogames wrote: So, let me get this right. They're not nerfing SH because mech is doing fine on the highest level. They're nerfing Ravens because they're doing too good on ladder.
Welcome back David Kim.
This exactly.
Appart from that, decent ideas overall.
REAPER : The damage reduction from 10 to 5 is absolutely needed if you guys still aren't realising that a grenade bumping enemies like super mario turtle shells has nothing to do in a RTS. The best would be to keep the 10 damage but remove the bump/stun, but if you like having early game reaper play transform the map into a giant trampoline, the damage nerf is the best. Also reapers need to have utility in other stages of the game. Maybe give it a long upgrade in the tech lab that brings back the attack versus buildings?
RAVEN : the increased cost of the raven isn't a bad idea and mass raven strats can be abusive. However terran mech relies so much on ravens, especially for AA. A supply cost increase may be a strong nerf if the viking's AA and the cyclone's AA still suck so much.
Swarm hosts : especially if you want to nerf the raven, SHs need a slight speed or health nerf and a slight swoop range nerf to be fine against mech : - 160 armored HP that runs faster than every mech unit but the hellion (or the speedbanshee off creep) is a little much, maybe slow it down or bring its health down a bit - since SHs don't cost money to be used, T3 transitions are very fast from SH tech. That means mech players need to be able to build thors not to die to an ultra or broodlord transition. However, with the 6 swoop range thors are very bad against SHs. Bring it down to 4 or 5 would allow thors to thin out locust waves slightly better
Colossi : good thinking behind the change, but it may make it a little overwhelming against marines and a little underwhelming against marauders. Maybe 11+3 would be better.
Yay for the Collosus change! I love it, it is even better against Marines and Lings, even against Adepts and Zealots, but weaker against Marauders and anything armored.
not sure i see how raven supply nerf is even a major problem for mech. needing 1 more supply each to start adding ravens does nothing to your ability to transition into them, mech is mineral rich and you just add more depots. what it does is prevent terran from going into nothing but 500 ravens and flying around killing bases for energy after the 25 minute mark, assuming a macro mech game reaches that point
whether swarm hosts are too strong against mech is a separate issue relating to midgame balance and has 0 relevance to whether you should be able to win games with mass autoturret and mass point defense drone. as many people have pointed out many times, ravens are a support unit and shouldn't be massable, just like mass infestor was bad when that was a thing
Guys!!!! I got it! I know how to change Swarm Host to make them fit into this game better. First, think of them for what their role is, a siege unit right? It has long range, it only attacks ground, and is vulnerable to close encounters without their locusts. Now think of the other race's siege units: the disruptor, and the siege tank. Great damage but vulnerable in situations when caught off guard. Neither one of these units would walk up to a pack of roaches face to face and then siege/purification nova. No, of course not! they would want to get in a protected and distant location first. This is the weakness of these units, they cannot fight at close range. Now think about the swarm host, it negates this aspect of what a siege unit is. If units drop on top of the Swarm hosts, swarm hosts cannot just spawn locust and run. Only when they don't have locust ready are they vulnerable. The way /blizzard can change this is to make the eggs that the locusts pop out of take damage and any damage that they have taken would carry over to the locust form. This would make it so that zerg players have to be a bit smarter about WHEN to pop locusts, instead of always being able to do it with little consequences. It means if you catch the locusts off guard, then they will really need other units to support instead of being to pop locusts and instantly run to safety.
Let me know what you guys think, /i think this subtle change is nice because it still keeps the core design of the swarm host which is interesting and unique.
On July 13 2017 21:35 Asturas wrote: o.O I really don't like Reaper unit, but this nerf is serious! I mean, is anyone going to use it ever again after it?
yeah because it provides such valuable scouting intel, which is what the unit should be for. Honestly I'd like them to remove that damn grenade entirely. It has zero use lategame and just makes early game very snowbally. Without them TvT could become a lot more stable and TvZ would be more interesting.
The way /blizzard can change this is to make the eggs that the locusts pop out of take damage and any damage that they have taken would carry over to the locust form.
Thx, this is actually the most creatif idea i´ve ever heared for the swarm host for me and i think the majority of people, the problem about swarm host is that they supposed to be a siege unit but the normal counterplay for siege units didn´t work for swarm hosts because they are to tanky/cheap/fast. I don´t think the swarm host is an OP unit or "free units" are per se OP or don´t belong to a RTS game but the current SH don´t encourage the mech player to be active on the map because he can´t catch the SH, the only thing he can do is waiting for a bad locus wave and do a timing push.
I like all the changes blizz mention. I would go with the cost increase for the reaper.
also the problem with the raven is not solved with the supply increase. I would love to hear what role the raven supposed to fit when blizz desinged the unit. For me the raven was always a support unit(especially for mech) like the science vessel was in BW but in reality it isn´t. right now the raven has nearly no synergy effects with other units.
PDD is an ok spell, it can help you in air fights and vs hydras or stalker, this is not the reason we see mass ravens.
Auto-Turrets are allready an issue, ravens can easily throw a turret and escape afterwards. the range should be reduced so offensiv turrets become way more dangerous and defensive turrets are still valuable.
Seeker Missile: I don´t get this spell. What is the fun about picking out units slowly but without any risk?!(btw Abduct is awful and should be removed as well for the same reason) it should be replaced by a spell that help your other units in engagements like blinding cloud, EMP, stasis, dark swarm or fungal do.
Reaper, I think the latest option is the best, because any change will also impact in the ladder, and maybe that one will be the lesser one.
Regarding the colossus, I completely agree, Protoss splash damage should be specialiced, right now it doesn't feel different enough. That Colossus fix feels good.
On July 14 2017 11:44 ThunderJunk wrote: What about the lurker?
Can we make it a Zerg viable lategame ZvP, maybe ZvT unit?
An upgrade that prevents air units from damaging it.
What? what what what?!? an upgrade that prevents air from damaging a zerg siege tank..? Im biased but lol that is way too powerful.. its not a bad unit either but its role in ZvT is really good imo, like Hydra lurker doom drops that control the main base ramp is really powerful if you can deny liberators.
"Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush."
This is the change that should go through imo, make them more of an investment, harder to mass. Don't cut their balls off, they are finally a strong unit that has some type of use past mere scouting, but they should absolutely be harder to mass for how strong they are.
I do not agree with the changes they are offering here.
Imo the current match ups and the different fight we can see in games are pretty well balanced. When a fight is won very often the winner has just a few units left and the fight lat longer with some reinforcements.
The way terran pro Korean players use reapers and ravens is very recent. Let zerg players found a way to counter that. Same for mech.
And to be honest only Byun knows how to play reapers and only Gumiho knows how to play Mech.
On July 14 2017 14:04 jpg06051992 wrote: "Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush."
This is the change that should go through imo, make them more of an investment, harder to mass. Don't cut their balls off, they are finally a strong unit that has some type of use past mere scouting, but they should absolutely be harder to mass for how strong they are.
The strength of 3rax-reaper lies in the ability to transition easily to a normal game if you micro them perfectly and extract value from the opening using the mobility, regeneration and grenades. Terrans capable of doing so are extremely rare.
Nerfing reapers also nerfs mech in TvZ. The simple threat of reapers keeps zergs honest in Korea. With reapers nerfed, TvZ meta will be the same as EU - where Terrans are not able to use 3rax reaper to the same effectiveness.
Go ahead and nerf reapers, but let Terrans have a way to keep Zergs honest in the early game. Maybe a hellion buff, like +1 armor (too strong), some more HP, or slightly increased damage and/or attack speed.
I get the need to help Protoss against hydra/ling/bane but this Colossus change is the wrong way to go about it. Banelings aren't even Light. The proposed change would make a bigger difference (possibly not even a Protoss-favored one) in PvT than PvZ.
On July 14 2017 14:22 bObA wrote: The way terran pro Korean players use reapers and ravens is very recent. Let zerg players found a way to counter that. Same for mech.
And to be honest only Byun knows how to play reapers and only Gumiho knows how to play Mech.
So that would be very premature to nerf that.
Mass reaper spam has been a thing in LotV since beta, ByuN won Blizzcon with it, how is that recent in any capacity? It phased out slightly because the map pool wasn't the best for it, but ByuN plays 3-rax on every map now. And it's only going to get worse as the Terrans spend more and more time refining their reaper control. No, not only ByuN knows how to play reapers and not only GuMiho knows how to play mech. They're just the most successful ones in tournaments. So far.
And that's not even addressing the fact yet that tons of high level TvTs (4 out of 6 games in the GSL semis) have at least one player proxying reapers, which is pretty much killing the match-up at this point.
Changing the colossus in this way is a mistake. The unit has new soft counters in LotV available for Terran (Vikings can be produced en-masse because they're no longer useless on the ground, liberators soft-counter by slowing down any pushes, and ranged liberators hard-counter) which gives natural transitions to the Terran player to make mass-production of colossus a poor choice.
Zerg has no new counters in LotV which will work in this same way.
Bringing the colossus back (in fact even harder than previously) versus light units will only serve to promote a death-ball, turtle style for Protoss in PvZ. Returning to that style would be a tragedy for the game.
Blizzard should consider a different change.
- +1 archon range (allows banelings / lings to be hit further away) - 12 (+10) vs light adept damage (allows banelings to be 3-hit instead of 4-hit) - 25 energy, 6 (blizzard) second forcefield (very slight nerf which allows double the FFs for short engagements)
People are insane. How is this a buff to the Colossus? Stalkers, Marauders will be stronger vs it.. This change is GOOD, it gives colossi a different role from the disruptor, now it stops "light" units better, and is worse vs some of his natural predators. Come on guys...
On July 14 2017 21:48 StarscreamG1 wrote: People are insane. How is this a buff to the Colossus? Stalkers, Marauders will be stronger vs it.. This change is GOOD, it gives colossi a different role from the disruptor, now it stops "light" units better, and is worse vs some of his natural predators. Come on guys...
The colossus is already different than the disruptor in a thousand different ways ...
Most importantly, it provides reliable splash and interdiction versus bio / lib. It pushes back the bio a long distance for as long as you have the colossus, but with smaller numbers than you would need to do the same thing with disruptors. This is a huge benefit to Protoss, as the main point of bio/lib is that the libs hold everything back while the bio pokes and kills stuff. With the colossus, the bio can't poke as easily and there's a balance point in the match-up where the Terran has to carefully try to re-position libs while the Protoss buys time and tries to out-manuver the Terran with stalkers / phoenix.
This is absolutely a nerf to the colossus in PvT, where marauders will now easily take them out.
In PvZ, however, it's a huge buff to the unit whose main usage has always been frying large numbers of units ... specifically lings, hydras, and roaches. While it's not better versus roaches, they are taken care of by other units (immortals, sentries, archons) which you would naturally want with colossus anyway ... versus the lings, it would be stupidly better.
A mixed nerf / buff ... it will impact both match-ups in negative ways. The colossus is fine in PvT; it must transition due to the threat of ranged libs / vikings, so it doesn't have all the death-ball and never-build-anything-else problems that it had in HotS. The colossus is pretty useless in PvZ, but that's a good thing because Zerg doesn't have any new tools to make colossus-interactions significantly different than in HotS. If the change goes through, the colossus will be less useful in PvT, where it is finally interesting, and more used in PvZ, where it is not.
On July 14 2017 21:48 StarscreamG1 wrote: People are insane. How is this a buff to the Colossus? Stalkers, Marauders will be stronger vs it.. This change is GOOD, it gives colossi a different role from the disruptor, now it stops "light" units better, and is worse vs some of his natural predators. Come on guys...
I'll try and tell you why I personally think it's a buff.
This ''different'' role makes the colossus worth building (aka buff). Marine marauder medivac for example works because these units synergize. If you can eliminate the marines more easily with colossi (which is what the unit is always constructed for) all you need to beat are the marauders. Marauders don't deal very well with chargelots or archons in their face without marine support. The reason protoss needs AOE vs the terran bio ball, is primarily because of marine DPS.
For example, would you think that the adept would be a better unit if it got it's 10(+12 to light) values remapped to 16 damage flat? I personally don't. Adepts would die to marines the same way as stalkers do. It's precisely because adepts are good vs marines (and scv's) that they are valuable in the matchup.
YES! The reaper is by far my biggest grief in LOTV as a Zerg. I can deal with oracles, I can deal with adepts, archon drops, dts, and all the other stuff that Protoss can throw at me, albeit shakily at times. But 3 rax reaper always seems to good to be true and I still can't believe what the Terran can get away with while I'm struggling to defend.
Colossus buff sucks especially in ZvP and I wish they'd consider a different route to help Toss against hydra/ling/bane without inviting War of the Worlds again.
On July 13 2017 08:23 Elentos wrote: I think specifically for the reaper changes, they absolutely need pros to test them thoroughly to see which one is the most suitable.
i agree. the Reaper is an extremely tricky, intricate unit and if its mechanics remain the same then pros must test it. OR they can get rid of knock-back on the mine. in exchange for that nerf they might have to buff something else though.
On July 14 2017 14:04 jpg06051992 wrote: "Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush."
This is the change that should go through imo, make them more of an investment, harder to mass. Don't cut their balls off, they are finally a strong unit that has some type of use past mere scouting, but they should absolutely be harder to mass for how strong they are.
The strength of 3rax-reaper lies in the ability to transition easily to a normal game if you micro them perfectly and extract value from the opening using the mobility, regeneration and grenades. Terrans capable of doing so are extremely rare.
Nerfing reapers also nerfs mech in TvZ. The simple threat of reapers keeps zergs honest in Korea. With reapers nerfed, TvZ meta will be the same as EU - where Terrans are not able to use 3rax reaper to the same effectiveness.
Go ahead and nerf reapers, but let Terrans have a way to keep Zergs honest in the early game. Maybe a hellion buff, like +1 armor (too strong), some more HP, or slightly increased damage and/or attack speed.
Are you trying to insinuate that because your average Master league player can't micro Reapers as good as Byun that all is fine in dandy in the world of ZvT
I liken that to good unit design (which I count as "you can tell the difference between a pro and a master league) but that doesn't mean that the opening isn't overpowered. The real strength is not only the transition potential, but just the sheer overwhelming damage that you can do once you hit 8+ Reapers. If you could only mass say, 5 Reapers instead, the damage output would be drastically lowered but the unit would still be strong when played well.
Without reading this thread I'm sure there's a avilo post somewhere in those pages that say something along the lines :
"Reaper nerf is bullshit" "Raven nerf is bullshit" "Mech should be buffed Like tank should have 35rang and do 800 damge" "Colossus is already too strong"
"Zerg and protoss are good early, mid, late game" "Terran only strong midgame"
Do you guys remember when the Reaper grenade was revealed? Blizzard said they wanted the Reaper to be a tool in the mid and late game and not just the early game. The solution was this grenade thingy that could help to control space and thus make the reaper a part of a "standard" composition.
So, eventually they must have figured out that this just wasn't going to happen. Now why can't they just admit they made a mistake, remove the grenade and try to come up with something that actually does what it was meant to do?
I suck at this game, my opinions are not based on any balance issues, maybe the grenade is perfectly fine and necessary. I just find it strange that they implement stuff for a specific reason then refuse to change it when it doesn't pan out.
On July 15 2017 04:21 JulDraGoN wrote: Do you guys remember when the Reaper grenade was revealed? Blizzard said they wanted the Reaper to be a tool in the mid and late game and not just the early game. The solution was this grenade thingy that could help to control space and thus make the reaper a part of a "standard" composition.
So, eventually they must have figured out that this just wasn't going to happen. Now why can't they just admit they made a mistake, remove the grenade and try to come up with something that actually does what it was meant to do?
I suck at this game, my opinions are not based on any balance issues, maybe the grenade is perfectly fine and necessary. I just find it strange that they implement stuff for a specific reason then refuse to change it when it doesn't pan out.
On July 15 2017 04:21 JulDraGoN wrote: Do you guys remember when the Reaper grenade was revealed? Blizzard said they wanted the Reaper to be a tool in the mid and late game and not just the early game. The solution was this grenade thingy that could help to control space and thus make the reaper a part of a "standard" composition.
So, eventually they must have figured out that this just wasn't going to happen. Now why can't they just admit they made a mistake, remove the grenade and try to come up with something that actually does what it was meant to do?
I suck at this game, my opinions are not based on any balance issues, maybe the grenade is perfectly fine and necessary. I just find it strange that they implement stuff for a specific reason then refuse to change it when it doesn't pan out.
Well to be fair, reapers are seeing some use lately as part of the main army in the hands of some of the top korean terrans in the midgame after they 3 rax reaper and retain some reapers. It's just very taxing to micro marines/reapers vs ling/bane while utilizing all of the abilities and sniping banelings.
The issue with reapers is not really their strength (which given infinite APM would be absolutely absurd) but whether it's acceptable for the metagame in TvT and TvZ to be(come) so reaper centric in the early game for both viewership and the ladder experience.
I will offer the unbiased and objective statement of the situation this year: _________________________________________________ 2017 WCS Tournament Ro.16 Racial "Diversity" Record
_________________________________________________ Now that you have read the facts, please explain to me in what way the proposed changes will move the status quo towards equilibrium? _________________________________________________ Now, for my honest opinon: I don't care about racial distributions, but PLEASE LEAVE THE GAME ALONE! Seriously. Please, please, please, please, I implore you to let the game settle for once, like Broodwar.
Hey everyone. We’ve been seeing your feedback on the forums and elsewhere over the past few weeks and wanted to make an effort this week to provide more insight into our thoughts. These thoughts range from less discussed units like the Colossus, to more common topics like Reapers and Mech. In all of this, we’re making an effort to be conservative with making changes in an effort to bring greater stability to promote mastery. With that in mind, let’s discuss these topics.
Reaper
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
Terran Mech
Recently at high levels in Korea we have been seeing a relatively new form of mech play appearing in TvZ and performing well. We would like to continue to observe how it continues to play out first before stepping in and making changes here. This includes keeping an eye on its historic predator, the Swarm Host. Currently it has not been as effective in the Korean scene as elsewhere so we are wondering if there are regional differences in meta at play here.
Raven
Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
Colossus
In high level play we have not been seeing much Colossus use, even in situations where it seems like the Colossus should be viable. We think this is partially due to the Colossus not having a sharp enough identity, so we want to explore changing the Colossus from a general purpose splash damage unit into an anti-light splash damage unit.
Our current thinking is to change its weapon from doing 12 damage flat to 10 + 5 light.
Ideally this would also make the differences between Protoss’s splash damage options more clear. Disruptors have high burst damage and work especially well vs low mobility units, the Colossus is good for sustained damage vs light enemies, and High Templars are a more general purpose splash damage role.
This change would likely impact the current pro-level PvZ and PvT metas which involves heavy Hydralisk/Zergling and Marine usage respectively. While we want to give Protoss a new option, we don’t want Colossi to be the only build choice so we will have to be careful with this change.
Please feel free to let us know your thoughts on these topics and provide any feedback on the proposed changes.
This is a depressing and unfortunately recurring type of response from blizzard. It was pointed out numerous times back from the ro16 in code S that Terran was doing literally NOTHING but 3 rax reaper vs. Zerg - then we got to the finals and Gumiho did his mech.
So - issue: too much 3 rax reaper Snap response - nerf the opening out of viability completely.
No one stopped for a minute to think about the reason that Terran is doing this build as a standard opening - let's not worry about that at all and just focus immediately on patching!
Bio terrans are opening this way because it is literally 1 of 2 ways to open safely and use bio (helion / banshee is really only borderline safe - unless you also SCV scout to make sure it's not a full retard ravager rush).
I'm not a fan at all of the reaper openings - but I'm also not a fan of the equivalent bullshit that zerg has in the form of the 1 base ravager push. The queen buff (AGAIN for the how many fucks time) that made them outrange liberators and kill medevacs from laughable distances totally removed the 2-1-1 meta from an option other than using it after you've cheesed 10 games in a row (see both series of Dark vs Maru in ro16 code S).
You cannot 3 cc off reaper or otherwise without going full retard where you will die to a number of zerg all ins (ravager 1 base - nydus 2 base - ling/bane 1 base and even certain overlord drop builds with queen/ling).
You also can't open "safely" or the zerg can 3 base mass queen to max drones and free hive tech - yes BL/infestor is not the same as it use to be - but zerg hive tech without harassment can still be played in turtle mode never leave creep maxxing on corrupter/ultra/infestor which a late game army for terran cannot trade with on creep -
If they are going to nerf literally 1 out of the 2 aggressive openers for Terran - they can't do nothing to do zerg - ravagers requiring lair or something that delays that push so at least one of the bullshit options is gone as well.
Hey everyone. We’ve been seeing your feedback on the forums and elsewhere over the past few weeks and wanted to make an effort this week to provide more insight into our thoughts. These thoughts range from less discussed units like the Colossus, to more common topics like Reapers and Mech. In all of this, we’re making an effort to be conservative with making changes in an effort to bring greater stability to promote mastery. With that in mind, let’s discuss these topics.
Reaper
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
Terran Mech
Recently at high levels in Korea we have been seeing a relatively new form of mech play appearing in TvZ and performing well. We would like to continue to observe how it continues to play out first before stepping in and making changes here. This includes keeping an eye on its historic predator, the Swarm Host. Currently it has not been as effective in the Korean scene as elsewhere so we are wondering if there are regional differences in meta at play here.
Raven
Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
Colossus
In high level play we have not been seeing much Colossus use, even in situations where it seems like the Colossus should be viable. We think this is partially due to the Colossus not having a sharp enough identity, so we want to explore changing the Colossus from a general purpose splash damage unit into an anti-light splash damage unit.
Our current thinking is to change its weapon from doing 12 damage flat to 10 + 5 light.
Ideally this would also make the differences between Protoss’s splash damage options more clear. Disruptors have high burst damage and work especially well vs low mobility units, the Colossus is good for sustained damage vs light enemies, and High Templars are a more general purpose splash damage role.
This change would likely impact the current pro-level PvZ and PvT metas which involves heavy Hydralisk/Zergling and Marine usage respectively. While we want to give Protoss a new option, we don’t want Colossi to be the only build choice so we will have to be careful with this change.
Please feel free to let us know your thoughts on these topics and provide any feedback on the proposed changes.
This is a depressing and unfortunately recurring type of response from blizzard. It was pointed out numerous times back from the ro16 in code S that Terran was doing literally NOTHING but 3 rax reaper vs. Zerg - then we got to the finals and Gumiho did his mech.
So - issue: too much 3 rax reaper Snap response - nerf the opening out of viability completely.
No one stopped for a minute to think about the reason that Terran is doing this build as a standard opening - let's not worry about that at all and just focus immediately on patching!
Bio terrans are opening this way because it is literally 1 of 2 ways to open safely and use bio (helion / banshee is really only borderline safe - unless you also SCV scout to make sure it's not a full retard ravager rush).
I'm not a fan at all of the reaper openings - but I'm also not a fan of the equivalent bullshit that zerg has in the form of the 1 base ravager push. The queen buff (AGAIN for the how many fucks time) that made them outrange liberators and kill medevacs from laughable distances totally removed the 2-1-1 meta from an option other than using it after you've cheesed 10 games in a row (see both series of Dark vs Maru in ro16 code S).
You cannot 3 cc off reaper or otherwise without going full retard where you will die to a number of zerg all ins (ravager 1 base - nydus 2 base - ling/bane 1 base and even certain overlord drop builds with queen/ling).
You also can't open "safely" or the zerg can 3 base mass queen to max drones and free hive tech - yes BL/infestor is not the same as it use to be - but zerg hive tech without harassment can still be played in turtle mode never leave creep maxxing on corrupter/ultra/infestor which a late game army for terran cannot trade with on creep -
If they are going to nerf literally 1 out of the 2 aggressive openers for Terran - they can't do nothing to do zerg - ravagers requiring lair or something that delays that push so at least one of the bullshit options is gone as well.
if you're having trouble thinking of viable aggressive openings in tvz ill help you out a lil~
proxy -> 2 rax marine into banshee 4 rax marine 1 rax reaper into cc
3 rax reaper into -> 2 medivac marine drop 2 medivac 16 reaper 3cc 2 ebay 5 rax reaper
cc first into -> 2 factory cyclone hellbat
1 rax reaper/marine expand into -> hellion banshee hellion raven 4 hellion drop widow mine drop into tank drop 2 mine drop with 4 hellion runby 2/1/1 -> into 4 medivac 1/1 timing -> into 2 tank/ marine drop -> no reactor on starport fast hellbat/marine all in -> into 5rax (2cc) marine mine all in -> into 3 medivac 1 mine 3cc 1 ebay 6 hellbat 3 marine 1 medivac 1 liberator 8 hellbat 1 cloak banshee 2cc liberator range 2 fac cyclone hellbat
aggressive mech transition followups -> speed banshee 2 thor drop 4 cyclone hellbat timing with +1
im sure i missed a few but im not a terran player
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
The problem of zerg is, that basically every offensive play is more or less all-in. Even a fucking 8 ling slow drop. It is the reason why I stopped playing the game 1v1.
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
Exactly. 1 base Ravager is an extremely aggressive opening/all-in (and I'd say not as good as before as it gets pretty much shut downed lately by high level terran), and as such you don't win or if you don't do a considerable amount of damage, you are very behind. This is fine to me. 3 Rax reaper, on the other hand, has the strength and the potential to win of an all-in, but as long as you don't lose stupidly your reaper, even if the Zerg defends well you're at most slightly behind.
The fact that 3 rax reaper openings are a viable option is already ridiculous design wise. And the trampoline grenade has nothing to do in a RTS.
The reaper was fine in HOTS. It's a scout unit that can be annoying if properly micro-ed, but that wouldn't ever deal a whole lot of damage on its own. It was a well designed early harass unit : low risk, low reward (appart from scouting capabilities).
The reaper shouldn't have the grenade, but an upgrade to give it viability in the later stages of the game. Maybe something synergizing well with the ghost's toolkit to give the options to bio player to have a late game bio comps (MMMreaper ghost or something) that don't rely on massing liberators and doomdroping + lib siege.
Once Blizzard tries out their proposed Colossus changes, I'm almost certain they'll change their mind. We took this into test and it was a joke. There was never any choice between going Disruptor or Colossus in any of these games - disruptors were not an option due to their huge unpredictability and micro cost.
The damage nerf vs. armor for the Colossus is what really sends it to the trashbin, and for good. While it's "still" good at clearing out marines, it never needed help there. Marauders, Stalkers, Roaches, Ravagers, Liberators, Corruptors, Immortals, Banelings all pummel a Colossus-based army unless the other player makes a series of micro mistakes.
Units like Marauders, Stalkers, and Roaches provide a cheap and massable counter to mid-game Colossus armies, effectively countering them for half the cost, and now taking reduced damage. The change just doesn't work by any measure, even if it sounds good. I had no clue it would be this bad.
Of course, this is just the experience of me and a few friends, none of us professional, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
The Reaper issue seems like there's an obvious fix in the combat regen or the price, most likely the cost. Blizzard would need to introduce an entirely new shared cooldown mechanic to keep the stats/cost the same, and not have it turn the GSL into dull repetition while we wait for Gumiho to build tanks.
I am pretty sure that Terran is not the race that needs further nefing.
1. Taking away the reaper option makes the nearly unbearable TvZ situation even more dreadful (from T perspective that is). In combination with the maps... Z has it easy enough to predict everything coming from T anf the grenade nerf is quite enough imo.
2. Nerf the Raven again? Why, are Carriers+ Storm, Vipers and Hydras (not to forget the speed Corroptors) not a simple enough hard counter?
3. Buffing the Colossi, because the Hydra got too strong and thus weakening bio...again?
Maybe you want to look into that masty Medivacboost again, why not double the cd as well? And I think Hellbats are too cheap. Why not get rid of thatsplash damage and make it cost gas...lets say 25? And Yeah you could actually reduce Marinedamage by one, so that the rest of the 100 apm - Goldzergs can get into Masters too. *thumbs up*
About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
its pretty sad that i'm closing in on 30 years old... and i'm excited about the War Chest Announcement.
On July 14 2017 14:04 jpg06051992 wrote: "Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush." This is the change that should go through imo, make them more of an investment, harder to mass. Don't cut their balls off, they are finally a strong unit that has some type of use past mere scouting, but they should absolutely be harder to mass for how strong they are.
after watching more GSL and tournament games i think you are right. this is the best option out of the choices Blizzard provides. so i vote for :"Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush."
please ignore this post below.
On July 13 2017 12:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i vote for weakening the Reapers KD8 charge AND adjusting Combat Drugs so that it does not work if the Reaper recently attacked a unit.
i changed my mind.
the best thing to do would be to totally redesign the Reaper from the ground up. The Reaper is an early game spell caster with bizarre spell effects that makes it more like a Red Alert 3 unit than a Starcraft unit. However, this redesign is not an option Blizzard is providing us.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Hey everyone. We’ve been seeing your feedback on the forums and elsewhere over the past few weeks and wanted to make an effort this week to provide more insight into our thoughts. These thoughts range from less discussed units like the Colossus, to more common topics like Reapers and Mech. In all of this, we’re making an effort to be conservative with making changes in an effort to bring greater stability to promote mastery. With that in mind, let’s discuss these topics.
Reaper
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
Terran Mech
Recently at high levels in Korea we have been seeing a relatively new form of mech play appearing in TvZ and performing well. We would like to continue to observe how it continues to play out first before stepping in and making changes here. This includes keeping an eye on its historic predator, the Swarm Host. Currently it has not been as effective in the Korean scene as elsewhere so we are wondering if there are regional differences in meta at play here.
Raven
Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
Colossus
In high level play we have not been seeing much Colossus use, even in situations where it seems like the Colossus should be viable. We think this is partially due to the Colossus not having a sharp enough identity, so we want to explore changing the Colossus from a general purpose splash damage unit into an anti-light splash damage unit.
Our current thinking is to change its weapon from doing 12 damage flat to 10 + 5 light.
Ideally this would also make the differences between Protoss’s splash damage options more clear. Disruptors have high burst damage and work especially well vs low mobility units, the Colossus is good for sustained damage vs light enemies, and High Templars are a more general purpose splash damage role.
This change would likely impact the current pro-level PvZ and PvT metas which involves heavy Hydralisk/Zergling and Marine usage respectively. While we want to give Protoss a new option, we don’t want Colossi to be the only build choice so we will have to be careful with this change.
Please feel free to let us know your thoughts on these topics and provide any feedback on the proposed changes.
This is a depressing and unfortunately recurring type of response from blizzard. It was pointed out numerous times back from the ro16 in code S that Terran was doing literally NOTHING but 3 rax reaper vs. Zerg - then we got to the finals and Gumiho did his mech.
So - issue: too much 3 rax reaper Snap response - nerf the opening out of viability completely.
No one stopped for a minute to think about the reason that Terran is doing this build as a standard opening - let's not worry about that at all and just focus immediately on patching!
Bio terrans are opening this way because it is literally 1 of 2 ways to open safely and use bio (helion / banshee is really only borderline safe - unless you also SCV scout to make sure it's not a full retard ravager rush).
I'm not a fan at all of the reaper openings - but I'm also not a fan of the equivalent bullshit that zerg has in the form of the 1 base ravager push. The queen buff (AGAIN for the how many fucks time) that made them outrange liberators and kill medevacs from laughable distances totally removed the 2-1-1 meta from an option other than using it after you've cheesed 10 games in a row (see both series of Dark vs Maru in ro16 code S).
You cannot 3 cc off reaper or otherwise without going full retard where you will die to a number of zerg all ins (ravager 1 base - nydus 2 base - ling/bane 1 base and even certain overlord drop builds with queen/ling).
You also can't open "safely" or the zerg can 3 base mass queen to max drones and free hive tech - yes BL/infestor is not the same as it use to be - but zerg hive tech without harassment can still be played in turtle mode never leave creep maxxing on corrupter/ultra/infestor which a late game army for terran cannot trade with on creep -
If they are going to nerf literally 1 out of the 2 aggressive openers for Terran - they can't do nothing to do zerg - ravagers requiring lair or something that delays that push so at least one of the bullshit options is gone as well.
if you're having trouble thinking of viable aggressive openings in tvz ill help you out a lil~
proxy -> 2 rax marine into banshee 4 rax marine 1 rax reaper into cc
3 rax reaper into -> 2 medivac marine drop 2 medivac 16 reaper 3cc 2 ebay 5 rax reaper
cc first into -> 2 factory cyclone hellbat
1 rax reaper/marine expand into -> hellion banshee hellion raven 4 hellion drop widow mine drop into tank drop 2 mine drop with 4 hellion runby 2/1/1 -> into 4 medivac 1/1 timing -> into 2 tank/ marine drop -> no reactor on starport fast hellbat/marine all in -> into 5rax (2cc) marine mine all in -> into 3 medivac 1 mine 3cc 1 ebay 6 hellbat 3 marine 1 medivac 1 liberator 8 hellbat 1 cloak banshee 2cc liberator range 2 fac cyclone hellbat
aggressive mech transition followups -> speed banshee 2 thor drop 4 cyclone hellbat timing with +1
im sure i missed a few but im not a terran player
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
1. 11/11 can work if totally unscouted AND the zerg isn't going pool first - otherwise its automatic gg 2. You listed the build they are talking about getting rid of rofl. 3. Third build I already addressed as the last remaining standard aggro opener. 4 . 2/1/1 is completely gone from pro play based on the queen buff. 5. Hellbat banshee builds get stomped by mass queen 6 . Yes - gumiho did make this work for 2 series in code s - countering mech has been figured out by zerg on Eu for months.
So your only valid point that I didn't already list is that 11/11 is still a thing - which it is - so you are saying 11/11 (which will get completely destroyed by the 1 base ravager) is good enough and that the reaper opening should be gone? LOL
Sounds good - 11/11 (and lose to pool first) or helion banshee every game (which I will add gets crushed by the 1 base ravager opener and if multi/micro'd well by zerg gets held with minimal if any damage)
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
How on earth any of the things you just rambled here has anything to do with my post?
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
How on earth any of the things you just rambled here has anything to do with my post?
Some main ideas from your post:
It's nearly impossible to come out even or ahead vs. 3 rax reaper. Zerg micro doesn't reward enough.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
How on earth any of the things you just rambled here has anything to do with my post?
Some main ideas from your post:
It's nearly impossible to come out even or ahead vs. 3 rax reaper. Zerg micro doesn't reward enough.
Main idea of my post: That's a bunch of bullshit?
And all million other things you wrote there? First one is true at top level at certain maps. I was just correcting a misconception about roach warren vs reapers and there is nothing wrong in what i said. Second one is not an idea its a fact so it can't be a bullshit.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
How on earth any of the things you just rambled here has anything to do with my post?
Some main ideas from your post:
It's nearly impossible to come out even or ahead vs. 3 rax reaper. Zerg micro doesn't reward enough.
Main idea of my post: That's a bunch of bullshit?
And all million other things you wrote there? First one is true at top level at certain maps. I was just correcting a misconception about roach warren vs reapers and there is nothing wrong in what i said. Second one is not an idea its a fact so it can't be a bullshit.
LOL love this logic tho.
I'm not disputing that Terran units don't have a higher skill ceiling for micro than zerg units - what I'm saying is that using that as a reason to nerf Terran is a bullshit. Zerg has 100% better macro mechanic than Terran and better late game tech - so to you it would be fair if they also had units that could be micro'd to as high potential as Terran units? Each race has stronger and weaker points - which is obvious and shouldn't need pointing out. Being able to take a max fight late game with one unit comp already with an edge vs Terran and then instantly remax on a totally different tech tree that counters what they are stuck in more than compensates for not being able to stim and split away from splash damage (which I might add - you can definitely split your lings and banes off of widow mines). These trade offs exist in every match-up. The only thing keeping the matchup at balance presently is the fact that Zerg has to prepare for this opening and can't yolo greed every game they don't feel like cheesing to an unbeatable late game army.
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
Yup - top 3 even. Also 8 / 16 in ro16. Wonder why the Terran's didn't just 3 rax reaper their way to victory? Being that it's impossible to counter and all that. Must be because they aren't Byun. I have a great idea - let's take away Byun's chances at winning also and provide no alternative.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
Straight wrong aye? Watch any Tvz where soO plays vs. 3 rax reaper and tell me it's a broken build. He absolutely stomped Maru in code S - 3 rax reaper is not a broken build - the reason it's so popular is because there isn't a better option - that's the thing that needs to be addressed - I'm OK with them nerfing it out of use because it's really not fun to watch or play - but they can't do that without providing some alternative or an equal nerf to zerg. Presently zerg has more options for early game aggression and a much better late game tech tree - every single time we've seen this dynamic in sc2 history it ends up with getting fixed but only after months and months of terran genocide in the pro tournaments. Zerg units can't be micro'd yah? Sounds eerily similar to what zergs were whining when they nerfed widow mines in hots... wait what happened then? They learned how and it became disgustingly op to go bio vs ling/bling. Let's not forget that banelings are stronger now / queens are stronger now / a ravager exists ... yah reapers have grenades though better nerf.
How on earth any of the things you just rambled here has anything to do with my post?
Some main ideas from your post:
It's nearly impossible to come out even or ahead vs. 3 rax reaper. Zerg micro doesn't reward enough.
Main idea of my post: That's a bunch of bullshit?
And all million other things you wrote there? First one is true at top level at certain maps. I was just correcting a misconception about roach warren vs reapers and there is nothing wrong in what i said. Second one is not an idea its a fact so it can't be a bullshit.
LOL love this logic tho.
I'm not disputing that Terran units don't have a higher skill ceiling for micro than zerg units - what I'm saying is that using that as a reason to nerf Terran is a bullshit. Zerg has 100% better macro mechanic than Terran and better late game tech - so to you it would be fair if they also had units that could be micro'd to as high potential as Terran units? Each race has stronger and weaker points - which is obvious and shouldn't need pointing out. Being able to take a max fight late game with one unit comp already with an edge vs Terran and then instantly remax on a totally different tech tree that counters what they are stuck in more than compensates for not being able to stim and split away from splash damage (which I might add - you can definitely split your lings and banes off of widow mines). These trade offs exist in every match-up. The only thing keeping the matchup at balance presently is the fact that Zerg has to prepare for this opening and can't yolo greed every game they don't feel like cheesing to an unbeatable late game army.
No, i didn't use that as a reason to nerf Terran, hell i don't even think Terran needs a nerf. Its just that reapers are bad for viewership experience. The genius guy i was responding was thinking that all the korean terrans are good at microing and no zerg is capable of microing their banelings one by one. He thinks that you can dodge bullets in sc2 when you move your units away.
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
A foreigner-only tournament gives Zerg it's first Premier win in 10 months and suddenly it's a problem.
Was Zerg not winning any finals a problem when soO was in consecutive GSL finals and Solar in SSL finals? Or Nerchio and Serral? Because obviously those four players encompass the entirety of the Zerg race, played perfect games, and embodied the complete fulfillment of Zerg potential. A stupid argument got a stupid answer today. Hopefully the Zerg whiners will stop bitching about not having won a final in forever.
Nah, the new whine will just be "Zerg only won 1 final in 2017, need buffs." Your post makes that clear enough.
So sick of the endless crying. If it isn't Zerg needing buffs, it's Terran, if it isn't Terran it's Protoss. Or all three at the same time, because all of them are clearly underpowered against all the other races, simultaneously. Somehow.
BW has it's own problems ofc, but one thing it got right was no balance changes, ever.
On July 15 2017 23:55 KR_4EVR wrote: About the Reapers: Let me point out the obvious things nobody has cared to point out yet: __________________________________________________________________________ Early Game:
Protoss is perfectly fine. The adept and Mothership ore have no problem zoning the Reaper out beyond a scout or two, or 1 probe (maybe). Most people get this.
Zerg only loses if they are greedy and don't go pool first. (In 95% of the pro TvZ matches I've watched, GSL and otherwise, if a Zerg lost to reaper opening, it was because they planned on going into greedy 3-hatch instead of pool and plenty of queens+zerglings first. Or were on 2-hatch, but weren't willing to give up econ. But guess what? what if Terran went 2CC before barracks? How many times would you lose in that case to someone who went pool first? __________________________________________________________________________
Mid-game: I would like to point out the next obvious thing: Zergs don't make a roach warren early enough against reaper openings. It should be once you see ~ 3 reapers, throw down roach warren. That, or are still droning when they should be adding metabolic boost and more zerglings.
____________________________________________________________________________ Final point: If Byun (who is obviously the one being complained against most) microed every zergling and baneling like he does reapers, you would soon be complaining about the AOE of baneling self-destruct when it is manually cast. Just face it: he is very good at micro, and your average zerg is not My question for you zerg deniers is this: when are you going to learn to use your 500+ Apm to do something useful like microing every zergling and queen instead of spamming the drone key? _______________________________________________________________________________ Extra question (unrelated): Why are we seeing small-history or outdated zergs (TLO, Bly, Stephano, etc.) dominate quite far into Premier foreign matches, while mainstay protosses (Harstem, ShoWtime, etc) are just not there or have terrible results?
Hello, i don't know what level you are but there are straight wrong things in your post. First of all i didn't understand what you were trying to tell about early zvt opening. Here are some facts: 1-) Nobody goest 3 hatch before pool. 2-) Fun fact: going pool first doesn't help countering reapers AT ALL. In most cases hatch-gas-pool standart opening are better because of double queen timing and creep on natural. 3-) For this one i don't blame you because even some progamers still think roach warren counters reapers which is totally wrong. Roach warren response to reapers has considerably lower win rates compared to mass ling counter if you actually watch the scene. Making roaches lose you the game instantly because of economic reasons. Even if reapers don't do any damage to you you lose because you make useless slow roaches and cripple your own economy. The few times we see zerg manages to pass mid game on equal terms are when they actually don't build any roach warren. Last example was the korean zerg Penguin 4-)So you think it is just coincidence that only Terran players have good micro? or all the zerg progamers are garbage? For all 7 years? Simple fact: microing ling-bane doesn't reward even as quarter as a marine micro. Ranged units beats melee units at top level, it is as simple as that. This is how the game is made. So zerg players need to focus on producing more and spreading creep. We will probably see if Google can do the new AI, terran will beat Zerg every single time.
You are absolutely right in much of what you say. I am not a progamer, I just watch a ton of them and streamers occasionlly as well. I have never gotten past Diamond on any account. However, there are a few things to clarify. I didn't mean 3-hatch before pool, but playing with the intention of obtaining a fast 3rd hatch - and thereby not building pool first before the 2nd hatch. Maybe I'm wrong about this one as well - these are just my observations from watching GSL / WCS, etc, and at least on the low-level on which I play, going pool and gas first into zergling speed is an instant secure against reaper aggression. However, I may be wrong about the details of these things. I just don't see very many zerglings being made early on and every one of them being given a micro command. I would propose a modest change, if any: +25 gas cost, -25 mineral cost to reapers. (25M/75G) This would make reactor openings much more likely, keep their cost like an observer in keeping with the role, and still keep the unit's effective worth about par.
I don't think the collosus buff is enough to let protoss play stable games against hydra bane on several of the maps in the current pool. Im not sure what kind of change is in order but I'm convinced protoss is in a really bad spot right now when it comes to pvz.
interesting how all these community posts are always Z and Ts butting heads with little talk about protoss. I guess it makes sense this time because a lot of changes are target towards Z and T but...
I don't think the colossus change will buff P vs T much as people say, marauders get a slight buff in this case. It will probably help a little especially in smaller numbers which is good!
People who say that the buff won't help vs. Zerg because banelings are not light don't realize that sentries still exist in the game. I think I'm going to love going colossus/stalker/sentry and just force field out all the banes. gonna be fun to try this style instead of just rushing Templar every game. ^_^
Why not revert the baneling health boost? Is there still a reason for it? Adepts were nerfed, Tankivac is gone, Widows always will 1 shot it. The only difference now is going through with the colossi buff this could make it more useful vs Zerg. Granted what YoungJiddle said does make sense but what about lingbane ultralisk? and hydras
On July 16 2017 11:13 Ryu3600 wrote: Why not revert the baneling health boost? Is there still a reason for it? Adepts were nerfed, Tankivac is gone, Widows always will 1 shot it. The only difference now is going through with the colossi buff this could make it more useful vs Zerg. Granted what YoungJiddle said does make sense but what about lingbane ultralisk? and hydras
KR Terrans got too good at target-firing banes, so they buffed bane health. ByuN, Inno, etc, massacre banes as it is so I can't imagine Blizzard reverting bane health anytime soon.
On July 16 2017 11:13 Ryu3600 wrote: Why not revert the baneling health boost? Is there still a reason for it? Adepts were nerfed, Tankivac is gone, Widows always will 1 shot it. The only difference now is going through with the colossi buff this could make it more useful vs Zerg. Granted what YoungJiddle said does make sense but what about lingbane ultralisk? and hydras
I could be wrong, but i believe its the new siege tank buffs that would make siege tanks completely obliterate clump of banelings easily.
A bunch of siege tanks + marines would be really hard to kill.
The baneling hp buff happened at the same time as the siege tank buff.
I could be wrong though, im not a pro at starcraft2 number crunching.
The unit that needs a buff on the protoss side is the stalker, without a question. A decent buff to stalker core stats with a little bit longer blink cooldown could be a decent idea. You dont want to bring back blink stalker all-in era, so if you buff stalkers you would have to nerf blink in some way a little bit.
Stalkers would be much better after that against ling/bane based armies, compared to adepts/zealots.
Right now, the issue is that stalkers are just bad against everything zerg, except maybe roaches but then theres ravagers....
In my opinion, the core units for each race should be their all around range units. Hydras for zerg, Stalkers for protoss, Marine/medivac for terran.
Right now, marines and hydras are in a good spot, but stalkers are really lacking, mainly due to the strength or warpgates and blink; their stats really suffer for it.
I always dreamed of a world where protoss would have a very solid all around unit such as dragoon, but it could only be made from normal gateways; not warpgates. It would give a reason for protoss to morph warpgates back to normal gateways; the ability that literally NEVER got used.
I think that would be a very bad idea to nerf reapers and mech. As you can see only the best Korean programers know how to use reapers ( I think only Byun knows how to use them verry effectively, even Maru and Innovation are not very good at it ) Only Gumiho plays mech so far with some success.
For the foreigners scene, you can see that is always the same players : Kelhazur, Special, Uthermal but they do not use them as good as Koreans and that is way harder for Terrans.
So if they nerfed Terran, imo they wouldn't be any Terrans in WCS.
That's a very bad idea.
And to come back on reapers case, when you see the micro and how Byun anticipates the movements of zerglings with so well placed mines, even zerg players can admit he is the only one who knows do this. When I am watching GSL games, I heard all the time Tasteless and Artosis admire how Byun is a genius with reapers and miens placement, and saying he is the ONLY ONE who does that.
Even Byun said in his last GSL interview that reapers currently are too strong.
And most of the terrans use these 3rax reaper builds ... just because Byun is the best in abusing and micro the reapers doesn't mean the other terrans can't win games with abusing the reapers, too
And for now there wasn't mentioned that Mech should be nerfed ... only the raven, but they are part of bio-tank armies too, not only Mech, so i wouldn't consider a slight raven nerf as a Mech nerf ...
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
A foreigner-only tournament gives Zerg it's first Premier win in 10 months and suddenly it's a problem.
Was Zerg not winning any finals a problem when soO was in consecutive GSL finals and Solar in SSL finals? Or Nerchio and Serral? Because obviously those four players encompass the entirety of the Zerg race, played perfect games, and embodied the complete fulfillment of Zerg potential. A stupid argument got a stupid answer today. Hopefully the Zerg whiners will stop bitching about not having won a final in forever.
Nah, the new whine will just be "Zerg only won 1 final in 2017, need buffs." Your post makes that clear enough.
So sick of the endless crying. If it isn't Zerg needing buffs, it's Terran, if it isn't Terran it's Protoss. Or all three at the same time, because all of them are clearly underpowered against all the other races, simultaneously. Somehow.
BW has it's own problems ofc, but one thing it got right was no balance changes, ever.
You're the one starting the whine with "it was a ZvZ".
Just let the game be. This constant adjusting only hurts players and player creativity and this whole Blizzard's approach to balancing is kind of disgusting.
Serious: is there a way to buff colossi versus zerg, but not versus terran? IMHO TvP seems ok and protoss are fine with archons and storms (rarelly, disruptors). And it's more fun then a-moving colossi . Maybe you can solve PvZ mass hydra-bane problem by nerfing/debuffing HYDRAS, and not by buffing protoss? ----- Less serious: @ Colossi aren't used at pro level, we will BUFF them; @ Ravens are not used at pro level, we will NERF them; @ TvZ has an alternative to 1rax opener, that if both T and Z played correctly, transitions into macro game -> NERF Terran; (why not nerf PvT 1 base pylon-oracle rush then? It has same mechanics: aggressive opening that goes into macro game). Also: if you are watching not only Byun's 3 rax reaper, it's totally defendable. It can 100% back-fire to terran. Watch [not Byun/Innovation] 3rax and fail, you would think 3rr is bad.
PS(totally not serious): looking at amount of ZvZ(50% of bracket) and ZvX(rest of the bracket) at wcs and soO in every Kr final... maybe you should consider nerfing [not terran]? :D Just open previous patch notes and count how many nerfs terran got(some units were nerfed several times) and how many buffs zerg got (pretty much EVERY zerg unit got a buff), Protosses got equal ammount of buffs and nerfs and still win Kappa
Did Avilo brainwash all terrans players? How can you people literaly think that nerfing reapers and ravens will cause Terran to not be competitive anymore? How can you think you know better about dealing with 3 rax reaper than code S zergs? How can you literaly think that terran is the only race that requires micro? Jesus Christ, just stop this madness.
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
A foreigner-only tournament gives Zerg it's first Premier win in 10 months and suddenly it's a problem.
Was Zerg not winning any finals a problem when soO was in consecutive GSL finals and Solar in SSL finals? Or Nerchio and Serral? Because obviously those four players encompass the entirety of the Zerg race, played perfect games, and embodied the complete fulfillment of Zerg potential. A stupid argument got a stupid answer today. Hopefully the Zerg whiners will stop bitching about not having won a final in forever.
Nah, the new whine will just be "Zerg only won 1 final in 2017, need buffs." Your post makes that clear enough.
So sick of the endless crying. If it isn't Zerg needing buffs, it's Terran, if it isn't Terran it's Protoss. Or all three at the same time, because all of them are clearly underpowered against all the other races, simultaneously. Somehow.
BW has it's own problems ofc, but one thing it got right was no balance changes, ever.
You're the one starting the whine with "it was a ZvZ".
........and the Valencia finals were not a ZvZ? Go on, show me the ridiculous bias, the subjective interpretation, the myopic perspective in my OP that makes it "whining" instead of an objective and universally acknowledged fact. I even added the qualifier "for what it's worth" to dissuade stupid responses, but apparently to no avail.
Though, if "Mommy, he started it first!" is your response there's probably no point in discussing anything.
On July 17 2017 01:30 xTJx wrote: Did Avilo brainwash all terrans players? How can you people literaly think that nerfing reapers and ravens will cause Terran to not be competitive anymore? How can you think you know better about dealing with 3 rax reaper than code S zergs? How can you literaly think that terran is the only race that requires micro? Jesus Christ, just stop this madness.
Terran is just the race that whines the most, Avilo is just the extreme example of that. If Blizzard doesn't touch MMMM then Terran will be just as viable as before.
On July 16 2017 11:13 Ryu3600 wrote: Why not revert the baneling health boost? Is there still a reason for it? Adepts were nerfed, Tankivac is gone, Widows always will 1 shot it. The only difference now is going through with the colossi buff this could make it more useful vs Zerg. Granted what YoungJiddle said does make sense but what about lingbane ultralisk? and hydras
I could be wrong, but i believe its the new siege tank buffs that would make siege tanks completely obliterate clump of banelings easily.
A bunch of siege tanks + marines would be really hard to kill.
The baneling hp buff happened at the same time as the siege tank buff.
I could be wrong though, im not a pro at starcraft2 number crunching.
The unit that needs a buff on the protoss side is the stalker, without a question. A decent buff to stalker core stats with a little bit longer blink cooldown could be a decent idea. You dont want to bring back blink stalker all-in era, so if you buff stalkers you would have to nerf blink in some way a little bit.
Stalkers would be much better after that against ling/bane based armies, compared to adepts/zealots.
Right now, the issue is that stalkers are just bad against everything zerg, except maybe roaches but then theres ravagers....
In my opinion, the core units for each race should be their all around range units. Hydras for zerg, Stalkers for protoss, Marine/medivac for terran.
Right now, marines and hydras are in a good spot, but stalkers are really lacking, mainly due to the strength or warpgates and blink; their stats really suffer for it.
I always dreamed of a world where protoss would have a very solid all around unit such as dragoon, but it could only be made from normal gateways; not warpgates. It would give a reason for protoss to morph warpgates back to normal gateways; the ability that literally NEVER got used.
you said a lot of rubbish I think but stalkers do need a buff, but the real problem is that they are armored... and +armored units rekt them like buffed tanks two shooting them, new cyclones making shoot and back up micro useless, ect... on ladder as protoss I just go super early robo because of terran cheeses, which there are many varieties.
stalkers are in the role of cheap anti air vs T.. and all around are bad vs Z (in this meta). but they have to be balanced carefully because of PvP, blink, and warpgate.
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
A foreigner-only tournament gives Zerg it's first Premier win in 10 months and suddenly it's a problem.
Was Zerg not winning any finals a problem when soO was in consecutive GSL finals and Solar in SSL finals? Or Nerchio and Serral? Because obviously those four players encompass the entirety of the Zerg race, played perfect games, and embodied the complete fulfillment of Zerg potential. A stupid argument got a stupid answer today. Hopefully the Zerg whiners will stop bitching about not having won a final in forever.
Nah, the new whine will just be "Zerg only won 1 final in 2017, need buffs." Your post makes that clear enough.
So sick of the endless crying. If it isn't Zerg needing buffs, it's Terran, if it isn't Terran it's Protoss. Or all three at the same time, because all of them are clearly underpowered against all the other races, simultaneously. Somehow.
BW has it's own problems ofc, but one thing it got right was no balance changes, ever.
You're the one starting the whine with "it was a ZvZ".
........and the Valencia finals were not a ZvZ? Go on, show me the ridiculous bias, the subjective interpretation, the myopic perspective in my OP that makes it "whining" instead of an objective and universally acknowledged fact. I even added the qualifier "for what it's worth" to dissuade stupid responses, but apparently to no avail.
Though, if "Mommy, he started it first!" is your response there's probably no point in discussing anything.
And Zerg haven't won any of the last 15 premier tournament isn't a fact ? No win for 10 months ? No race has never stopped winning for this long.
You're mad when people counter argument with you while you just choose the facts you want, ignore the others and create your own story of Zerg doing really great recently while it's not the case.
If you not ready to discuss with people who has different points of view without martyring yourself, and act like a drama queen, don't start the the balance discussion, you're ridiculous.
On July 16 2017 02:45 pvsnp wrote: Well, Valencia finals are ZvZ for what it's worth.
A foreigner-only tournament gives Zerg it's first Premier win in 10 months and suddenly it's a problem.
Was Zerg not winning any finals a problem when soO was in consecutive GSL finals and Solar in SSL finals? Or Nerchio and Serral? Because obviously those four players encompass the entirety of the Zerg race, played perfect games, and embodied the complete fulfillment of Zerg potential. A stupid argument got a stupid answer today. Hopefully the Zerg whiners will stop bitching about not having won a final in forever.
Nah, the new whine will just be "Zerg only won 1 final in 2017, need buffs." Your post makes that clear enough.
So sick of the endless crying. If it isn't Zerg needing buffs, it's Terran, if it isn't Terran it's Protoss. Or all three at the same time, because all of them are clearly underpowered against all the other races, simultaneously. Somehow.
BW has it's own problems ofc, but one thing it got right was no balance changes, ever.
You're the one starting the whine with "it was a ZvZ".
........and the Valencia finals were not a ZvZ? Go on, show me the ridiculous bias, the subjective interpretation, the myopic perspective in my OP that makes it "whining" instead of an objective and universally acknowledged fact. I even added the qualifier "for what it's worth" to dissuade stupid responses, but apparently to no avail.
Though, if "Mommy, he started it first!" is your response there's probably no point in discussing anything.
And Zerg haven't won any of the last 15 premier tournament isn't a fact ? No win for 10 months ? No race has never stopped winning for this long.
You're mad when people counter argument with you while you just choose the facts you want, ignore the others and create your own story of Zerg doing really great recently while it's not the case.
If you not ready to discuss with people who has different points of view without martyring yourself, and act like a drama queen, don't start the the balance discussion, you're ridiculous.
good points. ya, i think Zerg needs a buff. either through other races being nerfed.. or a direct Zerg buff. DISCLAIMER: i play as Terran 40% of the time and Random 60% of the time.
On July 17 2017 01:06 Selevk7 wrote: Hello everyone!
Hello, nice to see a new face here
I don´t know if I watch and play the same game as some of you guys. Nearly every TvZ match in GSL and SSL have at least one reaper game and most of the time the terran is in a good spot after the early game. So not only Byun can play 3rr, perhaps Byun is the best but he´s not the only one to pull it of.
Anyone who thinks that zerg is underpowered because they haven't won first, while zerg has had multiple 2nd place finishes and huge representation in ro16/ro8's should be banned from these threads.
On July 18 2017 04:06 youngjiddle wrote: Anyone who thinks that zerg is underpowered because they haven't won first, while zerg has had multiple 2nd place finishes and huge representation in ro16/ro8's should be banned from these threads.
at the top level too many Zergs getting shredded before they can even get started by heavy Reaper openings as everyone starts imitating Byun.... and every GSL level Terran is getting better and better at imitating his Reaper moves/tricks/techniques.
Leenock got 3-Rax Reapered right out of his group in RO32.
based on what GSL level Terrans can do with the Reaper.. it has to be looked at and something has to change. at other levels of play the Reaper is just not much of a threat.
you have to balance at the top level first. its the most important level of play. then you try to balance other levels as best you can. no diverse race RTS is balanced across many levels of play. At certain skill levels a diverse race RTS game is always imba in favour of 1 race. if the game is fun then hobby-level players will play in spite of balance issues at their level. its why i kept playing RA2, RA3 and SC2.
On July 17 2017 01:30 xTJx wrote: Did Avilo brainwash all terrans players? How can you people literaly think that nerfing reapers and ravens will cause Terran to not be competitive anymore? How can you think you know better about dealing with 3 rax reaper than code S zergs? How can you literaly think that terran is the only race that requires micro? Jesus Christ, just stop this madness.
Eh, it's common sense that if you nerf only one race over and over it's going to become less competitive.
I mean...Terran is already the weakest race in terms of foreign players don't you notice that almost every "top foreigner" happens to be Zerg or Protoss?
If Terran is nerfed more the race as a whole will start to become unplayable at pro level. Having a few players play 1 race competitively is really, really unhealthy for a game.
It's clear that Blizzard has had a bad habit historically of nerfing Terran simply because only 1-2 players win a tournament with it, and the race becomes harder to use for everyone else. THat is not how a game should be balanced.
A game should be balanced to be fun and well designed and fair for a player despite the race they pick.
Now with that being said, i think 99% of Terran players all agree - mass reapers, mass ravens are very bullshit. But here is the CATCH to this.
We all agree this is a problem but Terran players seem to be the "good guys" in the community for balance. We will be open and honest when things are broken with Terran but apparently it's perfectly fine for Zerg to have coin flip ravager all-ins, overlord drop tech on tier 1, and invincible nydus worms?
Do you see the issue? There is a huge hypocrisy and bias when it comes to Blizzard's own balance and the community's discussion of balance.
If it's Terran it deserves to be nerfed. But let's not talk about the corresponding things of the other races that are absolute batshit insane and stupid too.
If there is to be a discussion on 3 rax reaper and mass ravens, then players and the community have to be equally willing to discuss how batshit crazy mass swarmhost vs mech is, ravager all-ins, and mass carriers.
I do not expect this to change because this community and Blizzard balance is always anti-Terran 100%.
Hey everyone. We’ve been seeing your feedback on the forums and elsewhere over the past few weeks and wanted to make an effort this week to provide more insight into our thoughts. These thoughts range from less discussed units like the Colossus, to more common topics like Reapers and Mech. In all of this, we’re making an effort to be conservative with making changes in an effort to bring greater stability to promote mastery. With that in mind, let’s discuss these topics.
Reaper
Recently, we’ve been receiving feedback regarding Reapers openings. We have some changes we’d like to test, but before we get to them we want to clarify what our intended role for the Reaper should be. Reapers should be good for scouting, and through tactical use of their KD8 charge be a viable but risky rush opener when made in large quantities. However, in the TvZ matchup we are seeing numerous Reapers being used as a general opener that has a bit too clean of a transition to normal play for Terrans. While this strategy requires a lot of skill to execute perfectly, we think that amassing larger numbers of Reapers is too safe for how much threat they pose.
Currently, we are thinking of the following possible options:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
Reduce the Reaper’s KD8 Charge damage from 10 to 5. This is a direct nerf to the damage output of Reapers, especially to small and fragile units like Zerglings.
Adjusting the Reaper’s Combat Drugs so that it would also not heal if the Reaper recently attacked. This would result in Reapers being more fragile in long running fights with an opponent which could encourage a Reaper user to back off and let them heal to full more often.
We are planning to implement Reaper changes during the period between IEM Season XII – Shanghai and GSL vs. the World.
Terran Mech
Recently at high levels in Korea we have been seeing a relatively new form of mech play appearing in TvZ and performing well. We would like to continue to observe how it continues to play out first before stepping in and making changes here. This includes keeping an eye on its historic predator, the Swarm Host. Currently it has not been as effective in the Korean scene as elsewhere so we are wondering if there are regional differences in meta at play here.
Raven
Mass Raven strategies have shown up infrequently in high level play. However, we believe the playstyle of mass Raven could be problematic for ladder level play. We are currently thinking of increasing its supply count from 2 to 3, which would bring it in line with other tech air units like the Banshee and Viper. This should have limited impact at professional levels of play and when using smaller counts of Ravens, while making mass Raven style easier to counter.
Colossus
In high level play we have not been seeing much Colossus use, even in situations where it seems like the Colossus should be viable. We think this is partially due to the Colossus not having a sharp enough identity, so we want to explore changing the Colossus from a general purpose splash damage unit into an anti-light splash damage unit.
Our current thinking is to change its weapon from doing 12 damage flat to 10 + 5 light.
Ideally this would also make the differences between Protoss’s splash damage options more clear. Disruptors have high burst damage and work especially well vs low mobility units, the Colossus is good for sustained damage vs light enemies, and High Templars are a more general purpose splash damage role.
This change would likely impact the current pro-level PvZ and PvT metas which involves heavy Hydralisk/Zergling and Marine usage respectively. While we want to give Protoss a new option, we don’t want Colossi to be the only build choice so we will have to be careful with this change.
Please feel free to let us know your thoughts on these topics and provide any feedback on the proposed changes.
This is a depressing and unfortunately recurring type of response from blizzard. It was pointed out numerous times back from the ro16 in code S that Terran was doing literally NOTHING but 3 rax reaper vs. Zerg - then we got to the finals and Gumiho did his mech.
So - issue: too much 3 rax reaper Snap response - nerf the opening out of viability completely.
No one stopped for a minute to think about the reason that Terran is doing this build as a standard opening - let's not worry about that at all and just focus immediately on patching!
Bio terrans are opening this way because it is literally 1 of 2 ways to open safely and use bio (helion / banshee is really only borderline safe - unless you also SCV scout to make sure it's not a full retard ravager rush).
I'm not a fan at all of the reaper openings - but I'm also not a fan of the equivalent bullshit that zerg has in the form of the 1 base ravager push. The queen buff (AGAIN for the how many fucks time) that made them outrange liberators and kill medevacs from laughable distances totally removed the 2-1-1 meta from an option other than using it after you've cheesed 10 games in a row (see both series of Dark vs Maru in ro16 code S).
You cannot 3 cc off reaper or otherwise without going full retard where you will die to a number of zerg all ins (ravager 1 base - nydus 2 base - ling/bane 1 base and even certain overlord drop builds with queen/ling).
You also can't open "safely" or the zerg can 3 base mass queen to max drones and free hive tech - yes BL/infestor is not the same as it use to be - but zerg hive tech without harassment can still be played in turtle mode never leave creep maxxing on corrupter/ultra/infestor which a late game army for terran cannot trade with on creep -
If they are going to nerf literally 1 out of the 2 aggressive openers for Terran - they can't do nothing to do zerg - ravagers requiring lair or something that delays that push so at least one of the bullshit options is gone as well.
if you're having trouble thinking of viable aggressive openings in tvz ill help you out a lil~
proxy -> 2 rax marine into banshee -> Held by making 4-6 queens 4 rax marine Held by making 4-6 queens 1 rax reaper into cc Held by making 4-6 queens
3 rax reaper into -> Held by making 4-6 queens 2 medivac marine drop Held by making 4-6 queens 2 medivac 16 reaper Held by making 4-6 queens 3cc 2 ebay Held by making 4-6 queens 5 rax reaper Held by making 4-6 queens
cc first into -> 2 factory cyclone hellbat Held by roach
1 rax reaper/marine expand into -> hellion banshee Held by making 4-6 queens hellion raven Held by making 4-6 queens 4 hellion drop Held by making 4-6 queens widow mine drop into tank drop Held by making 4-6 queens 2 mine drop with 4 hellion runby Held by making 4-6 queens 2/1/1 -> into 4 medivac 1/1 timing Held by making 4-6 queens -> into 2 tank/ marine drop Held by making 4-6 queens -> no reactor on starport fast hellbat/marine all in Held by making 4-6 queens -> into 5rax (2cc) marine mine all in Held by making 4-6 queens -> into 3 medivac 1 mine 3cc 1 ebay Held by making 4-6 queens 6 hellbat 3 marine 1 medivac 1 liberator Held by making 4-6 queens 8 hellbat 1 cloak banshee Held by making 4-6 queens 2cc liberator range Held by making 4-6 queens 2 fac cyclone hellbat Held by making 4-6 queens
aggressive mech transition followups -> speed banshee Held by making 4-6 queens 2 thor drop Held by making 4-6 queens 4 cyclone hellbat timing with +1 Held by making 4-6 queens
im sure i missed a few but im not a terran player
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
And all of the openers you listed are held by clicking the Queen hotkey 8 times (except maybe the cyclone one)
Very biased post, regardless of your skill level you should acknowledge that ravager openers are very coin flip and can simply just end a game or put you far ahead with little to no risk - just the same as reaper openers.
You can't have it both ways. You can't want reaper all-ins nerfed but then say ravager all-ins are completely 100% ok. That's not how balance design works.
It's also why Blizzard should NEVER ever listen to "pros" that are participating in tournaments as there is always a huge inherent bias with many "progamers" to their own race.
You also kind of just proved my point - seems Terran players are willing to call out their own stuff as imba when it is, but Z/P wanna keep everything that is equally op in the game while simply having T nerfed.
On July 18 2017 08:32 avilo wrote:s 3 rax reaper into -> Held by making 4-6 queens
Avilo's claim is 3 Rax Reaper can be held by making 4 to 6 Queens. I disagree. The Reapers will shred the Zerg if their defense consists of 4 to 6 queens.
To hold it Zerg must build speed Zerglings rather than drones.
On July 15 2017 17:08 Scarlett` wrote: Scarlett says a lot of stuff in here if you're having trouble thinking of viable aggressive openings in tvz ill help you out a lil~
proxy -> 2 rax marine into banshee 4 rax marine 1 rax reaper into cc
3 rax reaper into -> 2 medivac marine drop 2 medivac 16 reaper 3cc 2 ebay 5 rax reaper
cc first into -> 2 factory cyclone hellbat
1 rax reaper/marine expand into -> hellion banshee hellion raven 4 hellion drop widow mine drop into tank drop 2 mine drop with 4 hellion runby 2/1/1 -> into 4 medivac 1/1 timing -> into 2 tank/ marine drop -> no reactor on starport fast hellbat/marine all in -> into 5rax (2cc) marine mine all in -> into 3 medivac 1 mine 3cc 1 ebay 6 hellbat 3 marine 1 medivac 1 liberator 8 hellbat 1 cloak banshee 2cc liberator range 2 fac cyclone hellbat
aggressive mech transition followups -> speed banshee 2 thor drop 4 cyclone hellbat timing with +1
im sure i missed a few but im not a terran player
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
Very biased post,
i disagree. However, no one is 100% objective. That said, i appreciate Scarlett's insights and Scarlett taking the time to post here. i hope Scarlett keeps posting here despite receiving some off-base rebuttals.
On July 18 2017 04:06 youngjiddle wrote: Anyone who thinks that zerg is underpowered because they haven't won first, while zerg has had multiple 2nd place finishes and huge representation in ro16/ro8's should be banned from these threads.
at the top level too many Zergs getting shredded before they can even get started by heavy Reaper openings as everyone starts imitating Byun.... and every GSL level Terran is getting better and better at imitating his Reaper moves/tricks/techniques.
Leenock got 3-Rax Reapered right out of his group in RO32.
based on what GSL level Terrans can do with the Reaper.. it has to be looked at and something has to change. at other levels of play the Reaper is just not much of a threat.
you have to balance at the top level first. its the most important level of play. then you try to balance other levels as best you can. no diverse race RTS is balanced across many levels of play. At certain skill levels a diverse race RTS game is always imba in favour of 1 race. if the game is fun then hobby-level players will play in spite of balance issues at their level. its why i kept playing RA2, RA3 and SC2.
Nerfing reapers for design is not crazy, theres too many reapers openings going ATM and its kind of stupid.
But so far his point stands, they have many 2nd places to say they are in a bad spot balance wise.
On July 18 2017 08:32 avilo wrote:s 3 rax reaper into -> Held by making 4-6 queens
Avilo's claim is 3 Rax Reaper can be held by making 4 to 6 Queens. I disagree. The Reapers will shred the Zerg if their defense consists of 4 to 6 queens.
To hold it Zerg must build speed Zerglings rather than drones.
On July 15 2017 17:08 Scarlett` wrote: Scarlett says a lot of stuff in here if you're having trouble thinking of viable aggressive openings in tvz ill help you out a lil~
proxy -> 2 rax marine into banshee 4 rax marine 1 rax reaper into cc
3 rax reaper into -> 2 medivac marine drop 2 medivac 16 reaper 3cc 2 ebay 5 rax reaper
cc first into -> 2 factory cyclone hellbat
1 rax reaper/marine expand into -> hellion banshee hellion raven 4 hellion drop widow mine drop into tank drop 2 mine drop with 4 hellion runby 2/1/1 -> into 4 medivac 1/1 timing -> into 2 tank/ marine drop -> no reactor on starport fast hellbat/marine all in -> into 5rax (2cc) marine mine all in -> into 3 medivac 1 mine 3cc 1 ebay 6 hellbat 3 marine 1 medivac 1 liberator 8 hellbat 1 cloak banshee 2cc liberator range 2 fac cyclone hellbat
aggressive mech transition followups -> speed banshee 2 thor drop 4 cyclone hellbat timing with +1
im sure i missed a few but im not a terran player
and yes ravager all ins can kill a terran if they dont defend properly but if it doesnt win you the game you're just dead; with reapers you can do 0 damage other than forcing lings and still be ahead
Very biased post,
i disagree. However, no one is 100% objective. That said, i appreciate Scarlett's insights and Scarlett taking the time to post here. i hope Scarlett keeps posting here despite receiving some off-base rebuttals.
I agree, I hope Scarlett keeps posting insightful and helpful content.
And I try not to reply to Avilo much. That much salt is bad for my diet, and I need to keep my blood pressure down.
Avilo said that Ravager Allin is a coinflip and its OP. Terran can defend this (as we saw multiple times) with good scout and preperations (bunkers, cyclones). If Terran is catched off guard ofc he's most probably dead.
But the problem is that I can say same thing about hellbat push. Zerg can defend it with good scout, roaches or banelings with queens. If he doesn't scout it it often ends the game.
The difference is that if Zerg fails Ravager allin- he's dead. If Terran fails hellbats- he goes in further stage of the game as nothing happened. To be honest even something as gimicky as mass reapers is not an allin for Terran in any means. Is any pressure of Terran allin? No. He can always pull perfect macro game from all his ballshit.
So no Avilo. There's no need to nerf Ravagers. Must I remind You that they've already been nerfed? The only reason you whine about Ravagers is because they perfectly counter your turtle and static style of mech which for they were designed for. And you still refuse to adapt.
Yeah no problem if 3 rax reapers would be an all-in, the problem is it's a macro opener that has the potential to kill zerg, and give T the map control, delay third, hurt zerg eco, and with proper reapers control there isn't any real counter so there is no reason for terran not to open like this every game as soon as you master reaper control.
PvT thoughts: I think that colossi shouldn't be buffed in PvT. Because protoss colossi are decent versus marines if you chronoboost an attack upgrade (and if you have more than 3 colossi versus 60 marines and 12 vikings). Nowadays protoss players can defend if they add gateways in correct time and tech to archons and storms or aggressive themselves with something like adept-phoenix/disruptor timing. At least from what i've seen. In TvP protoss always has faster third. For instance, with oracle containment from pylon-rush (Classic). Protoss can also go for different build, proxyma calls for a 2016-esk Robo-twilight-[DT](Zest), on maps with stacked mineral patches Robo-RoboBay-disruptor drop(dear), mass gateway style with phoenixes(herO), good protoss always mixes a cheese (sOs). That's enough build order diversity imho. TvP doesn't seem unbalanced to me: both races can get "protossed" or "terraned" on different maps and different stages of game. IMHO good examples are Showtime vs Heromarine (showtime attempted warp prism adept in every game, but it eventually went from 2-0 to 2-3 to HeroMarine), herO vs aLive (jesus, adept-phoenix 4:0 every game xD), Innovation vs Classic (classic rushed him with pylons in 70% of games in online cups [even on lotv vaani research station]), Byun vs Classic (Byun goes for abnormal amount of proxy factories vs him in online cups), Stats vs anybody(plays a little differently vs Byun and Inno and very different vs other terrans). TvP has a fragile, but fun and asymmetric balance with a lot of opponent studying. Don't just buff colossi because you want to see them. It wouldn't give protoss players a super OP unit, but would give more build order diversity, but nothing to terran. --- PvZ thoughts: Yea, when it's mass hydra-ling-bane every game it is an issue. I'm not sure if it is actually imbalanced, but zergs have stopped going for any other composition. I would like to see some mind'games from zergs too. Roach-ravager timings/ling drops/nyduses/swarmhost harass squads/ling-bane-ravager technically haven't become weaker, but hydra-bane is so much better. MAYBE you shouldn't buff colossi (affects pvt more than pvz), but debuff hydras a little bit? I mean, hydras got 3 buffs, banelings got a buff too. My thoughts are: debuff hydralisk attack speed (but keep range and move speed), and to make roach/ roach-hydra/ lurker-based compositions more viable, give immortals old shields. I'll explain why it would be a nerf for immortal: New 100+100 shielded immortal takes 17 hydra shots to take hull damage Old 100 (max 10 damage) immortal shield takes 11 hydra shots to take hull damage. Lings are also infinitely better vs old immortal shields. And lings are supposed to good vs immortals. Such change wouldn't affect PvT because nobody goes for tank-mech or mass immortal anyways(unless it's 1 time sOs with double proxy robo lol), and wouldn't affect ZvT because even if zerg chooses to make hydras instead of mutas, they aren't main damage dealers in zerg army. --- ps: i assume most of your "pro" feedback comes from foreign pros, and most of them are zerg and interested at zerg buff. I mean, all those guys in this thread should count how much more money zergs have won this year even without winning a premier eve~(oh wait, elazer won a zvz final). Even in Korea, last year's gsl-ssl cross final was zvz in this year, soO got in like every final lol. I'm not trying to belittle soO's wins, but i'm saying that top zerg can get to finals even in region that has Innovation and neo protoss dragons with 6 different styles and gsl/ssl trophies in their pockets. pps: please don't nerf any race "just because" innovation wins. That raven nerf seems a "just because" nerf near "just because" colossi buff. You're going to nerf ravens because they aren't used at pro level, but buff colossi because they aren't used at pro level (what?). Removal of interesting terran aggressive macro opening is also debatable. Then remove pylon-msc-oracle opening too, remove pool first-gas-hatch too. pps: sorry for long message mods :3 --- Sorry if i repeated myself, or wished your race to be nerfed, I wanted this post to look logical.
On July 18 2017 17:56 Tyrhanius wrote: ...no reason for terran not to open like this every game as soon as you master reaper control.
Hello The reason to not open 3 RR every game is pool-gas-hatch and/or zerg that spent his time mastering his unit control, like binding queens and spine on 1 hot-key to click-oneshot a reaper.
On July 18 2017 17:56 Tyrhanius wrote: ...no reason for terran not to open like this every game as soon as you master reaper control.
Hello The reason to not open 3 RR every game is pool-gas-hatch and/or zerg that spent his time mastering his unit control, like binding queens and spine on 1 hot-key to click-oneshot a reaper.
You engage in front of a spine ?
If he build 1 spine at each base you just deny creep and third and you have won.
On July 18 2017 04:06 youngjiddle wrote: Anyone who thinks that zerg is underpowered because they haven't won first, while zerg has had multiple 2nd place finishes and huge representation in ro16/ro8's should be banned from these threads.
at the top level too many Zergs getting shredded before they can even get started by heavy Reaper openings as everyone starts imitating Byun.... and every GSL level Terran is getting better and better at imitating his Reaper moves/tricks/techniques.
Leenock got 3-Rax Reapered right out of his group in RO32.
based on what GSL level Terrans can do with the Reaper.. it has to be looked at and something has to change. at other levels of play the Reaper is just not much of a threat.
you have to balance at the top level first. its the most important level of play. then you try to balance other levels as best you can. no diverse race RTS is balanced across many levels of play. At certain skill levels a diverse race RTS game is always imba in favour of 1 race. if the game is fun then hobby-level players will play in spite of balance issues at their level. its why i kept playing RA2, RA3 and SC2.
Nerfing reapers for design is not crazy, theres too many reapers openings going ATM and its kind of stupid. But so far his point stands, they have many 2nd places to say they are in a bad spot balance wise.
they'll end up in a bad spot balance-wise when GSL-Terrans learn Byun's Reaper methods. any how, the GSL has been really good the last 2 seasons so whatever Blizz changes ... i hope its done with a surgeon's scalpel and not a chainsaw. i'm finding all 3 mirror matches entertaining... and that's tough to pull off.
regarding this "huge representation of Zergs". Season 2 GSL RO32 had 10 Zergs., RO16 had 5 Zergs, RO8 had 2 Zergs. So Zerg representation is slightly below 1/3. Season 3 RO32 has 10 Zergs. Of the 10 who've advanced to RO16 Season its 3 Zergs. Again, slightly below 1/3. Its not a "huge representation". To then build upon this "huge representation" comment with this "should be banned" stuff... takes the convo too far off the topic when the basic facts are in question.
On July 17 2017 01:30 xTJx wrote: Did Avilo brainwash all terrans players? How can you people literaly think that nerfing reapers and ravens will cause Terran to not be competitive anymore? How can you think you know better about dealing with 3 rax reaper than code S zergs? How can you literaly think that terran is the only race that requires micro? Jesus Christ, just stop this madness.
Eh, it's common sense that if you nerf only one race over and over it's going to become less competitive.
I mean...Terran is already the weakest race in terms of foreign players don't you notice that almost every "top foreigner" happens to be Zerg or Protoss?
If Terran is nerfed more the race as a whole will start to become unplayable at pro level. Having a few players play 1 race competitively is really, really unhealthy for a game.
It's clear that Blizzard has had a bad habit historically of nerfing Terran simply because only 1-2 players win a tournament with it, and the race becomes harder to use for everyone else. THat is not how a game should be balanced.
A game should be balanced to be fun and well designed and fair for a player despite the race they pick.
Now with that being said, i think 99% of Terran players all agree - mass reapers, mass ravens are very bullshit. But here is the CATCH to this.
We all agree this is a problem but Terran players seem to be the "good guys" in the community for balance. We will be open and honest when things are broken with Terran but apparently it's perfectly fine for Zerg to have coin flip ravager all-ins, overlord drop tech on tier 1, and invincible nydus worms?
Do you see the issue? There is a huge hypocrisy and bias when it comes to Blizzard's own balance and the community's discussion of balance.
If it's Terran it deserves to be nerfed. But let's not talk about the corresponding things of the other races that are absolute batshit insane and stupid too.
If there is to be a discussion on 3 rax reaper and mass ravens, then players and the community have to be equally willing to discuss how batshit crazy mass swarmhost vs mech is, ravager all-ins, and mass carriers.
I do not expect this to change because this community and Blizzard balance is always anti-Terran 100%.
First you come with the same "Blizzard hates terran and it's the only race that takes skill" talk, then you say you're the good guys that wanna discuss unbiased balance? LOL?
Just 10 minutes ago a guy from GSL chat was messaging me trying to prove Terran takes more skill than the other races. I'll just treat you guys like the crybabies you are from now on.
Reapers are dumb, they're getting nerfed. Ravens are cancer, they're getting nerfed, and if you complain i'll send a note to your moms.
On July 18 2017 17:29 hiroshOne wrote: Avilo said that Ravager Allin is a coinflip and its OP. Terran can defend this (as we saw multiple times) with good scout and preperations (bunkers, cyclones). If Terran is catched off guard ofc he's most probably dead.
But the problem is that I can say same thing about hellbat push. Zerg can defend it with good scout, roaches or banelings with queens. If he doesn't scout it it often ends the game.
The difference is that if Zerg fails Ravager allin- he's dead. If Terran fails hellbats- he goes in further stage of the game as nothing happened. To be honest even something as gimicky as mass reapers is not an allin for Terran in any means. Is any pressure of Terran allin? No. He can always pull perfect macro game from all his ballshit.
That the build can be countered and defended has nothing to do with being a coin flip. The Roach/Raveger build is coinflippy, because it is (most likely) all-in and the Zerg has to decide to do it very early, without having any in-game information that encourages or discourages the build. [edit] Personally I'd say Roach/Raveger is a very strong opening, not an all-in and therefore not a coin flip, but that is due to my position way down the ladder.[/edit]
A Hellbat push is a Hellbat push, not an all in. The Roach/Raveger tends to become all-in very quickly, because it does cost a lot, very early in the game. That you are done (in most cases) after your all-in fails is the very reason why it is called an all-in.
A single refinery can only support non-stop production of reapers out of two raxes. For a 3 rax reaper opening 2 refineries are required. The refineries are required early on, or the third rax cannot be counted. Starting out with 3 raxes and two refineries is at least an initial invest of 600 minerals. After that, producing 3 reapers at a time means an average cost of 150 minerals and 150 gas every 32 seconds, i.e. 281 minerals per minute and 281 gas per minute. This early in the game, this is a massive invest. Think about it: 10 Reapers cost as much minerals and gas as five Ravegers. All together a Reaper opening is not really that much cheaper as a Raveger opening. To claim T could just do that while aiming for a macro game is wishful thinking, at best.
All I know is, I stopped watching foreign tournaments because ZvZ is boring AF to watch. I don't know or care WHY it happens, but it does. And it's hurting the game.
On July 18 2017 23:46 ihatevideogames wrote: All I know is, I stopped watching foreign tournaments because ZvZ is boring AF to watch. I don't know or care WHY it happens, but it does. And it's hurting the game.
all diverse race RTS games suffer from imbalance below the top level of play. imbalance was a big reason why some in Blizzard resisted making a diverse race game 20+ years ago.
very little can be done about this and i've never seen imbalance below top level alleviated in any other game in the history of the genre. if someone knows of a game that did manage to be balanced below top level it'd be great to hear about.
On July 18 2017 23:46 ihatevideogames wrote: All I know is, I stopped watching foreign tournaments because ZvZ is boring AF to watch. I don't know or care WHY it happens, but it does. And it's hurting the game.
all diverse race RTS games suffer from imbalance below the top level of play. imbalance was a big reason why some in Blizzard resisted making a diverse race game 20+ years ago.
very little can be done about this and i've never seen imbalance below top level alleviated in any other game in the history of the genre. if someone knows of a game that did manage to be balanced below top level it'd be great to hear about.
Well, if WCS Valencia was an event below the top level of play, then maybe balance at the top level of play is nothing worth striving for.
On July 18 2017 23:46 ihatevideogames wrote: All I know is, I stopped watching foreign tournaments because ZvZ is boring AF to watch. I don't know or care WHY it happens, but it does. And it's hurting the game.
all diverse race RTS games suffer from imbalance below the top level of play. imbalance was a big reason why some in Blizzard resisted making a diverse race game 20+ years ago.
very little can be done about this and i've never seen imbalance below top level alleviated in any other game in the history of the genre. if someone knows of a game that did manage to be balanced below top level it'd be great to hear about.
I dunno, the game feels pretty balanced to me (Diamond 2 EU). Maybe I'm not low level enough ? I really feel like every race has cheeses/compositions that feel imba at this level. I'm not such a cheeser, but in the one occasionnal I do, I got BMed because lings are imba. But when my cheese fails, then I got crushed, which reflects the balance of the game I think. If I wanna be like everyone, I would say that T drops feels really good, even if this is prob my best matchup right now. But I know I just got to work on my map vision and army spliting. Even if this is harder to properly do than multidrops, I guess it's the opposite in the bane/marines fight, harder for T.
I'm actually pretty happy with the state of the game.
i play at Diamond. my rank as Zerg is higher than my rank as Terran even though i've played 10X as much Terran as Zerg in my life. at my level i'd estimate that the game is imbalanced in favour of Zerg. i don't care. the game is fun and the matchmaker sets me up with opponents at my level. i don't care if, in some theoretical game, i could smash my opponent with a race other than Terran.
i'm 99% happy with the game. Complaints: reaper is a Red Alert 3 unit and Terran is slightly too air focused. Even if this stuff doesn't change i'll keep on playing because there is nothing else out there that is better; furthermore, these are nit-picky points i'm making.
On July 18 2017 23:46 ihatevideogames wrote: All I know is, I stopped watching foreign tournaments because ZvZ is boring AF to watch. I don't know or care WHY it happens, but it does. And it's hurting the game.
all diverse race RTS games suffer from imbalance below the top level of play. imbalance was a big reason why some in Blizzard resisted making a diverse race game 20+ years ago.
very little can be done about this and i've never seen imbalance below top level alleviated in any other game in the history of the genre. if someone knows of a game that did manage to be balanced below top level it'd be great to hear about.
Well, if WCS Valencia was an event below the top level of play, then maybe balance at the top level of play is nothing worth striving for.
I agree. It's weird to consider top level play just the top 16 or top 4 or THE champion of GSL. I view it as pro play in general. In that regard, Zerg is fantastic in Europe and consistently reaches the GSL final. Not saying reaper openings are a non issue, but i see no balance problems with Zerg at top level; maybe actually overachieving in Europe.
GSL players are better than WCS Valencia players. If they balance the game around the WCS-Valencia RO32,RO16, etc play level it will muck up balance for GSL level play. its up to the Terrans in Europe and NA to match what Korean Terrans can do. Welcome to the brutal, ruthless world of pro esports.
On July 19 2017 01:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: GSL players are better than WCS Valencia players. If they balance the game around the WCS-Valencia RO32,RO16, etc play level it will muck up balance for GSL level play. its up to the Terrans in Europe and NA to match what Korean Terrans can do. Welcome to the brutal, ruthless world of pro esports.
I understand where you're coming from but if you balance around only 8-16 players and ignore the rest of dozens and dozens of pros then you don't have a very good, entertaining esport anymore IMO. I'm not saying that this is necesarily the case with Starcraft right now, but i would say that if i were a pro in EU or NA i would pick Zerg every time and Terran never.
We all agree this is a problem but Terran players seem to be the "good guys" in the community for balance. We will be open and honest when things are broken with Terran but apparently it's perfectly fine for Zerg to have coin flip ravager all-ins, overlord drop tech on tier 1, and invincible nydus worms?
Aahahahah i laughed really hard. It's known that Terran are the hardest "my race is the best the hardest skillest UP race" whiners of this games.
Protoss just stopped arguing since they got really hated by everyone a long time ago (mb even BW in essence), even when the race was truely stastically UP in some matchup.Eventually you argue about design. The number of P player who stay silent when T&Z bash FF because "it break fundamental RTS tenets" (this one was a funny one) while obviously most P like this mechanics. (i mean go play older boring RTS if you want to) Zerg players on their side argue with Terran and some whine with T against P occasionally (maybe when it's due time)
On July 19 2017 01:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: GSL players are better than WCS Valencia players. If they balance the game around the WCS-Valencia RO32,RO16, etc play level it will muck up balance for GSL level play.
If the design doesn't allow for a balanced game for a couple of 1000 players, then the design is bad. If you have to focus on a group small enough to fit into a RO16 and have some cannon fodder for "creative gameplay", a.k.a. making fun of people in front of a big audience, we are all better off, if they just drew straws at the next tournaments.
If "balance" means I have to watch ZvZ in 60-80% of all European match ups I will not care for this game anymore. Just like hundrets of thousands before me over the last two years. I care much more for an inbalanced game I can enjoy, than for a game which yields about 20 matches worth watching a year.
There was a large pro scene for SC:BW and WC3 and even once for SC2. So you can have a game that is balanced for enough players so that there can be an interesting pro scene. You dont have to build the game around 10-20 people. The metrics chosen to measure SC2 balance are just bad and ill suited to create a game with a fanbase that is worth mentioning. They are actively doing it wrong. It doesn't have to be this way. Blizzard did prove it themselves.
The way blizzard looks at balance has been proven completely and utterly nonsensical.
Giving a random +5 health to banelings to specifically diminish Byun's playstyle was the best exemple.
The result was that Byun is still sniping banelings with squads of marines because 6 marine shots instead of 5 don't change much. However, EU/NA terrans had an even harder time playing against zerg since their splitting isn't, by any mean, KR level in most cases.
Meanwhile reapers were still horribly abused (and by Byun too), and still are despite the 14 sec CD.
However since DK left, the balance team came up with some very late and scarce, but somewhat intelligent changes. The void ray one is very well thought, the thor one is quite elegant, and while the reaper obviously needs a complete overhaul, the CD nerf is a nice emergency change. Now the colossus change and the raven one are interesting, even if they need to be very carefully thought through.
So maybe there's hope in the years to come if the pro scene doesn't die off from starvation.
On July 19 2017 01:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: GSL players are better than WCS Valencia players. If they balance the game around the WCS-Valencia RO32,RO16, etc play level it will muck up balance for GSL level play.
If the design doesn't allow for a balanced game for a couple of 1000 players, then the design is bad.
depends how big the player population is and how much money there is to be made by playing full time. there just aren't that many open spots for full time players of SC2 any longer.
generally speaking, diverse race RTS games are imba for the overwhelming vast majority that play. people just play because its fun.
very few diverse race RTS games ever come close to being balanced even at the top level never mind any other play level. imbalance is inherent in going down the "diversity" path. its a hard road and i applaud any RTS developers ambitions for going the racial diversity road... but its a tough problem it solve.
for me at Diamond i'd say the game is not balanced but it is "balanced enough". its not like i'm Silver Terran who turns into a Masters player when i play Zerg. I'm in Diamond for all 3 races and i've always been in teh same league for all 3 races throughout SC2's history. That's close enough to balanced for me.
the friends i have that play Sc2 range from Silver to Diamond and they're pretty much in the same boat as me. When they play all 3 races they generally stay in the same league.. maybe top of 1 league and bottom of a higher league. So from Diamond on down i think Blizz has done a nice job making the game "balanced enough".
i'm very satisfied with the game and the franchise.. i've listed my "nit picky" complaints in previous posts.
Swarmhost are even worse to play against on many of the new maps. Can we as a community come together and ask for fixes to this unit?
At this point it's not debateable that the swarmhost, carrier, and raven ruin most mech games. IDC if you don't like mech play - SC2 needs diversity in gameplay to thrive and grow.
A Zerg player building 20 swarmhosts as his entire army because he saw you build 3 factories is terrible and it's been terrible since Nov 2016.
We need to get Blizzard to address this, no more talk, no more non sense updates. Address the swarmhost, either delete it or severely nerf it so that a Zerg player can't make his entire army swarmhosts when he sees you are going mech.
We all agree this is a problem but Terran players seem to be the "good guys" in the community for balance. We will be open and honest when things are broken with Terran but apparently it's perfectly fine for Zerg to have coin flip ravager all-ins, overlord drop tech on tier 1, and invincible nydus worms?
Aahahahah i laughed really hard. It's known that Terran are the hardest "my race is the best the hardest skillest UP race" whiners of this games.
Protoss just stopped arguing since they got really hated by everyone a long time ago (mb even BW in essence), even when the race was truely stastically UP in some matchup.Eventually you argue about design. The number of P player who stay silent when T&Z bash FF because "it break fundamental RTS tenets" (this one was a funny one) while obviously most P like this mechanics. (i mean go play older boring RTS if you want to) Zerg players on their side argue with Terran and some whine with T against P occasionally (maybe when it's due time)
hehe you certainly were not around during the sad zealot era...that was the worst whining i have ever seen when it comes to Sc2 (or any other game tbh)
On July 19 2017 13:06 avilo wrote: Swarmhost are even worse to play against on many of the new maps. Can we as a community come together and ask for fixes to this unit?
At this point it's not debateable that the swarmhost, carrier, and raven ruin most mech games. IDC if you don't like mech play - SC2 needs diversity in gameplay to thrive and grow.
A Zerg player building 20 swarmhosts as his entire army because he saw you build 3 factories is terrible and it's been terrible since Nov 2016.
We need to get Blizzard to address this, no more talk, no more non sense updates. Address the swarmhost, either delete it or severely nerf it so that a Zerg player can't make his entire army swarmhosts when he sees you are going mech.
You're literally saying you don't care about others' opinions, don't want people to talk about the game's design and balance and you don't want any other updates until Swarm Hosts are removed from the game. Hello? This isn't how anything works. You have to actually have a discussion, interact (act reciprocally with other people), do testing and iterate. Not "do what I say without question, despite much of what I say demand either blatantly ignoring ongoing discussions and/or having been proven irrational several times."
How about, instead of that, we come together as a community to be more open-minded and intelligent about how we do things, balance whining/discussion or otherwise?
I try to remember you guys on what I am convinced of since years. The issues of this game are fundamental and it is not possible to fix it by simple adjustments of some unit numbers.
What the game has achieved in the past years, is a shift within these fundamental problems, withoug fixing them. So e. g. TvZ is not stuck anymore on midgame units, which was mmmm vs. muta bling, but went to new unit interactions, however with the same underlying problems. PvT was already before not stuck on midgame units only, but it was even worse with e.g. SCV pull meta. As well people consider new TvZ worse than the old HOTS which was stuck in midgame.
What is common amongst these things is the skipping of game phases. The current dynamics of SC2 fit more on a kind of minigame. I know many people consider HOTS TvZ the best state of the game - I do not. But that means, that about 1/3 of each race units could be removed technically. And I believe with the current dynamics really just two tech levels of each race would be enough. There are too many units in the game to make it work with the current game speed and dynamics, even redundancies like colossi and disroptor.
I am not very familiar with current meta, and I believe it is really not that important. Cause sure, we can remove swarmhosts, change reapers and whatever else, but the game would remain to have the same fundamental problems it has now, and the past has proven me to be right. And the future will continue to do so.
What all have in common is the skipping of game phases. No matter if it is the whole lategame at HOTS TvZ or if it is most of the midgame like with current matchups, such as building a few adepts and going straight air with protoss. In opposite to what one might think, the game speed and dynamics are not increasing the skill ceiling but lowering it. It takes away options and puts you on a very narrow path of options and pressure.
Game phases need to be played out longer in general in SC2. The reference is broodwar. To pick the most simple example lets talk about carrier. It was simply not possible to go straight carrier in PvT, you had to fully play out early and midgame in order to switch to carrier air. How it played out decided about how strong your switch would be and if you could switch a bit earlier or later. And when you switched to carriers, it didn't put your opponent on a timer. Being behind in one game phase could be made up for to a better extend than in SC2 at a later phase of the game. A protoss switch to carriers was at the same time very strong and very counterable by early enough adaption with goliaths while maintaining enough bases in order to be able to add a dozen wraiths to shut down carriers completely, what forced protoss switch back to ground units. In SC2, however, if you go carrier in PvZ, you put your opponent on a timer, that says, either you kill me in the frame of time you've got, or you are gonna die. Simple as that, boring as that.
Lets analyse HOTS TvZ, as in strutcure it is the same, however played out differently a bit for some reasons that I want to show here. What Zerran did was putting Zerg on a timer. It forced zerg into full all-in playstyle on whatever units and tech he was on, which was always muta bling at that time in the meta. Can't afford tech switch, can't afford but have to expand and build drones, can't afford tier 3 upgrades, just play all-in playstyle, which is to build as many units as you can in order not to die.
This timer was just interrupted by the fact that Terran ran out of minerals earlier than Zerg on same/-1 bases (mules) and the fact that maps didn't allow Terran to take a 4th/5th as easily as the 2nd/3rd. That put himself on a timer, hence it was kind of balanced. But strictly speaking it was bullshit. It is the minigame style I was talking about. Each player builds his perfect composition of units from the beginning, no strategical diversity and everything is just and only decided about luck based micro (baneling hits, mine hits), when taking perfect or almost perfect macro as a basis, which seriously was not that hard to achieve for players on the top level and even a bit below.
The same or similar mechanisms we got with reapers, forcing zerg to all-in on the tech and units that he is on, which is zerglings, don't lose any drones and surround/kill enough reapers so that any follow up play is getting possible.
Even tho I haven't got enough experience withe the current game, I can assume it is very similar with swarmhosts. It kind of puts terran on a timer to play/react perfectly from then on or simply die mid or long term. What would removing hosts do? I am not all that sure but again I assume that it would turn things around and put Zerg on a timer vs. mech instead, which is what avilo is arguing for, basically, when glancing over his very own balance mod. This is not the case with a reaper change, as Terran got enough options of harassment as Scarlett has shown.
Could go on with in detail examples where you can put your opponent on a timer too easily in present or past, but lets skip this.
I have to stop here as I got other tasks to do, coulnd't make my point yet. Lets make it short.
Adjusting numbers wont bring fully satisfying solutions, can help at certain things of course.
If I was Blizzard, I would try and think about why it is so easy to put opponent on timer. Why is skipping of game phases happening.
I myself assume (yes assume, as I have no time/capacities to try and figure it all out myself), as the game plays out too fast. Base saturation, expanding, teching, pumping units, everything feels too fast.
My approach for bigger changes at the end of the year would be to try around with worker production speed, complemented probably with macro ability adjustments (mule/inject/boost). Would say try 10-15% slower and see what happens, if it opens up the game a bit more.
The game ends up too quickly in extremes. Either stuck on certain composition and play all-in against each other (HOTS TvZ) or skipping all phases, be unatackable (too narrow timings of opponent makes it all-in or semi), and build perfect lategame compositions too quickly. Leaves no room for creative play, makes it too unforgiving, too narrow, etc.
Is worker build speed going to fix it? I for hells sake dont know. We can just try around and see what can help, the guys who are paid for that are obligated to do so in fact. It might, however.
SC2 is not BW, you can't just say it should be like BW for the sake of being like BW and compare it thusly. They're different games and if you want BW then BW exists for you to play and it is everyone's best interest that SC2 plays differently.
I don't really understand your logic with timers, as, while they don't exist as much in BW nowadays (that I see) because the game has been so untouched and figured out so much since 1998 that players are better (but not entirely) able to avoid having an hourglass turned over on them, it has been a key part of SC2 since the beginning and drives players to be interactive by forcing them to do something or driving them to be creative from the pressure. Game phases aren't skipped compared to past expansions either, they just happen in a different way and happen faster than before in a way that causes less stagnating play and more interaction between players of equal skill.
As for the team being obligated to test out an incredible amount of worker build speed changes? No, that would flip the entire game's design on its head and isn't something that can be simply tweaked. That's something for pre-alpha phases within RTS game design, maybe alpha and beta, but definitely not at this point. Imo you may as well suggest they start on a new RTS brand because of the amount of time it would take to test. Slowing down the economy would also put it closer to how it was in WoL/HotS where nothing of much importance would happen for a few minutes in pro games and several minutes anywhere else, which isn't fun to play nor to watch.
A game CANT be balanced around cheese and all-ins. It cant be based at what % a all-in has. Its complete nonsense. A good balance=Good amount of skill.
@blunder His point ISNT TO HAVE sc2=BW. You didnt get that one bit? Really? His point is that theres to much all-in,timer based gameplay THAT IS UNHEALTHY GAMEPLAY and needs to change. NEEDS TO CHANGE.
All-in and cheeses are so fucking boring to play and watch either way. And i cant believe people argue that the game is in a healthy balanced state, because the % is good and builds have % wise good chance of winning. WTF!
very few diverse race RTS games ever come close to being balanced even at the top level never mind any other play level. .
Yeah, and? It doesnt proof anythjing because. In general, how many rts games have good unit control? Sc2 has the best one and that says alot. In general, how many games use hardcounters in their games? Like every one?
Balancing a game around all-ins and cheeses and hardcounters just screams for unhealhty gameplay + terrible balance in the end aswell.
On July 19 2017 20:34 LSN wrote: Game phases need to be played out longer in general in SC2. The reference is broodwar.
On July 19 2017 21:46 Foxxan wrote: @blunder His point ISNT TO HAVE sc2=BW. You didnt get that one bit? Really? His point is that theres to much all-in,timer based gameplay THAT IS UNHEALTHY GAMEPLAY and needs to change. NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Yes, let's use a bunch of caps and freak out about this. -_- Chill out, dude.
On July 19 2017 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Yeah, and? It doesnt proof anythjing because. In general, how many rts games have good unit control? Sc2 has the best one and that says alot. In general, how many games use hardcounters in their games? Like every one?
Balancing a game around all-ins and cheeses and hardcounters just screams for unhealhty gameplay + terrible balance in the end aswell.
My point is. THEY ALL DO IT WRONG!
all of them? nah.
they are not "wrong" they are just unwilling to dedicate resources to keeping the balance right many months and years after release. Companies that stick with it can get a game close to balanced.
balancing a diverse race RTS game at even 1 level of difficulty is a tough problem. New micro techniques get developed by dedicated players as the game ages. the stuff Byun does with Reapers was considered not possible not too long ago. Also, micro techniques get executed more cleanly and consistently as the game ages.
this also happened with Brood War and every other diverse race RTS game with a strong enough following that players spent countless hours developing new micro techniques months after the game's official release
Usually what happens is.. you just end up with an imbalanced game.
your perception that "everyone does it wrong" speaks to the brutal difficulty of balancing a game.
Lets try to explain the world in a few words to blunder:
1. Broodwar is the reference. Neither me nor you can do anything about it. It just is. 2. I don't want SC2 to be exactly like BW, but I compare what is bad in SC2 with the reference. 3. If you don't understand the general logic with timers and the problems that that creates, you can't blame that on me. 4. What is less stagnating for you seems to be not appealing for a majority of players who have turned their back towards SC2 after LOTV was released and now play mobas instead, or in case of koreans, the reference. 5. It is not my obligation to figure out what goes wrong with this game, there are people who are getting paid for that, I still try to contribute, this however is and can only be limited for the named reasons. The goal of my suggestions is to exactly flip the entire game design around, as the current status wont allow anything else than shifting problems back and forth, what the past has proven. Guess what, 3-4 years ago people where responding similar things to me, showed that they understand really nothing.
I bet my pants that blunder is one or more of three things, and I am really good at sensing stuff like that: a) Terran player b) Avilo fan c) Avilo himself
Hence he probably felt obligated to respond me with made up nonsense, as I didn't write pro terran and did not emphasize how up Terran is. Probably it is time for a new 30+ pages dwf balance whine on the main page, lol.
Anyway I wish happy race up/op discussions, it has put the game where it is now. Anything else seems to vastly overtax a good chunk of the the guys here.
On July 19 2017 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Yeah, and? It doesnt proof anythjing because. In general, how many rts games have good unit control? Sc2 has the best one and that says alot. In general, how many games use hardcounters in their games? Like every one?
Balancing a game around all-ins and cheeses and hardcounters just screams for unhealhty gameplay + terrible balance in the end aswell.
My point is. THEY ALL DO IT WRONG!
all of them? nah.
they are not "wrong" they are just unwilling to dedicate resources to keeping the balance right many months and years after release. Companies that stick with it can get a game close to balanced.
balancing a diverse race RTS game at even 1 level of difficulty is a tough problem. New micro techniques get developed by dedicated players as the game ages. the stuff Byun does with Reapers was considered not possible not too long ago. Also, micro techniques get executed more cleanly and consistently as the game ages.
this also happened with Brood War and every other diverse race RTS game with a strong enough following that players spent countless hours developing new micro techniques months after the game's official release
Usually what happens is.. you just end up with an imbalanced game.
your perception that "everyone does it wrong" speaks to the brutal difficulty of balancing a game.
I dont think you seem to understand. I cant care less if their rts game isnt balanced after 3months. What iam saying is wrong is all the things i wrote, not just balance. Hardcounters, bad unit control, boring interractions. Timers. All this contributes to a hard to impossible game to balance while at the same time they are just terrible boring to play aswell.
All rts reveloperse do it so bloody wrong. Iam done with this conversation cuz u will anyway just start to talk about something else.
On July 19 2017 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Yeah, and? It doesnt proof anythjing because. In general, how many rts games have good unit control? Sc2 has the best one and that says alot. In general, how many games use hardcounters in their games? Like every one?
Balancing a game around all-ins and cheeses and hardcounters just screams for unhealhty gameplay + terrible balance in the end aswell.
My point is. THEY ALL DO IT WRONG!
all of them? nah.
they are not "wrong" they are just unwilling to dedicate resources to keeping the balance right many months and years after release. Companies that stick with it can get a game close to balanced.
balancing a diverse race RTS game at even 1 level of difficulty is a tough problem. New micro techniques get developed by dedicated players as the game ages. the stuff Byun does with Reapers was considered not possible not too long ago. Also, micro techniques get executed more cleanly and consistently as the game ages.
this also happened with Brood War and every other diverse race RTS game with a strong enough following that players spent countless hours developing new micro techniques months after the game's official release
Usually what happens is.. you just end up with an imbalanced game.
your perception that "everyone does it wrong" speaks to the brutal difficulty of balancing a game.
I can get behind a lot of that. If you look at speedrunning or any RTS played at an extremely high level the games go from working as intended on a casual level to "holy sweet mother this is so horrifically broken" very quickly.
For SC2 I don't think it's as broken as some make it out to be, and it's okay if certain things here and there don't "work as intended" as long as they are fun, interactive, and not completely dominating. With each new thing getting broken I think the players and devs adjust their view on what constitutes as broken or intended gameplay, too. Everyone levels up a bit along with the meta or whatever.
For smart firing units like Reapers and Marines and Tanks they quickly, for me, reach that "ooh, no that doesn't seem right" feeling, but since Medankivacs aren't around the Tanks took a big step back from that line and went back to doing their regular job. Reapers with their grenades were going nuts, since there are so many things, stats, movement and abilities, to modify that I think a lot of solid solutions could be found and it's just a matter of picking the best changes which they're already doing.
Personally I prefer changes to unit stats lately for early-mid game army units and don't like resource or supply changes as much, maybe it has something to do with the amount of development the game has gone through. Like putting a new carburetor on the engine as opposed to buying/building a whole new engine or body, I just want to tweak it to run better, not do an overhaul at this stage. For late game units I'm more open to anything, curious how others feel about it with regards to the, idk how to put it, "state of brokenness" (beyond-mature developmental stage?) we've reached.
Actually nobody has mentioned how maps grow once a game gets to this stage. A whole beast in itself, but I'll just add that I wonder how crucial Blizzard sees new map developments compared to core game design. It seems like they put it far below everything else lately and I would love to see that start to change after we (hopefully, eventually) go into a very stable game state unit-wise. Kinda here but not really there so I'll just... set this here for later, I suppose.
After having used Thors drops for 40+ TvZ games I now know for sure: Thor drops do not counter Swarm Hosts at all. I am not even sure why anyone would think that.
There is only instance where Thor drops work vs Swarm Hosts and that is the opponent go for fast 2-base Swarm Host. In that case Thor dropping actually works.
In all other cases Zerg transition into Swarm Hosts anyway which delays your push by a lot since you need mass hellbats with blueflame to even stand a chance against Swarm Hosts. When you finally have enough hellbats to somewhat protect your tanks and thors Zerg is already at Hive which means SwarmHost/Viper/Hydra/Roach = GG.
Basically people that think Thor dropping counter Swarm Hosts either a) Have no experience using mech in TvZ or b) Only think of really fast 2-base into Swarm Hosts opening but forget all more normal Swarm Host strats.
On July 21 2017 05:24 MockHamill wrote: After having used Thors drops for 40+ TvZ games I now know for sure: Thor drops do not counter Swarm Hosts at all. I am not even sure why anyone would think that.
There is only instance where Thor drops work vs Swarm Hosts and that is the opponent go for fast 2-base Swarm Host. In that case Thor dropping actually works.
In all other cases Zerg transition into Swarm Hosts anyway which delays your push by a lot since you need mass hellbats with blueflame to even stand a chance against Swarm Hosts. When you finally have enough hellbats to somewhat protect your tanks and thors Zerg is already at Hive which means SwarmHost/Viper/Hydra/Roach = GG.
Basically people that think Thor dropping counter Swarm Hosts either a) Have no experience using mech in TvZ or b) Only think of really fast 2-base into Swarm Hosts opening but forget all more normal Swarm Host strats.
The issue with the swarm host is that it's free to use and won't ever die. So the weaknesses of the swarmhosts (multiproned attacks, drops, attacking when the locusts are in CD) can be solved by other units/static D zerg can afford because he's banking money. The only moments where SH comps are vulnerable are : - when the zerg first produces the swarmshosts, because he doesn't have the money to have a lot with it - later in the game if the zerg kept his swarm hosts too long (using 15 SHs to harass, then bank 4000/4000, build a lot of BLs but still have 15x4 pop that aren't corruptors to defend the BLs for instance).
Appart from that, because SH don't ever trade and are free to use, zergs have all the money in the world to produce any unit or static D required to prevent the mech player from exploiting the SH weaknesses. Hellion drops? I have all the mineral i want, therefore all the spines i want. Speed banshees? I have all the mineral i want, therefore i have all the spores and queens i want. Thors drops? I have all the mineral i want, therefore all the lings and queens i want. Etc.
What most zergs don't understand is that when SH is the first lair tech you use, of course you leave yourself open to a straightforward push. However if you go hydras or mutas first, then build 15-20 SHs to climb up to 200/200, then expand some more and tech up while destroying stuff with locusts, there's no real reason for you not to win.
I like the rythm SH bring to the ZvMech matchup, because against swarmhosts the best option is to be out on the map to force locusts wave. That means it give zergs and option to force the mech player to strat fighting on the map and trading. However if it actually means "forcing the terran to get out on the map and trading his units while you only trade free units", there's something wrong there.
Either the locusts need to cost some amount of money, either the SHs need to be killable, i don't see any way around it.
On July 21 2017 05:24 MockHamill wrote: After having used Thors drops for 40+ TvZ games I now know for sure: Thor drops do not counter Swarm Hosts at all. I am not even sure why anyone would think that.
There is only instance where Thor drops work vs Swarm Hosts and that is the opponent go for fast 2-base Swarm Host. In that case Thor dropping actually works.
Becuause casters had to say something at some point and the first thing they saw was a Korean going for Thor drop with moderate success. And, as you say, it can work.
What actually worked sort of well for me towards the end vs Swarmhosts (in plastic league), was being active and out on the map. With this I had enough vision, map control and preassure on the Z that he cannot sensibly use SHs and I was able to pick them off one by one. However, I haven't seen a swarm host in weeks. It's always ling/bling or roach/raveger, going into hydras/viper. Sometimes, when the game is already won or lost, a Z would go ultras or broodlords, either to finish me off or as last hope. However, it's nothing but eye candy at that point.
I tend to think that there is something wrong with the SH but i have to say that it's nice to see players and posters think of and try all sorts of different options to solve a problem. It reminds me of the strong blue flame pre nerf for TvT when everyone was coming up with new ways to wall in the mineral line, it felt like the game was evolving in an area where they were forced to and it was a lot of fun.
Swarmhosts are one of the healthiest units in the game, since they counter the "sit on your ass for 20 minutes and build an unbeatable army" mech style. No, Zerg does not automatically have infinite minerals just by building swamrhosts. You'd have to leave them alone for 20-30 minutes to let them achieve that. Using swarmhosts will always mean there is also a timing when the zerg is much weaker than the terran because teh locust are on cooldown. It's the terrans job to abuse that timing to make the damage they potentially took from swarmhosts back.
On July 21 2017 12:38 Sapphire.lux wrote: I tend to think that there is something wrong with the SH but i have to say that it's nice to see players and posters think of and try all sorts of different options to solve a problem. It reminds me of the strong blue flame pre nerf for TvT when everyone was coming up with new ways to wall in the mineral line, it felt like the game was evolving in an area where they were forced to and it was a lot of fun.
Actually i was thinking about ghosts as a tool to force swarm hosts to trade off. Since the snipe deals enough damage to oneshot a swarmhosts and has no range limitation, it can be fired at swarmhosts closing in to release locusts. And since ghosts now have a decent escape mechanism (cloack + new decent speed), they can run away from the locust wave.
However ghosts have historically been very hard to use with mech without the need to turtle. Mainly because you need a lot of tanks to survive to ground attacks while teching up and producing the costly ghost from a different production building. Also ghosts cost a lot of minerals, meaning you'll have less money to build a lot of hellions to clear the locusts. I experimented with cyclone/hellbat/ghost/medivacs, but it's way too mineral-intensive.
Just theorycrafting here, but changing the cost of the ghost to 50/150 like the high templar might actually be a good change. Ghosts are underused with bio because of their price, but low mineral/high gaz cost would encourage bio players to build them to spend their gaz surplus, while opening the possibility of dynamic mech + ghost comps, and while also making cancer mass ghost + ranged liberators comps less easy to obtain.
I would have thought some kind of change to liberators, to allow them in reasonable numbers to kill locusts in the air would be a good change. This way, there is a bit more of a micro battle as the zerg must move forward into tank/thor range with hydras/corruptors to deal with the liberators before the locust wave can be useful.
Although having said that, I won't be convinced SH are a problem until we can see a mech game from GuMiHo where a high level zerg gets them. So far it seems high level Korean zergs don't even bother getting them, so maybe they know something we don't?
I like that Blizzard is looking at the collosus, but it would be nice to see a more major re-design. Personally would love that line attack to be micro-able against, but maybe leave some fire on the ground or something.
On July 21 2017 19:04 Azarthis wrote: I would have thought some kind of change to liberators, to allow them in reasonable numbers to kill locusts in the air would be a good change. This way, there is a bit more of a micro battle as the zerg must move forward into tank/thor range with hydras/corruptors to deal with the liberators before the locust wave can be useful.
Although having said that, I won't be convinced SH are a problem until we can see a mech game from GuMiHo where a high level zerg gets them. So far it seems high level Korean zergs don't even bother getting them, so maybe they know something we don't?
I like that Blizzard is looking at the collosus, but it would be nice to see a more major re-design. Personally would love that line attack to be micro-able against, but maybe leave some fire on the ground or something.
Although I've yet to see them vs Gumiho successfuly, they are seeing use in Korea. Solar recently used them and won vs Maru's mech, he tried to counter them with speed banshees and it went prity poorly, Solar killed countless adons and production buildings in Maru's a main with them.
I did also see some of the foreigners try them vs Gumiho but both times he managed to put pressure on riggt as Zerg made the transition, punish them and than do an Allin push shortly after, but I think the qaulity of swarmhosts play was prity poor compared to Solar's.
On July 19 2017 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Yeah, and? It doesnt proof anythjing because. In general, how many rts games have good unit control? Sc2 has the best one and that says alot. In general, how many games use hardcounters in their games? Like every one?
Balancing a game around all-ins and cheeses and hardcounters just screams for unhealhty gameplay + terrible balance in the end aswell.
My point is. THEY ALL DO IT WRONG!
all of them? nah.
they are not "wrong" they are just unwilling to dedicate resources to keeping the balance right many months and years after release. Companies that stick with it can get a game close to balanced.
balancing a diverse race RTS game at even 1 level of difficulty is a tough problem. New micro techniques get developed by dedicated players as the game ages. the stuff Byun does with Reapers was considered not possible not too long ago. Also, micro techniques get executed more cleanly and consistently as the game ages.
this also happened with Brood War and every other diverse race RTS game with a strong enough following that players spent countless hours developing new micro techniques months after the game's official release
Usually what happens is.. you just end up with an imbalanced game.
your perception that "everyone does it wrong" speaks to the brutal difficulty of balancing a game.
I dont think you seem to understand. I cant care less if their rts game isnt balanced after 3months. What iam saying is wrong is all the things i wrote, not just balance. Hardcounters, bad unit control, boring interractions. Timers. All this contributes to a hard to impossible game to balance while at the same time they are just terrible boring to play aswell. All rts reveloperse do it so bloody wrong. Iam done with this conversation cuz u will anyway just start to talk about something else.
your conclusion is everyone is doing everything wrong. ok great.
the genre is 20+ years old and there are plenty of good games out there all with a slightly different take on RTS. RA2, CoH1, SupCom, AoE2, AoE3 to name a few. If none of the games in the genre hold your interest chances are you just bored of RTS or bored of gaming.
Wuut. And why exactly does that have to make me sick of the genre? Just because you enjoy them and say they are good games doesnt make them good.
They are slowpaced, all have terrible micro vs micro. The start of all those games suck, its to much buildup with not much happening. Emphasize of hardcounters, not to much interraction on the maps. Maps dont add much, its just simple landscape terrain.
In combat, i dont see much tactic available. The strategy consists of hardcountering a unit, and make sure that the unit that the enemy hardcounters for you, you hardcounter it with another unit yourself. It goes on.
How The Fuck is this good rts games? All ingredients are lackluster. ALL OF THEM.
Its you who are narrowminded, and cant see past what we have.
Has anyone ever had fun playing against Swarmhosts? Personally, I leave the game instantly every time I see that unit. I rather play some other game than deal with that shit. Not because the unit is imba, i can't judge that, but because it's the most infuriating thing in the game to deal with.
Sometimes, fun should take precedence over balance, don't you think?
On July 22 2017 00:04 ihatevideogames wrote: Has anyone ever had fun playing against Swarmhosts? Personally, I leave the game instantly every time I see that unit. I rather play some other game than deal with that shit. Not because the unit is imba, i can't judge that, but because it's the most infuriating thing in the game to deal with.
Sometimes, fun should take precedence over balance, don't you think?
According to bliz that's why they are nerfing ravens.....
On July 21 2017 23:43 Foxxan wrote: Wuut. And why exactly does that have to make me sick of the genre? Just because you enjoy them and say they are good games doesnt make them good.
They are slowpaced, all have terrible micro vs micro. The start of all those games suck, its to much buildup with not much happening. Emphasize of hardcounters, not to much interraction on the maps. Maps dont add much, its just simple landscape terrain.
In combat, i dont see much tactic available. The strategy consists of hardcountering a unit, and make sure that the unit that the enemy hardcounters for you, you hardcounter it with another unit yourself. It goes on.
How The Fuck is this good rts games? All ingredients are lackluster. ALL OF THEM.
Its you who are narrowminded, and cant see past what we have.
actually, ur opinion doesn't matter. if a game has long term success and it has an active community around it that loves the game and evolves the game play.. its a great game.
personally, CoH isn't my thing. my opinion doesn't matter. it has an active active community around it for 10+ years. I've watched guys play at LAN/Internet Cafes and they are having an absolute blast. Good for them.
its up to me, as a consumer, to find a game i like.
from age 9 to 14 i loved NHL '94. Now it bores me. That said, I consider it a great game and i'm happy for the great times i had playing the game.
I don't think its EA's "fault" that i don't play Hockey Sims any longer. Blizzards RTS > EA's Hockey Sims.
I moved on.
If you dislike every game in any given genre whether its Hockey Sims or RTS games or Dot-Eating-Maze Games... move on man.
On July 22 2017 00:04 ihatevideogames wrote: Has anyone ever had fun playing against Swarmhosts? Personally, I leave the game instantly every time I see that unit. I rather play some other game than deal with that shit. Not because the unit is imba, i can't judge that, but because it's the most infuriating thing in the game to deal with.
Sometimes, fun should take precedence over balance, don't you think?
Like we have fun playing vs mech ?
We like dealing with hellion runby faster than roach while the other sit home under tanks/PF/turetts and can't be attacked because sieged tanks crush everything on the ground while the T can be afk it changed nothing.
Then he mass raven...
The funny part is while the mech player force the zerg player to play this boring game vs mech he dare to spam in every balance threat he wants everything that can counter sieged tanks to be removed or nerf so hard.
SH are good only vs one mech unit : tanks but you're so sick of seeing SH because you can't make 15 tanks siege them and watch the zerg army instantly disappear ?
I'm sick of your cries, it's even more ridiculous now a mech player won GSL.
On July 21 2017 05:24 MockHamill wrote: After having used Thors drops for 40+ TvZ games I now know for sure: Thor drops do not counter Swarm Hosts at all. I am not even sure why anyone would think that.
There is only instance where Thor drops work vs Swarm Hosts and that is the opponent go for fast 2-base Swarm Host. In that case Thor dropping actually works.
Becuause casters had to say something at some point and the first thing they saw was a Korean going for Thor drop with moderate success. And, as you say, it can work.
What actually worked sort of well for me towards the end vs Swarmhosts (in plastic league), was being active and out on the map. With this I had enough vision, map control and preassure on the Z that he cannot sensibly use SHs and I was able to pick them off one by one. However, I haven't seen a swarm host in weeks. It's always ling/bling or roach/raveger, going into hydras/viper. Sometimes, when the game is already won or lost, a Z would go ultras or broodlords, either to finish me off or as last hope. However, it's nothing but eye candy at that point.
The casters that said this are objectively wrong and don't have much experience with SH/mech vs SH.
They see 2/10000 mech games and in those games the Zergs are clueless in KR or don't know the swarmhost abuse meta.
I guarantee you if we locked some of these casters in a room and had them play even 100 mech vs Zerg/SH games straight they'd change their tune real fast and call out how overpowered swarmhosts are, just as badly as 3 rax reaper.
The reason casters are openly calling out how imba 3 rax reaper is because 3 rax reaper is literally seen in the first 2 minutes of a starcraft game and therefore you see it way more often. Mech games are few and far between in the first place, and then factoring KR Zergs in general play at a lower skill level than EU/NA Zergs....you get casters saying blatantly wrong things like "thor drop counters SH."
Try thor drop on the NA/EU ladder to "counter SH" and you'll see how fun it is when the Zerg has 25 SH that cannot be chased down as you fly your thor drop into the 10 corruptor he built because the Zerg isn't actually clueless.
Right now there really is no counter to SH in the game for mech other than "maxing out and making 20 ravens." Which honestly is a balance problem.
People should have seen this a while ago though, and i do not get why Blizzard doesn't learn from the past when SH were equally as terrible in Heart of the Swarm. The unit has always been fundamentally broken, and making locusts fly + SH travel at light speed kind of has them in a state right now in LOTV where they are actually stronger than the original incarnation of swarmhost.
Honestly, SH have been an issue since November of 2016 ever since the "mech patch" that buffed the SH to god tier status versus mech. IT was a known about issue even before then on the test map, and Blizzard were given a ton of feedback that they completely ignored.
[QUOTE]On July 22 2017 06:12 avilo wrote: [QUOTE]On July 21 2017 07:38 QuinnTheEskimo wrote: [QUOTE]On July 21 2017 05:24 MockHamill wrote: After having used Thors drops for 40+ TvZ games I now know for sure: Thor drops do not counter Swarm Hosts at all. I am not even sure why anyone would think that.
There is only instance where Thor drops work vs Swarm Hosts and that is the opponent go for fast 2-base Swarm Host. In that case Thor dropping actually works. [/QUOTE]
...and then factoring KR Zergs in general play at a lower skill level than ... NA Zergs...[/QUOTE]
Glad we have that established. It makes your other points even more compelling, and gives us insights the generations before us didn't even dare dreaming about. Kudos.
So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 tanks and kill 4-5 hydras armies with purely tanks? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in 1998 when it was originally put into the game. Wow i sound really retarded, maybe i should change my opinion
On July 13 2017 10:47 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are infrequently seen - so they're fine. Ravens are infrequently seen - they're not fine let's nerf hammer them.
Reapers are an issue in openers because of being too strong snowballing. But Ravagers are OK in openers despite the same exact issue.
Do people not see issue with this? I mean i agree and even proposed the supply nerf to ravens/air units in the past, but only under the assumption Blizzard will also fix carriers and swarmhosts, the other "free unit producers" of Zerg and Protoss.
Nov 2016 is how long Swarmhosts have been messed up in LOTV. But let's nerf mech and ravens more while leaving swarmhosts the same.
....i'd really like to read more people's thoughts on this because to me...it seems really biased as fuck and just plain not well thought out from the devs. Nerfs to reapers and ravens are understandable but not without corresponding nerfs to insane things like swarmhosts and carriers as well.
There is a ton of bias in this Community Update - and it's all against Terran which i think is not right.
There is zero terran bias. There is no "biased as fuck" as you like to say. The changes are excellent and really thought out. They don't just say "let's nerf and see how it plays out" old school DK style to make it necessary to revert changes later, instead they offer various change variants and request feedback on each. The dev team has never been better.
About the SH, did you actually read the whole god damn writeup? Or do you just skim through paragraphs and see "nerf terran" and press the reply button viciously and furiously the second after? They literally mentioned keeoing an eye on SH, but i guess when you yourself are biased against the whole dev team, nothing they say can ever be satisfactory.
I keep wondering how come this community keeps tolerating your posts who are flat out insulting the dev team at times, but I guess it's ok since you are an "established pillar" of the community. Explain more how the whole SC2 community hates terran, it's fun to read the clownery.
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
instead of exploiting his army consisting of 20+ SH all clumped together always sending their locusts to one spot (your army) by defending with widow mines and dropping or attacking with air units at multiple places away from his SH, you kept making tanks which are terrible against SH, always having your whole (understrength) army in the same spot, and never even trying to build a maxed out army
the reasons why you lose have everything to do with your bad macro and lack of strategic vision
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
instead of exploiting his army consisting of 20+ SH all clumped together always sending their locusts to one spot (your army) by defending with widow mines and dropping or attacking with air units at multiple places away from his SH, you kept making tanks which are terrible against SH, always having your whole (understrength) army in the same spot, and never even trying to build a maxed out army
the reasons why you lose have everything to do with your bad macro and lack of strategic vision
There is no justification for 25 units producing free armies over and over again being able to trade with 4-5 armies that cost actual income.
You're correct in that the only response to the current SH is to sit back and basically do nothing and turtle to mass raven/ghost/etc.
But you see the inherent imbalance/issue with that? No army should consist of 25 swarmhosts and be able to push back continuous armies of the opponent that cost income.
You cannot watch the game i posted and claim that SH are balanced when it's basically the entire army of the opponent. Saying the only response is to sit back and do nothing and max out is honestly really, really unhealthy for the game because it promotes inaction.
I do not understand how you or anyone else can justify 20-25 swarmhosts repeatedly killing entire armies for free with no counter play (SH launch the locust then run half way across the map).
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
instead of exploiting his army consisting of 20+ SH all clumped together always sending their locusts to one spot (your army) by defending with widow mines and dropping or attacking with air units at multiple places away from his SH, you kept making tanks which are terrible against SH, always having your whole (understrength) army in the same spot, and never even trying to build a maxed out army
the reasons why you lose have everything to do with your bad macro and lack of strategic vision
There is no justification for 25 units producing free armies over and over again being able to trade with 4-5 armies that cost actual income.
You're correct in that the only response to the current SH is to sit back and basically do nothing and turtle to mass raven/ghost/etc.
But you see the inherent imbalance/issue with that? No army should consist of 25 swarmhosts and be able to push back continuous armies of the opponent that cost income.
You cannot watch the game i posted and claim that SH are balanced when it's basically the entire army of the opponent. Saying the only response is to sit back and do nothing and max out is honestly really, really unhealthy for the game because it promotes inaction.
I do not understand how you or anyone else can justify 20-25 swarmhosts repeatedly killing entire armies for free with no counter play (SH launch the locust then run half way across the map).
Are you doing this on purpose? He did not say that. What he is saying is that you should try and do other stuff than camping like you do.
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
- bad macro (in the worker repartition and the upgrades departments) - bad production (adding 3 starports when you obviously have no money because your workers wheren't assigned to the correct bases) - bad tech timings/switches (way too long to produce starport units or research blue flame, speedbanshees are a terrible choice too) - bad micro (no focus fire on the mines) - bad positioning/army usage (going for drilling claws and never dropping a single mine in mineral lines, never actually reaching the mineral lines, shoving the ramp in front of the natural which increases siege tank friendly fire) - no attempt at exploiting the SHs weaknesses (no multiproned attacks, you just shoved the front all the time, especially since once you finally built medivacs you didn't use them to drop when his only anti air were queens)
However mass SH strats are extremely abusive and your opponent played badly (running swarmhosts into mech units fire, only occasional locust micro, bad micro overall). The SH needs a change/nerf but this game is a bad exemple.
That's always funny when avilo explains that the best kor zerg dunno how to win vs mech because they don't make SH when he fails to qualify in premier league in NA.
The reality is more : Avilo's siege tanks stay at home, so Zerg can send wave after waves and it will pay because the only thing avilo is doing is staring his units die then he turtles more and whines to his viewers.
But when Dark, Soo play gumiho having 45 dead supply after you've sent 1 wave which is negated by good hellbat placement and unsieging tanks, it is game over when gumiho decides to immediatly push.
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
instead of exploiting his army consisting of 20+ SH all clumped together always sending their locusts to one spot (your army) by defending with widow mines and dropping or attacking with air units at multiple places away from his SH, you kept making tanks which are terrible against SH, always having your whole (understrength) army in the same spot, and never even trying to build a maxed out army
the reasons why you lose have everything to do with your bad macro and lack of strategic vision
There is no justification for 25 units producing free armies over and over again being able to trade with 4-5 armies that cost actual income.
You're correct in that the only response to the current SH is to sit back and basically do nothing and turtle to mass raven/ghost/etc.
But you see the inherent imbalance/issue with that? No army should consist of 25 swarmhosts and be able to push back continuous armies of the opponent that cost income.
You cannot watch the game i posted and claim that SH are balanced when it's basically the entire army of the opponent. Saying the only response is to sit back and do nothing and max out is honestly really, really unhealthy for the game because it promotes inaction.
I do not understand how you or anyone else can justify 20-25 swarmhosts repeatedly killing entire armies for free with no counter play (SH launch the locust then run half way across the map).
you could suicide 5 understrength marine armies into 20 colossus the way you suicide 5 understrength tank armies into swarm hosts, would that make colossus imbalanced
(obviously the answer is yes i suppose)
tanks suck against swarm host. they hard counter tanks. stop making tanks against swarm host and crying it doesn't work. stop sending your whole army to fight in the same spot over and over and over again with a composition that sucks against what you are facing. why would you ever think 12 tanks and a half-dozen hellbats are going to beat 15-25 SH worth of locusts
widow mines slaughter locusts. in that replay you posted you annihilated several waves of locusts with widow mines but couldn't take advantage because your composition (75% tank) was the wrong composition. make hellbats and cyclones and drop them on zerg expansions far away from the SH the instant you see locusts. in that game you posted a replay of, he would have had nothing to stop your drops, he would have lost the game very quickly. instead you kept sending understrength armies of the wrong composition to the same spot to fight overwhelming numbers of locusts - playing right into every strength of the SH - and you think imbalance is the reason you lost. no, your inability to do even diamond level macro when you aren't even being attacked and your strategic choices are the reasons you lost.
build more turrets that don't ever provide any value. build more CCs that you never actually use to provide income except through mule drops on other CC-occupied mineral lines, instead of floating them to unoccupied mineral lines so you have a proper economy. you are ALWAYS at least 1 base behind your opponent. build more starports and factories that you don't use because your economy is terribad. build anything but the proper units in the proper numbers and then take bad fights over and over again with the wrong units then whine imbalance when you lose.
"...and then factoring KR Zergs in general play at a lower skill level than ... NA Zergs..."
LOL, wow, just wow, I had no idea that Dark and SoO were playing on a lower skill level then Elazer and Snute, thank God you're here Avilo to shed this light to the community.
Avilo I've seen your stream, you're terrible (despite your high level of play), your attitude is terrible, and you rely on the, "omg I don't know how to properly react" Terran turtle cancer that ranks up there with 45 minute Swarm Host vs. Colossus games and mass Carrier in terms of, "meta game styles that will put SC2 Esports in the coffin".
Go scam your stream viewers out of some more money, fuck you.
it would be great if every balance thread wasnt purely about swarmhosts
reaper doesnt need a change either
maps need to be changed. that one with two side paths and two middle paths with destructible rocks == aids PvZ, aids TvZ, aids PvT. catallena is hot garbage too
maps need to be changed. that one with two side paths and two middle paths with destructible rocks == aids PvZ, aids TvZ, aids PvT. catallena is hot garbage too
Interloper I'm guessing? Really curious to see how that map plays out in the scene. Seems really really really hard for races to lock down every base after their natural.
On July 22 2017 08:11 avilo wrote: So just played this game: if people still think this is fine i don't know what to say, it's just one example of many of the game being ruined by swarmhosts atm:
How is it acceptable for someone to basically make 15-25 SH and kill 4-5 mech armies with purely locusts? It's not. This is something that should have been hotfixed back in November when it was originally put into the game.
Is there any pro-gamer Zerg on these forums or elsewhere that would like to live debate me about swarmhosts being broken in SC2? I do not think there's anyone that can defend this unit in it's current state and i'll be able to easily sway anyone's opinion with well sound arguments.
Honestly the sooner more attention is brought to the swarmhost issue the sooner it'll probably be brought up on Blizzard's radar and patched and fixed.
- bad macro (in the worker repartition and the upgrades departments) - bad production (adding 3 starports when you obviously have no money because your workers wheren't assigned to the correct bases) - bad tech timings/switches (way too long to produce starport units or research blue flame, speedbanshees are a terrible choice too) - bad micro (no focus fire on the mines) - bad positioning/army usage (going for drilling claws and never dropping a single mine in mineral lines, never actually reaching the mineral lines, shoving the ramp in front of the natural which increases siege tank friendly fire) - no attempt at exploiting the SHs weaknesses (no multiproned attacks, you just shoved the front all the time, especially since once you finally built medivacs you didn't use them to drop when his only anti air were queens)
However mass SH strats are extremely abusive and your opponent played badly (running swarmhosts into mech units fire, only occasional locust micro, bad micro overall). The SH needs a change/nerf but this game is a bad exemple.
Funny you guys attempt to defend SH imbalance here yet you don't even realize in the replay i posted the guy purposely suicided 15 SH to make a point and then re-made them all. He even admits in the game that he suicided them purposely and re-made them because they are dirt cheap and he knew he would still win just from making more SH.
On July 22 2017 20:14 Tyrhanius wrote: That's always funny when avilo explains that the best kor zerg dunno how to win vs mech because they don't make SH when he fails to qualify in premier league in NA.
The reality is more : Avilo's siege tanks stay at home, so Zerg can send wave after waves and it will pay because the only thing avilo is doing is staring his units die then he turtles more and whines to his viewers.
But when Dark, Soo play gumiho having 45 dead supply after you've sent 1 wave which is negated by good hellbat placement and unsieging tanks, it is game over when gumiho decides to immediatly push.
This does not work vs a good SH abuser as you can see in the replay. You can push all you want, the SH waves allow Zerg to bank enough income to make whatever they want + then have the locust waves.
As for gumiho and other games and people commenting about KR/NA/EU Zergs - KR Zergs are either reluctant or have no clue how to abuse the swarmhost meta. Though if you saw a recent pro game finally Zergs are starting to just "make 25 SH" and the game basically stalls out for the Terran going mech because he can't do anything vs locust waves and is forced to turtle to mass air because of it.
On July 23 2017 07:21 avilo wrote: As for gumiho and other games and people commenting about KR/NA/EU Zergs - KR Zergs are either reluctant or have no clue how to abuse the swarmhost meta. Though if you saw a recent pro game finally Zergs are starting to just "make 25 SH" and the game basically stalls out for the Terran going mech because he can't do anything vs locust waves and is forced to turtle to mass air because of it.
this is a very good point.. because as we all know NA Zergs lead the scene in new innovative Zerg play tactics and often KR Zergs learn these new techniques from these NA masterminds.. but it usually takes them a few months to fully comprehend the pure genius of these super advanced Zerg metagame developments. Just like all the KR Terrans learn all their newest techniques by following "famous" NA player Avilo. This is an official fact because Avilo said so on his stream.
Conclusion: NA rules the SC2 scene. That's the bottom line here guys. I'm calling for zero Koreans making it to the final 4 at BlizzCon2017.
On July 23 2017 07:21 avilo wrote: As for gumiho and other games and people commenting about KR/NA/EU Zergs - KR Zergs are either reluctant or have no clue how to abuse the swarmhost meta. Though if you saw a recent pro game finally Zergs are starting to just "make 25 SH" and the game basically stalls out for the Terran going mech because he can't do anything vs locust waves and is forced to turtle to mass air because of it.
this is a very good point.. because as we all know NA Zergs lead the scene in new innovative Zerg play tactics and often KR Zergs learn these new techniques from these NA masterminds.. but it usually takes them a few months to fully comprehend the pure genius of these super advanced Zerg metagame developments. Just like all the KR Terrans learn all their newest techniques by following "famous" NA player Avilo. This is an official fact because Avilo said so on his stream.
Conclusion: NA rules the SC2 scene. That's the bottom line here guys. I'm calling for zero Koreans making it to the final 4 at BlizzCon2017.
From the little i have heard, KOREA can be late with some metas. Its real life, not science fiction. Oh btw, koreans are humans. Your welcome.
Sc2 is an awesome game with an awesome community: watching this weekend's HSC and GSL is enough for me to keep loving the game.
Can't we just ignore the rotten fruits (e.g. avilo) and discuss possible improvements without reducing all these threads to a sh discussion? This guy makes his income on a stream that has success thanks to people enjoying is toxic personality, the whine and the insults: he won't stop whining regardless of the state of the game because he would just loose his "job" and his role.
On July 23 2017 09:45 Foxxan wrote: From the little i have heard, KOREA can be late with some metas. Its real life, not science fiction. Oh btw, koreans are humans. Your welcome.
just because i fucked around with 3-rax Reaper a month before i saw GSL level Terrans using it doesn't mean they "learned it form me".
it isn't meta until a player with the highest multitasking, most precise micro and optimum macro have used a build to defeat an opponent with the highest multitasking, most precise micro and optimum macro.
To provide a more concrete example: any "new" Zerg early build "invented in NA" can't claim viability until it survives the Byun Reaper grinder. And even if it does.. its pure coincidence that it does because NA Zerg Ladder players do not experience the kind of pressure a Korean GSL Terran can put on Zerg in the early game.
The NA Ladder is basically meaningless regarding competitive play at the top level; the NA Ladder is a good place for hobby level players to have fun.
On July 23 2017 10:33 VHbb wrote: Sc2 is an awesome game with an awesome community: watching this weekend's HSC and GSL is enough for me to keep loving the game.
Can't we just ignore the rotten fruits (e.g. avilo) and discuss possible improvements without reducing all these threads to a sh discussion? This guy makes his income on a stream that has success thanks to people enjoying is toxic personality, the whine and the insults: he won't stop whining regardless of the state of the game because he would just loose his "job" and his role.
it has been awesome. i follow Protoss less closely than the other races.. that said... i think i'm seeing a comeback in Zealot usage and i'm glad to see it
Posting replays because people don't seem to know what's going on with swarmhosts/mech and the ladder. It would be nice if Ruff and other players that play mech a lot post replays as well vs SH whether wins or losses to show this unit is over the top.
Game has been like this since Nov 2016. I think all mech Terrans are asking for is this unit to get nerf hammered and addressed in a meaningful way so we can actually get to play the game again without every game devolving into this.
Hosts are for sure an issue to talk about. I think slower movement speed is a possible soft nerf that could go through without changing too much and without making too big of a deal of it, that will make it a bit easier to catch them, which can help alot, have zerg complement them more with other units, hence get them later/less. But: Anti air weekness of zerg can be a serious problem.
However the whole game is full of things like that. And I don't see that you are aware of that avilo, what makes your matter a biased one for me.
The matter is about free units, free harass, free pressure, free damage, etc.
- We have the whole issue with bio that is getting healed. Not as relevant as in the beginning anymore, as basically everything has been buffed but bio over time, and bio got some minor nerfs too, it is still there. For example at the end of huge fights, when small army vs. small army is left, bio can usually get free kills and free escape through stim and medivacs.
- We have disruptor drops, that can do damage and be picked up out of range, same with archons.
- Reaper + heal
- Muta + heal
etc. dont wanna write that all down. The mechanic is kind of prevalent throughout the whole game.
Now in the exact case of ZvT(mech) it is where zerg needs such an option the most and owns such mechanics the least. If you remove it at all, such as you suggested with your balance mod, that would just create another case where the disadvantage of that free unit/harass thing is on the zerg side. Without hosts I don't see any viable options for zerg to attack a mech terran, other than (semi)all-in play.
Imo the whole concept is wrong and should be changed. But it is not the singular thing with hosts that you are trying to make it.
The thing with the SH is that you have to look at it in what it's supposed to do versus what it actually does.
The SH is supposed to force mech players into splitting their armies and thinning out their defenses in places that you can't access by foot. I don't have a problem with that since the high population cost makes it so that the zerg's main army will be much weaker, and that means that the mech player will be able to have windows of opportunity to attack and deal damage.
However in effect the SH is best used with hydras a single place, repetively hammering a position that the mech player can't really defend. Zerg players not dumb enough to rush swarm hosts out of 3 bases/T2 and go for a 4rth with hydras, then mass SH/hydra will be able to then go into vipers. And mech has no answer whatsoever to that. You can't do much about 15 SHs hammering your 3rd or 4rth while being covered by hydras, and vipers abducting high priority targets. Split pushing doesn't work because of how nimble on creep hydras are with 3.0. You can't shove forward because you'll just be slowed down by hydras to the point where locusts will respawn and crush your army.
Once again i'm a big fan of agressive mech and the SH may be the techpath to allow zerg to prevent mech turtle. To which the answer would be to push out/splitpush with mech. But with how free (cheap base cost/free locusts) and unkillable (movespeed/health) SH are, it's impossible to do so. The only real answer is to turtle up and mass ravens.
The only way i see is to make it so that sending a locust wave costs minerals. This would make the SH a "proximity hatchery" being able to energize ZvMech without forcing mech players to turtle up into mass ravens. If locusts wave costed a decent amount of minerals, zerg could afford less drones/bases/static defenses, meaning that split-pushing and runbies would be much more effective. And i'll gladly exchange that for a raven nerf, to prevent mech players from playing the ressource-exhaustion game against locusts costing money.
I feels like pro players don:t even need swarm hosts to buy time against terran:s tank death push.But it:s only SH purpose so without it they are uselss.Bad designs always bad.
Along with Reaper nerfs can Swarm Hosts just be removed from the game? I don't think there has been a single incarnation of the unit that the community has ever been very accepting of and it's innately cancerous (or "free unit") design makes it either overpowered or underpowered with a middle ground apparently being incredibly difficult or outright impossible to achieve.
Zerg needs little to no help against mech in it's current form which can certainly be strong is played well from the Terran, it's always sub optimal to bio in the sense that units like the Viper seem to be almost tuned specifically to deal with mech (blinding cloud nullifies tank lines and abduct makes Thors vulnerable) so I propose one of two things..
1) Preferably just remove the Host from the game and buff Zerg accordingly to deal with mech if buffs are even needed which I seriously doubt
2) Change the Host once again but this time change the Swarm Host to fill a role that Zerg has struggled with since day 1 of Starcraft 2, and that is dealing with end game aerial armies, mostly from Protoss as Skyterran was a thing but then was promptly nerfed. Make the Hosts do something along the lines of spawn 1 - 2 Scourge (the unit model already exists for SC2 if I'm not mistaken and it would be an awesome comeback for an old unit imo) and make it cost minerals just like Interceptors with Carriers, and tune the Scourge to be potent against mass air death armies.
Seriously, number 2 isn't even actually needed even if Skytoss can be frustrating to play against at times, but it's really the only hole in the Swarm's arsenal at the moment and it could be filled considering the Hosts current form only is strong against a style of play that Roach/Hydra/Viper/Corruptor deals with handily in almost all cases. In my honest opinion, idea 1 is way better then idea 2, even if they did change it, who is to say the balance team would implement it elegantly? I mean, they haven't been able to hit the mark yet with this unit so somehow I doubt the third time would be the charm.
Oh and yea, I'm a Zerg player lol, no bias going on here
SH is the only thing that can trade well vs mech and slow T enough to get hive tech, else you will die on a mass pre hive tank push everygame vs mech.
Tanks are just too OP now, best range of the game no upgrade, insane dmg vs armor. They're ok on small number when T play bio, but with mech with uprade and high number they're simply nothing that can kill them on the ground, vipers are long/hard to get really expensive, supply expensive and they get crushed by vikings.
You can play vs mech without SH because SH stay a possibility so T can't rush mass tanks and push, if you delete them mech would be unstoppable.
My original idea with SH was to limit them somehow to reasonable numbers. I think ~4-8 hosts would be a fine thing to have and can increase strategic variety. My original idea of 2013 (?) was to link their max number to the number of queens a player has. While it might not be the very best option to link it to queens, it is for sure one way to limit them. Again it is not my job to find the very best solution.
Another idea about SH that I had 2013 (?) was to make it a hero unit like the MSC/MS and put it's strength/price according to ~4-6 of current swarmhosts.
As all the the stuff in this game, the units start to create problems when they are massed. Some reapers are not the problem, but 3/5 rax reaper and crearting 20-30 of them is a problem. Same goes with SH. If the mechanics of the game are not able to limit production of units on their own it can be considered to create artificial numbers that do not appear artifical as the examples I have given.
The two examples I gave above could even be embeded in the lore somewhat easily, so the queen could be put in some relation with the swarmhost to justify that (matrimony). Other things that come to my mind with the queen limitation is that it could require queen energy/inject energy to create swarmhosts or even requires a queen to transform it into a swarmhost, but I don't like the latter one that much.
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
Anyway why do all zerg units require exactly 1 larva to build? (okok zerglings..) Drones to ultralisks. I find a concept where units require more than one larva in general a very healthy and viable approach, that could increase strategical depth. Of course not for the current meta, but in general game design.
Anyway outside the box solutions are required for SH. Simple stat altering wont do the job. SH will either stay completely unusable/unefficient (avilo approach) or be efficient and then massable/abuseable. I wonder why game designers of of SC2 cannot accept that simple fact and try to approach the issue with 1998 methods instead. The same is btw. true with several other game mechanics.
And I want to add one general thing to think about. Game designers of SC2 should stop to solely focus on 1on1. Of course when redesigning a unit it must be a disqualifier, if it doesn't fit 1on1. But I mean that the other way round:
Use teamgames as indicators for problems! If there are issues, they usually get multiplied in teamgames which should be used as an indicator to detect them and fix them. When comparing 1:1.5 issues are less visible than comparing 1²:1,5². Simple as that. Problems that appear in teamgames usually/always are problems in 1on1 too.
Reaper: TT vs ZZ 2on2, both T abuse reaper, almost impossible to play against with ZZ against since ages on certain/many/most maps. Now after years you get the idea that something is wrong with reapers. It always has been since its current design took place. You could have seen it earlier when looking at the that 2on2 case. Why didn't it happen?
Current example protoss air: When I play 3on3 now, I hardly find a game where protoss air is not involved. It is a problem to the extent, that it kills the fun so that ppl stop playing. Protoss air is still an issue in 1on1 too, even if it is less visible.
Not only this should be used for indication but as well in order to create a better experience for the majority of players out there who do not play 1on1 on highest level but do some teamgames. Stuff like that kills it for many and they turn their back towards the game. Why would it be fun to face insta carrier gameplay in almost each and every 3on3 where protoss is involved?
Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge. Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races : - make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes - give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts) - keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
On July 27 2017 17:39 JackONeill wrote: Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge. Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races : - make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes - give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts) - keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
Obviously the two first options are better
I like my ideas better. What you suggest is another buff above nerf approach which will only create more problems afterwards, we have had that for years now. You say it is no WC3, but we got the MSC/MS already. There is nothing anti SC with limiting SH to queens or anything similar, e.g. a building count: e.g. #hatch*2 or the upgrade level of lair/hive and even connect that with the lore of SC.
What you suggest are counters that require counters again which all will result in narrow game path options, bad interaction quality and massing one kind of unit in certain cases. Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc. So you say what does not work with all these units suddenly will work with the SH? No way.
I say if you create a better counter SH will either be unefficient and not be used anymore at all or the counter will be too weak (now state) which will continue the SH massing in these situations. There is nothing inbetween, it is the nature of this game.
On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote: What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3? .
What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ?
Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
On July 27 2017 16:24 Tyrhanius wrote: SH is the only thing that can trade well vs mech and slow T enough to get hive tech, else you will die on a mass pre hive tank push everygame vs mech.
Tanks are just too OP now, best range of the game no upgrade, insane dmg vs armor. They're ok on small number when T play bio, but with mech with uprade and high number they're simply nothing that can kill them on the ground, vipers are long/hard to get really expensive, supply expensive and they get crushed by vikings.
You can play vs mech without SH because SH stay a possibility so T can't rush mass tanks and push, if you delete them mech would be unstoppable.
You serious ? Koreans don't even need them to buy time.
On July 27 2017 17:39 JackONeill wrote: Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge. Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races : - make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes - give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts) - keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
Obviously the two first options are better
I like my ideas better. What you suggest is another buff above nerf approach which will only create more problems afterwards, we have had that for years now. You say it is no WC3, but we got the MSC/MS already. There is nothing anti SC with limiting SH to queens or anything similar, e.g. a building count: e.g. #hatch or the upgrade level of lair/hive and even connect that with the lore of SC.
What you suggest are counters that require counters again which all will result in massing units and bad interaction quality. Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc. So you say what does not work with all these units suddenly will work with the SH now? No way.
I say if you create a better counter SH will either be unefficient and not be used anymore at all or the counter will be too weak (now state) which will continue the SH massing in these situations.
So units being able to counter one another, which is the basic framework of SC2, is worse than "3 larvae for a unit" gimmick? Alright buddy. Also sure there is the MS/MSC which has been historically critizised for having nothing to do in a starcraft game.
And by the way all your exemples are terrible.
"Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc."
: - if you take the mutas, for instance : 40+ mutas as a viable strat in TvZ was a flaw in HOTS. In LOTV, with liberators and buffed thors, 40+ mutas is never seen anymore. So what problems do the thor armor/increased splash induced? I'll give you a hint : it's less than 1. And that's the second option i propse for the SH. - if you take the adept, the fact is that the ability has no downside and is abusive, and needs to be solved with a redesign, for instance an increase in the adept stats but making it so that an adept shading looses its shields, or can't attack for a while. Which is the first option i proposed for the SH.
Or do you mean (by mentionning ling banes/bio) that units comps working well together are bad for the game because they can be massed? That's the most insanely idiotic thing i've heard all day.
No, no! You don't get me at all. I am not saying do exactly this or that, I am giving a variety of approaches that can or can not be used which are not yet considered. As I have said, it is not my job to find the best solution.
When I give the example of 3 larvas, of course this is not meant for the exact current meta but embedded in a larger redesign. It could be even put into a first host requires 1 larva, 2nd 2 larva, etc. kind of state.
Just stay with the facts please. The issue with SH is not the SH itself but its numbers. As I have said e.g. ~6-8 hosts or something would not cause many issues I am sure. My approaches goals are to find ways to limit the possible number of hosts to a similar amount (queen approach = soft limit even). That would allow them to stay efficient/viable to a certain degree but disable the 15+ SH style, which is most certainly bad for the game.
I get your point that it is possible to fix that with counters and hence give SH a timeframe, but I am pretty sure this will create new problems (the nature of hardcounter vs. hard counter, counter vs. counter) and just narrow down the game even more. Just compare it to the development of the matchups since 2010 and you can verify that.
Anyway I don't understand why you try to attack me? Cause I find my ideas better than yours or what? lol
The basic framework of SC2, as you have identified rightfully, which is counter vs. counter, is imo one of the major problems of SC2, and I know that many people agree to that. People who play SC since 98'.
Btw. this is the reason I critisize bio that much, as it requires hardcounters which require hardcounters, etc. Bio is the underlying problem of that issue for me and I believe anyone else with common sense, as it performs way too well compared to the other other basic/tier 1 units of the other races, not taking into account hardcounters such as banelings or adepts, which obviously create imbalanced situations: mass shade on top of bio, baneling bust through on terran in the HOTS muta/bling vs mmmm meta after terran lost his whole army once and dies instantly, etc. etc. If I took the time I surely could come up with examples like that for almost every unit interaction (fenix vs. muta, muta vs. protoss ground, blablabla etc.).
You can continue to implement hard counters for everything, but the problem will just be shifted around and continue to exist. It is just the nature of things in SC2. I feel bad for you if you did not notice that yet and believe that the one counter that you suggest now will change that concept for any unknown reasons. It wont.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I am not even sure what is debateable about that. The solution for SC2 is to make everything more moderate, not more extreme. This can be achieved with nerfs over buffs instead the buff patching meta.
But I guess try hards from ladder in their teens or early 20s have a hard time to open their minds to new solutions. Not even directing that to you, as I don't know you, but I got the general feeling when discussing here.
Again: You argument against me as if I was the Blizzard employee responsible and getting paid for doing the job right. I am not. I can not come up with exact current meta implementations of that extent without extensive testing/time spending, which I am obviously not able to do as a private person.
I hope and believe some people who might read the thread here can find some of the things and build their own ideas onto mine, take them as inspiration for better outside the box solutions or even in one or the other case find solutions I suggested viable with some changes and adaptions. But I guess that kind of acting is above the level of these forums for the named reasons. However it is a common process in solution finding and way more prosperous than the usual my race is up and I want it to be op forum meta which is prevalent here.
I actually didn't want to mention but it was me who first suggested a strong single target AA attack for the thor instead of the siege anti ground mode(?), which was implemented years later. As well as bio nerfs marauder = 2 rockets = 2x armor reduction, is as well something I have mentioned years/months before implementation I am pretty sure. I could surely search through the balance discussion thread and find more stuff. I was getting flamed for each and everything which was above simple 1 stat +1/-1 adjustment I believe. Idc.
And just in case you do not understand the queen approach and how good it actually is, let me explain in detail:
A zerg player on 3 hatch builds a minimum amount of 3 queens, usually at least 2 extra queens, depending on the playstyle vs. mech, which I am not entirely sure about. Lets count with 5 queens on 3 hatch. So you can build 5 SH for the same price and risk/reward structure as currently. You get diminishing returns for every extra SH from then on as you got to build extra supply and extra queen for every additional SH. Now I am pretty sure in most basic situations it does not make any sense to go up to 15queen/15 hosts. But you know what? In some very rare situations it might make sense and it will be possible to do so and it can create a wow situation in the audience, etc.
This is not only a good solution, it is the on point solution for the problem. You have additional supply and mineral costs for hosts in high numbers but leave them alone in low numbers, which is diminishing returns. The only thing I am not sure about is how many queens zergs use on 3-5 bases vs mech, it might be a bit too high of numbers, hence not fitting anymore, but it could be adjusted or even connected to something else (e.g. hatchery, even steeper diminishing returns) AND if queen+SH could become the new meta then instead of hydras, which should be investigated by the guys who have the knowledge and the capacities to do so before ofc. Even if you leave it to queens and zergs usually have about 8-10 (?) queens on 5 bases, it could do the trick, as 8-10 is still way below 15+. And you put even more value on killing queens, which is another strategic depth increasment. This concept is brilliant, isn't it?
And we finally can get away from the buff this, then buff that, then buff another thing, then buff next thing, and so on never ending (by nature) patch meta ...
But I see you guys are happy every time it is your turn in the buff meta and you enjoy it like little kids that see something the first time in their life and let yourself be deceived that if you get a period where your race is little op or ahead you think that this will be the solution for the game, until it ends and it is the other guys turn again. It is again the nature of vicious circles (even the definition of it) that it is way more comfortable to stay in the circular movement than to break out of it.
On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote: What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3? .
What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ?
Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Everytime a mech player loses a game it's a balance issue, balance team should fix it immediatly !
If we listen all the mech players SC2 would be truly dead because mech would be invincible :
Tanks should crush all the ground units Z and toss, cyclon/thor should crush all the air, nothing should harass Terran no mutas, no SH no nyndus, nothing should outrange them (so delete tempest, broodlords) of course Terran should be free to harass P and Z for free so queens, overcharge should be nerfed...
That sum up how mech player want to fix the game lol
1. Pro Zergs have no problems defeating mech without using Swarm Hosts. 2. Swarm Hosts are too much of a hard counter and forces the mech player to turtle to 200 supply and mass ravens since he can not move out on the map. 3. Mass Ravens are too strong against Zerg.
the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome.
regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post.
On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper
at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made.
People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote: What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3? .
What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ?
Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Everytime a mech player loses a game it's a balance issue, balance team should fix it immediatly !
If we listen all the mech players SC2 would be truly dead because mech would be invincible :
Tanks should crush all the ground units Z and toss, cyclon/thor should crush all the air, nothing should harass Terran no mutas, no SH no nyndus, nothing should outrange them (so delete tempest, broodlords) of course Terran should be free to harass P and Z for free so queens, overcharge should be nerfed...
That sum up how mech player want to fix the game lol
You really need to change your attitude towards players that favour a certain playstyle. Just because you think of Mech players like that doesn´t mean every Mech player wants to have an Ultra unit composition like you keep constantly telling yourself. Stop being so narrow minded.
People see a problem with a Unit/strategy/whatever so they want to discuss it. Sure there are certain people that are exaggerating but you can just ignore them if their "solutions" are that stupid. Your constant hate for Mech players isn´t helping either.
On July 28 2017 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome.
regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post.
On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper
at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made.
People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
Do you recognize, that your comment is full random?
And anyway I detain myself from being a terran player. I have never been playing anything else than zerg in SC2. You guys project your own bias on me.
On July 28 2017 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome.
regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post.
On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper
at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made.
People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
I have never been playing anything else than zerg in SC2.
On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote: What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3? .
What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ?
Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Everytime a mech player loses a game it's a balance issue, balance team should fix it immediatly !
If we listen all the mech players SC2 would be truly dead because mech would be invincible :
Tanks should crush all the ground units Z and toss, cyclon/thor should crush all the air, nothing should harass Terran no mutas, no SH no nyndus, nothing should outrange them (so delete tempest, broodlords) of course Terran should be free to harass P and Z for free so queens, overcharge should be nerfed...
That sum up how mech player want to fix the game lol
You really need to change your attitude towards players that favour a certain playstyle. Just because you think of Mech players like that doesn´t mean every Mech player wants to have an Ultra unit composition like you keep constantly telling yourself. Stop being so narrow minded.
People see a problem with a Unit/strategy/whatever so they want to discuss it. Sure there are certain people that are exaggerating but you can just ignore them if their "solutions" are that stupid. Your constant hate for Mech players isn´t helping either.
Don't bother, the guy is whine machine with no intent to actually discuss the subjects people want to talk about. This quote sums it up perfectly :
On July 27 2017 21:08 Tyrhanius wrote: You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Anyways since the viper is already the go-to "safe and cost effective" way for zerg to deal with mech, the swarm host could actually have a much better role if it was some kind of "proxy hatchery". Let's say you keep the swarmhost as it is stats and cost-wise, but give it a choice to either spawn locusts or scourges, with a 15 mineral cost for a locust wave and a 10/10 cost for a wave of scourges (100/100 for 20 scourges is still a bargain). This would make the SH more into a versatile turtle-buster able to both break positions, provide anti air support to punish turtle into air strats, and split push. However, this strength and versatility would be somewhat expansive to function, and we'd have a clear difference between taking the safe, late game-oriented route of the viper, and the expansive bust/dynamic game mid game SH.
On July 27 2017 16:24 Tyrhanius wrote: SH is the only thing that can trade well vs mech and slow T enough to get hive tech, else you will die on a mass pre hive tank push everygame vs mech.
Tanks are just too OP now, best range of the game no upgrade, insane dmg vs armor. They're ok on small number when T play bio, but with mech with uprade and high number they're simply nothing that can kill them on the ground, vipers are long/hard to get really expensive, supply expensive and they get crushed by vikings.
You can play vs mech without SH because SH stay a possibility so T can't rush mass tanks and push, if you delete them mech would be unstoppable.
You serious ? Koreans don't even need them to buy time.
Yeah. SHs vs mech are like Tempests vs mech IMO; completely unnecessary for balance, but with a devastating effect on the fun factor of both playing and watching. They come the the era of hard counter vs style created by Browder IMO.
On July 28 2017 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome.
regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post.
On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:
Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper
at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made.
People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
I have never been playing anything else than zerg in SC2.
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote: People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses. i find balance and design to be the top 2 though.
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote: People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses.
That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news.
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote: People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses.
That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news.
balance and design are the 2 i notice the most. i cover both in my post.
You tried to draw a completely false picture of the reality, suggesting that everything is fine with SC2 and these threads here are basically obsolete.
Again: Ppl like me dont blame design for their losses, I dont even play right now, but try to bring it away from a sole balance discussion, which is detrimental. You just mix everything up randomly. Why dont you go and play diamond ladder instead? ;D
The design question of swarmhosts is justified and even necessary. May I ask how old you are? Anyway my suggestions are for those in charge, maybe they can do anything out of it, or not. No need to discuss it with anyone claiming random things here.
But again for you: 7 years of sole balance discussion without any/much respect to design issues has brought the game to this current state. Kor-pros leave to broodwar, eu pros leave to mobas or go inactive, everyone I know is basically not satisfied with SC2 and think it could be improved, chobos like me go inactive cause playing the game is frustrating, etc.
But ofc if you, a happy diamond player, say the game is fine and ppl should stop to blame design (and imply with that that the design question has been prevalent all of the time instead of balance, or that both are the same), so shall it be, lol.
I seriously question that you are legtimate partner of discussion for me after all. I am in since 20 years, been having leading roles in the BW community, been creating redesigns already at wc2, etc. and you face me with your bullshit suggesting I blame frustrating losses on design, others say I am a mech terran player, while I am an 1 year inactive zerg only, lol. I am seriously sick of that kid level discussion here. The only reason I post here is cause I want to see improvements for the game, which has mostly an egoistic background.
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote: People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses.
That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news.
balance and design are the 2 i notice the most. i cover both in my post.
I do question nerfs to Terran when according to aligulac winrates at the current pro level are
Tvz: 47.15% PvT 44.63% PvZ 43.68%
While reapers may be fairly bull shit, nerfing Terran when tvz is balanced or slightly Zerg favored seems like an odd choice. I just hope Soo wins a final so we Terran "whiners" can get the Zergs nerfed. I think ravager allins are snowbally and unfun to play against, they force deffensive units out of Terran and do indirect damage so mabey they should be up next. Or perhaps hydras need a nerf since they are seeing increasing play on ladder and completely dominate the PVZ matchup.
I think it's also prity clear from these stats that Protoss is in need of buffs being at a substantial deficit in both PvT and PvZ. While 3% difference is not to big of a deal 6.32% is probably significant. I realy hope bliz fixes PvZ and soon.
On July 28 2017 02:29 washikie wrote: I do question nerfs to Terran when according to aligulac winrates at the current pro level are
Tvz: 47.15% PvT 44.63% PvZ 43.68%
While reapers may be fairly bull shit, nerfing Terran when tvz is balanced or slightly Zerg favored seems like an odd choice. I just hope Soo wins a final so we Terran "whiners" can get the Zergs nerfed. I think ravager allins are snowbally and unfun to play against, they force deffensive units out of Terran and do indirect damage so mabey they should be up next. And yes it has to be Soo since apparently foreigner zergs can win evrey tournament under the sun and blizzard won't care.
I think it's also prity clear from these stats that Protoss is in need of buffs being at a substantial deficit in both PvT and PvZ. While 3% difference is not to big of a deal 6.32% is probably significant. I realy hope bliz fixes PvZ and soon.
Or Dark, or Rogue, or just any Zerg really in LoTV since they haven't won anything in GSL
On July 28 2017 01:56 LSN wrote: You tried to draw a completely false picture of the reality, suggesting that everything is fine with SC2 and these threads here are basically obsolete.
no, the specific discussion points brought up in the OP are good. The Reaper discussion is fruitful I added my $0.02 on several specific issues brought up in the OP. i changed my position on the Reaper after further thought... and watching and playing some games. so i do not think these threads are obsolete.
On July 28 2017 01:56 LSN wrote: Again: Ppl like me dont blame design for their losses,I dont even play right now, but try to bring it away from a sole balance discussion, which is detrimental. You just mix everything up randomly. Why dont you go and play diamond ladder instead? ;D
not everyone is like you if we taking a complete picture of reality. people blame design flaws on their losses.
No not everyone is like LSN but you bring up this subject everytime pretty much. Doesnt matter what kind of arguments you see, you bring it up either way.
The multiple larva per SH is atrocious. No other zerg unit works like this, and it's a bit awkward. It's supposed to be like an archon merge? What if you have multiple hatcheries and the last 3 larva are far apart, are the larva supposed to crawl cross-map over to each other? Or are you just blocked from making the SH even though you have sufficient larvae? Whats the distance cutoff and why? And this is a unique interaction you're supposed to keep track of in-game?
Increasing supply cost the more swarmhosts you have is also quite arbitrary. Why do this? Should the same apply to tanks/ravens and carriers? If not, why so? They are also "fine" when there's only 6-8 of them, but any more "cause issues" for the other player depending on their composition, which is argued to be "bad for the game".
The "proxy hatchery" swarmhost idea is more interesting in my opinion. I feel this could drop down the swarmhost to hatch/lair tech (no infestation pit) and replace the queen inject as a macro mechanic. It can boost macro at around the same pace as queens currently do, but can now be used more offensively as you bring your hosts with you. They could have their off-creep speed severely nerfed to keep them in line, and this would also unlock messing around with the queen without affecting macro.
Essentially you could pick building queens as a more defensive option and building swarmhost for macro reasons.
On July 28 2017 06:12 WaesumNinja wrote: The multiple larva per SH is atrocious.
Of course it is. You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
I just brought this up as I found it to be an interesting idea, not in order to directly implement it into the current game. An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns. Just brainstorming.
In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
If you want to make larva production the exact same as now, you keep the same spawn cycles and just make hatches spawn two instead of one at once, and double inject as well. But it is not even necessary, you can half the spawn cycle of hatches and have larva spawn one by one as now. Alot is possible there. In the end as well other units could be balanced out a bit better if you adjust larva amount they need for micro nerfs/buffs according to what is required.
And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop. 30+ is just a ridiculous amount of free units. If you wanted to go from 7 to 8 SH in this concept, you needed 8 larva, which is a full inject and 2 larva from the hatch in addition. The good thing about that is that it is a soft cap again. In lategame players could still stack larva on some of their hatches in order to get a few more hosts, without ever reaching riduclous numbers.
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns.
Not sure how this "allows for more diversification" between units, can you elaborate? It's also a hamfisted way to introduce "diminishing returns".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
Yeah, swarmhost don't do a whole lot when you have only a few (like mutalisk), so why are you suggesting it would be fine to build 2 swarmhost for 2 larva while ramping up the cost for the actual swarmhost count that you imply makes sense? "Lowering" the larva cost from the increase is about as much of a selling argument like raising the price for an item to later offer a "discount" which will later wear off. No, this is not "good in theory".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop.
This is how SH should be used according to who? And no, 4-6 locust are hardly comparable to 8 stimmed marines being healed by a medivac.
Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can (must) be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar.
More diversification ofc as you could put ultralisk on lets say 3 drones instead of 2, which would represent 1,5 in the current system. Just as an example.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
No, I dont find it convoluted. SC2 strategical depth is quita shallow. What you miss is that anything else can stay the same with this concept as I have explained above. But you CAN in case you want so change details such as ultralisk example above, or anything else.
Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a tiny advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons, use for scout + little dmg, distract oponent or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote: Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar.
Marines have higher move speed to chase after workers, which locust cannot do. Marines do not disappear by themselves for a while, so you can't deal with them by simply moving away workers for a while. Marines have to retreat, but they can do so to a different expansion and keep up the assault, while the swarm host takes 43 seconds to recharge. The medivac can also reposition before dropping without affecting marine duration. The medivac is also faster.
Nah, it's not really similar.
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote: Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a small advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
No, it doesn't make it "more diverse", because the current situation is already that you can create 2 hosts for 2 larva if you felt like it. Though it seems like a huge waste in both effort and resources to use 2 swarm host to hunt supply depots...
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote:But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
And why do you want to do that rather than fix underlying issues?
It is brainstorming man. I agree the side effect can be neglected effectively, but yet it is there. I don't even advocate to implement that at this point. I just brought it up cause the concept exists and is interesting and I even explained it for you in detail as you seemed to not understand how this could play out. Get along with it plz. You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No.
You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
On July 28 2017 07:45 WaesumNinja wrote: Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No.
You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
Because I sense that you lack general idea, and I wanna hear content from you before I continue to talk with you. You probably are just big at criticizing stuff others bring up. And I answered all your questions in detail. With get along with it I mean that you should accept outside the box thinking which wont necessarily at first glance fit the mainstream idea of how to address problems but at the end of the day can do other tricks instead.
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: Because I sense that you lack general idea, and I wanna hear content from you before I continue to talk with you. You probably are just big at criticizing stuff others bring up.
Really, I added some thoughts (content, if you may) to the "macro hatchery" idea and didn't blindly criticize it.
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: And I answered all your questions in detail.
You did not. How will the larva merge work in the game? Like an archon merge? What if you have multiple hatcheries and the last 3 larva are far apart? What happens then? Should the same supply-increase-nerf apply to tanks/ravens and carriers?
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: With get along with it I mean that you should accept outside the box thinking
There's nothing wrong with outside the box thinking, but it requires more reasoning and justification.
The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
But to repeat myself, you can do adjustments of larva costs of units if you ever want so with this concept. The reason I came up with it is not to so but in order to allow soft capping of hosts. Everything else are side effects that can be used but dont have to be used.
I really like the idea of SH spawning either locust or scourge, for a cost. I don't understand this "free unit" fetish, no one seem to have problems with "free" storms or "free" seeker mines.
anyways, I would really like to see some of the extremes toned down, like increased marine collision radius, weaker banes (revert hp buff?), weaker adepts (revert vision nerf but loose shield when they shade?), much slower phoenixes, reduced/removed muta hp regen, overall slightly stronger anti-air ground, but weaker aoe (widow mine, seeker mines, archon, parasitic bomb, fungal).
On July 28 2017 07:57 LSN wrote: The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
So how will a unit cost more than 1 larva? How do you pay for it?
On July 28 2017 07:57 LSN wrote: The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
So how will a unit cost more than 1 larva? How do you pay for it?
I explained above that hatcheries can be made spawn two larva at a time with the exact same cycle time as is, if you want to have it the very same. Injects would create 6 instead of 3 larva. All units use double larva. Swarmhosts are the only differentiation. It is a theoretical concept not meant for direct implementation but to show how the named goals can be achieved. I dont enjoy to talk further about it at this point.
On July 28 2017 08:05 LSN wrote: I explained above that hatcheries can be made spawn two larva at a time with the exact same cycle time as it is now, if you want to have it the very same. Injects would create 6 instead of 3 larva. All units use double larva. Swarmhosts are the only differentiation.
What is the point of doubling larva while doubling how many larva every unit needs at the same time?
In what way are swarmhost the only differentation? And why is it unique in this regard?
The point is that in the current system with current larva spawns an increase of +1 for each host would not make much sense. Can you finally get along with it plz? lol
And as I explained now like 5+ times, it allows more finetuning for other units if you ever want so. This could give benefit for future balance patches, if they figure out one or the other unit needs a slight nerf or buff, you can then use larva mechanic in addition to other mechanics for balance adjustments. E.g. if you decide that roach 2 supply is too high but 1 is too low, you could then make it 1.5. Finally got it?
On July 28 2017 08:11 LSN wrote: The point is that in the current system with current larva spawns an increase of +1 for each host would not make much sense. Can you finally get along with it plz? lol
No I can't "get along with it", because it doesn't make sense.
On July 28 2017 08:11 LSN wrote: ... you can then use larva mechanic in addition to other mechanics for balance. E.g. if you decide that roach 2 supply is too high but one is too low, you can then make it 1.5. Finally got it?
How are "larva" cost and "supply" cost related to each other in this sense?
This is to show different ways of how to handle the SH issue in theory with introducing soft caps.
As it feels esthetically weird if you need 2 larva for one unit, I do not support this myself. But technically it does the job.
Ofc you could have larva merge in front of the hatchery as you mentioned. But it is not my cup of tea as I am a systematist and this question is for artists. I neither care nor can give you an answer.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
(
