|
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
Source
Hey everyone,
We’ve received a lot of feedback about the changes we announced recently, and we’d like to take an opportunity to address some of them now. But first, though, a quick note about behavior on our forums: we appreciate how passionate and invested you are in StarCraft II’s future, but it’s crucial that we all remain respectful of one another. We all want the same thing—to make StarCraft II as great as it can possibly be. Remember to play nice and play fair.
On that note, let’s switch gears and talk about the changes we’re making to what we originally proposed for the upcoming balance update.
We are still planning to move the Zerg’s Ventral Sacs upgrade to be part of Lair tech. We’ve heard your concerns that Zerg is losing an aggressive early-game option that easily transitions into the mid-game, so rest assured that we’ll be keep a close eye on the results of this change.
As for the Terran changes, we plan on holding off on them for now. It’s clear that some of you are worried that we’re moving too quickly to change things, so perhaps we can shed a bit more light on our design philosophy around these changes.
When we design something new or make a substantial change to how something works, we ask ourselves: “Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?” Once the change is in the players’ hands, though, they have a say as well. If players start using a unit or ability in a way we didn’t imagine or intend, it’s on us to keep that new gameplay in mind going forward. We think this is where our current disconnect is.
Our intention with Anti-Armor missile was to create a spell that Terran could use to get an edge over opponents in a direct fight, but that has low to no lethality on its own. Currently, it’s used in the late game primarily for its damage potential. Our worry here is that in the past, area of effect abilities that easily scaled in damage were often seen as unenjoyable to fight against. Thus, we wanted to bring the spell back in line with its original intent, to make it feel truer to its intended role, and eventually move the power it lost elsewhere in the Terran army. This could be in the form of direct late game power. Or perhaps this power could be directed more towards the mid-game, which would allow Terran players to transition more easily or delay an opponent’s transition.
Regarding the changes we proposed for the Vikings, they’re still up for consideration. Initially, we identified the Viking HP change as a frequently requested and “safe” change to help assuage the subsequent late-game power loss, though we realize it doesn’t make up for it completely. Though we’re holding off on it for now, this doesn’t mean it’s off the table.
As always, please let us know what you think and remember that we’re all in this together.
|
I agree 100% with keeping the Raven as it is.
Terran need a tool to fight against late game air armies. Terran, Zerg and Protoss all have powerful tools to fight against Ravens now when pdd is no longer in the game and when turret cast range is so low.
I predict that people will get better at fighting against Raven and that keeping Ravens as they are will be good for the game. Anything that discourage massing Carriers an a-moving with them is should be encouraged.
|
Can a Jin Air player win GSL with an unbeatable unit comp?!
|
On March 14 2018 04:20 Ej_ wrote:
Can a Jin Air player win GSL with an unbeatable unit comp?!
Terran can be literally unbeatable or a complete dead race and Maru will still lose in the ro4.
|
Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Copied over from what I said in the thread that was closed:
Meh. I hate this line of thinking.
The balance team should have stuck to their guns. It's good to listen to the people, but at the end of the day it's their decision not the community's. The whining was loud in volume, but had very little substance. Much of it revolved around yelling that skytoss is unfair so Terran should get something unfair too, which is retarded. Yes Terran is weaker than Protoss in TvP, but that doesn't mean you should leave something as dumb as anti-armor missile in the game. It means you also need to make other changes.
On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote:
Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop.
Zerg's only won basically all the big tournaments in the last 6 months  , I'm sure they can't deal with a nerf of any sort. And since when do Zergs overlord drop against terran?
|
Spineless and clueless. Doubt T has the best players, but they sure have the best whiners.
|
They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo.
|
On March 14 2018 04:38 Aiobhill wrote:
Spineless and clueless. Doubt T has the best players, but they sure have the best whiners.
People whine on forums > blizz suggest nerfs > people whine about suggested nerfs > nerfs get backtracked > people whine about players getting nerfs backtracked
What step's next?
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote:
They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo.
Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem.
|
On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote:
They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem.
I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is no.
I don't think people understand why protoss is forced to go stargate.
|
On March 14 2018 04:49 iMrising wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote:
They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem. I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is no. I don't think people understand why protoss is forced to go stargate.
Of course we do. Because they want to chronoboost probes till 5 minute mark safely. LOL
|
Blizzard should reduce the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds and reduce the cost from 150 minerals/150 gas to 100 minerals/100 gas. I think this change will provide variety for different openings without being ridiculously OP.
|
On March 14 2018 04:17 MockHamill wrote:
I agree 100% with keeping the Raven as it is.
Terran need a tool to fight against late game air armies. Terran, Zerg and Protoss all have powerful tools to fight against Ravens now when pdd is no longer in the game and when turret cast range is so low.
I predict that people will get better at fighting against Raven and that keeping Ravens as they are will be good for the game. Anything that discourage massing Carriers an a-moving with them is should be encouraged.
Ravens need a nerf, not as big as the one they were suggesting perhaps but they still need one. The best way to solve late game issues is to nerf the other races too, particularly carriers which need a big nerf.
|
I agree on the Raven line of thought. I just hope they don't only make midgame more powerful for T, but address late game.
|
On March 14 2018 04:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Copied over from what I said in the thread that was closed:
Meh. I hate this line of thinking.
The balance team should have stuck to their guns. It's good to listen to the people, but at the end of the day it's their decision not the community's. The whining was loud in volume, but had very little substance. Much of it revolved around yelling that skytoss is unfair so Terran should get something unfair too, which is retarded. Yes Terran is weaker than Protoss in TvP, but that doesn't mean you should leave something as dumb as anti-armor missile in the game. It means you also need to make other changes.
this.
Reminds me of the stalker nerf they canceled just to implement it a month later. Just hope they are faster this time.
But to be fair, I can understand their reasoning. Terran needs more than the viking buff, not because of the raven but in general.
I hope they going with a buff for terran mid-game, a widow mine buff would be perfect imo.
They should sharpen Terrans roll as a mid-game power house. The beauty about this game is that the three races play so different but this got a little bit lost lately.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On March 14 2018 05:15 Fran_ wrote:
I agree on the Raven line of thought. I just hope they don't only make midgame more powerful for T, but address late game.
I disagree quite a bit depending on how you define mid-game. In TvP Terran needs the most help at the three/four base stage of the game even more so than in the very late game. If by midgame you mean the 2-base pre-2/2 upgrade stage of the game, than yeah terran is fine there.
|
Thank goodness they are delaying this with the Ro4 so close.
it is also good that they acknowledge that the Viking buff in no way compensates for the loss of Terran late game viability. Now if only they can think of something that does compensate, rather than let's break Terran completely and wait a few months to see how bad it gets.
|
On March 14 2018 05:24 DeadByDawn wrote:
Thank goodness they are delaying this with the Ro4 so close.
it is also good that they acknowledge that the Viking buff in no way compensates for the loss of Terran late game viability. Now if only they can think of something that does compensate, rather than let's break Terran completely and wait a few months to see how bad it gets.
You exaggerate a bit, TvZ was just fine even in late game and the biggest problem in TvP is by far the mid-game.
|
Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses...
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
